[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[14:17] The city council's congressional meeting of November 9th, 2026, calling the meeting to order at 5.41 pm, we'll do join me in the pledge of allegiance, please.
[14:29] To the flag,
[14:32] to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, and we're God, individual with liberty and justice for
[14:44] all.
[14:44] We have no council members attending remotely, so city clerk could we have a roll call, please.
[14:49] Council member Davis, council member Kern, council member council member Lent, council member O'Connell, here and Mayor Mackin
[15:00] Thank you. City Attorney, could we have a report out of close session, please?
[15:07] Good evening. Close session was head on the item on the agenda and there is no reportable action.
[15:12] Thank you. The adoption of the agenda, can I get a first and second to adopt the agenda as it stands, please?
[15:18] I make a motion. Second, second. All in favor? Aye.
[15:22] Anywhere to post? No.
[15:26] This is a continued public hearing.
[15:29] And we welcome the public to comment or ask questions during tonight's hearing.
[15:35] Please, please fill out a form to speak and hand to our city clerk.
[15:39] There's lots of forms around the room.
[15:41] You can also obtain another one from our city clerk.
[15:44] There will be a timer on the screen that you can use for reference for the four minutes.
[15:49] It's extremely important for speakers to stay on topic.
[15:53] If you don't stay on topic, I will have to stop you.
[15:56] If a speaker continues to ignore the rules, you'll be warned and may be precluded from speaking on other items tonight.
[16:05] At the last council meeting 11, 5, 26 council had a short discussion about the meeting schedule.
[16:11] I believe we have that schedule. Can we put it on the screen please?
[16:32] Is there any way to make that? There you go. A little bit larger.
[16:41] Can you see it out there? There you go. Much better. Thank you.
[16:46] All right, do we have any Council discussion?
[16:52] Let me just read off the dates to November 19,
[16:55] 2026, Baylands Hearing at 530 p.m.
[16:59] A special meeting for mayoral rotation will also be scheduled at 5 p.m.
[17:04] November 23rd will be a Baylands tentative meeting at 530 p.m.
[17:09] December 3rd, 2026 tentative meeting at 530 p.m.
[17:14] also bailance, December 7th, bailance tentative meeting at 530 p.m. December 10th, 2026,
[17:22] special meeting for reorganization, December 17th, 2026 proposed cancellation that would be
[17:30] the normal city council regular meeting. Any discussion from council? Council member Kern?
[17:38] No discussion.
[17:40] Mayor Pro Tem Davis.
[17:43] I just was aware that our city attorney is not available on December 7th, so we
[17:48] would need to have that hearing with a probably replacement from the firm.
[17:57] All right.
[17:57] Is that a problem?
[18:01] We can certainly, I can certainly have another attorney here.
[18:06] Whether that attorney will be familiar with the project.
[18:09] I think is questionable, but I can certainly work with the Council to work for the Council.
[18:14] Okay.
[18:16] Councilmember Lens.
[18:17] Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor.
[18:19] At our last regular council meeting on Thursday, I had proposed for the November 23rd meeting,
[18:28] since it's a tentative meeting to schedule public safety and alternatives.
[18:34] And so, yeah, the city attorney mentioned that we should, or that I should bring that up this evening and it would be more appropriate to do so.
[18:44] So I'm just looking for another council member to partner with me to put that on the November 23rd agenda.
[18:54] I would endorse that idea.
[18:56] Okay, thank you.
[18:56] And then I also have a request and I had spoken with Council Member Kern about forming
[19:05] an ad hoc committee in regards to addressing transportation issues with the bail-ans.
[19:14] So, how do we approach that to the attorney in regards to creating that ad hoc committee?
[19:23] You could just create it on the Dias and just say who's going to be on the committee and
[19:32] you do it by motion.
[19:34] All right.
[19:35] You still good with that, Frank.
[19:36] Still on board.
[19:37] Can you provide a little bit more background on what the committee is working on?
[19:43] Well, I guess we will find out once we form that, you know,
[19:47] and how committee. But to address the Geneva Avenue extension, mainly, there's going to be
[19:57] other issues in regards to connecting with the 101, partnering with other jurisdictions,
[20:06] transit agencies, understanding how we might be able to receive transportation funding through
[20:17] So this is all transportation.
[20:19] All transportation.
[20:22] Okay.
[20:23] Councilmember O'Connell, any comments?
[20:26] No.
[20:27] Okay.
[20:27] So would you like to make a motion?
[20:29] I would like to make a motion to form the
[20:32] Transportation Adhawk Committee for the Bayolans
[20:36] Compromise with Councilmember Kern and Lines.
[20:43] Yes.
[20:44] All right.
[20:45] Anyone opposed?
[20:46] No.
[20:46] Motion carries.
[20:49] Did you have anything else?
[20:50] Councilmember?
[20:51] Let's?
[20:52] No, that was.
[20:52] Okay, Madam Mayor.
[20:53] Councilmember O'Connell?
[20:55] I'm a casual no.
[20:57] No.
[20:57] Okay.
[20:58] So at this time, as we've done at these hearings in the past, if there are any general topics
[21:03] before we get into the continuation of the public hearing, this is a time for the council
[21:08] to bring those topics up.
[21:10] Can we start with Mayor Pro Tem Davis?
[21:16] I don't I don't I don't have anything to add at the moment. Okay. Then Council Member O'Connell.
[21:24] I would like to give direction to staff on the items that are of my top concern at the moment.
[21:36] And sort of get the staff working on some of the things that I feel are going to be really
[21:43] important to get an agreement on this specific plan.
[21:48] And that way we're not waiting clear till the end of the discussions to be giving direction
[21:54] to staff on what may need to be added or subtracted from the specific plan.
[22:01] I don't expect to have a back and forth discussion about my big picture items, but I think
[22:11] that it's important to give that direction to staff now and that we can do it where the
[22:18] public knows what is important in our minds or my mind to become compliant and get the specific
[22:28] plan off the ground and moving toward.
[22:30] For its completion. So, if I may, I'd like to just give a couple things that I would like addressed, you know, by staff and they can come back at a later meeting, they can look at the feasibility of some of the suggestions and go from there and it's not that these are things that I expect to be agreed to by the council.
[22:53] But I think that there may be some overlap on perception of what might want to be into that plan.
[23:02] So if I may have just a moment to go through my little short list,
[23:10] I would like to see what it would take for staff to put in the 1800 units as the baseline within the specific plan.
[23:21] instead of the 2,200 baseline units in the specific plan.
[23:28] I'd like to staff to look at the possibility that remediation be done by district
[23:33] and its entirety before moving on to building of that district.
[23:40] I'd like to look at the feasibility of not accepting streets, utility corridors, parks, open space
[23:49] until either the east or the west side is completed and that way we'll know if those
[23:55] connect if they're working correctly and if there's any issues with the construction of them.
[24:03] I'd like to remove language from the specific plan that implies public financing.
[24:10] There's probably going to be public financing but I think that belongs into a development agreement
[24:16] not in our specific plan, and then I'd like to have to find a way to be a little more
[24:22] specific on phasing language, benchmarking, to run ahead of the actual need of the proposed
[24:33] amenity or infrastructure so that we're never running behind the line of what infrastructure
[24:42] we need before the need is there. So those are my five things that I think are really important to this project.
[24:52] And thank you very much for your consideration.
[24:55] Okay. Councilmember Kern?
[25:01] Thank you. I think I'll pile on with a couple of notes that I've got here too. If you don't mind Kevin, are you the one taking this down?
[25:09] Okay, I appreciate it.
[25:13] To what Councilmember O'Connell said,
[25:16] I did, I was not at the last hearing, but I did watch it.
[25:20] I was under the impression that we would be doing full west side remediation prior to any infrastructure or housing,
[25:25] and I understand after that meeting we are not,
[25:27] so I have the minimum viable product requirement as well,
[25:30] that I would like to understand the feasibility of doing it by district.
[25:34] Number two,
[25:37] And this isn't well thought through Kevin, so good luck with the notes, but I'd like to see some sort of performance standard around the Geneva Avenue extension, especially the bridge.
[25:46] An example that I would give today would be something like the bridge needs to be 50% completed in terms of construction before we begin construction on housing something like that. I don't I don't know exactly what it looks like, but a performance standard around the bridge.
[26:03] I would like to see a performance standing in there that says something around the fact that the
[26:11] developer were only infrastructure on the east side until it is fully built and delivered before
[26:20] the city takes it over.
[26:24] Another potential thing that I have here is we will not contribute for any capital financing
[26:33] out of municipal funds, whether general fund or enterprise fund, any money that we have right now would not be used for any sort of financing.
[26:40] We would have to come up with other options on that front.
[26:43] And then I'm also going to pile on to Council Member O'Connell's requirement about the open space items as well.
[26:50] Thank you.
[26:51] Okay, Council Member Lens?
[26:55] Yeah.
[27:03] I mean, I have more than five.
[27:11] I was trying to prepare for the two items that were on the agenda.
[27:18] So that limited the amount of time that I had to compile.
[27:22] So I can list some things.
[27:27] I would prefer to send an email to staff with the rest of the list.
[27:36] Some of the things that that we're said tonight I backed everything that both of you said I'm in agreement with so I won't repeat those things in
[27:51] regards to safety, you know, I would like to have some kind of some kind of guarantee that we're using skilled workers, you know in the specific plan.
[28:06] And so some kind of language that can be applied in the plan would be something that I would like to see.
[28:18] We're going to be dressing water tonight.
[28:21] I have a whole list of things in regards to water.
[28:25] And so I will save that from applying to my list though during this hearing.
[28:33] I'm hoping that staff will record those requirements that I'm looking for and include it into my list.
[28:43] Let's see, you know, having daycare facilities, the language that came from buildup.
[28:53] I would like to see that in this specific plan.
[28:59] areas around strengthening the objective design standards.
[29:07] I don't think that the standards that are applied in the specific plan go far enough.
[29:14] I'd like to see something that is more design-oriented rather than just checking a box.
[29:54] Thank you for mentioning the Geneva Avenue Extension Frank.
[29:58] But also
[30:00] Would like us to incorporate the by-county study into the specific plan in a more robust way.
[30:15] We had quite a bit of a discussion on energy neutrality.
[30:21] And so we are doing the study, but I hope that study shines some light on how we could incorporate greater energy self-sufficiency.
[30:35] And then the 53% that is being proposed,
[30:41] I would also like to see us apply a site specific
[30:46] greenhouse gas evaluation as opposed to a regional one, and then incorporate a lot of
[30:54] the recommendations from the draft, EIR, in regards to that area.
[31:09] We'd like to see some language that provides an investment from the developer towards commute.org to mitigate the increase use of the shuttles that the development will impose.
[31:32] You
[31:51] know, I know that we're going to be having a fiscal analysis hearing.
[31:57] I hope that the language that comes from that fiscal analysis just doesn't address the
[32:05] city being energy, I mean, physically revenue-positive, but addresses how all the infrastructure
[32:15] or the remediation in such is is funded in a huge required to pay for it.
[32:29] That's it for now.
[32:31] Okay. Thank you to all my colleagues for your very well-thought suggestions. I'm going to
[32:38] refrain from submitting a list. I would rather have the public see my list. I think it's hard to
[32:43] digest some of this from the Dias. And I'd like that to be in a future agenda where everyone can see
[32:49] a accumulation of what's been proposed.
[32:53] I would like as a topic before we get into tonight's to talk about finances.
[32:59] And I am still a bit upset appalled that we have a property owner that owes us equivalent to about 25% of our annual budget for this city of Brisbane.
[33:14] that's an enormous amount of money to us.
[33:20] And considering the size of the project and the scope of the work,
[33:26] the amount I believe now is 6.6 million.
[33:30] If you were to construct a tall office building,
[33:33] which is site is proposed to have many neighborhoods,
[33:36] many commercial buildings, some very tall buildings, a hotel.
[33:40] One might conjecture looking at the costs
[33:44] in the peninsula, a building could easily cost 16, 20, 30 million dollars. The property owner
[33:52] owes a 6.6 million dollars. I think it would be a good show of faith to show the financial
[33:59] liability if they brought the balance on the account current. I think it jeopardizes the
[34:07] public's confidence in the developer to follow through when this balance is allowed to keep
[34:14] lumping along month by month. We get promises. We get requests for copies of documents over
[34:23] and over. I know at least twice documents have been provided and I'm not sure what's going on.
[34:32] I believe Mr. Raymond Fong is a controller. I'd like to invite Mr. Fong if you would
[34:36] Stephanie to come to a public hearing and talk to us about the finances that will be one of the
[34:42] topics on a future public hearing because I don't think this is going away.
[34:51] I would also like to know
[34:53] this is from past hearing, but we've asked about it before whether you all have contacted Union
[35:00] Pacific Railroad as Council Member O'Connell wisely suggested about using the railroad tracks in the evening
[35:10] to transport, dirt, instead of a surface streets hall route, could you respond to that please?
[35:23] Good evening, Mayor Mackin, council members.
[35:25] We have not had yet the direct conversation with Union Pacific on this question.
[35:32] They do have a contract with Caltering.
[35:36] So I believe Caltering is in the engineer seat on that question,
[35:41] But I know that when we get to that question about being able to move soil across the track of that,
[35:48] the Union Pacific will definitely be at the table.
[35:51] But yeah, the short answer is no, I've not direct.
[35:54] We have not since the question was raised how to direct the conversation with them.
[35:58] Yeah, okay.
[35:58] But it's coming.
[35:59] Well, we'll be following up every meeting.
[36:02] Madam Mayor, if I could, I wanted to share that earlier today, I had a conversation
[36:07] with leadership at Caltrain regarding this issue and they've agreed to work with the city to
[36:14] try to find other alternatives than using our streets for the dirt moving. So I was cautiously
[36:22] optimistic that will be a fruitful conversation moving forward. Thank you very much for that update.
[36:29] All right, any other council members? I didn't get to. Oh, I didn't care anything. Okay, go.
[36:38] So I'll just kind of share some of my high-level goals and I have more to this that we can talk about offline about how maybe we accomplish some of these things, but so much of it actually is shared by my colleagues.
[36:54] So, I'll be quick.
[36:58] One of my big things is really protecting the city and the community if the development is delayed, suspended, abandoned, or interrupted by developer and solvency, bankruptcy or change in ownership.
[37:09] So, I think that every phase of the development must be capable of being safely maintained and stabilized independently of subsequent development.
[37:18] So all remediation necessary to make the residential areas safe for their intended use.
[37:24] To me must be completed and approved before the first residential unit is occupied.
[37:30] Police have said, by district, for me, I'd like to see all residential done before anyone moves in.
[37:39] And I want to make sure that the city is not less responsible for unfinished infrastructure, deteriorating property, environmental obligations with a cost of making the safe.
[37:47] The site's safe simply because the developers unable are unwilling to complete the project.
[37:54] Next would be financial accountability and I know we haven't gotten there quite yet,
[38:01] but the revenue positive requirement must be demonstrated through transparent ongoing financial framework, not projections.
[38:10] So, consistent and clearly define methodology for calculating project-generated city revenues and expenses and so on.
[38:19] The next would be to secure permanent public access throughout the balance without transferring ownership or environmental liability to the city.
[38:27] So, I stay at this in prior hearings, but I really am concerned about the city owning much of anything out there,
[38:35] because I do feel that if there's a cap failure right and we own the road, then that would be our responsibility to impart address.
[38:47] And I want to make sure that we're protecting ourselves financially as much as we possibly can.
[38:54] And then I'd like to see a city council approved truck haul route contained entirely within the Baylands, including both outbound and return travel before any soil relocation begins.
[39:10] And I know it's likely we won't have this before adopting the specific plan but the language being in there.
[39:17] And there's been several suggestions that the public has made
[39:21] that I thought were great.
[39:22] Of course, they're not studied in the EIR.
[39:26] So those, we would need to just have the language there
[39:29] saying that there's something a whole route
[39:33] that the council approves that stays entirely
[39:34] within the balance.
[39:36] And then in the future, we can work out what that looks
[39:39] like specifically.
[39:42] As far as housing, I agree with Councilmember O'Connor,
[39:46] I would say we would start at the 1800 as the baseline planning assumption because it preserves
[39:53] room for negotiation in the development agreement.
[39:57] So I imagine that developers going to want certain things, they're going to want that
[40:01] 2,200 max and so there needs to be room for the city to have something to negotiate with
[40:09] among other things.
[40:11] And I think that affordable housing should be integrated throughout the surveillance.
[40:14] I think concentrating in a small number of large buildings or in isolated areas is not right
[40:24] and I don't think it's equitable, and so I think that thriving neighborhoods or neighborhoods
[40:29] in which people of all economic backgrounds are living together so that's what I would like
[40:34] to see.
[40:35] And then lastly,
[40:38] I'd like to establish a strong cohesive design identity and meaningful city oversight
[40:43] to ensure that the balance is thoughtfully designed and constructed to consistently high-standard
[40:49] over the life of the project. And the goal is to avoid a development that feels like a collection
[40:54] of unrelated projects designed and constructed over many years and instead create a cohesive,
[41:00] attractive neighborhood with a consistent standard of quality. So of course, you know, there's
[41:06] so many things in our specific plan that get to that already, but I think there's some tightening
[41:10] up that we can do. So with all of these, I have suggestions for staff that I'm happy to
[41:15] pass along via email, but those are kind of the high-level goals for me at this time.
[41:21] Thank you very much. And if I could suggest if everyone who's mentioned things could email
[41:27] staff would that be helpful, because that's a lot to absorb. I did want to say that I really did
[41:35] appreciate staff sending the list of all the questions we've asked as a council and that
[41:41] when you read through them and there was a lot of questions asked and a lot of them had responses
[41:48] by staff and I think that's really good because it shows how diverse our thinking is and what
[41:57] each of us and what the public is inputting to this process that is going to give the staff a
[42:05] body of work to co-alight and put together and and bring us all together on. So I just wanted to say thank you.
[42:13] Yes, indeed, it's a very large effort to try to keep track of everything.
[42:18] All right, any other council comments? I would Madam Mayor, you had addressed the issue in regards to
[42:25] being paid. Yes, and I just wanted to second that.
[42:31] Stephanie, would you mind coming to the podium, please?
[42:36] So a couple of hearings go ask you about the payment and you said that that wasn't your
[42:41] specialty that it was your finance person that you would look into it and then you came back
[42:47] again and that you were working on something and here we are at the third hearing, but we're
[42:54] owed a significant amount of money,
[42:59] fairly close to the amount that we started with when
[43:03] I asked you a couple of hearings ago, and so it is difficult for me to continue having
[43:15] these hearings and rocking up debt for the city.
[43:19] As the mayor had said, we're looking at close to 25% of our budget.
[43:24] That's a significant amount for a developer who is proposing a multi-hundred, hundreds
[43:33] of millions of dollars, development, a seven million dollar payment that is part of a contract
[43:43] that you're a company in the city had agreed to abide by, that puts in question like,
[43:53] okay, well, how serious, right? Are you? And then should we as a council continue to have
[44:00] these hearings if you're unable to pay the bills? And so it makes me feel like, well, should we
[44:09] do we postpone theirings until you're able to reimburse the city for the costs that have gone
[44:19] into these documents that will eventually provide entitlements, which you have said that you wanted.
[44:28] So yeah, I'm just putting that out there to you. I want you to work with your team and pay the
[44:39] the money so that that is an issue and we can get back to collaborating and working together
[44:48] to eventually approve this plan.
[44:51] Understood.
[44:54] Just to be clear, we did submit a payment plan to this.
[45:00] And we also made a million dollar payment to that to the city today, as we discussed at the last hearing.
[45:08] So we have advanced significantly. It comes from a balance on the issue. And I think we will.
[45:15] We're all working in good faith with the city staff and with our team to make everybody hold on this question.
[45:26] Yeah, you know, these these bills are years old and paying a million dollars yeah is is
[45:33] peanuts right that's that's not in good faith in my opinion granted that's I'm I'm one
[45:39] council member right if we were going to be whole paying the amount that we for the bills that we've
[45:48] submitted makes sense and then we can collaborate in good faith and you're talking about good faith
[45:54] Let's get paid and then we can move forward.
[45:59] Yes, and again, our attorney did send your attorney a proposal for a payment plan and we submitted a payment today, a significant payment today.
[46:08] So we are on track to hopefully resolve the issue.
[46:15] And I understand everybody's frustration, but I just want to share that the council,
[46:22] them, you know, we are acting in good faith and we are on a plan.
[46:28] Councilmember Lens, can I join in on that?
[46:31] Absolutely.
[46:31] Okay, you know, when I hear payment plan, it doesn't work for me anymore.
[46:36] The payment plan was all of 2025,
[46:42] 2024, the invoices go way back.
[46:44] That's been the payment plan, and to ask now for a payment plan to me is a little bit insulting.
[46:52] in that we received a payment in July and then we received nothing. So you can offer a payment plan
[46:58] and how do we know you're going to follow through because since July we had nothing. We got a payment today.
[47:06] And when I look at the age of the invoice, it's not adding up that you're serious about this.
[47:16] I understand your frustration and I do think we have been acting in good faith and we will finish our review of all of the invoices and all the documents and I think that we will find resolution.
[47:32] Well, in the copies of invoices were sent to you months ago.
[47:36] How many months does it take?
[47:38] And they were sent to you twice.
[47:40] So if we go back, it's been a long time.
[47:44] And maybe you need some more help.
[47:48] But these are due.
[47:49] I'm sure there's bills you paid that you have to pay.
[47:51] This is a bill you need to pay.
[47:54] And I don't think the public here is going to tolerate this.
[47:58] We want you to come back to the next hearing and have paid the balance.
[48:04] Madam Mayor, we'll take that under consideration.
[48:06] I do want to reiterate again that we our lawyers have submitted a payment plan to your lawyers.
[48:12] And we are working through the issue.
[48:16] And please invite your finance director to come talk to us in a public meeting.
[48:20] Oh, make that a suggestion.
[48:21] I do also want to note for the record that we have a to lay agreement that expires January 31,
[48:28] 2027, and based on your proposed payment plan, we would not be paid in full by that expiration.
[48:36] So I would say at bare minimum, I would expect that BDI would pay us in full by the expiration of the tolling agreement.
[48:46] I mean, obviously we want to be paid yesterday, but even with the parameters that are in place
[48:52] with the tolling agreement, if it's not paid in full at that point, you know, well there's
[48:58] several there's several steps we could take, but that particular one would be litigation.
[49:04] So there already is a firm deadline. There's been firm deadlines, but that's coming up quick.
[49:12] So, I would bring that tooling agreement up to your team and bring their attention to the fact that your proposal still does not catch us up by that date.
[49:25] I understand. But the tooling agreement was a period of time for us to negotiate the, you know, the outstanding issues with the city.
[49:33] So, but I understand, and I appreciate your perspective,
[49:38] Councilwoman Davis.
[49:41] Just one thing to add.
[49:43] Stephanie, I have not seen the letter.
[49:45] Sorry, I've been in meetings the entire day.
[49:47] So if that came in today, I have not seen it.
[49:49] Does it include interest on money owed?
[49:52] It's my understanding.
[49:53] And again, I've only been on council for two years.
[49:55] But we've got invoices that are going back prior to me even being on council.
[49:58] And so I'm just curious.
[49:59] Is there interest built in there for?
[50:02] Is part of this payment plan?
[50:03] No, our pay processing agreement does not include late fees or interest fees.
[50:11] Thank you.
[50:13] Well, and I would add that you've had the benefit of earning interest while we haven't.
[50:18] We've output that and probably had tomorrow money to cover your invoices.
[50:24] Some of this was the COVID years when we were using reserves.
[50:29] So that does not sit well.
[50:31] I understand your frustration, Mayor, but again, I just reiterate our pay processing agreement does not include late fees or interest.
[50:44] Okay, well, we'd like to see some very firm good faith efforts because this is a long commitment you're asking for.
[50:53] I understand.
[50:54] And it shouldn't be hitting bumps in the road on the front end.
[50:58] we understand and I will make sure. If I may, it was my understanding that the agreement that's
[51:05] been signed and updated does have a interest clause in it isn't that true.
[51:15] I don't know I will
[51:16] check. Thank you.
[51:20] Okay. This is a continuation of our public hearings. This is consideration
[51:27] of proposed Bayland-specific plan and related actions, including amendments to the Brisbane General Plan,
[51:33] Land Use and Circulation Elements, amendments to Title Section 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code
[51:40] to establish zoning regulations, adoption of the Bayshore Mobility Plan and certification of
[51:46] the final environmental impact report FBI R. Prepared for this project in accordance with the
[51:54] California in very, very mental quality act,
[51:57] sequo.
[51:59] Some of you know those acronyms very well.
[52:02] So we'll start with questions to close out those topics.
[52:05] These are from the last public hearing, which was remediation
[52:08] and phasing.
[52:10] First item was number seven, long-term remediation stewardship
[52:14] and monitoring.
[52:16] I will call on each council member and ask you to limit it to one
[52:19] question after each of you's had a turn.
[52:21] I'll go back through the order for another round of questions. Again, please limit it to one question.
[52:27] So let's start with Council Member O'Connell.
[52:33] I don't have any questions at the moment, I'd rather hear staff report if we're having one.
[52:39] Do we have a staff report prepared?
[52:42] Not on this particular item, this is a continuation, as you mentioned.
[52:46] I do have a staff report for when we get to water.
[52:52] Okay. Councilmember Lens?
[52:55] Yeah, you know, I don't have any questions on that particular item, but I do have a question for staff in regards to one of the items from the list of this section.
[53:11] And so Kevin in regards to phasing, you know, it seemed like when we talked about phasing in this section, it was related mostly to remediation,
[53:21] But there's so many other phasing that would occur.
[53:28] I kind of listed in my list of things.
[53:33] Would it be appropriate for tonight to identify some phasing
[53:39] or have that be a part of the final,
[53:48] kind of understanding of how things all come together because you know we've been doing
[53:53] these these hearings and and we touch upon all these different items but sometimes
[53:58] it's very difficult to really understand how they all fit together this happens here
[54:04] and then that triggers this and so and then having some kind of visual of that kind of
[54:22] Yes, you're correct. There's really two aspects to phasing. On the one hand, there's a phasing
[54:28] associated with the remediation and that's kind of the the core topic of this evening, but then
[54:34] there's also the phasing of the build out. We got into a little bit of that in the last meeting in terms
[54:40] of particularly when do things like parks and open spaces and streets and overpasses and things
[54:46] like that, when do they appear in relation to the development?
[54:51] So they're related.
[54:53] You can't do any building until you've
[54:55] got the remediation of the building site completed.
[54:58] But then there are also the different benchmarks.
[55:02] There was some comments earlier in this meeting
[55:05] about how you would structure those benchmarks.
[55:09] What the plan shows are based on blocks
[55:13] and then the relationship of amenities to those blocks but then there was also some discussion
[55:18] and interest in maybe it's based on benchmarks such as numbers of units or even the first
[55:25] unit was suggested so these are things it's the plan address of some of it the DA can get into
[55:34] more details but if council members have direction that can certainly be helpful to staff as
[55:43] you know if you're thinking of things you would like to see similar to what we had in the previous
[55:48] conversation regarding phasing that could be helpful to articulate. Sure. Sure. All right. Yeah,
[55:54] you know because I did send you the email and essentially that document. I don't think it's appropriate
[56:00] for tonight because it would take a long time.
[56:06] I would like to work with you offline and come up with
[56:11] strategy and then present that to the full council and into the public for how we address those
[56:17] issues and how everything comes together. I think that would be very helpful. Okay, thank you.
[56:24] Okay,
[56:27] council member Kern.
[56:31] I have comments, but no questions. Thank you. All right. Mayor Pro Tem Davis.
[56:36] Just confirm from where we left off and where we're starting here.
[56:40] are we still on phasing or we've moved on a long-term remediation search?
[56:44] We're a chip and more on phasing and remediation.
[56:46] Okay.
[56:46] Number seven.
[56:47] I don't have anything.
[56:50] I only have long-term remediation to our chip and monitoring.
[56:54] So I have a very well written email from a member of the public who's here tonight about a
[57:01] vapor intrusion incident in a Google building and it really concerned me because it talked
[57:07] about this was on a middle field
[57:14] Ellis Weisman super fun site and interior building
[57:19] modifications and renovations inadvertently punctured
[57:23] and altered structural barriers creating an open path
[57:27] way through the floor of vapors which were tricolor
[57:31] ethylene and I believe we have tricolor ethylene
[57:34] on the site. And I wanted to bring this up because I don't know whether this is an anomaly,
[57:43] or whether this happens all the time. I don't know if there's an answer. Is there a way to prevent this,
[57:49] so that if in the future a contractor's brought into the building and maybe they don't know
[57:56] that there are dangers, vapors, and that certain types of alterations could cause some catastrophic consequences.
[58:07] Is there some way that we could put something in the plan to prevent this?
[58:13] Or, and again, a comment, is this really an anomaly?
[58:16] Or is this something that we should anticipate in the future?
[58:21] I'm going to ask Michelle King from EKI.
[58:25] This would come up in a prior hearing, so we did receive some information and happy that
[58:30] Michelle is here to be able to reiterate what was discussed previously.
[58:36] Yeah, I can speak to the details of what happened at the Google building, but I think it's
[58:42] more in general what happens at these sites.
[58:47] First and foremost, the concentrations of TCE and groundwater at the MEW site and in particular
[58:53] at the buildings that have an issue are orders of magnitude higher than the concentrations
[58:58] that are present in the northern part of OUSM where impacts are coming from slage or from
[59:05] the one VOC area.
[59:07] So just to give a little bit of context.
[59:10] But typically, what happens is at the state level, the DTSC or the water board, when a building is developed and there's a vapor mitigation system, there's ongoing OEM&M requirements, there's ongoing
[59:27] Notifications that are typically required if a building slab is going to be penetrated,
[59:32] post-construction, and often there's even a de-restriction that will require a notification
[59:39] upon building penetration.
[59:42] So what happened at the MEW site, there was awareness that EPA was very aware of the
[59:48] penetrations that were happening, and there was no active mitigation system present at that
[59:53] time.
[59:54] and air monitoring was performed after completion of instruction work that initially was
[1:00:00] Fine, there was no problem with it. And then when the weather got cooler and they closed up the air intakes, because the cold air was coming in, that was when they found the problem.
[1:00:12] So they discovered it actually pretty quickly after the problem was identified and then it got addressed.
[1:00:18] So there are measures that are in place, various levels of, let's say, control factors to assess and inspect and potentially test into our air if appropriate, upon penetration.
[1:00:34] And so I would just follow up with that by saying if there are measures in place, the contractor may not be familiar.
[1:00:41] And the state agencies are not always on site, as you said, they have routine inspections, but in between inspections, the contractor could be brought in.
[1:00:51] Are you saying the contractor is informed always knows that they need to, if I'm rating this right, contact the state agency and say we're going to be doing work there?
[1:01:03] Well, typically, let's say it's a, let's call it an HOA situation, if there's an HOA,
[1:01:09] there's typically a CCNR that would say that, you know, either you can't penetrate the slab
[1:01:15] or if you're going to penetrate it, then you have to notify. So there's, it's not like a
[1:01:22] contractor is typically at these sites with vapor mitigation systems just coming in and penetrating
[1:01:28] without there being some awareness.
[1:01:32] Okay, because we've had some CCRs with another development
[1:01:36] and they're not always followed.
[1:01:39] So, all right, I guess that's best we can do for now.
[1:01:41] If there's anything that staff can think of
[1:01:44] to kind of reinforce this in a robust way
[1:01:47] in a specific plan, just to make sure
[1:01:49] because that follow through long-term,
[1:01:52] out of sight, out of mind,
[1:01:54] and that's people's health.
[1:01:55] I'm very concerned about that.
[1:01:57] Council Member Lens, you have another question?
[1:02:00] Not at this time, and I have one more.
[1:02:03] I think mine actually is applicable for this.
[1:02:06] Oh, please go ahead and section.
[1:02:09] So if an HOA is responsible for long-term environmental maintenance,
[1:02:13] and they become in solvent, dissolve, or fail to perform their duties,
[1:02:17] who is legally required to take over?
[1:02:24] Well, I'll start and then Michelle might elaborate a little bit as well,
[1:02:29] but in general HOA is in other management agencies,
[1:02:31] are highly regulated by the state. So it's not so easy as I'm just disappearing or dissolving
[1:02:40] and not remaining a factor or a party. If they were in financial trouble, their remedy is
[1:02:52] to do a special assessment or increase HOA do so that they have adequate reserves. If there
[1:03:00] some sort of unanticipated event, then there's also environmental insurance, bonds, guarantees
[1:03:10] that are used in order to make sure that there's financial resources to address those.
[1:03:18] And ultimately, liability enforce through the regulatory agencies tracks to both current and
[1:03:26] previous owners of the site, as well as the producers of the hazardous materials that are
[1:03:34] being cleaned up.
[1:03:35] So there would be numerous potential pathways for regulatory agencies to seek and enforce
[1:03:43] from BDI or other previous owners or the people that entities that it contributed to the
[1:03:53] that was causing the issue to try and recover, but ultimately, and this, I think, is implied by some of the questions and comments that you've shared.
[1:04:04] Part of why you've suggested and we've discussed the city not taking ownership to portions of the public way of having public access, but not ownership is to keep the city out of the chain of liability.
[1:04:21] So, the city is not responsible for clean up remediation or addressing those over time.
[1:04:30] I don't know Michelle, if there's anything else to add to that or if that's good for now.
[1:04:37] Just to make it clear, like the financial assurance mechanisms that the regulatory agencies have put in place,
[1:04:44] they're there in the event of an insolvency.
[1:04:48] Thanks.
[1:04:54] Okay, I have a question. The EPA has dust mitigation standards and has anyone talked about whether the dust mitigation plan is proposed has been approved and meets those standards.
[1:05:23] If we haven't, that's okay. I'm just saying then I would I would I would like to see something in writing.
[1:05:30] that I would comply with those standards.
[1:05:33] I could speak to the, like the R-Dip,
[1:05:35] the remedial design implementation plan
[1:05:37] has a dust control plan that does key off
[1:05:41] of things like ambient air quality standards
[1:05:44] for things like PM10, Respiral Dust, and so forth,
[1:05:49] and so that plan is consistent with EPA standards.
[1:05:54] And then the EIR discusses dust control measures
[1:05:59] during construction to need air district standards because there are the regulatory
[1:06:05] agency with authority over the way it does to in particular matter are omitted locally
[1:06:12] here so that there is not in fact part of the mitigation plan is to ensure that all the
[1:06:20] dust control measures are compliant with the air district standards and regulations.
[1:06:25] Well, and I understand that, except that even construction workers and all those nice union members,
[1:06:34] they've got ocean standards in terms of exposure in their health, not just people who end up living their later on.
[1:06:42] So that's why I'm referencing this.
[1:06:44] Council member Lens, do you have more questions in this?
[1:06:51] I do have one question, Madam Mayor, and that was, you know, in the last meeting we talked
[1:06:57] about receiving some cross-section visuals to help understand how water flows from land
[1:07:03] to sea.
[1:07:04] Is that something that you all had put together or staff?
[1:07:09] I'm just curious if you had updated, we had the one visual, but it was more of a cartoon rather
[1:07:18] then something that was beneficial to understand the entire site, do you have that?
[1:07:30] We do have a couple of informational, hopefully not too cartoonish, but on the cartoon is side that we will present in our order presentation. Hopefully later this evening.
[1:07:43] Okay, so I have another question.
[1:07:52] In the specific plan, it references and I believe Stephanie has alluded to using San Francisco water for mitigating dust on the entire site.
[1:08:01] And I wondered since we buy water from the SFPC through the agency Bosco, which is all the peninsula customers who are customers of the SFPC, and dust mitigation on that site seems like a lot of water, especially if it's dry and the wind that blows through there, with sometimes 40 mile an hour gusts.
[1:08:28] have you contacted the SFPUC about the amount of water allocation that you would be needed?
[1:08:36] Did you get them to issue you an approval? Did you provide them with estimates of the volume of water?
[1:08:44] And I don't know how you would plan to convey it from San Francisco in across county and city limits into Brisbane.
[1:08:54] that could be a legal issue. Have you talked to them about that? Because it sounds like you're using a San Francisco water account
[1:09:01] you have to bring water into Brisbane City limits for the entire duration of the project.
[1:09:10] Have you spoken to them?
[1:09:16] Madam, we do, we are going to discuss our existing and historic and legal water that we have from SFPUC in Brisbane.
[1:09:25] It came with the real yard site and with the landfill and it's 120-year-old water rights that we have.
[1:09:33] And so do you have any verification of that?
[1:09:37] Are you going to bring that up under water?
[1:09:40] I didn't bring my verification with me tonight, but we were prepared to talk about our existing SFPUC,
[1:09:50] what they call their, we are a retail customer of SFPUC. But it's a very old contractic. It went
[1:09:56] back to the beginning of the railroad track and the beginning of the rail yard in 1890s. And we have
[1:10:03] water. We have SFPUC water in Brisbane. Yeah. Okay. Could you tell me where? Where the faucets are?
[1:10:14] Well, I'm true. Yeah. I mean, they're all over the rail yard site. You know, the old
[1:10:18] Missouri building, the old, all the old,
[1:10:22] we're all the old rail yard is.
[1:10:23] There are connections, some of them we still use today.
[1:10:27] And same on the length of the site.
[1:10:29] And by the way, Golden State Lumber and part of our ecology
[1:10:33] also have SFPUC retail historic water, not Brisbane water.
[1:10:40] Those are not Brisbane water accounts, them.
[1:10:44] Well, they're in the city limits, OK?
[1:10:47] Yeah, but they, but they pre-see the city of Brisbane. Okay, they're that old. Okay, I just I think that
[1:10:56] To keep everything on the up and up, San Francisco needs to be involved to say whether that's
[1:11:02] Uncurrent standards legal since we're in an entirely different county and we're governed by Bosca
[1:11:09] Understood, yes, yeah, okay, but so we're going to be seeing something then from you
[1:11:17] We're prepared to talk about our existing retail water.
[1:11:22] Yeah.
[1:11:22] Well, I think we want some assurances that Brisbane's very limited water supply is not going to be used.
[1:11:29] Yeah.
[1:11:29] We don't submit it.
[1:11:30] For the construction and remediation.
[1:11:32] Okay.
[1:11:33] We will be using our SFPUC water.
[1:11:36] Okay.
[1:11:37] And I believe the specific plan mentions using San Francisco water.
[1:11:42] And we need to make sure that that is not in there.
[1:11:47] In that I think that needs to be explained.
[1:11:55] You look positive.
[1:11:56] Can you give us the page?
[1:11:59] I remember.
[1:11:59] I remember.
[1:12:00] Okay.
[1:12:04] Oh, do you mean Brisbane water?
[1:12:05] Sorry.
[1:12:06] Sorry, same water.
[1:12:07] Yes.
[1:12:08] No.
[1:12:09] No.
[1:12:10] And we'll talk.
[1:12:10] We have a whole, when we get to water,
[1:12:12] Mayor Mack and we have a whole presentation on our,
[1:12:16] on our current cow water agreement for
[1:12:20] Supplying the baylands with potable water. Okay. Yeah, did you ever just out of curiosity come up with a budget for the cost of the dust mitigation
[1:12:29] At the price of water. I'm just curious because that's
[1:12:33] Significant yes, I mean we we have a current we have a certain amount of
[1:12:38] Gallons of water that we currently use that's what we call our existing use and we can use that and we've already
[1:12:43] Determined that that's enough for remediation and construction. Yeah, okay because if we have drought years and they issue
[1:12:49] to cut backs, what are you going to do?
[1:12:53] I will follow whatever plan the SFP you see puts out.
[1:12:58] I mean, you may recall 2015, 2017,
[1:13:02] when we were in a very severe drought, and yeah,
[1:13:04] everybody got home.
[1:13:07] A home new program was put out for water usage and tiered systems,
[1:13:11] and, you know, right.
[1:13:13] But you want to do it.
[1:13:14] But you want to do it in dust mitigation at the time.
[1:13:16] So that's my concern.
[1:13:17] Yeah.
[1:13:17] I thought they were on Chile.
[1:13:19] And significantly, large amounts of water.
[1:13:22] Yeah, but again, and if you want the more details on that,
[1:13:26] we have already calculated how much water we need
[1:13:28] for the remediation and the construction.
[1:13:30] And it is within our existing water use on our existing
[1:13:36] SFPUC water use.
[1:13:39] OK.
[1:13:39] Any other questions?
[1:13:41] Because I have one more.
[1:13:42] I'm good.
[1:13:43] OK.
[1:13:43] So Schlaglock has been mentioned as a comparable example of a remediation project and there
[1:13:56] was a looting to a private entity serving as an operator compliance coordinator and a
[1:14:03] steward for a remediated site.
[1:14:05] Who is private entity?
[1:14:11] Any idea?
[1:14:12] No, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but give me some more
[1:14:15] maybe I can come back with an answer?
[1:14:17] Well, where are you reading them?
[1:14:19] From that's been in a staff report,
[1:14:22] mentioning Schleglock,
[1:14:26] and the recent mentioned Schleglock.
[1:14:31] Comparable remediation project
[1:14:33] and onsite specific environmental
[1:14:35] management area structures under a private entity.
[1:14:41] And I'm just curious,
[1:14:43] private entity as the operator and compliance coordinator
[1:14:47] who would be a private entity.
[1:14:49] maybe staff can answer that. I think they may be referring to us, the owner, is the private entity
[1:14:56] that's overseeing this Shajlok.
[1:15:00] Edeation, which is, we are now in, well, it's sure that it has been remediated, it is now in what they call O&M operations and maintenance of the site.
[1:15:09] But I think the private, it's referring to us.
[1:15:13] Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. And if staff has a different take on it, can come back on that. That would be appreciated as well.
[1:15:22] All right. Absent any further questions. We go to public comments.
[1:15:29] First one I have is Michelle Salman,
[1:15:38] Michelle Salman,
[1:15:39] President and President.
[1:15:41] There are so many holes in this that I'm concerned about
[1:15:45] and I'm glad you brought many of them up.
[1:15:48] We have really not experienced where the state
[1:15:52] regulatory has come in and looked at what the work
[1:15:56] that the HOA and the CC and ours have done
[1:15:58] up at the Northeastern Ridge.
[1:16:01] And I wonder how reliable that is,
[1:16:04] How many instances across the state has that actually happened?
[1:16:09] I love the idea of secure public access but not ownership and the consistent designs.
[1:16:19] But I am still really concerned about the decimification and making sure that each section is remediated before each district is remediated before anybody moves there.
[1:16:32] But hopefully the whole district is remediated before anybody moves there.
[1:16:37] Because I've seen obviously all the dust that came off of that site for many years.
[1:16:44] All the way back to 2015, yes, they were supposed to be watering them and they weren't.
[1:16:49] You know, and so it really is a big issue for both the people who drive by.
[1:16:55] People who work there, people who be doing the work.
[1:16:58] It's a dangerous sight, that's about it, but I really appreciate the questions that you're
[1:17:02] asking.
[1:17:05] Public scale.
[1:17:15] Public scale has been risen, and I do appreciate the questions you're all asking.
[1:17:23] And about transporting the fill, and I was just curious, you had mentioned that the information
[1:17:32] that you've gathered, and staff is working on responses as well as from the community.
[1:17:40] And I thought there was going to be the day that we're going to have responses from the
[1:17:45] community being answered.
[1:17:47] And one of the things I was curious about, I'd like to know if there's any,
[1:17:55] if it's been
[1:17:55] looked into regarding the transporting of leftover cleanup from the area of the railroad site.
[1:18:08] And back when I proposed transporting it over to the unregulated landfill and dump it
[1:18:17] at there is that it has taken it to a hazardous landfill site, it was said that that was
[1:18:24] possible but the regulatory agencies wouldn't let that happen but they'll allow them to put
[1:18:32] underneath the roadway on the site, move it from here and put it there, put it under a
[1:18:38] roadway which is acceptable and never having utilities in there so nobody's ever digging in
[1:18:45] there and that's acceptable way of doing it so why couldn't we transport it over to the under
[1:18:51] the landfills site, just like possibly with the real
[1:18:56] the other, like they're going to do transporting the dirt, and the reason
[1:19:03] why that's so important is transporting, I don't know, how many
[1:19:08] truckloads I've never heard, what they estimate, the surplus contaminated
[1:19:14] soils going to be, but how many truckloads would have to go to hazardous
[1:19:19] landfield site. And we're responsible for that from the time that leaves until the time it
[1:19:27] gets there and as long as it's there. I say we, I don't know what our involvement is from the city,
[1:19:34] but the property owners and to your point, if the property owners fail to come through the development
[1:19:40] or sell it, then who's responsible? So I would like to know what the idea answer is if possible. Thank you.
[1:19:48] I would like to know the answer to that as well.
[1:19:51] Staff, can you comment on that?
[1:19:53] Is that impossible?
[1:19:56] According to state agencies,
[1:20:10] and if we're not sure that's okay, but if we have an answer that would be great for everyone to hear.
[1:20:16] Yeah, we'll need to clarify the question and get back to you all with an answer.
[1:20:21] Perfect.
[1:20:21] Thank you very much.
[1:20:23] Robin, lighter?
[1:20:34] I guess I have a bunch of small questions that also came up.
[1:20:38] One I'd like to say, as I've gone through the internet best I can to do a search for has anybody made a homeowner's association responsible for remediation, monitoring, and site repair on a landfill, or a contaminated site, and I can't find one, and I think for a very good reason.
[1:21:00] If you think about it, where would a homeowner even start to find those kind of expertise?
[1:21:09] It's just not a workable solution.
[1:21:12] And though they say, and it's even worse in my mind, not only is there a homeowner's association
[1:21:18] that has to remediate the site where they live, there's a master homeowner's association that makes the homeowner's
[1:21:27] a response, I'm sorry, remediate, the monitors of the site, but there's also a master
[1:21:33] homeowner's, I'm sorry, a master property owners association, which makes those homeowners
[1:21:37] also responsible with the commercial for the landfill, and that just seems, I know this
[1:21:46] probably sounds like an eighth grade word, but it just seems so unfair. I don't think that
[1:21:51] There's any homeowner that is a sufficient background or whatever to take on that kind of thing.
[1:21:59] And one of the things that also bothers me is that there's an art dip that the developer
[1:22:05] has to get from the state agencies before we can go forward.
[1:22:08] And that would include what obligations they have for the monitoring remediation or site repair
[1:22:16] of those sites.
[1:22:17] And if you get in between them, as I think your consultant said, that money is only drawn upon if there's nobody else.
[1:22:27] So now who's in between them and them?
[1:22:30] The polluters, or the current, or the current developer, you put the homeowners in between.
[1:22:38] So, I think it would be important not to do this, and none of it has to be done now, until you can see in the R-Dip what to the state agencies require them to post for security for both of these sites, for both the remediation and the landfill.
[1:22:55] And I guess the other thing that kind of bothers me about this is I think you really need
[1:23:00] these are dips for both. The landfill and the sites where the housing is being built.
[1:23:10] And why I say that is I still can't figure out if the sustainability zone is in phase two,
[1:23:19] But the cityability zone has things that are required
[1:23:24] like the water treatment plant or the solar farm or those kinds of things.
[1:23:29] How can the remediation not be happening at the same time?
[1:23:34] So I'm having a difficulty understanding how the phasing works.
[1:23:38] So for my point of view, during phasing when you're doing the housing,
[1:23:42] you might also then be remediating, remediating the site,
[1:23:47] So that when if you start after phase one with the sustainability zone, that mean it could be
[1:23:56] 10 or 20 years before any of the things in the sustainability zone actually get built.
[1:24:03] And so I think there needs to be a phasing plan that makes it clear that they have to start
[1:24:08] doing the cleanup on that site, on the phase two site before they get done with phase one.
[1:24:17] Also, the wetlands for the visitation creek doesn't have to be done until after I think
[1:24:24] a million square feet is built on the east side, so that means you wouldn't have finished
[1:24:29] the drainage out to the bay until, you know, after a million square feet on the east side.
[1:24:39] And lastly, I would say to you that many of the triggers or gates you have for things are
[1:24:45] during phase one, a thousand and one homes, or after four million square feet for, let's say,
[1:24:52] Geneva or a million square feet for the wetland creeks.
[1:25:00] And my question is, well, if we never get to that number, that means you don't have, you
[1:25:05] don't get it.
[1:25:07] So if they build 999, whatever, and they never come in for their thousand permit, then they
[1:25:13] never have to build. So I think we need more effective triggers to which make them responsible
[1:25:23] for building the mitigation measures at the EIR sets forth and for filling the conditions
[1:25:28] of approval that I think the community believe should be fulfilled. I thank you for your time.
[1:25:36] Thank you. Susan Brandon?
[1:25:44] Susan that was from last week. From the last year.
[1:25:46] I want to come up.
[1:25:49] If you,
[1:25:55] I think that once the plan is approved, then the developer goes to ensures and should anything go wrong with the developer, then the HOA would be responsible to the, I mean,
[1:26:18] ensures would charge astronomical rates for a project like this. There is no why would anyone want to get
[1:26:31] into this kind of financial let's strangle hold? Why would anyone want that? Why would any, I don't
[1:26:40] no other than the low income housing, I don't know that anyway. And then on the east coast,
[1:26:48] there's something called 80, 20 housing. I don't know if that exists here as well. But 80%
[1:26:56] is regular income housing and 20% within the same building is low income housing. And then the
[1:27:04] It feels in the gap of monies that, you know, to cover the low income housing.
[1:27:11] So that's just, I lived in a building like that with the regular income.
[1:27:18] And it was just such a wonderful cup to hold everyone in, a wonderful basket.
[1:27:27] there was no, there wasn't any feeling of like isolating or creating like a mini ghetto within
[1:27:34] a community and it just worked beautifully and that happens all over Manhattan and you know
[1:27:41] the most exclusive buildings and there isn't any problem and or objection from people paying
[1:27:49] full ownership for rental. Thank you. Thank you Paul Elian.
[1:28:06] Paul is one of our
[1:28:07] union brothers. He had to go because he has a wake up at 330. He works in Sacramento.
[1:28:12] So he's never going to be. Thank you. Jose Rodriguez.
[1:28:26] So I'm a Marine. I'm a combat
[1:28:30] veteran and I've been in the union for nine years and I did the whole program. I did
[1:28:37] the apprenticeship. It's supposed to be four years, but I did five because of COVID.
[1:28:43] And this is a really good opportunity for us to come here. It's a 20-year project or
[1:28:49] plus. I've seen people really grow. I've grown, now I'm a safety manager.
[1:28:58] And I see some of your concerns and all we are is with Ambil, but all we are is safety.
[1:29:06] safety is such an important thing for us and I see some of you are concerned with the
[1:29:14] carbon as union, with the union, we are so hard on safety. We make sure you can't come
[1:29:22] in the site without PPE, water control, VC does. We're like, hey guys, get the water truck out here,
[1:29:30] get that done. We're really on top of that stuff and I see such a great opportunity
[1:29:37] for, you know, the kids growing up here. I also live here. I live in
[1:29:41] right down the street in Mariposa. And, you know, I love this town. And I see a
[1:29:46] great opportunity for, for this town to grow and, you know, like opportunity for
[1:29:51] the kids, you know, opportunity for, you know, people that just want to get a job and
[1:29:55] and constructions such a great opportunity for people to grow and step up in.
[1:30:00] If they want to do better, they can do better, but it really helped me out being a combat veteran with PTSD.
[1:30:09] I didn't know what I can do, and then I was like, man, Lee got it, let me go by now because I'm kind of messed up.
[1:30:16] But they were there and I go to VA, I do everything with the VA, and I'm just really happy with what the unions give me.
[1:30:27] And I'm really happy to see what's gonna happen in the future.
[1:30:31] And, you know, like, with the safety that we're going to the next level with Safety,
[1:30:36] I mean, it's just, we're on top of things and, you know, some of better than the others,
[1:30:43] but it's just, you know, like, if I work here, if I work in Safety, I'm gonna be on top of it.
[1:30:49] I'm gonna make sure that everything's good, but yeah, I just want to say,
[1:30:56] you know,
[1:30:58] and be a venture, and I appreciate your time.
[1:31:02] Thank you.
[1:31:04] Nils, Dellander or Dellander?
[1:31:07] I don't know if I said your name, right?
[1:31:09] Sorry if I messed it up.
[1:31:16] Good evening, Mayor.
[1:31:17] Council members and CSTF.
[1:31:18] My name is Nils Lander, and I'm a lifelong resident
[1:31:21] of the neighboring city of South San Francisco.
[1:31:24] As union members of the Carbers Union,
[1:31:27] we strongly support the Baylands project
[1:31:28] because it represents significant investment
[1:31:32] of a community, our workforce, and our future. This project will create thousands of
[1:31:37] construction jobs that provide long-term employment opportunities for skilled
[1:31:40] carpenters, apprentices, and trade workers throughout the region. Large skill, large
[1:31:45] skill developments, like Bayland's projects, generated years of work, healthy union
[1:31:49] members, support and the families, and build the quality infrastructure that
[1:31:54] benefits entire the community. Now, this is about remediation because I need you to
[1:31:59] on topic. I obviously basically finally have the special quick that's yeah we have to stay on topic.
[1:32:07] Do you have something to say regarding this project? Long-term remediation. We support this projects
[1:32:13] and we want to make sure that this project is keep going. Okay, because this isn't a general common
[1:32:18] period. This is specific to the topic or on. Okay, thank you, Mayor. Okay, thank you. Claire Johnson,
[1:32:41] Good evening.
[1:32:44] I wanted to just make a comment on the earlier discussion about the water from an SFP
[1:32:49] you see that they own or the water right.
[1:32:52] I think they should tell you how big that water right is.
[1:32:56] What exactly is it?
[1:32:58] And I thought, why didn't anybody mention it till now?
[1:33:04] And does SFP you see know that they're going to be using this water outside of San Francisco?
[1:33:10] not only at their building in San Francisco, but all over for remediation and for construction.
[1:33:21] I wanted to ask about the R-Diff for all you two. I've been looking for it.
[1:33:26] I did a public document now, and where is it available? Could you help me find that out?
[1:33:34] And at the last public hearing, there was discussion about whether construction and remediation activities could be done in close proximity to each other.
[1:33:43] And I don't believe the question was clearly answered.
[1:33:46] What exactly does the water board require in terms of proximity?
[1:33:50] And where is it found in their written material?
[1:33:53] Because I've been looking.
[1:33:56] In this specific plan, it states that the tunnel road will always be open for Sierra Point Lumber and other businesses.
[1:34:01] It appears that considering the truck traffic, including the soil moving trucks and all the normal traffic
[1:34:09] that the road would be overwhelmed and virtually closed the road, that would be closed the road.
[1:34:16] If that occurred, then you should require a stop to work order after three days of traffic being brought to a standstill
[1:34:24] because it's mentioned multiple places in this specific plan that that road is going to be open.
[1:34:30] And I think there also should be a penalty of the average total of sales for day, or
[1:34:38] each day that the traffic still stands in place and does not move.
[1:34:43] This would create a strong incentive for DBI to arrange it so that the traffic keeps moving.
[1:34:50] The aesthetics of the buildings that I've been able to sort of judge from their illustrations
[1:34:57] seems geared to the mediocre.
[1:34:58] The building should be softened and cooled by having plants and hanging lines on the exterior
[1:35:04] and whether or not vines or windows there should be solar panels, breathively 45 acre
[1:35:10] source.
[1:35:11] The amount that we did not build that was originally hoped for.
[1:35:17] I think the project would be smaller in several ways.
[1:35:22] The commercial leasing market in this area doesn't support this larger project and may not
[1:35:27] ever do so considering all the other buildings that have been built.
[1:35:31] The pressure to secure enough water would not be so great.
[1:35:34] It would be a more attractive project visually and it would be less expensive to build.
[1:35:41] I'm hoping that you will choose that alternative, number seven, or modify version of it.
[1:35:49] There are unanswered questions about the project that need answering and you must do your
[1:35:53] best to make sure the project does not fail as a result.
[1:35:56] The developer is $7 million in debt arrears to the city.
[1:36:01] You need to face the fact that there is either a big problem or they are trying to pressure
[1:36:05] you into accepting a project that is incomplete and is not perhaps a risk-based interest
[1:36:12] to be so large.
[1:36:14] If DBI sue you and sue all of us, it would delay things even more.
[1:36:19] So, the answer to you, why, let them sue us, and then other people, I think, if you don't do enough review,
[1:36:28] the other people will undoubtedly sue. So, it seems like a difficult choice, but the choice of protecting Brisbane interest,
[1:36:37] I know is what you all want, and I support you in that. Thank you.
[1:36:42] Thank you.
[1:36:43] Okay. This is all the public comment. Slips I have, City Clerk, do we have anyone online
[1:36:51] that I don't have a slipbook? I have a slipbook for Allie's Sepperman and Janette NATO online.
[1:36:59] Okay. Allie, you want to go ahead?
[1:37:09] Good evening, Mayor and Council members. My name is Allie C,
[1:37:12] for men from the Housing Action Coalition. A non-profit that supports
[1:37:15] infall housing at all income levels. Our membership stands the building industry
[1:37:19] from developers to labor unions, and I'm here tonight to urge you to keep the valence moving
[1:37:22] forward.
[1:37:23] Brownfield Development is a critical strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
[1:37:27] preventing urban sprawl.
[1:37:28] as we've heard at previous year.
[1:37:30] The billings will be safely remediated under the oversight of appropriate regulatory agencies.
[1:37:36] Like many other Bay Area projects, the billings will carry on going reporting requirements that ensure accountability and transparency, long after the remediation is complete.
[1:37:47] Remediation deserves careful consideration, but it's unclear why a fourth meeting on this topic is needed. The council's role is to amend the zoning for the billings not to regulate remediation.
[1:37:57] This is the Council's 7th public hearing on the Baylands following six planning commission meetings and 20 years of analysis in public input.
[1:38:06] Council members have recently discussed adding more hearings and pushing back the vote on the Baylands planning documents.
[1:38:11] This is unacceptable. It's time to move the Baylands forward.
[1:38:15] Brisbane, the region and the state can no longer afford more delays on new housing. Thank you.
[1:38:19] Okay, and City Clerk, you said there was one more, and I didn't touch the name, sorry.
[1:38:27] It's Janet Naito, online.
[1:38:29] Okay, Janet, go ahead.
[1:38:35] Good evening. My name is Janet Naito. I am with the Center for Creative Land Recycling.
[1:38:41] I spoke before, I appeared before you guys, I think two meetings ago.
[1:38:46] I wanted to talk a little about a long-term stewardship. Prior to joining Seacler,
[1:38:52] I worked for DTSC. DTSC could also speak to long-term stewardship if they're present tonight.
[1:39:02] Long-term stewardship is an integral part of cleanup at a number of different sites. We do have
[1:39:09] we require financial assurance. We also require that people who are doing long-term stewardship
[1:39:17] or DTSC requires people who require or sites that require long-term stewardship to periodically review the cleanups to make sure they are still protective.
[1:39:32] We have a number of different sites where homeowners associations are required to conduct the monitoring and maintenance.
[1:39:44] Anybody doing work on a site that is capped is required to notify DTSC if it is a DTSC
[1:39:52] lead or the waterboard if it is a waterboard lead if you're going to penetrate the cap.
[1:40:00] So that, as Michelle explained earlier, procedures are in place to ensure that you're not
[1:40:06] going to have a situation or that you'll catch a situation if something goes wrong during that penetration.
[1:40:17] And that's pretty much all I had to say. Thank you very much for your time.
[1:40:22] Okay, thank you. Anyone else? City Clerk? Okay. No metamere. All right. Before we move on to the next
[1:40:30] topic, I would just ask staff. There's something that I felt was a very good question,
[1:40:35] like if staff could either find out the answer, where do we find the R-Dip for O-U-2? Do we know?
[1:40:49] The R-Dip for O-U-2 normally would be on geo-tracker, but it is not a completely final document.
[1:40:55] At this point it's a draft final, and it's just not available yet on geo-tracker, but it is very similar
[1:41:01] to the contents of the R-Dip for O-U-S-M. So when might it be available?
[1:41:08] I would let Stephanie respond to that.
[1:41:14] Yeah, both the R-dips for O-U-S-M and O-U-2 are in final draft form.
[1:41:23] I think we have a final round of comments with both agencies on the R-dips.
[1:41:32] And I want to finalize they will be posted.
[1:41:34] But at the last BB-Kag meeting, the water board and at the DTSC had agreed to bring them back to the BB-Kag for review before finalization.
[1:41:45] So that is the current plan.
[1:41:47] Okay, so we don't have a date on it.
[1:41:50] The date on the finalization? Correct.
[1:41:53] No, but I would say, I would hope before the end of the year.
[1:41:58] Yeah. Okay. I'm the finalization of the R-dips and the R-dips. Again, they're more detailed than the remediation, the remedial action plan, the RAPS, which is what Measure J. J. required us to have and have approved have been approved and the RAPS are a more of a larger global picture of the cleanup and all the various potential cleanup methodologies.
[1:42:22] Those have been approved and those went through a public comment period and that's what measure JJ required us to have approved fire to
[1:42:31] You know the project being approved. Do you have the drafts on your website?
[1:42:37] The drafts that there are dips? No.
[1:42:39] Again, we're still going through the process with the regulators and responding to all of their comments and questions.
[1:42:45] Okay, and then once that's finished.
[1:42:47] Yeah, they will be finalized and they'll be posted.
[1:42:50] Okay, do we have the drafts on our website?
[1:42:54] No, drafts are not generally shared at the public until their finalized.
[1:42:58] Okay, that is the agency's policies.
[1:43:01] Would you consider coming back to us next hearing and giving us a more firm date than maybe by the end of the year on the finalizations?
[1:43:12] Yes.
[1:43:13] Yes, I can do that.
[1:43:14] Yeah, that'd be great.
[1:43:16] Thank you.
[1:43:18] Okay.
[1:43:20] Moving on to this is the topic number eight planning commission recommendation, remediation
[1:43:28] reporting, and enforcement.
[1:43:31] Council questions starting with Council member Kern.
[1:43:34] No questions at this time.
[1:43:36] Okay.
[1:43:38] Council member Lens.
[1:43:39] I don't know either, but I appreciate the recommendations that were given by the Plan
[1:43:46] Commission.
[1:43:47] Okay.
[1:43:50] Mayor Potom Davis.
[1:43:54] So if remediation deadline is missed or require report reveals non-compliance, are there
[1:44:02] any remedies available to the city that are distinct from those available to DTSC, the regional
[1:44:09] water quality control board or the county environmental health agency and would
[1:44:15] executing any upon any of those remedies create liability for us.
[1:44:22] Well, the city's primary enforcement role is related to its land use permitting authority,
[1:44:30] so as the specific plan and I all contemplate the compliance with the remediation plans
[1:44:39] is a prerequisite for building permits for certificates of occupancy.
[1:44:45] So if the appropriate actions haven't been taken in the regulatory agencies haven't approved
[1:44:54] the work has been performed to their specifications, that's a basis for the city too.
[1:45:00] Again, depending on the phase of construction with hold a building permit or an occupancy permit and enforce things through those mechanisms.
[1:45:09] Thank you. That's all the questions I have in this section.
[1:45:12] Okay, then we have, let's see, cuts of my roll call.
[1:45:20] Just a clarification of page six of eight of the staff report.
[1:45:27] When it talked about the phasing of the specific plan chapter eight,
[1:45:31] It's a state approved remediation for OUSM and an OU-2 must be certified complete before construction permits are issued west of Caltering.
[1:45:45] Has that been debunked at this point?
[1:45:53] Yes, in prior hearing, I noted that that was a oversight or misrepresentation, because both the plan and the MMRP, both state that this would be a phase to approach, so the specific plan has more detail on that and presents the different phases.
[1:46:13] Thank you. And have we gotten any clarification from the water quality board or from the other regulation regulatory agencies if they would allow block by block remediation or have we have we confirmed what their usual procedures are for
[1:46:42] areas to be remediated?
[1:46:46] We haven't had those specific discussions.
[1:46:49] I would anticipate it's something larger than block by block.
[1:46:56] Maybe it's district by district.
[1:46:58] We can have those conversations.
[1:47:00] But I think previously when we were talking about
[1:47:04] the individual block phasing,
[1:47:06] I had more to do with the vertical build out
[1:47:09] and the timing of amenities, things like parks and such.
[1:47:12] That wasn't meant to imply that individual blocks would be remediated individually.
[1:47:18] They're the sites, it's larger than that in terms of what needs to be remediated before any construction can begin.
[1:47:25] Thank you.
[1:47:27] I would just follow up on what Councilmember O'Connell brought up.
[1:47:32] So has staff made that notation about the construction permits west of Caltering to be changed
[1:47:41] in the specific plant since you're saying that's not accurate?
[1:47:47] This specific plant has that in it, so the staff report is what's inaccurate.
[1:47:56] Okay.
[1:47:57] It's opposite what I was thinking.
[1:47:59] All right.
[1:47:59] Thank you.
[1:48:00] All right. We have a couple slips on this, and then I'm going to suggest we take a break
[1:48:05] after the public has a chance to ask questions. First one is Michelle Salmon, please.
[1:48:13] Great. I can see this thing I forgot to say last time. When we were discussing about what happened
[1:48:18] at the Google Building and that type of thing, concentrations of gases and other things will change
[1:48:27] over time and when Michelle said initially it was fine and then it wasn't. That is often
[1:48:35] the case and even the act of building over a site will cause a build-up of gas because it
[1:48:42] can no longer just release where it's not accountable or monitored because it'll become concentrated.
[1:48:49] So that's a cautionary tale and I just still feel that that's an area of vulnerability for us
[1:48:55] With this site, I think that with seed level rise,
[1:48:59] my push some of the stuff back up that we think
[1:49:03] is already passed through, that actually hasn't passed through yet.
[1:49:07] So I am still very concerned about the remediation
[1:49:11] and the type of thing that happened at the Google building.
[1:49:15] I read different stories about that.
[1:49:18] And I actually mentioned it in my comments
[1:49:20] when I reviewed the draft EIR.
[1:49:23] And I still don't feel happy about what we're doing.
[1:49:26] And we have the same problem out on any landfill,
[1:49:29] but this one in particular,
[1:49:31] especially with the slage lock
[1:49:32] and all of the different chemicals
[1:49:35] that haven't been investigated yet,
[1:49:37] like Lizari, fuel area, et cetera.
[1:49:40] So I think there's a lot more that lies beneath
[1:49:42] that we haven't seen yet.
[1:49:44] Thank you.
[1:49:46] Paul Boscale.
[1:49:51] Sorry?
[1:49:52] Oh, okay.
[1:49:54] Rob and lighter?
[1:50:05] So some of you know my other favorite topic and Council Member O'Connell brought it up,
[1:50:11] which is I had a city manager who used to say never let the development get ahead of
[1:50:18] the infrastructure and so you're always looking that you can see the whole picture and
[1:50:24] that you don't end up with a development that either doesn't have an infrastructure or that
[1:50:32] the next one won't fit in.
[1:50:35] So my answer is the sort of two-fold.
[1:50:38] One is a real requirement to have a single tentative map.
[1:50:42] And what that means, it's a map that actually then puts everything in it.
[1:50:46] The utilities, the drainage, the grading, everything on one map.
[1:50:51] So you can be sure that the east and west sides work together.
[1:50:55] Your specific plan allows the developer the choice of whether he wants to do one tentative map
[1:51:01] or two tentative maps, and it concerns because really the tentative map is the only way that you can really make sure that this development is going to work in conjunction with each other.
[1:51:12] And the other thing I would say is that the R-depth, which somebody said, what did it stand for, remedial design and implementation plan.
[1:51:21] So, these are the actual workings of how they're going to remediate OS-2 and OS-S-S-M and the Lamb-Fel.
[1:51:30] And if you notice they've only done the two, but JJ says they're going to remediate all these sites,
[1:51:37] and they should really be required to get the R-Dip for the Lamb-Fel as well.
[1:51:43] As I said to you before those sustainability zone is in the landfill, so they can't be in
[1:51:50] to work on the landfill if they don't get in our debt from the agencies.
[1:51:56] So we really need to make sure that we're looking at the whole thing, not that it will
[1:52:00] be built all together, but at least in your first documents, you'll get to see the whole thing.
[1:52:06] A single tenant of map will do that, and three are debts from the agency so that you can
[1:52:11] be sure that all those plans worked together, I think is critical to do right off the
[1:52:17] bat.
[1:52:18] Thank you.
[1:52:36] I had a letter from, that was written to the BDI by the Water Board in March. In March, they stated a concurrence
[1:52:48] on the draft room, medial design implementation plan for all you two, that they had questions.
[1:52:55] So, those questions have been on the table, for instance, March.
[1:53:00] Sure, I just looked at them. Thank you.
[1:53:06] Okay, so there's no comments on it.
[1:53:09] All right, we're going to take a 15 minute break and when we come back, we are going to start
[1:53:16] water.
[1:53:18] Thank you.
[2:12:25] On to water infrastructure, we will start with a staff report and then I understand applicant also has a staff report on water, et cetera.
[2:12:35] Okay, so we'll start with our staff report, please.
[2:12:39] Thank you Madam Mayor and members of the council.
[2:12:42] The evening we are now ready to talk about the water topic, which I know a lot of people have been very interested in.
[2:12:49] And with us this evening, it's our team from ESA and I'd like to introduce Todd Gordon, who will be making this slide presentation here.
[2:12:58] And then the full team is available for questions as well.
[2:13:02] And then as mentioned, BDI, the applicant will also have a presentation following.
[2:13:09] With further ado, it's Todd.
[2:13:12] Good evening, everybody.
[2:13:15] Before discussing the water supply findings, I'd like to briefly explain these.
[2:13:19] Could you speak up just short of sorry before discussing the water supply findings I'd like to briefly explain the scope of this presentation and the sources of information used in the EIR
[2:13:31] The analysis is based on the development program proposed by the applicant for his being development incorporated and the supporting technical studies prepared for the project
[2:13:49] supply reliability, under normal and dry your conditions, that WSA was reviewed and approved
[2:13:57] by cow water.
[2:14:00] BKF engineers prepared the infrastructure report which addresses the proposed water, waste
[2:14:05] water, and recycled water infrastructure, including conceptual infrastructure planning and
[2:14:10] phasing.
[2:14:12] ESA incorporated the relevant information from those documents into the EIR and to evaluate
[2:14:19] the potential environmental impacts associated with water supply. Today's presentation focuses
[2:14:25] on explaining that EIR's water supply analysis and conclusions, representatives of the applicant
[2:14:31] and the technical teams are also available to respond to more questions that come up tonight
[2:14:38] and their respective analysis, assumptions and proposed infrastructure.
[2:14:43] Sure.
[2:14:48] Oh, sorry.
[2:14:49] Intel, if you could advance to slide number four, are you ready to work number four?
[2:14:59] Yeah, we can.
[2:15:00] Go to the, yeah, that one's good. Thank you. I'll walk through the water supply components of the proposed bail-in-specific plan, including projected water demands, water supply availability, and reliability, the proposed water recycling facility, and infrastructure and approvals needed to serve the development. I'll also discuss how the proposed water supply approach addresses measure JJ.
[2:15:25] The City of Brisbane's existing water supply is not sufficient to serve the proposed
[2:15:30] bail-ins development in addition to its other planned demands. Under the proposed
[2:15:36] arrangement, cow water would become the water provider for the bail-ins, baby, and Sierra
[2:15:41] Point areas through an expansion of its south San Francisco district service area.
[2:15:47] Potable water would primarily come from the SFPUC regional water system, while a proposed water
[2:15:54] recycling facility within the baylands would supply recycled water for non-potable uses,
[2:16:00] reducing the project's demand for potable water. This arrangement would also make the water
[2:16:06] currently supplied by Brisbane to see a point available for other feature uses within the city.
[2:16:15] Next slide, please.
[2:16:19] At full buildout, the baylands is projected to require approximately 1,611
[2:16:25] an acre-feet of water annually of this approximately 71% of the demand would be met through
[2:16:32] potable water supplies with the remaining 29% supplied by recycled water.
[2:16:39] The use of recycled water would reduce the amount of potable water required to serve the
[2:16:43] development. The WSA incorporates these projected demands into its evaluation of water supply
[2:16:50] availability and reliability through 2045.
[2:16:55] Next slide.
[2:17:00] The water supply assessment evaluates the availability of water supplies to serve the baylands and other projected development through 2045, including under normal year, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions.
[2:17:14] Under normal year conditions, the assessment concludes that sufficient water supplies would be available to meet projected demands.
[2:17:21] Under drought conditions, the WSA identifies potential supply shortfalls across cow waters
[2:17:28] peninsula districts. Importantly, these potential shortages could occur with or without
[2:17:34] the bail-ins development and reflect broader regional water supply reliability challenges.
[2:17:42] During water shortages, cow water would implement its water shortage contingency plan, which
[2:17:48] establishes demand reduction measures and other actions to address shortages.
[2:17:53] These measures would apply to Bayland's customers in the same manner as existing customers.
[2:18:00] Additionally, cowwaters development offset program would require the project to offset its additional
[2:18:06] putable water demand through payment of applicable fees. Based on the WSA and supporting analysis,
[2:18:14] The final EIR concludes the impact utility one would be less than significant.
[2:18:21] Next slide.
[2:18:24] The specific plan also includes the construction of a water recycling facility with the
[2:18:29] treatment capacity of approximately 1 million gallons per day.
[2:18:33] The facility would be located within the baylands and would be owned and operated by cow
[2:18:38] water.
[2:18:39] The WRF would provide recycled water for non-potable uses, reducing the projects the man
[2:18:45] for potable water.
[2:18:47] At full buildout approximately 0.5T million gallons a day of recycled water would serve
[2:18:53] bail-ins uses, including landscape irrigation, industrial cooling, and non-residential
[2:19:00] toilet flushing.
[2:19:01] The facility is also planned to provide recycled water to customers and South San Francisco
[2:19:06] with up to approximately 0.43 million gallons a day available for delivery outside the
[2:19:12] bail-ins.
[2:19:13] The specific plan calls for the water recycling facility to be constructed concurrently with phase 1 development.
[2:19:22] However, the water supply assessment conservatively assumes that the facility would not begin providing recycled water until phase 2.
[2:19:31] Disapproach accounts for the possibility that recycled water production may not be available during the earliest stages of development.
[2:19:39] Overall, the WRF is an important component of the project's water supply strategy, reducing
[2:19:45] potable water demand within the baylands, while also providing a potential recycled water
[2:19:50] supply for South San Francisco.
[2:19:53] Next slide.
[2:19:56] This slide illustrates the water supply review and approval process, beginning with the initial
[2:20:01] application and continuing through subsequent development approvals.
[2:20:05] The first step is the water supply assessment which was completed in January 2025, in accordance with Senate Bill 610.
[2:20:15] The WSA evaluates projected water demands and the availability of water supplies under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions through 245.
[2:20:29] It also identifies and its structure needed to serve the proposed development.
[2:20:34] The second step is the best specific plan in EIR review, which is where we are today.
[2:20:41] The final EIR incorporates the WSA and evaluates water supply availability, reliability,
[2:20:49] and potential environmental impacts.
[2:20:51] However, certification of the EIR and approval of the specific plan would not by themselves
[2:20:57] establish a binding water service agreement.
[2:21:01] The third step occurs during the tentative maps approval process,
[2:21:07] Senate Bill 221 requires written verification of sufficient water supplies
[2:21:12] for qualifying residential subdivisions,
[2:21:16] which is generally those involving more than 500 dwelling units.
[2:21:20] For tentative maps that meet this threshold,
[2:21:23] the city must make the required water supply findings before approving the map.
[2:21:27] This provides an additional opportunity to confirm that adequate water supplies would be available as development moves forward.
[2:21:37] The final stage addresses the water service requirements that must be satisfied as a project proceeds towards site development and building permits.
[2:21:48] Under Measure J.J., a reliable water supply approved by the city must be secured before site development.
[2:21:55] But this requirement is separate from the environmental review process and must be satisfied
[2:22:01] before site development can proceed.
[2:22:05] Under Measure J.J., a reliable, oh sorry, the Brisbane Municipal Code also establishes
[2:22:12] a water service requirements associated with building permits.
[2:22:16] Cal Water has already issued a will serve letter indicating it's intent to provide water
[2:22:21] service to the project.
[2:22:22] However, binding water-service agreements and additional regulatory approvals would still be necessary, including a
[2:22:30] Revolves associated with cow water service area expansion. Overall, this timeline demonstrates that water supply is evaluated during the environmental review process with additional verification agreements and approvals required as a project proceeds towards development.
[2:22:49] Next slide.
[2:22:53] The proposed development would require new potable and recycled water infrastructure to serve
[2:22:58] the baylands.
[2:23:00] Potable water would be delivered through new transmission and distribution pipelines connected
[2:23:04] to the existing SFPC regional water system.
[2:23:10] The proposed infrastructure also includes approximately 3.16 million gallons of potable water
[2:23:16] storage capacity, along with pumping facilities and associated equipment to maintain adequate
[2:23:23] water pressure and fire protection.
[2:23:26] A separate recycled water distribution system would deliver water from the proposed water
[2:23:31] recycling facility to non-potable uses throughout the development.
[2:23:36] Infrastructure would be constructed in phases to correspond with the timing and location
[2:23:41] development. This approach would allow water facilities to be installed as needed while ensuring
[2:23:47] adequate service capacity is available before individual development phases proceed.
[2:23:54] Consisting with Measure JJ, the developer would be responsible for funding and constructing
[2:23:58] the water infrastructure necessary to serve the project. Next slide.
[2:24:07] The water supply assessment
[2:24:08] It concludes that sufficient supplies would be available to meet protected demands through
[2:24:13] 2045 under normal year conditions.
[2:24:17] Although potential shortages are identified during drought conditions,
[2:24:21] cow waters water shortage contingency plan provides a framework for managing those shortages.
[2:24:27] The proposed water recycling facility would also reduce potable water demand
[2:24:32] and provide recycled water to the balans and South San Francisco customers.
[2:24:38] Based on the WSA and supporting analysis, the final EIR concludes that the water supply
[2:24:44] impacts will be less than significant.
[2:24:47] Importantly, the requirements on Measure JJA remain in place.
[2:24:51] A reliable water supply approved by the city must be secured before site development
[2:24:56] can proceed.
[2:24:59] The necessary agreements and regulatory approvals would therefore need to be completed as
[2:25:04] project used for implementation. Overall, the water supply analysis supports the proposed
[2:25:10] specific plan, while Measure JJ provides an additional requirement to ensure that reliable
[2:25:15] water supplies are secured before development.
[2:25:21] That's all I have.
[2:25:24] Okay, if we have an African
[2:25:25] presentation as well.
[2:25:35] Good evening Mayor, City Council members. I'm Katie Lok Sunday with the
[2:25:39] Baylands team. I'll just give it a minute for our slides to get queued up
[2:25:57] while we're bringing those
[2:25:58] can go ahead and talk a little bit about reliable water supplies. So water infrastructure in the
[2:26:04] Bayland specific plan, as you just heard from staff was designed around compliance with measure
[2:26:08] J.J. That includes conservation efforts that are consistent with the sustainability framework,
[2:26:14] as well as a reliable water supply and protection from future flooding and sea level rise.
[2:26:20] If we go to the next slide, please,
[2:26:24] thank you. We'd like to start our presentation today
[2:26:28] by talking about the water supply for the balans. Again, you just heard some of this, but
[2:26:34] I will reiterate the project has a comprehensive water supply assessment that has been evaluated
[2:26:38] and approved by a California water service or cow water, who is identified as the water provider
[2:26:44] for the balans. The project has that water supply assessment, which also anticipates that the
[2:26:58] But this additional potable water demand will be offset through investments in water supply and conservation, as well as the new water recycling facility, which was just mentioned.
[2:27:08] The water recycling facility will reduce potable water consumption and the facility will still provide recycled water to other consumers in the region, contributing to a more resilient regional water system.
[2:27:19] if we go to the next slide please.
[2:27:25] So water recycling is of course a critical strategy for reducing
[2:27:28] potable water demand. These facilities work by taking wastewater and treating it with a series
[2:27:32] of processes to filter and disinfect the water before distributing it to non-potable uses.
[2:27:39] The treated water from the facility would be used for outdoor irrigation and designated indoor
[2:27:44] purple pipe uses such as toilet flushing in commercial buildings. And as you can see on the slide,
[2:27:51] purple pipe is used to designate reclaimed water and separate it from potable water.
[2:27:58] Next slide.
[2:28:00] Every section of the specific plan has been designed
[2:28:03] as an integrated system in compliance with the principles of the sustainability framework for
[2:28:08] the valence. Chapter 4 of the specific plan outlines the development standards that will ensure
[2:28:15] the project uses water efficiently and addresses impacts related to flooding, wetlands and storm
[2:28:21] water. You can see these development standards on the slide, but they range from building
[2:28:26] level standards to reduce water consumption to project-wide systems like the installation
[2:28:32] of a network of green infrastructure for storm water management.
[2:28:39] Next slide.
[2:28:42] The balens is of course part of a larger watershed that carries runoff from surrounding
[2:28:46] hillsides through the property and ultimately to San Francisco Bay. The specific plan
[2:28:51] proposes substantial improvements to the existing drainage system, including increasing the
[2:28:56] capacity of key channels and culverts and the construction of new green infrastructure
[2:29:01] and stormwater detention. Some of the green infrastructure includes bioswales, rain gardens,
[2:29:07] wetlands, and landscapes drainage areas which will capture and filter stormwater.
[2:29:13] A key feature of this management strategy is the stormwater detention area. This area provides critical
[2:29:19] storage for stormwater runoff while also incorporating ecological strategies to improve water quality.
[2:29:27] The detention basin is also a critical connection for stormwater to flow through visitation
[2:29:32] creek and into San Francisco Bay. And this is also one of the reasons we are opposed to setting
[2:29:38] aside 45 acres of available area for a future high-speed rail light maintenance facility.
[2:29:44] Not only is that planned in consistent with measure JJ, but setting aside those 45 acres would mean cutting the stormwater detention area nearly in half.
[2:29:55] As you can see on this slide, the BDI proposed specific plan included a 13.8.
[2:30:00] Acre, detention area, but these staff proposed specific plan only includes a 7.2 acre detention area, and that is to accommodate the LMS area.
[2:30:10] So we ask that the council consider allowing the larger detention area to remain so we can ensure storm water is properly managed at the baylands.
[2:30:20] These comprehensive storm water management strategies, along with the projects for liable water supply, ambitious conservation commitments and flood protection measures establish a clear path
[2:30:30] Free Water Smart Project that complies with Measure JJ and the Sustainability Framework.
[2:30:36] Thank you.
[2:30:38] Okay.
[2:30:39] Thank you very much.
[2:30:43] We go on to Council Questions.
[2:30:45] Let us start with Council Member O'Connell.
[2:30:50] Thank you.
[2:30:55] So,
[2:30:58] in Measure JJ, we ask that there's a reliable water supply.
[2:31:02] And this is saying that we've got less than 20 years reliable water supply for this plan with Cal Water, just to 2045, so 19 years from today.
[2:31:18] And I'm curious as to if that's long enough to have a reliable water supply when they're not even sure they'll be building the
[2:31:31] the water recycling facility for 20 years so wouldn't their guarantee be gone from
[2:31:41] the water supply even before they build the recycling facility
[2:31:50] potentially.
[2:31:54] So at least speak to the part of the 20 years which is, it's an aspect of state law so
[2:32:03] state law water code section 10910910 requires the water supply assessment to buy the water supply
[2:32:10] over that 20 year time horizon. So that's why the 2045 number is stated and that's really
[2:32:18] entirely the reason. There are probably others here who can speak beyond that but that is why
[2:32:25] that 20 year horizon is provided.
[2:32:29] Thank you.
[2:32:33] Okay Mayor Procham Davis,
[2:32:49] the proposed
[2:32:50] arrangement transfers the Baylands, BD and Sierra Point from the city's water service areas
[2:32:57] to cow water with the intention of freeing up existing city water supply for other areas of
[2:33:03] Brisbane from Sierra Point. What is there anything that guarantees that the water currently
[2:33:11] allocated to Sierra Point will become available to support the city, the city's other general
[2:33:17] is there anything that does that just happen? Or does there need to be something in writing?
[2:33:26] I'm happy to answer that. So essentially you have your supply guarantee, the maximum amount
[2:33:34] under agreement with Moscow that we would be able to have. That's what that is. So essentially,
[2:33:44] If we transfer this, if this is what happens with this process, we're for Sierra Point
[2:33:51] these other areas,
[2:33:54] we would not be transferring our guarantees.
[2:33:57] It would just be that service area would be taken over by another entity that has the
[2:34:02] possible water necessary to serve it.
[2:34:06] So essentially, that stays with the city, with our utility district, it does not get
[2:34:12] transitions part of this boundary area. So then would you be able to accommodate additional
[2:34:22] growth essentially to the extent of how Sierra Point, how much Sierra Point currently is
[2:34:29] is right now? Yes, technically that would be available for any number of use. Yeah, that water
[2:34:36] allocation would be available to the city to decide how they want to utilize it. I would
[2:34:42] just point that I don't know if the reason for the zero point transfer is to open up additional
[2:34:49] guarantees. Certainly that is a product of that transition, but I don't know if that was
[2:34:54] the driving factor behind that change. Do you have any sense of like what percentage overall
[2:35:02] zero point is within the city's water alignment?
[2:35:15] It doesn't have to be perfect. I know it was
[2:35:19] one second I think I was I pulled some of this off.
[2:35:32] I don't have the number right now, but I can
[2:35:34] provide that. Okay. It's just more out of curiosity.
[2:35:40] I can't remember Lens. Yeah. If I could just
[2:35:45] just add a quick ask to council member Davis's questions if we can get fiscal analysis of what
[2:35:57] impacts that would be on the city's water service and the last thing, you know, if we
[2:36:05] remove Sierra Point, the last thing we want to do is raise water rates for everybody else,
[2:36:10] if that was out of our customer around. So if we can get that fiscal analysis, that would
[2:36:17] be great. And so in regards to the non-binding letter of understanding, so when did this
[2:36:25] and the other parties signed that letter.
[2:36:39] Well, they're pulling that up.
[2:36:40] I do want to just make a reference.
[2:36:42] I did find my answer about 9.9% of our overall
[2:36:47] supply guarantee is associated with CR point.
[2:36:50] I was going to guess 10.
[2:36:59] Was the question about the will serve letter or
[2:37:02] a different agreement?
[2:37:03] It is that, you know, there's the parties that
[2:37:07] they all signed a non-binding letter,
[2:37:09] understanding. So when was that? And also if that letter is still current.
[2:37:22] You looking at the EIR?
[2:37:24] I'm just, yeah, I mean it's in the staff report.
[2:37:30] See, background, right, it's in the under background, second paragraph, last sentence, Kalwar,
[2:37:37] city, the city, Bayshore, sanitary district and valence development, east, assigned a non-binding
[2:37:43] letter of understanding, establishing a framework for this arrangement.
[2:37:56] Yeah, and I see that's one of the reference documents in the EIR. Let me pull up the date for you.
[2:38:02] Okay. It was 2024.
[2:38:04] or 2024. Okay, is there a do date on that? Is it still current or did it expire?
[2:38:12] I don't
[2:38:12] know that we have the letter right here. Let me have to go back to the reference file for
[2:38:18] that. So give us one second to figure that out. Okay, any of the parties that are in the room
[2:38:23] can they answer that question? It's the current letter is still current. No, I posit you are taxing
[2:38:29] our memories here. But we did so I made the I believe it was March of 2024 and as far as I know
[2:38:36] and but we'll double check. I believe it's still active. All right. All right. Thank you.
[2:38:43] Council member Kern.
[2:38:46] Thank you Madam Mayor. So a question from the staff report which is page seven
[2:38:52] out of ten or nine out of one eighty nine not sure which we're going by. Your table is beautiful on this page
[2:38:58] I appreciate that. My question is, well, first of all, let me say, the city treats the first
[2:39:03] building permit as site development under JJ and it says we have to have a water agreement
[2:39:08] by that point in time. I'm just curious, what happens if we're in the middle of colliding
[2:39:15] grading infrastructure development and I'm curious what our legal remedies would be if at that
[2:39:21] time Cal Water did not execute an agreement, and they are the ones who did not execute.
[2:39:29] What would we do in that situation?
[2:39:32] Hopefully, we wouldn't wait for the very last day, but I could get what it would actually
[2:39:37] be called to the applicant to secure alternative water rights in order to continue with
[2:39:43] the development.
[2:39:45] So, they can speak to some of their contingency plans as well.
[2:39:56] Again, council members, as I mentioned earlier, we do have existing SFPUC retail water and that
[2:40:06] has been defined as enough water to get us through remediation and construction phase.
[2:40:15] So we wouldn't necessarily be going belly up, but we also wouldn't, we wouldn't move forward
[2:40:21] until we had a reliable water supply.
[2:40:25] So yeah, it's an excellent question.
[2:40:30] But I think the realities of how these,
[2:40:34] once you're actually in the field
[2:40:36] and your under construction, you need to make sure
[2:40:38] that you've got those will serve letters
[2:40:40] and you have your water supply set up.
[2:40:42] But in terms of your question, which
[2:40:44] is what happens if you're in the middle of remediation,
[2:40:46] we do have water for remediation and construction
[2:40:48] are existing water, and then we will likely have our green with cow water hammered out
[2:41:01] weight before our first building permit.
[2:41:05] Hopefully.
[2:41:06] Thank you.
[2:41:08] Okay.
[2:41:08] Thank you.
[2:41:11] A question maybe for moths and I don't know if we have an answer.
[2:41:14] So if we remove customers from Sierra Point, and it's mentioned that potentially there might
[2:41:22] be enough water to service other areas in the city, do we risk having our Bosca allocation
[2:41:30] reduced?
[2:41:33] Not under current situations, there's many jurisdictions that have unused supply guarantees
[2:41:39] that have been sitting in their portfolios for numbers of years.
[2:41:43] and there's been no precedence with that being removed, but this is a little different situation
[2:41:49] because those water rights have been there for years. This would be us making a dramatic change,
[2:41:56] a reduction of at least 9-10%. I can double check, but my understanding is that it would not impact
[2:42:07] are supply guarantee?
[2:42:09] And is that something you ask them or is that an assumption that you're making?
[2:42:14] That is, that is why we're seeing the, this by guarantees and how those function
[2:42:20] within Bosca rights, but I can certainly check with our representative and confirm with
[2:42:27] the Executive Director.
[2:42:29] Okay.
[2:42:29] Thank you.
[2:42:29] I'd appreciate follow-up on that.
[2:42:33] Another round of questions, starting with Council Member Lens.
[2:42:35] All right, so let's see. Okay, the water supply assessment, you had mentioned the consultant
[2:42:48] that created that. Do you mind repeating who the consultant was? It was actually it was
[2:42:55] the EKI prepared it for cold water for cold water. Okay, so it wasn't the developer had hired
[2:43:03] It was okay.
[2:43:03] Cal matter.
[2:43:04] That's correct.
[2:43:05] The water agency under the under water launched the agency's responsibility to prepare the
[2:43:10] plan and they hired EKI to do that.
[2:43:13] Okay.
[2:43:13] And then the city peer reviewed the plan.
[2:43:16] The ESA that our environmental consultant did review it in connection with the preparation
[2:43:22] of the utilities and water analysis and the EIR.
[2:43:25] That's correct.
[2:43:25] Okay.
[2:43:26] So in the document it talks about the water supply assessment assumes the water recycling
[2:43:31] facility will not operate until phase two, and that contradicts the specific plan. So if you
[2:43:41] want to explain that and what are the potential ramifications for this position?
[2:43:46] Sure, and I think Todd spoke a little bit about that during his presentation, so I don't
[2:43:50] know if you want to start with the response there.
[2:43:53] Yeah, I think that's basically a conservative approach, so the ability to serve the
[2:44:00] is not contingent on the recycled water facility being operational at that time, so it's not
[2:44:07] relying on the recycled water to be able to provide you know, put a little water to the development.
[2:44:18] We'll come back, you know, further questions and regards to the type of facility. All right, thank you.
[2:44:25] Your program, Davis?
[2:44:31] So the finding that the billions will not create a net increase in water demand
[2:44:34] relies on cow water's development offset program. What demand reduction measures are expected
[2:44:41] to result from the offset payments beyond a water recycling facility or is there anything?
[2:44:53] Yes, I'd actually like to introduce our project lead from cow water, Scott Wagner, who
[2:45:00] Um, can tell you and talk to you a little bit more about the development offset fee and how that is actually amazing and and used.
[2:45:08] Scott, please.
[2:45:14] Good evening.
[2:45:15] Good evening, Scott Wagner and the Director of Water Resources for California Water Service.
[2:45:20] Scott Water was directly involved in the water supply assessment in looking at the Bayland specific plan.
[2:45:27] The intent, as was discussed, was the first established that there would be enough portable
[2:45:33] water that cow water could provide for the development.
[2:45:38] And so we took a very conservative approach to say, can we meet the portable concerns?
[2:45:43] And then we will look at the recycled water component to be able to reduce portable demands
[2:45:49] when it comes online.
[2:45:51] We are primarily served by the SIPUC in terms of the water that we receive similar to Brisbane.
[2:45:59] And the intent is that the individual supply guarantee that cow water has would be able to cover the additional demands of the Bayland specific plan.
[2:46:10] We recognize that the SIPUC has a water availability and impacts potentially in a drought.
[2:46:18] and so we have established through the California Public Utilities Commission,
[2:46:23] a development offset fee, which is designed to create and generate funding to create additional
[2:46:32] supply sources for the region. And that is the intent of that. So the intent for this
[2:46:38] development is the recycled water to continue to help and reduce portable demands. We also have
[2:46:46] conservation programs that would be instituted and utilized to continue to help affect
[2:46:53] demands into the future.
[2:46:56] Okay.
[2:46:59] All right.
[2:47:00] Do we move on to Council Member O'Connell?
[2:47:04] Do we know what the effect of changing water service suppliers would be on the tenants and users
[2:47:12] out at zero point, being a concerned user of water at zero point and having quite large bills
[2:47:21] for a very small facility. I would like to know what the intended consequences of changing
[2:47:29] to Cal Water Reprivate Supplier would be.
[2:47:38] Certainly, there would be a change in cost. Cal Water
[2:47:44] as their own rates and fees and we have ours based on our costs and overhead, so there would
[2:47:50] be a change, a little bit of a change there.
[2:47:54] Operationally, it's some minimal changes, there's a pressure difference between our two different
[2:47:59] systems, but again, those are relatively minor things to work out.
[2:48:07] I don't know if anybody else has anything else to share.
[2:48:11] as a follow-up isn't it quite usual that private water suppliers can have rates that are
[2:48:19] much different than municipal water suppliers because they need to pay investors.
[2:48:29] It's possible. I have looked closely at the rates to see what the difference is at
[2:48:35] point. But they certainly can marry. Thank you. Council member Kern. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
[2:48:47] Kevin back to the staff report page 710 or page 9 of 189 in the fantastic table that you have here.
[2:48:55] The table is does say steps required not a timeline, but I am curious moving between step three,
[2:49:00] which is F-E-I-R certification and specific plan adoption to the other agency approvals.
[2:49:06] Do you have a rough idea of what that timeline is?
[2:49:13] Yes.
[2:49:14] No one's holding you.
[2:49:15] I'll do it.
[2:49:29] So it'd be part of the Lafco process and probably nine months to a year somewhere
[2:49:35] around there.
[2:49:36] That's just a testament, but if others have other, I'm seeing heads kind of going like this.
[2:49:42] Okay.
[2:49:43] Thank you so much.
[2:49:44] I'm going to piggyback on the question about cost.
[2:49:52] Are there any state or regulatory agencies since water is a life safety health issue that
[2:50:02] actually put a limitation on cost to customers,
[2:50:09] such as maybe a percentage over your operating
[2:50:12] costs?
[2:50:16] Do we know?
[2:50:17] Could we find out?
[2:50:21] We can look into that, I'm not aware of anything off top of my head, but I don't know if anybody else has.
[2:50:28] I mean, the rates are based off of, I mean, there's a study done, the rates are based off of established costs, overhead,
[2:50:36] treatment, all those different categories. So it's a public, publicly, you know, it's a public document, as far as establishing those costs, I believe they're reviewed, you know,
[2:50:45] I don't know if I want to want to speak on their rate process, but they're publicly available
[2:50:52] and that process has to be quantified to make sense.
[2:50:56] And then do those rates have to be approved by the CPUC?
[2:51:01] They do.
[2:51:01] And do you know that perhaps, sir, if you could tell us, are there any particular state guidelines
[2:51:09] you must follow in terms of rates with caps?
[2:51:12] In that dealing with a private entity, you're there to make money.
[2:51:16] What if you decide the corporation needs more money?
[2:51:19] Because Cal Water is very big.
[2:51:22] It's a very good question.
[2:51:25] The California Public Utilities Commission is the one responsible to review all of the water rates that are recommended by Cal Water.
[2:51:33] It is a very formal and specific three year process.
[2:51:37] Every three years, there is a general rate case that is submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission.
[2:51:42] utilities commission recommending any changes in rates to all customer classes and any potential
[2:51:52] rate variations that there may be. There is a approximately one-to-two-year process where the
[2:52:00] public utilities commission through California advocates reviews the request for additional
[2:52:07] capital, the changes to expenses, the new rates, there is then a discussion back and forth
[2:52:14] before the commission establishes the new rates on a three-year basis.
[2:52:20] Thank you.
[2:52:21] That's very helpful.
[2:52:23] All right.
[2:52:24] Moving along in questions, let us start with Council Member Kern.
[2:52:30] Thank you, Madam Mayor.
[2:52:34] Covered in the Baylands specific plan regarding water is about the, there's some information there about the mechanics of the piping, regarding land settlement. I'm just wondering, do we have any sort of performance bonds or warranties, and if we do how long are they and what kind of coverage is it based upon settlement alone that the pipes would be damaged?
[2:53:08] We certainly, we certainly, for capital construction, we would have certain guarantees in place.
[2:53:17] I think that would be something that we could look at in a closely developed agreement to see what the appropriate limits are and the protections are.
[2:53:26] This obviously is a more nuanced area when you compare to other built-out locations.
[2:53:36] Hence the question. Thanks, Madison.
[2:53:39] Council member O'Connell.
[2:53:43] Piggy backing on that. Once the water pipes and the water system is put in, and perhaps that is being serviced by cow water,
[2:53:54] would cow water own the pipes and infrastructure also, and in that respect, also own the liability for any settlement or degradation of the system.
[2:54:06] And if so initiating that new water system is going to be expensive, and I'm assuming in the rate structure, the cow water would put out to the PUC to get an approval of rates.
[2:54:22] It's going to be the cost of building that infrastructure and putting it in and or acquiring it if it's built for them and
[2:54:33] Also the water treatment facility, so wouldn't all that go into the PUC's determination if a rate was
[2:54:43] Fair or not for those rate holders and so it could be because it's a new system and a new service
[2:54:49] It could be quite expensive for anyone who's receiving water from that system and or existing tenants that may be forced onto that water system.
[2:55:02] Is that a true depiction of how rates might be assessed for the bail-ins and for customers out on baby and zero point?
[2:55:18] What I would say is that with respect to the cost of the initial infrastructure, the treatment,
[2:55:25] the facility, the pipes, everything, that's a lot of that's still subject to negotiations.
[2:55:33] I know that the developer in Cal Water need to come to an agreement on those terms,
[2:55:39] and that's something that needs to be addressed at that best part of that.
[2:55:43] whether you're going to see paths through costs for infrastructure improvements to
[2:55:47] code, you know, to rate pairs. I don't believe so, but I'm not the best person to speak to that.
[2:55:58] I'll wait till my next question.
[2:56:00] So thank you.
[2:56:04] Okay.
[2:56:04] Council Member Lens.
[2:56:06] Yes.
[2:56:10] This is a question for either Stephanie or Scott.
[2:56:13] Scott, right?
[2:56:15] Okay.
[2:56:15] So, we'll recycle water but use for all non-potable uses as allowed by California law.
[2:56:23] So, I notice that we're not providing recycled water inside homes.
[2:56:32] And so, I'm curious if, you know, are we maximizing the allowable non-potable water use?
[2:56:45] in the bayonets and if not why.
[2:56:54] Yeah, the current specific plan talks about recycled water for irrigation, cooling, and
[2:57:02] flushing in commercial buildings.
[2:57:04] At this point in time, the systems that we're contemplating, there are still health and
[2:57:11] acceptability issues with pumping recycled water into homes on the system that we're contemplating
[2:57:18] buying.
[2:57:18] But yeah, we do think in terms of the irrigation and the amount of parks and open space and greenways that we're putting in,
[2:57:27] we are, you know, that's a very significant part of the water use at the baylands.
[2:57:33] So we do feel like we're maximizing it out without compromising or addressing human health issues by piping it into homes.
[2:57:43] Okay, Scott, can you, because as far as I know, granted, I'm not an expert like you all are.
[2:57:51] You can use potable water inside homes for flashing a toilet, other uses, and that's the law.
[2:58:03] So, maybe that isn't what you envision, but my question is, are we maximizing what California law it allows?
[2:58:11] and it sounds like perhaps we are not.
[2:58:15] It's a more complicated question and we can bring you more information at the next hearing,
[2:58:22] which we'll talk about water infrastructure.
[2:58:24] We did look very carefully at this and you are correct, California law does allow recycled
[2:58:28] water into residences, but it's a certain type of system that has to be heavily monitored
[2:58:36] and super engineered and really 24-7 monitoring to do that and that is not the kind of water
[2:58:42] recycling facility that we're designed. What you see mostly when you see programs like that
[2:58:47] are municipal water suppliers or water agencies who have extremely large system 60 employees 24-7 engineers
[2:59:01] or, you know, watching that kind of a system 24-hour basis, and monitoring the water all the
[2:59:08] time.
[2:59:09] And those are the kinds of things that you need to put in place in order to kind of safely
[2:59:13] allow recycled water to be in a hole.
[2:59:17] And we all know, even if it's just flushing, how much dogs and children love toilet water.
[2:59:23] So it is really, you know, a serious, and we looked at it very carefully, and it is a very serious
[2:59:28] question.
[2:59:28] and appreciate, you know, the question of whether we're maximizing the recycling, but we looked very
[2:59:35] hard at that question about whether it was the system that we're designing would be safe and
[2:59:43] for an acceptable in a residential setting. That's the sensitivity. Thank you. It's got, if
[2:59:53] you
[3:00:00] For a cycle of water, or pretty high. And because they are so high, that's why California allows a
[3:00:06] cycle of water to be installed in homes, purplifies it's all in homes. So I'm assuming that if California
[3:00:17] it all allows it. It's not that dangerous. But you're you're an expert on that and if you
[3:00:25] wait a minute, please. I just want to start by saying the water supply assessment was really
[3:00:30] looking at the recycled water needs per the specific plan. Exactly. What I will say is you see
[3:00:37] more of recycled water in toilets and other indoor usage in more commercial applications than
[3:00:45] in homes. For one it is the monitoring and the reach of making sure that it is safe as was mentioned.
[3:00:56] That is correct. For homes you really have to have the support structure of making sure that it is of the right quality that is not being used in the wrong way.
[3:01:06] There are very specific requirements of monitoring it making sure there are not leaks.
[3:01:12] So there is a whole other level of requirement for homes and you really see it still more in the commercial space than the indoor residential space.
[3:01:25] Excuse me.
[3:01:27] We need to extend the meeting.
[3:01:29] I need a motion and a second please extend the meeting for an hour.
[3:01:33] Send the second.
[3:01:37] Oh, you're asking for a second.
[3:01:38] I will second.
[3:01:40] All in favor.
[3:01:41] Hi.
[3:01:41] I'm going to post?
[3:01:43] Yeah. Okay.
[3:01:44] So, I mean, I get that.
[3:01:46] So, I'm just going to give direction then to staff that I would like for us to get further information in regards to applying the maximum California allowed use of recycled water in all areas of the development site.
[3:02:11] Thank you very much.
[3:02:14] Council member, who are we on?
[3:02:17] Oh, they're pro-tomedabes.
[3:02:22] So the water recycling facilities
[3:02:24] intended to serve not only the bail-ins,
[3:02:27] but also other cow water customers,
[3:02:29] if I'm understanding correctly.
[3:02:31] What portion of the facilities, capital, operating and maintenance costs
[3:02:34] will be the responsibility of the bail-ins developer.
[3:02:37] And what portion will be allocated to other users
[3:02:40] who benefit from the facility, how will these costs
[3:02:43] responsibilities be established?
[3:02:52] I think it's a U question.
[3:03:00] I think those arrangements are still being determined.
[3:03:03] And we definitely would be able to answer that as that's
[3:03:06] available, but it's definitely still being.
[3:03:08] But would you say that, I mean, because there are other
[3:03:15] rate pairs would be benefiting that not all the costs
[3:03:18] would be born by the developer?
[3:03:21] I think there's a discussion of the development of the treatment plant and then the extension
[3:03:28] of the pipelines to be able to serve other customers and that's often where there can
[3:03:32] be a distinguished distinguishing of the costs.
[3:03:37] And when do you expect to work that out?
[3:03:41] That is to be determined.
[3:03:42] We do not have a timeline at this point, though we are actively working on it.
[3:03:47] You're in discussions.
[3:03:48] Correct.
[3:03:49] Okay. All right. I have a question.
[3:03:56] In our own city water, when we build, we also account
[3:04:00] for maintenance to infrastructure. And if we remove all the customers that's here a point,
[3:04:05] and those are water lines and sewer lines that we currently maintain, what happens to
[3:04:13] the costs to maintain all of those points of infrastructure?
[3:04:21] For the city system, we would look at our overall O&M, you know, our overall cost with
[3:04:26] system in place, part of our upcoming utility rate study, we'll be to consider those
[3:04:33] possibilities. I think the fiscal analysis will also look a little bit more detail about
[3:04:40] what those impacts are going to be with respect to the utility changes as part of this
[3:04:49] that city still being undertaken. So I guess what I'm also getting at here is would we be issuing
[3:04:59] bills for sewer rates to see our point customers, even though they're receiving water from
[3:05:06] someone else, would cow water be issuing their own bills, would the city be doing that? How does that work?
[3:05:13] On the water side, it would be the utility operator cow water would be doing the billing,
[3:05:17] on the sewer side, for the portions to your point, it would still be City of Brisbane.
[3:05:22] Okay, and since the water lines are already there and belong to the City of Brisbane,
[3:05:27] would they be putting in their own water lines or using our water lines?
[3:05:31] That would be part of the negotiation for the transfer.
[3:05:35] Okay.
[3:05:35] They would be, the idea that we would not, if that was transfer, we would not retain ownership.
[3:05:40] Okay.
[3:05:42] All right, Council Member O'Connell.
[3:05:43] Not
[3:05:51] sure if this is a question or it gets into discussion, I still have concerns about what the water rates may be for our affected customers that have been part of the Brisbane water system and paying for their fees and what the implications of that of this transition may or may not be.
[3:06:17] And since we don't have water agreement and I know there was an initial attempt at a water
[3:06:26] contract that came to the subcommittee and has not been acted upon and has not been
[3:06:33] approved. I think it's been sent back to the drawing board. But I just have some concerns about
[3:06:41] those potential impacts of giving up city infrastructure and where the
[3:06:50] cost burden would be on the city and I don't think those have been able to
[3:06:55] be answered because but we may get some of that in the financial discussion to
[3:07:01] come so keep that in mind that I'll be looking for those. Thank you. Council member
[3:07:10] Thank you, Madam Mayor, this is my last question.
[3:07:13] My question is around redundancy.
[3:07:15] So if the water recycling facility is to go down either from a mechanical problem or contamination,
[3:07:23] it doesn't matter what the problem is.
[3:07:24] But if the water recycling facility is not able to produce water, we're going to have...
[3:07:30] Probably use potable water. I'm guessing, but what does that come from? And what's the backup plan of something like that happens?
[3:07:43] I can take an attempt at answering that one. So essentially, the potable supply would be associated in that scenario is my guess. If recycled water is not available, potable water should still be available, whether, you know, and again, this is not for a long time, long term, you know, the redundancy would be able to help out.
[3:08:06] in the event of an issue, and while that issue is being worked out, before the recycled water comes back online.
[3:08:13] If I don't know if Kelwater has anything else to add to that, but that's generally how you would operate in that scenario.
[3:08:23] I can add to that to just confirm that the intent would be to keep water flowing in the recycled water pipeline,
[3:08:30] and that would be using potable water until the recycled water was available again.
[3:08:35] So that is part of the water calculation to make sure that that could be provided for.
[3:08:40] Thank you.
[3:08:42] May I approach him, Davis?
[3:08:47] If the offset programs, requirements, or cost change before the bill ends, connects to the system,
[3:08:52] am I correct to assume that B.I. is responsible for these increases to cover these increases?
[3:09:04] I'm seeing nons.
[3:09:11] Are you asking the question of staff for the water company?
[3:09:15] Anyone who wants to answer?
[3:09:16] I would assume the water company would be the most appropriate entity to answer,
[3:09:27] but
[3:09:27] that is the discussion and the negotiation would be on those costs and any changes in those costs.
[3:09:34] Got it, right.
[3:09:36] Part of the ongoing conversation.
[3:09:38] Got it.
[3:09:40] That's the last of my questions.
[3:09:42] The rest that I had were already covered by other council members, so.
[3:09:45] Comments member lens.
[3:09:48] All right.
[3:09:51] Okay, just confirming that we've established that actually, you know what, if I can just get confirmation.
[3:09:59] You know, there's a lot of talk about
[3:10:01] In regards to desk control and construction.
[3:10:04] You know, using Brisbane's water, using SAP C water.
[3:10:09] Obviously, the water that Brisbane gets is SAP UC.
[3:10:13] Right?
[3:10:13] So let's just get that sorted out.
[3:10:18] So the water that will be used for dust control and construction is that coming from the
[3:10:25] Brisbane supply chain or is that coming directly from San Francisco?
[3:10:32] Can one of you answer that question, please?
[3:10:37] Yes, and I apologize for the confusion, but it is a confusing historical and set of facts
[3:10:43] water and water supply out at the bailouts. The water we will be using again, we have our own
[3:10:52] SFPUC water. Is it Brisbane water? Or is it no? If it's coming from SFPUC. Yes, well, your water comes
[3:10:59] from SFPUC too. And in fact, most of the peninsula will come from SFPUC. So it's the Sanchez code thing.
[3:11:05] Then it's coming directly from San Francisco. But our pipes are in Brisbane. I know, but
[3:11:10] And our water bills come to our Brisbane address from SFPUC.
[3:11:14] So we are in your service area, but the bail-ins has been relying on historic water.
[3:11:22] And in fact, our deed goes back to 1890 and it was a water deal with the Crystal Springs
[3:11:30] Water Company before SFPUC ever actually existed and before the Cindy of Brisbane existed.
[3:11:36] So our water is the, you know, the oldest thing out there, right now, and it is our water legally and historically our water, so yeah, that's the water and we currently use it now, for businesses on the landfill, and so does Gold and State Lumber, so just transdab all of the tunnel road are on, in Brisbane, on SFPUC water, in the Brisbane water service area, but it's historic, what,
[3:12:06] SFPUC calls retail water. Okay, so your water is separate. Okay, well, that's that's the bucket of water. You've got a 1MGD contract with SFPUC city of Brisbane
[3:12:20] That's a separate pot of water from what we're using on the bail-ins. Okay, so that was my question from us
[3:12:29] Can you confirm that none of Brisbane's
[3:12:32] things, a lot from SAPUC that we currently have, will be used for contraption or does control
[3:12:39] out in the bay lines.
[3:12:42] I have, after double check, and see what the specific plan called out for it, but based
[3:12:47] on the comment tonight, as of water is available on site, and they've been utilizing it,
[3:12:55] and I don't see any reason why we would have to provide our supplies part of that construction.
[3:13:00] Yeah, I don't see why we would either, but if we can just confirm, you know, or if you have that confirmation.
[3:13:06] Well, I think I think that everything that we talked about is intended to be consistent in the specific plan, but there's obviously enough confusion about it that I would treat this as one of the...
[3:13:20] at it within the plan, so that the question is answered definitively, the tracks along the
[3:13:27] wing that we've had the conversation so far tonight.
[3:13:30] Great, thank you very much for including that in this specific plan.
[3:13:33] Okay, so gentlemen from Cal Water, please put your fingers in your ears while I ask this next question.
[3:13:47] Since the baylands is getting water from the S.F.P.U.C. directly, why do you need
[3:13:54] cow water? Why don't you just get potable water from San Francisco? Why are we
[3:13:59] going through this exercise?
[3:14:03] If you have historic water rights that go back to
[3:14:06] Crystal Springs, you're talking about the Holgus water fountain, 1911.
[3:14:11] 18 years ago. So why? Why need a commercial supplier versus a municipal supplier?
[3:14:25] We don't have enough water to to for the full buildout of the the bailouts.
[3:14:31] We have enough water to do construction and remediation. So it's based on your existing water use right now for the retail because we are a retail customer.
[3:14:38] There's not enough water for the full build out of the bailouts, so they've given you an allocation.
[3:14:45] Well, it's not exactly an allocation, it's...
[3:14:50] We use SFPUC water and so you kind of establish an existing water use.
[3:14:57] And that existing water use is not a...
[3:15:00] Off to obviously cover the full bail-ins full build out. We have had discussions with SFPUC just about extending
[3:15:10] and expanding that retail program.
[3:15:19] And it's a very complicated discussion. SFPUC is not expanding
[3:15:28] any other retail customers right now. We,
[3:15:34] however, in the EIR, we did study SFPUC expansion,
[3:15:41] and it is an alternative that could be potentially relied upon if the cow water agreement
[3:15:51] doesn't come to fruition.
[3:15:57] SFPUC is, you know, under a lot of pressure to reduce their water uses, you know, to also supply
[3:16:03] water to two large customers who don't have a guaranteed supply.
[3:16:07] City of Brisbane has a 1 million gallon day guarantee of water from SFPUC.
[3:16:16] There are two other large cities in the Bosque arrangement, Sunnyvale and San Jose that don't have a guarantee.
[3:16:26] And so, those two cities are very concerned about anybody getting water before they get their guarantee set.
[3:16:34] So, for a myriad of reasons and those were just kind of the big highlights of why SFUC is not looking to expand their water base.
[3:16:44] that expanding our current retail was not an option.
[3:16:50] SFPCC says they don't have the water and that's what's discussed in the EIR under the alternative.
[3:16:56] But I think that that can always be re-looked at if it needs to be a plan B.
[3:17:02] Okay, thank you.
[3:17:03] But we like our friends at Cal Water and we've worked very well with them to get to this point
[3:17:07] and work through the WSA and the EIR issues.
[3:17:10] I'm working on the, you know, the agreements
[3:17:12] and hashing it all out.
[3:17:14] So we're pretty confident on our partnership
[3:17:16] with CalWater.
[3:17:19] Yeah, thank you.
[3:17:21] Mayor Potem, Davis, did you say you have no further questions?
[3:17:24] Okay, so we move on to...
[3:17:25] Correct, but I would like to note that
[3:17:28] and this meeting has been going on for over three hours.
[3:17:31] And I do want to make sure we get to public comment
[3:17:33] if possible tonight.
[3:17:35] So I'd love it if maybe there are council members
[3:17:37] with lots more questions that we would at least open up and let some of the public speak,
[3:17:44] you know, so that we don't run out this whole meeting and no one from the public got any
[3:17:47] got a chance to say anything on the water.
[3:17:50] I only have a couple more questions.
[3:17:52] How about councilmember?
[3:17:53] I have a lot.
[3:17:55] I only have a lot of water, too.
[3:17:58] And councilmember Kirk?
[3:17:59] I don't have any further questions, but I support Mayor Potem Davis's NID statement.
[3:18:05] Okay.
[3:18:05] So we want to park the council questions and move on to public comment.
[3:18:10] Sure.
[3:18:12] Sure, as long as we can come back to a couple of questions.
[3:18:15] Well, if we don't get to the council questions today, they go to the next year.
[3:18:19] Okay.
[3:18:21] Nancy Loxamana.
[3:18:23] Are you here? Yes.
[3:18:30] Thank you.
[3:18:30] Nancy Loxamana for his main resident.
[3:18:32] I did notice on page 4 of 10,
[3:18:35] It says about existing uses within the Bayland or Surve by the City of Brisbane, so that should be corrected, should the information that was supplied tonight is correct, so that we established that parts of the Bayland are covered by SFPUC.
[3:18:54] I did also, though, find Senate Bill 610 on Google, and there were two interesting paragraphs
[3:19:04] that I think are important to read, and I think it follows up with Stephanie, what
[3:19:09] you were just saying.
[3:19:10] But it says that Bill requires smaller public water systems to prepare water supply assessments
[3:19:16] on projects that would increase their service connection by 10% or more.
[3:19:20] It also says, if the city or county cannot identify a public water system to provide the
[3:19:29] water supply assessment, SB 610 requires the State Department of Water Resources to prepare
[3:19:36] the assessment.
[3:19:37] The bill allows the State Controller to cover the department's cost.
[3:19:42] So my view of that in that law, Senate Bill 610, which was quoted at the start of the
[3:19:48] presentation, is that we really
[3:19:50] need to look to the state for guidance and an assessment of how to solve this very, very critical
[3:19:57] question. And I do believe that we should get state assemblymen back or involved. It's a series
[3:20:06] of the utility company that doesn't want to do it. Well, maybe they do the portable part of the
[3:20:12] equation. I mean, I love the cow water, you know, the recycled facility, et cetera. I understand
[3:20:19] there need to kind of get it forward for South San Francisco, but I believe the potable
[3:20:26] seems very high at 70% versus the 30% recycled water. It just seems very high even though
[3:20:34] I'm very clear of the need to keep the residential up. And if I can just take one maybe 20 seconds
[3:20:42] out of mayor on decorum in the meeting. Should we have unions coming in and really, you know,
[3:20:50] pulling their heart out now for happy anniversary. It's eight years in November.
[3:20:54] Maybe they can be spoke. They can speak early in the meeting. A lot of them travel far, a lot
[3:21:02] are here. But we had three speak the third one. We sort of cut them off a little bit being very kind
[3:21:09] year, but then the next speaker, a Brisbane resident, went on about aesthetics, the road, you
[3:21:16] know, solar panels was not on topic.
[3:21:20] So if we could please, maybe consider, at the start of the meeting, just having those
[3:21:24] people who have come to speak on the general information, let them speak and let them go,
[3:21:29] just an assessment.
[3:21:30] And I respectfully just suggest that.
[3:21:33] Thank you very much.
[3:21:34] Thank you.
[3:21:35] Michelle Salman.
[3:21:40] I'll be quick. I have questions. First of all, I'm concerned of what constitutes a normal year
[3:21:46] because I don't think we have normal years anymore. And I think we should define that
[3:21:53] because a normal year is just going to change and we are seeing that very much so this year.
[3:22:01] And then, one thing that came up, I was really concerned about is how would cow water be supplied to South San Francisco?
[3:22:12] Does that mean we're going to build a pipeline to South San Francisco?
[3:22:17] And where's the environmental impact for building a pipeline to South San Francisco to deliver that water?
[3:22:24] I'm kind of concerned about the delivery systems.
[3:22:27] Are we going to build a new pipeline going to see your point?
[3:22:30] When we have, you know, a lot of subsidence issues there. So the logistics of that, I'm not quite seeing.
[3:22:39] I also caught the 245 being less than 20 years on a 30 or 40 year build-out potential build-out.
[3:22:47] And then this is kind of a hard question,
[3:22:52] but so San Francisco PUC is applying the water for several businesses out there.
[3:22:58] but who is taking care of the affluent like the waste material? Is it go through our social
[3:23:07] system? Because the sewer charge and the maintenance charge is the largest part of my
[3:23:13] bill at all. We don't use that much water, but I have you know, $350 water bill every
[3:23:18] two months. So I'm curious about that. So, and with the recycling plant, where do the solids
[3:23:26] Let's go.
[3:23:27] What happens to the things that do not become recycled in that way?
[3:23:32] Where do they go?
[3:23:32] Where do they hang out?
[3:23:34] Because, like, remember driving, you know, to Emoryville in the mornings, when I
[3:23:38] worked for Chiple, and driving past the smell of the Oakland processing, it was really
[3:23:43] dreadful.
[3:23:44] So I have curiosity about that as well.
[3:23:48] Thank you.
[3:23:49] Okay.
[3:23:49] Could we have a staff answer on whether a pipeline would be built to South San Francisco
[3:23:56] to deliver non-potable water, please?
[3:24:10] I mean, there would need to be conveyance mechanisms to get the recycled water down to other customers.
[3:24:16] But my understanding is that that's not part of our specific plan process or city costs.
[3:24:25] Okay, so that's not been worked out.
[3:24:28] No, and I think that would require a project level EIR to take a closer look at the potentially impacts of that.
[3:24:35] that it was not something that's part of the program at a key area or that's part of the specific plan.
[3:24:40] And for maintenance of the pipe sending the affluent to San Francisco?
[3:24:45] Can you pay for that?
[3:24:47] That would be, so under the terms of the specific plan,
[3:24:50] based on a sanitary district would be responsible for managing sewer waste.
[3:24:56] And so essentially you would still have a connection to SFQC's wastewater system during what
[3:25:02] other, you would still have flows that would go that direction and then whatever byproducts
[3:25:08] aren't reused, could be a combination of sludge or solids that we need to be removed.
[3:25:14] But again, that's something that the project level, yeah, or would get more into the details.
[3:25:20] Okay, thank you.
[3:25:22] Palm scale.
[3:25:32] Thank you.
[3:25:35] So a couple of things about the water back when we did the draft environmental impact report
[3:25:41] that was the biggest use water. And one of the comments I made was about looking at it
[3:25:49] regionally. And now the candlestick has been worked out. And obviously, Schleslach seems
[3:25:59] to be the first to be worked out for BDI as far as development. And you've brought up the point
[3:26:09] about the interchange from Geneva to 101 and they talked about that in a model station
[3:26:15] and the four concepts that they had.
[3:26:20] Well, San Francisco is also talking about bringing in the high pressure water system that
[3:26:24] they have, which is non-potable, depends on what part of the city you're from, it's either salt
[3:26:29] water or lake water, and also a potable system.
[3:26:36] So, looking at the baylands to go in with cow water,
[3:26:44] wizard would not see, I know they have
[3:26:46] an inner tie with Brisbane, I'm based on Samanolab and you first here a point to where if
[3:26:54] something went down they could feed and vice versa, I believe, wizard, inner tie, doubt
[3:27:02] the variance portion I'd like to know, and then the other thing I'd like to know is
[3:27:09] I'd buy up many times about a non-politable water tank and a separate fire hydrant system
[3:27:21] and well, proper pipe, fire hydrant system and irrigation for the bayramates, because two
[3:27:29] to the water required for the balance. I believe is for firefight protection and having
[3:27:36] redundancy in those tanks.
[3:27:40] So if I think about it and I haven't seen where the tanks are
[3:27:42] going to be placed yet, that would be good to know. And all the first thing that we have to do
[3:27:49] on our system, especially for the ridge, to keep the tri-how or methane from forming. If you see
[3:27:57] water running down Guadalupe. That's all be deverted to a tank. So we're claimed water.
[3:28:06] You know, at the more web or host company out there on industrial and antiquated system,
[3:28:12] spring box, they were getting 50 gallons of water a minute. Can you imagine if you have
[3:28:18] an engineer to bring box for the rep? Well, there's no contamination for the rep going towards
[3:28:24] make sure main street wherever and how to solar pump and pump into that tank and how
[3:28:32] to water that we're fishing down the drain that if it weren't to have a tap it would
[3:28:39] be great but it really just flows to the bay how to go into tanks instead of just letting
[3:28:45] go down the drain go to this tank so I'd like to know what the tank is I'd like to know if
[3:28:51] You could do that, that connection that they have for MSFPUC on Main Street, because all
[3:28:59] of the tank farm and supplies the tank farm with copious amounts of water.
[3:29:05] I believe it's a 16-inch water main, the one we have on tunnel is a 12-inch water main,
[3:29:13] but that comes off of the distribution end of septus goes PUC system so that hasn't
[3:29:19] effect of the neighborhood, but the one that comes off the main street comes off the supply
[3:29:24] land of the Christmas brings right by one and two, which is copious amounts of water.
[3:29:33] So that very few people have, only municipal customers have that.
[3:29:40] They haven't a municipal look up on the supply and the SFPUC system, so I guess that's it.
[3:29:49] Thank you.
[3:29:51] Stephanie, or team over there, do you have an answer to his question about where the line comes in?
[3:29:59] And if you don't, that's a...
[3:30:00] Okay, just if you do, we can,
[3:30:05] we don't, but we can come back with a map at the next meeting with us.
[3:30:08] Okay, that'd be great. Thank you.
[3:30:09] Our engineers are not here tonight. Okay. Put it on the list.
[3:30:16] Karen Cunningham, please.
[3:30:26] Madam Mayor, City Council, most of my questions have been answered.
[3:30:30] I just have a couple of things that I really want to bring up.
[3:30:34] A clarification regarding the specific plan and when you approve it, what if some of these things
[3:30:43] that we're talking about tonight relative to water change?
[3:30:48] So once you've done the specific plan, my question there is, then what happens?
[3:30:53] If something happens relative to the water supply, whatever it is, can we change the specific plan
[3:30:59] after you approve it?
[3:31:01] I think this probably quite a few people would be wanting to know that answer.
[3:31:07] So I'm getting three nods.
[3:31:10] Can staff extra address that?
[3:31:16] Yes.
[3:31:18] So it's definitely possible to amend the specific plan to account for future changes, future conditions.
[3:31:28] And you have to the extent that future discretionary approvals entering into a water supply
[3:31:36] agreement or other actions are different than what was contemplated in the EIR.
[3:31:43] Our C-Coreb requires in analysis of whether those changes have triggered new or more severe
[3:31:49] environmental impacts.
[3:31:50] So not only do you have the opportunity to change the plan, but if those changes increase
[3:31:58] the environmental effects, the SQL requires additional analysis of those changes as well.
[3:32:04] Thank you.
[3:32:06] And then I'm just going to play Devils Advocate for a minute because we've been done this
[3:32:10] road before.
[3:32:12] The developers responsible for all the water facilities.
[3:32:14] So again, what's the contingency in the event that the developers financial
[3:32:19] insolvency or other financial issues cause a problem?
[3:32:24] what if the project is half built or abandoned, and we're halfway through a water supply
[3:32:33] building whatever it is. That is of concern to me, and I'm sure that is of concern to other people as well, and I'll just use a couple of local illustrations to that point
[3:32:44] I know Council in the last couple of years has changed some of the the rules relative to
[3:32:49] to projects being built within the city residential projects, probably the commercial projects
[3:32:55] as well, that the infrastructure gets done first.
[3:32:59] But even with those changes to some of our local laws, we have two projects right now that
[3:33:06] are ones and I saw that was abandoned a couple of years ago and I see a fairly big problem
[3:33:16] at a project up on top of a cemetery lane relative to when grading is done, what infrastructure
[3:33:26] is in place, et cetera. So given that even locally in our residential areas so we can still
[3:33:34] have these problems with changing laws, it is a concern and I think a lot of people would
[3:33:40] find it a concern that what if given that we know there has been some financial problems with
[3:33:46] develop our up-to-date, what do we do if something goes south there? That's probably not a question
[3:33:53] that you can answer off the top of your head, but it is my question. Thank you.
[3:33:57] Okay.
[3:34:00] Staff want to respond to that? Any assurances or mechanisms that could be employed?
[3:34:08] And if you want to get back to us, that's okay too.
[3:34:10] way to certainly the as individual tentative maps are approved in conjunction with the
[3:34:19] infrastructure that serves those. The city would require public improvement agreements
[3:34:23] and security to ensure that those are able to be completed and delivered. So, I
[3:34:31] am theme with the comments that you've heard today to make sure that the infrastructure
[3:34:37] that serving that individual bit of planned development is able to be completed and delivered
[3:34:43] to support, you know, that specific development that's looking to move forward.
[3:34:49] And when you say security, are you referencing a bond?
[3:34:52] Yes, that's correct.
[3:34:55] Chris Severs.
[3:35:02] Hi, Chris Severs.
[3:35:03] I want to ask about something that Michelle brought up and that is what this water treatment facility
[3:35:10] or sewer treatment, plant is actually going to be like and whether it is going to be something
[3:35:19] that has outdoor facilities that emit odors, looking at where it is situated in the EIR.
[3:35:28] There's a perspective site, it's about a mile from Lippman School, it's a mile from houses on
[3:35:36] bridge, and I just want to know how we're going to assure that it's not stinky.
[3:35:43] I mean, Brisbane has a reputation for being a town that had a dump and was stinky.
[3:35:48] I really don't think we want that again.
[3:35:50] And I know I discussed this with Council Member Lens.
[3:35:53] And he said, oh, there can be these wonderful new plants.
[3:35:58] For example, what's down at Google, and there's no odor from it.
[3:36:02] And that I think does 85,000 gallons a day.
[3:36:06] We're talking about a million gallons a day.
[3:36:08] That is fully enclosed and has air filters.
[3:36:11] I don't think you're doing that for a million gallons a day.
[3:36:13] It's open.
[3:36:14] It is open.
[3:36:17] So I just wanted to know, what kind of insurance is we're going to have?
[3:36:20] They're going to get a state of the art plan that is not going to make this city once again,
[3:36:25] you know, the city that's famous for its stink.
[3:36:28] Thank you.
[3:36:29] Thank you.
[3:36:33] Robin Leider?
[3:36:41] Well, thank you.
[3:36:43] My conversation has changed since I've been sitting here.
[3:36:49] I didn't know there's a will serve letter.
[3:36:52] So if there's a will serve letter, I would love to have the public have an opportunity to see that.
[3:36:58] So all I found in the EIR is a non-binding letter that was signed, I guess, in about October of 22,
[3:37:07] and by its terms it's now expired.
[3:37:09] So that non-binding letter is no longer valid, but if you have a willster of letter, that would be
[3:37:16] something that would be significant. And generally with a willster of letter, generally comes a term
[3:37:21] sheet about what the cow water is expecting from you and what you're expecting from cow water. So it
[3:37:28] would be helpful for the public.
[3:37:30] To also see what the term sheet is. I mean, I'm fascinated who's going to pay for the water treatment facility.
[3:37:40] You know, I think it's like for it's like $15 million. So, is that what is the developer making a commitment that that he's going to do that and put up the money for it?
[3:37:51] And then again, I come to the point that then we also have to say in that sustainability zone,
[3:37:57] they have to be remediating it so we can put the water treatment plant there, if that's
[3:38:01] where we're going to put it.
[3:38:03] So I think there's things that, oh, the other thing is, I would imagine the offset program
[3:38:09] is that you pay cow water money to get the potable water in addition to paying for the water.
[3:38:14] So I'd like to understand that part too, is that what the offset program is, that the developer
[3:38:20] has to pay an additional fee to get the water during this inter-imperiod.
[3:38:24] So I just like to understand better the financing of this to see how it's going to work
[3:38:30] and how we're going to wish to be assured that actually this happens.
[3:38:37] So what I wanted to talk about was the water using for dust control and
[3:38:42] and co-sold compaction and concrete work.
[3:38:46] Because what I understand now is nobody's going to use, I'm sorry,
[3:38:52] BDI is not going to use bus lane water that they're going to use the San Francisco water.
[3:38:57] That's what I heard tonight.
[3:39:00] And it says in the EIR that they're going to use,
[3:39:04] I think, 16.6 acre feet for those purposes.
[3:39:09] And that's what they currently use.
[3:39:11] And I think that's what maybe Stephanie was alluding to.
[3:39:15] Well, I went to the EPA, and I looked at what they think,
[3:39:18] just the desk control for 640 trucks would be if that's what it is.
[3:39:24] And it would be 10 times that much.
[3:39:27] So I think before we kind of assume that that can happen,
[3:39:31] we really need to have a water supply study for the
[3:39:34] desk control, the soil, compaction, and the concrete work.
[3:39:38] And then your staff report it actually says that they are going to get to use our water for dust control on page nine of your report it says water for dust control during remediation construction water will be used the existing Brisbane water system.
[3:40:00] And even if my numbers aren't exactly correct and I'm not claiming they're correct that would be 25% of our water supply.
[3:40:06] So,
[3:40:09] and I guess the other part that bothers me is the staff report says that J.J. allows this
[3:40:16] to happen because they would allow this until the first building permit.
[3:40:22] The J.J. says site development and I can't understand how grading, desk control, concrete
[3:40:30] work or solvent compaction is not site development and J.J. says that they need their own
[3:40:36] water for those purposes. So those are my main questions and I think the water supply
[3:40:46] for this, those purposes should segregate out soil hauling, water for excavation,
[3:40:53] water for soil compaction, and should this and for peat daily amounts. And you know,
[3:41:01] we did a whole thing about sustainability. I would like to see the Council actually say
[3:41:06] that they should use non-potable water for these purposes.
[3:41:10] Why should anybody's water supply
[3:41:12] be used for these purposes?
[3:41:14] I thank you very much.
[3:41:16] You know, Madam, Madam, OK, you know,
[3:41:20] she asked some really great questions.
[3:41:23] I mean, I'm just sorry, you know,
[3:41:25] interrupt a little bit of your questions.
[3:41:27] There were a lot of questions.
[3:41:28] There were two big ones that I hope
[3:41:31] that we can have staff, you know, answer.
[3:41:34] But if you want to do the last couple of, I'd like to get folks
[3:41:38] Yeah, and then come back.
[3:41:40] Because then you can ask those.
[3:41:42] Okay, thank you.
[3:41:43] Michael Barnes.
[3:41:53] Good evening, Mayor and Council.
[3:41:54] My name is Michael Barnes.
[3:41:55] I'm a businessman resident.
[3:41:58] I've long thought that since you are the agency responsible for the water on the baylands,
[3:42:03] it should be your water.
[3:42:05] It should be municipal water.
[3:42:06] It shouldn't be coming from a private corporation.
[3:42:09] And I know the back in March of 2020, when the notice of preparation meeting was held in this very room,
[3:42:18] you had on your desk an offer from Oakdale to acquire water directly from Oakdale.
[3:42:26] And at that meeting six and a half years ago I said,
[3:42:28] I am excited about the Oakdale water transfer,
[3:42:31] and suggest there are local politicians should be working on our state to provide the transfer of the water.
[3:42:37] If the state wants us to build housing, the state must facilitate water transfer, I still feel that way today that the city of Brisbane should be supplying the water to this because then you can control everything, it's your system.
[3:42:50] The proposal we're hearing tonight seems to me to have more questions and answers and a great deal of additional complexity than simply acquiring water somewhere else in the state for the city of Brisbane. Thank you.
[3:43:04] Okay, and we can circle back on that as well if you'd be ready to answer that about Oakdale.
[3:43:13] Alley Sepherman?
[3:43:15] Good
[3:43:23] evening again, Mayor and Council members, my name's Alley Saperman, and I'm speaking
[3:43:26] on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition.
[3:43:29] The Baylands is designed to be a model for responsible water use in the region.
[3:43:33] Water conservation and new housing go hand in hand.
[3:43:35] The Baylands shows that a well-designed project can add homes while using water responsibly.
[3:43:40] It's drainage improvements, water recycling facility, and conservation strategies benefit both the project and broader community.
[3:43:47] The project's open space network improves water flow and creates new habitat areas.
[3:43:52] Infield development like the Baylands is a smarter, more sustainable way to grow, building on a former industrial site protects undeveloped landscapes,
[3:43:59] and the region's natural water resources.
[3:44:02] The project's Waters apply and drainage have been studied in depth through its environmental review.
[3:44:07] That analysis is done and the bail-ins is ready to move forward.
[3:44:11] Brisbane should be encouraging this kind of development not stalling it.
[3:44:14] Thank you.
[3:44:17] Stores here or online?
[3:44:23] Stores go ahead.
[3:44:28] So I had several comments that are actually pretty similar to what Robin mentioned.
[3:44:35] And, in general, it comes back to a question that many of the council have thought about
[3:44:40] this.
[3:44:41] What are the reasons for the developer to remediate the landfill for water recycling?
[3:44:47] If this is happening after all of the substantial building has occurred, it doesn't seem
[3:44:55] like there's some, they can do it.
[3:45:00] Obvious cost benefit analysis for development, for remediating the landfill and also preparing the
[3:45:11] water recycling plant. And then also coming back to the question of who is building the
[3:45:18] water recycling plant? Who's responsible for those funds? And who makes the money from it? And
[3:45:25] Is the person who builds the water recycling plant then liable for the remediation going forward and any risks that occur?
[3:45:39] And then the final question was, how much does the applicant, how much is the applicant's water rights,
[3:45:51] that they already have relative to the 1100 or 1200 acre feet per year that the Baylands need?
[3:46:04] So those were my questions. Thanks for calling on me and you guys are doing a really good job
[3:46:12] Okay, thank you. I'm sitting clerk. Do we have anyone else?
[3:46:21] No metamir. Okay,
[3:46:26] going back to council questions. So I want I think very quickly
[3:46:32] brought up by Michael Barnes about Oakdale. Stephanie could you address that?
[3:46:38] That was quite a while ago.
[3:46:41] Dales being considered by your predecessor, Greg Vilkin.
[3:46:46] And as far as I know that went nowhere.
[3:46:52] Yes, and in your correct manner, this was before my time.
[3:46:55] And I think the deal had already sort of fallen through
[3:47:00] when I came to the Baylands project.
[3:47:02] And I can't, I will tell you that the DL was never consummated for reasons that I think
[3:47:12] became very complicated of the delivery systems and also some environmental concerns about
[3:47:19] that water.
[3:47:22] But if you're really interested in the history, it just, it didn't, it fell apart.
[3:47:27] But if you're really interested, I can piece that history back together for you.
[3:47:31] was just never it was and I think maybe some council numbers may have even more history with
[3:47:38] that project then I do but it was it was it was never fully agreed upon by all the parties
[3:47:49] and it was it was a very complicated deal to begin with yeah I'm not sure we need to go down
[3:47:55] the rabbit hole but it was a time where the state was looking at agricultural water being
[3:48:01] we sold.
[3:48:02] That was part of it.
[3:48:03] I mean, the issue where the state said you can't do this, because the agricultural
[3:48:07] water supplies were dwindling and they didn't know much about it at the 90s.
[3:48:13] Someone was selling you out.
[3:48:15] Thank you.
[3:48:17] All right.
[3:48:18] Back to council question.
[3:48:20] I wonder if it makes sense to just touch base with them.
[3:48:29] Now, and see if circumstances has changed yet again or whether there's, you know, to
[3:48:38] confirm that there's still no longer interest.
[3:48:46] It's just more of a suggestion.
[3:48:48] I mean, we can look at it.
[3:48:49] I do believe that the, um, it was the 12th of me, Prince of the 12th of me, River, that
[3:48:56] came in to oppose that transfer at the end of the day.
[3:49:02] for a, for a, for a myriad of environmental reasons, and we can, I'm happy to go back to the history and look at it. But it was also very just a very complicated deal.
[3:49:14] It had to go between different reservoirs that are governed by the S of PUC, they had to do the conveyance, and it, it started getting sticky from where I left off of it.
[3:49:25] Yes. Yeah. And I, and I, and I believe that it was at the, the,
[3:49:32] it was the city that asked us to drop the deal at that time. Yeah. Okay, thank you.
[3:49:44] Um, they're pro time Davis. Do you still have questions? You said no, but have you now?
[3:49:50] No, I mean, you know, Robin had like a great list of questions. I would just, you know,
[3:49:55] ask maybe you submit those to staff, I know Cliff is gonna talk about a couple, but maybe we can get those.
[3:50:04] I can answer a few of those if you'd like.
[3:50:07] Yeah, that would be great.
[3:50:08] Sure.
[3:50:09] So there's a question about the treatment plant and the phasing and remediation.
[3:50:14] So that's part of the initial phase of the project.
[3:50:19] So we can take a closer look at that phasing and how that works with the different parties,
[3:50:23] but it would be pretty early on and it could be done as part of the remediation.
[3:50:29] With respect to the utility letter of understanding, there's no expiration.
[3:50:34] It's an unbinding letter that was signed.
[3:50:38] So there's things that would need to happen for it to take into effect.
[3:50:42] There's other triggers and we can go into those details at a later time,
[3:50:47] but because it's not binding, there's no expiration on that.
[3:50:50] And then as far as the concerns with the availability of the Wolster of Letter, I've spoken to the speaker and many others with respect to that document, so that I've had a lot of conversations with all the different folks that not document exists.
[3:51:06] Otherwise, this specific plan would be very challenging to move forward without that, without that Wolster of Letter.
[3:51:14] Can also you address Chris Evers question about stinkiness, projected stinkiness?
[3:51:22] So we might expect there.
[3:51:25] Sure.
[3:51:25] I mean, there's a lot of technologies that will address odors for, not just recycled water facilities,
[3:51:32] but wastewater facilities, any treatment facility.
[3:51:36] So yes, although the Google campus that we were able to tour is a much smaller facility,
[3:51:42] Ultimately, it does have all of this order capture devices and there's waste of scale that up.
[3:51:50] So, and again, that would be part of the environmental review of any project of that scale that would make sure that
[3:51:57] it does not have adverse impacts to the environment, including small.
[3:52:02] May I also chime in here in terms of voters?
[3:52:06] The EIR actually has four separate mitigation measures that are back-med or the Bay Area
[3:52:13] Air District has regulation seven that controls odors and we have four distinct mitigation measures
[3:52:20] that have a whole menu of odor reducing mechanisms to ensure that there is no odor emission from the water.
[3:52:30] Scycling facility.
[3:52:35] Okay.
[3:52:40] Council member Lens. Yeah. You know, Robin, you had a couple of, if you
[3:52:45] would mind coming back up, please, if you have your questions with you, do you have that, your
[3:52:52] questions that you had asked or there was a, I apologize, I didn't write it down. Oh, let me
[3:53:00] Yes, if you went mine. Thank you
[3:53:16] It was it was towards the end. It wasn't the last question or maybe in the second last but I think that third or to last
[3:53:26] Wow, I'm sorry, and you know if you want we could just you know, it just like
[3:53:33] She's so quick
[3:53:41] Right it
[3:53:43] this. You can, we'll connect afterwards. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And could I ask a question?
[3:53:50] Oh, never mind. I'll ask. Okay. So, Council Member Lens, did you have a question? I do. Okay.
[3:53:59] Let's see.
[3:54:08] Do you want me to come back to you? I'm ready. So, it says that wastewater,
[3:54:15] not needed for recycling, would go to SAPUC, Southeast Treatment Plant. So, is that the same
[3:54:22] facility that currently treats Brisbane's effluent. That is correct. Okay. And I've read
[3:54:33] where there is a need for Brisbane's effluent for the water recycling facility in
[3:54:43] the early stages. Is that still part of the requirement?
[3:54:48] Yeah,
[3:54:51] for the full buildout of bail-ins, it would take some time. So the effluent to be able to start operating a plant would be required earlier than full buildout and therefore additional effluent from BSD and as well as the city would be able to support that need.
[3:55:11] Okay, so then.
[3:55:12] Is this another question?
[3:55:13] Okay, you know, you're right.
[3:55:14] Okay, ma'am.
[3:55:15] Okay.
[3:55:16] You sneak in them in there on me.
[3:55:18] I'll sneak in it, ma'am.
[3:55:19] Well, we're all right.
[3:55:19] We're all right.
[3:55:20] I know.
[3:55:20] I got those two.
[3:55:22] I got these two.
[3:55:23] Okay.
[3:55:24] Councilmember Kern.
[3:55:27] As indicated, I have no more questions.
[3:55:29] Okay.
[3:55:29] Thank you.
[3:55:31] Councilmember O'Connell.
[3:55:33] This is a question for Stephanie.
[3:55:37] You said you don't, you have a water, a lot, but it's not exactly a water
[3:55:42] a lot, but it's an existing use amount. What is that use amount that you're allowed at this moment?
[3:55:50] Do you know?
[3:55:52] I mean,
[3:55:56] yes, my engineer just text me that number.
[3:55:58] Okay. And then also, that is to use service existing customers at this moment.
[3:56:05] And most of those existing customers are going to be continuing to use water during the initial phases.
[3:56:12] Yes. So how will you use that? How much extra water do you have?
[3:56:21] Let's see. Right now we are using roughly 6 million gallons per year of water on the
[3:56:31] balance with our existing SFP, or SFP you see water.
[3:56:37] And how would you cut the water usage from existing uses without cutting those existing uses?
[3:56:47] Well, a lot of that is on the rail yard site, so there's very limited.
[3:56:55] I mean, we have more water we can use than our existing uses right now that we are allowed under our deed.
[3:57:02] So do you have the amount that's allowed into your deed?
[3:57:06] The amount is, and I'm sorry, I'm mixing units here, but our deed is 300,000 gallons per day.
[3:57:19] So, and I apologize, I don't have the units straight.
[3:57:24] But the last one I gave you was in MGDs, which is an alien.
[3:57:29] But yeah, I think the point is we've done these numbers and it's in our infrastructure plan and it's in the water supply assessment that shows our existing water and construction numbers and that we can meet that with our existing water uses.
[3:57:45] Okay, thank you, you know. Yeah. And if I may just final question for staff, the current
[3:57:54] baby and industrial, are they using Brisbane sewer? Are they getting bills from Brisbane?
[3:58:03] I believe that they're getting bills from BST. Okay, for not, so not for Brisbane. Correct.
[3:58:10] Okay, thank you. Okay. Oh, it's cracked to me.
[3:58:15] All right.
[3:58:19] If the 45 acres high-speed rail, the light maintenance facility are not set aside how will you deal with the water retention?
[3:58:39] I'll let staff also speak to that, because there is some commentary about that in the EIR.
[3:58:45] My honorist standing is that their proposal would be to find other detention areas throughout the property, and then possibly to include some sort of mechanical pump type system to manage.
[3:58:56] storm water. However, we would prefer to use the full detention basin approach to float to
[3:59:06] visitation creek and then into the bay.
[3:59:11] Okay. Mayor Proto. Sorry, Stephanie. Do you mind providing
[3:59:16] clarification on what you just said about the amount of water you have? Did I understand that you said
[3:59:23] 300,000 gallons a day or is that a month a day. That's our that's our deed. That's your
[3:59:32] alignment but that's not what you're consuming. Exactly. But you're consuming six million a year.
[3:59:39] Right. And so then what do you know what your annual allotment is then you mean our annual use?
[3:59:45] I do. Can I come back to you because I can't do these numbers because I just think I was six.
[3:59:50] I was seeing 300,000 a day, but 6 million a year, that's 20, it's like
[4:00:00] But 20 days worth, so I was just, yeah, we're not using our full, a lot meant. Okay, so, but, but it's there, it'd be good to know what your full, a lot meant is.
[4:00:15] Your full, a lot meant is in our deed agreement. And then what you're, and our current existing uses, and again, all of this is in both the water supply assessment agreement and our water technical memo.
[4:00:27] So I can bring those numbers back to you that are harder and faster.
[4:00:30] Okay, so yeah.
[4:00:31] Thank you.
[4:00:33] Okay.
[4:00:36] We're nearing the end of our time here.
[4:00:39] So council member Lens, I don't know how many more questions, but we would have to extend the meeting.
[4:00:43] Let's wrap it up.
[4:00:44] You know what?
[4:00:45] I got plenty.
[4:00:47] And so why don't we just, you know, move water to the next meeting.
[4:00:51] Okay.
[4:00:52] I don't think we have a ton of questions, but I think we need you.
[4:00:58] Do you have mayor and how much do you have council on real call?
[4:01:01] I have no more questions at this time.
[4:01:03] I only have maybe one or two.
[4:01:05] But you just ask yours and then the rest are all close next time.
[4:01:10] Well, we would have to extend the meeting.
[4:01:13] I don't know how many council members have.
[4:01:17] I will make a motion to extend the meeting 15 minutes.
[4:01:20] That way, maybe cow water doesn't need to come back for next time.
[4:01:24] How are you?
[4:01:25] Second year often stick a council member McConnell, but I'll I'm being optimistic. Okay, so we have a motion on the table and a second all in favor. I
[4:01:35] Anyone opposed no
[4:01:38] All right, so
[4:01:42] Okay, so
[4:01:45] The the wastewater
[4:01:47] You know, effluent that will come from the recycling facility would go to
[4:01:54] the facility that is run by SAPUC. So and we've stated that the initial phase of the water
[4:02:05] recycling facility would need Brisbane's water or sewage water. So the water
[4:02:12] the F-lon goes to the recycling facility, the water is recycled and then our
[4:02:19] affluent, it goes to S of PUC. So, is the city required to pay for that infrastructure to go
[4:02:28] to that facility, and then from that facility is the city required to pay for the infrastructure
[4:02:33] to go to S of PUC, and so that we can get charged the same high rates from S of PUC.
[4:02:43] Do I have that, Ryan?
[4:02:46] That's all part of the part of ongoing conversations and negotiations.
[4:02:50] I mean infrastructure costs are one part.
[4:02:53] You know, when that effluent, it's as we found out from the Google sidewalk,
[4:03:01] you know, the, the, that recycling actually does,
[4:03:04] it will stop pulling in off of the, you know, the wastewater lines.
[4:03:10] So I think that's part of the,
[4:03:18] Yeah, Scott, if you would want to come to the podium, please.
[4:03:23] Is this another question?
[4:03:24] Oh, I'm sorry.
[4:03:25] You just like questions.
[4:03:26] Oh, I thought it was a close lunch show here or something.
[4:03:29] No, okay.
[4:03:30] Sorry.
[4:03:31] I apologize.
[4:03:32] I'm getting a little punchy now.
[4:03:32] Okay.
[4:03:35] So I have a question.
[4:03:37] With regard to cow water and my understanding and I could be wrong,
[4:03:42] I don't know that cow waters entire supplies from Boska,
[4:03:46] but I know you're a Bosca customer.
[4:03:50] And since you're an SFP-USI customer,
[4:03:53] we've seen the 84,000,
[4:03:58] it may be higher, renalication to San Francisco.
[4:04:01] And I've heard many pundits rumbling about
[4:04:06] whether the SFP-USI can continue to provide
[4:04:09] copious amounts of water to existing
[4:04:12] and new customers and that was brought up tonight.
[4:04:16] Are you also subject to the same rationing or reductions not drought related but supply related that would be applied to Bosco customers?
[4:04:30] I don't know if you have an enormous allocation that you figure you can take on Brisbane or whether you're just figuring that you can kind of eat it out.
[4:04:45] And you may have enough with the drought restrictions where you figure it's comfortable but in terms of the possibility that the PUC could reduce everybody's water.
[4:04:58] Are you concerned about your allocation or that it could be changed?
[4:05:09] It's a very good question.
[4:05:10] And we have an agreement with the SEPUC through Bosca,
[4:05:16] similar to Brisbane, for an individual supply guarantee
[4:05:19] from the SEPUC.
[4:05:21] Back to the question of normal years,
[4:05:23] it would be defined as a non-drout year.
[4:05:25] That's how you would explain a normal year.
[4:05:28] We, as indicated in the water supply assessment,
[4:05:33] recognize we fully utilize SEPUC water for this area
[4:05:39] and we would be impacted in potential drought scenarios.
[4:05:46] Now, we, in this report, identified that the additional demands for the Bayland-specific plan
[4:05:53] would fit within the allotment that Kalater has in our individual supply guarantee agreement with the SAPUC.
[4:06:03] So, we do believe that for normal conditions, we can take on the additional demands.
[4:06:09] In the case of a single year drought or a multi year drought, the SAPUC would reduce their
[4:06:15] supplies and we would be impacted by that.
[4:06:18] That is where, if needed, we would make use of our water shortage contingency plan initiated
[4:06:23] additional conservation measures to make sure that demands could be met.
[4:06:28] Okay.
[4:06:28] I think my question was a little different.
[4:06:30] Okay.
[4:06:30] I'm sorry.
[4:06:30] Yeah, no that's okay. Yeah. Again, back to San Francisco and then starting to look at their own
[4:06:37] water needs with increased population and buildings. They've had conversations that I've read
[4:06:43] about them thinking they may have to reduce water, Bosca customers, a lotments. Have you had
[4:06:51] those conversations with them? I guess I would answer it. We are very aware of those conversations
[4:06:58] through the bus comedings, the agreements are, as they were originally signed in the fact that
[4:07:07] they are required to provide a certain amount of water. If there is a drought, then they have certain
[4:07:16] measures in place to be able to reduce that water supply. If they are looking to reduce their
[4:07:22] water supplies, then that falls under the agreements with the wholesalers or the retailers in terms
[4:07:29] adjustments, but it is...
[4:07:30] It's point, we are not aware of adjustments to that water supply.
[4:07:34] Okay. Thank you.
[4:07:35] Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
[4:07:39] So, all right. So, Stephanie, BDI, you know, estimates that operation of the water recycling facility
[4:07:50] would begin at 20% of billed out. Right. So, when then would the start of construction
[4:08:00] of the facility begin.
[4:08:04] You got to be up and run it in a 20% when do you start building?
[4:08:11] When do we start building the water recycling facility? Yeah, right. So in this specific plan what we
[4:08:16] what we discussed is our initial recycling facility that was our original plan was a
[4:08:24] 500,000 gallon per day water recycling facility because we have no source
[4:08:30] then that couldn't come online until the bail-on development was 20% built out.
[4:08:36] That's, that was the original plan and that is the plan if we, if we don't do the
[4:08:41] cow water, water recycling facility, is that we would build our own water recycling facility for the
[4:08:47] bail-ons. That would take 20% of the full build out what year that is. I mean, I mean,
[4:08:53] depends on how fast we can build out. But you have to do the build out so you that you have
[4:08:58] the supply.
[4:09:01] We estimate, even though we'd get a very conservative estimate about the recycling
[4:09:06] facility coming online in the WSA, Scott discussed, we do think that that project could
[4:09:13] come online earlier than the 20% that our water recycling facility, if we did it alone,
[4:09:20] that needed the 20% build-out.
[4:09:24] So, did that answer your question?
[4:09:28] So, let me ask you a follow-up then.
[4:09:30] How long do you think it would take to build 20%.
[4:09:34] Of the development phase, phase 1.
[4:09:38] So, 20% of the full build-out is what the calculation is.
[4:09:42] Not 20% of the phase 1.
[4:09:46] So, 20% of the full build-out?
[4:09:48] Yeah.
[4:09:48] You know, that's probably 10 to 15 years ago, you know, to have enough effluent to actually
[4:09:59] run a recycling facility.
[4:10:01] That's our original water recycling facility plan, all right, again, with cow water in
[4:10:07] the plan and as you've probably heard tonight, we're still negotiating and talking about,
[4:10:12] you know, how that project comes together and how it's funded and how it's financed,
[4:10:16] but the idea with the calorie cycling,
[4:10:19] what it would be online earlier,
[4:10:22] it wouldn't need to wait for the affluent for the balance.
[4:10:26] Okay, do you know how long it would take
[4:10:28] to build such facility to accommodate the 20% of full will now?
[4:10:34] I mean, because you're talking about 10 to 15 years
[4:10:38] of this 20% and these timelines keep getting
[4:10:42] a longer and longer.
[4:10:44] Well, it all depends on the market, right?
[4:10:46] You cannot, you know, we can't, nobody has a crystal ball here, we think, you know, given, you know, we think the site is a great site for development.
[4:10:54] We think once we get entitled, you know, that there is a lot of interest in the site and that the development will move at a, you know, a fairly quick pace.
[4:11:03] But, you know, many of us in this room had lived through 2008, so sometimes there are hiccups in the real estate world.
[4:11:10] And so it's hard to predict, yeah, it can give you a number of how long it's going to take
[4:11:15] us to build out about 20 percent of the development, I can give you estimates at this point
[4:11:21] in time.
[4:11:21] Okay, but we know how long approximately it would take to build a facility to accommodate.
[4:11:27] So can anybody in this room get water recycling facility, how long it takes to build a water
[4:11:31] recycling facility?
[4:11:33] Yes, to accommodate what 20 percent of the full build out would do.
[4:11:39] to try and understand timing and when things would be built.
[4:11:44] I mean, that's a good question. I think it's tough to speculate. I would assume a project like this, you know, you're looking at 12 to 18 months.
[4:11:52] Whether this facility is faced or all built all at once, that will impact the schedule and the timeline as well.
[4:12:01] This is a complicated construction build that's going to require a lot of time and effort.
[4:12:07] So I would I would just roughly say 12 12 to 18 months from groundbreaking assuming you've got
[4:12:15] definitely nothing else ready to go.
[4:12:18] Okay, you know perhaps after cleanup. Yeah, so you know I'd like to as an item to put in a specific plan that
[4:12:29] the water. I'm gonna call it a water treatment recycling plant because that's what I'd like to
[4:12:37] to see at the site, that construction start so that that facility can treat the water from
[4:12:52] the initial build of residential or commercial if that's what you choose to do, right?
[4:12:59] So that there's a place for the effluent to go to when someone flashes their toilet in one
[4:13:06] the new townhomes or whatever, you know, as the first housing development.
[4:13:16] Okay, I have a question.
[4:13:18] This is my last question.
[4:13:20] When we talk about cell water supplying water to sear point, is that inclusive of an anticipated
[4:13:27] development, both by universal paragon on their property and also health peak?
[4:13:37] Those are two large developments that we've not talked about.
[4:13:41] So when you say sublime, to see our point,
[4:13:44] are you aware of those two projects and are you prepared to also deliver water to those projects within the capacity that you know you have?
[4:13:53] I think this would be a good question for ECA because I believe that they did look at that as part of the long-term water supply assessment.
[4:14:01] I don't know if anybody freakows online anymore.
[4:14:10] Or if you can, a person was here for remediation, but there's different people for water.
[4:14:15] But we could tee that up for the next one.
[4:14:18] I think that's a really important question.
[4:14:20] We need to answer to if you could bring that back to the next hearing.
[4:14:24] When I was looking at the water supply agreement getting familiar with the project, I did notice
[4:14:29] that.
[4:14:30] But let me let us double check in here for the next meeting.
[4:14:35] That's all I have. We have three minutes. Can't remember less.
[4:14:41] You know, why don't we just move water to the next?
[4:14:46] Do you have a lot of ideas?
[4:14:49] You know, I mean, I can, I'll just ask it.
[4:14:51] If you're all good, I'll ask the questions and we can extend the meeting.
[4:14:56] And if you want to just knock out the water, I'll just ask it.
[4:14:59] How many? How many?
[4:15:01] I think it's going to take a while. I would say probably 30 minutes. Can you submit those questions to staff and they could be included? The answers could be included in our next.
[4:15:13] The lot of the questions are for cow water.
[4:15:19] I'll make a motion to extend the meeting for 30 minutes.
[4:15:23] In the second.
[4:15:29] If you move this so long, I'll second. I'll second. We've just moved it along. I think. Okay. Thank you.
[4:15:33] Okay, all in favor, any one opposed?
[4:15:40] Okay.
[4:15:43] Okay.
[4:15:43] Okay.
[4:15:43] Remember lunch?
[4:15:44] You got the floor.
[4:15:45] Okay, Scott, if you would mind coming to the podium place.
[4:15:48] Okay,
[4:15:53] so,
[4:15:53] okay, so BDI says that they need,
[4:15:56] for the recycling needs 500,000 MGD.
[4:16:00] And basically, you guys are 500,000 MGD.
[4:16:03] Okay, so that's going to go to customers in South San Francisco.
[4:16:07] So, are there any time requirements for providing that recycled water to customers in South San Francisco?
[4:16:18] Not at this time.
[4:16:19] We're still actively working with customers and same where there is a want and used for that recycled water.
[4:16:28] So, that is all still discussions to be had.
[4:16:30] At this point, there is not a firm schedule as to when that water would be utilized.
[4:16:34] Okay, is the water recycling facility and the water recycled water that you need to send to
[4:16:42] South San Francisco, is that contingent on this deal-debring pot of water to the bayonelines?
[4:16:51] We're looking at multiple sources, but the intent is to utilize this water when it becomes available.
[4:16:57] Okay, so if BDI proposed a project and it was 300 housing units, you would just, you would
[4:17:10] provide the water, the potable water for that development, you would do it, that's part
[4:17:17] of the agreement, whether the recycling water facility or water treatment facility was built.
[4:17:23] The intent that is still all being negotiated, but the the want is to put that facility
[4:17:29] online as soon as possible and utilize that water and till there's affluence available
[4:17:34] to be able to fulfill the needs it would come from other sources and that would be utilized.
[4:17:41] But the the want is to utilize that as soon as possible if there is not enough if there
[4:17:46] is not available recycled water, then we would use portable water until that time.
[4:17:53] OK. OK.
[4:18:08] OK. So this is, I guess maybe a question for staff. So it says the FER states
[4:18:14] that are building that a binding water service agreement would be executed after sequesterification
[4:18:19] typically following project entitlement could the council require it before project entitlement.
[4:18:25] If that was the desire of the council.
[4:18:37] because it depends what you mean by entitlement, and it certainly would be before any individual
[4:18:42] project were entitled, if you were to want to require it before the specific plan were adopted.
[4:18:53] I'm not sure what that would do to the schedule because those agreements haven't been negotiated yet.
[4:18:58] Yeah, I'm not going to let this out of the staff report, so that's what it says.
[4:19:01] So this is typically following project entitlement,
[4:19:05] could the council, if it's so desired to require it
[4:19:08] before project entitlement, as it stated in this staff report?
[4:19:15] You're looking at that chart.
[4:19:23] It's written on me this, even if I find
[4:19:34] it.
[4:19:35] Okay, it's on page 5 of 10.
[4:19:39] It's in the last paragraph,
[4:19:45] as explained in the FER,
[4:19:47] or binding water service agreement would be executed after sequestrification, typically following
[4:19:53] project entitlement. Yeah, and I think in that in the way it's being used in the staff report,
[4:19:59] that's then after the specific plan was acted on because that's the indication that we've
[4:20:06] received from Cal Water that that's when that we need to know what program is being approved before we
[4:20:16] enter into any sort of actual water service agreement.
[4:20:21] We have the WSA to know that there's supply for the program that was proposed, but until
[4:20:28] it's entitled, there's we don't have the basic, until the specific plan has been approved
[4:20:34] and we know what Council has authorized, there's not the basis to finalize the agreement.
[4:20:40] Okay, you know, Madam Mayor, I'm actually just, yeah, I don't worn down and I know that
[4:20:49] the council will prefer that I not continue to ask the questions and others
[4:20:53] members of the public would prefer to go home. I don't, it's cow water doesn't
[4:20:58] mind coming back. Okay, you know, I would prefer to do that. I'm actually getting
[4:21:04] tired and I was just doing it just to check it off the list, but I would
[4:21:09] prefer to just to come back and knock it out at the beginning of the next meeting.
[4:21:14] Okay. All right. They are intending to also begin the other topic at the next meeting, right?
[4:21:23] I just want to confirm that will be.
[4:21:26] What other topic is that? I think at the schedule that you showed at the beginning only had
[4:21:31] what are you made more progress tonight than?
[4:21:33] No, so finance.
[4:21:35] I don't think that we're playing since we're planning on having finance on the 23rd.
[4:21:41] I'm not sure that the actual report will be ready for the meeting on the 19th.
[4:21:50] So are you saying there's no topic?
[4:21:53] We'll be planning on talking about water, but if you're finished or close to finished, then you can direct.
[4:21:59] says, let's say Cliff has 10 questions. He's only one with questions on the water left.
[4:22:05] Would we all be coming to the next meeting to just sit here and listen to Cliff's questions?
[4:22:09] Or would we then be moving into the next topic, which may be health and safety if we need to bump that up?
[4:22:17] So yeah, so I was under the impression that we were doing the finances at the next meeting.
[4:22:22] That's what I thought it was. That's not ready for prime time.
[4:22:25] It's on the calendar for the 23rd.
[4:22:28] I was looking at the calendar on the time.
[4:22:30] Or a dissident, tentative. So how about this? Then let's do public safety and alternatives meeting.
[4:22:39] Staff would need to prepare a reading list because we have a reading list prepared for all the other topics, but that's a new topic.
[4:22:49] So staff would need to prepare a reading list, I assume, for that, or is that necessary?
[4:22:56] You tell us what you want to talk about and we'll figure out how to be prepared for it I don't I guess I don't know what
[4:23:06] Close topic, so yeah, so I mean we have
[4:23:12] You know seven alternatives we should evaluate those we know that alternative seven was brought up many times by members of the public and also myself
[4:23:21] I think we should evaluate that, and then public safety, you know, police, fire, and public
[4:23:27] works. And, you know, just for example, the fire station is proposed on the east side.
[4:23:34] Well, if you don't have the Geneva Avenue extension, that's a problem. And we need to talk
[4:23:39] about public safety to go through these earrings and talk about public safety. That's a crime
[4:23:46] to our constituents.
[4:23:48] May I ask you a question? I just heard alternative 7. Are you saying that would be also
[4:23:54] part of November 19? I would like to talk about that. And if Council members want to talk
[4:24:00] about the other alternatives, you know, it's in the EIR. So it isn't like that hasn't been addressed,
[4:24:09] but we just haven't had a discussion about those. Didn't you say at a previous meeting that if we
[4:24:18] or did I misunderstand that?
[4:24:21] No, so the alternatives are analyzed in the EIR.
[4:24:27] So we would change what, if you were to adopt an alternative
[4:24:30] instead of the project, it would change the types of findings you make,
[4:24:35] but you do have discretion to adopt something
[4:24:38] that's other than the project.
[4:24:41] We might have to make conforming changes to the specific plan itself
[4:24:47] to match the alternative, but the EIR, the alternatives are part of the EIR and have been analyzed as part of the EIR.
[4:25:00] So, is it my understanding that alternative 7 or talking about alternatives could be making the project smaller or less impactful?
[4:25:13] Is that what you'd like to discuss?
[4:25:21] So I think it is appropriate for us to discuss the alternative,
[4:25:27] because that those alternatives evaluate different densities and intensities.
[4:25:35] And I think that's appropriate.
[4:25:38] Thank you.
[4:25:38] I have been through that comparison chart in the EIR.
[4:25:43] And I'm just asking to understand, so I can actually formulate my notes and come prepared to the meeting.
[4:25:49] What?
[4:25:50] We've just bring questions based upon the alternative, because they are compared.
[4:25:55] This isn't just a list of items in the EIR.
[4:25:58] They are compared to each other, so I'm just trying to understand how that conversation may come together.
[4:26:04] Yeah, so one of the things that we did at the start of our meeting tonight was to give direction to council.
[4:26:10] I mean, to staff, right?
[4:26:12] What are the things that we'd like to see evaluated
[4:26:15] or change in the specific plan?
[4:26:20] So addressing those alternatives could potentially
[4:26:23] provide direction from council members to give to staff
[4:26:28] to evaluate certain things such as what council member
[4:26:33] or McConnell raised.
[4:26:34] And I think you raised the same thing.
[4:26:36] Council member Davis is 1,800 units.
[4:26:39] So that's one of the requirements of that alternative.
[4:26:46] But here we are discussing this, which really should just have it agendized so that
[4:26:51] then we can get into that full discussion.
[4:26:53] I wonder though, I mean, so when I said the 1800, I did that recognizing that we don't
[4:27:00] have the financial analysis and I think that when you toggle, when you begin to toggle,
[4:27:07] right, you start messing with the potential equilibrium of the development.
[4:27:15] So, there needs to be a certain amount of commercial, right?
[4:27:20] Certain amount of square feet of commercial to offset the housing and to ensure that it's revenue positive for the city.
[4:27:30] So, I feel almost that, like, that's why I didn't put an amount
[4:27:34] And because it's up to 7 million square feet, and that's why I didn't put the amount of commercial that I would like to see because at this point, I don't even feel that we can analyze what the appropriate amount of commercial is without understanding how these changes impact the finances because you could say all day long that you want 4 million, but then the finances come back and say, well, your baseline has to be six.
[4:28:02] So I, you know, I'm concerned that we can certainly talk and look, but I think it's important
[4:28:09] to keep in mind that with all that financial analysis, there's not a whole lot, I think
[4:28:15] of direction that we can give to staff about what the appropriate density truly is.
[4:28:21] I think you make a very good point, but at the same time unless we start the discussion,
[4:28:26] we don't know how far we would go with it.
[4:28:29] So maybe it's just putting it on the table and seeing what the questions are.
[4:28:35] And if there's too much there, then that gets moved to another meeting later on.
[4:28:40] Well, we may notice that there is one alternative, that we may have some kind of, we see some
[4:28:44] consensus and then maybe, who knows, I don't know, Kaiser Marston will even have the time
[4:28:49] to prepare something for them the following meeting that analyzes that particular, but we've
[4:28:56] even seeing whether Council has the appetite to pursue one of the alternatives unless we talk about it.
[4:29:03] So maybe that's a good time. We could continue water, public safety. I don't think that's a heavy burden,
[4:29:10] and then look at the alternatives and that sounds like a meeting right there.
[4:29:16] Yes? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, and I'll make my water questions more concise
[4:29:22] so that expedites that part of the meeting.
[4:29:29] And I would just ask if everyone on the council
[4:29:32] thinks that you're proposing for staff to look into,
[4:29:37] if those could be submitted earlier,
[4:29:39] so that that appears in the packet,
[4:29:41] and it's not incumbent upon staff to try to take notes here
[4:29:44] and the public would see it,
[4:29:46] and we would all have a chance to see it,
[4:29:49] that would be helpful.
[4:29:50] Alright, that being said, it's 9.56 and this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[4:29:57] Thank you, the staff and the lead to continue.
[4:30:00] I will have the city attorney calling me. Can I get a first and second to continue the public hearing on November 19, 2026 at 530 p.m.
[4:30:12] So moved, second? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.
[4:30:15] And thank you to everybody. We will see you all from the 19.