[0:00] [music]

[0:07] [music]

[0:14] Heat. Heat.

[0:22] Heat. Heat.

[0:26] [music]

[0:32] [music]

[0:37] [music]

[0:42] [music]

[0:47] » [music]

[0:58] [music]

[1:04] [music]

[1:09] » Heat. Heat.

[1:21] » [music]

[1:27] [music]

[1:30] » Heat. Heat.

[1:33] [music]

[1:43] » [music]

[1:48] [music]

[1:52] [music]

[2:11] [music]

[2:21] » Heat. Heat. [music]

[2:27] Hey. Hey. Hey.

[2:35] [music]

[2:39] [music]

[2:45] [music]

[2:50] [music]

[3:06] » [music]

[3:17] [music]

[3:28] [music]

[3:39] [music]

[3:55] [music]

[3:59] [music]

[4:18] [music]

[4:24] [music]

[4:30] [music]

[4:35] [music]

[5:14] » Heat. Hey, Heat.

[5:16] » [music]

[5:29] [music]

[5:34] [music]

[5:38] » Hey.

[5:41] Hey. Hey.

[5:43] » [music]

[5:56] [music]

[6:05] » Heat. Heat.

[6:07] [music]

[6:19] [music]

[6:25] [music]

[6:34] » [music]

[6:40] » Hey,

[6:44] [music]

[6:49] [music]

[6:53] heat. [music]

[6:59] » [music]

[7:04] [music]

[7:05] » Heat. Heat.

[7:14] » [music]

[7:26] [music]

[7:30] » Heat. Heat. [music]

[7:35] [music]

[7:47] » [music]

[7:50] » Heat.

[7:56] [music]

[8:03] Heat.

[8:08] » [music]

[8:17] [music]

[8:18] » Heat. Heat.

[8:25] [music]

[8:30] » [music]

[8:34] [music]

[8:37] » Heat. Heat.

[8:45] [music]

[8:46] Heat.

[8:57] [music]

[9:02] [music]

[10:44] » [music]

[10:48] » Good evening. This is the city council

[10:50] special meeting of October 15, 2026.

[10:54] Calling the meeting to order at 5:38

[10:57] p.m. Would you please join me in the

[10:59] pledge of allegiance?

[11:02] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[11:05] United States of America and to the

[11:07] republic for which it stands. One nation

[11:10] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[11:13] justice for all.

[11:16] [clears throat]

[11:19] » We have a full house of council members.

[11:21] No one remotely attending. City clerk,

[11:24] roll call, please.

[11:27] » Council member Davis,

[11:28] » Here.

[11:28] » Council member Kern,

[11:30] » Here. Council member Lent

[11:32] » Here.

[11:32] » Council member Okonnell

[11:34] » Here.

[11:34] » And Mayor Mackin

[11:35] » Here.

[11:37] » City Attorney, could we have a report

[11:39] out of close session, please?

[11:41] » Sure. Good evening. I closed session was

[11:43] had on the item of the on the agenda and

[11:45] there was there is no reportable action.

[11:48] » Thank you.

[11:50] This is a continuation of a public

[11:53] hearing.

[11:55] We welcome the public to comment or ask

[11:57] questions during tonight's hearing.

[11:59] Please fill out a form. They're on the

[12:01] seats. You can also obtain one from the

[12:03] city clerk. When you fill it out, please

[12:05] hand it to the city clerk. Speakers will

[12:08] have four minutes for each topic. And

[12:10] there's a timer on the screen that you

[12:12] can use for reference. It's extremely

[12:15] important for speakers to stay on topic.

[12:18] If you don't stay on topic, I will have

[12:20] to stop you, and I don't want to have to

[12:22] do that. If a speaker continues to

[12:25] ignore the rules, you'll be warned and

[12:27] you may be precluded from speaking on

[12:29] any other items tonight. But really the

[12:31] important part is please be respectful

[12:34] of others who also want their chance to

[12:36] speak.

[12:39] First item we have staff has a proposal

[12:41] for a public hearing schedule. Would

[12:43] like to have a short discussion about

[12:45] the meetings.

[12:48] Could we please put the table up on the

[12:51] screen?

[13:03] And do we have a um staff report on

[13:06] this?

[13:09] » Uh yes, Madame Mayor. And and in fact, I

[13:12] I think we have a slide that may be a

[13:15] little more uh visible to the public. Um

[13:19] but uh as we as we tee that up, I'll

[13:23] provide the context here. Uh we've

[13:25] prepared a public hearing schedule based

[13:28] on different topics and tonight is

[13:30] October 15th, which would be the

[13:32] remediation and phasing. Um I think

[13:34] we've heard uh there we go. Uh we've

[13:36] heard from both the council as well as

[13:38] members of the public that um the

[13:40] spacing of these meetings can sometimes

[13:42] be a little um hard to deal with if uh

[13:45] if you have two meetings within a week

[13:48] of each other. Um particularly if you

[13:50] have one on Thursday, the next one on

[13:52] Monday, something like that. So we are

[13:54] proposing from staff a modified schedule

[13:58] that would at least have the meetings

[14:01] once per week generally on a Thursday uh

[14:04] so that there's one full week between um

[14:07] each meeting in this public hearing and

[14:09] that gives people enough time to

[14:12] um study the materials, prepare comments

[14:15] um and and uh be ready for the next

[14:18] meeting. Uh so what we would propose

[14:21] would be uh changing the October 20th

[14:24] meeting to October 22nd, changing the

[14:28] October 26th meeting to October 29th,

[14:32] and then the November 9th meeting to

[14:34] November 12th. Um and the intention

[14:37] again is that each of these meetings

[14:38] would be one full week apart. Um which

[14:41] would allow everybody a little better

[14:43] chance to participate.

[14:48] So is there may I ask is there a reason

[14:50] why you chose Thursdays?

[14:53] Uh no, other than uh looking at the

[14:56] calendar and the availability of this

[14:58] room and uh just and also

[15:03] there's nothing magic other than it did

[15:06] seem like that was a place to start and

[15:08] as we looked at u how the calendar would

[15:11] play out and the dates that were

[15:12] available um it it they tended to land

[15:15] on the Thursdays but there's nothing

[15:17] magic about a Thursday um other than

[15:20] wanting to just keep each of these

[15:21] meetings one week apart from the next.

[15:23] » Okay. So, I I'm just going to speak up

[15:25] because we had a lot of hearings on

[15:27] Tuesdays.

[15:30] Um I have county meetings on Thursdays

[15:32] when we don't have council meetings. So,

[15:35] I would be missing my county meetings in

[15:37] October, November, and potentially

[15:39] December. That's a lot to miss.

[15:48] Anyone else?

[15:51] I'm happy to go with anything. And you

[15:54] know, I know that it's a lot for the

[15:56] staff and a lot for the council, but I

[15:59] think we need to really persevere on

[16:01] with the original schedule. Mhm.

[16:05] Well, and if if we were to

[16:08] change this, I just I wondered if going

[16:12] by the original Tuesdays

[16:16] and we had some Mondays if we could work

[16:19] on Mondays and Tuesdays and then I don't

[16:21] miss all those county meetings.

[16:24] » Certainly, yes, we can look at the

[16:25] schedule again. And I apologize. I was

[16:28] not aware of that conflict and uh

[16:30] certainly we want all of the council

[16:31] members to be able to participate and

[16:33] particularly the mayor but everybody. So

[16:36] um we can look at those Mondays and

[16:38] Tuesdays and um make sure that we are uh

[16:42] not providing conflicts that um people

[16:45] have for their other responsibilities.

[16:46] » Okay. And then maybe if you can confer

[16:48] with Angel and staff they have our

[16:51] schedules and and come back to us

[16:54] » With something else. We

[16:55] » Certainly can. Thank you.

[16:57] » Can I ask a quick question because our

[16:59] next one is so close.

[17:01] » Are we going to meet on the 20th or the

[17:03] 22nd?

[17:06] » I think we need to iron out at least

[17:07] that.

[17:08] » Didn't our city attorney have an issue

[17:10] with the 22nd?

[17:12] » Yes. I cannot make the 22nd or the 29th.

[17:17] » So, let's assume we would keep the 20th

[17:19] and work from there. Does that meet

[17:21] everyone's approval?

[17:25] » Okay. with one question, Madame Mayor,

[17:27] if I may. Uh, does that mean on the 20th

[17:29] that Kevin will be back bringing back a

[17:32] revised schedule for us to review?

[17:35] » Kevin,

[17:37] » Uh, we will endeavor to do that. Uh, I

[17:39] will work with Angel to hopefully come

[17:42] up with a schedule and, uh, have another

[17:44] proposal at that time.

[17:46] » Thank you.

[17:46] » Okay.

[17:48] So, recapping from our last hearing, I

[17:50] believe council also had asked for

[17:52] proposals and costs obtaining a peer

[17:54] review of the Bayands energy plan. I

[17:57] believe Kevin again, our interim

[17:59] community development director, you may

[18:01] have a report on this.

[18:13] Uh yes, and I can provide some

[18:14] background on how this has evolved. Uh

[18:18] there was originally a energy study

[18:21] prepared by uh Thornton Thomaseti uh

[18:25] that was used in the EIR. uh our

[18:29] environmental consultant ESA had

[18:31] utilized that they had initially looked

[18:33] at the methodology

[18:35] and although the study was uh a few

[18:38] years old uh used some of their own um

[18:42] metrics and and uh and their their uh

[18:45] kind of understanding to determine that

[18:48] the study could be used in the EIR. Uh

[18:51] however, we have heard concerns

[18:53] particularly with the age of that study

[18:56] um and the source of the study. So um we

[18:58] were directed to obtain a peerreview

[19:01] proposal.

[19:03] Uh staff went to Ramble uh associates

[19:06] which has been doing other other energy

[19:10] studies for other projects in Brisbane

[19:13] and they are known um for this kind of

[19:15] work. Um so we first tried to identify

[19:18] who would do a peer review, identified

[19:20] Ramble and then got a proposal from

[19:23] Ramble. Um they have uh proposed a study

[19:27] that would look over the Thomasi study

[19:31] and uh provide a both a uh technical

[19:36] assessment as well as a technical

[19:37] memorandum with their conclusions on the

[19:40] adequacy of the prior Thomas study. Um

[19:43] and um anything that may be uh would

[19:46] need to be done either as followup um as

[19:49] applicable. Uh the study would uh the

[19:52] peer review would cost $17,250

[19:56] and would take uh is estimated to take

[19:59] from four to six weeks. Uh since that

[20:02] time uh we have heard from other council

[20:04] members interest in getting other bids.

[20:07] Um this was one bid that we went out for

[20:10] to a vendor that we are familiar with,

[20:12] but that does not mean we cannot get

[20:14] other bids. Um there's also uh I've been

[20:18] told of interest in getting a full new

[20:20] study as opposed to a peer review. So

[20:23] should either of those be uh of interest

[20:25] to the council, staff can follow up with

[20:28] either engaging other consultants uh and

[20:31] or uh getting a proposal for a full uh

[20:35] new study as opposed to a peer review.

[20:39] » Thank you, Kevin. Um let's get some

[20:41] input from the council. Council member

[20:43] Okonnell, one bid or for a um one bid or

[20:48] a full new study or more bids?

[20:52] So, I have a question for staff if I may

[20:54] on this. Um if we were to

[21:00] use this study that as is in the in our

[21:04] deliberations and for the base purposes

[21:07] when a project an individual project

[21:10] gets pulled to permits pulled for that

[21:14] would an an energy assessment be

[21:17] required from for that or could we write

[21:20] that into our specific plan that an

[21:24] additional energy assessment could be

[21:26] applied to that specific building permit

[21:30] as they are issued. [snorts]

[21:32] » Yeah. So the the existing

[21:35] um study on energy generation related to

[21:38] the buildings isn't regulatory. So yeah,

[21:41] a building a developer or an applicant

[21:44] coming in isn't required to match those

[21:48] particular standards. Those were, you

[21:50] know, projections that were used to

[21:52] develop the overall um energy model that

[21:55] ESA developed in connection with the

[21:57] EIR. Um the specific plan requires

[22:03] um very specific

[22:05] criteria with respect to energy

[22:08] performance um as as does the building

[22:11] code um for new buildings coming in. So

[22:13] that would be what new projects are held

[22:16] to. they would be um required to meet

[22:18] the performance standards defined in the

[22:21] specific plan. Um although it's been

[22:24] discussed and and it's been asked about,

[22:26] the specific plan does not currently

[22:28] have a backwardslooking

[22:32] um energy report after buildings have

[22:36] been developed. The focus has been on

[22:39] forwardlooking performance standards. um

[22:42] that tends to be more reliable and and

[22:45] easier to enforce. But if we can again

[22:49] at council's direction that there are

[22:53] things that can be added to the plan uh

[22:55] to try and track energy use, what you do

[22:59] with that information. We, you know,

[23:01] we'll have to talk more about it, but um

[23:03] that's that's a snapshot of where we are

[23:05] today.

[23:06] » Okay. So, but they do have to to meet

[23:09] current energy guidelines. It's more how

[23:12] much energy would need to be generated

[23:14] on site that is the concern.

[23:17] » Correct. Yes. So the the study that was

[23:19] generated showed different building

[23:22] typologies and made assumptions about

[23:25] how much energy those buildings a would

[23:28] use and b potentially could you know

[23:30] generate based on their on-site

[23:33] capabilities. Um it's a little dated. So

[23:36] if anything, the the assumptions in that

[23:38] study are are conservative and would

[23:41] overstate energy consumption compared to

[23:44] current standards. And as we discussed

[23:46] in uh previous meetings, the specific

[23:49] plan does have you forward-looking

[23:51] performance standards uh for energy

[23:55] efficiency, on-site energy generation,

[23:58] and would be pegged to then current both

[24:02] building code and lead code requirements

[24:05] at the time they're coming in for

[24:07] building permits. So that they would we

[24:09] would expect to see their performance

[24:10] improve over time. And and even if it

[24:13] wasn't based just on the building

[24:14] itself, we could write into the specific

[24:18] plan, if we needed to um a more

[24:22] aggressive amount of um developer

[24:26] provided on-site energy if we were to

[24:29] decide to do that.

[24:31] » Yes. Thank you,

[24:34] » Council Member Lens.

[24:36] » Yeah. Um

[24:38] so yeah I had uh asked staff if uh if we

[24:43] um required a a second bid and they said

[24:47] it was up to the council. So um in

[24:51] previous meetings I had mentioned uh

[24:53] integral group they were the ones that

[24:56] had uh helped us with our sustainability

[24:58] framework and um now they are part of

[25:03] introba

[25:04] and so um I had shared that information

[25:07] with staff and so um I'm sure that this

[25:11] um firm that uh um that Kevin had uh

[25:16] suggested would do a good job but I

[25:18] think it would um I think would be

[25:20] helpful to hear from uh Introba as well,

[25:24] especially since uh the person that

[25:27] would potentially do the new study or

[25:30] peer review uh worked on our

[25:32] sustainability framework and has an

[25:35] understanding of um the uh

[25:39] you know the the project.

[25:42] So, are you

[25:44] you're saying that you would solicit one

[25:47] more bid from Entroba?

[25:49] » Correct. Or Yeah, I I I think at least

[25:51] that.

[25:52] » Okay. And uh Council Member Okonnell

[25:55] » As a peer review or as a new study.

[25:58] » You know, I I don't have like the

[26:01] knowledge to know what would be

[26:04] appropriate. Um I I just know that if

[26:07] you if you have a developer who's we're

[26:08] using their um study, um it would be

[26:14] wise for the city to at least peer

[26:16] review, but [clears throat] we have uh

[26:19] you know a certain amount of years that

[26:20] have gone by and I have heard that

[26:23] council members would like to see a new

[26:25] study. So I I I'd be open for a new

[26:27] study as well.

[26:30] » Okay. And Council Member Okonnell, I'm

[26:32] not sure I got a a final

[26:34] » I I was waiting. I didn't know if anyone

[26:36] else had questions, but for me, I think

[26:38] that we should build in better into our

[26:42] specific plan what we're looking for and

[26:45] what targets we're looking for. And that

[26:48] a peer-reviewed study of the existing

[26:51] data is really not going to give us the

[26:52] information we want. and a whole new

[26:55] study maybe again out of date once we

[26:59] know what the uses are. So that it's

[27:01] better to tie it to the whatever uses

[27:03] are being proposed at the time they're

[27:05] proposed and have safeguards in that

[27:08] respect. So I would say no study and no

[27:11] peer review.

[27:13] » Okay. So using what is existing

[27:16] » Using what's existing.

[27:17] » All right. Council member Kern.

[27:20] » Thank you Madame Mayor. Um, Kevin, if I

[27:23] may, I have just process questions

[27:25] today. This is uh stuff that I I was

[27:28] going through your your staff report and

[27:29] your email that I have questions on. You

[27:31] say it's going to take potentially four

[27:33] to six weeks to do the peer review. How

[27:35] much time does it take to do an whole

[27:37] new study?

[27:41] Um, I would need to get an estimate for

[27:43] that. Uh, I did contact uh Ramble today

[27:46] and I'm happy to contact uh others as

[27:49] well. Integral um as needed.

[27:52] uh to get an estimate for that. Uh so it

[27:55] would take more. Uh so the four to six

[27:57] weeks is based on a total of 50 hours of

[28:01] staff time. Um everything from 20 hours

[28:04] of document review uh some meetings to

[28:07] gather information, technical

[28:08] assessment, memorandum, and project

[28:10] management. Um so a new study would be

[28:14] more um and hopefully as quickly as

[28:17] possible we could get you uh an answer

[28:19] to what more would be. Uh but uh in any

[28:22] case I I don't have that information

[28:24] quite yet.

[28:26] » Thank you. Can we just do a bread box or

[28:28] Buick game on this? Is it years to do a

[28:31] study? I'm just I'm trying to

[28:34] understand, you know, just a rough just

[28:36] we're not going to hold you to it. Just

[28:38] take a guess. Uh we're estimating what?

[28:42] Three months to

[28:44] » Two to three months. So uh yeah. So,

[28:47] it's uh I would guess it's incrementally

[28:49] more, but not years, it's months.

[28:51] » Okay. Thank you. Um I saw the price in

[28:54] your email that you you got the quote

[28:56] on. I think you quoted a little bit

[28:57] earlier in this meeting. Is that as

[28:59] expected? Is that a reasonable number?

[29:02] » Uh it is. Uh so it's for 50 hours of

[29:05] work. So if you just do the basic math,

[29:08] that's $345 an hour. Um which is, you

[29:13] know, this is highly specialized work.

[29:16] So, uh that is typical of what we see

[29:20] for this type of work for this kind of

[29:22] study. That said, um we're happy to get

[29:26] more bids, uh if that gives more

[29:28] confidence and um I I would expect it'll

[29:30] be in the same range, but um that is

[29:33] kind of where the numbers add up.

[29:36] » Okay, thank you for that. And then the

[29:37] last question I think is you as well,

[29:39] Kevin. So if we have the peer review

[29:42] done to the existing energy study,

[29:45] there's almost no incentive for the

[29:48] company doing the peer review to say

[29:50] this is a okay, please move forward. So

[29:52] they're going to come back with

[29:53] information that may be contradictory to

[29:55] what's in the original energy study.

[29:57] Whose job is it to go and do the

[29:58] comparison and make sense out of it and

[30:01] make a determination which study is the

[30:03] right study and the right information to

[30:05] move forward with?

[30:07] I mean that is an inherent challenge

[30:08] with peer review. Um I will say I have

[30:12] been uh part of peer review or or had

[30:14] peer reviews done where the finding does

[30:17] come back that the study was acceptable.

[30:19] So I don't think it's a foregone

[30:21] conclusion that um there would need to

[30:25] be more work to be done. However, I

[30:27] think that's a good point because then

[30:29] there is a possible scenario if the

[30:32] study comes back or the peer review

[30:33] comes back identifying u recommendations

[30:36] for further work then you're adding new

[30:41] more work as well. Um so that that would

[30:44] be the unknown. you you hope for the

[30:46] best uh

[30:48] uh the the best case scenario which

[30:50] would be to affirm that the original

[30:52] study was was done and defendable. Uh

[30:56] but you also have to be prepared for the

[30:57] outcome that there may be more work to

[31:00] be done based on the peer review.

[31:02] » And then one uh just to to continue to

[31:04] build on what what Kevin was saying

[31:08] just to keep in perspective where the

[31:10] where the report fits into the overall

[31:13] framework. It was one of the inputs that

[31:16] ESA consulted when they were developing

[31:19] their overall uh energy projections that

[31:22] were analyzed in the EIR. So the

[31:26] question I mean the the way as we were

[31:28] talking about in response to council

[31:30] member Okonnell's question the energy

[31:33] study itself isn't regulatory. It was

[31:36] one input to help get to the figures and

[31:38] the projections that show how much

[31:41] energy is being consumed and project and

[31:44] produced within the bay lands area. So

[31:47] then the question would be um is that

[31:50] study still adequate for that purpose or

[31:52] do we need to adjust the assumptions and

[31:56] show that maybe you know buildings are

[31:58] consuming a little less energy than in

[32:00] projected or a little bit more and

[32:02] depending on the results of that that

[32:04] peer review. but it would change, you

[32:07] know, one of the inputs to one of the

[32:09] technical studies that the city's team

[32:11] produced to help assess one of the

[32:15] factors in the EIR

[32:18] if if that helps in terms of the

[32:20] process.

[32:22] » Thank you. And Madame Mayor,

[32:24] » Am I allowed to be asking this many

[32:26] questions or are we supposed to be going

[32:27] round robin one by one

[32:29] » On this one? Let's just

[32:30] » Okay, I only have one more.

[32:31] » Okay.

[32:32] » I think this is for you, Eric, as well.

[32:34] Are the costs for the peer review or the

[32:38] new study reimburseable?

[32:45] » Yep. Yeah. That that yes, that all the

[32:48] all project costs are currently covered

[32:50] by our reimbursement agreement. Anything

[32:52] that's necessary to process this

[32:55] forward.

[32:57] » Thank you. I don't have any more

[32:58] questions. Thank you.

[32:59] » So, what is your input on how to

[33:02] proceed?

[33:06] At this time, I think that doing a peer

[33:08] review is fine.

[33:09] » Okay. Thank you, Mayor Prom Davis.

[33:14] Um well what I gathered from the hearing

[33:18] in which we discussed this it seemed

[33:20] that the peer review was out of date and

[33:23] staff felt that the figures calculated

[33:26] were conservative that in fact

[33:30] technology has improved and the 53% that

[33:35] was estimated in the study for on-site

[33:37] generation would actually it would

[33:39] actually be more in reality and would

[33:42] probably get better as time progressed,

[33:45] you know, from when from now until when

[33:47] the site was ultimately built. So based

[33:51] on the that

[33:54] information that these numbers seem to

[33:57] be stale,

[33:59] I don't know if a peer review of a study

[34:04] with stale numbers will shake out the

[34:07] real numbers

[34:08] or if it makes sense to just conduct a

[34:12] new study. Um, so that was something

[34:14] that I was kind of struggling with, like

[34:16] what's the value of peer-reviewing a

[34:18] study we already know has stale numbers

[34:21] from four years ago. Um, so that's

[34:23] something up for discussion. I think

[34:25] this kind of gets back to what is the

[34:28] goal and from what I heard from council

[34:31] questions and the public was that 53% of

[34:34] on-site generation doesn't meet what we

[34:37] think in our mind as being energy

[34:39] neutral. And so instead of trying to

[34:43] come up with numbers in a study that

[34:45] prove whether it is or whether it isn't,

[34:48] I think you just work backwards from the

[34:50] goal and as council member Okonnell

[34:52] mentioned and you just work the

[34:54] threshold into the specific plan that

[34:57] you want to see. So I think it may just

[35:00] be a conversation for the council to

[35:02] have in deliberations and saying okay

[35:04] energy neutral to us means X. It may

[35:07] mean 85%

[35:10] of the development's energy is produced

[35:13] on site and we'll allow 15%

[35:16] in you know uh PCE eco 100

[35:22] » Um supplement. So I think that that's

[35:26] what protects you ultimately is having

[35:29] your specific plan be as strong as

[35:31] possible and let them figure it out.

[35:34] they can figure out they can come up

[35:36] with a study and figure out how they're

[35:37] going to do that. So I I to me if we

[35:42] want to see this be more energy neutral

[35:46] than what the current study shows I

[35:50] think we just build that threshold into

[35:52] the specific plan and we don't worry

[35:54] about how they're going to figure that

[35:56] out. We just put it in there. So I don't

[36:00] even know that if if that's the course

[36:02] really the course that protects us the

[36:04] most. I would say you would just pursue

[36:06] that and not need to spend time and

[36:08] money on a study that may give you

[36:11] results in which you're still reviewing

[36:13] and saying well this is not energy

[36:14] neutral.

[36:16] So I would say you just pursue the the

[36:19] goal that you want to see happen

[36:22] right from that from the get-go. So

[36:25] that's my thought.

[36:26] So, you're in favor of just using the

[36:29] existing existing study?

[36:32] » Yeah. But I would say I'm in I'm in

[36:35] favor of crafting the specific plan to

[36:38] meet the goal that we want to achieve.

[36:40] » Right. Okay. All right. Um, hearing what

[36:44] everyone has said,

[36:47] I'm a little reluctant to consider that

[36:51] all of us sitting on the council are

[36:52] energy experts to know what criteria

[36:56] should be used in a specific plan as the

[36:59] ultimate safeguard. I would rather have

[37:01] a peer review where even if someone

[37:04] brings up new information or says this

[37:06] is a little wonky by today's standards,

[37:09] at least we have someone giving us some

[37:11] guidance that's more current than just

[37:13] us sitting here talking about it and

[37:15] going, "Well, we'll let them figure it

[37:17] out and we'll just put in the specific

[37:19] plan what sounds good and call it a

[37:21] day." So, I would be in favor of a peer

[37:23] review. I appreciate uh council member

[37:26] Lent what you said about Entroba, but I

[37:28] think we're going to delay this too

[37:29] long. Um if Ramble has done work for the

[37:34] city and it it seems reasonable, the

[37:37] cost does not seem extraordinary in the

[37:39] world of consultants, I would be in

[37:41] favor of just proceeding on that basis.

[37:45] And if they say four to six weeks, I'd

[37:47] ask them to try to meet four if they can

[37:49] do that.

[37:50] » Can I ask a follow-up question?

[37:52] » Sure. So I didn't ask this directly of

[37:54] staff but do you feel that we are going

[37:57] to get that to peer review a study that

[38:01] we know is stale

[38:03] is

[38:04] the best path forward to give us is it

[38:08] going to give us more updated

[38:10] information

[38:11] or is the best path forward a new study

[38:14] cuz right you want to have the most

[38:16] accurate information that's what we're

[38:18] seeking

[38:20] » Isn't that objective question though. I

[38:22] mean,

[38:22] » How do we [laughter] But I mean,

[38:26] they would know better than me, right?

[38:28] Would you would you are you going to get

[38:29] the most accurate information

[38:30] peer-reviewing a study with stale

[38:32] numbers or are you going to get it

[38:33] conducting a brand new study? I don't

[38:36] know.

[38:41] » Uh so my I would expect that Ramble or

[38:45] whoever does the peer review, they're

[38:47] looking more at methodology. So yes,

[38:49] they will acknowledge that the numbers

[38:51] are older. You know, some of it is that

[38:53] there's also been a, you know, building

[38:55] code update since that first study was

[38:57] done. So already you're looking forward

[39:00] and um assuming there's going to be more

[39:04] efficiency down the road. Um now maybe

[39:06] the peer review gives you a little more

[39:09] indication to [clears throat]

[39:10] what I'm hearing from council in

[39:12] building in some of the objectives into

[39:15] the plan. So you you know you would have

[39:18] those metrics and as they are critiquing

[39:21] methodology they may be able to provide

[39:23] that kind of insights. Um, and I I

[39:26] believe um the assistant city attorney

[39:28] also has some thoughts on this, but uh

[39:30] those are my initial um the other thing

[39:32] I just wanted to add um we're doing a

[39:34] little bit of phone a friend here in

[39:36] terms of just the uh if you were to do a

[39:38] full study

[39:40] maybe around $70,000

[39:43] and two three two to three months.

[39:48] » I I do have one question. this study

[39:50] influenced the EIR and at that point if

[39:55] something else different numbers come

[39:57] into the EIR then we have to update the

[40:00] EIR does that make the EIR have to go

[40:02] back to the planning commission to be

[40:05] re-evaluated.

[40:07] Um,

[40:08] » Yeah. So, so the standard with the EI,

[40:11] as long as we don't identify new

[40:14] information that identifies a new or

[40:17] more severe environmental impact, we

[40:20] don't have to reopen the EIR. And I

[40:23] think the most likely

[40:26] result based on everything that everyone

[40:28] has discussed is that if anything,

[40:31] again, the the energy study likely

[40:34] overstates how much buildings will

[40:38] consume and understates how much can be

[40:41] produced based on on current

[40:42] technologies, which means that the EI

[40:45] discloses

[40:47] likely a conservative

[40:49] use of energy and a conservative impact.

[40:53] So, anything that we get back, we would

[40:55] expect would show that we have less

[41:00] energy use and a a smaller energy impact

[41:03] than was already disclosed in the in the

[41:05] EIR.

[41:06] » But, but isn't that based on whatever

[41:08] the end use is of that building? And I

[41:12] don't think that when the energy study

[41:14] was done necessarily that's going to be

[41:17] the end use of that building whether it

[41:21] be office or biotech or whatever. Well,

[41:25] and that's that's what the study looked

[41:27] at the different land uses and and

[41:29] building types and and assumed energy

[41:32] use based on those building types and

[41:36] those

[41:37] and what would be allowed to be built.

[41:39] But you're you're right. I there's a a

[41:42] joke among consultants that you know

[41:43] every every model is wrong but some of

[41:46] them are useful and so the hope that

[41:48] you're you're right it doesn't tell us

[41:50] the future it doesn't tell us exactly

[41:52] what's going to be built because we

[41:54] don't we don't know everything you just

[41:56] said is correct but it does give us

[41:58] information about what's likely based on

[42:01] what's allowed so we can get a sense for

[42:05] how close we are to those targets and

[42:07] council can make

[42:08] » Wouldn't it make more sense And since

[42:11] the environmental impacts are likely to

[42:15] be less in a more energyconservative

[42:19] era when this gets built. um that

[42:28] it's better to put the

[42:32] regulation

[42:34] onto the building itself

[42:36] as far as what the overall project uses

[42:40] to be energy quote unquote neutral and

[42:43] what is consumed on what is produced on

[42:45] site.

[42:46] » Yeah. And that's consistent with the

[42:49] approach that's been taken so far that

[42:52] and the study was used as an input to

[42:54] come up with numbers. But the approach

[42:57] is more of a forward-looking regulatory

[42:59] approach to have specific performance

[43:02] standards for how buildings will be

[43:05] developed, how they will use energy

[43:07] prospectively going forward. What

[43:09] standards do they have to meet when they

[43:10] pull their their permits? So yeah, I

[43:13] think one approach could be exactly what

[43:16] you're saying is to to follow that

[43:18] framework that has already been

[43:20] recommended and potentially add to it if

[43:23] if there's a a desire to make that

[43:25] » One other question I have and this is

[43:26] sort of going to throw a monkey wrench

[43:28] into it all. Um

[43:31] when we did the EI when the EIR was done

[43:34] many of these studies are now four,

[43:37] five, six years old. So wouldn't that

[43:41] mean all the studies are staleated?

[43:45] » Well, yeah. And and part of part of SQA

[43:48] is one of the concepts that's baked into

[43:50] it is typically we look at the

[43:53] environment at the time that the notice

[43:55] of preparation was issued when the

[43:57] studies began so that we're not

[43:58] constantly chasing our tails and trying

[44:01] to

[44:01] » And what was that date? The notice of

[44:04] preparation on this, I'd have to go back

[44:06] and look that it was several years ago

[44:09] at this point. 2020ish.

[44:11] Yeah. 2020 probably in that

[44:13] » Ballpoint. So, so in in all likelihood

[44:16] almost all the studies that this D is

[44:20] based on are somewhat stale. And so if

[44:24] we're not going to be chasing our tails,

[44:27] I think we have to move forward with it.

[44:29] And the the one maybe one good thing

[44:32] about although again everything you just

[44:34] said is correct. I I will say that

[44:37] throughout the EI just like I

[44:39] characterize the energy um study as

[44:42] conservative

[44:43] um the consultant team used very

[44:47] conservative assumptions throughout the

[44:49] impact analysis so that we even as

[44:52] conditions change we would have the the

[44:55] outside envelope of what impacts are um

[44:58] as you technology improves or as

[45:01] regulations get stronger again typically

[45:03] what we see in practice is a lot impacts

[45:05] end up, you know, being smaller than

[45:08] what were ultimately modeled. But

[45:10] because of the way SQA is structured,

[45:13] because of that standard we talked about

[45:14] before, new or more severe impacts

[45:16] coming up later can reopen the process.

[45:19] We tend to be very conservative and look

[45:22] at the worst case um when we're

[45:24] evaluating impacts so that we have a

[45:27] little buffer to work with.

[45:28] » Thank you.

[45:30] » Council member Lance, do you have

[45:32] comments?

[45:33] » Um, yeah. you know um measure JJ says

[45:37] that the project's supposed to be

[45:40] designed for being uh energy neutral and

[45:44] based upon the information that

[45:48] we have

[45:50] it appears that it's it falls short and

[45:54] we discovered that the study was uh

[45:58] commissioned by the developer and that

[46:00] it was not peer-reviewed.

[46:03] I heard what you're saying, Council

[46:04] Member Council Member Okonnell, and and

[46:07] also thank you, Eric, for your your

[46:10] input.

[46:11] I do think that having the peer review,

[46:17] having that information is also

[46:19] beneficial to the public. It shows that

[46:22] we are doing the work, that we were

[46:24] paying attention, and that we want to

[46:27] fulfill the requirements of measure JJ.

[46:30] So,

[46:33] you know, I mean, that's to me

[46:36] [clears throat] doing the peer review,

[46:38] the $17,000 which will be reimbursed by

[46:41] the developer like all the other things

[46:44] that we um uh all the other studies and

[46:48] other requirements that we pay for that

[46:51] get reimbursed from this project that

[46:54] that will occur. And so, um, it just

[46:59] seems to me that that it's kind of a

[47:01] no-brainer that we should do this.

[47:04] » Okay. Council member Kern,

[47:07] » I don't have any further comments. Mayor

[47:09] Prom Davis,

[47:12] » I think we we just have different

[47:14] perspectives on how to achieve a result,

[47:16] but if it's going to be a hangup for

[47:18] other council members to feel like they

[47:20] can move forward and adopting the

[47:22] specific plan, then I would say just do

[47:24] it like but I would I would be in favor

[47:29] of Mayor Mackin's suggestion to try and

[47:32] get him to do it in four weeks.

[47:35] » Okay. And I have one question then to

[47:37] ask. So, if you put this burden on

[47:40] anyone applying for permits that in

[47:43] order to submit permits, you have to do

[47:46] an energy study to construct a building.

[47:49] Are you're you're then talking about

[47:52] $70,000 per building. Is that am I

[47:55] reading that right?

[47:59] If you put it on the the far end going,

[48:01] well, okay,

[48:03] different buildings and if if the

[48:06] property owner was ready, let's say

[48:09] they're going to build a a commercial

[48:10] building or two and they they want to

[48:13] submit an application for permits. And

[48:15] if the requirement in the specific plan

[48:17] said you must do a current energy study,

[48:21] you're you're looking at roughly $70,000

[48:24] current. It could be in that

[48:27] » These studies.

[48:28] » It could be in that neighborhood, maybe

[48:29] a little less if you're just doing one

[48:31] building. Um, so these studies are

[48:33] looking at multiple building types. So,

[48:35] you know, there is kind of an

[48:36] incremental increase in cost, but um,

[48:39] yeah, it would not be an insignificant

[48:41] amount of money. It's uh, um, it would

[48:43] be in that neighborhood.

[48:45] » Okay. All right. It it just wrapping

[48:49] this up, it sounds like there are three

[48:51] of us would like to at least do a peer

[48:53] review and so if we can give that

[48:56] direction to staff

[48:59] um council member um Lent, would you be

[49:02] amanable then to using Ramble?

[49:05] » Yeah, you know, I I I would be fine if

[49:07] that means uh moving forward in a

[49:10] [clears throat]

[49:10] um you know a manner that that keeps us

[49:14] on track. I I'm good with that. I think

[49:17] it's appropriate uh to move forward.

[49:19] » Okay. All right. Any other comments from

[49:22] council? No. Okay. Staff has direction.

[49:25] Thank you.

[49:26] » Thank you.

[49:28] » All right. Tonight

[49:33] is public hearing consideration of

[49:35] proposed Bayland specific plan and

[49:37] related actions including amendments to

[49:40] the Brisbane general plan land use and

[49:42] circulation elements. Amendments to

[49:45] title seven t sorry title section 17 of

[49:49] the Brisbane municipal code to establish

[49:52] zoning regulations adoption of the

[49:54] beayhore mobility plan and certification

[49:57] of the final environmental impact report

[50:00] prepared for this project in accordance

[50:02] with the California environmental

[50:05] quality act. The last public hearing was

[50:08] on October 6th and the hearing topic was

[50:12] transportation and transit and also the

[50:15] beayshore mobility plan. We went through

[50:19] transportation and transit. Uh we

[50:21] adjourned the meeting although we had

[50:23] some council members still had questions

[50:25] for staff on the topic of beayshore

[50:28] mobility plan. Um, we already took some

[50:32] comments from the public that night, but

[50:35] if you did not get an opportunity to

[50:37] speak on that topic. If you ended up

[50:40] having to leave early, please fill out a

[50:43] speaker form. I I do have some here. Um,

[50:46] and this is only for questions or

[50:49] comments on Beayshore mobility plan. So,

[50:52] staff, do you want to do a recap of last

[50:54] week's topic? Up to you.

[51:00] Uh no, per the prior meeting uh we had

[51:03] assumed that the public hearing would

[51:05] just continue where it left off. So we

[51:07] were not planning to do a recap.

[51:09] » All right. Thank you. So we'll start

[51:11] with council questions to close out the

[51:13] mobility segment. Again, as last time,

[51:16] I'll call on each council member, ask

[51:18] you to limit it to one question. After

[51:21] each of you's had a turn, I'll go back

[51:23] through the order for another round of

[51:25] questions. Please limit to one question

[51:29] starting with uh Mayor Prom Davis.

[51:35] » Actually don't have any questions about

[51:36] the Beayshore mobility plan, but I

[51:38] really appreciated the planning

[51:40] commission's suggestions as it pertains

[51:43] to the plan and specifically the

[51:45] exclusion of the road diet. So I hope

[51:48] that we can discuss more about that at

[51:51] the appropriate time.

[51:52] » All right, Council Member Okonnell. I

[51:55] have no questions on this and I do agree

[51:58] that we should not be narrowing that

[52:00] roadway.

[52:00] » All right, Council Member Lent.

[52:04] » Yes, I have a couple questions, Madame

[52:05] Mayor. So,

[52:06] » One at a time, please.

[52:07] » Yes, I know, I know, I know, I

[52:08] understand. Um, okay. So, the uh BMP

[52:12] establishes five goals. Um,

[52:16] but I I my question for you is

[52:20] what is it trying to mitigate,

[52:22] right? And I mean, you know, we had the

[52:24] planning commission hearings and

[52:26] everyone's kind of confused why you

[52:28] would narrow it.

[52:30] Folks at the at our hearings are

[52:32] confused. Council is kind of confused by

[52:36] that. So, I'm just curious like what

[52:38] what is what's it trying to mitigate by

[52:41] shrinking the road?

[52:43] » Happy to answer that question. Mini,

[52:45] public works director. Um, it was really

[52:47] about focusing on um speed reduction in

[52:50] order to reduce speeds. it was the road

[52:52] diet is one of the one of the things

[52:53] that are that are utilized towards that.

[52:55] So that that was the primary whether it

[52:58] was right or wrong is not what I'm

[52:59] speaking to but that was the primary

[53:01] factor for behind that road diet

[53:02] inclusion.

[53:04] » Okay.

[53:07] » Yeah. I mean I have a follow-up question

[53:09] but I I'll wait for other council

[53:10] members.

[53:11] » Okay. Council member Kern.

[53:15] » Thank you for that. Ma, I'm not going to

[53:16] make you walk all the way back up here.

[53:18] Uh based upon your comment, could we not

[53:22] achieve the same thing by just simply

[53:24] lowering the speed limit on Beayshore

[53:25] from 45 to 35?

[53:31] » Yeah. And um we have I think some

[53:34] concerns with enforcability about that.

[53:36] But before we we fully unpack that, I'd

[53:39] also invite um Matt Goin from Fear and

[53:41] Pur who's with us online who can talk a

[53:44] little bit um both about the

[53:49] general plan goals that the BMP is

[53:51] intended to address as well as the you

[53:54] know alternative measures to that may be

[53:57] available to accomplish those goals if

[53:58] if council doesn't want to uh proceed

[54:01] with all of the recommendations in the

[54:02] BMP.

[54:08] Great. Thank you. Uh hello council. Um

[54:13] yeah, so some other besides speed

[54:15] reduction, there's also the explicit

[54:18] goal within the general plan to reduce

[54:22] the role of beayshore as a regional

[54:25] through route. And this comes from, you

[54:29] know, the general plan update that was

[54:32] made um following the last bay lands

[54:35] environmental study that identified that

[54:38] between 60 and 80% of trips that are

[54:41] currently on beayshore are regional

[54:43] trips and that with the buildout of the

[54:47] city's circulation network, including

[54:50] the Geneva Avenue extension and the Sear

[54:52] Point Parkway extension, there would be

[54:54] an opportunity to

[54:57] shift some of those regional trips by

[55:00] making the route less desirable for

[55:01] regional travel. Um, and so that was one

[55:06] of the components. The road diet was the

[55:09] only one that was shown to be effective

[55:11] at doing accomplishing that goal.

[55:21] Thank you. I do have follow-up

[55:23] questions, too, but

[55:25] » Okay.

[55:28] Um,

[55:30] last meeting

[55:36] the development managers, you spoke

[55:39] about several existing streets from Viz

[55:42] Valley connecting into the Baylands

[55:44] across Beayshore and the possibility we

[55:47] heard that Geneva Avenue extension had

[55:50] no present funding might not be built

[55:52] before construction of housing.

[55:55] And we also have heard about the road

[55:57] diet on beayhore going from four lanes

[55:59] down to two. And we heard about a large

[56:02] development at [clears throat]

[56:03] Candlestick Point now moving forward on

[56:05] the other side of the highway.

[56:07] I'm having a really hard time

[56:09] envisioning how you're going to move

[56:11] transit, let alone cars and trucks,

[56:15] especially we have the new intelligent

[56:18] transportation system um on 101 that is

[56:23] designed, I'm told, to divert cars onto

[56:25] surface streets to relieve congestion on

[56:28] the highway.

[56:29] And I've wondered if you've really

[56:31] thought all this through because it just

[56:33] seems mindboggling.

[56:36] And I wondered couple things. Have you

[56:39] met with county officials about the

[56:42] smart corridor project talk about

[56:44] consequences of offloading southbound

[56:46] traffic on to or from 101 to tunnel

[56:51] andor bayshore?

[56:53] Um

[56:55] and I think um ma is ma here or online.

[57:01] » Ah there you are. Okay.

[57:04] And I believe you had some information

[57:06] you could share with us about the smart

[57:09] quarter project.

[57:12] » Sure. Happy to happy to um touch on that

[57:15] one. So uh as you know we're um the the

[57:19] cag and the county is working on a smart

[57:21] corridor uh program to help uh con uh

[57:24] for for incidents with respect to 101.

[57:27] Um we will be having a u uhou a

[57:31] memorandum of understanding on the

[57:33] maintenance responsibilities subject to

[57:35] that. U my review of those documents

[57:37] have not um uh perh shown anything that

[57:40] prohibits the city's ability to manage

[57:43] the transportation system uh beyond what

[57:45] is already uh required as far as law um

[57:48] and and process.

[57:50] » What does that mean? So that means that

[57:52] the smart corridor system doesn't change

[57:54] um anything as far as our ability to

[57:57] make modifications to that roadway.

[58:01] » But I'm talking about in terms of if

[58:04] they want to offload cars from 101, do

[58:07] we have the ability to challenge that

[58:10] and say no, can't do it? uh under under

[58:14] the uh under the uh forthcoming

[58:17] agreements that have have have yet to be

[58:19] finalized. Um it would be um we wouldn't

[58:22] we would be agreeing to allowing that to

[58:25] happen during major incidents.

[58:27] » Okay. All right. Thank you. Council

[58:30] member Lent questions.

[58:31] » Yeah. Um so one of the the the five

[58:36] goals uh and it was mentioned um by the

[58:40] consultant is to reduce Bashore's role

[58:43] as a regional cutth through route.

[58:46] And so

[58:49] if the Geneva Avenue extension is not

[58:52] built

[58:54] prior or during that first phase of

[58:57] development, I know that it says that it

[58:59] it supposed to be, but

[59:03] you know, it takes it's going to take a

[59:05] lot of stakeholders, regional

[59:07] stakeholders to to um to fund it. So,

[59:14] does did the EIR evaluate

[59:18] the housing of the Brisbane Baylands,

[59:22] which could be 2,200,

[59:24] and the approximately 1,700 homes that

[59:28] would be built in in um San Francisco

[59:31] Baylands, and where those cars would go

[59:36] if uh they needed to get to the 101. I

[59:40] mean, I I know that we evaluate, you

[59:44] know, with the Geneva Avenue extension,

[59:46] but do we have any information if it

[59:49] doesn't get built?

[59:57] » Thank you, council member. Uh,

[1:00:00] so

[1:00:01] there is no specific timing that's

[1:00:04] required, you know, to build the

[1:00:06] Beayshore mobility plan. um because it

[1:00:09] is a would be a separate city

[1:00:11] initiative. Now there are what the

[1:00:14] planning commission identified and

[1:00:17] requested was that there are uh the

[1:00:20] aspects that specifically mitigate

[1:00:24] impacts associated with bay lands

[1:00:27] um are separate or could be separated

[1:00:29] from the overall corridor plan. And so

[1:00:32] that is available and so council can

[1:00:36] adopt those mitigations.

[1:00:38] Um and that would improve safety

[1:00:40] particularly on the section of uh Bay

[1:00:45] Shore near the Bayance project to

[1:00:47] improve crossings for example for for

[1:00:49] kids crossing at Main Street by

[1:00:51] narrowing the crossings slowing speeds

[1:00:53] on that section. Um, and so

[1:00:58] certainly the city could decide if

[1:01:00] Geneva Avenue Extension isn't built, you

[1:01:02] wouldn't road diet Beayshore. There's

[1:01:05] nothing requiring you to do that. Um,

[1:01:09] and also the Beayshore mobility plan has

[1:01:13] many different components that can be

[1:01:15] adopted. It can have the safety

[1:01:17] components. It can have the the

[1:01:19] sidewalk, the class one pathway. The

[1:01:21] road dice is just one component of that.

[1:01:23] So the city could adopt the beayhore

[1:01:25] mobility plan without the road diet as

[1:01:26] was recommended by the planning

[1:01:28] commission.

[1:01:28] » Madame mayor, I don't think my question

[1:01:30] was answered um appropriately and so I I

[1:01:33] maybe I if it's okay with you if I can

[1:01:35] re ask the question.

[1:01:36] » Okay. So stated

[1:01:38] » Um under the current conditions of

[1:01:40] Beayshore, if the Geneva Avenue

[1:01:44] extension is not built,

[1:01:46] have you identified the mitigation

[1:01:49] efforts or what those impacts would be

[1:01:52] in the EIR [laughter] with full out or

[1:01:56] at least 2,000 units of Brisbane uh

[1:02:00] bayands housing and approximately 1,700

[1:02:04] San Francisco Bayand housing units on

[1:02:08] current beayshore going to the 101.

[1:02:13] » I'd like maybe the city attorney could

[1:02:15] just quickly start, you know, about what

[1:02:17] what requirements there are for Geneva

[1:02:20] Avenue being built.

[1:02:25] » Sure. Um so the

[1:02:30] the bulk of the my my understanding is

[1:02:33] that the bulk of the transportation

[1:02:36] um demand that's generated from the

[1:02:39] development um alone doesn't trigger the

[1:02:42] need for the Geneva Avenue extension.

[1:02:45] However, as we get past um 50% of the

[1:02:50] development in phase 1, uh there is the

[1:02:53] need for additional fire facilities and

[1:02:56] the fire station would be located on the

[1:03:00] east side of the railroad tracks. So to

[1:03:02] have an adequate response time, um the

[1:03:06] Geneva Avenue bridge is is necessary for

[1:03:08] fire trucks to get across. Um so that is

[1:03:11] the timing trigger that the EIR um

[1:03:15] identifies as when we would see Geneva

[1:03:18] Avenue Bridge um concurrent with or

[1:03:23] developed uh once we have at least 50%

[1:03:26] of the

[1:03:28] phase one program developed.

[1:03:33] » Okay. I'm sorry, Madame Mayor. I mean

[1:03:36] I'll let others ask questions. I mean,

[1:03:39] every response sol, you know, makes

[1:03:42] another question that I'd like to ask.

[1:03:44] So,

[1:03:44] » All right, Council Member Kern,

[1:03:48] » Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, Matt,

[1:03:50] you're doing a great job. Uh, so I'm

[1:03:52] going to come back at back at you with

[1:03:54] one more here. So, I've got the mobility

[1:03:56] plan open here on my laptop, and I've

[1:03:58] been through this. It's about a 75page

[1:04:00] document. It's pretty interesting stuff.

[1:04:01] I like to actually think about this. You

[1:04:03] just said a few minutes ago, and this is

[1:04:05] what the planning commission brought

[1:04:06] forward as well, that we could approve

[1:04:08] the mobility plan without the road diet.

[1:04:11] And when we say that's a possibility,

[1:04:14] are we still getting bike lanes,

[1:04:17] sidewalk, protected turning lanes, bus

[1:04:20] lanes? The reason I'm asking this

[1:04:23] question, Matt, is because I'm looking

[1:04:24] at the road width. I don't know. In my

[1:04:27] mind, I'm trying to make sense out of

[1:04:28] these diagrams to say we're going to

[1:04:30] keep two lanes in each direction and

[1:04:32] then add all of those additional lanes

[1:04:34] and features. I just I'm not

[1:04:36] understanding how this fits. Can you

[1:04:37] just shine a little bit of light on

[1:04:38] that, please?

[1:04:39] » Yeah, sure. Thank you, council member.

[1:04:43] Great question. Uh, essentially, this is

[1:04:46] one alternative for the diagrams that

[1:04:49] are shown there is is one alternative of

[1:04:51] the package of components that are

[1:04:53] included. So, uh, the geometry is

[1:04:57] somewhat limited as you go through the

[1:04:58] corridor. It is quite wide in other

[1:05:00] places. And so, things like, can you fit

[1:05:04] a sidewalk along the entire corridor?

[1:05:07] Yes. Um, can you fit an entire class one

[1:05:10] pathway with like a great buffer?

[1:05:14] Not necessarily. Like that would require

[1:05:16] additional like engineering studies and

[1:05:18] decisions by the city of like what to do

[1:05:19] with like turnpockets and the median and

[1:05:21] all all those kind of things. Now, all

[1:05:24] of the key safety components, pretty

[1:05:26] much every other measure on there, such

[1:05:28] as improved safety and narrowing

[1:05:31] uh roadway lanes, uh uh and crossing

[1:05:34] distances for pedestrians and creating

[1:05:36] bulls protected. Those are all

[1:05:38] components that you can build as a

[1:05:40] package um at each one of the

[1:05:42] intersections. Um and so

[1:05:48] essentially what you would be

[1:05:49] authorizing would be the pack the

[1:05:52] package of compon components without a

[1:05:54] road diet. Um that both addresses the

[1:05:58] mitigations the specific mitigations

[1:05:59] that are listed out to improve crossings

[1:06:02] at Main Street at Geneva for example.

[1:06:05] Um, and then the city would need to come

[1:06:07] up with another kind of complete

[1:06:10] alternative for for the entire core for

[1:06:12] the rest of the corridor as well.

[1:06:18] » You look like you have you're on the tip

[1:06:20] of another question.

[1:06:22] » We all are.

[1:06:23] » Okay.

[1:06:23] » We all are.

[1:06:24] » We'll come back to you. Um, Matt, I have

[1:06:27] a question for you. You talk about

[1:06:30] lowering speed limits and I do recall in

[1:06:33] past California law and excuse me if

[1:06:35] it's changed in order to lower speed

[1:06:37] limits because everyone in Brisbane says

[1:06:39] why can't you lower the speed limit on

[1:06:41] beayshore everybody's going 65 and 70

[1:06:44] and there were laws that you had to do

[1:06:46] speed counters and consultants and

[1:06:48] studies and what the prevailing speed

[1:06:50] was was going to be the speed which

[1:06:53] always had the hazard if everyone was

[1:06:54] going 65 and 70 we might have to raise

[1:06:57] the speed limit on beayshore

[1:06:59] Is it in fact, and I know there's some

[1:07:01] caveat that if you're in a business

[1:07:04] district with parking and sidewalks and

[1:07:09] a retail component that you can actually

[1:07:13] potentially lower speed limits. Is that

[1:07:16] true? Is my assumption correct?

[1:07:20] » Yes. And for high injury network

[1:07:22] locations as well, safety base

[1:07:24] reductions. So, uh, Beayshore in the

[1:07:28] city's local road safety plan, Beayshore

[1:07:31] is the primary kind of high injury

[1:07:34] network within the city. It's where

[1:07:38] the most collisions occur. And given

[1:07:41] that speeds are directly correlated to

[1:07:43] the severity of those collisions, it's

[1:07:45] really the primary um, safety issue. And

[1:07:49] so the city does have legal ability to

[1:07:52] reduce speed limits, but it needs to be

[1:07:54] paired with engineering measures that

[1:07:56] are shown to reduce actually reduce

[1:07:59] speeds and not just reduce speed limits

[1:08:01] without, you know, making the changing

[1:08:04] the roadway design.

[1:08:05] » And you're talking just the

[1:08:09] mobility area, not all of Beayshore into

[1:08:12] Brisbane.

[1:08:14] » All all of Beayshore within Brisbane is

[1:08:16] on the city's high injury network. as

[1:08:18] identified through the local road safety

[1:08:20] plan.

[1:08:20] » But we're talking about beayhore

[1:08:22] mobility plans. So

[1:08:25] I guess it begs the question, are we

[1:08:28] talking about lowering speed limits just

[1:08:29] in that area or the entire stretch all

[1:08:32] the way into Brisbane?

[1:08:36] » City could take either either action. Um

[1:08:40] the specific mitigations that are

[1:08:43] associated with the bayan specific plan

[1:08:45] are those that are focused where people

[1:08:47] it will generate people walking, biking,

[1:08:49] taking transit which are right around on

[1:08:51] the project frontage.

[1:08:52] » Okay. Thank you, Council Member Lent.

[1:08:57] » Um

[1:09:00] Eric, let me just see if I understand

[1:09:02] what um that last comment that you made

[1:09:06] u in regards to the 49%. So

[1:09:10] does that mean that the Brisbane

[1:09:12] Baylands could build a thousand housing

[1:09:16] units and say 1.7 million million square

[1:09:19] ft of commercial and that the San

[1:09:22] Francisco side could build their close

[1:09:25] to 1,700 units without ever

[1:09:29] building any part of the Geneva Avenue

[1:09:31] extension.

[1:09:33] Yeah, I'll find the exact trigger in the

[1:09:35] EIR for you, but that's that's correct

[1:09:37] that in the structure of that is

[1:09:39] generally correct that um the timing

[1:09:42] trigger is not until um we've seen 50%

[1:09:45] of the the program because that's what

[1:09:47] triggers the need for the um emergency

[1:09:50] access and the fire station.

[1:09:55] » Okay, I understand the fire issue.

[1:09:57] That's just a lot of traffic for

[1:09:59] Brisbane.

[1:10:01] Okay. Um,

[1:10:03] » Council Member Kern,

[1:10:06] » Matt, one last question tonight. Um,

[1:10:09] well, actually, I'm not going to commit

[1:10:10] to that. Um,

[1:10:13] so if we approve the current appendix F,

[1:10:17] the Beayshore Mobility Plan without the

[1:10:19] road diet, we're essentially approving

[1:10:22] something called the Beayshore Mobility

[1:10:24] Concept because we're going to have to

[1:10:25] do another plan. Is that a true

[1:10:28] statement?

[1:10:29] » Yeah. any for for any action that you

[1:10:32] would take today, you know, there are

[1:10:35] really just concepts, this is at the

[1:10:37] conceptual level and so the city would

[1:10:39] need to go and you know solicit

[1:10:41] engineering designs and and take it

[1:10:43] through the rest of the the process. So

[1:10:46] yes, you are correct. Anything you're

[1:10:49] saying now would require kind of further

[1:10:51] action by the city to evaluate kind of

[1:10:53] what the best uh you know design

[1:10:56] features throughout the corridor would

[1:10:58] be.

[1:10:59] Thank you.

[1:11:01] » Council member Lince,

[1:11:03] » You have a question.

[1:11:04] » I do have one question now.

[1:11:06] » Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[1:11:07] » And all these mitigation member measures

[1:11:10] and and constructing the streetcape

[1:11:13] falls to the responsibility of the

[1:11:16] developer to pay for

[1:11:20] » Those that are are directly tied to

[1:11:22] their mitigation measures that they are

[1:11:24] responsible for. They are also

[1:11:26] responsible for their kind of fair share

[1:11:28] contributions to um the city's

[1:11:31] transportation improvement uh impact fee

[1:11:35] program as well that you know would do

[1:11:38] broader improvements as well

[1:11:39] » And and and that and as I shouldn't

[1:11:42] follow up but that would be triggered

[1:11:44] when a building permit is taken out that

[1:11:46] those contributions be made.

[1:11:50] » The impact fees are yes are collected at

[1:11:52] at building permit stage and

[1:11:55] There are some exceptions that allow for

[1:11:58] allow for deferral for certificate of

[1:12:00] occupancy um for residential projects

[1:12:05] but yeah somewhere between building

[1:12:08] permit especially for commercial

[1:12:09] projects and before certificates of

[1:12:11] occupancy are issued.

[1:12:14] » Council member Lance.

[1:12:16] » Yeah, just last question Madame Mayor.

[1:12:17] So, um, in an effort to reduce traffic

[1:12:20] on on Beayshore, um, at the last

[1:12:22] hearing, I asked, uh, the developer to

[1:12:25] provide some renderings, if they had

[1:12:27] them, of the Geneva Avenue extension

[1:12:29] going to the 101. Were you able to find

[1:12:32] that, Stephanie?

[1:12:37] » You You were?

[1:12:38] » She said yes. They were sent to the city

[1:12:41] staff.

[1:12:41] » Okay. Do we have those renderings?

[1:12:45] » [snorts]

[1:12:47] » And thank you for doing that, by the

[1:12:49] way.

[1:13:02] Yes. I mean, we she uh we did get an

[1:13:05] email from Stephanie with those with the

[1:13:07] renderings. It went to um

[1:13:11] public works community development

[1:13:13] director and myself.

[1:13:15] Okay. I guess we we can come back. Can

[1:13:17] you get those and show them tonight or

[1:13:19] is that not a possibility?

[1:13:25] » Sure. We couldn't show them tonight.

[1:13:27] » Thank you.

[1:14:24] Eric, are you forwarding that to Angel?

[1:14:28] » Um, sure. I mean, it it's too large to

[1:14:33] email. Um, give us a second here. We'll

[1:14:35] figure out how to get it up on the

[1:14:37] screen for you, I suppose.

[1:14:39] » Uh, yes, if you could continue the

[1:14:41] discussion and and uh it will take us a

[1:14:43] little bit of time just to get it queued

[1:14:45] up, but um we do have the files so we

[1:14:47] can get that so they can be on shown on

[1:14:50] the screen.

[1:14:52] » Council member Lent, while they're

[1:14:53] looking for that, did you have another

[1:14:55] question?

[1:14:55] » I did not. That was the last one.

[1:14:57] » Okay. Council member Kern,

[1:14:59] » No further questions.

[1:15:00] » Okay. And I have no further questions.

[1:15:02] So that's what we're what we could do is

[1:15:04] proceed. We do have some comment cards

[1:15:06] from the public and then we'll circle

[1:15:09] back on the

[1:15:12] the graphics. So, the first one I have

[1:15:15] is Chris Evers.

[1:15:24] Hello, Chris Evers. 200 Kings Road. Um,

[1:15:28] the first thing I want to make clear is

[1:15:30] when I moved to my house, which has 85

[1:15:32] steps, in 1989, I was told that there

[1:15:36] were going to be condos on the bay lands

[1:15:38] in a few years. And I always thought,

[1:15:41] "Oh, that's great because when I'm old

[1:15:42] and I can't get up all those steps, I'll

[1:15:44] be able to live there." I continue to

[1:15:47] get old and I encourage you to move

[1:15:50] forward um with whatever it takes to get

[1:15:54] things done. That said, I am concerned

[1:15:58] about the idea that in order to grade

[1:16:00] the site, we need to move

[1:16:03] millions and millions of tons of dirt

[1:16:06] and we're doing going to do it by move

[1:16:08] using dump trucks which will basically

[1:16:12] clog the tunnel avenue bridge

[1:16:16] and

[1:16:18] basically isolate Brisbane during any

[1:16:21] time that that's happening. Now, I know

[1:16:23] that in the the 2025 EIR,

[1:16:26] there was I mean the the 2025 ER and the

[1:16:29] 2026 ER point out that these trucks are

[1:16:32] a hazard in terms of air pollution, in

[1:16:35] terms of emergency services, in terms of

[1:16:37] pedestrian safety, but they say, well,

[1:16:40] the mitigation is going to be in 2025,

[1:16:43] they say the mitigation will be this uh

[1:16:46] electric conveyor. And then when I look

[1:16:48] at the 2026 EIR, electric conveyor has

[1:16:52] been removed and it says systems will

[1:16:57] make sure that there's not a problem.

[1:17:00] And that seems very vague and disquing

[1:17:04] to me. Also, the same ER that removes

[1:17:08] that in in many places says still says

[1:17:12] that there's a conveyor that's going to

[1:17:14] mitigate things. So there seems to be a

[1:17:16] lot of contradictory information in this

[1:17:18] EIR about whether or not there will be a

[1:17:21] conveyor or trucks and if there is not a

[1:17:24] conveyor then the places in this EIR

[1:17:27] that say the conveyor is the appropriate

[1:17:29] mitigation and therefore there's no

[1:17:31] effect just don't stand. So, I would

[1:17:34] appreciate if there would be an

[1:17:36] explanation of this and also an

[1:17:38] explanation of the hall route since it

[1:17:41] seems to include Blanken, which is a

[1:17:43] road that does not allow trucks.

[1:17:45] » Mhm.

[1:17:46] » Thank you.

[1:17:48] » Okay,

[1:17:50] » Linda Salmon.

[1:18:02] Well, I wasn't able to stay for the rest

[1:18:04] of the meeting last time, [laughter]

[1:18:05] so I'm not quite sure how we ended up or

[1:18:08] what to say except that um I still had

[1:18:11] questions about the roadways within the

[1:18:14] community that we're talking about

[1:18:16] building and I guess that's still part

[1:18:19] of transportation and I I don't know

[1:18:22] what happened what what the res

[1:18:24] resolution was if there was one in terms

[1:18:26] of um bicycles and pedestrians and

[1:18:32] roadways and and what was going to be

[1:18:34] safe there. That was one issue. The

[1:18:36] other one again is about Beayshore and

[1:18:38] the trucks

[1:18:41] that are going to be moving all this

[1:18:42] dirt back and forth. And I have a

[1:18:44] feeling that that's going to happen a

[1:18:46] lot on Beayshore right in front of us in

[1:18:48] Brisbane rather than Tunnel Road which

[1:18:51] is uh lumpy and bumpy and not you know

[1:18:55] and then with all the petroleum trucks

[1:18:58] on the road. I just I just I really

[1:19:02] can't see this happening in any way

[1:19:04] that's safe. That's my main comment at

[1:19:08] the moment.

[1:19:11] » Michelle Sammon.

[1:19:14] Michelle Sam, Brisbane resident. Madame

[1:19:16] Mayor, I thought we were going to have

[1:19:18] oil communication. So, but actually this

[1:19:20] kind of goes along with it. Um this

[1:19:22] weekend the quarry will be active again

[1:19:25] with uh taking in dumploads of uh

[1:19:30] material to reconfigure and put back out

[1:19:33] on Highway 101. And the last time they

[1:19:35] did this, they did not cover any of the

[1:19:37] trucks that were coming in or out, which

[1:19:40] is required by law. And they didn't

[1:19:42] mitigate the dust. And there was I

[1:19:44] brought it up to the police department,

[1:19:46] but they're like, "Oh." And in the

[1:19:48] interim, I've called Calrans and I've

[1:19:51] also called the county because although

[1:19:53] the quarry is not in Brisbane, it does

[1:19:55] come through Brisbane, but the county is

[1:19:57] responsible for their permits. And it it

[1:20:00] made me realize just how bad this can

[1:20:02] get and that there was no oversight and

[1:20:04] no one willing to stand up and say, "You

[1:20:06] have to cover these trucks or they

[1:20:08] cannot come in and out of Brisbane. You

[1:20:10] will be cited."

[1:20:11] » Michelle, is this about the mobility

[1:20:13] plan?

[1:20:13] » It is. Okay. Because imagine beayshore

[1:20:17] with all of these trucks and you talked

[1:20:19] about narrowing lanes right now. The

[1:20:22] lanes are already so narrow that it's

[1:20:25] kind of a little scary if one of those

[1:20:27] big trucks comes by you and practically

[1:20:29] pushes you off the road. And so and and

[1:20:33] having having cars trying to reduce

[1:20:36] trips by limiting the amount of lane

[1:20:38] space. Well, that's just going to make

[1:20:40] it impossible for Brisbane people to get

[1:20:42] anywhere, too. And you're anticipating

[1:20:45] truck traffic for Amazon, for Crocker

[1:20:48] Dustrial Park for potential development

[1:20:50] uh in the Corey and uh trucks and

[1:20:54] vehicles coming down off of Guadalupe

[1:20:56] Canyon Parkway.

[1:20:58] I don't see how this is going to work

[1:21:00] the way we're hoping it works and

[1:21:02] especially if they're going to do 640

[1:21:05] some odd roundtrip trucks a day for

[1:21:08] three years with dirt. Thank you.

[1:21:12] » Okay. And can we have some enforcement

[1:21:14] on the Corey trucks by the way which are

[1:21:16] going to happen this weekend. Thank you.

[1:21:20] » Uh Mary Rogers.

[1:21:26] » Good evening, council members. Um I just

[1:21:30] want to make sure we don't lose sight of

[1:21:33] this project because we can't look at

[1:21:35] this in isolation. There's a lot of

[1:21:37] projects going on. The candlestick which

[1:21:39] you mentioned and you're aware of. um

[1:21:41] the Baylands and then of course the

[1:21:43] something will be happening with Corey

[1:21:45] which only makes matters worse. Um that

[1:21:49] points to the importance of having this

[1:21:53] Geneva overpass that has to happen

[1:21:57] before anything else. It's going to

[1:21:59] reduce traffic. It's going to reduce um

[1:22:02] carbon emissions. Um it's going to

[1:22:04] reduce um traffic on beayshore. So, I

[1:22:08] really really

[1:22:11] want you to really think about that that

[1:22:13] Geneva overpass has to happen. Um,

[1:22:17] I mean, the mobility plan, sure, I that

[1:22:21] you can approve without the road diet,

[1:22:24] but it's in concept only. I would use

[1:22:26] that as leverage to get that Geneva

[1:22:29] overpass done first. That is just so

[1:22:32] important to Bruce Bane. Um and then

[1:22:35] someone had mentioned safety risk that

[1:22:38] um emergency vehicles won't be a if we

[1:22:41] don't have the Geneva overpass. It's g

[1:22:44] how are they going to get over to to

[1:22:46] Brisbane, right? That's safety should be

[1:22:49] number one. Um

[1:22:52] yeah, that's it. Just want to make sure

[1:22:55] that we don't look at this project in

[1:22:58] isolation and make sure everybody is

[1:23:00] thinking about all the other things that

[1:23:02] are going on. Thank you. Okay,

[1:23:07] staff. Do we have the graphic ready to

[1:23:10] put on the screen?

[1:23:18] » If we could do a screen share through

[1:23:20] Zoom. Um, I do have them on my laptop,

[1:23:22] but these images are so large that

[1:23:26] I got an email from Angel saying we've

[1:23:29] got it. There we go. Thank you, Angel.

[1:23:34] So, Council Member Lent, do you have

[1:23:36] questions regarding this?

[1:23:38] » I just, you know, I wanted to see how um

[1:23:43] how it would be um constructed and and

[1:23:47] what would be the flow of traffic

[1:23:49] getting to the 101. This this image is

[1:23:52] pretty tough to to figure out. It looks

[1:23:55] like it's just like an overlay, but I

[1:23:57] don't see any clover leaves. Um,

[1:24:02] there are some there are some exits if

[1:24:05] you

[1:24:07] say south is to the right coming off of

[1:24:09] 101

[1:24:11] » Onto the overpass or under it.

[1:24:15] And there are some exits looks like also

[1:24:18] from that overpass going onto the

[1:24:21] highway on the lower part. You can see.

[1:24:23] Yeah, there you go. Okay,

[1:24:25] » That's all I see absent a a clover leaf.

[1:24:30] » Yeah.

[1:24:32] » Yeah. And then how how uh cars would get

[1:24:35] off of the Geneva Avenue extension to

[1:24:38] other parts of the the east side of the

[1:24:41] bay lands.

[1:24:44] » Don't know.

[1:24:45] » Don't know [clears throat] how that

[1:24:46] » Occurs. I mean, you need to have

[1:24:48] east-west uh connectivity. Um you,

[1:24:52] Madame Mayor, um Council Member Kern and

[1:24:54] I had um a discussion with uh

[1:24:57] Congressman Member Mullen this afternoon

[1:25:00] and we talked about this. So Frank, you

[1:25:02] want to sorry to put you on the spot,

[1:25:04] but you want to just give a a brief

[1:25:06] update on on what we talked about and

[1:25:08] how he's uh his willingness to to help.

[1:25:12] » It's going to be remarkably brief. Uh

[1:25:14] the meeting was remarkably brief. Um we

[1:25:17] did talk with uh Congressman uh Mullen

[1:25:20] this afternoon and you know he was uh a

[1:25:23] fan of of bringing um all the uh the

[1:25:28] parties together to have a discussion

[1:25:30] about what this might look like going

[1:25:32] forward. Um and so we're hoping that he

[1:25:35] and his team can facilitate something

[1:25:37] like that um in the future. He in no

[1:25:40] means made any commitments to his but he

[1:25:41] thinks the discussion is absolutely in

[1:25:43] order. So

[1:25:44] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that he was

[1:25:45] willing to um to coordinate that and and

[1:25:49] bring the stakeholders, different

[1:25:51] transit agencies, San Francisco uh to

[1:25:54] talk about how we could partner together

[1:25:58] potentially. So it was um yeah, it was

[1:26:02] positive.

[1:26:02] » It was a positive meeting.

[1:26:04] » Yeah.

[1:26:04] » So I'm going to add one thing to the

[1:26:06] pile on that on that topic. Um

[1:26:09] [clears throat]

[1:26:10] MTC, local agency,

[1:26:13] Metropolitan Transportation Commission,

[1:26:17] every five years asks for a list of

[1:26:20] projects from CKG, City and County

[1:26:23] Association of Governments. I sit on

[1:26:24] that board and we had a board meeting

[1:26:26] last Thursday and as would happen the on

[1:26:30] the agenda was

[1:26:32] um CCAG circling back they've spent a

[1:26:35] year collecting lists of projects that

[1:26:39] MTC could should consider

[1:26:42] and the consideration what MTC does is

[1:26:45] they look at big developments and

[1:26:48] projects for transportation and they say

[1:26:50] oh yeah this is important or this is

[1:26:52] minor or this is too far off in the

[1:26:55] future. And so CKAG said, "We're, you

[1:26:58] know, we're taking a road show on to

[1:27:00] different city councils and contacting

[1:27:03] city managers, community development

[1:27:06] directors, public works directors." And

[1:27:09] so I raised my hand and said, "Have you

[1:27:10] heard from Brisbane about the Geneva

[1:27:12] Avenue extension or an interchange at

[1:27:15] Highway 101 candlestick development?

[1:27:18] This affects Daily City, Brisbane, and

[1:27:22] City and County of San Francisco." and

[1:27:23] they said no,

[1:27:27] the end of this year is the cut off on

[1:27:29] the five-year period and that list has

[1:27:32] to get submitted. So I just so you all

[1:27:35] know I have talked to our staff about

[1:27:38] it. I've talked to council member in

[1:27:41] daily city um somewhere we need to have

[1:27:44] a meeting to get on that list because if

[1:27:47] this doesn't make it it's five more

[1:27:49] years and if we're concerned about a

[1:27:51] Geneva Avenue extension it needs to get

[1:27:54] on that list to MTC because they

[1:27:56] coordinate all the funding that will

[1:27:59] come down federal state what have you

[1:28:02] and they'll develop the priority list

[1:28:04] and they'll talk to Calra and they'll

[1:28:06] facilitate the meeting between the

[1:28:07] counties as Well, so it's just an

[1:28:10] update.

[1:28:11] » Madame Mayor, can I ask one question

[1:28:12] about the slide?

[1:28:13] » Sure.

[1:28:14] » Uh the slide that's up on the screen now

[1:28:16] for people at home, people in the

[1:28:18] audience, and people with bad vision. Um

[1:28:21] I don't see any dates on this, but the

[1:28:23] file name is uh looks like January 29th

[1:28:26] of 2008. Does anyone have a an actual

[1:28:28] date on this?

[1:28:36] » You have a date?

[1:28:39] Where's I don't see it.

[1:28:46] » Yeah, these were conceptual designs.

[1:28:48] You're looking at alternative two, the

[1:28:50] overcrossing, and those were uh created

[1:28:52] in 2008.

[1:28:54] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:28:55] » January 29th, 2008.

[1:28:57] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:28:58] » Okay. So, I have two more slips on

[1:29:01] mobility plan and then we're cutting off

[1:29:03] the public comment there. This one is

[1:29:05] Paul Buscal.

[1:29:13] Thank you, Paul Scale, Brisbane

[1:29:15] resident. Um, well, I had something that

[1:29:18] I was going to uh a question because I

[1:29:21] no longer am going to make comments

[1:29:23] because I I don't get a response. So,

[1:29:25] now I'm going to ask questions. So, at

[1:29:26] least I can get an answer. But I was

[1:29:29] curious, Cliff, when you said that uh

[1:29:32] you and Council Member Kern had met with

[1:29:36] uh Congressman Mullen

[1:29:38] and are interested in

[1:29:41] meeting with other jurisdictions, San

[1:29:44] Francisco in particular.

[1:29:46] Now,

[1:29:48] with the exception of council member

[1:29:50] Kerna, I believe every one of you

[1:29:52] council members was present when you

[1:29:56] council member Clip Lince uh said when I

[1:30:01] said we should be talking to San

[1:30:03] Francisco regarding Sledge, not even

[1:30:06] knowing about Candlestick,

[1:30:09] my comments in particular about water,

[1:30:12] high-pressure fire water from San

[1:30:14] Francisco to come into the multimold

[1:30:17] complex that we were talking about

[1:30:18] building and the Geneva extension

[1:30:22] and your comment was do you remember

[1:30:25] we're not interested in talking to

[1:30:29] » Do you remember I

[1:30:30] » I didn't say that

[1:30:31] » Yes you did

[1:30:32] » Uh no

[1:30:33] » Okay

[1:30:34] » I I

[1:30:35] » You you did and I'm not going to hash

[1:30:36] through it and I believe the four of you

[1:30:39] were there when it was said I'm not

[1:30:41] going to get into it

[1:30:43] » Paul then let's not get into it

[1:30:45] » No okay But why is it taken why has it

[1:30:47] taken five years for us to be interested

[1:30:50] in dealing with San Francisco in any of

[1:30:53] these issues we're talking about? So,

[1:30:55] let me use my last two minutes to talk

[1:30:58] about the mobility plan, which it all

[1:31:01] had to do with the mobility plan back

[1:31:03] before it was called a mobility plan.

[1:31:06] All right,

[1:31:08] look what's happened on Geneva Avenue

[1:31:10] with the traffic cameras and the traffic

[1:31:13] calming that it's created.

[1:31:16] Geneva Avenue used to be a freeway of

[1:31:18] cars going up and down Geneva Avenue.

[1:31:21] Now it's a passive pathway where people

[1:31:24] are driving the speed limit 30 mph, 35 m

[1:31:27] an hour. We can't enforce the traffic.

[1:31:30] We I couldn't see a bike lane out on

[1:31:33] beayshore between Guadalupe and Valley.

[1:31:37] How are we going to support both sides

[1:31:39] of Beayshore to support a bike lane? So,

[1:31:41] it's going to have to be a shared bike

[1:31:43] lane with no sidewalk. So, we could

[1:31:45] build a sidewalk up to Guadalupe from

[1:31:48] Geneva and and have a a dedicated bike

[1:31:52] lane like they do in Alamita, which is

[1:31:54] on one side of the road. It would have

[1:31:56] to be on the west side of Bayshore to be

[1:31:58] able to put a sidewalk and a bike lane,

[1:32:02] but then it's going to have to go from a

[1:32:03] dedicated bike lane to share the roadway

[1:32:06] between Guadalupe and Valley, unless

[1:32:10] you're going to put major hundreds of

[1:32:12] millions of dollars into building walls

[1:32:14] to support the edge of Beayshore through

[1:32:16] there. So, I'm hoping that'll be looked

[1:32:19] at. I I'm a total advocate of speed

[1:32:22] cameras, you know, uh lowering the speed

[1:32:25] limit, put some speed cameras in. Look,

[1:32:28] I don't know if you've seen or noticed

[1:32:30] what's going on on Geneva, but it's a

[1:32:32] big deal. It's really made a huge

[1:32:34] difference over there. So, um

[1:32:38] yeah, I I I wish you would uh uh look at

[1:32:42] the fact that so for 5 years and all

[1:32:44] this time, you know, like Stephanie said

[1:32:47] the other night, it's been 30 years

[1:32:48] dealing with the bayons issues.

[1:32:52] 40. So for five five years that we've

[1:32:55] been talking about a mobility plan and

[1:32:57] the sledgelock site, how come now also

[1:33:00] we're interested in dealing with San

[1:33:01] Francisco? Because you met with uh Mr.

[1:33:04] Mullen. So, thank you,

[1:33:07] » Charles Spencer.

[1:33:18] » Oh, I No, I cut it off.

[1:33:20] » No, sorry, I cut it off.

[1:33:22] » My name is [clears throat] Charles

[1:33:23] Spencer. I'm a Brisbane resident, and

[1:33:25] thank you for allowing me to ask this

[1:33:26] question. I am concerned about the

[1:33:28] future of Brisbane after the candlestick

[1:33:31] park development after the visitation

[1:33:34] reconstruction whatever that looks like

[1:33:36] after the bay lands begins and with or

[1:33:40] without the road diet up beayshore what

[1:33:43] happens to Brisbane's retail and what

[1:33:45] happens to their social capital

[1:33:47] infrastructure what happens to the city

[1:33:48] does it get strangled does it get

[1:33:50] absorbed but I don't hear anything any

[1:33:52] conversation about the future of

[1:33:54] Brisbane based on all but construction

[1:33:57] that's taking place and you can answer

[1:34:00] that now or when when uh you have a have

[1:34:03] an answer. Thanks.

[1:34:04] » Okay. All right. Those are all the

[1:34:07] comments on Beayshore mobility plan.

[1:34:10] » Sorry, somehow there was a mistake, but

[1:34:13] I would like if you would be so

[1:34:14] indulgent on the mobility.

[1:34:16] » I actually announced that that we were

[1:34:18] just going to finish up all the ones we

[1:34:20] had.

[1:34:21] » Chris, I put that put that in when I put

[1:34:23] mine in.

[1:34:25] Madame Mayor, they circled number two

[1:34:27] for that comment.

[1:34:28] » Okay.

[1:34:29] » Item two, but

[1:34:30] » Go ahead.

[1:34:30] » I'm sorry. I appreciate

[1:34:31] » It's okay. I'm just watching the time

[1:34:33] and what we still need to get through.

[1:34:34] » Oh, thank you. Um,

[1:34:37] I was sick, so I appreciate you making

[1:34:39] time for me. Um, I come about the hall

[1:34:43] route and I guess I want to say right

[1:34:45] off the bat that I can't understand the

[1:34:47] diagram in the in the EIR. It doesn't

[1:34:51] tell me where they pick it up and it

[1:34:53] doesn't take me tell me where they put

[1:34:54] it back. And both of those are critical.

[1:34:57] How did they exit the the site with the

[1:35:00] dirt and how do they return? And

[1:35:03] moreover, the the EIR shows blank and

[1:35:07] tunnel in San Francisco being part of

[1:35:09] the hall route and San Francisco doesn't

[1:35:12] allow that size of truck to be there.

[1:35:14] So, I have concerns, but I'm going to

[1:35:16] just kind of go for what is in Brisbane

[1:35:19] now and hope that you can explain the

[1:35:21] rest to me later. I am Robin Lighter and

[1:35:25] I'm a former city manager here and I'm

[1:35:27] here because I have real concerns about

[1:35:29] the hall route and I know that you and I

[1:35:32] share the same values which is that we

[1:35:35] want to make it safe for Brisbane and we

[1:35:37] want to make it manageable. I think

[1:35:39] protecting the community is both of ours

[1:35:42] and I see no difference between us.

[1:35:45] What I understand about development is

[1:35:47] that it's uncomfortable. It can be pile

[1:35:49] driving. It can be dust. It can be

[1:35:51] noise. But what it can't be, I think, is

[1:35:55] something that makes the the city of

[1:35:57] Brisbane unsafe or unmanageable.

[1:36:01] Hundreds of heavy trucks moving back and

[1:36:04] forth hour upon hour trying to negotiate

[1:36:07] intersections that were never designed

[1:36:10] for this kind of truck traffic. Think

[1:36:13] about the trucks making a slow

[1:36:15] right-hand turn onto Beayshore

[1:36:16] Boulevard. How many can actually make

[1:36:19] that intersection with one light? And

[1:36:22] what happens if they can't make it

[1:36:24] within one light? Does it begin to back

[1:36:26] up? The EIR says yes. It'll back up all

[1:36:30] the way and occupy the entire lane of

[1:36:32] the bridge.

[1:36:35] Now add the stop at Lagoon and Tunnel.

[1:36:38] Trucks

[1:36:39] slowing down then accelerating.

[1:36:42] Traffic backing up along Tunnel Avenue.

[1:36:46] Picture the trucks trying to get into

[1:36:48] the tank farm when the other ones are

[1:36:50] lined up in the other lane. Or how about

[1:36:53] going to Golden State Lumber? How do you

[1:36:56] get across to where the lumber is by the

[1:36:58] railard and get back across? How do you

[1:37:01] get in and out of Golden State Lumber?

[1:37:05] And I think,

[1:37:07] how do you get leave Brisbane? Cuz that

[1:37:10] lane is going to be difficult that you

[1:37:12] make the left-hand turn lane to off of

[1:37:15] Old County Road. And how about if you're

[1:37:17] just getting off the freeway and you

[1:37:19] want to get into town? How uncomfortable

[1:37:21] or congested is that going to make? This

[1:37:25] isn't just traffic congestion.

[1:37:28] It's a wall of trucks on tunnel which

[1:37:31] one which is one of Brisbane's

[1:37:33] evacuation routes in case of emergency.

[1:37:37] And now I ask you imagine an emergency.

[1:37:41] Where did they go? There's no shoulder

[1:37:43] on Tennel Avenue. There's no room to

[1:37:46] pull over on the bridge. There's no

[1:37:48] shoulder there either. And how about the

[1:37:50] lane of trucks? How do they imaginically

[1:37:53] move out of the way and how long will

[1:37:56] emergency vehicles be delayed?

[1:38:00] I just think these are operational

[1:38:02] questions that have to be answered. And

[1:38:05] then do you know that the the truck hall

[1:38:08] route is going directly behind the fire

[1:38:10] station? So is it okay for our employees

[1:38:13] to have 640 trucks pass behind the back

[1:38:18] of the fire station? What will that do

[1:38:20] to their work lives? What will it do to

[1:38:23] the dust for the trucks or the turnout

[1:38:26] gear?

[1:38:28] And while we're talking about tusk dusk,

[1:38:31] the hall route is unpaved. Are you going

[1:38:34] to have all that dust kicked up and then

[1:38:36] use ton of our own water to keep the

[1:38:39] dust controlled?

[1:38:41] And there are pedestrians and bicycle

[1:38:43] lanes on both of those roads.

[1:38:46] These are questions that I'm asking you

[1:38:48] please to answer before approval. The

[1:38:51] EIR says that these are significant

[1:38:54] adverse effects and the and they affect

[1:38:59] emergency access. Their mitigation

[1:39:02] measure is to make a plan.

[1:39:04] Well, I don't think there's any plan

[1:39:06] that can make up for physical

[1:39:08] limitations.

[1:39:11] I will provide the city clerk with a

[1:39:13] list of things that I think have to be

[1:39:15] reviewed to make sure this plan is

[1:39:17] feasible. The proposed operation

[1:39:20] involves 640 trucks. It's not an

[1:39:24] abstract number on a traffic chart.

[1:39:26] These are repeated movements of large,

[1:39:28] slowm moving vehicles in streets that

[1:39:32] affect residents and emergency

[1:39:34] responders. A construction management

[1:39:36] plan can't fix that. I want to say to

[1:39:40] you that no developer has the right to

[1:39:43] ask a community to surrender its safety

[1:39:46] or disrupt its streets.

[1:39:49] » Robin, are you almost there?

[1:39:50] » I am. The burden should be on the

[1:39:52] developer to de to demonstrate that the

[1:39:54] route is safe because when an emergency

[1:39:57] happens, I know we all want to feel like

[1:40:00] we've done the best we can for our

[1:40:03] communities. Thank you for indulging me.

[1:40:05] I appreciate the time.

[1:40:07] » Thank you.

[1:40:09] Thank you. Sorry,

[1:40:11] » Madame Mayor. We have our hands raised

[1:40:12] online. Christina F and also EMTT

[1:40:15] Kenningham submitted a slip.

[1:40:18] » Okay. So, I had announced we were

[1:40:20] closing the mobility plan. I will

[1:40:23] entertain two more and that's it. That's

[1:40:26] it. I've announced it once. We can't

[1:40:29] just go all night on the mobility plan.

[1:40:32] » Uh, thank you, Mayor Mack. And my hand's

[1:40:35] been raised for a while. So, um, You

[1:40:37] can't always see that, Chris. Sorry.

[1:40:40] » Yeah, I get that. I'm Thank you for

[1:40:42] taking um my comments. You might ask why

[1:40:48] the developers even bothered to propose

[1:40:50] a road diet. And it's unfortunate that

[1:40:53] the mobility plan utterly fails to

[1:40:56] illustrate how the proposed changes

[1:41:00] would work.

[1:41:01] Bear in mind the development as proposed

[1:41:04] [clears throat] will will further

[1:41:07] increase beayhore traffic if there are

[1:41:10] no mitigations. That will happen. I

[1:41:13] believe any Brisbane resident has

[1:41:16] personal experience of the

[1:41:17] ineffectiveness of posting speed limit

[1:41:20] signs. We know they don't change

[1:41:22] behavior.

[1:41:25] The plan hints at possibilities by

[1:41:28] mentioning changes to Sierra Point

[1:41:29] Parkway and Tunnel Road, although they

[1:41:32] have not taken any steps as they could

[1:41:34] have to help us understand how those

[1:41:37] would influence changes.

[1:41:40] I guess this has already come up. Should

[1:41:42] we be speaking to San Francisco? This is

[1:41:45] so close to the border. And it seems to

[1:41:47] me that trying to assess the traffic

[1:41:49] situation without conversations with San

[1:41:52] Francisco.

[1:41:54] There's no precedent for this

[1:41:55] admittedly. But it seems that we need to

[1:41:58] design one. And BDI's total lack of

[1:42:01] maintenance of tunnel road would suggest

[1:42:03] that they have no plans to do

[1:42:04] construction because if they were going

[1:42:06] to be doing the kind of struction

[1:42:08] construction and just mediation the the

[1:42:11] movement of that soil they would be

[1:42:14] creating tunnel road to be able to

[1:42:16] support that. Thank you.

[1:42:19] » Okay. Thank you. Um EMTT this is on I

[1:42:23] have you on um

[1:42:24] » I've got two items and I've got one for

[1:42:26] general, one for this.

[1:42:27] » Okay.

[1:42:27] » This will be quick I think.

[1:42:29] Uh this is a case against trucking.

[1:42:32] » This is a case against trucking. This is

[1:42:34] um a case probably for a conveyor. There

[1:42:37] are different types of dump trucks

[1:42:38] ranging from single axle to super dump

[1:42:40] trucks. Bayland is 2.5 to 2.9 millions

[1:42:43] cubic yards of dirt to transfer. The

[1:42:45] bigger the dump truck, the more yards

[1:42:46] they can hold, the fewer loads they have

[1:42:48] to run to complete the transfer. Seems

[1:42:49] straightforward, but the more weight

[1:42:51] that the dump trucks have, the more

[1:42:52] damage that will be done to the roads.

[1:42:55] This is big. The more weight the dump

[1:42:59] trucks have, the more damage that can be

[1:43:00] done to the roads. The the ratio is not

[1:43:03] a a multiplier of two or three. It's a

[1:43:06] it's not it's not a square. It's not a

[1:43:08] cubic. It's a quartic. You multiply you

[1:43:11] raise it to the power of four relative

[1:43:12] to the weight to the axle. In this

[1:43:15] particular case with the high end of

[1:43:17] these things, it ranges from well

[1:43:18] actually the mid end ranges from a

[1:43:20] thousand times to 10,000 times more

[1:43:23] damage to the roads per truck than per

[1:43:26] car.

[1:43:30] So 640 truckloads per day is the

[1:43:32] equivalent of road damage of 640,000

[1:43:35] or 6.4 million cars per day.

[1:43:40] How many days would it take to have to

[1:43:42] have the road for the road to require to

[1:43:44] be repaired?

[1:43:46] 6.4. Maybe we can get with 60 or 70

[1:43:49] million. 10 days. No problem. Okay. The

[1:43:52] road costs would likely be exorbitant.

[1:43:55] And the frequency of road repairs would

[1:43:56] also be an avoidable risk that would

[1:43:58] likely impact project timelines.

[1:44:01] Worse yet, during the winter time, when

[1:44:04] everything is wet and the weight of the

[1:44:05] dirt is more, the roads, the damage just

[1:44:09] increases.

[1:44:11] It goes up by about 40 to 70% depending

[1:44:14] on the on the on how wet the the dirt

[1:44:16] is.

[1:44:18] So, shall we include the cost of diesel?

[1:44:21] Sure. Diesel costs are at an all-time

[1:44:22] high. So, let's assume the diesel prices

[1:44:24] come back down towards normal.

[1:44:26] Regardless, this is going to be a huge

[1:44:28] cost risk and is completely outside of

[1:44:30] your control.

[1:44:32] Last but not least, I strongly urge the

[1:44:34] council to require some sort of dirt

[1:44:36] conveyor. I'm not going to speak more

[1:44:38] than that. Surely the initial surely

[1:44:40] this is initially going to be less

[1:44:41] expensive on the timeline and

[1:44:44] significantly more predictable in terms

[1:44:46] of costs. Dump trucks, if dump trucks

[1:44:48] are allowed, then please require the

[1:44:50] developer to repave the roads and the

[1:44:52] routes that the dump trucks take

[1:44:54] whenever the city manager city engineer

[1:44:57] mandates that the repair is required.

[1:44:58] Thank you.

[1:45:00] Thank you. All right, that concludes the

[1:45:04] mobility segment. The last public

[1:45:06] hearing, we allowed some general

[1:45:08] comments and so I have some slips. We

[1:45:11] weren't going to do this tonight. I have

[1:45:12] four slips. That's all I'm going to

[1:45:14] take. Very general comments. If you

[1:45:16] start diving down into mobility, I'm

[1:45:20] going to stop you. General comments,

[1:45:22] please. Please respect what we're trying

[1:45:25] to do. All right. The first one I have

[1:45:27] and four minutes tonight, please. We got

[1:45:29] a lot of ground to cover. Linda Sammon.

[1:45:34] » I'll pass today.

[1:45:35] » Okay. Second one. EMTT Cunningham.

[1:45:38] Again, [clears throat]

[1:45:43] » This might be a little bit longer, but

[1:45:45] it's just as well prepared.

[1:45:46] Alternatives. After spending way too

[1:45:48] much time reviewing the alternatives

[1:45:50] page and focusing on alternative 7,

[1:45:52] which was suggested by staff as the most

[1:45:53] environmentally friendly, and comparing

[1:45:54] that to alternative three specifically,

[1:45:57] I strongly favor alternative three. Why,

[1:46:00] you ask? Well, a bunch of reasons.

[1:46:02] Number three has more homes, implying

[1:46:05] more tax revenue to the city. Number

[1:46:07] three has more office space, implying

[1:46:09] more tax revenue to the city. These two

[1:46:11] points have long-term fiscal impacts on

[1:46:13] the city and our ability to provide

[1:46:15] services to new and existing citizens

[1:46:17] and businesses. More services means

[1:46:19] better bis means more and better

[1:46:21] businesses. Better businesses means more

[1:46:23] tax revenue. It's essentially a positive

[1:46:25] feedback loop.

[1:46:27] In this case, more is actually better.

[1:46:28] Conversely, the fewer homes and less

[1:46:30] office space implies less tax revenue to

[1:46:33] the city. This is not a hard thing to

[1:46:35] figure out. Number three, alternative

[1:46:38] three spreads things out more by putting

[1:46:39] office space on the east side of the

[1:46:41] train tracks. This is one of the cons

[1:46:42] that is mentioned. This implies more

[1:46:44] travel time and more piles that need to

[1:46:46] be driven. Driving piles is a relatively

[1:46:49] short-term impact for longterm gain.

[1:46:52] Yes, I'd be likely to be the person who

[1:46:55] get bears one of the people who bears

[1:46:57] the brunt of those piles.

[1:46:59] I won't like it, but it's a better

[1:47:01] choice for the city.

[1:47:04] More travel time implies more GHD

[1:47:07] greenhouse gases. Or does it? Yes,

[1:47:09] obviously it does, but not the same rate

[1:47:11] that we've had in the past. We're seeing

[1:47:14] an adoption of EVs in California, and

[1:47:16] it's still increasing. And I don't think

[1:47:18] it's going to stop. We're going to see

[1:47:20] less and less cars that are actually

[1:47:22] producing greenhouse gases in the

[1:47:23] future. So, plan for the future, not for

[1:47:25] the past.

[1:47:27] So, I don't think the greenhouse gases

[1:47:29] is a big deal as it was when this was

[1:47:30] written 5 years ago, no less today. I'm

[1:47:33] I'm just not as worried about that topic

[1:47:35] as I was the as I was previously. Um so

[1:47:40] short summary, PAL driving is a

[1:47:42] short-term annoyance and an

[1:47:43] inconvenience and more for me than most

[1:47:46] people in Brisbane. More travel time,

[1:47:47] thus more GHD is probably isn't as big

[1:47:49] an issue as it was in the past. So So a

[1:47:52] small and decreasing am deal over the

[1:47:54] over the long term. More tax revenue to

[1:47:57] the city is a big deal, particularly

[1:47:59] over the long term. This is we're

[1:48:02] supposed to be planning for the future,

[1:48:03] not for today.

[1:48:06] So, in my opinion, the higher tax

[1:48:07] revenue would dominate the decision in

[1:48:09] making the process and comparing these

[1:48:11] two options.

[1:48:12] I I'm sorry, but those who prefer

[1:48:15] alternative 7 over alternative three, I

[1:48:17] don't think they've really considered

[1:48:18] the fiscal responsibility of the cities

[1:48:20] in the future. Thank you. Okay, Michelle

[1:48:24] Sammon,

[1:48:29] » You already know what the people want

[1:48:31] because they voted for measure JJ and

[1:48:34] that was really pretty clear. And so my

[1:48:38] most important thing to say to you, I

[1:48:39] really appreciate all the work that

[1:48:41] you're doing and all the work that the

[1:48:42] staff is doing, but make a decision that

[1:48:45] doesn't harm the community, your

[1:48:47] constituents,

[1:48:49] and this community of constituents and

[1:48:51] the future community of Brisbane.

[1:48:53] Fulfill your promise. And on the energy

[1:48:56] thing that we were talking about

[1:48:57] earlier, fulfilling your promise means

[1:49:00] that according to measure JJ, it needs

[1:49:02] to be energy neutral. So that needs to

[1:49:05] be written in like Terry and Madison

[1:49:07] suggested. It doesn't really I mean yeah

[1:49:09] the review will give you some ideas. Um

[1:49:13] and when I brought up the Corey trucks

[1:49:15] it was because it was a very clear

[1:49:18] example

[1:49:19] of no oversight

[1:49:22] even when the law clearly states there

[1:49:24] needs to be oversight both by the county

[1:49:26] and by the city of Brisbane and by

[1:49:29] Calrans and by the contractor who's

[1:49:31] doing the freeway. So, it it really is

[1:49:36] important that we do no harm to this

[1:49:39] community in this process. And that is

[1:49:42] your um that is what you're charged with

[1:49:45] doing. And you're right, Cliff, you

[1:49:47] weren't the one who didn't want to talk

[1:49:49] to San Francisco. You wanted to go talk

[1:49:50] to them very much. Thank you, Nells

[1:49:54] Delander.

[1:50:07] Good evening, mayor, council members,

[1:50:08] and city staff. My name is Nelson

[1:50:10] Zulander. I'm a representative for

[1:50:12] Carver's Local 217 that covers Sanonteo

[1:50:14] County.

[1:50:15] Being a close resident of South San

[1:50:17] Francisco, the Bay Lands project will

[1:50:19] bring many needed housing for my members

[1:50:21] can afford to live here. Also by having

[1:50:23] this development built by a responsible

[1:50:25] general contractor and doubling down on

[1:50:27] safety by having the most qualified

[1:50:28] workers build this project. We've been

[1:50:31] talking about this project for many

[1:50:32] years and I'm excited to have our

[1:50:34] workers be part of this mind mental

[1:50:36] development. Thank you for your time.

[1:50:38] » Thank you. All right, that's all I have

[1:50:41] on general comments. We're moving on now

[1:50:43] to this week's schedule topics,

[1:50:45] remediation and phasing. There's various

[1:50:48] subheadings under this topic. I'll read

[1:50:50] them off. if you could please bring your

[1:50:52] questions and comments up under the

[1:50:54] appropriate headings. I understand some

[1:50:56] of them are squishy and it's going to

[1:50:58] kind of be hard to tell. Um, and some of

[1:51:01] the things I heard under transportation

[1:51:05] tonight also could have fit under some

[1:51:07] of these categories as well. First

[1:51:10] category is remediation framework and

[1:51:12] responsible agencies. Second is site

[1:51:14] grading, soil testing and clean soil

[1:51:17] design. Third is sequencing, remediation

[1:51:20] and development. Fourth is land use

[1:51:23] restrict restrictions and enforcement.

[1:51:27] Five is city liability and financial

[1:51:30] risk. Six is phasing specific plan

[1:51:33] chapter 9 two different development

[1:51:36] phases.

[1:51:37] Seven is long-term remediation

[1:51:39] stewardship and monitoring. and eight is

[1:51:43] planning commission recommendations,

[1:51:44] remediation, reporting, and enforcement.

[1:51:48] Members of the public, please fill out

[1:51:49] your speaker slips appropriately noting

[1:51:53] the topic you wish to speak on. Members

[1:51:56] [snorts] of the public at home, please

[1:51:58] raise your hand in Zoom to be added to a

[1:52:00] speaker card. Staff report, please, on

[1:52:03] phasing and remediation. And I

[1:52:05] understand you will be covering all of

[1:52:07] the topics in your presentation. We will

[1:52:11] ask questions according to subheadings.

[1:52:15] » All right, let's get the slides up. Good

[1:52:17] evening, honorable mayor and council

[1:52:18] members.

[1:52:20] I'll start with a quick presentation

[1:52:21] over me. We can go to the second slide

[1:52:23] already.

[1:52:25] Uh so tonight's presentation includes an

[1:52:26] overview of remediation and a general

[1:52:28] framework of the phasing of remediation

[1:52:30] and then last we'll touch on items uh

[1:52:32] staff is requesting council direction

[1:52:34] on. After staff's presentation, the

[1:52:36] applicant will have an opportunity to

[1:52:37] address the council followed by the

[1:52:39] public comment as you mentioned and

[1:52:40] tonight on tonight's remediation topics.

[1:52:43] So with that, I'm going to introduce

[1:52:45] Michael Barnes of ESA who will review

[1:52:47] the remediation process and we can go to

[1:52:49] the next slide.

[1:52:53] Next slide.

[1:52:57] Um, thank you. [clears throat]

[1:52:59] I like to do is present kind of a

[1:53:01] overview of

[1:53:02] » We're having trouble hearing you. Yeah.

[1:53:04] Unfortunately, this is a little short.

[1:53:07] » Yeah. Let's slide on over

[1:53:10] » There. How's that? Is that better?

[1:53:11] » That's good.

[1:53:12] » Okay. Good.

[1:53:12] » Thank you.

[1:53:13] » Sorry, we have a short cord here.

[1:53:16] So, for the hazards and remediation

[1:53:18] process, there are three main hazardous

[1:53:20] materials.

[1:53:20] » You're going to have to speak up. We

[1:53:22] can't hear you. Sorry.

[1:53:23] » I think it's just your your voice volume

[1:53:25] level.

[1:53:26] » Okay. So, there are three main hazardous

[1:53:29] material sites. There's the former

[1:53:30] Brisbane landfill, the Sonteo County

[1:53:33] portion of the UPC operable unit SM and

[1:53:37] then the operable unit OU. So the

[1:53:40] remediation of these sites are

[1:53:41] responsible of the regional water

[1:53:43] quality control board and the department

[1:53:45] of toxic substance control is not

[1:53:47] considered part of the project. Those

[1:53:49] happen to happen first. However, the

[1:53:52] appropriate site remediation must

[1:53:53] precede bays development. The general

[1:53:56] plan requires that the site remediation

[1:53:58] be undertaken as a prerequisite to that

[1:54:00] development.

[1:54:02] So there are three main hazardous

[1:54:03] material sites within here and this next

[1:54:05] slide will show a map of where they are.

[1:54:09] In a purple is the former Brisbane

[1:54:11] landfill. In blue is the OSM and in

[1:54:14] green is the U2.

[1:54:19] Next slide please.

[1:54:22] So again, apologies for this slide

[1:54:24] business, but there really are a lot of

[1:54:25] steps to the overall process of

[1:54:27] investigating and remediating

[1:54:29] contaminated sites. This particular

[1:54:31] slide provides a uh uh table of that. So

[1:54:35] for your project scoping and planning,

[1:54:37] this happens first. Your initial phase

[1:54:39] includes reviewing site data, developing

[1:54:41] conceptual models, and setting the

[1:54:43] overall objectives. Then you enter the

[1:54:45] into the remedial investigation phase.

[1:54:47] This includes the actual field sampling

[1:54:49] and lab analyses to characterize the

[1:54:51] nature and extent of contamination and

[1:54:54] then assess the risks to health in the

[1:54:56] environment. Within this part, you also

[1:54:58] do data gaps analyses where as you

[1:55:00] collect your information, you analyze

[1:55:03] this information to figure out do we

[1:55:05] have all the information that we need to

[1:55:07] characterize the nature and extent and

[1:55:09] then make some choices on how to deal

[1:55:11] with it. In dealing with it, you go into

[1:55:13] the feasibility study phase. This is

[1:55:15] where you develop and screen cleanup

[1:55:17] alternatives based on the regulatory

[1:55:19] requirements and the evaluation

[1:55:20] criteria. Within this, you'll put

[1:55:22] together a number of alternatives and

[1:55:24] then you recommend one.

[1:55:27] Then you go into the remedial action

[1:55:29] plan and the remedial development

[1:55:31] implementation plans and the remedial

[1:55:33] designs. In this step, you're

[1:55:35] integrating all these findings to

[1:55:37] recommend the preferred remedial actions

[1:55:39] for the regulatory decisions. design

[1:55:41] your work plans, pre-esign

[1:55:43] investigations and come up with your

[1:55:45] your final design there and then when

[1:55:47] you complete that you do the remedial

[1:55:49] action which is where you actually go

[1:55:50] and implement this remedy. All these

[1:55:53] process and steps may vary some

[1:55:56] depending upon the regulatory agency on

[1:55:57] the site but all the steps are

[1:55:59] conducted. For example, landfills

[1:56:02] prepare a closure postclosure plan which

[1:56:05] is essentially the same as a remedial

[1:56:06] action plan. The regulatory agencies

[1:56:09] review every submittal and must approve

[1:56:12] each step before the next step is taken.

[1:56:15] Next slide, please.

[1:56:20] Let's talk about some of the individual

[1:56:21] sites. The former Brisbane landfill is

[1:56:24] bounded to the east by Highway 101, to

[1:56:26] the west by Tunnel Road, and the south

[1:56:28] by the lagoon. The landfill is a closed,

[1:56:31] unlined landfill where buried waste is

[1:56:33] covered with filled and inert debris.

[1:56:35] Some of the surface area is developed.

[1:56:37] Some of it has hardcape, meaning

[1:56:39] pavement or concrete, and some of it is

[1:56:41] pvious. Some of the surface has clean

[1:56:43] fill stockpiled for future use. The

[1:56:46] landfill has an active landfill gas

[1:56:49] collection system, a groundwater

[1:56:51] monitoring network, and a leech seat

[1:56:53] collection system.

[1:56:55] So, the planned remediation consists of

[1:56:57] removing the stockpiled clean soil,

[1:57:00] installing a cap, and constructing a

[1:57:02] leech collection system. Because the

[1:57:04] landfill is unlined, that leaf takeake

[1:57:07] system will also collect groundwater.

[1:57:09] This will serve to capture and pull

[1:57:11] groundwater from the UPC USM and the OU

[1:57:15] to operable units located adjacent and

[1:57:18] west of the landfill. The responsible

[1:57:20] agency for the landfill is the regional

[1:57:22] water quality control board. It will

[1:57:24] implement land use restrictions that

[1:57:26] require the cap integrity to be

[1:57:28] maintained. The cap may not be disturbed

[1:57:31] without waterboard approval and a plan

[1:57:34] to restore the integrity of that cap.

[1:57:38] Next slide, please.

[1:57:43] So, the UPC USM is the area adjacent and

[1:57:46] west of the northern part of the former

[1:57:48] landfill. The OU consists of the former

[1:57:51] rail yards that at one time included

[1:57:53] repair shops, paint storage, a lumber

[1:57:55] yard and planing mill, and oil and

[1:57:57] sludge straps. It's currently vacant

[1:58:00] with various remaining foundations and

[1:58:01] building slabs. To date, some

[1:58:04] contaminated soil has been removed and a

[1:58:06] groundwater extraction and treatment

[1:58:08] system operated from 1995 to 2008 to

[1:58:12] extract and treat contaminated

[1:58:13] groundwater as well as that migrating

[1:58:16] from the off-flight slave OU to the

[1:58:18] west.

[1:58:19] The planned remediation will consist of

[1:58:21] installing a cap, removing contaminated

[1:58:24] soil where the cap in placement is

[1:58:26] impractical, and installing soil vapor

[1:58:28] mitigation systems where soil vapor

[1:58:30] testing indicates that soil vapor is

[1:58:33] above regulatory action levels. I'll

[1:58:35] have a slide on vapor mitigation in a

[1:58:37] little bit here. For this particular

[1:58:39] operable unit, the DTSC is a responsible

[1:58:42] agency whom will enforce remediation and

[1:58:46] the listed land use restrictions.

[1:58:49] Next slide, please.

[1:58:54] So, the operable unit OU2 is located

[1:58:58] south of the uh OSM. This particular one

[1:59:01] also includes former rail yards that at

[1:59:04] one time had a machine and erecting

[1:59:05] shop, a rail turntable and roundhouse, a

[1:59:09] 3 milliongal oil tank, a tank and boiler

[1:59:12] shop, and a rail switching yard along

[1:59:14] with a solid waste dump site. The site

[1:59:17] is currently vacant with various

[1:59:18] remaining foundations and building slab.

[1:59:21] The site currently has Cal Train tracks

[1:59:23] along the east side. Industrial way

[1:59:25] properties to the south formally include

[1:59:28] underground storage tanks, a glue and

[1:59:30] fertilizer manufacturing facility, auto

[1:59:32] refinishing, and other businesses.

[1:59:35] Current uses along there include

[1:59:37] automobile garages, storage warehouses,

[1:59:39] and a boxing ring. Similar to the other

[1:59:42] site, the plant remediation will consist

[1:59:45] of installing a cap, removing

[1:59:47] contaminated soil where cap in placement

[1:59:49] is impractical, installing soil vapor

[1:59:52] mitigation systems where soil vapor

[1:59:54] testing includes soil vapor above

[1:59:57] regulatory action level inside

[1:59:58] buildings, and operating an institute

[2:00:01] groundwater remediation system to reduce

[2:00:04] volanic compounds to below regulatory

[2:00:07] action levels. for this operable unit.

[2:00:10] The water board is a responsible agency

[2:00:12] and will enforce remediation and listed

[2:00:15] land use restrictions.

[2:00:18] Next slide please.

[2:00:21] So you've heard that soil vapor uh

[2:00:24] mitigation will be implemented. So one

[2:00:26] question is well how does this work? So

[2:00:29] what you do is for each of the locations

[2:00:30] you sample the existing concentrations

[2:00:32] and design accordingly. You'll install

[2:00:35] typical best management practice. And

[2:00:37] these could include either removing the

[2:00:39] soil so that you don't have the

[2:00:40] contamination in the first place or

[2:00:42] installing vapor barriers to prevent it

[2:00:45] from getting into the uh breathing space

[2:00:47] of the building on top of there or

[2:00:49] installing active or passive ventilation

[2:00:51] systems or combinations of all of those.

[2:00:55] Once built, the breathing zones inside

[2:00:57] the structure you've constructed on top

[2:00:59] of it are tested to verify that the

[2:01:02] systems are working as designed and the

[2:01:04] building is safe to occupy.

[2:01:08] Next slide.

[2:01:10] So, how does capping work? As you've

[2:01:12] heard, there's a lot of uh soil that's

[2:01:14] been stockpiled over the landfill that

[2:01:16] be used to install that cap. The concept

[2:01:19] is that the CAP is going to isolate the

[2:01:21] waste so that it can't be accessed by

[2:01:23] people or the environment. The site

[2:01:25] owners are each required to maintain the

[2:01:27] cap and the site owners are required to

[2:01:29] inspect and report annually. There will

[2:01:32] be land use covenants in place enforced

[2:01:35] by the uh department of toxic substance

[2:01:38] and control and the water board. uh for

[2:01:40] any case where you disturb the cap. If

[2:01:42] you choose to do so, you're required to

[2:01:45] submit a plan to those regulatory

[2:01:47] agencies explaining how you're going to

[2:01:49] restore the integrity of the cap after

[2:01:51] the disturbance is completed.

[2:01:54] This next slide here shows kind of a

[2:01:56] typical cap detail.

[2:01:59] Uh you can see very well the uh uh four

[2:02:02] layers. You've got the refu or your

[2:02:03] waste down at the bottom. Over that

[2:02:05] you're going to put the soil foundation

[2:02:07] layer. On top of that, you put a

[2:02:09] compacted clay liner to restrict water

[2:02:12] uh infiltration down through there. And

[2:02:14] then on top, you have the erosion

[2:02:16] resistant layer and the engineered fill.

[2:02:18] Like to direct your attention to the

[2:02:19] item uh noted on the right in between

[2:02:23] your engineered fill and the top of the

[2:02:25] compacted clay layer, you put a drainage

[2:02:27] geocmposite. The idea is that as rain

[2:02:30] falls on your engineered fill and

[2:02:32] percolates down, you collect it in that

[2:02:34] geo composite and route it away from

[2:02:36] that area. so that you don't get a

[2:02:38] buildup of fluids there.

[2:02:43] So, let's briefly summarize the

[2:02:45] investigative history.

[2:02:48] Uh, Brisbane landfill began its

[2:02:50] operations in 1932 and stopped receiving

[2:02:52] waste in 1967.

[2:02:55] Bear in mind that the modern waste

[2:02:56] disposal practices were not yet

[2:02:58] developed by 1967 and formul formal

[2:03:02] regulatory closure plans were not yet

[2:03:04] required. The first regulatory order to

[2:03:07] improve landfill operations was issued

[2:03:09] by the water board in 1958. Cleanup and

[2:03:12] abatement order number 94-134,

[2:03:15] was issued in 1994, and the first waste

[2:03:18] discharge requirements were adopted in

[2:03:20] 2001. Monitoring of groundwater began in

[2:03:23] 1988, and has continued to date. A

[2:03:26] landfill gas extraction system was

[2:03:28] installed in 1991 and continues to date.

[2:03:32] In viewing geot tracker, the website

[2:03:34] where the waterboard posts its

[2:03:35] documents, there are 214 site documents,

[2:03:39] 89 monitoring reports, all posted

[2:03:41] between 1958 and the present.

[2:03:46] The rail yards were originally bayands

[2:03:48] that were filled in with rock blasted

[2:03:50] from a nearby road cut through

[2:03:51] visitation point and rubble from the

[2:03:53] 1906 earthquake. The rail yards rail

[2:03:56] yards and the associated industries

[2:03:58] began operations in about 1914 and

[2:04:01] continued to 1960. Environmental

[2:04:04] investigations at the rail yards began

[2:04:06] in 1982. The rail yards were split into

[2:04:09] operable units U-S2

[2:04:14] for further south in 1995.

[2:04:16] In reviewing Envirrostore, the website

[2:04:19] where the department of toxic substances

[2:04:21] control point posts its documents. There

[2:04:23] are 134 documents that have been posted

[2:04:26] between 1985 and two 2025. The documents

[2:04:30] include various regulatory agency

[2:04:32] orders, work plans, investigative

[2:04:34] reports, and monitoring and remedial

[2:04:36] actions.

[2:04:37] The U2 area was split off from the OUSM

[2:04:41] and that particular one has 29 site

[2:04:44] documents and t 10 monitoring reports

[2:04:46] that have been posted through 2026.

[2:04:49] Again, they include various regulatory

[2:04:51] agency orders, work plans, investigative

[2:04:54] reports, and monitoring and remedial

[2:04:56] actions. Collectively, these various

[2:04:58] reports document thousands of samples

[2:05:00] collected and analyzed. thousands of

[2:05:02] labor hours expended to document,

[2:05:05] investigate, and develop remedial

[2:05:07] actions and closure plans for these

[2:05:09] waste sites.

[2:05:12] In addition to this, along the way, the

[2:05:15] city has contracted EKI as a third-party

[2:05:18] technical reviewer for these documents

[2:05:20] as they were being prepared. Uh they

[2:05:22] have been on board since 2018. They've

[2:05:25] uh they have participated in meetings

[2:05:26] with the agencies, with the city, and

[2:05:28] the project team members.

[2:05:31] Um they've reviewed the various

[2:05:32] historical activities and looked for

[2:05:34] data gaps which were then advised to the

[2:05:36] various consultants to go and fill. They

[2:05:39] reviewed the analytes, the testing

[2:05:41] methods, the analytical data. They

[2:05:43] reviewed the remedial technologies and

[2:05:45] proposed remedies, evaluated the

[2:05:47] exposure pathways and potential

[2:05:49] receptors and evaluated the compliance

[2:05:52] with the city and regulatory

[2:05:53] requirements.

[2:05:55] So they've discussed all these findings

[2:05:56] with the city and provided comments and

[2:05:58] red lines to BDIS consultants as those

[2:06:02] documents were being prepared. So they

[2:06:04] reviewed then the revised documents to

[2:06:06] confirm that the comments and karna

[2:06:08] concerns were addressed sometimes

[2:06:10] repeatedly. They have also assisted the

[2:06:12] study in preparing comment letters to

[2:06:14] the regulatory agencies.

[2:06:19] Next slide please.

[2:06:24] Uh, I think you skipped over one. It

[2:06:27] should say remediation oversight.

[2:06:34] Well, there we are. Okay. For the

[2:06:37] remediation oversight,

[2:06:39] each of these sites has existing

[2:06:40] enforcement orders that are enforced by

[2:06:43] uh the top department of toxic

[2:06:45] consumption control and the water board

[2:06:47] until the concentrations decrease to

[2:06:49] below their regulatory action levels. So

[2:06:51] these regulatory agencies, not the city,

[2:06:54] have the oversight responsibility over

[2:06:56] those remediation activities. They will

[2:06:59] require land use covenants to require

[2:07:01] monitoring and maintenance of those

[2:07:03] remedial actions. However, the city also

[2:07:07] has the uh right for approval for

[2:07:09] building construction and occupation

[2:07:11] permits, and the approval of those

[2:07:13] permits are contingent upon confirmation

[2:07:15] that the required remedial actions have

[2:07:18] indeed occurred on a sightby-sight

[2:07:20] basis.

[2:07:23] Last slide, please. [clears throat]

[2:07:26] This slide is also a little bit busy but

[2:07:28] was prepared to kind of compare the the

[2:07:31] remediation steps and the development

[2:07:34] steps. In the upper left corner under

[2:07:36] activity is the very first one which is

[2:07:38] relocate that soil install the caps that

[2:07:41] has to happen before any of the

[2:07:43] development can happen.

[2:07:46] Um, you know, I won't go through all

[2:07:48] these steps, but in essence, there's the

[2:07:50] pre-development remediation, the site

[2:07:52] preparation, the building construction,

[2:07:54] and then the monitoring and reporting.

[2:07:58] And I think that brings me to the end of

[2:08:00] our overview. I'd like to turn over to

[2:08:02] Jeremiah who had some more summary

[2:08:04] slides to go through.

[2:08:05] » All right. Thank you, Michael. Next

[2:08:07] slide. Uh, so we're going to transition

[2:08:08] from uh that remediation process to a

[2:08:10] little more on uh oversight when when

[2:08:13] that applies. Um, and it's going to

[2:08:15] touch on a little bit more that that

[2:08:16] kind of par uh table you just saw. Um,

[2:08:19] and it's also these next slides are

[2:08:21] going to be uh they're kind of a

[2:08:22] simplified overview of it was attachment

[2:08:24] six to the August 13th planning

[2:08:26] commission memorandum. So, if you want a

[2:08:28] full table of what I'm going over, it

[2:08:30] was provided then. So, we can go um Oh,

[2:08:34] we're on the right side already. All

[2:08:35] right. Uh, so the we're going to have

[2:08:38] three general phases to describe

[2:08:39] remediation oversight. Uh we're just

[2:08:42] going to put these buckets of before

[2:08:43] construction begins, during

[2:08:45] construction, and after construction is

[2:08:47] complete. Uh each phase includes

[2:08:49] specific inspections and monitoring

[2:08:51] required by state regulatory agencies

[2:08:53] that we've already referenced

[2:08:54] throughout. And and for the former

[2:08:56] landfill, the Sanonteo County Health

[2:08:58] Department will also serve as the local

[2:09:00] enforcement agency. Specialized

[2:09:02] contractors, licensed engineers, and

[2:09:04] environmental experts will perform the

[2:09:06] required remedial actions under strict

[2:09:08] regulatory procedures. And so we're

[2:09:10] going to walk through these next slides.

[2:09:12] It they're mostly applicable to UM and

[2:09:15] U2, but the landfill site, the former

[2:09:17] landfill will follow a very similar

[2:09:19] oversight process just like Michael had

[2:09:20] said. Next slide.

[2:09:24] So this phase is all about verification

[2:09:26] and preparation. So before any shovels

[2:09:28] hit the ground, those qualified

[2:09:30] professionals have collected hundreds of

[2:09:31] soils and groundwater samples within

[2:09:33] OUSM and U2 and tested them for a wide

[2:09:36] range of chemicals. soil to be imported

[2:09:38] was also tested to ensure it can be used

[2:09:41] on the new site. This data was then used

[2:09:43] to prepare detailed remedial remedial

[2:09:45] action plans and that those were the

[2:09:47] ones that were approved by the

[2:09:49] regulatory agencies. So the goal of this

[2:09:51] phase, this uh preconstruction phase is

[2:09:54] is pretty straightforward. It's is to

[2:09:55] develop a clear understanding of those

[2:09:57] potential risks at the site. Um the

[2:10:00] proposed remediation action to address

[2:10:02] those risks and the measures uh that uh

[2:10:05] are going to be implemented during

[2:10:06] construction to mitigate potential risk

[2:10:08] to human health and the environment.

[2:10:10] Next slide.

[2:10:14] Phase two. So once construction starts,

[2:10:16] the oversight activity actually kicks it

[2:10:19] up a little bit. Air monitoring will be

[2:10:21] conducted by an independent

[2:10:22] environmental professional. There are

[2:10:24] going to be engineers required to be on

[2:10:26] site to check soil placement,

[2:10:28] compaction, and installation of

[2:10:29] protective systems like those clean

[2:10:31] corridors for utilities or the clean

[2:10:33] soil caps. If any soil needs to be

[2:10:36] removed, it can only go to a permitted

[2:10:38] facility and only after sampling

[2:10:40] confirms the disposal requirements.

[2:10:43] Monthly reports are required to be sent

[2:10:45] to the state regulatory agencies and

[2:10:47] this is meant to keep everything well

[2:10:49] documented and transparent. Also, prior

[2:10:51] to construction of a building, soil

[2:10:53] vapor investigations will be conducted

[2:10:55] twice to evaluate whether the

[2:10:57] installation and operation of a

[2:10:59] mitigation system is required. Next

[2:11:01] slide.

[2:11:03] So, after remediation activities are

[2:11:06] complete, oversight does not stop and

[2:11:08] some of the longest running protections

[2:11:09] happens during this phase. The clean

[2:11:11] soil caps will be inspected every year

[2:11:13] after major storms or earthquakes. In

[2:11:16] the OSM area, groundwater sampling

[2:11:18] continues semianually. And finally,

[2:11:21] every year, uh, excuse me, every 5

[2:11:23] years, a full complete review of all the

[2:11:25] systems, caps, vapor barriers,

[2:11:27] monitoring wells is required to confirm

[2:11:29] they still meet current safety

[2:11:30] standards. So, it's important to note

[2:11:32] that the cleanup doesn't end when

[2:11:33] construction does. Even after the

[2:11:35] initial cleanup and construction

[2:11:36] monitoring, state regulatory agencies

[2:11:38] require ongoing monitoring to ensure all

[2:11:40] protective systems continue to function

[2:11:42] as intended. And if the site is ever

[2:11:45] redeveloped or new construction is

[2:11:46] proposed, the sight specific conditions

[2:11:49] must be reassessed and the appropriate

[2:11:51] oversight prescribed by the state

[2:11:52] agencies begins again. Next slide.

[2:11:57] So for the landfill uh remediation

[2:11:59] follows kind of the same three

[2:12:01] three-phase oversight of of those

[2:12:03] operable units kind of pre

[2:12:05] pre-construction, during construction

[2:12:06] and post construction. Uh so right now

[2:12:08] it's currently in the pre-construction

[2:12:09] phase, you know, per our slides with

[2:12:11] some remediation plans already reviewed

[2:12:13] by the regulatory agencies, though

[2:12:15] additional and detailed documentation

[2:12:17] and approvals are still required before

[2:12:19] any construction can begin. During

[2:12:21] construction, the project will be

[2:12:22] required to install the title 27

[2:12:24] landfill uh cap, gas and leech

[2:12:26] collection systems, storm water

[2:12:28] controls, and groundwater monitoring.

[2:12:30] And any any buildings constructed on the

[2:12:32] landfill will include added protections

[2:12:34] such as vapor barriers, venting systems,

[2:12:36] and hazard alarms. Um

[2:12:39] uh I do want to u note a a correction to

[2:12:41] the staff report which indicated the the

[2:12:43] landfill closure plan u gave a a 10-year

[2:12:47] window for once approved then the

[2:12:49] landfill will be closed. The the

[2:12:51] correction is um that the timing of the

[2:12:54] clock so to speak begins when the the

[2:12:56] existing stockpile soil is moved off the

[2:12:59] site because you cannot remediate the

[2:13:02] soil below until that top soil is

[2:13:04] removed. So the the landfill closure is

[2:13:06] 10 years after all the soil is moved off

[2:13:08] the top of the the landfill.

[2:13:12] So in in closing, approved remediation

[2:13:14] documents for the bailands will

[2:13:15] establish a long-term framework designed

[2:13:17] to ensure the site remains safe for the

[2:13:18] community. And next slide.

[2:13:22] All right. So we're going to give you a

[2:13:24] a little uh direction on what staff is

[2:13:27] looking for from the council. We can go

[2:13:29] to the next slide. So before you begin

[2:13:31] your discussion, this slide lists the

[2:13:32] items staff would like the council's

[2:13:34] direction on tonight and the items uh in

[2:13:37] the develop that in the development

[2:13:38] agreement that will need to be

[2:13:39] addressed. So first we have the measure

[2:13:41] JJ remediation topics. So in short, the

[2:13:44] specific plan together with the approved

[2:13:46] remediation and landfill closure plans

[2:13:48] addresses the required regulatory

[2:13:49] approvals. The ground level safety and

[2:13:52] testing of landfill soil before it is

[2:13:53] moved with regulatory agency

[2:13:55] confirmation required before the city

[2:13:57] issues permits. remediation and required

[2:13:59] infrastructure costs are the developer's

[2:14:01] responsibility. Um so second measure JJ

[2:14:05] also requires a schedule for cleanup and

[2:14:07] landfall closure. Uh city tools to

[2:14:10] enforce that schedule and long-term

[2:14:11] performance asurances such as monitoring

[2:14:14] bonds or insurance. Uh measure JJ looks

[2:14:17] to the development agreement for these

[2:14:18] and the council will consider them when

[2:14:20] the development agreement comes forward

[2:14:21] at a future hearing. Finally, the

[2:14:24] planning commission recommended

[2:14:25] recurring concurrent submittal and

[2:14:27] public posting of all DTSC and uh

[2:14:30] waterboard reports, pausing or

[2:14:32] withholding permits when reporting is

[2:14:34] not current, and enforcing post

[2:14:36] occupancy reporting through existing

[2:14:37] city enforcement tools. Staff supports

[2:14:40] the planning commission's

[2:14:41] recommendations. This concludes staff's

[2:14:43] presentation.

[2:14:45] » Thank you very much. Very thorough. I

[2:14:47] really appreciate that. So, I'm going to

[2:14:49] shake things up a little bit. I have a

[2:14:52] couple slips here for the first topic

[2:14:55] which is remediation framework and

[2:14:57] responsible agencies. And since we seem

[2:14:59] to have members of the public that maybe

[2:15:02] you need to get home early, you have an

[2:15:05] early day in the morning. So I'm going

[2:15:08] to go through these these public

[2:15:10] questions first. Um Paula Menace,

[2:15:15] » Madame Mayor, don't you don't want the

[2:15:16] applicant's presentation?

[2:15:18] » Oh, we have an applicant presentation as

[2:15:20] well.

[2:15:21] Yes.

[2:15:21] » Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of that.

[2:15:24] Okay, hold on, Paul.

[2:15:28] I'm sorry. I really wasn't aware. Go

[2:15:30] ahead.

[2:15:33] Great.

[2:15:36] Good evening, Mayor Mackin, city council

[2:15:38] members. Once again, I'm Katie Lo Sunday

[2:15:40] with the Bays team, and thank you for

[2:15:42] the opportunity to address you tonight.

[2:15:44] I'm also joined by environmental

[2:15:46] engineers from Geocentech and NGO and as

[2:15:49] well as of course our in-house

[2:15:52] environmental expert Stephanie

[2:15:54] Shakovski. Next slide please.

[2:15:58] Um so in the interest of time I'll try

[2:16:01] and pass some of this that um staff

[2:16:04] already covered. As you're aware, the

[2:16:06] property is divided into three cleanup

[2:16:09] areas. O USM and U2 on the west side and

[2:16:13] the Brisbane landfill on the east. And

[2:16:15] also, as you heard, each area is

[2:16:17] governed by its own cleanup plans under

[2:16:19] the oversight of the appropriate

[2:16:20] regulatory agencies. And as is required

[2:16:23] by measure JJ, the remedial action plans

[2:16:26] have been approved for the remediation

[2:16:28] on the former railard side of the

[2:16:30] property. and the title 27 landfill

[2:16:33] closure plan has been removed for or has

[2:16:35] been excuse me approved for the landfill

[2:16:38] side of the property.

[2:16:41] If we go to the next slide, please.

[2:16:46] So, as we've talked about before,

[2:16:48] throughout California, former

[2:16:49] contaminated sites have been assessed,

[2:16:52] cleaned up, redeveloped, and turned into

[2:16:54] housing, commercial spaces, parks, and

[2:16:57] community facilities. There's a proven

[2:16:59] path to do this work safely. And it

[2:17:01] generally includes um the following

[2:17:03] steps. A site assessment of the property

[2:17:06] and its history. A site investigation to

[2:17:08] determine whether contamination exists.

[2:17:11] Identify its source. Characterize it and

[2:17:13] evaluate potential risks. An evaluation

[2:17:16] of appropriate cleanup alternatives.

[2:17:18] Development and imple implementation of

[2:17:21] detailed cleanup plans. And finally,

[2:17:23] long-term monitoring, reporting,

[2:17:26] operation, and maintenance of the remedy

[2:17:28] were needed. In the Bay Area, we have

[2:17:31] numerous brownfield projects like

[2:17:32] Mission Bay, Emeryville, and Bay

[2:17:35] Meadows. And each of these sites was

[2:17:37] carefully remediated and developed over

[2:17:39] the course of many years. And here in

[2:17:42] Brisbane, the city has already overseen

[2:17:44] a successful landfill to development

[2:17:46] conversion at Sierra Point under the

[2:17:49] same regulatory agencies that will

[2:17:50] oversee the balance cleanup and closure

[2:17:53] activities. And while the balance is at

[2:17:55] larger scale, it will follow the same

[2:17:57] well- tested framework as these safely

[2:18:00] remediated projects.

[2:18:02] Next slide, please.

[2:18:06] As we've previously discussed, the

[2:18:07] Bayand is divided into four main

[2:18:09] districts. There are three districts on

[2:18:12] the former railard side of the property,

[2:18:14] Beayshore, Roundhouse, and the Ice House

[2:18:16] Hill District. On the landfill side of

[2:18:19] the property, there's the campus east

[2:18:21] district as well as supportive

[2:18:22] sustainability infrastructure.

[2:18:25] We'll discuss the development phasing

[2:18:27] and associated remediation for each

[2:18:29] district on the following slides, but I

[2:18:31] want to remind you that this is a

[2:18:32] long-term vision. The specific plan

[2:18:35] establishes the framework for the

[2:18:36] balance to develop incrementally,

[2:18:39] allowing Brisbane to grow with intention

[2:18:41] while also giving the market time to

[2:18:43] absorb these new housing units and

[2:18:45] commercial spaces.

[2:18:47] Next slide, please.

[2:18:52] So, as you're aware, the specific plan

[2:18:54] divides the Baylands project into two

[2:18:56] major phases. The west side of the CALR

[2:18:59] tracks is phase one and the east side is

[2:19:02] phase two. Tonight, we'd like to provide

[2:19:04] more detail about how the development

[2:19:05] could occur within these broader phases.

[2:19:08] So, we'd likely start construction with

[2:19:10] the Beayshore district and then move

[2:19:12] south from there before continuing on to

[2:19:14] the east side of the development. The

[2:19:16] Beayshore district is the most urban

[2:19:19] transit oriented area in the specific

[2:19:20] plan. In addition to the housing and

[2:19:23] commercial uses which you can see in

[2:19:25] teal and in red on that map on the left

[2:19:28] side, this district also includes the

[2:19:31] Sunnydale Park sections of the Baylands

[2:19:33] Park north of Geneva and the Beayshore

[2:19:36] Cal Train Station Plaza. And of course

[2:19:39] before any construction the remediation

[2:19:42] process will begin and that starts with

[2:19:44] h removing impacted soils with highly

[2:19:47] concentrated contamination and hauling

[2:19:49] that material to a permitted off-site

[2:19:51] disposal facility. The site will then be

[2:19:54] covered with approved general fill soil

[2:19:56] to raise the property above the 100year

[2:19:58] flood zone. The soil will be imported

[2:20:01] from the east side of the property where

[2:20:03] stockpiled soil has been tested in

[2:20:05] accordance with measure JJ and that

[2:20:07] testing was done using the brownfield

[2:20:09] grant funds that the city received from

[2:20:11] DTSC.

[2:20:13] At this point in the development only

[2:20:15] the soil needed for this beayhore

[2:20:17] district will be relocated. The

[2:20:19] remaining stockpiled soil will stay in

[2:20:21] place for future phases.

[2:20:24] And as the remediation and construction

[2:20:25] gets underway on the beayshore district,

[2:20:27] we will also begin some work on the

[2:20:29] sustainable infrastructure projects on

[2:20:31] the east side of the property. So like

[2:20:34] the railard side, the landfill closure

[2:20:37] will happen in phases. And to prepare

[2:20:39] for the development of that sustainable

[2:20:41] infrastructure, those portions of the

[2:20:43] property will undergo the title 27

[2:20:45] landfill closure procedures under the

[2:20:47] supervision of the water board. I also

[2:20:50] want to flag that that's one of the

[2:20:52] reasons why we're opposed to setting

[2:20:54] aside 45 acres of developable area for

[2:20:57] the future highspeed rail light

[2:20:59] maintenance facility. Not only is that

[2:21:01] plan inconsistent with measure JJ, but

[2:21:04] those 45 acres are also the ideal

[2:21:06] locations for many of our critical

[2:21:08] sustainable infrastructure projects. And

[2:21:10] that acreage is in a flat area of the

[2:21:12] landfill where there isn't stockpiled

[2:21:14] soil. So if we were able to develop in

[2:21:16] that area, we could uh close portions of

[2:21:20] the landfill sooner.

[2:21:23] So this portion of the development that

[2:21:24] I've explained so far, the beayhore

[2:21:26] district and some of the supportive

[2:21:28] sustainable infrastructure is expected

[2:21:30] to take approximately 10 years and that

[2:21:32] includes remediation, horizontal

[2:21:35] infrastructure, and vertical

[2:21:36] development. Next slide, please.

[2:21:42] After completing the Beayshore district,

[2:21:43] we would then continue south and begin

[2:21:45] work on the roundhouse district. The

[2:21:48] remediation, grading, and infrastructure

[2:21:50] will follow a similar process to what

[2:21:52] was done in the Beayshore district.

[2:21:54] Stockpiled soil would again be relocated

[2:21:56] from the east side to support the

[2:21:58] development of this district. In

[2:22:00] addition to the housing and commercial

[2:22:01] uses, which now you can see in orange on

[2:22:04] that map, this district also includes

[2:22:07] the remainder of Balance Park, the

[2:22:09] restored Roundhouse Park, the northern

[2:22:11] segment of Ecological Park, and the

[2:22:14] Geneva Avenue extension west of the Cal

[2:22:16] Train tracks. As the roundhouse district

[2:22:18] gets going, we also expect the

[2:22:20] development to begin on the Ice House

[2:22:22] Hill district. So, if we go to the next

[2:22:24] slide, I'll talk about that district.

[2:22:29] The last district on the west side of

[2:22:30] the Cal Train tracks is the Ice House

[2:22:32] Hill District and that district includes

[2:22:34] mid-rise office and research buildings,

[2:22:37] retail and the southern segment of E

[2:22:39] ecological park. You can see those uh

[2:22:42] buildings in yellow on the map. This is

[2:22:45] also likely when we would complete the

[2:22:46] restoration on Ice House Hill and

[2:22:49] develop the trail connections as well as

[2:22:52] the community fields. Completing the

[2:22:54] roundhouse in ice house sale districts

[2:22:56] would deplete the remaining stockpiled

[2:22:58] soil from the landfill area and leave

[2:23:00] the east side ready for closure and

[2:23:02] development activity. The buildout of

[2:23:05] these last two western segments is

[2:23:07] anticipated to take an additional 10

[2:23:09] years which brings the total timeline

[2:23:11] for the westside development to 20 years

[2:23:14] which is comparable with major projects

[2:23:16] in the region like Bay Meadows.

[2:23:19] Next slide please.

[2:23:24] As we move from the west side of the

[2:23:26] development to the east, this is when

[2:23:27] construction will begin on additional

[2:23:29] site infrastructure to support the

[2:23:31] entire bays. This includes the improved

[2:23:33] storm water detention area, the solar

[2:23:36] farm and street improvements for Tunnel

[2:23:38] Avenue and Lagoon Road. The northeast

[2:23:41] portion of the campus east district will

[2:23:43] include lowdensity commercial and office

[2:23:45] development, and those buildings are

[2:23:47] highlighted in pink on the map. Further

[2:23:50] south in this district, there will be

[2:23:51] extensive park area like Visitation

[2:23:53] Creek Park, Lagoon Park, and the Bay

[2:23:56] Trail.

[2:23:57] Each area will need closure

[2:23:59] certification before the development

[2:24:01] begins. And as was mentioned by

[2:24:03] Jeremiah, the full landfill closure is

[2:24:06] expected to take 10 years from the time

[2:24:08] that the stockpiled soil is fully

[2:24:10] removed from the landfill. So if

[2:24:12] development begins in approximately 2029

[2:24:16] and the westside development takes

[2:24:18] around 20 years, then we'd expect the

[2:24:20] landfill to be fully closed around the

[2:24:22] year 209.

[2:24:25] Next slide.

[2:24:30] So as I said at the beginning of this

[2:24:32] presentation, the balance is a long-term

[2:24:34] vision. Like many major developments in

[2:24:36] the region, we are not talking about

[2:24:38] months or years. We're talking about

[2:24:40] decades. and we expect the full

[2:24:43] development of the bailins to take 30

[2:24:45] years. That is why the specific plan

[2:24:47] needs to be the right balance of

[2:24:49] detailed and flexible to remain our

[2:24:51] northstar for the years to come. Thank

[2:24:54] you for listening and we're happy to

[2:24:56] take any questions.

[2:24:57] » Okay, thank you. Back again, Paul.

[2:25:11] Good evening, mayor, uh, council

[2:25:13] members. My name is Paul Jimenez. I'm a

[2:25:16] proud Brisbane resident and member of UA

[2:25:19] Local 467 representing plumbers, pipe

[2:25:21] fitters, and HVAC R mechanics

[2:25:24] [clears throat]

[2:25:26] uh, here in uh, Sanonteo County. I'm

[2:25:30] here tonight to express my support in

[2:25:32] moving the moving on the bay uh the

[2:25:35] Brisbane Bayand projects forward,

[2:25:37] particularly in a safe and responsible

[2:25:41] remedi uh sorry

[2:25:44] particularly the safe and responsible

[2:25:47] remediation of the site. As someone who

[2:25:50] has lived in this community, I care

[2:25:52] deeply

[2:25:54] about how this work is performed. This

[2:25:56] isn't just another construction project

[2:25:58] to me. It happened. It's happening in my

[2:26:00] backyard and the decisions made today

[2:26:03] will affect the our community for

[2:26:06] generations.

[2:26:08] As a union trades person, I also

[2:26:10] understand the importance of having a

[2:26:13] highly skilled and trained workforce

[2:26:16] performing this work. Our apprenticeship

[2:26:18] programs don't simply teach us how to do

[2:26:21] the job. They teach us to understand the

[2:26:24] hazards, follow established procedures,

[2:26:26] recognize when something isn't right,

[2:26:29] and take responsibility for the safety

[2:26:32] of our co-workers and the public.

[2:26:36] When you're dealing with a site like the

[2:26:37] Baylands

[2:26:40] where environmental uh contamination and

[2:26:43] remediation are serious concerns, those

[2:26:46] principles become even more important

[2:26:48] knowing that properly trained and

[2:26:50] qualified professionals will be

[2:26:52] entrusted with the work.

[2:26:56] Uh knowing that [laughter]

[2:26:59] knowing that trained and qualified

[2:27:01] professionals will be entrusted with the

[2:27:03] work gives me peace of mind. Not just as

[2:27:06] a trades person, but as someone who know

[2:27:08] who calls Brisbane home. I support

[2:27:10] moving this project forward and I

[2:27:12] believe that doing so with utmost care,

[2:27:15] transparency, and commitment to safety

[2:27:18] is essential. Thank you for your time

[2:27:20] and consideration.

[2:27:22] Then the salmon.

[2:27:35] I'm a little bit sleepy here.

[2:27:37] » [laughter]

[2:27:38] » Um

[2:27:40] I think it's been over 30 years that

[2:27:43] TUNTEX Sunquest the owner has had this

[2:27:46] property and was given um fantastic FS

[2:27:52] floor area ratios to build things here

[2:27:55] and has not done so so far. I suspect

[2:27:59] that all this stuff about well it has to

[2:28:01] be remediated before it can be done blah

[2:28:04] blah blah. It's just we're going on and

[2:28:06] on. I don't think that this particular

[2:28:08] owner is planning to build or do

[2:28:10] anything. They could have done it a long

[2:28:12] time ago.

[2:28:14] So, I have a lot of issues about what's

[2:28:18] really going to go on. I was really

[2:28:21] dismayed when um we were at the meeting

[2:28:23] with the uh the KAG group that the clay

[2:28:28] cap clean clay caps soil is coming from

[2:28:32] the toxic

[2:28:34] landfill. [laughter] I [clears throat] I

[2:28:37] really have trouble considering that to

[2:28:39] be clean. There's a lot of issues that

[2:28:42] have not been dealt with. Uh and I don't

[2:28:45] think they're going to be dealt with. It

[2:28:47] looks like is we're going to be on and

[2:28:48] on again. I ask once more once more that

[2:28:53] any permits, anything that's agreed to

[2:28:56] is only for this owner, for this land

[2:29:00] owner. If the property is sold,

[2:29:03] they can start over. I mean it because

[2:29:06] we have already experienced what has

[2:29:09] happened when that happens. It's not a

[2:29:12] good thing and people throw everything

[2:29:14] out the window about what was supposed

[2:29:16] to be done.

[2:29:19] This is not a safe project I think for

[2:29:22] anyone. Wetlands are very important.

[2:29:26] Nobody has talked to the people in

[2:29:28] Beayshore about what's going to be

[2:29:29] happening to their lives and their kids

[2:29:33] and what's going on with them. I mean

[2:29:38] somehow another we are we are neighbors

[2:29:40] [laughter] and I think we have to deal

[2:29:42] with that. I mean I haven't seen really

[2:29:44] anybody I mean two people I think from

[2:29:47] Beayshore say oh yeah yeah do something

[2:29:48] do something. Well do something. Let's

[2:29:51] do something. If we're going to do

[2:29:53] anything let's do it right. So far,

[2:29:57] supposedly nothing can be done until the

[2:30:01] soil is remediated, is cleaned up. That

[2:30:04] has not even begun.

[2:30:09] It's not going to happen.

[2:30:12] » Michelle Sammon.

[2:30:18] Michelle Sam, Brisbane resident. As you

[2:30:20] know, I've mentioned this several times.

[2:30:22] My big concern is data gaps in terms of

[2:30:25] testing the soils uh in particular along

[2:30:29] Bayshore and along uh where Lazari Fuel

[2:30:33] is and and those areas. I don't feel

[2:30:35] that they've been tested yet. Certainly

[2:30:37] Lazar Lazari Fuel because there was a

[2:30:40] building there. Um, but one of the other

[2:30:42] things that's been concerning me lately,

[2:30:45] you know, we have an invasive species

[2:30:46] ordinance and on that list is jabata

[2:30:49] grass, also known as pompus grass. And

[2:30:52] over the years, the bay lands, including

[2:30:55] the stockpiled soil, is completely

[2:30:58] contaminated with jabatrass.

[2:31:02] Um, and the seeds of jabatrass.

[2:31:05] And it's just like this big thing that's

[2:31:07] spreading and spreading and spreading.

[2:31:09] The whole stockpile is is covered with

[2:31:12] it. The bay lands is all covered with

[2:31:14] it. And it sends seeds out across the

[2:31:16] bay on the wind and everything else. And

[2:31:18] this is a huge threat to our

[2:31:21] environment, our native environment. And

[2:31:24] it's listed on not only in Brisbane's

[2:31:26] invasive species ordinance, but it is

[2:31:28] listed as an invasive species for the

[2:31:31] state of California. And we haven't even

[2:31:34] talked about that. I mentioned it in in

[2:31:36] my comments on the draft, but nowhere

[2:31:40] have we been addressing that. So, you're

[2:31:41] going to take this dirt and you're going

[2:31:43] to move it around. And as you move it

[2:31:45] around, all the seeds are going to be

[2:31:47] blowing everywhere. And then you're

[2:31:49] going to put it in the new area and it's

[2:31:51] going to sprout and it's really hard to

[2:31:53] get rid of. And I'm concerned about it.

[2:31:56] So, I'd like that to be addressed. Thank

[2:31:58] you so much.

[2:31:58] » Okay. Thank you, Ignasio David.

[2:32:07] Good evening, Mayor Macken and council

[2:32:09] members. My name is Ignasio Dit. I'm

[2:32:12] with the Center for Creative Land

[2:32:14] Recycling or Seclar and we are we're a

[2:32:17] nonprofit uh since 1997 and we help

[2:32:21] communities reuse contaminated lands and

[2:32:23] underused properties known as

[2:32:25] brownfields.

[2:32:26] We provided technical assistance uh we

[2:32:29] provide technical assistance around

[2:32:31] California and the west coast and we

[2:32:33] helped the city secure the $3 million

[2:32:36] grant that helped with the sampling that

[2:32:38] took uh that took place uh over the past

[2:32:42] few years. Uh my point tonight is

[2:32:45] simple. uh the approach the general

[2:32:46] approach in the ARDIP is very typical of

[2:32:50] what you've seen in a lot of uh cleanups

[2:32:53] around the uh the Bay Area and the

[2:32:56] country. Uh and that's how complex sites

[2:32:59] are developed. Of course, this is a big

[2:33:01] site. So that's really your challenge is

[2:33:03] that it's a large site, but you're doing

[2:33:06] it over 20 30 years. It sounds like now

[2:33:09] before I was uh with Seclair I was at

[2:33:12] Emeryville

[2:33:14] and some of the projects that were uh uh

[2:33:18] uh current projects are being developed

[2:33:20] now were modeled after what happened in

[2:33:22] Emeryville and we actually used the

[2:33:24] consultants that you have hired now as

[2:33:28] well as we've also worked with

[2:33:29] professionals who are also with uh the

[2:33:33] developers uh consulting team. So we are

[2:33:36] very familiar but these are very

[2:33:38] upstanding and very good uh e experts.

[2:33:42] So uh we of course with review but we

[2:33:45] take their uh recommendations very

[2:33:47] seriously.

[2:33:49] Uh over time at DTSC with DTSC in the

[2:33:52] waterboard and the county of Alama we

[2:33:54] cleaned up redeveloped about 50 sites

[2:33:56] covering about 300 acres. Of course

[2:33:59] that's over

[2:34:01] 20 30 years. So it's you're talking

[2:34:04] about similar uh time scales. Uh one

[2:34:06] example which was not shown is called

[2:34:09] the Emory. It's an 10 acre Sherwin

[2:34:12] Williams property which used to be used

[2:34:15] to manufacture pesticides and uh paints

[2:34:19] and uh it's now 500 homes light

[2:34:23] industrial and office space and there's

[2:34:25] a park connecting to the Bay Trail. So

[2:34:28] this is what uh redevelopment looks like

[2:34:31] over time.

[2:34:32] It has many institutional controls and

[2:34:34] deed restrictions and operations and

[2:34:37] maintenance plans and those tools are

[2:34:40] what are meant to protect workers and uh

[2:34:43] residents into the future. There's

[2:34:46] ongoing monitoring as very similar to uh

[2:34:49] measures described by the sta by staff.

[2:34:52] Now managing dozens of small scattered

[2:34:55] sites in Emeryville was challenging. Bay

[2:34:58] lands is much larger but you have

[2:35:01] basically three operating units. So it's

[2:35:05] just big but technically talking about

[2:35:07] the contamination

[2:35:09] it's uh it's not out of the ordinary.

[2:35:12] It's the the examples shown by the

[2:35:14] developer are very similar to the

[2:35:16] developments that are proposed in the

[2:35:18] bailance.

[2:35:20] And so the RDIP I understand that there

[2:35:23] been comments it's in draft form but

[2:35:25] it's being worked out and I I uh

[2:35:27] understand that there are uh constraints

[2:35:31] uh with uh with uh the infrastructure

[2:35:34] but that's what this process is and it's

[2:35:36] going to be worked out over the long

[2:35:38] term and by the time you review it the

[2:35:41] DTSC and the developers uh and their

[2:35:45] consultants it should be uh I don't see

[2:35:47] any reason that can be ironed Not uh

[2:35:50] these measures are uh indicative of very

[2:35:54] many successful sites and uh they appear

[2:35:57] to be protective of the public health

[2:35:58] and the environment. I understand that

[2:36:01] the residents are concerned about dust

[2:36:02] and air quality and again uh the uh the

[2:36:06] the impact on infrastructure but strong

[2:36:09] transparent monitoring agency oversight

[2:36:12] your vigilance in uh seeing this uh

[2:36:16] redevelopment uh the uh the RDIP as well

[2:36:18] as the implementation plans is key to

[2:36:22] that. So uh see clear is glad to provide

[2:36:25] additional assistance and feedback. we

[2:36:27] come here know as technical advisors

[2:36:30] we're not paid or we have an EPA grant

[2:36:33] that allows us to give this type of

[2:36:34] feedback. Thank you so much.

[2:36:37] » Thank you.

[2:36:39] » Have a slip from I can't read the last

[2:36:41] name. Janet

[2:36:43] » Nito.

[2:36:44] Okay.

[2:36:52] » Good evening madame mayor and city

[2:36:53] council members. My name is Janet Nito

[2:36:56] and I am also um with the Center for

[2:36:58] Creative Land Recycling. Um Agnosio

[2:37:01] explained who we were so I won't go into

[2:37:03] that. Um, I just wanted to say that

[2:37:05] prior to working for the Center for

[2:37:07] Creative Land Recycling, I worked for

[2:37:09] the Department of Toxic Substances

[2:37:11] Control, I managed the Berkeley Cleanup

[2:37:13] Program and um, sorry, Slagelock and

[2:37:17] Brisbane's um, projects were under

[2:37:21] the DTSC portions of those projects were

[2:37:23] under um, my branch. Um,

[2:37:28] I just wanted to let you know that the

[2:37:31] cleanup process that we have um and the

[2:37:35] cleanup plans for the bay lands are are

[2:37:37] not charting new territory. This is

[2:37:40] something we do for every single

[2:37:42] project. We develop we investigate we

[2:37:46] develop a cleanup plan. we set out um if

[2:37:49] they require operate um future

[2:37:53] operations and maintenance or monitoring

[2:37:55] that is part of the cleanup. Um

[2:37:59] and we also include as part of the

[2:38:02] cleanup plan um different ways of making

[2:38:05] sure that the community is safe during

[2:38:07] its implementation. Um Agnosio mentioned

[2:38:11] Sherwin Williams. That was my project

[2:38:14] when I was a project manager before I

[2:38:16] became the branch chief. Um we were able

[2:38:18] to successfully

[2:38:20] um

[2:38:22] address dust um community concerns um

[2:38:26] during the implementation of that

[2:38:28] cleanup which was in the middle of a

[2:38:32] residential neighborhood by the time we

[2:38:33] did the cleanup. They developed all the

[2:38:36] properties around us while we were

[2:38:38] investigating and developing our cleanup

[2:38:40] plan. though we had much more interest

[2:38:42] in it by the time we went to cleanup. Um

[2:38:46] the regulatory approves are proven, the

[2:38:49] regulatory tools are proven, the

[2:38:51] approach is well established and I also

[2:38:54] worked on Mission Bay, um which Katie

[2:38:58] talked about earlier. Um Mission Bay has

[2:39:00] been developed over 25 years. It started

[2:39:04] out with a riskmanagement plan and every

[2:39:08] parcel that's developed uses uses that

[2:39:11] as a framework. Individual site cleanup

[2:39:14] plans are developed and but the risk

[2:39:17] management plan outlines the

[2:39:21] measures that must be taken to protect

[2:39:23] um to safely clean up or manage the soil

[2:39:27] at those sites. the most of the

[2:39:29] contamination in Mission Bay results

[2:39:32] from or a lot of the contamination

[2:39:34] results from the old 1906 earthquake

[2:39:37] debris. Um they everything that was

[2:39:40] demolished got pushed out and so you

[2:39:43] will find a nice earthquake debris layer

[2:39:45] and so that's what where we were mostly

[2:39:48] addressing. Um

[2:39:51] so um in conclusion the phased cleanup

[2:39:54] process is common in major developments

[2:39:58] and due to the size of properties and

[2:40:00] the complex environmental conditions in

[2:40:02] these scenarios each development phase

[2:40:05] satisfies the applicable investigation

[2:40:08] remediation and um risk management

[2:40:11] requirements including the like I said

[2:40:13] before the community air monitoring and

[2:40:16] dust monitoring um requirements before

[2:40:18] the pro um proposed use can proceed

[2:40:21] safely. So the we want to urge the city

[2:40:25] council um

[2:40:28] to move this project forward through the

[2:40:31] established regulatory process that has

[2:40:33] successfully guided similar projects

[2:40:36] throughout California. Thank you. City

[2:40:39] clerk, do we have anyone online or is

[2:40:42] that what you're bringing me? Okay,

[2:40:45] thank you.

[2:40:48] Ally Saberman.

[2:40:56] Good evening. My name is Ally Saberman

[2:40:58] and I'm speaking on behalf of the

[2:40:59] Housing Action Coalition. Brownfield

[2:41:01] Development is a critical strategy for

[2:41:03] reducing greenhouse gas emissions and

[2:41:05] preventing urban sprawl. There are

[2:41:07] wellestablished procedures that make

[2:41:08] these projects safe, effective, and

[2:41:12] beneficial for communities throughout

[2:41:13] the state and the country.

[2:41:16] Former industrial properties, rail

[2:41:18] yards, landfills, and other contaminated

[2:41:19] sites have been safely cleaned up and

[2:41:21] transformed into housing, offices,

[2:41:23] parks, and other public amenities. These

[2:41:26] projects follow a rigorous regulated

[2:41:28] process designed to protect human health

[2:41:30] and the environment. Mission Bay is a

[2:41:32] great example of how this has been done

[2:41:34] successfully here in the Bay Area. The

[2:41:36] neighborhood was historically part of

[2:41:37] the Bay and later filled for wars and

[2:41:40] rail yards. Today it is a successful

[2:41:43] master planned neighborhood with

[2:41:45] thousands of homes, major health care,

[2:41:47] research institutions, businesses,

[2:41:49] parks, and waterfront open space. The

[2:41:51] bay lands will be subject to the same

[2:41:52] established regulatory process that has

[2:41:54] successfully guided Mission Bay and

[2:41:56] other similar projects throughout

[2:41:57] California. Thank you.

[2:42:01] » Okay, we have Aaron

[2:42:04] online. Aaron, go ahead.

[2:42:12] Uh hello uh madame mayor, council

[2:42:15] members, I appreciate the opportunity to

[2:42:17] comment at an hour that is uh reasonable

[2:42:20] for working on an east coast schedule.

[2:42:22] So thanks for taking public comments

[2:42:24] early. Um I'm Aaron Becker, a Brisbane

[2:42:27] resident. I have um been reviewing

[2:42:30] documents for the Baylands for you know

[2:42:32] the last couple years through my work on

[2:42:35] OSAC. uh did a very thorough job doing

[2:42:38] the DEIR

[2:42:40] um and then the FIR and um some of the

[2:42:43] specific plans and getting all of those

[2:42:45] comments into the to the people

[2:42:48] preparing the documents and then to the

[2:42:49] planning commission and I feel like my

[2:42:52] comments are falling on deaf ears. Um I

[2:42:56] want the you guys in the audience to

[2:42:57] really understand that the landfill cap

[2:42:59] is not impermeable. gases and fluids are

[2:43:03] going to be able to percolate through

[2:43:04] that cap and the um this is a big deal

[2:43:10] because um there's the potential for

[2:43:15] those toxins to travel up you know from

[2:43:17] below especially in the case of sea

[2:43:20] level rise and anytime uh we have

[2:43:23] vegetation transfer or you know put its

[2:43:26] roots through that cap it's going to

[2:43:27] make it even worse and so every time I

[2:43:29] look at those pictures with all the

[2:43:30] trees

[2:43:31] It makes me a little nervous. Um, I know

[2:43:34] you guys are tracking the local, you

[2:43:36] know, legends about an unrecorded

[2:43:39] shipment of dirt from Hunter Point, um,

[2:43:42] that might be radioactive and also

[2:43:44] mercury and the medical waste. Um, we

[2:43:46] all know that in the past there were,

[2:43:49] you know, sloppy records and backroom

[2:43:52] deals and potential for fraud and those

[2:43:55] rumors are not going to die. But we have

[2:43:57] the opportunity to do testing on the

[2:44:00] hall trucks or on the conveyor belts.

[2:44:02] Radiation domters, you know, just

[2:44:05] operate in the background and they'll

[2:44:07] ping when something happens. It's not an

[2:44:10] unknown technology. Uh I would like to

[2:44:12] advocate that the city consider it as

[2:44:15] part of this plan. Um we are very close

[2:44:18] to Hunter's Point and that dust is a

[2:44:20] concern.

[2:44:22] Um, second, the landfill cover

[2:44:25] maintenance plan is technically outside

[2:44:28] of the city's control, but we can do

[2:44:31] stuff to ensure that it is followed and

[2:44:34] that it's strong and anywhere that it

[2:44:37] doesn't meet the mustard, we can do

[2:44:38] better. So, um, in the FIR, I have major

[2:44:43] concerns. The landfill um cover

[2:44:46] maintenance plan covers

[2:44:48] um periodically looking for leaks and

[2:44:51] other problems. Um it covers the

[2:44:54] inspection for vegetation that might

[2:44:56] might violate the root depth limit. Um

[2:44:59] and then it looks at the lee collection

[2:45:01] system. The problem is the FIR states

[2:45:04] that the maintenance must continue a

[2:45:06] minimum of 30 years, but it's expected

[2:45:09] for only one year because the landfill

[2:45:11] closed in 1967.

[2:45:14] So, for one year, they're going to be

[2:45:16] following their maintenance plan. That

[2:45:17] doesn't seem appropriate. Um, we really

[2:45:20] need to make sure that that is not the

[2:45:22] case and that the maintenance is going

[2:45:24] to happen for the safety of all of this

[2:45:27] future residents.

[2:45:29] Um, and I think that's all I have to

[2:45:32] say. Oh, no. Actually, I really

[2:45:33] appreciate the comment from Ignatio, uh,

[2:45:36] from Seclar. He said, "This can be done,

[2:45:39] but we need strong, transparent

[2:45:42] monitoring, and I think that's what we

[2:45:44] that's what the citizens of Brisbane

[2:45:45] need." Thank you.

[2:45:48] » All right, that is all the slips I have.

[2:45:56] Uh, we we also have another hands raised

[2:45:59] online. Chris F.

[2:46:01] » Go ahead.

[2:46:02] » Paul, you're not on topic number one.

[2:46:05] Here's your slip. It's not circled.

[2:46:08] » No, you're on land number four and

[2:46:11] number five.

[2:46:15] Chris online.

[2:46:17] » Thank you. I just wanted to remind those

[2:46:20] who um participated in the BB KAG

[2:46:23] meeting on October 5th that uh when you

[2:46:28] once again consider our adjacent the

[2:46:30] adjacent property in San Francisco, it

[2:46:33] was acknowledged at that meeting that

[2:46:36] some of the contamination in the San

[2:46:39] Francisco portion the Schlag site

[2:46:42] is still migrating into the Brisbane

[2:46:45] property.

[2:46:48] I that strikes me as something that we

[2:46:50] need to be uh taking some caution with.

[2:46:53] They've been working on that for how

[2:46:54] many years? Again, that development

[2:46:57] agreement was approved in 2015

[2:47:00] and we still have contamination

[2:47:03] migrating into the Brisbane property.

[2:47:07] Thank you,

[2:47:09] » Paul. Did you want to come up and speak

[2:47:11] under this? I thought I

[2:47:15] » Uh Thank you, Madame Mayor and Council.

[2:47:17] Um so I had a few thoughts. Um about 10

[2:47:22] years ago, um before we started working

[2:47:25] on the DEIR for the Bayands,

[2:47:29] um I asked the question about

[2:47:34] uh because the Bayands would have been a

[2:47:39] uh super fun site had houses back in the

[2:47:42] day been planned, but it was they

[2:47:44] weren't. So then it became a brownfield.

[2:47:49] So the super fun site stuff is still

[2:47:52] there. Uh unregulated landfill. My

[2:47:56] thought is and I made the comment then

[2:47:59] and it was rejected was that

[2:48:02] for the cleanup that has to be done for

[2:48:05] the material that has to be hauled

[2:48:07] offsite.

[2:48:09] We're responsible for that from the time

[2:48:11] it leaves until where it goes and as

[2:48:14] long as it's there.

[2:48:17] So, my thought was and especially if

[2:48:19] we're going to consider uh

[2:48:22] uh conveyor, which is what we should be

[2:48:25] doing, and we've talked about ways of

[2:48:27] getting around Cal Train,

[2:48:29] uh is, and I mentioned this back then,

[2:48:35] since it's unregulated landfill on the

[2:48:38] east side,

[2:48:40] couldn't [snorts] we take the stuff that

[2:48:41] we were going to haul away from the west

[2:48:43] side and just dump it over on the east

[2:48:46] and then cap it off.

[2:48:48] And the comment then was you can't do

[2:48:51] that. But that was 10 years ago. So I'm

[2:48:54] hoping maybe regulations have changed

[2:48:56] and you know that's a lot of stuff they

[2:48:58] have to haul to where Tracy or some far

[2:49:04] away land with all those trucks and all

[2:49:06] that diesel and all the impacts that

[2:49:08] we've talked about. So why couldn't we

[2:49:10] just dump it on the old landfill

[2:49:13] and then do the capping and everything

[2:49:15] else? And then the last thing I wanted

[2:49:17] to share was that

[2:49:20] what's the biggest issue out of the

[2:49:22] Sierra Point

[2:49:24] with the caps and the infrastructure

[2:49:27] and the all the issues that we're trying

[2:49:30] to prevent is the ground squirrels.

[2:49:34] I don't know what you're going to do

[2:49:35] with the bay lands to prevent ground

[2:49:37] squirrels from inundating the territory

[2:49:41] and destroying everything,

[2:49:44] the the vapor berries especially

[2:49:47] because they're going to be closer to

[2:49:48] the surface than the cap. So,

[2:49:52] I'd like to see some study being done

[2:49:55] about what we're going to do with that

[2:49:56] situation. Thank you.

[2:49:59] Okay, so that's all the slips I have on

[2:50:03] uh topic number one. We're closing in on

[2:50:06] a time where we need to extend the

[2:50:08] meeting. I would suggest that we

[2:50:13] go for a motion to extend and before we

[2:50:16] resume that we take about a 10-minut

[2:50:19] break for everybody before we go to

[2:50:21] council questions. So could I have a

[2:50:24] motion to extend the meeting let's say

[2:50:26] for how long? an hour

[2:50:28] » Till 9:30.

[2:50:29] » 9:30.

[2:50:30] » Yeah, that that' be the maximum for me.

[2:50:32] Okay. So,

[2:50:33] » So can I have a motion?

[2:50:35] » I'll make a motion to extend the meeting

[2:50:36] till 9:30.

[2:50:37] » Second.

[2:50:38] » All in favor?

[2:50:39] » I.

[2:50:40] » Anyone opposed? No. Okay. So, we'll take

[2:50:43] a 10-minute break right now. We'll see

[2:50:45] you then.

[2:50:53] » [music]

[2:51:11] [music]

[2:51:43] » Heat. Heat.

[2:51:45] [music]

[2:51:53] [music]

[2:52:07] Heat.

[2:52:19] [music]

[2:52:21] Heat.

[2:52:35] » [music]

[2:52:46] » Heat. Heat.

[2:52:52] [music] Heat. Heat. N.

[2:52:57] [music]

[2:53:14] [music]

[2:53:41] » [music]

[2:54:12] [music]

[2:54:18] [music]

[2:54:27] [music]

[2:54:32] » Heat. Hey, Heat.

[2:54:37] [music]

[2:54:46] [music]

[2:54:53] [music]

[2:55:05] » [music]

[2:55:13] [music]

[2:55:20] [music]

[2:55:22] » Hey.

[2:55:24] Hey. Hey.

[2:55:33] » [music]

[2:55:45] [music]

[2:56:00] [music]

[2:56:07] [music]

[2:56:19] [music]

[2:56:28] [music]

[2:56:51] [music]

[2:57:00] [music]

[2:57:05] » Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.

[2:57:15] [music]

[2:57:20] [music]

[2:57:27] [music]

[2:57:32] Heat.

[2:57:42] [music]

[2:57:47] Heat.

[2:57:50] [music]

[2:57:56] » [music]

[2:58:07] [music]

[2:58:07] » Heat. Heat.

[2:58:20] » [music]

[2:58:27] [music]

[2:58:36] » Heat.

[2:58:39] [music]

[2:58:54] Heat.

[2:59:00] Heat. Heat.

[2:59:02] [music]

[2:59:06] [music]

[2:59:19] [music]

[2:59:20] Heat. Heat.

[2:59:30] [music]

[2:59:41] » [music]

[2:59:53] [music]

[2:59:57] » Heat. Heat.

[3:00:01] [music]

[3:00:08] » [music]

[3:00:22] [music]

[3:00:30] [music]

[3:00:30] » Heat. Heat.

[3:00:39] » [music]

[3:00:52] [music]

[3:00:57] » Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. [music]

[3:00:59] Heat. Heat.

[3:01:07] [music]

[3:01:16] [music]

[3:01:21] [music]

[3:01:27] » [music]

[3:01:34] [music]

[3:01:37] » Heat. Heat.

[3:01:39] [music]

[3:01:45] [music] Heat. Heat.

[3:01:50] [music]

[3:01:57] [music]

[3:02:08] Heat.

[3:02:10] [music]

[3:02:18] [music]

[3:02:24] Heat.

[3:02:25] [music]

[3:02:31] Heat. Heat.

[3:02:35] [music]

[3:02:53] [music]

[3:02:55] Heat.

[3:02:59] [music]

[3:03:07] [music]

[3:03:14] [music] Heat.

[3:03:24] » [music]

[3:03:34] [music]

[3:03:39] » Heat. Heat.

[3:03:43] [music]

[3:03:58] » [music]

[3:04:06] [music]

[3:04:11] » All right, if we can get started again.

[3:04:16] So, we've gone through [clears throat]

[3:04:18] the public slips, speaker slips. So,

[3:04:22] we'd like to start with council

[3:04:24] questions. Again, it's on topic one.

[3:04:28] And we'll start with Mir Prom Davis.

[3:04:34] » Thank you. I have two questions. Um,

[3:04:37] I'll ask them, of course, in order,

[3:04:40] um, one at a time.

[3:04:43] And I asked this at the BB KAG meeting

[3:04:47] already, but I think it's really

[3:04:49] important for the broader public to hear

[3:04:52] the answer to and also the rest of the

[3:04:55] council. So, this question is for DTSC

[3:04:57] and the regional water quality control

[3:04:59] board. Is it common for cities to

[3:05:03] require additional remediation measures

[3:05:06] or monitoring beyond what your agencies

[3:05:09] require? And if so, how do cities do

[3:05:13] this without duplicating or conflicting

[3:05:16] with your regulatory oversight?

[3:05:20] And I imagine somebody's here from those

[3:05:23] bodies, right? Still online.

[3:05:32] I don't see

[3:05:33] » May I chime in?

[3:05:36] » We can we can

[3:05:38] » If I can just my experience. I did two

[3:05:42] online webinars that were DTSC

[3:05:45] remediation related and they were asked

[3:05:48] the question by city of Richmond

[3:05:50] residents because they have a

[3:05:52] development kind of similar to ours on

[3:05:54] the bay and they were very concerned

[3:05:56] about the toxins and at first they said

[3:05:58] well it's really fiveyear cycles that's

[3:06:01] normal that's standard and when they

[3:06:03] came back for the second phase of that

[3:06:05] webinar they said you could put in the

[3:06:09] requests it due to whatever special

[3:06:11] circumstances and and do it annually. So

[3:06:16] that's old information. It's about 2

[3:06:18] years old, three years old, but that's

[3:06:20] what they said at a webinar. So we would

[3:06:23] have to investigate to verify if that's

[3:06:25] still true.

[3:06:25] » Yeah. I'm a little disappointed that

[3:06:27] Alex Karpowitz and I think it was Angus

[3:06:30] Chan from DTSC that they're no longer

[3:06:35] » Here. Yeah. Maybe. Are they on the

[3:06:36] attendees list?

[3:06:39] » They were. Oh,

[3:06:41] » Okay.

[3:06:42] » Angus Chan and Alex. So,

[3:06:47] um,

[3:06:47] » Can they chime in?

[3:06:48] » Do either of you want to chime in?

[3:06:50] Angus,

[3:06:50] » There's a hand up.

[3:06:54] » Perfect. [clears throat] Angus, go

[3:06:55] ahead.

[3:06:56] » Hi, this is um this is Angus Chan from

[3:06:58] the regional law report. Sorry, I I just

[3:07:00] came back from the break and I missed

[3:07:02] half of the question, but

[3:07:03] » I understand

[3:07:05] » The question was um how how often do

[3:07:08] cities require more stringent

[3:07:09] requirements than what the waterboard

[3:07:11] and BPSC does? Is that the

[3:07:14] understanding?

[3:07:15] » Yeah. And how do they do that without

[3:07:17] duplicating or conflicting with your

[3:07:19] oversight?

[3:07:20] » Yeah. What we usually encourage is uh

[3:07:23] communication between different

[3:07:25] agencies. So for example, uh the

[3:07:27] waterboard and DTSC has a long history

[3:07:29] of working together. Uh and we typically

[3:07:32] coordinate our review and comments

[3:07:34] together so we don't conflict with one

[3:07:36] another. And so if there is another

[3:07:39] local agency, city or county that have

[3:07:41] more requirements, uh then they would

[3:07:44] usually approach us and DTSC and we

[3:07:46] would figure out what would be the kind

[3:07:50] of uh the the comment that we would uh

[3:07:53] give for the review or of a certain

[3:07:54] document and then all three agencies or

[3:07:57] whichever agency is involved uh would

[3:07:59] all agree on what the eventual outcome

[3:08:02] would be.

[3:08:03] And if I could just add to to that. So

[3:08:06] that that is the process that we've

[3:08:09] already been undergoing. So that when

[3:08:11] the city hired EKI, that was to fill

[3:08:14] precisely the role that Angus was just

[3:08:16] describing to review the cleanup plans

[3:08:20] to make comment and to encourage the

[3:08:24] regulatory agencies to incorporate the

[3:08:27] city's uh perspectives into their

[3:08:31] regulations which then were folded into

[3:08:34] the documents that have been adopted so

[3:08:37] far to date. So that um

[3:08:39] [cough and clears throat] there's to my

[3:08:42] knowledge there's not um a process where

[3:08:47] a city will then come in and impose

[3:08:51] additional more stringent requirements

[3:08:53] independent of one of the regulatory

[3:08:55] agencies. However, like again, the

[3:08:57] process that we've already been

[3:08:59] undergoing and would continue to undergo

[3:09:01] um as plans continue to be finalized and

[3:09:04] monitored with reviewing with the city's

[3:09:07] independent consultants commenting and

[3:09:10] making sure that standards were being

[3:09:11] met uh has occurred and and will

[3:09:14] continue to occur.

[3:09:15] » It it was my understanding from the

[3:09:19] response at that meeting and I'm don't

[3:09:21] know if it was from Alex or if it was

[3:09:23] from Nicole. I think it was from Nicole

[3:09:26] from DTSC, but the response that I got

[3:09:29] was that it was extremely uncommon for a

[3:09:32] city after the regulatory agencies

[3:09:35] outlined what needed to be done that the

[3:09:38] city would then implement its own

[3:09:41] » Measures beyond that and that they said

[3:09:45] that there was a case potentially in

[3:09:48] Emeryville where there was some vapor

[3:09:51] monitoring that they had not required.

[3:09:54] um that the city asked for and it was

[3:09:58] minor enough I think that it that they

[3:10:00] added it. But that as to for a city to

[3:10:03] go to require something above and beyond

[3:10:06] what DTSC or uh the water board would

[3:10:09] require would be incredibly uncommon. So

[3:10:12] » Yeah, I have one thought and then

[3:10:14] Michelle

[3:10:14] » Okay. I I just want to speak to that one

[3:10:17] site. So do you want to make your

[3:10:18] comment first? Oh yeah. I I was that our

[3:10:21] understanding is that it was actually

[3:10:22] the same and Michelle and I might be

[3:10:24] about to say the same thing, the same

[3:10:25] process. It was might the Brooklyn basin

[3:10:29] site in Oakland, but where there were

[3:10:32] comments made and that the water board

[3:10:36] ended up incorporating just again just

[3:10:37] like just like we're doing here. So

[3:10:39] again to your your point about not just

[3:10:42] is it uncommon but I would say it's

[3:10:44] unprecedented to do another level of

[3:10:48] requirement beyond the the sort of

[3:10:51] commentary and the and the requests and

[3:10:53] back and forth that we were discussing

[3:10:54] but I'll I'll

[3:10:55] » Yeah. I mean EKI was the is the

[3:10:58] consultant for Brooklyn Basin. So um

[3:11:00] we're very familiar with what happened

[3:11:02] there. And there was a question about

[3:11:04] naturally occurring methane inthane in

[3:11:06] in the sediments and initially DTSC said

[3:11:11] we don't normally regulate and oversee

[3:11:13] methane.

[3:11:14] » Um and so then there was a question of

[3:11:17] who was going to deal with that and in

[3:11:19] the end

[3:11:20] DTSC ended up doing all the review and

[3:11:23] oversight by their ESPO their

[3:11:25] engineering group reviewed all the

[3:11:27] design. So for each phase of

[3:11:28] development, the design tied to the

[3:11:31] methane goes and gets reviewed and

[3:11:33] approved by DTSC. So there was no city

[3:11:37] separate city oversight.

[3:11:39] » Got Got it. Thank you for clarifying

[3:11:40] that. um just because we've gotten some

[3:11:42] suggestions

[3:11:44] from the public and um I think from some

[3:11:48] of our advisory boards that have made

[3:11:51] suggestions that we we implement things

[3:11:55] from a city

[3:11:57] um standpoint

[3:12:00] to regulate certain aspects of the

[3:12:04] remediation or the long-term monitoring

[3:12:07] that really may not be

[3:12:10] within our purview to do. Um, so I just

[3:12:15] thought it would be good to air that out

[3:12:18] and what's common and uncommon. So,

[3:12:20] thank you.

[3:12:22] » Okay, Council Member Okonnell.

[3:12:28] So, when the um remedial [clears throat]

[3:12:30] action plan was being developed, I

[3:12:33] listened in on some of the things that

[3:12:36] were going on. And

[3:12:39] it appears to me that they're

[3:12:44] when they're deciding how to do a

[3:12:45] cleanup,

[3:12:47] it's how can we do it

[3:12:51] the least the most economically

[3:12:54] that we can. And so there there

[3:12:59] it was

[3:13:02] it wasn't maybe there was different ways

[3:13:04] to do the cleanup, but they went with

[3:13:07] the ideas that were feasible to do, not

[3:13:11] necessarily

[3:13:13] the best practices. And I'm wondering if

[3:13:18] um

[3:13:20] DTSC can comment or the [clears throat]

[3:13:22] regional water quality board can can

[3:13:25] comment on the cost factor on when they

[3:13:29] decide what is feasible to do for

[3:13:31] cleanup because we're just we're capping

[3:13:34] this. We're not cleaning it up for the

[3:13:36] most part. We are covering it up. And is

[3:13:40] that just because of the cost factor?

[3:13:44] I'd like their opinion.

[3:13:58] Yeah, this is an from the regional

[3:14:00] waterboard. Again, I can speak a bit

[3:14:02] about that. Uh when

[3:14:06] when uh remedies or different

[3:14:09] alternatives are being evaluated, uh

[3:14:11] cost is only one factor. Um there are

[3:14:15] other factors that we consider such as

[3:14:17] how technically feasible a technology

[3:14:20] can be. Um the environmental analysis

[3:14:25] which in this case will be uh wrapped

[3:14:27] under the SQL process. Uh community

[3:14:30] acceptance and regulatory acceptance uh

[3:14:32] the long and short-term effectiveness um

[3:14:35] of of certain technologies. So um

[3:14:39] definitely cost is a factor. you know,

[3:14:41] we can we can all say that, but I I can

[3:14:43] also say that it's not the only factor.

[3:14:45] Um there are occasions where

[3:14:48] the the most feasible technology is the

[3:14:53] most economical but it can also be a

[3:14:56] situation where it is just not possible

[3:14:59] to remove every single molecule of

[3:15:00] contaminant because um not just because

[3:15:03] it's very costly but it's just because

[3:15:06] it it can um other other issues can come

[3:15:09] up like if you're trucking soils you

[3:15:11] know that can incur more trucks uh to

[3:15:14] get rid of all of a suic

[3:15:17] it's it's a fairly complex

[3:15:20] process where uh a lot of different

[3:15:23] factors are being considered. So I I'm

[3:15:26] not going to sugarcoat it and say, you

[3:15:28] know, cost is all the determining

[3:15:30] factor, but it is definitely one thing

[3:15:31] that is considered.

[3:15:34] » And and as a followup, the where there's

[3:15:38] housing on these two units, it is to

[3:15:41] ground level residential cleanup as in

[3:15:44] measure JJ.

[3:15:49] So it can be ground level, not podium.

[3:15:55] uh in terms of

[3:15:58] the uh environmental aspect. Yes. Uh

[3:16:02] usually what happens is uh during the

[3:16:06] process there will be testing to confirm

[3:16:08] that uh either ground level or podium

[3:16:11] level can uh is appropriate for the site

[3:16:14] and our main concern is whether they're

[3:16:16] exposure to human health and the

[3:16:18] environment. And so as long as there are

[3:16:20] testing results that uh can confirm that

[3:16:25] uh for ground level resident uh

[3:16:27] residents uh there can be no significant

[3:16:30] impacts. Yeah. The the water board or

[3:16:32] DTSC

[3:16:34] uh will will uh usually concur with

[3:16:38] that.

[3:16:39] » Thank you. Sorry for taking two

[3:16:41] questions.

[3:16:41] » Okay. Council member Kern.

[3:16:45] Uh I uh I watched the BB KAg meeting and

[3:16:49] um was able to hear all the questions

[3:16:50] that were asked there. I don't have any

[3:16:52] questions on remediation framework or

[3:16:54] the responsible agencies at this time.

[3:16:55] Thank you.

[3:16:56] » Okay, Council Member Lens.

[3:17:00] » Yeah, you know, I was trying to

[3:17:03] coordinate my uh my questions based upon

[3:17:06] this list here. I think I've done a

[3:17:09] decent job, but I apologize if I if I

[3:17:13] stray uh out of bounds.

[3:17:15] » We're on the regulatory

[3:17:17] » Yeah.

[3:17:18] » Part.

[3:17:18] » So, um All right. So, you know, measure

[3:17:22] JJ, you know, states that uh there will

[3:17:25] be a a specific schedule establishing

[3:17:27] the time frame for which the landfill

[3:17:29] must be closed, title 27 and uh both of

[3:17:32] the OUS uh on the other side. So, um,

[3:17:36] you know, we saw a lot of dates, you

[3:17:38] know, kind of general generality, but

[3:17:43] what is the the specific schedule? And,

[3:17:47] um,

[3:17:49] and then, you know, could the council

[3:17:50] require that that remediation schedule

[3:17:52] be part of the specific plan? So, kind

[3:17:56] of one and two. So, sorry if I sneaked

[3:17:58] one in there, Madame Mayor.

[3:18:02] Sure.

[3:18:05] So, the as uh we were talking about that

[3:18:07] the Title 27 landfill closure has a

[3:18:10] fixed 10-year period um that begins to

[3:18:13] run once the stockpile has been removed.

[3:18:17] Um the rest of the

[3:18:21] uh remediation is at this point

[3:18:24] anticipated to be done in in conjunction

[3:18:29] with development in phases. um as the

[3:18:32] project develops. Um but

[3:18:35] yes, we can uh the council can direct to

[3:18:38] have more uh information about phasing

[3:18:42] or requirements in the specific plan um

[3:18:46] depending on on what the direction is.

[3:18:48] » Okay. Thank you.

[3:18:50] » Okay. Uh let's see. We'll go back to Oh,

[3:18:54] I get a question

[3:18:57] missing myself. Okay. um gas mitigation

[3:19:01] monitoring.

[3:19:03] And so from what we heard earlier, it

[3:19:05] sounds like DTSC

[3:19:09] and regional waterboard have been doing

[3:19:11] some monitoring of this site over years

[3:19:14] and years from the one gentleman we had

[3:19:17] talking

[3:19:19] and the presentation that we had. How

[3:19:22] how far into the future does that go for

[3:19:25] and and I'm specifically looking for

[3:19:28] something related to the gases because

[3:19:31] the gases will continue and continue

[3:19:35] for quite a few years.

[3:19:38] Is it in perpetuity or is it is there a

[3:19:41] limit

[3:19:42] at this point? um

[3:19:46] for the landfill typically the landfill

[3:19:48] gas monitoring will continue for a

[3:19:52] longer period of time. And so what

[3:19:54] happens and I'll just speak to that

[3:19:56] reference to the one year that one of

[3:19:58] the members of the public made a comment

[3:20:00] about. So landfill gas generation has a

[3:20:04] a curve where when the landfill's

[3:20:07] younger and the waste is newer, the

[3:20:09] methane generation increases with time

[3:20:12] as the waste decomposes. And then when

[3:20:15] you have a mature older landfill like we

[3:20:17] have here at the Baylands, that methane

[3:20:20] generation curve declines. And so it

[3:20:23] will depend on once that landfill is

[3:20:26] capped,

[3:20:28] how much methane generation is actually

[3:20:29] continuing. But the assumption is that

[3:20:32] it will continue for a decent number of

[3:20:36] time likely more than a year for the um

[3:20:41] west side. The monitoring specific

[3:20:43] monitoring plans have yet to be

[3:20:46] developed in terms of exactly what the

[3:20:47] requirements are, but the regulatory

[3:20:49] agencies. So there's a requirement for a

[3:20:51] soil gas investigation once all the

[3:20:54] import material is placed and the cap is

[3:20:56] built up. There will be soil gas

[3:20:59] sampling that will determine whether

[3:21:01] vapor mitigation systems are actually

[3:21:03] needed. And then if vapor mitigation

[3:21:06] systems are installed, then there will

[3:21:08] be operations, maintenance, and

[3:21:09] monitoring plans that will go with it

[3:21:11] that the agencies will approve that will

[3:21:13] then determine the frequency and

[3:21:16] duration of that sampling. And that type

[3:21:19] of frequency and duration often depends

[3:21:21] on how high the concentrations are. So,

[3:21:24] I have a dumb question and and please

[3:21:26] allow me to ask this as a clarification.

[3:21:30] It's my understanding that you you're

[3:21:32] getting gases, the methane produced when

[3:21:36] biological things. So, we're talking

[3:21:38] trash. We're talking food waste as it

[3:21:42] decomposes and it gives off gases as the

[3:21:45] bacteria eat away at it. But we also

[3:21:48] have chemicals that have been put in

[3:21:50] there. Do these various

[3:21:53] what today are toxic waste, do they not

[3:21:57] give off certain fumes as they mix and

[3:22:01] change? We've been told over the years

[3:22:03] that these chemicals are mixing

[3:22:05] underground. Do they not give off fumes?

[3:22:09] Because I saw something in Japan that

[3:22:11] they do landfills

[3:22:15] where they put in oxygen tubes and it

[3:22:18] accelerates all the offging and within 6

[3:22:22] years it stops because they've infused

[3:22:25] it with oxygen.

[3:22:27] » That would help for the for the methane

[3:22:29] generation. But the for the chemicals

[3:22:32] the volatile organic chemicals that

[3:22:33] you're referring to. So the west side

[3:22:34] doesn't have the methane. It's really

[3:22:36] the volatile organic chemicals. And so

[3:22:38] that just depends on the mix of

[3:22:40] chemicals that are there. Some of them

[3:22:43] do degrade naturally anorobically

[3:22:46] without oxygen and some of them like

[3:22:49] benzene let's say degrades aerobically

[3:22:52] with oxygen. So it really depends on the

[3:22:54] sight specific conditions in terms of

[3:22:56] over time how that mix of gases the

[3:22:59] volatile organic chemical gases will

[3:23:02] behave over time. But that monitoring

[3:23:04] again if there's an issue at the

[3:23:05] landfill then the water board will

[3:23:07] continue to require monitoring to make

[3:23:09] sure that there's you know protection of

[3:23:11] human health and the environment. And

[3:23:13] just following on on the um going back

[3:23:16] to the question that Angus answered

[3:23:18] about the cost of cleanup when

[3:23:22] evaluating remedial

[3:23:25] remedial alternatives the very first

[3:23:27] what's called a threshold criteria is is

[3:23:29] the remedy protective of human health in

[3:23:31] the environment and if you don't pass

[3:23:33] that then everything gets rejected. So

[3:23:35] all of the alternatives in the remedial

[3:23:37] action plan except no action would be

[3:23:40] protective of human health in the

[3:23:41] environment. So, just to clarify that

[3:23:44] that's a threshold criteria.

[3:23:46] » Thank you. It was a really comprehensive

[3:23:48] answer. I appreciate that.

[3:23:50] » All right. Um, Council Member Kern, you

[3:23:53] have no questions. So, we go to Mayor.

[3:23:56] » Excuse me. I wanted to add one little

[3:23:58] piece there.

[3:23:59] » Okay.

[3:23:59] » For that UPC OSM,

[3:24:03] um, a lot of the source of that those

[3:24:04] vapors are coming from the Schlage lock

[3:24:06] site, which is offsite. It's not in the

[3:24:08] baylands, but they have been required by

[3:24:11] the DTSC to do cleanups there. So,

[3:24:13] they're going to be removing a source of

[3:24:16] those chemicals that are getting in

[3:24:17] groundwater, migrating under the bay

[3:24:19] lands, and then the vapors coming on up.

[3:24:22] So, eliminating that source is going to

[3:24:23] short circuit that as well. Okay.

[3:24:26] » Just wanted to add that that's also

[3:24:27] being done.

[3:24:28] » Thank you. Okay. again. Um, Mayor Prom

[3:24:31] Davis,

[3:24:34] » Um,

[3:24:36] I the I had another question, but it was

[3:24:40] answered already, so I'm good on this

[3:24:42] section.

[3:24:43] » Okay,

[3:24:46] Council Member Lent.

[3:24:48] » All right. Um,

[3:24:51] [clears throat]

[3:24:52] let's see. Page four of the staff report

[3:24:55] or page six of 14. Says [clears throat]

[3:24:57] four of of eight, too. But um in that uh

[3:25:01] first full section uh the bottom it says

[3:25:06] implementation details including

[3:25:07] specific uh excavation, stockpiling,

[3:25:10] dust control and storm water management

[3:25:12] procedures will be defined in the RDIPs

[3:25:16] our RDIPs.

[3:25:18] So when will that occur and if you can

[3:25:21] just kind of walk through like how

[3:25:23] that's evaluated and then um

[3:25:28] you know how it's recorded to for the

[3:25:32] public to evaluate.

[3:25:34] » Yeah. So the RDIP is remedial design

[3:25:37] implementation plan.

[3:25:38] » Okay.

[3:25:39] » So that is a document that contains all

[3:25:43] the different plans if you will that

[3:25:46] include all the protective measures. So

[3:25:48] it refers to like the need for the soil

[3:25:51] vapor investigation and that's outlined

[3:25:54] and documented in the RDIP

[3:25:57] and dust control. There's a dust control

[3:26:00] plan that's part of the RDIP. And so

[3:26:02] these documents have been um reviewed by

[3:26:05] the regulatory agency. There's

[3:26:07] concurrence from the waterboard on the

[3:26:09] RDIP for OU2 and I believe for the DTSC

[3:26:14] for OUSM. There's been comments and

[3:26:18] we're waiting for final um approval on

[3:26:21] that one.

[3:26:22] » Okay. So, you're waiting for final

[3:26:23] approval. Approval and then once they're

[3:26:26] established then there will be some kind

[3:26:28] of monitoring. Well, the monitoring gets

[3:26:30] implemented once you know that the

[3:26:32] phasing like so once they start the

[3:26:34] remediation that's when things like dust

[3:26:37] monitoring will be occurring, dust

[3:26:39] control measures and air perimeter air

[3:26:41] monitoring to evaluate the

[3:26:44] protectiveness during construction and

[3:26:46] remediation.

[3:26:48] » Okay. And then also just and um we can

[3:26:52] probably speak more to this too, but

[3:26:53] then once the actions that are

[3:26:54] contemplated in the ARDIP are completed

[3:26:57] um the follow-up step to that is an uh

[3:27:00] operations and maintenance plan, the O

[3:27:02] andM plan, which uh provides for an

[3:27:05] ongoing monitoring and all the

[3:27:08] maintenance requirements that go on to

[3:27:11] make sure that those systems that were

[3:27:13] put in place, you continue to function

[3:27:15] the way that they were intended. Is

[3:27:17] there like designated people to evaluate

[3:27:20] these

[3:27:21] » Themsel

[3:27:30] on the first se

[3:27:35] on the first section? I don't have any

[3:27:37] more questions at this moment.

[3:27:39] » Okay. I have a question. Um,

[3:27:45] there's a part in this section, I'm not

[3:27:47] sure where it is, but it it talks about

[3:27:51] regulatory monitoring until

[3:27:53] concentrations decrease to below

[3:27:56] regulatory levels. Could someone tell me

[3:28:00] what does that mean specifically and how

[3:28:03] is that

[3:28:05] ascertained?

[3:28:08] » I can respond to that one. Um so the

[3:28:12] peract monitoring will occur and below

[3:28:14] the regulatory levels would be let's say

[3:28:18] you're talking about soil vapor like we

[3:28:20] were discussing earlier. So if the soil

[3:28:22] vapor concentrations due to

[3:28:24] biodegradation processes bring the

[3:28:26] levels down to below residential

[3:28:29] screening levels if you're in a

[3:28:30] residential area or commercial screening

[3:28:33] levels in a commercial area. So it would

[3:28:35] be sampling that would be performed to

[3:28:37] make that determination. And so

[3:28:39] typically what happens is the consulting

[3:28:43] firm would do the sampling and if they

[3:28:45] saw and sometimes you need more than one

[3:28:48] round of sampling to show that you're

[3:28:49] below those screening levels then it

[3:28:52] would get reported and recommended to

[3:28:54] the agency to curtail the monitoring of

[3:28:57] soil vapor and then the agency would

[3:28:59] review and approve the data and they may

[3:29:00] say you need two more rounds we want

[3:29:02] four quarters or whatever the

[3:29:04] requirements might be but it's the

[3:29:05] agency that makes the final

[3:29:06] determination. Okay. Thank you very

[3:29:09] much,

[3:29:10] » Council Member Lent.

[3:29:12] » I don't have any more questions on this

[3:29:13] section, Madame Mayor.

[3:29:14] » Okay. So, I have one more.

[3:29:17] » The integrity of the cap itself and this

[3:29:20] came up in the webinar that I attended.

[3:29:24] Who monitors the integrity of the cap

[3:29:26] and for how long? And the if I can kind

[3:29:30] of do table setting, there were

[3:29:32] questions posed in the webinar about

[3:29:34] what if you have a building and there's

[3:29:36] a cap and the cap is compromised

[3:29:39] underneath the foundation of a building

[3:29:42] and someone says something is wrong

[3:29:45] or just picturing all kinds of different

[3:29:49] land settlements. We have that already

[3:29:50] at Sierra Point. um who monitors whether

[3:29:55] the cap is actually performing its

[3:29:58] function and has not been compromised?

[3:30:04] I'll give you a two-part answer. Um part

[3:30:06] [clears throat] one is that there will

[3:30:08] be typically annual inspections of the

[3:30:10] cap to make sure that the integrity is

[3:30:12] maintained and if there's a let's say a

[3:30:14] catastrophic earthquake event or

[3:30:16] something like that, then that would

[3:30:18] trigger an inspection that would be

[3:30:20] let's say off cycle. Um, and then in

[3:30:23] conjunction with the, you know, OM&M

[3:30:27] plan, the monitoring of the cap

[3:30:29] typically, and it's part of the RJI,

[3:30:31] there's a soil management plan. So, for

[3:30:33] some reason, you had to breach the cap

[3:30:36] to do some kind of a deeper repair. Then

[3:30:39] the soil management plan basically says

[3:30:41] you have to have protected workers going

[3:30:43] in, you do the repair, and you restore

[3:30:45] the cap back. So, you're saying that

[3:30:48] because we heard earlier that that

[3:30:50] there's an um the the cap is inspected

[3:30:55] annually after earthquakes or major

[3:30:58] storms. But if there's no earthquakes or

[3:31:00] major storms, is it not inspected

[3:31:02] annually?

[3:31:03] » No, it's inspected annually.

[3:31:05] » It is. And it would just be extra if

[3:31:07] let's say let's say your inspection

[3:31:09] typically happened in January and the

[3:31:10] earthquake was in August then you might

[3:31:12] go out right after that major event to

[3:31:16] check on the cap.

[3:31:17] » And is that done by both DTSC and

[3:31:19] waterboard whichever agency is in the

[3:31:21] jurisdiction?

[3:31:22] » Typically it's the the environmental

[3:31:24] consulting firm that does those

[3:31:26] inspections. Now I do know that DTSC

[3:31:28] will do sort of drivebys, not thorough

[3:31:31] inspections of sites. Um that's just

[3:31:34] part that that's part just to make sure

[3:31:35] that the buildings are standing and um

[3:31:38] the site looks about the same as it did

[3:31:40] previously, but the level of inspection

[3:31:42] that the consulting engineer will do

[3:31:44] will be much more detailed.

[3:31:45] » And is this in perpetuity because over

[3:31:48] years you've got Yes. Okay. All right.

[3:31:50] » Yeah. It's costed for 30 years typically

[3:31:52] in the documents just for cost

[3:31:54] estimating purposes, but the the cap

[3:31:56] inspections would be in perpetuity.

[3:31:58] » All right. Thank you. That's very

[3:32:00] helpful. All right. We're moving on to

[3:32:03] the next subheading which is site

[3:32:05] grading soil testing and clean soil

[3:32:09] design.

[3:32:12] I'm trying to see this person is not

[3:32:15] here.

[3:32:16] They're not here.

[3:32:20] They're not here. Michelle, you're

[3:32:22] online.

[3:32:26] I had a question about the discussion we

[3:32:28] just had about the cap, but it's more

[3:32:31] about um the situation like that

[3:32:33] happened at the in Mountain View with

[3:32:35] the Google building back in um November

[3:32:39] 2012 to January 2013. It was a EPA super

[3:32:43] fund study area. So, it wasn't

[3:32:46] technically a land land um landfill that

[3:32:50] was capped. Instead, it was an area, you

[3:32:52] know, where they put in the soil and

[3:32:53] built the building and did all of the um

[3:32:56] HVAC stuff to keep vapors from coming in

[3:32:59] the building. But then

[3:33:02] somebody decided, "Oh, we don't need all

[3:33:04] this HVAC." And uh we have windows. So,

[3:33:08] they turned it off and opened the

[3:33:09] windows and then people started getting

[3:33:11] sick because um uh [laughter]

[3:33:16] tricloral ethylene started coming in the

[3:33:18] building. And that doesn't have a

[3:33:21] closure, you know, like 10 years after

[3:33:24] closure kind of date. It goes on, I

[3:33:26] guess, forever. BC's. And so, how do we

[3:33:29] how are we dealing with that in areas of

[3:33:31] the Baylands where we know that like for

[3:33:34] instance, stopper chemical was there for

[3:33:36] quite a while, making a lot of really

[3:33:39] nasty stuff. Um, how do how are we going

[3:33:43] to deal with that? And and have you

[3:33:45] studied that? Have you covered that? Is

[3:33:46] it in the remediation plan?

[3:33:53] because this this was a real thing that

[3:33:54] happened. People got really sick for a

[3:33:56] couple of months in that Google

[3:33:58] building.

[3:34:05] [snorts]

[3:34:06] » Um

[3:34:07] » Is there is there anybody that

[3:34:11] » I can speak to it. um we represent the

[3:34:14] property owner of that property and

[3:34:17] actually geocentech designed the vapor

[3:34:19] mitigation system for that property. So

[3:34:22] um those buildings were constructed in

[3:34:24] 1999

[3:34:26] time frame and at the time of risk

[3:34:29] assessment

[3:34:31] practice and testing that was done there

[3:34:34] was not a potential risk for vapor

[3:34:37] intrusion. There had been indoor air

[3:34:39] sampling in around 2003 2004 that showed

[3:34:43] that there was no problem in those

[3:34:44] buildings. Then Google moved in around

[3:34:47] the time frame that you mentioned and

[3:34:49] when they moved in they had um the HVAC

[3:34:53] system set in a weird way because of all

[3:34:54] the work they had done in the building

[3:34:56] and um indoor air sampling was done and

[3:34:59] they they indeed found that the

[3:35:01] concentrations were above the commercial

[3:35:03] screening levels set at that time and

[3:35:06] they're current at this point in time.

[3:35:08] And so it was actually I I don't know if

[3:35:11] people were there or not. No one got

[3:35:12] sick. this is this is a long-term cancer

[3:35:15] risk. No one got sick. They held town

[3:35:17] hall meetings and communicated with the

[3:35:20] employees and then systems were designed

[3:35:23] vapor intrusion mitigation systems just

[3:35:25] like are planned here if needed. Um and

[3:35:28] they were designed by Geocentech and put

[3:35:31] in and they've been operating and

[3:35:33] they're monitored regularly ever since

[3:35:36] roughly 2014 time frame.

[3:35:40] » Okay. The news on that varied a little

[3:35:44] bit that people did indeed get sick that

[3:35:46] were working in the building. They

[3:35:47] didn't get cancer or anything, but they

[3:35:48] got sick for a while and didn't know

[3:35:51] what was wrong. So,

[3:35:53] and will that be done here on this site

[3:35:55] where wherever there is contamination

[3:35:57] like that that's not part of the

[3:35:59] landfill? Actually, the whole thing's

[3:36:01] landfill, but the uh newer landfill.

[3:36:08] Do you want me to answer? Okay. Um,

[3:36:11] [clears throat]

[3:36:12] so the plan for the non-landfill area is

[3:36:15] once the fill is brought in and the site

[3:36:19] is brought up to grade, there will be

[3:36:23] soil vapor sampling that will be done to

[3:36:25] assess the levels of volt organic

[3:36:27] compounds like tce that you mentioned.

[3:36:30] And if the levels are above residential

[3:36:33] screening levels in the residential

[3:36:34] areas, then vapor mitigation systems

[3:36:36] would be installed in those buildings.

[3:36:39] And what about for buildings that aren't

[3:36:41] residential but that people work in?

[3:36:43] » Then we'll look at commercial standards.

[3:36:45] Same process.

[3:36:48] » And is that in the remediation plans

[3:36:50] that we're seeing in the

[3:36:53] FEIR?

[3:36:54] » Michelle, is there an end to the

[3:36:55] questions?

[3:36:56] » Well, I just want to make sure it's

[3:36:58] safe. Colleen,

[3:36:59] » I been an ongoing thing and I've

[3:37:01] mentioned it before in my comments on

[3:37:03] the draft EIR. Okay.

[3:37:05] » And it hasn't been responded to yet.

[3:37:07] » All right.

[3:37:09] This will be the last question because

[3:37:11] we gave you four minutes and

[3:37:12] » Yeah. No, I'm done. I mean, I just feel

[3:37:14] like we need to pay attention to this.

[3:37:16] » Michelle King will respond to Michelle

[3:37:18] Salmon. [laughter]

[3:37:20] » Um,

[3:37:22] and what was the question again? Sorry.

[3:37:26] » Does the current plan for remediation

[3:37:28] cover this?

[3:37:29] » Yes, it's in the it's in the RIP. Yes.

[3:37:34] » Okay.

[3:37:36] I have a couple other slips but the

[3:37:39] parties are not here. So we will move on

[3:37:42] to council questions starting with

[3:37:45] council member Okonnell

[3:37:48] » For the site grading.

[3:37:51] » This is under the site grading soil

[3:37:54] testing and clean soil design.

[3:37:58] So, I'm hoping that I know that during

[3:38:03] the C BB KAG meeting that the applicant

[3:38:08] and

[3:38:09] the regulatory agency said that the soil

[3:38:13] that's being planned to be moved to from

[3:38:16] the

[3:38:18] east side to the west side as the cap

[3:38:20] had already been tested and they had

[3:38:24] handpicked

[3:38:25] what soil piles were going to be moved

[3:38:29] and I'm hoping that as part of the

[3:38:32] specific plan and the grading plan that

[3:38:35] we can put in or request additional

[3:38:39] testing as it crosses over. Um because I

[3:38:44] think there is a concern that the soil

[3:38:48] that was sampled was handpicked by

[3:38:52] the

[3:38:53] applicant

[3:38:55] um as being newer soil and that there's

[3:38:58] still some concerns about

[3:39:01] who's going to know what pile it's

[3:39:03] coming from. And so I think that it

[3:39:05] would behoove us to be proactive on

[3:39:09] testing and whether that's for

[3:39:12] radioactivity or other contaminants. I

[3:39:14] think that we need to be more concerned

[3:39:18] than just sniff test.

[3:39:21] » Okay.

[3:39:22] » So mine's more of a statement than a

[3:39:23] question, but I' I'd like to see that

[3:39:26] that's written into our specific plan.

[3:39:28] » Okay.

[3:39:30] Council member Lintz.

[3:39:32] [snorts] Yeah. Um

[3:39:35] Stephanie or a member of BDI

[3:39:40] » Council member your mic.

[3:39:42] » Hi. Yeah. Sorry about that. So, um,

[3:39:45] yeah, you know, at the last meeting, I

[3:39:46] appreciated the visuals that that you

[3:39:48] showed. And so, um,

[3:39:52] obviously we're not going to get through

[3:39:53] this particular item tonight, but when

[3:39:56] we come back for the next meeting, it

[3:39:58] would be great to see visuals of the

[3:40:01] grading, what it would look like. Um,

[3:40:04] council member Okonnell uh had mentioned

[3:40:07] uh there was a photo of the CAL train,

[3:40:11] you know, in the in this specific plan

[3:40:14] and it's at grade and so it would be

[3:40:17] good to kind of get an understanding of

[3:40:19] okay, here's here are the the stages.

[3:40:24] What does the west side look like when

[3:40:26] it's graded at the levels at the heights

[3:40:29] that it's supposed to be and how that

[3:40:31] relates with the rest of the area?

[3:40:36] Yes, we can bring that back. We also

[3:40:37] have a slide tonight and we have our um

[3:40:42] soil experts here who did the soil mound

[3:40:44] testing. Um and if we want to pull up

[3:40:47] those slides, we can once again for the

[3:40:51] full council and the folks who were not

[3:40:52] at the BBK meeting um provide some more

[3:40:55] information on the soils that have been

[3:40:58] tested. So those soils were tested.

[3:41:02] Can or Angel can we get the slides back

[3:41:04] up?

[3:41:07] Those soils were tested as a requirement

[3:41:10] of measure JJ. So recall measure JJ said

[3:41:13] any soil that's been mounted and from

[3:41:17] the import export business that's coming

[3:41:20] from the landfill to the railard site

[3:41:24] has to be tested. That's a measure JJ

[3:41:27] requirement already council member. Um

[3:41:31] so that's what we use the city's grant

[3:41:34] the brownfield grant dollars was to

[3:41:37] actually do that soil testing. I think

[3:41:39] we want to see the next slide

[3:41:42] and I'm going to hand this over to

[3:41:45] Lisa Vantessle from Geocentech who um is

[3:41:48] the project senior project manager for

[3:41:50] the work that we've done and and I would

[3:41:51] just also add that EKI your third party

[3:41:54] consultant also reviewed this sampling

[3:41:58] pro protocol and the sampling testing

[3:42:00] that has all been approved by both the

[3:42:03] waterboard and the DTSC. So, um, Lisa,

[3:42:06] can you talk briefly about how we did

[3:42:08] the soil testing?

[3:42:09] » Sure.

[3:42:13] » So, looking at the amount of soil that

[3:42:15] we needed to move using the

[3:42:19] uh aerial surveys and the grading plans

[3:42:23] to build up this layer here. So, the

[3:42:25] landfill is at the bottom, then they

[3:42:27] have the existing cover that was on top

[3:42:29] and then the soil that had been added

[3:42:31] before 2010 and then after 2010. So, our

[3:42:34] goal was to test all of the soil after

[3:42:37] that was placed here after 2010 because

[3:42:39] that had been manifested when it brought

[3:42:41] in. We knew where it came from. It had

[3:42:43] some of it had been pre-screened and

[3:42:44] tested. So, we tested that 1.9 million

[3:42:48] cubic yards of soil. We wrote a work

[3:42:51] plan that included a very elaborate

[3:42:53] sampling plan. The procedures that we

[3:42:55] used are well documented and used

[3:42:57] throughout the industry. And we went out

[3:42:59] there over I think a month or two and

[3:43:02] tested the 1.9 million cubic yards of

[3:43:04] soil. A lot of analytical data. It all

[3:43:07] got reported to DTSC. They reviewed it.

[3:43:10] EKI reviewed it and we decided that 1.8

[3:43:14] of it we could move. It could be used

[3:43:16] for the clean soil cap and for the

[3:43:18] general fill on the on the on the U2 and

[3:43:20] OSM.

[3:43:23] » We know we need if we need more soil, we

[3:43:26] still need more testing to do, right? If

[3:43:28] we're going to move more soil beyond

[3:43:29] what's already been tested, that would

[3:43:31] get tested.

[3:43:32] » If I may, it's going to need to be moved

[3:43:36] to be able to cap the other side.

[3:43:40] That other soil is going to need to be

[3:43:42] moved.

[3:43:43] » Sure. And it'll be need to be tested

[3:43:44] because it that below what we've tested

[3:43:46] hasn't been tested yet. So, that would

[3:43:48] get tested when we need to move it.

[3:43:59] Okay,

[3:44:02] Council Member Kern.

[3:44:05] » Thank you, Mayor Macken. Um, I think I

[3:44:08] understood what you just said. Um, in

[3:44:11] the slide that's being presented right

[3:44:12] now, we've got the tested soil

[3:44:14] represented in red, and it looks to me

[3:44:17] like it's about 10 ft of elevation of

[3:44:20] soil. Is that Am I reading this chart

[3:44:22] correctly? It's give or take. We have a

[3:44:24] little vertical exaggeration.

[3:44:27] We have a little vertical exaggeration

[3:44:29] just to give you a concept of what it

[3:44:31] looks like, but in certain areas it was

[3:44:33] maybe 10 ft. In other areas it might

[3:44:35] have been five and others it might have

[3:44:36] been 20. It it really varied across this

[3:44:39] the site.

[3:44:41] » Okay, this may be a really remedial

[3:44:43] question. Um but how do you delineate

[3:44:46] between the red zone here and the green

[3:44:48] zone? Like how do you how do you know?

[3:44:51] We had aerial topography

[3:44:53] » That we used between what was there at

[3:44:56] the current and then what was before

[3:44:58] that red soil was placed on top.

[3:45:01] » Very good. Thank you.

[3:45:02] » Y

[3:45:05] prochim Davis.

[3:45:10] The final ER says CCL train raised

[3:45:12] concerns that a conveyor over its right

[3:45:14] ofway may not be feasible because of the

[3:45:16] electrified overhead contact system and

[3:45:19] that Cal Train approval would be

[3:45:21] required. What's the city's current

[3:45:23] understanding of whether the conveyor is

[3:45:25] feasible?

[3:45:30] » I think it's exactly as you just

[3:45:31] summarized. Um, so the

[3:45:35] I guess circling back to one of the

[3:45:36] comments we heard that the conveyor

[3:45:39] concept has not been removed from the

[3:45:41] EIR that is still um definitely part of

[3:45:44] the air quality mitigation measures,

[3:45:46] part of the best available control

[3:45:48] technologies

[3:45:49] um for handling this. I think it helps

[3:45:52] speak to a the bigger picture about the

[3:45:58] how remediation will work and and what

[3:46:00] was discussed in the EIR in that the

[3:46:05] final

[3:46:07] hall plan and construction management

[3:46:09] plan hasn't been developed yet. That is

[3:46:13] something that is required to be done in

[3:46:16] the future. And there's a series of

[3:46:20] preferences. I mean, certainly using the

[3:46:22] conveyor would be ideal. Using flag

[3:46:25] people to bring trucks across tracks so

[3:46:28] they don't have to loop around would be

[3:46:30] preferred. Um the ER again, as we were

[3:46:34] talking about before, uh with its

[3:46:36] approach to having a conservative

[3:46:37] envelope of impacts, looks at how trucks

[3:46:40] would go if neither of those things end

[3:46:42] up being feasible or if other

[3:46:44] alternatives aren't available. But they

[3:46:48] are all still things that are on the

[3:46:50] table and will continue to be discussed

[3:46:52] with Calrine because everybody, the

[3:46:54] developer, the city, the neighbors

[3:46:56] prefer to have cross sight movement

[3:47:01] rather than a hall route that uh

[3:47:03] requires, you know, putting trucks out

[3:47:06] on on streets. so that it's not

[3:47:08] something that we totally control which

[3:47:10] is why the EI has to look at what would

[3:47:13] happen if we can't implement it the way

[3:47:17] that we everyone would prefer to um so

[3:47:20] we know what would happen but the plan

[3:47:22] is still to work with CLR to see if some

[3:47:25] of those other interim steps can be

[3:47:26] taken. It seems to me that almost all of

[3:47:31] these

[3:47:33] um strategies are infeasible like given

[3:47:39] the information that we heard from the

[3:47:40] public about the impact on our roads and

[3:47:46] you know assuming that's true

[3:47:49] that would be something that would be

[3:47:51] infeasible right to

[3:47:55] um the citizens of Brit Brisbane. Our

[3:47:58] perspective would be that that would be

[3:48:00] something that would be so catastrophic

[3:48:03] to us. Then you have the conveyor belt

[3:48:06] which is maybe infeasible from Calran's

[3:48:10] perspective.

[3:48:11] And then you have Geneva Avenue

[3:48:13] extension enforcing that to be first

[3:48:16] order of business could be infeasible

[3:48:19] because you may not get collaboration

[3:48:23] amongst all these other agencies

[3:48:26] to fund that at this point in the

[3:48:28] development. So I just wonder how we

[3:48:32] who gets to determine what's feasible

[3:48:34] and not feasible when from multiple

[3:48:36] different perspectives

[3:48:38] something may or may not be deemed

[3:48:41] feasible. Is it I don't know.

[3:48:44] » Well, it has it has to do with like who

[3:48:46] who controls like Cal Train has control

[3:48:50] over what goes over their tracks. So and

[3:48:54] the electrical lines. So they will

[3:48:56] decide if they're willing to accept

[3:48:59] that. Again, another option that that

[3:49:01] you didn't mention is just literally

[3:49:03] driving across the tracks like with a

[3:49:05] signal person who's there to stop trucks

[3:49:08] when trains are are approaching. So

[3:49:10] there's there's multiple steps to

[3:49:14] explore and and go through, but it's the

[3:49:19] each agency I guess that that has

[3:49:21] jurisdiction over one piece of it will

[3:49:23] decide what they what they're

[3:49:26] comfortable with. The other I guess

[3:49:28] thing to keep in mind is we've been

[3:49:31] talking

[3:49:32] the EI again for purposes of being

[3:49:36] conservative to show what the worst case

[3:49:39] noise and air quality impacts would be

[3:49:41] show a very consolidated hall route.

[3:49:43] What we've been talking about tonight

[3:49:45] and what you've heard the phasing would

[3:49:47] take you know in decades. So that is a

[3:49:51] much more diffuse type of of traffic.

[3:49:54] It's not um three trucks a minute for 2

[3:49:59] and 1/2 years. Um because there's just

[3:50:01] not that much happening all at once. It

[3:50:03] won't it's not

[3:50:07] it that's not the illustration of

[3:50:10] exactly what's going to happen on the

[3:50:11] ground. That's the conservative

[3:50:16] um way of modeling what the air quality,

[3:50:19] noise and associated impacts would be if

[3:50:22] it all happened, you know, literally

[3:50:23] back to back.

[3:50:24] » The most extreme

[3:50:26] » Scenario. Okay.

[3:50:30] » Okay. I'm going to dovetail off of your

[3:50:33] question. So, we've heard about overhead

[3:50:35] conveyors

[3:50:39] and we now see with a lot of the

[3:50:41] highways, they have wildlife crossings

[3:50:44] that go underneath highways.

[3:50:46] And

[3:50:48] I'm not even thinking about a

[3:50:51] conventional truck, but if they can

[3:50:54] build small rail cars that go in and out

[3:50:56] of mines,

[3:50:59] am I really to assume that they could

[3:51:02] not do some sort of small tunnel,

[3:51:04] culvert, anything that could have small

[3:51:07] cars that could go underneath the

[3:51:09] railroad tracks that could be built at a

[3:51:12] reasonable cost that that would be an

[3:51:15] investment. for the 30 years because it

[3:51:18] would be there. Versus the increased

[3:51:21] cost of trucks and hauling and dust

[3:51:25] mitigation

[3:51:26] and

[3:51:28] all the opposition people are going to

[3:51:30] have to all these trucks going on

[3:51:32] surface because the the dirt's going to

[3:51:34] move back and forth and back and forth.

[3:51:37] And it just seems to me like one little

[3:51:40] culvert tunnel underneath. Not not one

[3:51:43] to drive a car or truck through, but

[3:51:46] some small conveyance

[3:51:49] cars like I've seen they use in in

[3:51:52] » Mining.

[3:51:52] » Mining. Yeah.

[3:51:54] » Has anybody looked into that? Yeah.

[3:51:56] » How many billions of carts would it

[3:51:58] take?

[3:51:59] » Well, but if [laughter] you I mean, not

[3:52:00] one at a time. It they do it in mines

[3:52:03] and they pull out a lot per day. It just

[3:52:06] seems like that that would be a simple

[3:52:09] solution.

[3:52:10] Has anybody looked into that? Has that

[3:52:12] ever been done?

[3:52:15] It It would not disrupt Cal Train with a

[3:52:18] major big tunnel for trucks to rumble

[3:52:20] underneath their trucks. It wouldn't

[3:52:22] have to be as deep. So, we'd have less

[3:52:25] concern probably about groundwater

[3:52:27] intrusion.

[3:52:30] » They'd have to probably dig through the

[3:52:31] the garbage layer.

[3:52:33] » Yes, you would.

[3:52:35] My understanding is um that is an option

[3:52:39] that is being looked at and uh as well

[3:52:42] as as um Eric had mentioned the uh act

[3:52:45] grade crossing. So um you know to

[3:52:49] emphasize again the uh both the plan and

[3:52:51] the EIR state that um traversing whether

[3:52:56] it's above on or below the Calrain track

[3:52:59] is the first um and preferred route. the

[3:53:02] truck hauling is really a backup. Um, if

[3:53:06] those are all infeasible,

[3:53:09] um, this could be further tightened. Um,

[3:53:11] I'm kind of jumping ahead now, but um,

[3:53:13] you know, there could be proof of having

[3:53:16] exhausted

[3:53:18] um, the options prior to going to truck

[3:53:21] hauling. So, um, you know, there's a lot

[3:53:24] of coordination that would be [snorts]

[3:53:25] needing to be done with CalR and to look

[3:53:28] at these different options. Um, but each

[3:53:31] of those could be a test, you know,

[3:53:34] before you go to the truck hauling

[3:53:35] route.

[3:53:36] » Well, and I I'm just going to add that

[3:53:38] since Cal Train's been studying the

[3:53:41] accidents at great the atgrade crossings

[3:53:45] with a bunch of trucks, that just

[3:53:48] doesn't seem very safe. But that's my

[3:53:51] comment. All right. Um, Mayor Prom

[3:53:53] Davis, questions.

[3:53:56] » Wait, shouldn't it be somebody else just

[3:53:58] asked?

[3:54:01] No, I just asked.

[3:54:03] » She asked right

[3:54:03] » No, but I just asked right before you.

[3:54:05] » It's okay. I mix them all up.

[3:54:08] » Okay. Um, actually, this is still with

[3:54:11] the conveyor. So, timely,

[3:54:15] can anyone tell us what the status of

[3:54:18] discussions with Cal Train have been

[3:54:21] regarding the conveyor? And have we had

[3:54:24] any formal proposal from the applicant

[3:54:28] to Cal Train or the California Public

[3:54:30] Utilities Commission about this?

[3:54:40] Yes, we have.

[3:54:42] There's no formal application yet, but

[3:54:45] as you know, um, and I think as staff

[3:54:47] pointed out, our preference is to

[3:54:50] somehow move the soil and still stay on

[3:54:53] the property. So, is that over the

[3:54:56] railroad track? Um, with the new

[3:54:59] electrification, Cal Trains is very,

[3:55:01] very concerned about those are very

[3:55:05] delicate lines. I mean, it's all

[3:55:07] exciting that they've electrified, but

[3:55:08] we're really talking about like 18th

[3:55:10] century technology here. These are just

[3:55:13] wires that are hanging off posts and you

[3:55:15] know they've already had trouble with

[3:55:17] eucalyptus trees falling on them and

[3:55:20] there was a fence that fell and you know

[3:55:22] takes them. So they are very very

[3:55:24] concerned about anything going over

[3:55:26] right now the lines. We have discussed

[3:55:29] with them options and um madame mayor it

[3:55:32] is not crazy to talk about going under

[3:55:35] with some kind of a

[3:55:37] [laughter] some kind of we we I don't

[3:55:39] think we looked at carts because I think

[3:55:41] that would be too small but we have

[3:55:43] looked at potentially the conveyor going

[3:55:46] under um and and those we have we have

[3:55:49] been having

[3:55:51] to answer Councilwoman Davis's

[3:55:54] questions. Yes, we have been having

[3:55:56] ongoing conversations with Cal Train for

[3:55:58] the last five to six years about how we

[3:56:01] could get somehow over, under, or just

[3:56:06] across the tracks and to keep because we

[3:56:09] don't want to do trucks around town. it

[3:56:12] doesn't that's the least favorable

[3:56:14] option for us but we still have to work

[3:56:17] out an agreement with with Calrans and

[3:56:19] they are and those those discussions are

[3:56:21] ongoing and you know if we get entitled

[3:56:27] soon hopefully those those discussions

[3:56:30] will of course escalate with him. I

[3:56:33] wonder too if this is a way a an

[3:56:39] an opportunity for us to engage with our

[3:56:43] representatives at the state level

[3:56:46] to see if they may be able to support

[3:56:49] putting pressure on Cal Train to approve

[3:56:53] that. So if you feel that the city has a

[3:56:55] role to play and

[3:56:57] » Absolutely

[3:56:58] » Advocating

[3:56:59] for that

[3:57:00] » Yes we can use supporters for the our

[3:57:04] proposals

[3:57:06] anywhere we get them.

[3:57:07] » Yeah.

[3:57:08] » Great.

[3:57:10] » Okay. Council member Okonnell,

[3:57:15] » I think mine go into the next topic and

[3:57:19] we only have four minutes so

[3:57:22] » Probably best not to.

[3:57:25] » Okay,

[3:57:26] Council Member Kern, do you have a fourm

[3:57:28] minute question or less?

[3:57:30] » You know, let's see. I've got two here

[3:57:31] to choose from. Um, let me uh Yeah, let

[3:57:36] me ask one of the gentlemen in the green

[3:57:38] shirt and the blue tie to the left of

[3:57:39] Jeremiah. I'm sorry. Sorry, I can't read

[3:57:41] your name tag from here.

[3:57:44] I still can't read it, but it's okay.

[3:57:46] Um, my question to you is about the geo

[3:57:49] composite that you mentioned a little

[3:57:51] bit earlier. I'm I'm I'm c categorizing

[3:57:54] this under the clean soil design

[3:57:56] category here tonight. Um, I went down a

[3:57:59] little rabbit hole and it says the life

[3:58:01] expectancy of this geo composite is

[3:58:03] between 30 and 100 years. That's quite a

[3:58:06] span. Um, how will you know if that

[3:58:09] fails at year 35? What will be the

[3:58:12] telltale sign that you know the water is

[3:58:16] not being collected as you're planning?

[3:58:18] I I'm just curious.

[3:58:20] » Yeah, that probably gets into the design

[3:58:22] part of the landfill and I believe

[3:58:24] you've got the one of the

[3:58:27] representatives there with BDI that

[3:58:28] would be on that design.

[3:58:30] » Okay. So, that's not the clean soil

[3:58:32] design that we're talking about right

[3:58:34] now.

[3:58:36] You're talking about that drainage

[3:58:37] layer, right?

[3:58:38] » Yeah. It's not it.

[3:58:40] » I think I mean you can ask the question,

[3:58:43] but just want to direct it to the right

[3:58:44] person who

[3:58:46] » Okay. Thank you so much.

[3:58:46] » Hi, Steve Fallon with NGO. Um, generally

[3:58:50] those lifespans have to do with um like

[3:58:52] solar degradation. Typically, if if the

[3:58:56] material is going to be buried, you're

[3:58:58] not going to get the same kind of

[3:58:59] degradation that you have. they're made

[3:59:01] out of plastic uh or like a polyurethane

[3:59:04] or it depends. Um and then also which

[3:59:07] product we choose has different

[3:59:08] lifespans. Um but those things are all

[3:59:11] graded also. So the cap um is

[3:59:15] impermeable.

[3:59:17] As water comes down, it hits that layer

[3:59:19] and then travels because it's sloped. So

[3:59:22] we we would see some sort of change in

[3:59:25] the in the flow of water um over time

[3:59:28] too, but that's unlikely.

[3:59:32] I know we're almost out of time, but

[3:59:34] then what would be the action you would

[3:59:35] take at that point?

[3:59:36] » So the other piece of it is that that

[3:59:39] that particular piece of the

[3:59:40] infrastructure

[3:59:42] isn't working on its own. Um the other

[3:59:45] part of it is the permeability of the

[3:59:47] soil. So if water just generally like

[3:59:49] groundwater for example, groundwater

[3:59:51] moves without one of those things in

[3:59:53] place. So when water comes down and and

[3:59:56] hits that impermeable cap, it will move

[3:59:59] already. Um that particular

[4:00:02] infrastructure will just help it move

[4:00:04] even better and even faster. So you're

[4:00:06] not you're just going to get a less

[4:00:08] optimal condition, but it would still be

[4:00:10] operating.

[4:00:12] » Thank you.

[4:00:13] » Yeah,

[4:00:15] your part

[4:00:18] » Council member Lent,

[4:00:19] » I have a very quick Cal Train question.

[4:00:22] Madame Mayor,

[4:00:22] » Go for it. So um if the council approves

[4:00:25] the specific plan and we cannot

[4:00:30] find a solution with Cal Train, then

[4:00:34] does that mean the truck hauling trips

[4:00:37] will occur to move the soil from the

[4:00:40] east side to the west?

[4:00:45] » Yes. Ultimately the the last choice is

[4:00:47] to use the streets.

[4:00:49] » Okay. And

[4:00:51] Okay. And there isn't any I guess there

[4:00:55] really isn't any other choice. Um,

[4:01:00] kind of getting to your situation,

[4:01:02] Madison, you know, you have these these

[4:01:05] situations that might not be I mean, I

[4:01:09] guess it could be feasible, but it might

[4:01:11] not be very ideal and it' be extremely

[4:01:14] disruptive.

[4:01:16] And does it mean then the the city has

[4:01:19] to just suck it up and take it?

[4:01:23] Sorry for the direct uh comment but or

[4:01:27] question.

[4:01:28] » I mean again we the

[4:01:32] mitigation measures look to

[4:01:35] be able to mitigate impacts to the

[4:01:37] greatest extent that is feasible to do.

[4:01:40] Um beyond that though if yeah if you

[4:01:43] approve a project

[4:01:45] then yeah dealing with some of the the

[4:01:49] impacts that can't be mitigated is is

[4:01:51] part of that.

[4:01:53] I'll just uh add you know there would be

[4:01:56] a construction management plan um and so

[4:01:59] the EIR is not providing that the EIR is

[4:02:02] is kind of outlining a scenario

[4:02:04] particularly for the air quality

[4:02:07] analysis but um there would be a

[4:02:10] construction management plan that could

[4:02:11] cover things such as hauling hours um

[4:02:14] avoiding school and commute peaks um it

[4:02:17] could have a routing plan um so the one

[4:02:21] that's shown in the EIR is a concept,

[4:02:25] but it's not a plan. So, um, and people

[4:02:28] have already noted some deficiencies in

[4:02:31] that as it relates to some of the roads

[4:02:33] that do not allow the heavy trucks. Um,

[4:02:37] there would be things like the hotlines

[4:02:38] for complaints, published monitoring

[4:02:40] reports, street cleaning, uh, repair of

[4:02:43] damage, which would be um, developer

[4:02:45] funded and, um, emergency services

[4:02:49] review. Um, so there would be a lot of

[4:02:52] details that that would be involved

[4:02:54] before any such hauling could occur.

[4:02:58] » Could we require a helicopter?

[4:03:03] » Okay, we are at a bewitching hour. So I

[4:03:06] would like to know um, Council Member

[4:03:09] Kern, did you actually have more

[4:03:11] questions on this section?

[4:03:13] » One more.

[4:03:14] » And Council Member Lent, do you have

[4:03:16] questions on this section?

[4:03:18] » I I do. And I could wait till the next

[4:03:20] time.

[4:03:20] » Well, I I'm just trying to gauge how

[4:03:22] many

[4:03:25] » Because we could just stop here and

[4:03:26] we'll just continue this section.

[4:03:28] » I have six. So, we're definitely

[4:03:29] stopping.

[4:03:30] » Okay.

[4:03:30] » Okay. Good.

[4:03:33] » That being said,

[4:03:35] » I'll make a motion I'll make a motion to

[4:03:38] continue the public hearing to the

[4:03:40] meeting of October 20th, I think.

[4:03:44] » Correct.

[4:03:45] » Second.

[4:03:45] » October 22nd at

[4:03:47] » No, I'm sorry. October 20 a.m.

[4:03:49] » October 20th. That's the new date. At 5

[4:03:52] at 5:30

[4:03:53] » 20th

[4:03:54] » 20th.

[4:03:55] » Second

[4:03:56] » At 5:30.

[4:03:58] » 1st and a second. All in favor? [snorts]

[4:04:00] I. Anyone opposed? No.

[4:04:02] » Thank you everyone. Have a good evening.

[4:04:13] [music]

[4:04:25] » [music]

[4:04:30] [music]

Untitled meeting

Transcript