[0:06] [music]

[0:12] down.

[0:22] [music]

[0:26] Heat.

[0:32] » [music]

[0:37] [music]

[0:43] [music]

[0:51] » Heat. Heat.

[0:53] [music]

[1:00] [music]

[1:09] [music]

[1:15] [music]

[1:21] » [music]

[1:33] [music]

[1:40] [music]

[1:50] [music]

[1:55] [music]

[2:06] [music]

[2:11] [music]

[2:11] » Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.

[2:18] » [music]

[2:24] [music]

[2:30] [music]

[2:32] » Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.

[2:35] [music]

[2:52] » [music]

[2:58] [music]

[3:02] » Wow.

[3:23] » [music]

[3:36] [music]

[3:49] [music]

[3:56] [music]

[4:03] [music]

[4:14] [music]

[4:22] [music]

[4:32] [music]

[4:48] [music]

[5:09] [music]

[5:14] [music]

[5:16] » Thank you, city clerk. You are seated at

[5:20] the city council special meeting of

[5:22] October 6, 2026. This is also Bayance

[5:27] public hearing number three. Calling the

[5:29] meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. Would you

[5:32] join me in the pledge of allegiance,

[5:34] please?

[5:36] » Allegiance to the flag of the United

[5:39] States of America and to the republic

[5:41] for which it stands, one nation under

[5:44] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[5:47] justice for all.

[5:52] » City clerk, roll call, please. Council

[5:55] member Davis

[5:57] » Here.

[5:58] » Council member Kern

[5:59] » Here.

[5:59] » Council member Lent

[6:01] » Here.

[6:01] » Council member Okonnell

[6:03] » Here.

[6:03] » And Mayor Mackin

[6:04] » I am here.

[6:06] » Can I get a first and second to adopt

[6:08] the agenda as it stands, please?

[6:10] » So moved.

[6:11] » Second.

[6:12] » All in favor?

[6:13] » I.

[6:14] » No one opposed.

[6:15] » Motion carries.

[6:17] This is a continuation of the public

[6:20] hearing series. So, we don't need to

[6:22] open a public hearing.

[6:25] And we welcome the public to comment or

[6:27] ask questions during tonight's hearing.

[6:29] Please, please, please, you must fill

[6:32] out a form. They're on the chairs. You

[6:34] can also get one from our city clerk.

[6:36] Speakers will have four minutes for each

[6:38] topic. There's a timer on the screen

[6:40] that you can use for reference as you

[6:42] speak. And I will add, it's extremely

[6:46] important for speakers to stay on topic.

[6:49] If you don't stay on topic, I will stop

[6:51] you. We've had some meandering and I've

[6:54] kind of let everybody meander, but

[6:56] please, please try to stay on topic.

[7:00] Um, if a speaker continues to ignore the

[7:02] rules, you'll be warned. You may be

[7:04] precluded from speaking on any other

[7:06] items tonight. So, internally, the

[7:09] council, we've had some feedback and

[7:12] from the public about the two public

[7:13] hearings to date. We're always trying to

[7:16] make things better. And I'd like to have

[7:19] a short discussion about the meetings.

[7:22] And I'd like to start about the meeting

[7:25] schedule. I'll call on each council

[7:27] member. I'd like to hear your feedback

[7:29] on how this is going for you, whether

[7:32] the schedule works. Um any feedback that

[7:36] you have, I think would be helpful.

[7:38] Starting with council member Kern.

[7:42] » Schedule is acceptable to me. No other

[7:44] feedback at this time.

[7:45] » Okay. Mayor Pro Tim Davis.

[7:50] Um, [clears throat]

[7:52] well, I

[7:54] I definitely think it's been a heavy

[7:55] lift to have the intensity of meetings

[7:59] that we've had. For example, we had a

[8:02] week where we had a hearing on a

[8:04] Tuesday, a council meeting on a

[8:06] Thursday, and then another hearing on

[8:08] Tuesday. Um, and so it's it's not much

[8:13] time in between to prepare and read the

[8:16] level of documents that we need to read.

[8:18] Um, that being said, you know, I'm

[8:21] cognizant of the fact that we want to

[8:24] get this adopted and come into

[8:27] compliance with what HCD expects of us

[8:31] so we can get our housing element

[8:33] reertified. So, um I'm really immuneable

[8:36] to

[8:38] grinding and getting it done. Um so I

[8:42] see a I see challenges to I see

[8:47] challenges with the current schedule,

[8:49] but I also see challenges in slowing

[8:52] things down and and the ramifications

[8:54] that that could have. So,

[8:56] » Okay, Council Member Lent.

[8:58] » Yeah. Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. So, um,

[9:02] yeah, I agree with you, Madison. Uh,

[9:04] that one week where we had a a hearing

[9:07] on a Tuesday and then a council meeting

[9:09] on Thursday was pretty rough. Um,

[9:12] there's also other meetings that we

[9:14] have. And, you know, when you add it all

[9:17] up, uh, it makes it difficult to, uh, be

[9:22] at your best, right, to provide the

[9:24] quality to the community. Uh but there's

[9:28] also uh the community being able to

[9:31] participate and there's a lot of

[9:33] information in these documents to read.

[9:37] Uh people do their their research

[9:40] outside of what's in these documents.

[9:44] I [clears throat] mean these uh these

[9:45] are public hearings. They are called a

[9:47] public hearing for a reason. So, um,

[9:51] you know, I would like for us to space

[9:55] the meetings a a little bit better. I

[9:58] know that, uh, the next hearing is on

[10:00] the 15th and then we come back, uh, on

[10:03] the 19th and I would prefer maybe not

[10:08] have that meeting on the 19th. Maybe

[10:10] make it uh, if we can later in the week

[10:13] just so that we have more time. I think

[10:16] if we're continuing to make progress,

[10:19] uh that we're respecting the process

[10:23] that uh if we finish sometime in the

[10:27] near future that we will be okay. Uh in

[10:31] regards to HCD,

[10:34] » Council Member Okonnell,

[10:39] » I'm happy with the schedule as it is and

[10:41] I've cleared my schedule to make room

[10:43] for it.

[10:45] Okay. Thank you.

[10:49] So, I'm going to point out just a couple

[10:51] facts because I I get the emails and

[10:54] phone calls from everybody. I'm the

[10:56] complaint department.

[10:59] From October 6th to the 15th meeting was

[11:02] 8 days. If you take away two weekends,

[11:04] it was six days between meetings. From

[11:07] the 15th to the 20th, it's I'm sorry,

[11:10] it's the 20th, not the 19th.

[11:11] » Oh, I'm sorry.

[11:12] » Is four days.

[11:14] Take away the weekend, those meetings

[11:16] are two days apart.

[11:19] From the 20th to the 26th is 5 days.

[11:22] Take away the two weekend days, it's

[11:24] three days between those public

[11:26] hearings.

[11:28] And then we have a little bit more time

[11:29] between the 26th and the November 9th,

[11:33] 13 days. But the reality with the two

[11:36] days on the weekend is nine business

[11:38] days. I'm very concerned about my

[11:42] capacity. capacity of staff. I really

[11:45] have a great deal of respect for all my

[11:48] colleagues going, "Yeah, let's let's go

[11:50] for it." But I'm also concerned about

[11:52] public participation. Are you really all

[11:55] going to show up every three, four, five

[11:57] days?

[11:59] And I haven't had a weekend off in

[12:01] months. So, my capacity be to be on top

[12:04] of material and be prepared for this

[12:07] these meetings is diminishing.

[12:09] And I feel irresponsible because of

[12:12] that.

[12:13] I don't think that that's a good

[12:16] participation.

[12:19] And so, um, I don't know, maybe we

[12:22] should also hear from staff. Um,

[12:26] I I think on some of these having two

[12:28] days or three days between meetings is

[12:31] unacceptable. I I do not expect the

[12:34] public to show up that where they're

[12:36] coming every week. Three days. Oh, I

[12:38] need to go to that public hearing. And I

[12:40] want all of you here. This is your

[12:43] community. This is your plan. This is

[12:45] your future. And we want to make it

[12:47] right. And I don't even see how the

[12:50] property owners, agents here can prepare

[12:53] where they're asked questions and they

[12:54] have to come back with some research and

[12:56] some answers. We all want to make this

[12:59] something that we can be proud of.

[13:03] So that's my two cents. Any comments?

[13:08] staff comments.

[13:11] City manager,

[13:13] » Thank you. Um, what I've gleaned from

[13:16] the conversation this evening is as we

[13:18] continue to move forward, there may be

[13:20] some opportunities to do some late um

[13:24] movement of of uh meetings particularly

[13:27] later in the year that excuse me later

[13:29] in the month. Um, so that doesn't affect

[13:32] um so so we don't have meetings four or

[13:34] five days apart. So we'll take a look at

[13:35] that. That that's what I've understood

[13:36] tonight. Thank you.

[13:39] The other topic is the duration of the

[13:41] meetings. And I've heard an earful on

[13:44] this. So part of our our gung-ho gusto

[13:48] of the council and the staff is by God,

[13:51] if we're here till midnight, we need to

[13:53] do it. And then I get the speaker slips

[13:57] and [clears throat] people are sitting

[13:58] here till 9, 9:30, 10 pm and then I see

[14:03] people just leaving in disgust because

[14:05] they filled out, they sat here all

[14:07] night, they never got a chance to talk.

[14:10] So, do we really want to keep going till

[14:12] 10:00 at night and keep extending the

[14:14] meeting or do we want to set a hard stop

[14:17] and just say we get done what we get

[14:19] done? Because also what the public

[14:21] doesn't realize is sometimes the council

[14:23] has a short meeting before this. So

[14:25] we're here for five, six hours straight.

[14:28] By the time it hits 9:00, we're really

[14:30] toast. It's hard. It's very, very hard.

[14:34] Not to mention all the hours you had the

[14:36] day days before, two, three days between

[14:39] the meetings and I've had lots of 400

[14:42] a.m. nights getting up the next morning,

[14:44] too. So what about the timing? Council

[14:47] member Kern, duration of the meeting.

[14:50] What time would you stop the meeting?

[14:52] » Please rotate your questions. Thank you.

[14:56] » Rotate the questions.

[14:57] » Be first.

[14:58] » Oh, you don't want to be first. Okay.

[14:59] » Rotate the questions, please. Thank you,

[15:00] Madam Mayor.

[15:01] » Council member Okonnell.

[15:04] » For me, it really depends on the subject

[15:05] and how involved the community is and

[15:08] whether we're reaching breaking point

[15:11] when we've had, you know, a two-hour

[15:13] meeting before. Um, but I'm

[15:17] happy to try to stay within the time

[15:19] frame and try to limit the amount of

[15:21] intercourse that we have on the dis and

[15:25] with staff and try to be as mindful as

[15:27] we can of the time.

[15:29] » So when you say stay the course, what

[15:31] does that mean in terms of how late we

[15:33] go?

[15:35] I think it really depends on the evening

[15:39] and how the a how involved the audience

[15:42] still is and how involved we can be. I'm

[15:45] not going to say 9:00 and we're done no

[15:47] matter what. I think that sometimes it

[15:50] is imperative that we keep going with

[15:53] the conversation. So, I would rather try

[15:56] to stop on time, but if warranted, I

[16:00] don't mind extending the meeting a

[16:02] little bit.

[16:03] » Okay. Council member Lent.

[16:05] » Yeah, I know. I I feel the same way. Um

[16:08] if we can keep the meeting within that

[16:11] three-hour window that we put out to the

[16:14] public, I think that's ideal. I think we

[16:17] should be mindful of that. But as you

[16:20] were saying, Council Member Okonnell,

[16:21] you know, you get into the the heat of

[16:24] the matter, you know, you're on a roll.

[16:26] you don't want to cut something off and

[16:29] then have to finish um at the next

[16:33] meeting. So extending the meeting for a

[16:35] little bit is fine. Extending the

[16:37] meeting say you know over an hour to two

[16:40] hours I think that is uh excessive and

[16:43] and we should not do that.

[16:45] » So if I may ask you for a clarification

[16:47] you said three-hour window that's 8:30.

[16:51] That's it is 8:30 and that's what um

[16:53] that's what we public publicize is a

[16:56] three-hour meeting. Um obviously it's

[16:58] the council's pleasure to extend the

[17:00] meeting and we and we've done it, you

[17:02] know, many times. Uh and I think when

[17:05] it's appropriate, we should extend it,

[17:07] but not extend it because we can and and

[17:11] have it be um longer than than what the

[17:15] public is anticipating.

[17:17] » Okay.

[17:19] Mayor Prom.

[17:22] » Um, [clears throat] well, I, you know,

[17:24] we intentionally start started the

[17:26] meetings at 5:30 knowing that they would

[17:29] probably take more than 3 hours. We

[17:32] always publish a meeting as being 3

[17:34] hours. That's always our intention with

[17:36] council meetings, too. Um, I think it's

[17:39] perfectly fine to go till 9 or 9:30. We

[17:42] used to have our council meeting start

[17:43] at 7:30 and we would go to 9:30 like no

[17:46] problem. Um, but I I am cognizant of the

[17:48] fact that there are people here that

[17:50] want to speak and they, you know, last

[17:52] time they waited several hours. So, I'm

[17:55] immunable to letting the public go first

[17:58] and ask questions if there are questions

[18:00] that they have right off the bat. Um, I

[18:03] think that's fine. And but I know some

[18:05] people really they are inspired with

[18:08] questions based on the exchange that

[18:11] council has with staff. So

[18:14] there's, you know, you would be getting

[18:16] less of that. Um, but

[18:20] this conversation alone is probably

[18:22] taking us 20 minutes of this meeting.

[18:24] So, um, I I wouldn't I I don't think

[18:26] that we need to say right now that

[18:28] there's a hard and fast rule on how long

[18:29] it takes. I think it's really imperative

[18:31] that we move through this material at a

[18:35] steady pace. And there is a challenge to

[18:38] balance you know the the intensity of

[18:43] the material and you know the time frame

[18:46] that we have to really um get this

[18:50] finished. So I'm you know I'm aware that

[18:52] there are constraints there but think we

[18:54] just need to get it moving.

[18:57] » Okay. And I will point out that this

[18:59] conversation was requested by the

[19:02] council for tonight.

[19:04] So if it's 20 minutes or 30 minutes, you

[19:07] requested it. That's why we're doing it.

[19:09] Council member Kern,

[19:10] » It's only 18 minutes. Um, thank you.

[19:14] » I feel that we have a a tremendous task

[19:17] in front of us in a large body of work

[19:18] and it has been chunked out in fairly

[19:21] reasonable chunks. I agree these are big

[19:23] chunks. I think we need to stop once we

[19:25] delivered a product instead of carrying

[19:28] something in part to the next meeting.

[19:30] carry it in a hole to the next meeting

[19:32] because we're having people join us from

[19:34] the public believing that they're going

[19:36] to be participating on a particular

[19:37] topic. Um, so you know like the last

[19:40] meeting we're carrying over some

[19:42] questions and we already got some

[19:43] questions and I think that that just

[19:45] sort of muddies the water. So I think

[19:46] clean breaks are very important

[19:48] topically speaking. Thank you.

[19:50] » Yeah, I would agree with you council

[19:51] member Karns. So, um I think from my

[19:55] point of view when we hit 9:30 as a

[19:58] regular council meeting, that's that's

[20:00] kind of about where we start seeing the

[20:02] exit door opening up and people leaving

[20:06] because I know some of you you get up at

[20:08] 5 6 7 a.m. You may have to go to work.

[20:10] It's it's tough.

[20:12] All right, so

[20:14] you have all their email addresses and

[20:16] the city manager, please send your

[20:18] comments.

[20:20] We've also had numerous requests from

[20:22] the public to have an opportunity to

[20:24] speak in general about the bailance

[20:26] public hearings. And since we don't have

[20:28] an oral communications on the agenda for

[20:31] these hearings, I'm going to allow some

[20:33] general comments before we start this

[20:35] meeting. Please fill out a speaker card,

[20:38] hand it to the city clerk in order to be

[20:40] recognized. These are not dealing with

[20:42] tonight's topic, just in general. Anyone

[20:45] have general comments?

[20:51] Clark.

[20:56] » Thank you, Madam Mayor, City Council.

[21:00] Kind of weird being on this side of the

[21:03] DAS, actually. You know, I I found uh

[21:05] through the years I'm a better listener

[21:07] than I am a speaker. So, I wrote down

[21:11] what I want to talk about.

[21:14] So when I served on this council, I

[21:15] often felt that when it came to the bay

[21:17] lands that there was a gun to our head.

[21:20] There was enormous pressure to reach an

[21:22] agreement [snorts] in Madison. You'll

[21:24] remember uh in uh former Senator Jerry's

[21:28] Hill Hills Hill Hills Hill Hills Hill

[21:28] Hills Hill Hills Hill Hills Hill Hills

[21:28] Hill Hills Hill Hills Hill Hills Hill

[21:28] Hills Hill Hills Hill Hills Hill Hills

[21:28] Hill Hills Hill Hills Hill Hills Hill

[21:28] Hills Hill Hills Hill Hills Hill's

[21:29] office that you and I were there and it

[21:31] was very short of chair throwing and uh

[21:34] that was due to a draft of threat of a

[21:38] draft legislation

[21:40] uh pressure for development and uh there

[21:43] were very real concerns there about what

[21:46] could happen if Brisbane did not find

[21:48] its own path forward. Measure JJ was

[21:51] negotiated in that atmosphere. It was

[21:54] accepted by those state legislators

[21:57] who threatened us with the draft

[21:59] legislation. And you know who they are.

[22:02] It was the Senator Jerry Hill, uh,

[22:05] Senator, uh, Scott Weiner, and, uh, our

[22:10] own, uh, uh, the now city attorney of

[22:14] San Francisco, David Chu, and Phil Ting,

[22:18] and Kevin Mullen, our now

[22:20] congressperson.

[22:25] » So,

[22:26] » Yeah,

[22:27] » Can you Yeah. Can you move closer to the

[22:29] mic? They're having trouble hearing you.

[22:31] Can you hear it? Okay. Now,

[22:33] » Is that good?

[22:33] » Okay. All right. Uh,

[22:37] anyway, but whatever pressures existed

[22:39] in measure JJ became something much more

[22:41] important. It became our promise to the

[22:44] people of Brisbane. We asked our

[22:46] residents to accept housing on the

[22:47] bayands. And we told them what

[22:50] protections would accompany accompany

[22:52] that development. And the voters trusted

[22:55] us. They approved measure JJ and that

[22:58] vote matters. I'm not here tonight to

[23:01] undo it and I'm not asking the council

[23:03] to reconsider whether there should be

[23:05] housing on the bayands. The voters made

[23:07] that decision and measure JJ and its

[23:10] housing provisions are now the law in

[23:12] Brisbane. But the rest of Measure JJ

[23:15] matters just as much. The housing was

[23:18] not just the only promise we made. We

[23:21] promised that the site would be fully

[23:23] remediated and safe, especially for the

[23:26] housing and that no soil would be moved

[23:28] without testing to the city standards.

[23:31] We promised a reliable water supply uh

[23:34] would be secured before development and

[23:36] the city would prohibit use of our

[23:39] limited water, which is about 1 million

[23:41] gallons a day. And I'm pretty sure that

[23:43] that's all used up with the uh recent uh

[23:47] development of Sierra Point. We promised

[23:50] uh enforcable schedules for landfill

[23:52] closure with real consequences if those

[23:55] schedules were not met and financial

[23:58] guarantees if they were delayed or

[24:00] stopped. We promised energy neutral

[24:03] sustainable development as a beacon of

[24:05] what the future can be. We promised that

[24:08] the development would provide a net

[24:10] fiscal benefit to Brisbane every year.

[24:13] And we promised a specific plan for the

[24:16] entire bays that would put those

[24:20] protections into effect.

[24:23] And I'll give this to the city clerk

[24:25] when I'm done. [clears throat]

[24:27] Those were not side issues. Those were

[24:29] just part of a bargain we presented to

[24:32] the voters. and along with myself and

[24:35] three of you who are currently there.

[24:36] And madame mayor, you were on the uh

[24:39] planning commission and former mayor um

[24:43] Karen Cunningham was city council at the

[24:46] time.

[24:47] Looking at this plan, I do not see those

[24:50] answer those questions answered in a way

[24:52] that gives me the confidence that all of

[24:54] measure JJ is being implemented. Too

[24:57] many important matters appear to remain

[25:00] unresolved,

[25:02] deferred to later agreements, later

[25:04] studies, later financing plans, or later

[25:07] decisions. The meeting schedule, which

[25:10] I'm glad that you talked about at the

[25:11] beginning, but the meeting schedule that

[25:13] you currently have seems too aggressive

[25:15] to adequately address these issues. I

[25:19] know the pressures facing this council

[25:21] are substantial.

[25:22] I remember those pressures very well.

[25:25] But Measure JJ should not be viewed as

[25:28] an obstacle that the city needs to work

[25:30] around. Measure JJ should be the city's

[25:34] road map. Before approving this specific

[25:38] plan, I asked you to take our questions

[25:42] and the public questions and answer each

[25:45] one clearly. If those answers are not in

[25:48] the plan today, put them in there before

[25:51] you approve it. The voters kept their

[25:53] part of the bargain. Now it is our

[25:56] responsibility to keep ours and most

[26:00] importantly show us our choices.

[26:04] The EIR analy analyzes seven

[26:07] alternatives. Yet most of what the

[26:09] public has been formally presented is

[26:11] the plan staff recommends. There should

[26:14] be a presentation of all seven

[26:16] alternatives set forth in the EIR. There

[26:19] are real choices there. Staff

[26:22] recommended the EIR alternative plan

[26:25] that has 2200 homes and 6.5 million

[26:28] square ft of commercial, but the public

[26:31] should be presented with all seven

[26:33] alternatives, especially number seven

[26:37] with its reduced density and lower

[26:39] maximum building heights. Alternative 7

[26:43] is found by the EIR to be

[26:45] environmentally superior alternative.

[26:48] It is 400 fewer homes and 200 million

[26:51] square ft less of commercial and eight

[26:54] stories residential instead of 20 to

[26:57] 22tory towers. Remember the Geneva

[27:01] towers Icler wonder

[27:04] it's what it reminds me of. Okay, those

[27:06] are very different visions of Brisbane.

[27:08] I'm not standing here to say which one

[27:11] is right. I'm standing I'm saying show

[27:13] all seven alternatives fully to you the

[27:16] council and to the public. This is about

[27:20] the future of Brisbane. Then as we move

[27:22] forward, we still have to keep the

[27:24] promises under JJ. A reliable water

[27:27] supply, not using our Brisbane water,

[27:30] final landfill closure and

[27:32] responsibility, adherence to our

[27:34] sustainability framework, phased and

[27:38] required infrastructure that keeps pace

[27:40] with development, financial protections,

[27:44] and the city and its current and future

[27:47] residents.

[27:50] and clear accountability so Brisbane is

[27:52] never left holding the bag.

[27:56] They are intended to make sure that when

[27:58] development comes, we build the Brisbane

[28:00] we promised our voters we would build. I

[28:04] know the pressure you are under.

[28:05] [laughter]

[28:06] I' I've really felt it and I know you're

[28:09] feeling it now. But when we faced

[28:11] pressure before, we trusted the people

[28:13] of Brisbane and we put measure JJ before

[28:16] them. They understood the difficult

[28:18] choices and together we found a way

[28:20] forward that was accepted by our

[28:22] legislators.

[28:24] We can do that again. Share this

[28:26] decision with the community. Uphold

[28:28] Measure JJ. Show Brisbane the choices.

[28:31] Trust the community to be part of the

[28:34] solution. We found a way forward

[28:36] together once and I believe we can and

[28:38] will do it together again. Thank you

[28:41] very much for allowing me to speak.

[28:43] [applause]

[28:44] Anybody

[28:48] else? General comments. Karen

[28:51] Cunningham.

[28:52] » Karen Cunningham and Dan next.

[28:56] » Good evening, Madame Mayor and uh city

[28:58] council and everybody who's here,

[29:00] especially our residents.

[29:03] Um

[29:05] quick question for y'all. I have a bunch

[29:07] of questions from last week that we

[29:09] didn't get to because it was 10:00 and I

[29:12] had to fall over and leave. So, what do

[29:14] I do with those questions? That's my

[29:16] Just think about that for a sec. Anyway,

[29:18] I

[29:20] thank you, Clark, for what you said. Um,

[29:22] that was part of what I was going to

[29:24] speak with you about last week.

[29:27] [clears throat] I was on the planning

[29:28] commission when the turbulent times of

[29:31] Measure JJ first arrived on the scene. I

[29:35] was dragged off the planning commission

[29:37] right after being voted before I was

[29:39] even put on the dis and taken into those

[29:43] close session meetings. To say this was

[29:46] turbulent times in Brisbane is an

[29:48] understatement of epic proportions. This

[29:52] was one of the most painful things I've

[29:53] ever had to witness and be part of in my

[29:56] entire life. So to think that we are up

[29:59] against some more obstacles at this

[30:00] point is an understatement. Um

[30:03] [clears throat]

[30:05] however

[30:06] um the people did

[30:10] agree to vote on measure JJ based on the

[30:14] promises that we made them. And what we

[30:17] need to do is we need to act swiftly

[30:21] but with the precision of a brain

[30:25] surgeon to get through this and to get

[30:27] through it in the way that the people of

[30:29] Brisbane voted for. The goal is pretty

[30:32] simple. A stronger specific plan says

[30:34] that what it means and means what it

[30:37] says. And we need to faithfully carry

[30:39] Measure JJ forward. We need to

[30:41] strengthen the specific plan, close the

[30:44] gaps, remove the ambiguities, and make

[30:47] sure that there are no holes in any

[30:51] protections that the voters

[30:53] adopted in Measure JJ.

[30:56] Um, the rest of it is things that

[31:00] I didn't get to say last week, so we'll

[31:02] figure out when I can probably say

[31:03] those. And just just want to say none of

[31:07] this was aspirational. I see that

[31:09] written down and it makes me absolutely

[31:11] crazy. None of it was aspirational. This

[31:14] was very prescriptive. The people spoke

[31:17] and they said what they wanted and we

[31:19] need to deliver that. Thank you.

[31:21] » Thank you. Uh, city clerk, I didn't

[31:24] catch who was the other one.

[31:25] » We have Dan, Michelle Sammon,

[31:28] » Glenn or Dan.

[31:29] » Dan. Dan.

[31:30] » Okay.

[31:31] » Michelle Sammon, Michael Barnes, and

[31:34] then Linda Salmon.

[31:35] » Okay. Dan.

[31:40] » Hello. Thanks for letting me come speak.

[31:43] Um, my name is Dan Griffiths. I'm a

[31:46] resident of Brisbane. I've lived here

[31:48] about three years. I also um run a

[31:53] theater [clears throat] just over the

[31:55] line in San Francisco across from the

[31:58] Baylands project site. Um

[32:04] I'm supportive of developing this part

[32:07] of the city. I think it's a great idea.

[32:10] I know it has a lot of um clunky things

[32:13] that have to be dealt with, but the

[32:15] other parts of the bay along the bay

[32:19] have been developed pretty pretty great.

[32:21] I don't think that any of those are,

[32:24] » You know, destroying people's lives or

[32:26] anything, but [cough and clears throat]

[32:29] I think it would be nice to be able to

[32:31] like get up and from here and ride a

[32:33] bicycle and arrive down in Visitation

[32:36] Valley where I used to live when I lived

[32:38] in Viz Valley. I' kind of haunted

[32:39] Brisbane all the time. For some reason,

[32:42] I'm drawn to this place and I want to

[32:44] live here. I think it's amazing. And I

[32:46] think having I I go down to the train

[32:48] tunnel all the time and walk down

[32:49] through there with my daughter and stuff

[32:50] and if there was a bike path through

[32:52] there, that's an undeveloped like

[32:54] amazing part of Brisbane. And lots of

[32:56] other places have bike paths and

[32:58] [clears throat] things that you know do

[33:00] cool stuff. Like we need more cool stuff

[33:02] on this part of the larger Bay Area.

[33:05] like it can't just be over there's Viz

[33:08] Valley and Brisbane and the dump you

[33:11] know there we need to really consider

[33:13] that we could develop it because it

[33:15] brings arts this way and we can have

[33:17] arts that come into also

[33:21] Brisbane from San Francisco and the

[33:24] other way around. It's kind of nice to

[33:27] um when I first moved here, I thought,

[33:29] "Oh no, is this place completely

[33:30] isolated?" But then I kind of found out

[33:32] both my worlds are connected together

[33:34] through this project. And I love

[33:38] Brisbane. It's a great place. I mean, if

[33:40] I could buy 10 houses here, I would. But

[33:42] I, you know, I rent here. I'm not even a

[33:45] property owner. But I go to all the

[33:47] businesses here and I watch the hardware

[33:49] store close and I watch the foot traffic

[33:51] dwindle. And no matter how many events

[33:54] you throw in the park, that's not going

[33:55] to bring enough people to keep the

[33:57] businesses open. So then what are you

[33:59] going to be? You're going to be like a

[34:00] bedroom community with no businesses in

[34:02] it. And if you can't sustain those

[34:04] businesses, it's not going to work out,

[34:06] you know. So having arts and different

[34:09] things moving from both places, you

[34:11] know, we need to be kind of more

[34:12] connected. I'm I'm looking forward to

[34:15] learning everything I can find out about

[34:17] this project because it's newer to me. I

[34:20] don't know the ins and outs of it.

[34:21] certainly haven't been around as long as

[34:22] some of the people um thinking about the

[34:27] environmental impact. Um

[34:30] I know that there is one I know that

[34:32] there's soil there that needs to be

[34:33] removed. Now that I know that I'm

[34:35] probably not going to go creeping around

[34:37] in there anymore. Um [snorts] I've been

[34:39] going down there and walking around. I

[34:40] went to the train station. I just

[34:42] recently found out it's where they used

[34:44] to repair trains. Like that's amazing.

[34:46] If part of that could be there across

[34:48] from Sevenmile House, it would change

[34:50] this whole into the city. San Francisco

[34:54] has whole maps that don't even have um

[34:57] Visitation Valley on them. And that's

[34:59] one of their actual neighborhoods,

[35:02] right? They just are like whatever. It's

[35:04] not on the like maps that you can buy in

[35:07] the tourist areas of the city. Brisbane,

[35:09] nobody knows it's here. It's a secret

[35:12] place. And I know that that's cool and

[35:14] it protects everything, but it has to

[35:17] be, you know, brought together. But

[35:18] thank you. I don't want to go too long.

[35:20] » Okay. Thank you, Michael Barnes.

[35:23] » I thought it was Michelle.

[35:24] » Is it Michelle?

[35:25] » Michelle Sammon, Michael Barnes, and

[35:27] Michelle, it is you.

[35:30] » I was paying attention to the order

[35:31] because it's was my suggestion. Um, I

[35:35] was the chair for No Unmeasured JJ and

[35:38] it was very difficult to do that because

[35:40] I was in disagreement with some of my

[35:42] best friends. Um, but I went to every

[35:45] house and talked to people and um,

[35:49] measure JJ won by 10%. And there we are.

[35:54] And I have a extremely high expectation

[35:57] of the city, the council, the leaders

[36:02] honoring everything that measure JJ

[36:05] states. Thank you, Clark, for what you

[36:07] said. I mean, it was a tough thing. I

[36:10] mean, Clark's been my one of my best

[36:11] friends since kindergarten. And we were

[36:13] like this over Terry you, you know,

[36:17] because I didn't agree with the state

[36:21] and the county and the city bullying us

[36:23] about housing on a site this toxic and

[36:27] that was my number one concern and it

[36:30] still is my number one concern. And I

[36:32] wish this room had been packed last

[36:33] night to hear the representatives from

[36:36] DTSC and the regional water quality

[36:39] control board talk about where we are

[36:41] now, how much further we have to go, the

[36:44] things that have not been examined, the

[36:46] things in the dump. It was mostly they

[36:48] did it by historical records manifest.

[36:51] They trust those. You know, it's a

[36:53] little scary. It is scary what we're

[36:55] about to do. And I do think we should

[36:57] ratchet back and do alternative seven

[37:00] the least amount of impact. And um I

[37:03] don't think we should take it to the max

[37:05] and it's going to be probably you know

[37:07] in my lifetime will probably be over by

[37:09] the time that this is actually built

[37:12] being built. But we have a

[37:14] responsibility to the future

[37:17] and that's what I'm really concerned

[37:18] about. So please do your very best work

[37:21] and one of the things that we could do

[37:22] to make these meetings shorter. I spent

[37:24] months and months reading the first

[37:26] program eir then the first draft EIR on

[37:29] the specific plan and the first specific

[37:31] plan and the second specific plan and

[37:32] the second

[37:34] I know it's a lot of work. I've read it

[37:36] all you know and all along I kept saying

[37:40] I hope you guys are reading it. I hope

[37:41] you guys are looking at it and I mean

[37:43] Cliff the last meeting spent a total of

[37:45] over an hour over an hour to an hour and

[37:49] a half speaking just you

[37:51] » Okay that that's really hard

[37:54] » For especially for people who have

[37:55] already read it and are familiar with it

[37:57] and we want to get on and talk about the

[37:58] things that are unresolved

[38:00] » And so I will be here I will be here to

[38:02] the best of my ability to participate

[38:05] but I hope that you all you know do your

[38:07] homework and that you go back and watch

[38:09] last night's meeting if you weren't here

[38:10] in Thank you very much. It is available.

[38:13] Thank you, Carolyn. She had to walk me

[38:15] through making seeing where it was

[38:16] available. Thank you.

[38:18] » Michelle is referring to BB Keg had a

[38:20] meeting last night with DTSC and

[38:22] regional water quality control board and

[38:25] it is I believe on the city website for

[38:27] anyone who'd like to watch the

[38:29] broadcast. Michael Barnes.

[38:38] » Good evening, Mayor Council. My name is

[38:40] Michael Barnes. I'm a Brisbane resident.

[38:42] Um,

[38:44] in 2008, I think I was sitting in that

[38:46] chair right there when I came out in

[38:48] favor of housing on the bay lands. And

[38:50] that was a decade before measure JJ was

[38:51] passed because I couldn't figure out

[38:53] where those people who would work out

[38:55] there would live.

[38:58] Then more recently, you gota had a

[39:00] proposal to buy water from Merrced and I

[39:04] believe that fell apart because you

[39:05] couldn't figure out a way to transfer

[39:06] the water from Merced to Brisbane. But

[39:09] if you go to the state of California and

[39:12] ask them to pressure these intervening

[39:14] agencies, if the water is still

[39:16] available, I'm sure the state of

[39:17] California understands that there is no

[39:19] housing without water. You may try to

[39:22] work with the legislature rather than

[39:24] against it.

[39:26] Um,

[39:29] and finally, I I proposed the fiscal

[39:32] analysis of the Bayands project when I

[39:34] was on city council because you can't do

[39:36] this in in SQA. We just went outside of

[39:39] it and made made it a requirement that

[39:42] the Bayands project would benefit

[39:44] Brisbane fiscally and wouldn't bankrupt

[39:46] us. And I think that's part of Measure

[39:47] JJ, too. I I really think that Measure

[39:49] JJ is important as Clark has said. And

[39:53] it also talks about energy neutrality.

[39:55] And I agree with the analysis of one of

[39:58] other residents of Brisbane that it

[40:00] doesn't seem to be energy neutral right

[40:02] now. Thank you.

[40:03] » Thank you. And the last one is

[40:07] » Linda.

[40:07] » Linda Simmon.

[40:17] » Dear honored and belleaguered council,

[40:20] [laughter] it's amazing that we're

[40:21] finally doing this. um talking about the

[40:24] overall what's what I'm sorry it's a

[40:27] little machine down here what's what's

[40:29] happening here and [sighs]

[40:33] I was on the n on the on the planning

[40:36] commission uh that wrote the 1994

[40:39] general plan most of which is still kind

[40:41] of hanging out which gave the tundex

[40:45] sunquest owners um an incredible

[40:49] capacity to build something that was

[40:52] marvelous

[40:52] in terms of the FS.

[40:55] And they came back eventually with a uh

[40:58] a designer, an architect. I don't

[41:00] remember his name. I've asked staff us a

[41:03] couple times what what his name was, but

[41:05] the whole of the city of Brisbane loved

[41:08] it and said, "Yes, let's do it." And it

[41:10] was like, you know, just one one one

[41:12] huge building that had space for art and

[41:15] events and things like that.

[41:18] And then it was taken away because

[41:22] everybody was pushing, oh, we have to

[41:24] have houses. Houses.

[41:27] There's a difference between housing

[41:31] like what is being offered right now and

[41:34] uh I call them dwelling units,

[41:36] apartments, pe things that working

[41:39] people can afford. Um because people

[41:41] were concerned about well if we have you

[41:44] know businesses out here we're not going

[41:46] to have dwelling units for all the

[41:47] people who's going to work there and

[41:48] transit.

[41:50] People who [clears throat] are have lots

[41:51] and lots of money who want to buy fancy

[41:54] houses don't take public transit. They

[41:57] all have cars several of them. So that's

[42:00] one issue. There's a lot of issues.

[42:03] There are other alternatives to the one

[42:05] we're looking at right now, which

[42:07] somehow another have gotten lost and I

[42:11] don't know what to say about it. I know

[42:12] council's gone to one direction because

[42:14] of whatever has been recommended, but

[42:17] I'm not sure if that's really the best

[42:18] and safest things for us. We have

[42:23] unknown toxics on this area. We have an

[42:26] incomplete EIR that we're being asked to

[42:29] certify all for pressures for more and

[42:31] more houses. Brisbane

[42:34] is a very small town and now we're being

[42:38] asked to become again a more big huge

[42:40] city. California is trying to wipe out

[42:43] small towns. We've already lost our

[42:45] central valley to suburbia.

[42:48] California does not have enough water to

[42:52] have the housing we have right now. I

[42:55] don't know where they think they're

[42:56] going to get this water. I mean,

[42:57] Colorado River is dry for LA. [snorts] I

[43:01] mean, really, we have other issues, our

[43:03] environmental issues. This is a very,

[43:06] very fragile economy. Economy, I

[43:08] shouldn't say, I should should say place

[43:11] to live in terms of rising sea levels,

[43:15] liquefaction, earthquakes,

[43:18] fires, etc.

[43:20] to ask us to put fancy homes on a 5-ft

[43:24] clay cap [clears throat]

[43:26] that I just learned last yesterday, last

[43:29] night, is not going to be clean clay,

[43:32] but it's going to be stuff that's

[43:35] already there. Um the natural fill in

[43:38] the area uh of which is largely

[43:42] contaminated. And they said, "Well,

[43:43] we're going to clean it up and we're not

[43:44] going to use the stuff that's

[43:45] contaminated. We'll be able to sort it

[43:47] out maybe, more or less. It's not good

[43:50] enough. It's really not good enough. A

[43:52] 5-ft clay cap and you're going to build

[43:55] fancy houses on it and you're showing

[43:57] the pictures of trees and gardens

[43:59] doesn't work. What about the wetlands?

[44:03] The job of the wetlands is to absorb

[44:06] rising sea levels and floods. That is

[44:10] what we have had here protecting our

[44:13] little hamlet, our little city. one of

[44:16] the reasons why we're kind of up above

[44:18] the sea level more or less. But even

[44:21] right here, right now, where we are was

[44:23] marsh land when I was a child. People

[44:26] don't seem to realize how close we are.

[44:29] One of the reasons that the old county

[44:31] road is the shape it is is that was the

[44:33] shoreline.

[44:36] I'm going to be 78 years old. That

[44:38] wasn't that long ago.

[44:41] Do you think mother nature will have a

[44:43] hand in what we're going to do? Are we

[44:45] going to defy mother nature and try and

[44:47] do something that's not going to be

[44:49] safe? Who's going to be responsible?

[44:53] We need to have more public input, I

[44:56] feel, than what we've had. We've been

[44:58] silenced. You get a chance to talk and

[45:00] then you're hush.

[45:03] In my view, the owner has no intention

[45:07] whatsoever to do anything with this

[45:09] property. They simply want the permits

[45:13] so they can sell it for more money. I

[45:15] would suggest that any permits we give,

[45:17] any agreement we give, any uh okay to

[45:21] any kind of a specific plan is limited

[45:25] to that owner only. Period. No more

[45:29] stuff like we had on the Northeast Ridge

[45:31] with Crocker Land immediately selling

[45:33] things to Brookfield who ignored

[45:35] everything that we were supposed to do

[45:37] there.

[45:38] I say be careful. Don't do it. Okay. So,

[45:42] if we do finally come to an occlusion

[45:45] for a decent

[45:47] safe

[45:49] specific plan for this area, it's only

[45:53] for this owner. If somebody else wants

[45:55] to buy it and come in, they can start

[45:57] over again. I don't know if you realize

[46:00] the financing how they're planning to do

[46:02] it, but it's not very sturdy.

[46:07] warning

[46:09] again.

[46:11] Okay, thank you.

[46:14] All right, we're moving back into our

[46:16] topics. So, the last public hearing on

[46:19] September 29th, we adjourned the

[46:20] meeting. Some council members still had

[46:23] questions for staff on the topic. We

[46:25] were on land use and plan designs that

[46:29] encompasses the following subtopics.

[46:32] distribution and intensity of land uses,

[46:35] location of open spaces and amenities,

[46:38] interface with sea level rise. And the

[46:41] second topic from the last meeting was

[46:45] design topics which encompasses

[46:47] objective standards and design

[46:49] guidelines and the roundhouse.

[46:53] Um

[46:57] Ingred, do you still have slips from

[46:59] last week? Okay. So, for the people who

[47:03] are here who

[47:05] if you already spoke last time, please

[47:08] don't fill out another slip. But if you

[47:10] were one of the few, you left and you

[47:13] had a question, if you would give Ingred

[47:15] a slip, we'll get to you. But I want to

[47:17] first continue with the council

[47:19] questions. Um, we're not going to go by

[47:23] the topics. I'm going to throw a whole

[47:25] ball of wax all in one. any of those

[47:27] subheadings are fair game if you want to

[47:30] talk about any of them in any order

[47:32] because we already kind of did that and

[47:34] I will call on each council member I ask

[47:37] you to limit to one question I'll go

[47:40] back down the dis again and everybody

[47:42] will keep getting chances but one

[47:44] question at a time if you would please

[47:47] um so city clerk if you could gather

[47:50] speaker slips

[47:53] and let's just start.

[47:57] » Council member Kern, you don't always

[47:59] get to go first. Let's have you go

[48:01] first.

[48:01] » Except this meeting is

[48:02] » Except this meeting. Mayor, um,

[48:04] » We're going to make sure you get to go

[48:06] first.

[48:07] » Um, so the question I have is a

[48:08] carryover. Uh, many people know that I'm

[48:10] a former res resident of the city of San

[48:12] Francisco. I lived for a number of years

[48:15] on Barry Street. Barry Street is the

[48:17] street in Mission Bay that uh, directly

[48:19] deadends into Oracle Park.

[48:23] Uh my question uh staff already has a

[48:25] copy of this question. Uh I sent it to

[48:27] them in advance. But my question is

[48:29] Mission Bay, also known as Soma in San

[48:32] Francisco, is often cited as a model for

[48:34] the Baylands, but highdensity corridors

[48:37] like Berry Street face constant curb and

[48:39] traffic lane congestion from tenant move

[48:41] in and move outs. This is a densely

[48:44] populated area. This becomes extreme

[48:46] around the first of the month, and don't

[48:48] even add a ball game to that. When

[48:50] leases turn over, how specifically does

[48:52] the Baylands plan account for off-

[48:54] streetet loading bays, staging areas,

[48:57] and curb management to handle these

[48:59] monthly peak turnover cycles very

[49:02] specific to tenants, not just general

[49:04] deliveries?

[49:12] Thank you, council member. I'm Matt

[49:15] going with fair peers. Uh, so we get to

[49:17] start the transportation portion early

[49:19] here in responding. Um, there are

[49:21] several sections that describe how

[49:24] driveway and loading operations would

[49:26] work, including day one activities. The

[49:28] examples that you're citing are are

[49:30] great and they really they led San

[49:32] Francisco to change how they entitled

[49:35] their own projects by requiring what

[49:37] they call driveway and loading

[49:39] operations plan that create clear design

[49:42] standards so and procedures so that any

[49:45] new developments that come in have to

[49:48] follow them to for example make sure

[49:51] that they reserve uh spaces on the

[49:53] street for those types of loading

[49:55] activities or they have to be able to

[49:57] show how they can accommodate them

[49:59] within the project site itself. So

[50:02] within the balance specific plan takes

[50:04] takes a note from that um and includes

[50:08] uh clear standards for um [snorts]

[50:11] designing driveways, designing for

[50:13] loading operations and having a clear

[50:15] protocol for for example if complaints

[50:18] arise that they're not following it,

[50:20] there's a clear procedure for how to how

[50:23] to address that. So that's that's

[50:24] embedded within the specific plan.

[50:27] um chapter six um and as well as uh

[50:31] within the supplemental design

[50:33] guidelines that are in the the

[50:35] transportation impact analysis report

[50:37] which is cited as a part of the

[50:39] mitigation measures.

[50:43] » Thank you.

[50:43] » Yep.

[50:46] » Council member Lent. Um,

[50:50] I asked a lot of questions during that

[50:52] last uh hearing and all my questions uh

[50:56] came out [clears throat] during that

[50:57] hearing. So, I don't have any questions

[50:59] regarding this particular uh topic.

[51:01] » Okay. Thank you. Fair enough. Council

[51:04] member Okonnell.

[51:07] » I don't have any questions on those

[51:09] topics.

[51:09] » Okay. Mayor Pro Tim Davis,

[51:13] » At a future meeting, can staff provide

[51:15] council with a final accounting of the

[51:18] 157 acres identified as open space/open

[51:22] area showing separately what acreage is

[51:27] permanent habitat conservation,

[51:30] what wetlands, what is publicly

[51:33] accessible

[51:35] parkland, what is recreational open

[51:37] space, and what is privately controlled.

[51:39] bold open area. So maybe a map

[51:44] that's shaded with figures

[51:48] for each so we just can see

[51:50] comparatively how much each section

[51:54] comes out to be on its own would be

[51:56] great.

[52:00] » Okay.

[52:02] Um I'm just going to go back since you

[52:05] do you have you have no further

[52:07] questions. Okonnell.

[52:09] » No, not at this time. Thank

[52:11] » So, let's just go back through the same

[52:13] route,

[52:13] » Madam Mayor. Sorry. Could we just

[52:15] clarify uh Council Member Davis's

[52:17] » Sure.

[52:18] » Question?

[52:18] » Absolutely.

[52:19] » Um there is figure

[52:22] » Oh, maybe 511 in the specific plan. I

[52:26] was want to see if that

[52:27] » Okay, let me see.

[52:29] » Is responsive so we can pull that out

[52:31] and specifically present on it at a

[52:33] future meeting. But I

[52:35] if you're looking for other information,

[52:36] we want to make sure we get that to

[52:38] » 511. [snorts]

[52:39] But it it would be good to

[52:43] Oh. Oh. 2.12.

[52:45] Maybe you could just add total figures.

[52:50] So for like combined community fields

[52:53] and Bay Trail

[52:55] because those are active recreation area

[52:57] just to have like totals.

[53:00] » Yeah, we can we can see like parsed out.

[53:03] » [clears throat]

[53:03] » And then um yeah that would be more

[53:06] clarity around that would be good. Thank

[53:08] you.

[53:08] » Okay, thanks for clarifying.

[53:11] Okay. So, I have a question um regarding

[53:13] the roundhouse.

[53:15] In this specific plan, there's a summary

[53:17] of a page in turnbowl in the appendix.

[53:20] As you know, it's a beautiful study

[53:23] about rehabilitation of the roundhouse,

[53:25] repurposing the renovation. It it's

[53:27] really impressive. I was very very

[53:29] impressed. Um it preserves historic

[53:32] attributes. It reinvisions new spaces

[53:34] within that. Um and then it also says

[53:38] rehabilitation of the roundhouse. is

[53:40] essential to the character of Roundhouse

[53:42] Park in the district. Who, and this is

[53:46] probably a question for the Bayands crew

[53:49] here, who do you envision taking on this

[53:52] restoration? And should we safely assume

[53:54] that the floor plans and features in

[53:56] that appendix are an exact blueprint of

[54:00] what to expect as the final product? If

[54:02] you could field that question.

[54:08] Is it in other words is it prescriptive

[54:10] or is it just an idea

[54:16] and and who would actually con do that

[54:19] renovation?

[54:21] » Good evening madame mayor council

[54:23] members Stephanie Shakovski the balance

[54:25] development inc. Um the the page and

[54:29] turn ball um uh presentation that's

[54:33] we've included in the specific plan.

[54:35] Yeah. Uh that's a real plan. Um and uh

[54:41] because it's the roundhouse, I mean we

[54:43] it has to be preserved as the

[54:45] roundhouse. So we have a whole adaptive

[54:46] reuse program for it that would be how

[54:50] it would be financed. Um I know we have

[54:52] a financing

[54:54] um whole session coming up but we

[54:57] envision it as being um

[55:01] financed by our typical you know private

[55:04] funders, equity funders, CFDs, HOAs and

[55:08] and commercial uh associations that

[55:10] would be putting funding into that. Um

[55:13] there also may be the ability to use

[55:15] some of the public art funds for the

[55:17] project. It will also be self-sustaining

[55:20] because if you read the whole

[55:21] description, it does have plans

[55:23] [clears throat] for shops and coffee

[55:25] houses and restaurants inside there and

[55:28] active uses. So, you know, theaters, um,

[55:32] things that could raise revenue for the

[55:34] long-term maintenance of the project.

[55:36] But yeah, um, the financing would be a

[55:39] whole stack of of funds that would put

[55:41] it together. Yeah. And and and we love

[55:44] the roundhouse and it's great. And not

[55:45] only is it being preserved, but it's

[55:47] also being connected with that long

[55:49] linear park that goes through the whole

[55:51] project.

[55:53] And is that answer?

[55:56] » Sure.

[55:56] » Thank you.

[55:57] » Council member Kern, you're up.

[56:00] » No further questions.

[56:01] » Okay. Mayor Prom Davis.

[56:04] » Yes.

[56:06] So, the final E says the site specific

[56:08] review process is intended to be

[56:10] flexible enough to accommodate changing

[56:12] recreational needs over time. And I just

[56:15] want to make sure that that flexibility

[56:17] is preserved within this specific plan.

[56:20] And was also wondering what authority

[56:23] the city would have to require a

[56:24] different type of recreational or

[56:26] community amenity than those shown in

[56:28] the illustrative plans. I'm not saying

[56:31] that we would, but we may say, "Oh, we

[56:35] it's global warming and it's so hot now

[56:38] and we need another pool."

[56:41] Is there that flexibility there to

[56:43] change a recreational

[56:47] um amenity in that way?

[56:53] Actually, that would probably be a

[56:54] development agreement item versus just

[56:56] an open space item. So, I would take

[56:58] that exam. That's probably not a great

[57:00] example, but um

[57:04] just the overall question I think is

[57:06] still worth responding to.

[57:12] So it's the probably the most responsive

[57:15] portion of this is described in chapter

[57:17] nine of the EIR. So as each um park open

[57:23] space and trail area is proposed in

[57:26] connection with future development um

[57:29] there are sight specific improvement

[57:31] plans that are required for those open

[57:33] spaces and um then the um parks and

[57:37] recreation committee has actually

[57:38] delegated authority under the specific

[57:40] plan to review those spite sight

[57:43] specific approvals and um issue issue

[57:47] permits for the sight specific improve

[57:49] improvements as part of that open space

[57:50] plan and then they would be doing that

[57:52] applying the uh framework and policy

[57:56] direction of the specific plan.

[57:59] » Okay.

[58:01] All right. Um Beayshore Cal Train

[58:04] Station Plaza.

[58:06] The specific plan shows an illustrative

[58:09] concept diagram.

[58:12] And I wondered again a question for the

[58:14] Bayance crew. Is there an awareness that

[58:16] San Francisco planning has a document

[58:19] called the Beayshore multimodal facility

[58:21] study and since you're on the border

[58:24] there have you had any coordination with

[58:28] them because they have four alternative

[58:31] concepts have you had any dialogue with

[58:45] Um, also I don't know if we're getting

[58:47] into transportation. I do have some

[58:48] slides to share on that topic when we're

[58:50] ready for it. Um, so on the Beayshore uh

[58:53] Cal Train station plaza, we have not

[58:56] discussed the exact design with them at

[58:59] this time. However, we have had initial

[59:01] discussions with SF planning and SFMTA

[59:04] about regional coordination around some

[59:06] of the infrastructure um related to

[59:09] transportation. So, the plaza will

[59:11] probably come into play there. Um and

[59:13] once we get to the point of actually

[59:15] putting forward a design, we will

[59:16] obviously have to coordinate with those

[59:18] relevant stakeholders to make sure we're

[59:20] meeting um their policy objectives.

[59:22] » Okay. I I think you need to talk to them

[59:25] because they have different ways of

[59:26] approaching the station. Even you're

[59:28] talking roads.

[59:30] » Sure.

[59:30] » And so that's that's pretty critical to

[59:32] have an advanced.

[59:34] » Um, Mayor Prom, you have another

[59:37] question.

[59:38] » Yes.

[59:40] This is something we've briefly talked

[59:42] about. Um,

[59:44] between staff and I and maybe at another

[59:47] meeting, but I think it's good to have

[59:49] something just like a little bit more

[59:50] clear. So given the environmental

[59:53] history of the baylands and the fact

[59:54] that remediation and landfill closure

[59:56] are regulated by um agencies other than

[1:00:00] Brisbane, could we secure permanent

[1:00:03] public access, maintenance and utility

[1:00:05] easements for infrastructure, open

[1:00:07] space, parks, etc.

[1:00:09] While the underlying property remains

[1:00:12] privately owned and the responsibility

[1:00:14] of the landfill cap remediation, any

[1:00:17] future environmental failures remains

[1:00:20] the with the responsible property owner

[1:00:22] or other legally responsible party. And

[1:00:25] I know we've kind of talked about this,

[1:00:27] so sorry for asking this again, but I it

[1:00:31] would be great if that is possible to

[1:00:33] come back maybe with some language of

[1:00:36] how we could make that very defined in

[1:00:39] this specific plan.

[1:00:41] » Yes. So the the short answer is yes, it

[1:00:44] is possible to do um dedications for

[1:00:48] open space that are private privately

[1:00:50] owned and publicly accessible. Um, and

[1:00:53] then work out different different to

[1:00:55] types of ownership structures,

[1:00:57] maintenance agreements, um, and, you

[1:01:00] know, operating agreements for how the

[1:01:03] public has access to those spaces

[1:01:05] without the city needing to take fee

[1:01:08] title to the property itself and all the

[1:01:10] the liability that's associated with

[1:01:12] that. Um, we can,

[1:01:15] um, if the direction from the council is

[1:01:18] to explore having that be a, a mandatory

[1:01:22] way of taking, um, the open space and

[1:01:25] providing public access, we can uh,

[1:01:28] bring forward some language for you to

[1:01:29] consider around that.

[1:01:30] » Thank you.

[1:01:31] » Okay. Again, in the land use section,

[1:01:35] there's a section about affordable

[1:01:36] housing program and it it's very

[1:01:39] interesting because it talks about

[1:01:41] phasing to ensure timely delivery of the

[1:01:44] required affordable units. It mentions

[1:01:46] 15% affordable

[1:01:49] and

[1:01:51] I recall

[1:01:53] Stephanie, you in the first public

[1:01:55] hearing talked about that your staff

[1:01:59] here, you're not a developer. your

[1:02:01] development manager. So, you're an agent

[1:02:04] of the property owner and that you would

[1:02:06] be working perhaps in partnership with

[1:02:08] other developers. So, I was trying to

[1:02:11] think this through ever since that

[1:02:13] meeting and when I came upon this

[1:02:15] section.

[1:02:16] If you have neighborhoods that are going

[1:02:18] to be built by multiple developers, how

[1:02:21] do you plan to deliver that affordable

[1:02:24] housing in a timely basis? because in

[1:02:26] the same section it talks about a goal

[1:02:28] of 514 affordable units and I don't need

[1:02:33] to reiterate but I will the emphasis in

[1:02:37] the Bay Area on this project having not

[1:02:40] just housing but affordable housing. So

[1:02:43] how will you go about if that is the

[1:02:46] goal to deliver it in a timely basis

[1:02:49] with multiple developers? How are you

[1:02:51] going to do that or have you can you

[1:02:53] tell us anything about that?

[1:03:00] Madame Mayor, we again we have a hearing

[1:03:03] on phasing coming up in the very near

[1:03:05] future. Um but we are required under the

[1:03:09] Brisbane and in our specific plan the

[1:03:11] 15% inclusionary um and we are planning

[1:03:15] for that uh in a phased fashion. So for

[1:03:18] example the Beayshore district if that's

[1:03:21] the first phase that goes through that's

[1:03:25] 2 110 units of affordable housing.

[1:03:28] » Um, and so we would, you know, we would

[1:03:32] plan for that. Often these affordable,

[1:03:35] there's a combination of the for rent

[1:03:37] and the and the for sale. The for rent

[1:03:39] is almost always um projects that are

[1:03:42] done by the nonprofit um affordable

[1:03:45] community. And so the way that this has

[1:03:48] worked on other projects and again um

[1:03:52] I'd like to use the Bay Meadows project

[1:03:54] as an example because it's a fairly

[1:03:55] recent example of a master planned um

[1:03:59] mixeduse community that's been built out

[1:04:01] in San Monteo [clears throat] there. The

[1:04:05] uh the developer and the city partnered

[1:04:07] with Bridge Housing to build the

[1:04:09] affordable units on on that project. And

[1:04:11] that's typically how it works is that

[1:04:13] you the the private developer who's

[1:04:16] building the housing um will partner

[1:04:19] with a for-profit I sorry a nonprofit um

[1:04:23] affordable housing developer because

[1:04:25] they can access all of the federal,

[1:04:28] state, and local grant and funds that

[1:04:30] are available for for those projects. So

[1:04:34] conceptually that's how it works and

[1:04:36] we'll talk more about that in the

[1:04:38] phasing,

[1:04:39] » Right? Theoretically, if if you have

[1:04:42] different developers and it could go

[1:04:43] over 10 years, it could go 20 years

[1:04:45] doing different housing neighborhoods,

[1:04:48] are you going to prioritize

[1:04:51] completing all of those affordable units

[1:04:53] first? First

[1:04:56] » Um in in if you have maybe some more

[1:05:00] expensive market rate, are are we going

[1:05:02] to see the completion of the affordable

[1:05:05] housing before we get into other

[1:05:07] neighborhoods?

[1:05:09] Well, I think the way that we've talked

[1:05:11] about the phasing is like the first

[1:05:13] phase, the beayhore district,

[1:05:14] [clears throat]

[1:05:15] you know, would would have its full, you

[1:05:17] know, housing, commercial, and

[1:05:18] affordable component to it. Um,

[1:05:23] » It would not be advisable to make sure

[1:05:26] that the affordable goes first. And the

[1:05:28] affordable nonprofits will tell you that

[1:05:31] and they have been under those kinds of

[1:05:34] development agreements in the past and

[1:05:36] it just doesn't work for them because

[1:05:38] often um it takes them a few years to

[1:05:41] put that very complicated stack together

[1:05:45] which you know it includes HUD dollars

[1:05:47] and lots of state grants and state bonds

[1:05:49] and it takes anywhere from two to four

[1:05:52] years for them to actually put that

[1:05:54] stack together. if the private market is

[1:05:56] ready to go, you don't want to hold that

[1:05:58] up.

[1:05:59] » So, you want the commitments for the

[1:06:00] housing, but you don't want to say, "Oh,

[1:06:02] and you can't build this until the

[1:06:04] affordable goes first." So, you want to

[1:06:06] be flexible, but you want to make sure

[1:06:08] that, you know, it's all planned for.

[1:06:10] But the nonprofits will tell you that,

[1:06:12] yeah, they're they're they're not big

[1:06:14] fans of being told you have to go first

[1:06:17] because they struggle to put their

[1:06:19] capital stack together.

[1:06:20] » Okay. So the ambitious goal of 514,

[1:06:23] we're not sure when that would be

[1:06:25] completed.

[1:06:26] » Well, it'll be completed in phases.

[1:06:29] » Um the project at 2,200 units is a 15%

[1:06:33] inclusion area. That's 330 units. The

[1:06:36] 514 is taken from the housing element.

[1:06:39] Those are goals for the city.

[1:06:41] » So um that's something that we need we

[1:06:44] would need to discuss.

[1:06:46] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:06:47] » Yeah, madame mayor. Yes,

[1:06:50] » If I may. Um, and this is to staff.

[1:06:54] Isn't affordable housing only

[1:06:58] attributed by density? It's not what it

[1:07:02] really costs.

[1:07:04] » That is true when you're doing the

[1:07:06] planning and the housing element. So

[1:07:08] when uh the housing element creates the

[1:07:11] obligation to

[1:07:13] uh plan for housing um you can assume

[1:07:17] that housing that is zoned for a

[1:07:19] particular density will be developed at

[1:07:22] an affordable rate. So you can plan for

[1:07:25] that in your housing element when um

[1:07:28] development permits are actually issued

[1:07:30] and you report that on your annual

[1:07:33] progress report to HCD. Um that you then

[1:07:37] report the actual um

[1:07:42] sales price or rental price of that

[1:07:44] unit. Uh whether those are lower income,

[1:07:47] moderate income or above moderate

[1:07:50] income. Um so it depends at what stage

[1:07:53] in the process you're looking whether

[1:07:54] you can assume it will be affordable

[1:07:56] based on density that works during the

[1:07:58] housing element process um and then

[1:08:01] later during actual development um the

[1:08:04] actual uh rents are what what matter.

[1:08:09] So there's two different measurements of

[1:08:14] what HCD considers affordable housing by

[1:08:17] density only and sales price later when

[1:08:22] something is actually built whether it

[1:08:23] really is affordable and

[1:08:28] I'll get into the financing another

[1:08:30] time.

[1:08:32] » Okay,

[1:08:34] Mayor Prochem,

[1:08:37] » I have three questions left. Just so you

[1:08:39] have an idea. Um during the EI comment

[1:08:43] period, commenters asked whether each

[1:08:45] parcel should establish a sightsp

[1:08:47] specific groundwater baseline before

[1:08:50] development so that the city could track

[1:08:52] changing groundwater conditions over

[1:08:54] time. The final ER concluded that this

[1:08:56] wasn't necessary because the projectwide

[1:08:59] modeling showed no significant impact at

[1:09:02] 6 1/2 to 6.9 ft of sea level rise. Does

[1:09:06] the specific plan contain any ongoing

[1:09:08] groundwater monitoring or tr I mean I'm

[1:09:12] assuming that

[1:09:14] the regulatory bodies are monitoring the

[1:09:16] groundwater for contaminants but I'm

[1:09:19] hoping that we would be tracking the

[1:09:20] groundwater so that we um could trigger

[1:09:24] a mechanism that will allow the city to

[1:09:27] detect if actual conditions differ from

[1:09:30] our assumptions given the rate at which

[1:09:33] sea level is rising.

[1:09:41] Well, unfortunately, since we ran out of

[1:09:44] time at our last meeting, um the

[1:09:47] um our sea level rise and groundwater

[1:09:50] expert wasn't available for this

[1:09:51] evening's meeting. So, we'll yeah, if we

[1:09:54] can circle back to that

[1:09:56] » And clean it up um in connection with

[1:09:58] either the remediation or phasing

[1:09:59] discussion, we'll we'll bring that back

[1:10:01] to you.

[1:10:01] » Okay.

[1:10:03] I have no more questions. So, you're on

[1:10:06] for next two.

[1:10:07] » Okay. So, another sea level rise

[1:10:09] question. Sorry, I'll just state it and

[1:10:11] then

[1:10:11] » Yeah, that would be great if you if you

[1:10:13] say it for the record and then um we'll

[1:10:15] have the the

[1:10:16] » Explanation. Maybe you might know.

[1:10:18] So, um, the final EI responded to

[1:10:22] Calrans's comment, um, about using the

[1:10:25] 2030 sea level rise projections by

[1:10:28] explaining that the specific plans 6.5

[1:10:31] to 6.9 ft 2100 analysis is within

[1:10:36] approximately a half a foot of the 2030

[1:10:39] projection referenced by Calrans.

[1:10:42] um

[1:10:44] and

[1:10:46] building for building infra or

[1:10:48] infrastructure project constructed later

[1:10:50] in the buildout. How does the specific

[1:10:53] plan ensure that applicable 100-year

[1:10:57] projection is um actually re-evaluated

[1:11:00] at that time that the project is

[1:11:01] constructed rather than simply relying

[1:11:03] on today's 2100 assumptions. So again,

[1:11:06] thinking about the future, thinking that

[1:11:08] this project will take several years, if

[1:11:10] not several decades potentially to build

[1:11:13] out, I just want to make sure that

[1:11:15] there's something in there that's

[1:11:17] [snorts] allowing flexibility to analyze

[1:11:21] adjusting conditions.

[1:11:23] » Yeah. and and that the infrastructure

[1:11:25] section does address um the it's a

[1:11:30] ongoing application of updated standards

[1:11:33] particularly with respect to um sea

[1:11:37] level rise and flood level um to ensure

[1:11:40] that um there are current standards

[1:11:42] being applied to development permits as

[1:11:45] those are are coming through at at that

[1:11:47] time.

[1:11:48] » Okay.

[1:11:50] Um and then last my last question is

[1:11:52] about the roundhouse. Um, so if

[1:11:54] programming of the roundhouse is allowed

[1:11:56] to change,

[1:11:57] um, what limitations does the specific

[1:12:00] plan place on that future use? So, for

[1:12:02] example, if the roundhouse ultimately

[1:12:05] was used primarily for a restaurant or a

[1:12:07] cafe, as the applicant said tonight, or

[1:12:09] event venue, are there requirements that

[1:12:12] preserve [snorts] some kind of public

[1:12:15] museum, educational, cultural, or

[1:12:17] community component so that the public

[1:12:20] always has some level of access? So they

[1:12:23] might not want to visit the roundhouse

[1:12:25] to patronize a specific business, but

[1:12:27] they might want to be able to access

[1:12:30] that space to appreciate its historical

[1:12:33] significance. And so is there anything

[1:12:36] in there that ensures that this will

[1:12:41] always not just be businessdriven, but

[1:12:44] an asset to the community?

[1:12:52] We have our I believe we have our

[1:12:53] historic resource uh consultant online.

[1:12:57] So if we could uh her name is Kathy uh

[1:13:00] bring her on as a panelist and then she

[1:13:03] could answer the question.

[1:13:05] » I am actually already a panelist.

[1:13:07] » Ah thank you.

[1:13:08] » Yes. Um, so just to make sure that I

[1:13:11] understand the question, are we trying

[1:13:15] to clarify that potential future uses

[1:13:18] are not solely businessdriven, but

[1:13:20] rather that there will be a historic

[1:13:23] interpretation element to the roundhouse

[1:13:26] in future uses?

[1:13:27] » Correct.

[1:13:34] The EIR requires that the um

[1:13:38] historic preservation component go

[1:13:41] through design review um through

[1:13:44] planning commission

[1:13:46] which would which will be required to

[1:13:48] get approvals for future adaptive reuse

[1:13:52] under the secretary of interior

[1:13:53] standards um guidelines. So at that

[1:13:57] point those kinds of decisions would be

[1:13:59] made. I don't obviously I will defer to

[1:14:02] planning but I don't believe that there

[1:14:04] is an explicit statement requiring the

[1:14:06] historic interpretation element to the

[1:14:10] building as part of the adaptive reuse.

[1:14:12] » Mhm. I know like a museum was listed as

[1:14:16] a potential use, which I had concerns

[1:14:18] that how could you require a museum that

[1:14:22] may not be able to sustain itself with

[1:14:26] patrons. But I think that having some

[1:14:29] kind of

[1:14:31] space earmarked, whether it's just an

[1:14:34] exhibit that's always open and costs

[1:14:36] nothing, you know, I imagine there'll be

[1:14:38] things that you will find as you're

[1:14:41] doing your restoration that could be put

[1:14:44] on display and old photos. So, I just

[1:14:46] think paying homage to

[1:14:49] the roundhouse and how special it is um

[1:14:54] is essential. you know, just some kind

[1:14:56] of area.

[1:14:57] » Definitely. And if I may comment on

[1:14:59] that, um, to clarify Stephanie's point a

[1:15:03] little bit, um, so the the roundhouse is

[1:15:05] intended to mostly be a public amenity.

[1:15:08] So, it is intended to be this open air

[1:15:11] amphitheater that uses the the steel

[1:15:13] beams of the roundhouse as sort of the

[1:15:16] frame of that structure. And then, of

[1:15:19] course, all of that will include a

[1:15:21] public park. So really public access is

[1:15:24] at the heart of the plan for the

[1:15:26] roundhouse. So when Stephanie mentioned

[1:15:27] like a restaurant cafe that would

[1:15:30] probably be like a small component of

[1:15:31] that space. So if you think about if you

[1:15:33] go to somewhere like um

[1:15:36] you know like even in Golden Gate Park

[1:15:38] they might have a little kiosk where you

[1:15:40] can get coffee and snacks and things

[1:15:42] like that. So I think that's more of the

[1:15:44] intention rather than converting the

[1:15:45] entire roundhouse structure into a

[1:15:47] standalone restaurant. Um, and then

[1:15:50] definitely agree with you on maintaining

[1:15:52] some educational signage, whether that's

[1:15:54] a full-blown museum or, you know, some

[1:15:56] publicly available plaques. We've

[1:15:59] actually done a lot of that in our

[1:16:00] offices, which are the former Schlleg

[1:16:02] lock building. Um, if you ever want to

[1:16:04] come visit, you can see we salvaged a

[1:16:06] lot of um, old signage and things like

[1:16:08] that from the Schlage factory, and have

[1:16:09] that displayed throughout the building.

[1:16:11] » Awesome. Thank you. Those are all my

[1:16:13] questions.

[1:16:13] » All right. Now, I have some slips here.

[1:16:16] Let me first just read off the names and

[1:16:18] I want you to be honest with me. If you

[1:16:21] spoke on this topic the last public

[1:16:23] hearing, this is not a time to speak

[1:16:26] again. This is

[1:16:29] continuing over for people who did not

[1:16:32] get the chance to speak because they

[1:16:34] left the previous public hearing. So the

[1:16:37] slips I have are for Clark Conway, Karen

[1:16:40] Cunningham,

[1:16:42] Dan Linda Salammon, and Michelle Sammon.

[1:16:47] So, Clark Conway, I don't see here.

[1:16:52] Karen Cunningham, I know you were here.

[1:16:54] I remember.

[1:16:57] I'm old. I had to go home. I was too

[1:16:59] tired.

[1:17:01] So, I I think my comments slash

[1:17:04] questions relate to both

[1:17:08] the uh land use and design plans. Um,

[1:17:12] I'm just going to hearken back just a a

[1:17:14] little bit when when

[1:17:17] this all came about in the beginning. We

[1:17:20] had diaramas and,

[1:17:23] you know, various layouts that we got to

[1:17:26] play with. We got to look at, we got to

[1:17:29] look at what, you know, what was maybe

[1:17:31] being proposed.

[1:17:34] And I, for one, found them incredibly

[1:17:38] helpful.

[1:17:39] uh if there's a chance that we can do

[1:17:42] this maybe you know out at the Bayland's

[1:17:45] office site so people can go and look at

[1:17:48] what is being proposed what what are we

[1:17:50] really talking about here because from a

[1:17:54] physical perspective that brings me then

[1:17:57] to the question of somewhere and I'm I

[1:18:00] do apologize I don't know what page this

[1:18:02] is on in the EIR there is a me a mention

[1:18:06] of 50 ft of philill and I I think many

[1:18:10] people in Brisbane are going to want to

[1:18:11] know what the heck does that look like?

[1:18:14] For example, you know, what does it look

[1:18:16] like from being up on um the top of

[1:18:19] Hanbolt looking down on the bays? What

[1:18:22] what does that 50 ft of fill look like?

[1:18:24] Are we excavating and then bringing it

[1:18:26] up 25 ft? What does it look like? And

[1:18:28] also um you know, we're talking about

[1:18:31] the roundhouse and then what does that

[1:18:34] look like if we drive down Beayshore

[1:18:36] Boulevard? If we're talking about is

[1:18:38] there a 50-ft retaining wall to the east

[1:18:43] of Beayshore as we're driving, what do

[1:18:46] these things look like? I think that

[1:18:47] would be really super important. We're

[1:18:50] talking about working on this

[1:18:52] expeditiously

[1:18:54] and I I think if people have something

[1:18:56] that they can go look at uh as we're

[1:18:59] moving through this process, it's going

[1:19:01] to make the process go faster as well.

[1:19:04] So, I think they are the um most

[1:19:06] important things from what I fell asleep

[1:19:09] on last time and I'll leave you to it.

[1:19:11] Okay,

[1:19:14] Dan, I think Dan left.

[1:19:18] Linda Salmon, you're still here.

[1:19:28] I'm still here. and we got a chance to

[1:19:31] speak a little bit about what was going

[1:19:33] on, but we were in the middle of the of

[1:19:36] the of the whole thing. And so I

[1:19:39] suggested that we wait until everything

[1:19:41] was done and had a chance to still speak

[1:19:45] about what was being decided, but it

[1:19:48] doesn't like like we're there. So, I'm

[1:19:51] not really sure. And it says now land

[1:19:53] use and design plans. this whole thing.

[1:19:55] I'm sorry. It's very confusing to me. I

[1:19:58] mean, but in terms of topic,

[1:20:00] transportation, all these different

[1:20:02] topics, are you saying that we've all

[1:20:05] already decided about everything that's

[1:20:07] going on or are we are these things that

[1:20:09] are still coming up? I mean, I'm sorry.

[1:20:12] things just seem to have gotten to be a

[1:20:14] bit of a jumble for me in terms of

[1:20:18] asking for public comment in the middle

[1:20:20] of not of doing something and now asking

[1:20:24] for that same public comment again when

[1:20:27] I'm I'm not

[1:20:28] » Maybe I can clarify right now if you if

[1:20:30] you have comments or questions on

[1:20:33] anything on land use and the design

[1:20:36] plans those were the two topics from the

[1:20:38] last public hearing either one this

[1:20:41] would be the

[1:20:42] I didn't see any design plans talked

[1:20:45] about last last time or anything else.

[1:20:49] It seemed like we were you called for

[1:20:51] public hearing because it was getting

[1:20:53] late and you wanted people to have a

[1:20:56] chance to speak, but it's hard to have a

[1:20:58] chance to speak on something when you

[1:21:00] haven't seen the presentation. Thank

[1:21:02] you.

[1:21:03] » Okay,

[1:21:05] I've got Michelle

[1:21:08] on land use and design plans.

[1:21:11] Um, something that was said last night,

[1:21:14] uh, made me question, is Lazari, the

[1:21:17] Lazari fuel site part of the whole

[1:21:20] project, and is it owned by the same

[1:21:23] owners? Cuz they said something last

[1:21:25] night that made me think that it might

[1:21:28] not be because they weren't doing uh,

[1:21:30] soil testing there. So, that's a

[1:21:33] question you don't have to answer right

[1:21:34] this second, but I would like to know.

[1:21:36] and on land use. Um, you know, in 2018

[1:21:39] after measure JJ passed, uh, the,

[1:21:43] uh, Greg Vilin and the Bayands, whatever

[1:21:46] they were called then, uh, hosted a a

[1:21:49] charette, I guess, with this public. And

[1:21:52] land use was pretty much decided by

[1:21:54] where you stuck your, uh, little sticker

[1:21:57] everywhere. Um, and one of the things

[1:21:59] that I think is [clears throat] probably

[1:22:01] not where we should have them is where

[1:22:03] the community fields are. And um the

[1:22:07] reason I think that is that used to be a

[1:22:08] very active wetland. And actually if you

[1:22:11] go through the tunnel during the wet

[1:22:12] season, you'll find that it's still a

[1:22:14] very active wet area, but when uh BDI

[1:22:18] decided to bring in a huge amount of

[1:22:21] gravel and and start a tree nursery

[1:22:24] there, they pretty much destroyed a lot

[1:22:27] of the wetland that was there by where

[1:22:30] the old railroad tracks came through the

[1:22:31] tunnel. Um but that is a wet area and

[1:22:34] will get wet again um when

[1:22:39] it starts being used and also there is

[1:22:41] not any adequate parking uh in that area

[1:22:44] because machinery and it's bordered on

[1:22:46] one side by beayshore and machinery and

[1:22:48] equipment on the other side and the

[1:22:51] firehouse and the nursery on the one end

[1:22:53] and Ice House Hill on the other plus the

[1:22:56] railroad tunnel. And you know, people

[1:22:59] drive to take their kids to soccer, to

[1:23:02] take their kids to baseball, to take

[1:23:03] their kids I mean, a lot of times it's a

[1:23:05] problem at the pool when they have

[1:23:07] soccer um and out of town soccer

[1:23:10] matches. So, I'm concerned about that.

[1:23:12] I'm concerned about the Lazari area. I'm

[1:23:16] concerned about where they um plan to

[1:23:18] put a school, but I've already talked

[1:23:20] about that. And then on design plans, I

[1:23:22] was thinking about 22tory buildings. And

[1:23:25] of course, we just saw a lot of film

[1:23:26] from um 9/11.

[1:23:29] And uh 22 stories is really high and you

[1:23:33] have to have really a different kind of

[1:23:34] fire equipment and fire department to

[1:23:36] handle a 22 twostory building as opposed

[1:23:39] to a 12story building. And I just think

[1:23:41] that's really very high with the risk of

[1:23:44] uh earthquake and um and fire. And then

[1:23:48] on the roundhouse, I just want to make

[1:23:50] sure that everybody is really, really

[1:23:51] aware that where the roundhouse is now.

[1:23:55] [snorts]

[1:23:57] GPS- wise, it might be the same, but

[1:23:59] it's not going to be at the level where

[1:24:00] it is now. It will be completely taken

[1:24:03] apart. This was my understanding in

[1:24:06] 2018. Completely taken apart brick by

[1:24:09] brick. The area would be covered with a

[1:24:12] cap and protective soil because it's

[1:24:14] extremely toxic area and will be rebuilt

[1:24:18] higher up. I don't know how much higher

[1:24:20] up. At that time it was 30 ft. So when

[1:24:23] you're envisioning all of that, this is

[1:24:26] why Karen's idea of having a

[1:24:28] three-dimensional model of what it's

[1:24:30] going to look like would be very helpful

[1:24:31] for people. It's not going to be where

[1:24:33] it is now. So get that in your head. It

[1:24:36] will be a completely different structure

[1:24:38] kind of like the roundhouse. That's

[1:24:40] along the Embaradero. That doesn't look

[1:24:42] anything like a railroad roundhouse.

[1:24:44] Hopefully, this one will still look like

[1:24:45] a railroad roundhouse. Thank you.

[1:24:48] » So, could we have a staff clarification

[1:24:50] on I don't know how to say it. Laz

[1:24:52] Lazier Lazeri the fuel. What is it?

[1:24:57] » Lazari. Thank you. If that clarify if

[1:25:00] that is part of this project.

[1:25:14] So the this site is within the specific

[1:25:16] plan boundaries and it is also not one

[1:25:18] of those sites that's called out as kind

[1:25:20] of these existing use areas um that were

[1:25:23] kind of originally not part of the

[1:25:24] specific plan. But this one is in the

[1:25:26] specific plan, the Lazari fuel site. And

[1:25:28] I do believe it is uh owned by BDI or

[1:25:32] whichever entity you know Sunquest on

[1:25:34] text one of those.

[1:25:35] » So the answer is yes.

[1:25:37] » Correct.

[1:25:37] » Okay.

[1:25:39] And um the developer owner crew could

[1:25:45] you tell us is the is the roundhouse

[1:25:48] from what we saw in the appendix it

[1:25:50] doesn't talk about deconstructing and

[1:25:52] moving. Could you clarify that? Is it

[1:25:54] being deconstructed? I know that was

[1:25:57] mentioned years ago. I remember that

[1:25:59] about literally brick by brick taking it

[1:26:01] apart and reassembling elsewhere.

[1:26:06] » Mhm.

[1:26:07] » And that was to match the elevation of

[1:26:10] moving the dirt.

[1:26:12] » Excuse me, Madame Mayor. Uh if you read

[1:26:14] the page in turn, there are two

[1:26:17] alternatives for uh rehap

[1:26:21] rehabbing the roundhouse. And one of

[1:26:23] them does um have a brickby- brick re

[1:26:26] reconstruction.

[1:26:28] Um

[1:26:31] but that's not been decided yet today

[1:26:33] what which one which path we will take.

[1:26:35] » And sorry and is the other just demolish

[1:26:40] rebuild with um with

[1:26:45] » No, it was

[1:26:46] » To the same to the same

[1:26:49] » No, no, no. It's a it's a it's a state.

[1:26:52] It's a historic site, so you can't

[1:26:54] demolish it. You've got to

[1:26:55] » I think Greg was like said in the past

[1:26:59] that [clears throat] if you wanted it

[1:27:01] brick by brick and it all put together,

[1:27:04] that was one option, that would take a

[1:27:07] significant amount more money as opposed

[1:27:10] to just rebuilding it to the same

[1:27:12] blueprint that it was before, but not

[1:27:15] using all of the same materials.

[1:27:17] Obviously, there's a lot of holes that

[1:27:19] you'd [laughter] Yes.

[1:27:20] » Have to fill, but

[1:27:22] » Yeah. Yeah. But but right now, the plan

[1:27:24] there there are two separate plans in

[1:27:25] the page in Turbo. One of them is not a

[1:27:28] not a total rehab or not a total tear

[1:27:32] down and redo. It is a restructuring of

[1:27:35] a brick by brick by that material. And

[1:27:38] that is a slightly more expensive uh

[1:27:40] prospect than the one of just rehabbing

[1:27:42] the existing

[1:27:44] » Um

[1:27:45] uh roundhouse. And we can bring this

[1:27:49] back if if this is a top and we can talk

[1:27:51] more about the actual two alternatives

[1:27:54] for Paige and Turnball. We didn't

[1:27:56] weren't prepared to discuss it tonight,

[1:27:58] but we have lots of great slides and we

[1:28:02] can have a discussion on that. A brief

[1:28:03] one. I I think one of the confusions

[1:28:06] here is is if you're moving dirt, is the

[1:28:08] roundhouse going to end up down in a

[1:28:10] lower elevation if it just is rehabbed

[1:28:13] where it is versus

[1:28:15] » Moving it which is at the same

[1:28:18] elevation.

[1:28:18] » Exactly. And those are

[1:28:19] » Does that clarify what you're asking?

[1:28:21] » Well, I'm concerned about toxic

[1:28:24] remediation.

[1:28:26] » They can't hear you anyway.

[1:28:28] » It's okay, Michelle. She's gonna

[1:28:30] » Followup question,

[1:28:31] » Madame Mayor. is about toxic remediation

[1:28:35] in both of those areas. the Lazari fuel

[1:28:37] which last night they mentioned that

[1:28:39] they'd not testing there and it's not

[1:28:42] specifically mentioned in the EIR and

[1:28:45] the roundhouse being a highly

[1:28:47] contaminated area which was why they had

[1:28:51] talked about lifting it up or if

[1:28:55] [clears throat] you leave it in place

[1:28:56] exactly where it is how are you going to

[1:28:59] mitigate the amount of toxins there

[1:29:02] that's my real concern

[1:29:04] » Okay I think that that those will also

[1:29:07] probably come up under remediation now

[1:29:09] that you've brought brought those up.

[1:29:11] » Yeah. Okay.

[1:29:12] » But it affects the

[1:29:14] » Yes, understood. Uh Michael Barnes, I

[1:29:17] have you on design plans here.

[1:29:21] » Michael Barnes, Brisbane resident. I'm

[1:29:23] reacting to Ariel of Mountain Watch's

[1:29:25] request last meeting to maintain the

[1:29:28] Mission Blue Nursery, native plant

[1:29:30] nursery in its present location. And I

[1:29:32] don't think that's a necessarily a great

[1:29:36] idea. Um I think that actually the

[1:29:39] nursery could be on, you know,

[1:29:42] the the old tire dump for instance

[1:29:44] because none of those plants are

[1:29:45] actually grown in the ground. They're

[1:29:46] all grown up on tables. Um and it's not

[1:29:51] that I don't like the nursery. I'm

[1:29:52] actually the person who conceived of the

[1:29:54] nursery. I was on the city council at

[1:29:56] the time and I knew the right people to

[1:29:58] talk to and I actually made that deal

[1:30:00] happen to get the native plant nursery

[1:30:02] built in Brisbane. So I'm pro nursery

[1:30:06] but that the land that it sits on now is

[1:30:08] clean and I think you have ball fields

[1:30:11] or something scheduled for that and I

[1:30:12] think those are better uses. There's so

[1:30:14] little actually clean land in this

[1:30:17] bayand's development that I think you

[1:30:18] should use it for those kind of

[1:30:21] sensitive receptors that might want to

[1:30:22] be out there in the dirt and the nursery

[1:30:25] will be just fine on remediated land

[1:30:27] because again they're not growing plants

[1:30:30] in the soil of the bay lands. They're

[1:30:31] growing the plants on tables. Thank you.

[1:30:35] » Okay. All right. That concludes unless

[1:30:38] anyone council I believe we have

[1:30:41] concluded the uh recap of our last

[1:30:45] public hearing. So we can move on to

[1:30:47] tonight's

[1:30:50] the two topics for tonight are

[1:30:52] transportation and transit topics and

[1:30:54] the second topic is beayshore mobility

[1:30:57] plan. The first topic I'll break it down

[1:31:00] into the subheadings which are street

[1:31:02] sections

[1:31:04] interface with regional transportation

[1:31:07] network and finally the Geneva Avenue

[1:31:11] extension and I already had couple

[1:31:14] questions from people about anything

[1:31:16] having to do with just general

[1:31:18] circulation.

[1:31:20] you can fit that under street sections

[1:31:22] or regional transit I think would

[1:31:24] probably suffice unless it specifically

[1:31:28] is [snorts] related to Geneva Avenue

[1:31:30] extension. So if the um members of the

[1:31:34] public would fill out speaker slips if

[1:31:36] you haven't already and I failed to

[1:31:39] mention any members of the public at

[1:31:41] home you would have to raise your hand

[1:31:43] in Zoom.

[1:31:44] The city clerk will add you to a speaker

[1:31:47] card. Um, but right now I would like to

[1:31:51] proceed with the staff report on

[1:31:53] circulation and the beayhore mobility

[1:31:56] plan, please.

[1:31:59] » All right. Thank you. Uh, good evening,

[1:32:01] honorable mayor and council members. Uh,

[1:32:02] let's see get the slides up and u well,

[1:32:06] we'll have to shift it up on the fly a

[1:32:08] little bit because of the mayor's ball

[1:32:09] of wax from earlier. We had kind of

[1:32:11] something else in mind, but we can uh

[1:32:13] speed ahead some of these slides. So,

[1:32:15] let's get the presentation up.

[1:32:19] All right, let's go ahead

[1:32:23] more more slides.

[1:32:26] We can go ahead, I think, to

[1:32:30] we can pass the summary. We kind of

[1:32:32] tucked on that. We already passed land

[1:32:34] use. Let's go to slide

[1:32:37] um for the transportation topics because

[1:32:41] we're going to hand it over to Matt

[1:32:43] right away and get going.

[1:32:48] Great. Thank you Jeremiah and councel.

[1:32:51] Um yeah so once again I'm Minne with

[1:32:53] fair and peers and so we did the trans e

[1:32:56] transportation analysis for the city and

[1:32:58] so here to present on yeah

[1:33:00] transportation circulation topics. Next

[1:33:02] slide.

[1:33:04] So, first just uh the uh overall roadway

[1:33:07] network of the of the bay lands includes

[1:33:11] uh both regional kind of through routes

[1:33:14] as well as like local streets and really

[1:33:17] trying to identify a hierarchy of

[1:33:18] streets that allows people to move

[1:33:20] through easily to places like 101 as

[1:33:23] well as um to their final destinations

[1:33:25] recognizing those are different types of

[1:33:27] streets. And within each street

[1:33:29] typology, there are standards for

[1:33:32] pedestrian, bicycle, transit facilities,

[1:33:35] vehicle facilities, as well as the

[1:33:36] broader public realm uh functions. Next

[1:33:39] slide.

[1:33:41] And so when we're thinking about how

[1:33:43] access within the the site will be

[1:33:45] provided, you have your primary your

[1:33:48] regional arterial um which is the Geneva

[1:33:51] long anticipated Geneva Avenue extension

[1:33:53] that's been identified for a long time

[1:33:55] as a part of the general plan. And this

[1:33:56] will provide a really critical route um

[1:33:59] to and from uh highway 101 and allow

[1:34:01] some of those trips that are currently

[1:34:03] using beayhore from San Francisco and

[1:34:05] Daily City for example to uh have a more

[1:34:08] direct route to the freeway um with uh

[1:34:11] you know a little so that's going to

[1:34:13] have the highest level of traffic um as

[1:34:15] well as higher speeds generally um

[1:34:18] although with 30 mph design speeds to

[1:34:20] ensure that they conform with CALR

[1:34:22] standards for this type of environment.

[1:34:24] Then you have your minor arterial

[1:34:26] circulation with um including Tunnel

[1:34:28] Road being rebuilt as well as a Sierra

[1:34:30] Point Parkway extension that will

[1:34:33] connect uh Geneva Avenue to uh Lagoon

[1:34:35] Road. Within the west of Cal Train area,

[1:34:39] you have your collector road network

[1:34:41] that um will have a little bit higher

[1:34:43] higher higher traffic uh allowing for

[1:34:46] people to get to and from their

[1:34:47] destinations. Um and then at the very

[1:34:50] bottom you have your local roadway

[1:34:51] network and your green streets. And the

[1:34:53] local roadway network and green streets

[1:34:55] are really where your local access is

[1:34:56] provided via driveways. So slower slower

[1:34:59] speeds um fewer vehicles and

[1:35:02] particularly on the green streets um

[1:35:04] there it follows you know uh design

[1:35:06] standards from the state and state and

[1:35:09] federal level just making sure that um

[1:35:11] that it functions with slower speeds 15

[1:35:14] mph speed limits really oneb block

[1:35:15] access. It's really just they don't

[1:35:17] really go anywhere. So really providing

[1:35:19] that just uh hyper local access for for

[1:35:22] people at that level. Next slide.

[1:35:35] » I don't know if staff heard that. We've

[1:35:37] had a request. Could we zoom in on that

[1:35:40] so people can see the detail?

[1:35:46] » Is that enough? We we might have to shut

[1:35:49] off the captions, too. [laughter]

[1:35:58] » I don't know if the council heard, but

[1:36:00] we could turn off the uh captions and

[1:36:02] that will make it bigger, but because

[1:36:04] we've been including the captions. There

[1:36:06] you go.

[1:36:09] » Great. Well, I'll let this sit here for

[1:36:11] for a moment um just so you can digest

[1:36:14] it. Um

[1:36:16] and then I'd like to shift to the next

[1:36:20] slide which is bicycle network.

[1:36:23] Um which has a similar type of hierarchy

[1:36:27] of sorts um organized all around the

[1:36:30] principle that people who are riding

[1:36:31] bicycles should be able to ride on a low

[1:36:34] stress facility where anyone can feel

[1:36:36] comfortable. Um, but you do have those

[1:36:39] uh facilities such as Tunnel Avenue or

[1:36:43] uh Geneva that provide through routes

[1:36:45] through the site plan. And so you can

[1:36:46] imagine that Tunnel Avenue, for example,

[1:36:49] with uh new class 4 facilities would

[1:36:51] provide a comfortable straight through

[1:36:54] fast route for people traveling through

[1:36:55] the community. Well, then you have kind

[1:36:58] of while you then you have things like

[1:37:00] the class one bay trail that would be

[1:37:02] more for recreational users and include

[1:37:05] a mix of people walking, biking, um

[1:37:08] using other mobility devices um designed

[1:37:11] to modern bay trail design standards

[1:37:14] that are really focused on ensuring

[1:37:16] safety for uh people walking, biking,

[1:37:20] using ebikes, making sure that people

[1:37:22] don't, for example, go too fast on those

[1:37:24] types of facilities through through

[1:37:25] designs and other restrictions. ions.

[1:37:27] Um, and then at the bottom you have your

[1:37:29] class one internal trail that would

[1:37:31] connect down to Bayan uh to central

[1:37:34] Brisbane and your your green green

[1:37:36] shared streets as well providing that

[1:37:38] hyper local access I mentioned earlier.

[1:37:40] Next slide.

[1:37:43] And on the transit network, you have of

[1:37:45] course your your CALR station providing

[1:37:47] the the best uh regional transit access.

[1:37:50] And then you have uh the T3 SAM Trans

[1:37:53] and the planned east west BRT that would

[1:37:55] provide the kind of connections to other

[1:37:58] neighboring jurisdictions. Um as well as

[1:38:01] SAM Trans connecting down to central

[1:38:03] Brisbane. And then you have your local

[1:38:05] shuttle routes that are planned as a

[1:38:07] part of the specific plan itself. um

[1:38:09] those would be coordinated uh as well

[1:38:11] with the TDM plan required uh compliance

[1:38:14] required uh commute.org type shuttles um

[1:38:17] that that uh would need to serve both

[1:38:20] the project site and and Brisbane and

[1:38:22] the high quality transit services that

[1:38:24] are available. Next slide.

[1:38:28] So just thinking about how how this site

[1:38:31] connects to regional destinations, you

[1:38:33] really have your um in terms of how the

[1:38:36] roadway and trail network works. You

[1:38:37] have your regional connections,

[1:38:39] multimmoal connections via Geneva Avenue

[1:38:41] being your your kind of biggest

[1:38:43] connection there. Um Beayshore and

[1:38:45] Tunnel and Sier Point are all serving in

[1:38:47] their own roles with the Bay Trail

[1:38:49] connecting into, you know, San Francisco

[1:38:51] and down to Sierra Point via other kind

[1:38:54] of planned uh connections. And then you

[1:38:57] have a a main street class one trail

[1:38:59] that would provide safe routes to school

[1:39:01] access um between the proposed middle

[1:39:03] school um and the students who live in

[1:39:06] BA bay lands and going to the Beayshore

[1:39:09] Heights neighborhood elementary school.

[1:39:11] » Um and then once again that internal

[1:39:14] that's a little bit larger. Great.

[1:39:15] Thanks. and then your internal uh trail

[1:39:18] network that's connects kind of down the

[1:39:20] carfree spine down the middle of the

[1:39:22] specific plan area down into into town.

[1:39:26] Next slide.

[1:39:31] So just briefly on the Geneva Avenue

[1:39:33] extension um as this is really the one

[1:39:36] of the most critical additions as I

[1:39:38] mentioned um as shown here you would

[1:39:40] have a consistent cross-section um

[1:39:43] within and this is what's shown in the

[1:39:45] 2026 specific plan consistent

[1:39:47] cross-section with four vehicle travel

[1:39:50] lanes and then two BRT lanes down the

[1:39:52] middle to provide that planned BRT

[1:39:53] service um with stops um within the

[1:39:56] specific plan area itself. Um, and this

[1:39:59] would be uh once again connecting over a

[1:40:02] new bridge uh over Cal Train and then to

[1:40:05] the planned uh candlestick

[1:40:08] uh to the planned candlestick uh

[1:40:11] interchange rebuild as planned through

[1:40:12] the by county study from about a little

[1:40:15] over a decade ago. Next slide.

[1:40:20] Now shifting gears from the specific

[1:40:22] plan to the Beayshore mobility plan. So,

[1:40:24] this is a city city-led effort um

[1:40:27] looking at the city's general plan. Um

[1:40:30] and there are wide variety of goals here

[1:40:32] that are associated with the mo the

[1:40:34] mobility plan to just improve

[1:40:36] connectivity and improve the road as a

[1:40:38] local street compared to a regional

[1:40:40] role. And so, just thinking about this

[1:40:43] one uh primary goal is called out in the

[1:40:45] general plan for reducing beayshore's

[1:40:47] role as a regional cut through traffic.

[1:40:49] um really recognizing that there's you

[1:40:52] know it serves today primarily regional

[1:40:54] route there's continued growth around

[1:40:56] and how what can be what can the city do

[1:40:59] to reduce that role um so today you have

[1:41:03] six north south lanes I'm just looking

[1:41:05] at beayshore and tunnel and then next

[1:41:08] slide

[1:41:10] if you were to include uh the ba full

[1:41:13] beayshore mobility plan which would

[1:41:15] include a road diet down to two lanes on

[1:41:17] beayshore and then plus the Tunnel

[1:41:19] Avenue and the extension of Sear Point

[1:41:21] Parkway and and the Geneva Avenue

[1:41:24] extension. You can see, you know, just

[1:41:26] maintaining that north south

[1:41:27] connectivity but shifting the load um

[1:41:30] back from uh from Beayshore to Sier

[1:41:33] Point Parkway and uh Highway 101 and

[1:41:36] then Geneva extension most importantly

[1:41:39] providing that most direct connection

[1:41:40] for folks that are currently using

[1:41:42] Beayshore. Next slide.

[1:41:47] So the staff recommendation is for full

[1:41:50] implementation of the beayshore mobility

[1:41:52] plan and that includes both mitigations

[1:41:54] for safety improvements as well as the

[1:41:56] road diet uh from four to two lanes

[1:41:59] south of Geneva Avenue and then things

[1:42:01] like class one path safer crossings

[1:42:04] other other improvements as as well. Um

[1:42:07] and so just thinking about the future

[1:42:09] really this is the the critical issue

[1:42:11] that's been address been identified in

[1:42:14] studies going back to the prior bailand

[1:42:16] zir and the general plan um where you

[1:42:19] know regional Brisbane's really at the

[1:42:21] heart of being impacted by regional

[1:42:23] growth and regional growth is going to

[1:42:25] continue to add traffic to beayshore um

[1:42:28] and really uh local traffic is never

[1:42:32] expected to exceed two lanes and so this

[1:42:34] this would be one way

[1:42:36] to encourage drivers who are driving

[1:42:38] travel driving travel driving travel

[1:42:38] driving travel driving traveling through

[1:42:38] the city to shift back to 101. Next

[1:42:41] slide.

[1:42:44] And the planning commission recommended

[1:42:46] uh just focusing just adopting only the

[1:42:49] safety related mitigation measures um as

[1:42:52] a part of the Bayore mobility plan.

[1:42:53] There's many different components, road

[1:42:55] diet just being one of them and studying

[1:42:58] uh whether the continuous class one path

[1:43:00] or sidewalk could be done without the

[1:43:02] lane reduction. And so this uh this

[1:43:05] approach would address the project's

[1:43:07] impacts. It would uh improve crossings,

[1:43:09] for example, at Main Street for the safe

[1:43:10] routes to school access and and crossing

[1:43:13] at Geneva as well. Um as well as uh

[1:43:16] adding features to slow vehicles, but

[1:43:18] just broader speed kind of speeding

[1:43:20] issues or regional cut through traffic

[1:43:22] um could still be an issue um in the

[1:43:24] future. Um, but you would without the a

[1:43:28] road diet, you would continue to be able

[1:43:29] to have at least at minimum a sidewalk,

[1:43:32] um, if not a pathway on most of the

[1:43:34] sections, at least that are not

[1:43:35] constrained. Um, and while adding things

[1:43:38] like protected intersections for people

[1:43:40] walking and biking across the street,

[1:43:42] high visibility crossings with medians,

[1:43:44] and other features that have been

[1:43:45] identified in past studies, such as the

[1:43:47] city's local road safety plan, um, and

[1:43:50] SAM Trans bus stop improvement plans.

[1:43:53] And so with that, that's the extent of

[1:43:56] my presentation today.

[1:43:58] » Okay. Thank you very much. And I al I

[1:44:01] understand the uh applicant staff has

[1:44:03] also a report to make. Katie, is that

[1:44:06] you? Okay.

[1:44:16] Give a minute to get the slides up.

[1:44:19] Hi again. I'm Katie Lo Sunday with the

[1:44:22] Bayands team and I'm also joined with um

[1:44:26] representatives from Nelson Nygard who

[1:44:27] are the transportation planners that

[1:44:29] worked on um the specific plan.

[1:44:34] So if we go to the next slide

[1:44:38] and so I actually have a video here.

[1:44:41] Um, so I'd like to start our

[1:44:43] presentation tonight with this video

[1:44:45] which provides actually a more detailed

[1:44:47] 3D uh rendering of the Baylands. And as

[1:44:51] you watch this video, I think one of the

[1:44:53] things that comes through is how much

[1:44:54] thought has gone into the Baylands. This

[1:44:57] is a large complicated site. And from

[1:45:01] the beginning, our goal has been to

[1:45:02] create a place that feels like a

[1:45:04] collection of beautiful interconnected

[1:45:06] neighborhoods with walkable streets,

[1:45:09] welcoming public spaces, connections to

[1:45:12] transit, and a strong relationship

[1:45:14] between the built environment and the

[1:45:15] landscape. That vision has benefited

[1:45:18] from some of the most respected voices

[1:45:20] in urban design. Peter Calthorp served

[1:45:23] as the lead designer for the Baylands

[1:45:24] and his vision shaped the specific plan.

[1:45:27] He's one of the founders of the new

[1:45:29] urbanism movement which prioritizes

[1:45:31] walkable neighborhoods, a mix of uses

[1:45:34] and places designed for people rather

[1:45:37] than cars. He is also a recipient of the

[1:45:40] Urban Land Institutees JC Nichols Prize

[1:45:43] for visionaries in urban development

[1:45:45] which is one of the field's most

[1:45:46] significant honors. That expertise has

[1:45:50] also been complemented by other highly

[1:45:52] respected design firms including Gendler

[1:45:55] and OJB Landscape Architecture who we

[1:45:58] had with us at last week's meeting.

[1:46:01] But what matters more than the names or

[1:46:04] the awards is the experience that we're

[1:46:06] planning for at the balance. This

[1:46:09] project will deliver thousands of new

[1:46:10] homes and a variety of new commercial

[1:46:12] and retail spaces, all while

[1:46:14] establishing unique character for each

[1:46:17] neighborhood.

[1:46:19] And as we go back to the slides, I'll

[1:46:21] just make a few more comments on that

[1:46:24] aerial image. I hope that you can see

[1:46:26] that the attention that is given not

[1:46:28] only to the buildings but also to the

[1:46:30] spaces in between the sidewalks, plazas,

[1:46:34] parks, trails and gathering spaces, all

[1:46:36] the things that ultimately determine how

[1:46:38] a community feels. Of course, a

[1:46:41] rendering can only show so much and the

[1:46:43] balance will evolve over many years and

[1:46:45] new buildings will be refined as the

[1:46:47] project develops. And that is why

[1:46:49] specific plans are such important tools.

[1:46:52] They set the framework to guide future

[1:46:54] development. And as you'll hear about

[1:46:56] more tonight, the Balin specific plan

[1:46:58] establishes a strong foundation for a

[1:47:00] place that's walkable, connected,

[1:47:03] sustainable, and built to a high

[1:47:05] standard of design.

[1:47:07] So tonight, we'll be discussing the

[1:47:09] circulation network, which is built to

[1:47:11] accommodate all travel purposes and

[1:47:13] modes. And this plan is informed by the

[1:47:15] city's bicycle and pedestrian master

[1:47:17] plan and is consistent with the goals in

[1:47:19] the Brisbane uh general plan circulation

[1:47:23] element. Uh the network has five goals

[1:47:26] which you can see here on the slide and

[1:47:28] you've probably heard us refer to this

[1:47:30] project as a transit oriented

[1:47:32] development many times and this map

[1:47:35] really demonstrates why. Not only is

[1:47:37] there a Cal Train station in the middle

[1:47:38] of the bays, but the project is also

[1:47:41] served by SAM Trans, MUN bus, MUN light

[1:47:45] rail, and commute.org.

[1:47:47] When you combine this transit-rich

[1:47:49] location with new circulation features

[1:47:51] at the bays, we have an incredible

[1:47:53] opportunity to improve commutes, reduce

[1:47:56] emissions, and reduce our car usage as a

[1:47:59] whole. Next slide, please. [snorts]

[1:48:03] So creating an entirely new roadway

[1:48:05] network at the bays gives us an unusual

[1:48:07] opportunity to design streets around

[1:48:10] community experience rather than just

[1:48:12] moving cars from point A to point B.

[1:48:15] Geneva Avenue is a great example that

[1:48:17] you just heard about. This extension

[1:48:19] creates a major new east west um

[1:48:22] connection through the Baylands, but it

[1:48:24] is designed to still accommodate people

[1:48:26] walking, biking, taking transit, and

[1:48:29] also driving. The Geneva Avenue design

[1:48:32] also recognizes that this regional

[1:48:34] arterial roadway will pass alongside

[1:48:36] homes and neighborhood destinations. And

[1:48:38] the plan therefore incorporates

[1:48:40] landscaping, generous pedestrian areas,

[1:48:43] protected bicycle facilities, and

[1:48:45] carefully designed crossings to

[1:48:47] prioritize pedestrian safety and

[1:48:49] maintain the walkable neighborhood

[1:48:51] environment. As you move away from

[1:48:53] Geneva, the character of the streets

[1:48:55] deliberately changes. Again, you just

[1:48:57] heard a little bit about this, but the

[1:48:59] collector streets such as Balen's

[1:49:00] Boulevard, Main Street, Campus Parkway,

[1:49:03] these all distribute traffic throughout

[1:49:05] the project at slower speeds while

[1:49:07] providing sidewalks and protected

[1:49:10] bicycle facilities. The Balin's roadway

[1:49:13] network also introduces a new street

[1:49:14] type. Um, these are called green shared

[1:49:17] streets. These slow streets provide

[1:49:19] access to residences and prioritize

[1:49:22] pedestrian and bicycle uses while still

[1:49:25] allowing for some vehicle access. As you

[1:49:27] can see in this rendering, which is on

[1:49:29] the bottom right side of the slide,

[1:49:32] these curbless streets use signature

[1:49:34] paving as well as landscaping and street

[1:49:36] furniture to create a sense of ease and

[1:49:39] comfort.

[1:49:40] And then another new element of the 2026

[1:49:44] specific plan um that you just heard

[1:49:46] about is the beayhore mobility plan. And

[1:49:48] although this plan was studied as part

[1:49:50] of the squa process for the bayands, I

[1:49:52] do want to clarify that this was a city

[1:49:55] proposal and it is not part of the

[1:49:57] specific plan project that BDI had

[1:50:00] proposed.

[1:50:02] Next slide, please.

[1:50:06] The same attention to safety and our

[1:50:08] roadway design carries throughout the

[1:50:09] broader bicycle and pedestrian network.

[1:50:11] The balance has a comprehensive system

[1:50:13] of on and off streetet bikeways

[1:50:16] running north, south, and east, west.

[1:50:19] Um, these will enable people to safely

[1:50:22] ride bicycles and other mobility devices

[1:50:24] for everyday trips. The table on this

[1:50:27] slide explains some of the bicycle

[1:50:30] facility types. All of these put safety

[1:50:32] first, but the design varies based on

[1:50:34] location. So, for example, busier

[1:50:36] roadways such as the extension of Geneva

[1:50:38] Avenue will have protected bike lanes to

[1:50:40] provide physical separation between

[1:50:42] bikes and moving vehicles.

[1:50:45] Connectivity is a central theme that you

[1:50:48] will hear a lot about tonight and the

[1:50:50] bicycle network is a core part of that.

[1:50:52] These bike paths provide connectivity

[1:50:54] not only throughout the Baylands, but

[1:50:56] they also connect people to existing

[1:50:58] bike networks and they facilitate trips

[1:51:00] to downtown Brisbane, adjacent

[1:51:02] neighborhoods and to the Beayshore Cal

[1:51:04] Train Station.

[1:51:06] I also want to note that recent data

[1:51:08] from transportation research record

[1:51:10] shows that building a low stress

[1:51:13] connected bike network is the most

[1:51:16] reliable way to increase ridership. And

[1:51:18] that's why the balance is designed to

[1:51:20] feel safe and comfortable for all users,

[1:51:24] whether you need to drive or you want to

[1:51:26] try biking or getting around on foot.

[1:51:30] Next slide, please.

[1:51:32] Also, I'm sorry for my voice. Uh, the

[1:51:34] balance is, as I mentioned, designed to

[1:51:36] strengthen connections to the region's

[1:51:38] extensive transit network. And as part

[1:51:40] of the strategy, new shuttle routes will

[1:51:43] integrate the balance into existing

[1:51:45] routes that connect Brisbane transit.

[1:51:48] There are also five mobility hubs within

[1:51:51] the bayens that are intended to provide

[1:51:53] both first and last mile transportation

[1:51:56] solutions. So, if you look at the the

[1:51:59] little circles that are on the slide

[1:52:01] here on the map, uh, one example could

[1:52:03] be that someone exits the Beayshore Cal

[1:52:06] Train station, they could walk to that

[1:52:08] micromobility or that mobility hub,

[1:52:10] excuse me, at um the Cal Train Plaza and

[1:52:13] then from there they could either pick

[1:52:14] up the shuttle or they could get some

[1:52:16] sort of mobility device like a bike

[1:52:19] share or a scooter to get to their final

[1:52:21] destination.

[1:52:24] Uh this is also a key part of the

[1:52:26] transportation demand management program

[1:52:29] which will provide public infrastructure

[1:52:31] and programming that enables people to

[1:52:33] be less dependent on cars. Some examples

[1:52:36] of TDM measures also include bike

[1:52:38] parking facilities, subsidized transit

[1:52:40] passes and unbundled parking. So taken

[1:52:44] all together, this plan is intended to

[1:52:46] really reduce reliance on cars and

[1:52:48] provide a comfortable and safe

[1:52:50] environment for people to get around in

[1:52:52] any way that they'd like to. We go to

[1:52:55] the next slide.

[1:52:57] That will wrap up my presentation for

[1:53:00] tonight. Thank you for listening and we

[1:53:01] are happy to take any questions that you

[1:53:03] have.

[1:53:03] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:53:04] » Thank you Katie.

[1:53:06] So again in in this particular topic

[1:53:09] we're going to divide it into three

[1:53:10] sections. The first section I'll just

[1:53:13] read them all first. First section will

[1:53:15] be on street sections. The second se

[1:53:18] section will be on interface with

[1:53:21] regional transportation

[1:53:23] network. The third will be on the Geneva

[1:53:26] Avenue extension. We'll start with

[1:53:29] street sections and Mayor Prom Davis,

[1:53:32] you're up with your first again if we

[1:53:34] could each ask one question at a time.

[1:53:38] » Yeah. Um, this one's a little bit long,

[1:53:42] so apologies in advance, but um, first

[1:53:46] of all, I just want to thank the

[1:53:48] developer for that presentation because

[1:53:50] this is really

[1:53:53] the

[1:53:54] best

[1:53:56] um, example I feel that you've given of

[1:53:59] what the future development might look

[1:54:02] and feel like. Um, and just to kind of

[1:54:05] have that,

[1:54:07] um, sort of drone style footage,

[1:54:11] I think really gives much more of a

[1:54:13] sense of what we may be able to expect,

[1:54:16] um, compared to just renderings. So,

[1:54:20] thank you for putting that together. Um,

[1:54:23] I do have a fundamental concern about

[1:54:25] the concept of green shared streets.

[1:54:26] They seem really cool and I'd love for

[1:54:30] them to work. I just um I'm concerned

[1:54:34] about streets as places where

[1:54:36] pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles

[1:54:38] are all mixing within the same space. Um

[1:54:43] and I don't think that

[1:54:46] this is necessarily an appropriate

[1:54:48] pedestrian environment for the bays. Um

[1:54:51] particularly given the amount of

[1:54:52] residential commercial development

[1:54:54] contemplated here. And I have no problem

[1:54:57] with traffic calming and 15, you know,

[1:55:00] mileph targets to reduce speeds, but um

[1:55:04] I don't think they really change the

[1:55:06] fact that the pedestrians and moving

[1:55:07] vehicles are as being asked to occupy

[1:55:09] the same space. And so if this is the

[1:55:12] council's pleasure, I would like to see

[1:55:15] us consider removing the concept of the

[1:55:19] green shared streets and provide a more

[1:55:21] conventional separated pedestrian

[1:55:24] facilities on these streets with clear

[1:55:26] clearly defined space for vehicles and

[1:55:29] bicycles and pedestrians.

[1:55:31] Um,

[1:55:33] so and I and I know that um

[1:55:38] I I can see why you've wanted to include

[1:55:43] this. I just I know that there have been

[1:55:45] other places that this has been done in

[1:55:47] the country and there were some

[1:55:48] significant issues and so

[1:55:52] yeah, it just is concern for me. Okay.

[1:55:56] » Thank you,

[1:55:58] Council Member Kern.

[1:56:02] Thank you so much. Um I in general just

[1:56:04] have um some concerns about the green

[1:56:07] shared streets. Um I um I know that I've

[1:56:10] experienced Argyle Street in the city of

[1:56:13] Chicago which was uh turned into uh sort

[1:56:17] of a commercial retail retrofit uh to

[1:56:19] make spent space for their night market.

[1:56:21] So they got rid of curbs, they got rid

[1:56:23] of uh sidewalks, everything just sort of

[1:56:25] flows together. Um, like uh, Mayor Prom

[1:56:28] Davis said, it is an amazing concept.

[1:56:30] Um, and uh, I enjoy visiting there when

[1:56:33] I'm in Chicago, but I don't know how

[1:56:34] that how well that works in a

[1:56:36] neighborhood uh, with children present

[1:56:38] and uh, children running about and

[1:56:40] combining that with cars, bicycles, and

[1:56:42] any other uh, mobility devices. So, that

[1:56:44] was just a comment, not really a

[1:56:46] question. Thank you.

[1:56:47] » Okay, Council Member Lent.

[1:56:51] » Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. Um,

[1:56:55] yeah. In regards to the green shared

[1:56:57] streets, if you wouldn't mind providing

[1:56:58] some examples of neighborhood type green

[1:57:02] shared streets. I I hear what you're

[1:57:03] saying, council member Kurt, about uh

[1:57:06] you know, activating more of a retail

[1:57:09] kind of environment. Um, so that that

[1:57:12] would be great. Um, so my my question is

[1:57:17] in regards to the bicycle sharing. So

[1:57:18] Katie, you you did mention about bicycle

[1:57:21] sharing and in the sustainability

[1:57:22] framework, it it talks about bicycle

[1:57:25] sharing a lot, but I didn't I didn't

[1:57:27] really see it in the specific plan.

[1:57:29] Maybe I missed it. So um but it sounds

[1:57:32] like that is something that you're um

[1:57:36] going to be implementing and then if you

[1:57:38] wouldn't mind sharing with us how you

[1:57:40] would do that.

[1:57:41] » Yeah. Um bike sharing is a key part of

[1:57:43] that TDM program that I mentioned. So,

[1:57:46] uh, transportation demand management

[1:57:48] usually offers a menu of options for

[1:57:50] folks to be less reliant on cars and a

[1:57:53] bike share is a big part of that. How

[1:57:56] the bike share actually is implemented

[1:57:58] um, could be done in a lot of different

[1:57:59] ways. So, for example, we could um, you

[1:58:02] know, extend an existing bike share

[1:58:04] program into the bays. We could create a

[1:58:06] new program and that could be funded

[1:58:07] through sponsorships like if you've seen

[1:58:09] the lift bikes or things like that. Um

[1:58:12] there's a lot of different ways you can

[1:58:13] go about operating that program, but

[1:58:15] bike sharing is definitely um planned to

[1:58:18] be incorporated as part of the

[1:58:19] development so that folks can um do that

[1:58:22] first and last mile transportation as I

[1:58:24] mentioned.

[1:58:25] » Got it. Got it. Okay. So that'll be a

[1:58:27] part part of your TDM plan, not not the

[1:58:30] cities, right? Is that is that separate?

[1:58:33] Is that maybe that's a question just for

[1:58:35] staff in regards to the bicycle sharing.

[1:58:40] So the city has a required set of TDM

[1:58:44] program measures and then the developer

[1:58:47] the specific plan does identify

[1:58:49] additional measures as well that they

[1:58:50] are proposing to just fulfill the vision

[1:58:54] as you just heard from there. Um if you

[1:58:57] give me a second I can double check

[1:58:58] whether bike share was in the uh the

[1:59:00] city's required one or not.

[1:59:02] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:59:05] Did you

[1:59:07] do you want us to move on while you look

[1:59:09] that up or is that at at hand?

[1:59:15] » Uh I can have it in 20 seconds.

[1:59:17] » Yeah,

[1:59:18] » 20 seconds. We can wait.

[1:59:19] » It's also I in the the TDM measure

[1:59:23] that's in the the specific plan chapter

[1:59:25] 6. I see it on page 646 about bike share

[1:59:29] and shared micromobility would be one of

[1:59:31] the physical features used as as TDM

[1:59:35] um including a shared fleet of of bikes,

[1:59:38] cargo bikes and scooters

[1:59:41] um for multimmoal trips through the plan

[1:59:44] area. Is that a consideration or

[1:59:46] something that is a shall?

[1:59:50] » So, it's not I was able to confirm it's

[1:59:52] not within the cities because there is

[1:59:54] no no program uh right now in Sano

[1:59:57] County. So, Brisbane can't require it as

[2:00:01] as as a a TDM measure, but from what

[2:00:05] you've heard from the developer, like

[2:00:07] that's one of their key strategies. that

[2:00:09] would be a a an I guess you call it an

[2:00:12] optional strategy but um to fulfill the

[2:00:15] vision um and and also to hit the the

[2:00:18] targets that they've identified in terms

[2:00:19] of reducing the amount of traffic the

[2:00:21] project generates.

[2:00:22] » All right. Thank thank you for uh

[2:00:24] incorporating that.

[2:00:26] » Council member Okonnell,

[2:00:28] » Thank you. Um I found the video

[2:00:32] interesting.

[2:00:33] It did show Cal Train tracks at grade

[2:00:38] with the development

[2:00:40] and

[2:00:41] in our specific plan and I might be

[2:00:46] looking at the older one

[2:00:48] » [clears throat]

[2:00:48] » Um 6-21

[2:00:51] it shows Cal Train tracks at grade with

[2:00:54] frontage road in the development. So I

[2:00:58] don't understand how if they are raising

[2:01:02] the level of where buildings are going

[2:01:06] to be and putting them on pads and all

[2:01:09] that how Calra tracks are at grade.

[2:01:16] So do we have an answer for that?

[2:01:23] And is it the developer's responsibility

[2:01:25] to pay for Cal Train to be come at

[2:01:27] grade?

[2:01:30] [laughter]

[2:01:41] Uh we would like to look into this a

[2:01:43] little further and uh this could be part

[2:01:45] of our phasing discussion in uh in the

[2:01:48] next meeting.

[2:01:49] » Great. Thank you.

[2:01:51] » Okay.

[2:01:52] I'm going to go back to the green

[2:01:54] streets and I'm going to kind of parlay

[2:01:57] off of what has already been said and

[2:02:00] reading it. It's a wonderful interesting

[2:02:02] concept. I could see it in a a city with

[2:02:06] very short blocks with very little

[2:02:08] traffic

[2:02:09] and my concern is UPS, FedEx, Amazon,

[2:02:13] postal service vehicles, and there's no

[2:02:15] parking or loading zones. So, they're

[2:02:17] going to double park and then you're

[2:02:19] going to have people with their chase

[2:02:21] lounges in the other lane. And my bigger

[2:02:25] fear is

[2:02:28] since we have these arterials north

[2:02:30] south, some existing and some new ones,

[2:02:33] the people who will discover these

[2:02:35] streets for shortcuts and the danger

[2:02:38] that that would pose to the pedestrians.

[2:02:40] So, mine is kind of a comment and kind

[2:02:43] of a again request to revisit this. I

[2:02:47] think maybe just considering the area

[2:02:50] and everything surrounding it, it's

[2:02:52] still kind of industrial and we're

[2:02:54] putting kids in the street. Um, I'm not

[2:02:56] sure it's going to be uh something that

[2:02:59] would be

[2:03:01] » Viable there. So, that's a question

[2:03:03] comment from me. We're moving back again

[2:03:06] to

[2:03:06] » Madame Mayor, we we do have a response

[2:03:08] if uh you would like to uh just get a

[2:03:11] little more information on that.

[2:03:13] » Yeah. So, a couple things. Um the design

[2:03:16] standards for one do require this

[2:03:18] follows FHWA guidelines require two

[2:03:22] things. One a separated ADA accessible

[2:03:24] pathway. So you can think of that as

[2:03:26] your sidewalk. So pedestrians will

[2:03:29] always have a place to be outside of the

[2:03:31] the mixed oper the mixed area. Um and

[2:03:35] secondly um it also includes loading

[2:03:39] parking and loading within the street.

[2:03:42] So you can imagine that there is a 20ft

[2:03:45] rightway that probably will move from

[2:03:47] one side of the street to the other

[2:03:49] using a traffic calming feature called

[2:03:52] tra uh horizontal deflection making sure

[2:03:54] that cars are not driving straight

[2:03:56] through um easily. And on the other side

[2:03:59] there will be uh space for planting. Um

[2:04:02] there will be space for bike parking uh

[2:04:05] loading uh parking. Um, and the city

[2:04:08] would enforce double parking uh in the

[2:04:11] same way as any other street. Um, so

[2:04:14] yeah, it would be it would be illegal

[2:04:16] for for Amazon vehicles to be double

[2:04:18] parking in the in the in the mixed area.

[2:04:21] » Okay, thank you very much.

[2:04:24] » Back to questions. Council member

[2:04:26] O'Connell, you're teed up first.

[2:04:34] Again, on the on the green streets, some

[2:04:37] of them [clears throat] show emptying

[2:04:40] onto main streets that are not part of

[2:04:43] the specific plan. And

[2:04:46] in the

[2:04:49] specific plan, they were talking 84 cars

[2:04:54] per hour. Um 1,000 cars per 24 hours

[2:04:57] average on these green streets, which is

[2:05:00] 84 cars per hour using a 12-h hour

[2:05:03] period, which is two per minute. It

[2:05:06] does. When we had our

[2:05:09] as an antidote, when we had our

[2:05:12] Halloween event, we closed off our

[2:05:15] streets so kids could be in the street

[2:05:17] and use them. So, I don't understand how

[2:05:20] those two things work when they're

[2:05:24] anticipating

[2:05:26] one car every two minutes.

[2:05:30] I

[2:05:31] » In their analysis per page 6-18.

[2:05:36] » So to clarify that so the thousand

[2:05:38] vehicle threshold is is the maximum that

[2:05:41] the city would so there is a mitigation

[2:05:44] measure built into the EIR that

[2:05:46] describes using both what FHWA has

[2:05:49] recommended for these types of

[2:05:51] residential

[2:05:52] um shared streets that are you know kind

[2:05:54] of in many cities across the country.

[2:05:57] Um, and so they have a threshold for

[2:05:59] making sure that you don't the exceed

[2:06:01] 1,000 vehicles and you don't exceed 15

[2:06:04] miles per hour. The city of San

[2:06:06] Francisco has been using that as its

[2:06:08] threshold for slow streets, for example,

[2:06:10] which are quite a bit wider, as you're

[2:06:12] probably aware, cuz you're they're

[2:06:13] repercing existing streets. So, they

[2:06:16] have to do a lot more to make sure that

[2:06:17] there aren't a,000 vehicles in 15 mph.

[2:06:21] uh they've done extensive studies that

[2:06:22] have showed collisions have dro dropped

[2:06:25] substantially since they implemented

[2:06:27] those programs because cars are moving

[2:06:30] very slowly. Cars know that they when

[2:06:32] they're there, they're in a shared

[2:06:33] space. So, there is quite a bit of

[2:06:35] evidence out there about these and

[2:06:37] studies about these these types of

[2:06:38] streets. I just wanted to bring to your

[2:06:40] attention and and a mitigation measure

[2:06:42] that the city would be required to

[2:06:44] monitor safety on those streets.

[2:06:48] » Thank you.

[2:06:51] Mayor Prom Davis.

[2:06:54] » Um, I don't have any more on street

[2:06:56] street sections.

[2:06:57] » Okay.

[2:07:00] » Council member Kern. [clears throat]

[2:07:02] » No further questions on streets.

[2:07:04] » Council member Lent.

[2:07:07] » Um, thank you, Madam Mayor. So, um,

[2:07:12] all right. So page 38 of the

[2:07:14] sustainability framework talks about uh

[2:07:16] free shuttle service connecting central

[2:07:18] Brisbane

[2:07:20] uh the northeast ridge and Sierra Point

[2:07:22] with the baylands and emerg

[2:07:29] it it goes from 6 to 10 Monday through

[2:07:33] Friday and Saturdays uh 8 to 10 and then

[2:07:38] on Sundays from 9:00 to 7. So, in the

[2:07:41] the

[2:07:43] in the specific plan, you know, at

[2:07:46] 6.5.1,

[2:07:48] um the Bayand shuttle routes, um

[2:07:52] you know, it has a map and it it um the

[2:07:55] the schedule is is pretty similar to the

[2:07:58] commute.org schedule. So, I'm just kind

[2:08:01] of curious like, you know, it makes it

[2:08:04] sound like you're providing the shuttle

[2:08:06] for us, but it really seems like it's

[2:08:08] just kind of overlaying the commute.org

[2:08:12] shuttle at the same time. So, if you

[2:08:15] wouldn't mind kind of clarifying that,

[2:08:17] like how is it different?

[2:08:25] » Um, if we could maybe bring back up the

[2:08:27] slide with the shuttle.

[2:08:30] um map on it. I'm sorry. I think it was

[2:08:32] slide six maybe.

[2:08:35] Um but to answer your question, there's

[2:08:37] the shuttle routes are going to be

[2:08:39] serving different purposes.

[2:08:42] Um here, yes, I think we Sorry, it's a

[2:08:45] little small, so it's a little hard to

[2:08:46] read. Um so yes, there's an existing

[2:08:49] commute.org or shuttle that will connect

[2:08:52] into the Baylands, but also there's

[2:08:54] plans for a Bayland specific shuttle

[2:08:56] which will run, you know, as you can

[2:08:58] see, uh, not only within the Baylands,

[2:09:01] but also go to downtown central Brisbane

[2:09:04] as well to connect folks there. So,

[2:09:07] these are are different shuttles, um,

[2:09:10] and they will operate in different ways.

[2:09:11] And of course, we've suggested a phased

[2:09:13] out approach to the shuttle because on,

[2:09:16] you know, day one, we're not going to

[2:09:18] have the the demand for the full shuttle

[2:09:21] capacity. So, that will ramp up as we

[2:09:23] have more commuters and more folks

[2:09:25] living at the bays and there's more

[2:09:27] demand for the shuttle.

[2:09:28] » Yeah. Yeah. You know, the framework

[2:09:29] though it calls out for shuttles also

[2:09:32] going to the Northeast Ridge and also

[2:09:34] going to Sar Point, you know, making

[2:09:37] those connections. So, I'm just curious

[2:09:40] why that that wasn't a a part of your

[2:09:43] shuttle um route uh schedule. Um and I

[2:09:48] understand that right there different uh

[2:09:50] shuttles. I mean, one's going to be a

[2:09:51] commute.org or shuttle and another one's

[2:09:53] going to be a baylands one. But this

[2:09:56] route that you're showing here, as you

[2:09:58] can see, it's as it impacts Brisbane.

[2:10:02] For the most part, except for a little

[2:10:04] part of downtown Brisbane, it's kind of

[2:10:07] serving the same people.

[2:10:09] » Yeah, I I think I'd have to look into

[2:10:11] that a little bit more since the ridge

[2:10:13] and Sierra Point aren't part of the

[2:10:14] specific plan project area. They're

[2:10:16] obviously not featured on this map. Um

[2:10:19] but we can dig into that a little bit

[2:10:21] and and chat with staff about what the

[2:10:22] existing shuttle connections are with

[2:10:24] those areas.

[2:10:26] » Yeah, that that'd be great. And then um

[2:10:28] you know, it also says that the shuttle

[2:10:30] route shall be implemented before a

[2:10:32] certificate of occupancy is issued for

[2:10:35] more than 50% of the permitted

[2:10:37] commercial floor area. So, I'm just

[2:10:40] curious like what if there's um 49%

[2:10:44] built is do you is that you know you

[2:10:49] know because 50% triggers the to do the

[2:10:52] route. If you don't do the 50% you're

[2:10:54] not obligated.

[2:10:58] So, yeah. Um

[2:11:02] what there's several layers of

[2:11:03] obligations here that the project is

[2:11:05] going to be held to.

[2:11:06] » Okay. Um the first thing that the

[2:11:10] project is going to be obligated to any

[2:11:11] individual buildings will have to

[2:11:13] contribute to commute.org or shuttles

[2:11:17] and as a part of their TDM program and

[2:11:19] so that's a required part of the city's

[2:11:22] program and so what you can imagine and

[2:11:25] what has happened you know in many other

[2:11:27] communities uh I'll use Berling game as

[2:11:30] an example where as new development

[2:11:32] comes online they are increase the

[2:11:35] frequency of their shuttle services they

[2:11:37] update their routes um their their

[2:11:39] shuttles are not kind of fixed uh they

[2:11:42] they serve as demand flows and So you

[2:11:45] can imagine as the demand would increase

[2:11:47] they would have a responsibility for

[2:11:49] commute.org would adjust their shuttle

[2:11:51] to serve the project. So what what the

[2:11:54] obligations with respect to the bailand

[2:11:56] specific shuttle um which presumably

[2:11:59] they would select an operator to do that

[2:12:03] other developments have selected

[2:12:05] commute.org but um what you just heard

[2:12:07] from the developers that it's it could

[2:12:09] be something separate as well. Um so

[2:12:11] there will be obligations in kind of

[2:12:13] zero through 50 but what what the

[2:12:16] specific glance says is that by the 50th

[2:12:19] occupancy you need to have these routes

[2:12:21] in place.

[2:12:23] » Okay. So I think you answered my

[2:12:26] question.

[2:12:28] » So obviously commute.org's going to be

[2:12:32] um you know doing their route. They're

[2:12:35] doing it now whether the bailance gets

[2:12:37] developed or not. Um,

[2:12:41] but having a a distinct bays shuttle

[2:12:47] that only gets triggered after 50%.

[2:12:52] » That's that's correct.

[2:12:53] » Okay. Just having that clarification.

[2:12:56] Thank you.

[2:12:56] » Yeah. Thanks.

[2:12:57] » Okay.

[2:12:59] » Okay. It's my turn. I'm going to come

[2:13:01] back to Green Streets. You mentioned a

[2:13:03] 15 mph speed limit and from my tenure on

[2:13:07] the planning commission I believe I was

[2:13:09] told unless it's changed a 15 mph speed

[2:13:13] limit is uninforcable in the state of

[2:13:15] California. Could someone verify that

[2:13:18] for me please?

[2:13:19] » Um a 15 mph speed limit is enforceable

[2:13:23] in certain situations such as in school

[2:13:26] zones, alleyways and similar types and

[2:13:29] you know the the type of shared street

[2:13:31] that is designed here. So San Francisco

[2:13:33] enforces 15 mph speed limits on their

[2:13:36] their slow streets is the easiest

[2:13:37] comparable example.

[2:13:39] » So the way that this is proposed would

[2:13:42] fit that criteria.

[2:13:43] » That that is correct. It follows the

[2:13:45] design standards um from the state of

[2:13:47] California and from the FHWA for this

[2:13:50] type of facility.

[2:13:51] » Okay. Very good. Thank you.

[2:13:53] » You're welcome.

[2:13:54] » Council member Lent. Uh I'm just going

[2:13:56] to verify again. Davis and Kern, no

[2:13:59] questions on this. Okay.

[2:14:02] » Oh, okay.

[2:14:02] » Council member Lent, you're up again.

[2:14:04] » I have shuttle questions, but I'm

[2:14:05] assuming that's

[2:14:06] » Next. It's actually the shuttle was the

[2:14:09] another section.

[2:14:09] » Oh, I'm sorry.

[2:14:11] » You kind of jumped ahead of us cuz I

[2:14:12] have shuttle questions, too.

[2:14:13] » I didn't I didn't know that was in one

[2:14:15] of those things. I apologize.

[2:14:16] » It's kind of regional transit.

[2:14:18] » Oh, okay.

[2:14:19] » Would be the next section.

[2:14:22] » Got it. Got it.

[2:14:24] » We're on street sections.

[2:14:25] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. I wasn't

[2:14:27] sure about that. So um all right. So uh

[2:14:31] measure JJ talks about um I mean not

[2:14:33] measure J the sustain well the

[2:14:35] sustainability framework uh talks about

[2:14:39] um you know having detailed plan

[2:14:41] reducing personal parking

[2:14:43] and incorporating car share programs and

[2:14:47] shared parking you know between uses.

[2:14:50] But in the specific plan, it has 6 point

[2:14:53] at 6.7 has 11,000 off- streetet parking

[2:14:57] spaces. So, I was just wondering how the

[2:15:00] maximum

[2:15:02] uh the parking maximums were calculated

[2:15:04] because that just seems like a lot if

[2:15:06] we're talking about having a transit

[2:15:09] public transit oriented development.

[2:15:16] » I don't know. Would the developer like

[2:15:18] to explain the the framework first?

[2:15:20] » Um, sure. I might bring up Megan from

[2:15:22] Nelson Nygard to speak about that. Um,

[2:15:25] we actually have a pretty um innovative

[2:15:28] uh parking plan that actually is is very

[2:15:31] limited on parking with the intent of

[2:15:33] reducing the number of vehicle trips on

[2:15:36] the bays. But I'll let Megan talk about

[2:15:38] it a little bit more.

[2:15:43] » Hi everyone, Megan. We are from Nelson

[2:15:45] Nygard supporting the Baylands. Um, and

[2:15:48] uh, I can tell you a little bit about

[2:15:50] how the parking framework was developed.

[2:15:53] And if I'm

[2:15:55] uh, not addressing the question

[2:15:57] specifically, let me know. Um but back

[2:16:00] in several years ago when the TDM

[2:16:04] measures and parking um management um

[2:16:08] concept were being developed, the team

[2:16:11] looked at all of the different land uses

[2:16:13] that were being proposed and looked at

[2:16:15] the kind of standard um widely

[2:16:19] uh recognized parking demand um parking

[2:16:24] generation

[2:16:26] uh numbers that are used across the

[2:16:28] country that come from it. Um, and then

[2:16:33] uh identified what would be considered a

[2:16:36] baseline number of parking spaces for

[2:16:38] those land uses and then paused and

[2:16:42] identified um a preference for reducing

[2:16:45] the baseline based on um wanting to

[2:16:49] reduce trip generation overall and to

[2:16:52] keep all of the development plans

[2:16:54] consistent with the goals. and um you

[2:16:58] know values around transit oriented

[2:16:59] development and went through a few

[2:17:02] different scenarios of different

[2:17:04] transportation demand management

[2:17:05] measures that could be used to reduce

[2:17:07] parking. Referred to some of the kind of

[2:17:10] researchbased calculations about how

[2:17:12] much each measure could reduce parking

[2:17:15] demand for different land uses and then

[2:17:17] landed on a 43% reduction. And so that

[2:17:21] 11,000 cap for the entire development

[2:17:25] represents um the total number of

[2:17:27] parking spaces for all of the different

[2:17:29] districts in the development with a

[2:17:31] little bit of buffer. Round it up to a

[2:17:33] nice round number that gets to um about

[2:17:37] 41% lower than baseline

[2:17:40] » Assuming that those different

[2:17:42] transportation demand management

[2:17:43] measures are put into place so that

[2:17:45] parking demand can be reduced at each of

[2:17:47] those building types. And that's a mix

[2:17:49] of things that have already been talked

[2:17:51] about tonight like um making it easier

[2:17:54] for people to just choose to get around

[2:17:56] without a car, internal trip capture,

[2:17:59] having a mix of land uses so that people

[2:18:00] who live in the development don't need

[2:18:02] to use a car to get everywhere within

[2:18:06] this development, having um connections

[2:18:08] outside, different um you know modes

[2:18:12] available at the mobility hubs that

[2:18:13] Katie mentioned. And then uh parking

[2:18:16] management, unbundling parking like

[2:18:19] Katie mentioned also so that um people

[2:18:21] have to opt into parking for different

[2:18:24] uses. It's not automatically included

[2:18:26] because automatically including parking

[2:18:28] encourages people to use cars for all of

[2:18:31] their trips. Um and those things can

[2:18:33] apply at residential, office, retail,

[2:18:36] and and so on. And um there's

[2:18:38] opportunities to phase the building of

[2:18:42] parking. So there can be slightly higher

[2:18:45] ratios early in the early phases of

[2:18:48] development to accommodate the parking

[2:18:50] demand might be higher um at the uh at

[2:18:56] the points where not all of those TDM

[2:18:58] measures are fully robust and in place

[2:19:00] and more people are choosing driving for

[2:19:03] some of their trips and then as more

[2:19:05] development comes online the ratio of

[2:19:08] parking to new development can notch

[2:19:10] down to reach that total maximum of

[2:19:12] 11,000.

[2:19:13] Okay. All right. Thank Thank you. That

[2:19:15] was very detailed, [clears throat]

[2:19:17] » Council Member O'Connell.

[2:19:20] » So, does and this is a question I think

[2:19:23] for the for the developer. Um, so that

[2:19:27] means when you're talking about

[2:19:29] uncoupling parking, so a home or an

[2:19:33] apartment may not have parking with the

[2:19:37] building, you'd have to buy it separate.

[2:19:38] That's what uncoupled parking means.

[2:19:44] Not quite. So there is accommodations to

[2:19:47] have parking as part of residential

[2:19:49] units. So for example, if you have a

[2:19:50] town home, there may be one or two

[2:19:52] parking spaces associated with that type

[2:19:54] of um housing. Uh but the unbundled

[2:19:58] parking specifically is generally around

[2:20:01] commercial retail uses and potentially

[2:20:03] some for like the apartment highdensity

[2:20:06] residential. So you're having these big

[2:20:08] parking garages rather than reserving

[2:20:10] the entire parking garage for one user

[2:20:13] where you know maybe it's really full

[2:20:15] during the day and then at night

[2:20:16] everyone goes home and then you have

[2:20:17] this empty parking garage. So instead

[2:20:19] those garages are intended to be

[2:20:20] unbundled where um anyone who's running

[2:20:24] errands, someone who's going to work all

[2:20:26] have access to that same space. Um and

[2:20:29] that can be managed through you know

[2:20:31] certain reservations or um paid parking

[2:20:34] things like that. And then you also just

[2:20:38] mentioned that the parking is higher at

[2:20:41] the beginning of the build which means

[2:20:43] that the homes are going to get the

[2:20:45] parking and later there will be less

[2:20:48] parking available.

[2:20:49] » So there's actually a districtbased cap.

[2:20:51] So that 11,000 parking um stalls is for

[2:20:55] the entire development, but each

[2:20:57] district also has its own um parking.

[2:21:00] Actually, sorry if we wouldn't mind

[2:21:02] bringing the slides up again towards the

[2:21:04] end. I have a few reference slides and

[2:21:06] um in there I think I have a chart with

[2:21:09] the district caps but so um exactly we

[2:21:13] don't want to have all the parking get

[2:21:14] absorbed in those first couple phases of

[2:21:16] development and then there's no parking

[2:21:18] left for the end. So, um, if you keep

[2:21:21] going towards the end of this deck,

[2:21:24] um, there. Oh, back one more. Um, so, as

[2:21:27] you can see, Beayshore District has, um,

[2:21:29] 1,150.

[2:21:32] Roundhouse District, 1,200. So, those

[2:21:35] are probably going to be primarily

[2:21:36] dedicated to, um, residences. And then

[2:21:40] you have more in the Ice House Hill

[2:21:42] district where you have more commercial.

[2:21:43] And same on the campus east. And I

[2:21:45] should make a little asterisk here.

[2:21:46] wrote, "This chart actually came from

[2:21:48] our 2025

[2:21:50] uh developer proposed specific plan."

[2:21:53] And so, um, Matt maybe could correct me.

[2:21:56] This may have shifted slightly as some

[2:21:58] of the land uses have been adjusted in

[2:22:00] the 2026 staff recommended specific

[2:22:02] plan.

[2:22:04] » Thank you.

[2:22:07] » Okay, I have a question on this.

[2:22:13] under roadway performance standards. And

[2:22:16] this is talking about Beayshore

[2:22:21] and it was uh it was talking about

[2:22:24] changes in design speeds along Beayshore

[2:22:27] could improve mobility within the city.

[2:22:32] And I just I wondered

[2:22:34] that particular wording, did anybody

[2:22:37] take into consideration that San Monteo

[2:22:40] County CKG

[2:22:42] put together the smart lanes which are

[2:22:45] actually going to offload traffic from

[2:22:47] 101 onto Beayshore?

[2:22:53] » Yes. Yes. That's under emergency

[2:22:55] situations. It would uh it would be used

[2:22:58] to divert but beh is not a stateowned

[2:23:02] facility.

[2:23:04] Beayshore is owned by the city of

[2:23:05] Brisbane. So the city of Brisbane has

[2:23:08] decisions such on such as how much of a

[2:23:13] role it should serve in terms of being

[2:23:15] an attractive route for everyday travel

[2:23:18] on uh compared to the freeway.

[2:23:21] » But we would have no control.

[2:23:24] My knowledge of the smart corridor and

[2:23:26] lanes are if if there's an extreme

[2:23:29] slowdown on 101, they will start those

[2:23:32] electronic sign boards saying you can

[2:23:34] divert this way

[2:23:37] off onto surface streets was was what I

[2:23:41] was given as an orientation on those

[2:23:43] smart lanes.

[2:23:44] » And I don't know that we would have

[2:23:46] control to say, "Oh no, you can't get

[2:23:48] off in Brisbane." [laughter]

[2:23:51] » Do we know?

[2:23:54] um in those emergency scenarios it would

[2:23:57] be under CALR that they would um

[2:23:59] initiate that

[2:24:00] » Right

[2:24:00] » I have looked at the um agreements um

[2:24:03] the draft agreement we haven't um

[2:24:05] authorized but there's nothing in the

[2:24:07] language that says that we cannot change

[2:24:09] the configuration of beayshore

[2:24:12] um so we could still reduce I'm not

[2:24:14] saying I'm not proposing we do that

[2:24:15] right now I'm just I'm just saying we

[2:24:17] still have control of over what that

[2:24:19] network looks like

[2:24:20] » I understand I'm I'm really just

[2:24:22] questioning the wisdom of doing that

[2:24:23] knowing that we could have an onslaught

[2:24:26] of traffic.

[2:24:26] » No,

[2:24:27] » That we've not seen before.

[2:24:28] » It's a good question.

[2:24:31] » Well, that's that's my point. All right.

[2:24:34] Um, we're back to council member Lent.

[2:24:39] You have more questions?

[2:24:40] » Yeah, I have one more. Um, so 6.6, six,

[2:24:45] it it talks about a TDM coordinator who

[2:24:48] will be responsible for overseeing all

[2:24:50] TDM activities within the Baylands,

[2:24:52] including monitoring and reporting. So,

[2:24:54] I'm just curious, is this a a full-time

[2:24:57] position? And if so, also, is it um a

[2:25:00] city position?

[2:25:06] It's the type of position. Um, and

[2:25:09] commute.org or has uh manages the

[2:25:13] interface with TDM coordinators and it's

[2:25:15] the type of position that for you know

[2:25:16] smaller projects it's typically shared

[2:25:19] it's um and then as you grow it becomes

[2:25:21] yes a much more responsible position um

[2:25:25] uh the specific plan does not designate

[2:25:27] you know who who it is um but you know

[2:25:31] has a standard process for onboarding

[2:25:33] their TDM coordinators and making sure

[2:25:35] that that is you know that they're

[2:25:36] responsible

[2:25:37] » Okay and then the the VTM M standards um

[2:25:41] they were based on 2020 which is during

[2:25:43] the pandemic. So that [clears throat]

[2:25:46] doesn't seem like a good base year pre

[2:25:49] preandemic

[2:25:51] conditions. Yeah. Uh the the the last

[2:25:54] time CCAG updated their model

[2:25:57] information is based on you know 2019

[2:25:59] through January 2020 basically. So when

[2:26:01] it's referring to 2020 it's it's pre-

[2:26:04] pandemic conditions.

[2:26:05] » It is pre- pandemic. Okay.

[2:26:06] » Sorry for the confusion.

[2:26:07] » All right. because it does say 2020 in

[2:26:09] here and doesn't say pre- pandemic.

[2:26:12] » Understood.

[2:26:13] » Okay. Thank you.

[2:26:13] » Okay. Council member Okonnell.

[2:26:18] » I think my

[2:26:20] I think my um questions either are going

[2:26:24] to come under financing and or when we

[2:26:27] discuss the Geneva Avenue which is

[2:26:30] another subject matter.

[2:26:31] » Okay. So I have two more on street

[2:26:34] sections. My next question is um I

[2:26:38] believe and and so don't quote me I

[2:26:41] believe the latest statistics show that

[2:26:43] Sanonteo County is 64 or 65% seniors and

[2:26:48] we've talked about mobility within the

[2:26:50] Baylands and affordable housing and

[2:26:54] using bicycles. What provisions are

[2:26:56] being made for seniors to have mobility

[2:26:59] in the bailance?

[2:27:04] Um the entire project will be, you know,

[2:27:08] compliant with ADA standards um for

[2:27:11] folks who get around with other types of

[2:27:12] mobility devices. And of course, maybe

[2:27:15] not all folks are going to ride a bike,

[2:27:17] but there are options for um other ways

[2:27:20] of getting around either through

[2:27:22] shuttles that probably have um ADA

[2:27:25] compliant accessibility options. And um

[2:27:31] uh there's also opportunities for some

[2:27:32] of the affordable housing to potentially

[2:27:34] serve seniors. And sometimes in those

[2:27:36] cases, those housing um developments may

[2:27:39] have um additional measures to help

[2:27:42] seniors get around.

[2:27:44] » So referencing an early earlier question

[2:27:46] about the schedule kind of mirroring

[2:27:49] commute.org,

[2:27:51] does this not kind of point to the need

[2:27:54] for the shuttle to run more frequently?

[2:27:58] » Because you're not going to have seniors

[2:27:59] going around.

[2:28:00] » Well, I think so. So if you have seniors

[2:28:02] who are living at the Baylands, they

[2:28:04] will have the option to take the Bayand

[2:28:06] shuttle also to get around to the

[2:28:08] existing retail and other services

[2:28:11] within the Bayands. And so again, the

[2:28:13] the goal of a mixeduse community is that

[2:28:16] folks can, you know, run errands and

[2:28:19] they can go to work, although seniors

[2:28:20] may or may not be going to work. Um, and

[2:28:23] do all of that within the the area. And

[2:28:25] then of course if they need to travel

[2:28:27] outside of the bays, there are ample

[2:28:30] opportunities to do that through transit

[2:28:32] and through other ways that aren't

[2:28:34] biking or things that might be

[2:28:36] difficult.

[2:28:36] » Am I reading this that you are making a

[2:28:38] commitment to frequency of that shuttle?

[2:28:41] » So we have outlined schedules in the

[2:28:44] specific plan. I don't have them in

[2:28:46] front of me right now, but there is a

[2:28:47] schedule outlined for both phase one and

[2:28:49] phase two. Um, and I could we could

[2:28:52] probably bring that up for you.

[2:28:53] Actually, I have it. If you I can read

[2:28:55] it to you. That would be great. Thank

[2:28:56] you.

[2:28:56] » So, yeah, phase

[2:28:58] » Phase one on weekdays, it's 6:00 a.m. to

[2:29:01] 8:00 p.m. with a maximum of 15minute

[2:29:03] headways. Um, and then on weekends, that

[2:29:07] would be 10 to 5 on demand. And then if

[2:29:10] there was enough demand for it, it would

[2:29:12] expand to a fixed route um with fixed

[2:29:15] headways like there are on weekdays. For

[2:29:18] phase 2, it's 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and

[2:29:22] then 4 to 6 pm with 1 hour headways.

[2:29:25] That's the east side, more the the

[2:29:27] employmentbased shuttle and 10 to 5 on

[2:29:30] demand service on weekends, but that

[2:29:32] phase one shuttle that Katie was

[2:29:34] describing. The weekday service does

[2:29:36] have a a 15minute headway maximum. Um,

[2:29:40] and those could be shorter depending on

[2:29:41] demand.

[2:29:42] » Thank you, Eric, very much. Is that at a

[2:29:45] particular point of buildout? Um yes. So

[2:29:48] the fa the phase one obligation

[2:29:50] as council member Lent was pointing out

[2:29:52] before is triggered at um 50% occupancy

[2:29:57] of commercial floor area within the ice

[2:30:00] Ice House Hill district is the trigger

[2:30:03] to be at that at that level of service.

[2:30:06] And as Matt was describing in response

[2:30:08] to the question, uh the TDM plan, um

[2:30:12] might have incremental service um

[2:30:14] earlier than that, but that's the the

[2:30:16] trigger for delivery.

[2:30:17] » But if the commercial hasn't been built,

[2:30:20] if it's just homes, they don't need to

[2:30:22] have any shuttles.

[2:30:24] » Correct. That's not They would not have

[2:30:25] hit the Well, they would not have hit

[2:30:26] the trigger for for that phase one

[2:30:30] shuttle. I don't know, Matt, if there's

[2:30:32] an interim

[2:30:33] um delivery of not described there. Uh I

[2:30:37] mean, there's several references to on

[2:30:40] on demand shuttles as well. It says um

[2:30:43] an ondemand shuttle is the type of you

[2:30:45] know that you call if you need. There's

[2:30:46] one in in the Bay View that operates

[2:30:48] right now um in San Francisco. But an

[2:30:50] ondemand strategy allows shuttle

[2:30:52] operators to scale up as demand shifts

[2:30:54] and grows and eliminates how yeah time

[2:30:57] of day and location. So

[2:31:00] uh no no no fixed route services are

[2:31:02] called for in the in the bailance plan

[2:31:04] until that threshold that he described

[2:31:07] but there are other um strategies that

[2:31:09] are identified

[2:31:12] » Decades. Yeah.

[2:31:13] » Thank you.

[2:31:14] » Okay. Council member Lent.

[2:31:17] » Um no more questions. Mor.

[2:31:19] » Okay. So I have just one more. Um, we

[2:31:24] saw, thank you for the video with all

[2:31:28] the the uh 3D views and then you ended

[2:31:32] with a slide that showed active

[2:31:35] transportation network. Could we

[2:31:37] possibly put that slide up again?

[2:32:03] I'm sorry. What page am I going to?

[2:32:05] » It it was near the end, Angel.

[2:32:09] » It has a heading active transportation

[2:32:12] network.

[2:32:13] » I think that actually might have been my

[2:32:15] second slide

[2:32:17] » That showed the map. There we go. Yes.

[2:32:19] » Okay.

[2:32:21] since we've never seen this before. I

[2:32:24] mean, this is the first time for all of

[2:32:25] us seeing this view and and it it shows

[2:32:28] where we can clearly see streets. What I

[2:32:32] wanted to ask is

[2:32:34] does this show the Schlleg lock

[2:32:37] development?

[2:32:38] It does. Yes. So, this map is from our

[2:32:41] website. Um, and so thank you for

[2:32:44] clarifying that we do consider the

[2:32:46] balance to be both the the we call it

[2:32:48] kind of balance north and balance south.

[2:32:50] So that includes our I think

[2:32:52] approximately 40 acres of property, the

[2:32:53] former Schlleglock property in San

[2:32:55] Francisco. We call that the Leland

[2:32:57] Square neighborhood and it's intended to

[2:32:59] be the northernmost neighborhood of the

[2:33:01] Baylands and then that will flow into

[2:33:04] the broader Brisbane balance which of

[2:33:06] course is the more significant portion

[2:33:08] of the development. And so when you see

[2:33:10] that yellow MUN, that is um referring to

[2:33:13] the T3. So like the Arita stop for

[2:33:16] example is right in front of the former

[2:33:17] Schlleg lock um office building which is

[2:33:20] now our office building. And then the

[2:33:22] development continues until um Sunnyale

[2:33:26] where the uh county line is and and

[2:33:29] could you point out where that is?

[2:33:31] » It's where the second MUN uh square is.

[2:33:34] So the second MUN block rectangle

[2:33:37] [snorts]

[2:33:38] is Sunnydale and that's the end of the

[2:33:40] Schllay Glock development.

[2:33:42] » Yeah, that's the San Francisco.

[2:33:43] » So everything to the left all the way up

[2:33:45] to the V is all the Schlleglock

[2:33:48] development. Are there streets in there?

[2:33:50] It doesn't I I I don't really

[2:33:52] » There are the um existing streets in um

[2:33:57] Visitation Valley for the most part will

[2:33:59] continue through the development. So

[2:34:00] that's why we call it Leland Square.

[2:34:02] Leland Avenue is um you know a kind of

[2:34:05] corridor where there's a lot of uh

[2:34:07] retail activity in Viz Valley. And so

[2:34:09] Leland will continue through the

[2:34:11] development. Um so will Sunnydale and

[2:34:13] Sunnydale will have a turnaround at the

[2:34:14] Cal Train Plaza. Um

[2:34:18] testing my memory. I think a couple of

[2:34:20] the other streets will also continue

[2:34:23] through um the development. Are those

[2:34:26] then signalized intersections on

[2:34:28] beayshore since if we look south where

[2:34:31] we start in the Brisbane portion there

[2:34:34] are no arterials that cut straight

[2:34:36] through on each of those blocks.

[2:34:39] » And I should clarify those streets that

[2:34:40] cut through will not go past the Cal

[2:34:43] Train. So they they will end in the

[2:34:47] development. So th those won't be a cut

[2:34:49] through to get to like 101 for example

[2:34:51] the way Geneva will be. But going west,

[2:34:54] will they will they intersect with

[2:34:56] Beayshore?

[2:34:57] » Yes.

[2:34:58] » So, are those all going to be

[2:35:00] signalized?

[2:35:01] » So, they're currently signalized, right?

[2:35:03] » Um and so I imagine they will become a a

[2:35:05] four-way intersection.

[2:35:07] » Okay. So, there's there's maybe three or

[2:35:11] four arterials that are going to cross

[2:35:13] Schlleglock to Beayshore. Sunnyale,

[2:35:16] Leland, and I don't know what the other

[2:35:18] » And I think I think it may be Raymond.

[2:35:19] Again, I don't have the Schlage lock

[2:35:21] plans in front of me. I'd have to refer

[2:35:22] back to them. But, um,

[2:35:24] » I think Raymond has a traffic island

[2:35:26] that blocks it from Beayshore. You can

[2:35:28] turn right if you're going south, but I

[2:35:29] don't think you can go.

[2:35:32] » You can't exit Raymond. I don't believe.

[2:35:34] » Perhaps not. Um, but again, I don't have

[2:35:37] that plan in front of me.

[2:35:38] » Right. No, I'm not trying to put you on

[2:35:39] the spot. I'm just trying to visualize

[2:35:41] how this interfaces with all the the

[2:35:44] transportation. So, thank you very much.

[2:35:46] I appreciate that.

[2:35:47] » All right. I think that concludes the

[2:35:50] street sections and we have a question

[2:35:52] from the public. Michael Barnes on

[2:35:54] street sections.

[2:36:01] Michael Barnes, [clears throat] Brisbane

[2:36:02] resident uh formality. I'm going to be

[2:36:05] talking about bicycle uh network on the

[2:36:08] bayands, but I'm currently the chair of

[2:36:10] the Sanonteo County bicycle pedestrian

[2:36:12] advisory committee to we oversee the

[2:36:14] unincorporated parts of Sato County, but

[2:36:15] I'm not speaking in that capacity. I'm

[2:36:18] speaking in the capacity as a private

[2:36:19] citizen of Brisbane. So most people who

[2:36:22] do not ride bicycles cite the danger of

[2:36:24] automobiles and trucks as a reason why

[2:36:26] to actually encourage bicycling requires

[2:36:28] isolation of bicyclists from motor

[2:36:30] vehicles to the greatest extent

[2:36:31] possible. Thankfully, the empty canvas

[2:36:33] of the Baylands allows us to maximize

[2:36:36] bicyclist protections.

[2:36:38] The specific plan recognizes this issue.

[2:36:41] This specific plan states that the

[2:36:42] bayands will include a network of

[2:36:44] protected bikeways that provide physical

[2:36:45] separation from moving vehicles. This

[2:36:47] type of bikeway reduces the level of

[2:36:49] stress and improves comfort for more

[2:36:51] types of bicyclists and therefore

[2:36:52] contributes to an increase in bicycle

[2:36:54] volumes and mode share. Connections are

[2:36:58] also made to the existing bike network

[2:37:00] to facilitate trips to downtown Brisbane

[2:37:01] and adjacent neighborhoods and to

[2:37:03] increase connected connectivity to the

[2:37:05] Beayshore Cal Train Station.

[2:37:09] So

[2:37:10] I agree with all of that and I think

[2:37:13] that it also mentions on page 34 of the

[2:37:16] PDF of the specific plan that

[2:37:18] landscaping provides added protection

[2:37:20] from vehicles. I agree with this. Let's

[2:37:23] use landscaping to protect bicyclists.

[2:37:27] A number of the uh figures,

[2:37:30] cross-sections of the streets have a

[2:37:33] lane of motor vehicles, then flanked by

[2:37:37] a bicyclist, a class 2 bike lane, and

[2:37:41] then a row of vegetation, landscaping

[2:37:44] trees, and then pedestrians. And I think

[2:37:47] kind of the overarching vision I'd have

[2:37:50] is to swap the position of the trees

[2:37:52] with the bike lane so that the motor

[2:37:55] vehicles then have trees on their right

[2:37:58] and then a bike lane and then pedestrian

[2:38:01] facilities. And if if it's being

[2:38:04] proposed this way in the spec specific

[2:38:06] plan to protect pedestrians from

[2:38:08] bicycles, you can merely put in a fence

[2:38:10] between the two if you if you're

[2:38:12] uncomfortable with that. But the real

[2:38:14] hazard is cars and trucks hitting

[2:38:18] bicyclists.

[2:38:20] Um

[2:38:21] so intersections with both bicycles and

[2:38:23] motor vehicles should be avoided.

[2:38:25] Intersections are deadly to bicyclists.

[2:38:28] Um and class 2 bike lanes are exactly

[2:38:30] what reluctant bicyclists site for not

[2:38:33] riding on the street. A class two bike

[2:38:34] lane is paint or I don't know this idea

[2:38:38] of a curb, you know, between a bicyclist

[2:38:41] and a car being a protection. I'm I'm

[2:38:43] not sure I buy into it, especially if

[2:38:44] it's a rolled curb. A lot of the curbs

[2:38:46] in this project are rolled and and I

[2:38:48] think that's just going to encourage

[2:38:50] cars to park in the bike lane. So, I you

[2:38:52] know, I

[2:38:54] maybe maybe there's reasons, engineering

[2:38:55] reasons for that, but uh that's that's

[2:38:57] my take. Um I thought that uh class 2

[2:39:02] bike lane is being proposed for Bashar

[2:39:04] Boulevard, which is what we have now,

[2:39:05] and that's why you reluctant cyclists

[2:39:08] don't use it. I think that's uh I think

[2:39:10] you should also include in table 6.4.2

[2:39:14] class 2 bike lane definition. It's not

[2:39:16] in there. Um

[2:39:18] I'd like to point out that Tunnel Road

[2:39:21] Well, I'm running out of time. I I'm

[2:39:23] going to leave you a copy of my

[2:39:25] comments. Um Tunnel Road I think should

[2:39:28] be a class 4 bike facility on the east

[2:39:31] on the sorry the west side of Tunnel

[2:39:33] Road.

[2:39:34] 10 times as many bicyclists used tunnel

[2:39:37] road to go from San Francisco to South

[2:39:39] City and beyond as use beayhore. So I

[2:39:41] did a count 20 years ago in order to

[2:39:45] figure out where we should put our um

[2:39:46] bike to workday energizer station and I

[2:39:49] I did counts and then we actually had an

[2:39:52] Energizer station on Bear Boulevard and

[2:39:54] consistently 10 times more bicyclists

[2:39:57] use Tunnel Road as use Beayshore.

[2:40:00] Um, I think you should get rid of the

[2:40:02] vegetated median strips between the the

[2:40:04] traffic lanes and dedicate that road

[2:40:07] width to protect bicyclists. Um,

[2:40:12] I like I like Sier Point Parkway,

[2:40:15] Visitation Creek, and Lagoon Road. Those

[2:40:16] are exactly the sorts of streetscapes

[2:40:18] that I'm talking about. Those are great.

[2:40:21] Um, I'm out of time. I the frontage road

[2:40:26] sixoot buffer should be a bike lane and

[2:40:27] if possible include the Cal Train

[2:40:29] rideway. U anyway I will leave my the

[2:40:32] rest of my comments with the city clerk

[2:40:35] and um

[2:40:37] » Before you depart I have a question for

[2:40:38] you. When you talked about swapping the

[2:40:41] trees with the bike lane, do you not

[2:40:43] create another hazard for the bicyclist

[2:40:46] because any bicyclist who wants to turn

[2:40:49] left is not seen because they're

[2:40:52] obscured by the trees and then they'd be

[2:40:54] pulling in front of cars that wouldn't

[2:40:57] even see them coming over. Well, I think

[2:40:59] that the uh the sections show bulb outs

[2:41:03] and and protected bicycle queuing lines

[2:41:07] at corners where they'd be crossing

[2:41:09] streets. I don't I don't see that as a

[2:41:11] problem.

[2:41:12] » Well, I mean, if you were at an

[2:41:13] intersection, you have a bicycle lane to

[2:41:15] your right, sometimes the bicyclists

[2:41:18] have to try to get all the way over or

[2:41:19] they're waiting for cars to cut across.

[2:41:23] I don't know if that's how it works.

[2:41:24] That that was just when you when you

[2:41:26] mentioned that I was just concerned

[2:41:28] about trees obscuring the bicycles.

[2:41:31] » You could use bushes though. I think I

[2:41:33] mean you could do some kind of

[2:41:36] » More prominent barrier right between

[2:41:40] » Something that's maybe not as tall. So

[2:41:43] there would still be visibility of a

[2:41:44] bike.

[2:41:45] » Is that what you were suggesting?

[2:41:47] » I'm suggesting putting landscaping or

[2:41:50] barriers, physical barriers between

[2:41:52] automobiles and bicycles. I don't care

[2:41:54] what it is. And sight distances are all

[2:41:56] accommodated in the specific plan as is

[2:41:59] the bulb belts of the corners, that kind

[2:42:00] of stuff. I don't think I think that

[2:42:02] intersections are a problem, but they're

[2:42:04] as engineered as they can be in the

[2:42:06] specific plan. So, I'm concerned about

[2:42:08] people riding encouraging people to ride

[2:42:10] bicycles. So, I mean, we've known this

[2:42:13] for 20, 30, 40 years that people who

[2:42:16] don't commute by bicycle are afraid of

[2:42:18] vehicles and they don't feel comfortable

[2:42:19] on class 2. So, that's why class 4 is so

[2:42:21] good. And I heard the consultant say

[2:42:23] tunnels class 4, but I thought that

[2:42:25] figure 3 point 6.3.12 showed bike lanes

[2:42:29] on either side of tunnel road next to

[2:42:31] the vehicle lane. So

[2:42:33] I it'd be nice if I could get answers to

[2:42:36] some of this stuff at some point.

[2:42:38] » If you could pass that on to staff, then

[2:42:41] » I'm ahead of you on that.

[2:42:42] » Okay. Thank you, Michael. Ask a

[2:42:44] followup.

[2:42:46] » Sure. You have a follow-up question?

[2:42:47] Yeah, just based on what Michael is

[2:42:50] saying, I mean, to me there's his

[2:42:53] suggestions make a lot of sense,

[2:42:54] particularly about having a more

[2:42:57] distinct barrier between cars and bike

[2:43:01] lanes. And so I just didn't know if

[2:43:03] there is

[2:43:06] some practical reason why maybe it's not

[2:43:09] that way right now and if that's

[2:43:11] something that could we could

[2:43:13] re-evaluate and bring back at a later

[2:43:15] time so that we are making this as bike

[2:43:19] friendly as possible because I think

[2:43:21] really at the core of what all of us are

[2:43:23] looking to accomplish right is to have

[2:43:26] this be a a development in which people

[2:43:29] aren't relying on vehicles so much.

[2:43:31] They're using transit, they're biking,

[2:43:33] they're using, you know, they're

[2:43:34] walking. There's a lot of connectivity.

[2:43:36] And so, if we're going to achieve that,

[2:43:39] and that also supports our

[2:43:40] sustainability goals, too.

[2:43:42] » If we're going to achieve that, then we

[2:43:44] need to make biking a really um viable

[2:43:49] option for people. So, just didn't know.

[2:43:52] » Yeah, sure. Happy to answer that. And I

[2:43:54] mean in terms of what the specific plan

[2:43:57] includes, it includes clear standards

[2:43:59] that all all the class 4 facilities

[2:44:02] which uh I can confirm tunnel road it

[2:44:04] would be a separated class 4 facility

[2:44:06] with a raised buffer consistent with the

[2:44:09] NACTO design urban bikeway design guide.

[2:44:12] And so that's really what this uh the

[2:44:16] specific plan is based on is making sure

[2:44:18] that all the facilities provide that low

[2:44:20] stress, all ages and abilities

[2:44:22] separated, physically separated, not

[2:44:24] just a painted line from from cars um

[2:44:28] including at intersections. Every single

[2:44:30] intersection with um bikes uh in a class

[2:44:33] 4 facility is would be a protected

[2:44:35] intersection. And so that allows for

[2:44:37] provides that protected space for um

[2:44:40] bikes to to wait while they cross so

[2:44:42] that they're not having to mix with

[2:44:44] vehicles for example at an intersection

[2:44:46] so that the bikeways don't don't kind of

[2:44:48] end before the intersection. Um in terms

[2:44:51] of like swapping the the landscape um

[2:44:54] with the kind of the the raised buffer,

[2:44:57] I don't think that there's necessarily

[2:44:59] anything prohibiting that. that that's

[2:45:00] the type of design review that you know

[2:45:03] when streets are being designed they

[2:45:04] have to be designed to the standards. Um

[2:45:07] I'm not sure that this specific band

[2:45:09] would would preclude that but that's

[2:45:10] certainly something that we could look

[2:45:12] at. Um

[2:45:14] yeah but it it I I'll just emphasize

[2:45:16] that yeah there's engineering design

[2:45:18] phase when streets get designed and and

[2:45:21] that's why it relies so heavily on

[2:45:23] citing best practices like the design

[2:45:25] guide.

[2:45:26] » Thank you very much. You know, I have a

[2:45:28] followup question, Madame Mayor, just

[2:45:29] real quick on that. So, could

[2:45:33] » Could the council require that all bike

[2:45:36] lanes within the project area have

[2:45:39] separation from cars?

[2:45:42] » That's already part of the plan.

[2:45:43] » So, okay. So, all bike lanes do have

[2:45:46] separation.

[2:45:46] » Yeah, there's there there are not any

[2:45:48] class 2 facilities. That's why they're

[2:45:50] actually not defined uh within the

[2:45:53] specific plan because um yeah, just

[2:45:56] following kind of modern modern bike

[2:45:58] weight safety standards, they all have

[2:46:00] to be separated physically from cars.

[2:46:02] » Okay, great. Thank you. I just wanted to

[2:46:04] clarify that.

[2:46:05] » All right, we move on to questions from

[2:46:07] the public. First one I have is online.

[2:46:09] Roland Leon.

[2:46:17] Yeah, this is Roland. I actually um

[2:46:20] lowered my hand uh for streets. I'll

[2:46:22] come back on the Geneva and uh

[2:46:25] connections.

[2:46:26] » Thank you.

[2:46:27] » Okay, thank you.

[2:46:30] » Next one I have is Linda Salmon.

[2:46:42] Bicycles and pedestrians do not mix

[2:46:45] well. You can go look up where I was

[2:46:48] living recently in um well few years

[2:46:51] back in Santa Rosa Sebastapole area

[2:46:55] where people designed wonderful pathways

[2:46:58] with bicycles and pedestrians which

[2:47:01] resulted in the death of a number of

[2:47:03] pedestrians. Just go check it out. It

[2:47:06] doesn't work.

[2:47:08] » Okay. Uh EMTT Cunningham

[2:47:16] I'll try and be brief. I've got four or

[2:47:17] five comments here. Have those things

[2:47:19] straighten out. Uh first of all, shared

[2:47:22] green streets. Foster city has some

[2:47:24] specifically I think Foster Square Lane.

[2:47:26] So if you want, you can go down there,

[2:47:28] look at it, and then contact the city

[2:47:29] and see if there's they've had any

[2:47:31] problems. Take a look. Might be useful,

[2:47:34] might give you an idea. Second one, uh

[2:47:36] 15 mph enforcement. This has been

[2:47:39] available for quite a while. California

[2:47:40] Civic Code 22352.

[2:47:43] It's available. we can use it. We can

[2:47:44] use it in our city. You have to uh adopt

[2:47:47] it. But we have been unwilling to

[2:47:49] actually enforce such a thing or produce

[2:47:51] such enforcement for it. So why would we

[2:47:54] believe that we'd do it someplace in the

[2:47:56] new area? Um I'd like to see if I'd love

[2:47:59] to believe that we would do that 15 mph

[2:48:01] enforcement by the way because there's

[2:48:02] several s um streets in town right now

[2:48:05] which really deserve it. Uh you all know

[2:48:07] who they are, which streets they are. Um

[2:48:10] you've tucked on that one. Uh bike

[2:48:11] sharing. Um, this has been incredibly

[2:48:14] successful in Mountain View. Uh, it it

[2:48:16] it's shocking how well it works. Um, a

[2:48:18] small number of bikes, a small number, a

[2:48:20] large number of bikes at Google get

[2:48:22] moved around

[2:48:23] thousands of miles a day, literally. Um,

[2:48:26] they they go to and from and they get

[2:48:28] people from one side of the campus to

[2:48:30] the other and the campus is four and

[2:48:32] five miles long. So, it's it's amazing.

[2:48:35] Uh just for your information, the

[2:48:37] percentage of of seniors in Brisbane is

[2:48:39] around 46%, just a little bit under. Uh

[2:48:42] last but not least, and thank you on the

[2:48:44] comment about class 4 bike lanes. Please

[2:48:46] do that uh across the board. There was a

[2:48:48] comment earlier which really set my ears

[2:48:50] on edge, which was high visibility road

[2:48:52] markings, which is exactly what we have

[2:48:54] on beayshore coming into town uh from

[2:48:57] South San Francisco, and it is exactly

[2:48:59] the location why I stopped commuting on

[2:49:01] a bike when I when I worked in South San

[2:49:03] Francisco. It was incredibly dangerous.

[2:49:05] I was having

[2:49:07] at least one really close call every

[2:49:09] week no matter what I did. So, uh, that

[2:49:11] doesn't it didn't work then. It the high

[2:49:13] visibility stuff doesn't make you feel

[2:49:15] any more comfortable on a bike now.

[2:49:17] Class 4 would do wonders. Thank you.

[2:49:19] » Thank you. All right, that concludes our

[2:49:22] questions from the public on this topic.

[2:49:25] » I left my sheet for each section.

[2:49:28] » Um, separate sheet.

[2:49:30] » Yeah, I really need separate. Well, or

[2:49:33] or you could mark it. I didn't see you

[2:49:35] mark for all the sections,

[2:49:38] » But if you have a question, come on up

[2:49:40] here.

[2:49:43] So, a friend of mine lives on a slow

[2:49:44] street in San Francisco, Baker Street.

[2:49:47] Um, and Paige, and it's

[2:49:51] slow streets give a sense of ease to

[2:49:54] people using the slow streets

[2:49:57] to where they just kind of ignore the

[2:49:59] fact that there's a car behind them or

[2:50:01] next to them. And I'm concerned about

[2:50:03] that. So, and and then also the what

[2:50:07] EMTT said about bicycles and people

[2:50:09] together in the same lane. I've been hit

[2:50:11] twice by a bicycle messenger. Once on a

[2:50:14] sidewalk and once in a crosswalk. Um and

[2:50:17] so I'm kind of concerned. And then also

[2:50:18] wanted to make sure that on these slow

[2:50:21] streets that there was um ability to

[2:50:24] have like three-wheel bikes for some

[2:50:26] people who don't, you know, ride two

[2:50:28] wheel bikes and like I don't know what

[2:50:30] they meant by cargo bikes, but maybe

[2:50:32] that's what they're talking about. And

[2:50:34] then like electric scooter chairs like

[2:50:36] the kind my dad used to drive around.

[2:50:39] Are will there be room for that? because

[2:50:42] I think he said a 20ft rideway, but the

[2:50:45] current city streets are supposed to be

[2:50:47] a 50-ft rideway. Um, but I don't know,

[2:50:51] those are questions that if it really is

[2:50:53] multimodal uh green streets or whatever

[2:50:56] streets they're using that it includes

[2:50:58] being able to use an electric cart that

[2:51:02] uh people ride around in and three-wheel

[2:51:04] bicycles

[2:51:06] and that it is safe for all use. Thank

[2:51:09] you. And I did find your your slip,

[2:51:13] Michelle. It's just the way where this

[2:51:15] the check was. I didn't see it as being

[2:51:18] » It's right over the floor. So I read it

[2:51:20] as the next one, but it's all there. I

[2:51:22] got it now. Thank you for bringing that

[2:51:25] up. All right, we're moving on to the

[2:51:27] next section now. Interface.

[2:51:34] Uh, it doesn't show it on this topic

[2:51:36] that we

[2:51:37] » Spencer would be number six.

[2:51:39] » Topic six.

[2:51:40] » Yeah, you're you're on a different

[2:51:42] topic.

[2:51:44] » Okay. Interface with regional

[2:51:46] transportation network council

[2:51:49] questions. Let's start with Mayor Prom

[2:51:51] Davis.

[2:51:56] um

[2:51:58] confirming interface with regional

[2:51:59] transit.

[2:52:02] » Correct.

[2:52:03] » Just want to make sure. Um so

[2:52:07] in reference to the shuttle

[2:52:09] transportation feature, um I'm curious

[2:52:12] who's responsible for operating and

[2:52:14] funding that service in perpetuity?

[2:52:17] Um, is that the is it the operator

[2:52:20] identified at a later time but the

[2:52:22] developer is supposed to fund that or

[2:52:30] Thank you, Mayor Prom. Um, the uh for

[2:52:34] anything that's identified as part of

[2:52:36] the specific plan as part of the TDM

[2:52:38] program or shuttles that's yeah funded

[2:52:40] by the developer and or by you know the

[2:52:44] fees collected over the course of the

[2:52:45] project. um uh shuttles, you know, the

[2:52:51] the TDM program requirements as well.

[2:52:53] That's also a requirement to be funded

[2:52:54] by by the developer as well. So that

[2:52:57] would include yeah commute.org type

[2:52:59] shuttle services adjustments increase

[2:53:01] frequency.

[2:53:02] » And I this is just a comment but and um

[2:53:05] council member Lent brought this up but

[2:53:07] I think it's worth reiterating. It would

[2:53:10] be really nice if you could put a stop

[2:53:11] at the ridge. I think the ridge is

[2:53:13] constantly feeling like they are not

[2:53:16] served and that they are geographically

[2:53:20] um

[2:53:21] distanced from the rest of us and kind

[2:53:23] of forgotten. And so, you know, Brisbane

[2:53:27] will be kind of in these three distinct

[2:53:31] areas. We have the ridge and central

[2:53:33] Brisbane and we have Crocker in the

[2:53:35] middle and then we have Beayshore and

[2:53:36] then the Bayands. And so it'd be really

[2:53:39] nice if your shuttle network would

[2:53:42] really take into consideration the ridge

[2:53:44] and their desire to be able to access

[2:53:47] all the amazing things that will be at

[2:53:49] the bailance. So um just wanted to

[2:53:51] reiterate an interest in a stop there.

[2:53:55] » Okay. Thank you, Council Member Kern.

[2:54:00] » Thank you so much.

[2:54:03] Um, so I just want I just want to make a

[2:54:06] statement that I'm a huge fan of all

[2:54:08] five mobility hubs and super energized

[2:54:10] by their potential existence. I do wish

[2:54:12] one there was one a little closer to

[2:54:13] central Brisbane and the ridge to

[2:54:15] service those areas.

[2:54:17] My question is pretty specific um and

[2:54:20] normally I try and give staff a heads up

[2:54:21] on these. You're not getting a heads up.

[2:54:23] This is a live question here. Sorry

[2:54:24] about that. Uh the subject is the

[2:54:26] Bayland specific plan dated March 2026.

[2:54:29] Chapter 6 circulation page 6-70 figure

[2:54:33] 6.89

[2:54:35] Geneva Avenue at Blands Boulevard.

[2:54:39] Um the context of my question is as

[2:54:41] follows. I recently had the luxury of

[2:54:42] observing transit operations in both

[2:54:44] India and the Philippines where

[2:54:47] mismatched vehicle and platform designs

[2:54:49] routinely force passengers to exit

[2:54:51] directly into active vehicular traffic.

[2:54:54] I want to ensure that we proactively

[2:54:56] address potential design conflicts in

[2:54:58] the bayens before plans are locked in.

[2:55:00] In chapter 6, circulation page 6-70 in

[2:55:04] figure 6.8.9, 8.9 which I just

[2:55:07] referenced. It depicts a roadway

[2:55:09] crosssection for Geneva Avenue at

[2:55:11] Baylands Boulevard featuring a planted

[2:55:14] median labeled number one, a center

[2:55:17] transit lane labeled number five, and a

[2:55:20] mobility hub/bustop platform labeled

[2:55:23] number eight. As drawn, this center

[2:55:26] running configuration requires passenger

[2:55:29] entrance and egress on the left side of

[2:55:31] the vehicle.

[2:55:33] However, the standard fleets for SAMR

[2:55:36] and other regional transportation

[2:55:37] operators currently operate with

[2:55:39] passenger boarding doors exclusively on

[2:55:42] the right side. I apologize Katie, you

[2:55:44] started to head down this path a little

[2:55:46] earlier, but here are my three

[2:55:47] questions. Number one,

[2:55:49] um, whose responsibility is it, the city

[2:55:52] project applicant or SAMR to ensure that

[2:55:55] transit buses serving Brisbane and the

[2:55:57] Baylands are equipped and configured for

[2:55:59] left side passenger boarding and

[2:56:01] exiting? That's question one.

[2:56:03] Question two on the same topic and same

[2:56:05] scenario. Has SAM trans reviewed and

[2:56:08] formally concurred with this center

[2:56:10] platform roadway geometry and what is

[2:56:13] the mechanism to guarantee compatible

[2:56:15] dualsided or left door transit fleets

[2:56:18] are secured prior to service rollout?

[2:56:20] And question three on the same topic. If

[2:56:23] regional transit providers cannot commit

[2:56:25] to specialized multi-door buses for this

[2:56:28] route, how will the roadway crosssection

[2:56:30] be re-engineered to ensure riders exit

[2:56:33] safely onto protected platforms rather

[2:56:35] than facing exposure to oncoming

[2:56:36] traffic? Thank you.

[2:56:40] H

[2:56:40] » Happy to answer that. Um the specific

[2:56:43] plan describes that there's two options

[2:56:45] for the Geneva Avenue BRT system. A side

[2:56:47] running transit stops or center running.

[2:56:50] So I think that that figure itself is

[2:56:53] illustrative of the center running

[2:56:55] facility. Um and but elsewhere in you

[2:56:59] know when in the standards for GD Avenue

[2:57:01] for example it describes um transit

[2:57:05] facilities could be sideboarding transit

[2:57:06] with one transit only lane you know and

[2:57:09] and boarding area on the side or the

[2:57:12] center running lane.

[2:57:14] So that would be subject to regional

[2:57:18] transit providers. Um the BRT facility

[2:57:21] was included in the bycounty study as

[2:57:24] something that would be a joint

[2:57:26] initiative between the counties of San

[2:57:29] Francisco, Sanonteo, the part the

[2:57:31] different parties to it including the

[2:57:32] city of Brisbane.

[2:57:36] » Thank you. Y

[2:57:38] » Before we go on, I just want to point

[2:57:39] out you your question was totally

[2:57:42] relevant to the regional transportation

[2:57:45] network, but I just want to make sure

[2:57:47] everyone knows we're not in the Geneva

[2:57:50] Avenue extension. Your your example was

[2:57:53] very relevant. So, thank you for that.

[2:57:56] Oh, Council Member Lent, you're next.

[2:57:59] » All right. Um

[2:58:02] All right. So uh in the sustainability

[2:58:05] framework it talks about having a

[2:58:07] comprehensive uh transportation study.

[2:58:10] It's part of the EIR process. Also talks

[2:58:13] about communicating with San Francisco

[2:58:16] uh you know to connect the systems

[2:58:18] between Santo County and and San

[2:58:21] Francisco. So um in 2013 there was a by

[2:58:26] county uh transportation study uh which

[2:58:29] evaluated items such as the US 101

[2:58:32] candlestick interchange, Geneva Avenue

[2:58:36] extension, the BRT to the east side of

[2:58:39] 101,

[2:58:41] third street light rail extension

[2:58:44] and a beayore station reconfiguration.

[2:58:47] So, if you wouldn't mind just sharing

[2:58:50] your communication with San Francisco

[2:58:53] and uh what have been the discussions

[2:58:56] regarding these particular topic items?

[2:59:03] » Sure, that's a great question. Um, so we

[2:59:06] have had very recent conversations with

[2:59:08] SF planning and SFMTA to discuss this

[2:59:11] exact topic, the bycount study. Um, your

[2:59:14] public works director joined us for that

[2:59:16] meeting as well. Um, so we have ongoing

[2:59:18] dialogue with them. Uh, obviously the

[2:59:21] the by county study informed the

[2:59:23] specific plan. Um, especially those BRT

[2:59:26] lanes that Matt was just describing. Uh,

[2:59:28] but it is also a 13-year-old study. So

[2:59:30] there is acknowledgement of that in the

[2:59:33] EIR and I believe in the revised

[2:59:34] specific plan as well that that is

[2:59:36] something that all parties may need to

[2:59:38] revisit as we move from this planning

[2:59:41] stage into implementation. And so

[2:59:43] especially um the questions that council

[2:59:45] member Kern was bringing up about the

[2:59:47] loading and the way the BRT lanes would

[2:59:49] function potentially on Geneva. Those

[2:59:52] are the types of discussions that we

[2:59:53] will have to revisit with the

[2:59:55] appropriate um transit agencies and

[2:59:58] other relevant stakeholders uh and

[3:00:00] determine if that bycounty study needs

[3:00:03] to be updated or if we're able to just

[3:00:05] uh work out kind of the implementation

[3:00:07] with those same parties that

[3:00:08] participated in the study 13 years ago.

[3:00:11] » Yeah. Yeah. you know, the items that I

[3:00:13] listed, um, obviously you're right, the

[3:00:17] study is from 2013,

[3:00:20] but those are items that that would be

[3:00:22] relevant to today.

[3:00:25] » So, Right.

[3:00:26] » And those are all incorporated into the

[3:00:27] specific plan currently.

[3:00:29] » Um, okay. I I I don't see things such as

[3:00:34] um the Candlestick interchange. So the

[3:00:37] candlestick interchange is considered as

[3:00:40] part of the transportation analysis for

[3:00:42] the bailins. However, that interchange

[3:00:45] is not part of the specific plan area.

[3:00:47] So therefore, it's not included in the

[3:00:50] specific plan. Um, but I'm sure Matt

[3:00:52] from Fair and Pierce could also speak

[3:00:54] about their transportation analysis.

[3:00:56] Yeah, I have that in my Geneva Avenue

[3:00:58] extension uh questions, but you know

[3:01:00] there's other things too like the third

[3:01:02] street light rail extension

[3:01:04] » And uh reconfiguration of the multim of

[3:01:07] the station.

[3:01:09] » Um so I'm going to just throw this out

[3:01:11] there to you. Um would you be open to

[3:01:15] say um having some kind of

[3:01:18] transportation form? You talk about the

[3:01:20] different transit agencies. Um,

[3:01:24] Congressman Mullen's going to be in

[3:01:26] Brisbane, I think, next week. Uh, you

[3:01:29] know, Congressman Mullen represents not

[3:01:31] just Brisbane, but also Biz Valley. You

[3:01:34] know, perhaps uh having the congressman,

[3:01:37] you know, convene some kind of

[3:01:39] transportation forum to evaluate uh

[3:01:42] funding, you know, from the federal,

[3:01:44] maybe we can get um some of our state

[3:01:47] representatives. So, would you be

[3:01:50] interested in in evaluating that and

[3:01:52] looking at that uh by county study

[3:01:55] » Together?

[3:01:56] » Yep. We're always happy to meet with the

[3:01:58] congressman's office and discuss these

[3:02:01] things. Of course, all of those projects

[3:02:02] that you mentioned have regional

[3:02:03] significance and therefore also have

[3:02:06] regional implications for all of the

[3:02:07] different stakeholders who have to pay

[3:02:09] their fair share and participate in the

[3:02:11] planning and implementation of those

[3:02:13] projects. So, of course, as a relevant

[3:02:15] party, we're happy to participate in

[3:02:17] those discussions.

[3:02:17] » Absolutely. Yeah, you know, when you

[3:02:19] think about it, I mean, it's the site's

[3:02:21] expensive and in so many different areas

[3:02:24] and so by uh looking for ways to partner

[3:02:28] together

[3:02:30] » Uh makes sense, but that doesn't happen

[3:02:32] unless you have conversations.

[3:02:33] » Sure.

[3:02:34] » All right. Thank you,

[3:02:35] » Council Member Okonnell.

[3:02:38] » Nope.

[3:02:39] » No further questions in this section.

[3:02:41] » Okay. I have one

[3:02:44] if I can find it here. Ah, okay. Um,

[3:02:52] » Oh,

[3:02:54] do we have a motion to extend the

[3:02:56] meeting? And how about we say

[3:03:01] we'll just we'll make it an hour and

[3:03:02] then see where we're at.

[3:03:03] » So moved.

[3:03:05] » Second.

[3:03:06] » Second.

[3:03:07] » All in favor?

[3:03:08] » I I

[3:03:09] » Anyone opposed? No. Okay.

[3:03:11] [clears throat]

[3:03:13] specific plan talks about active

[3:03:16] transportation network and it mentions

[3:03:18] in accordance with the Brisbane bicycle

[3:03:20] and pedestrian master plan.

[3:03:24] What was the year of the last update to

[3:03:27] that plan? Could someone answer that?

[3:03:32] I think it's rather old.

[3:03:34] » 2017, I believe. So, have we given any

[3:03:37] thought to the fact that that's really

[3:03:39] outdated to be using as a

[3:03:42] reference?

[3:03:45] » Um, it [clears throat] is the most

[3:03:46] up-to-date document that we have. Um, we

[3:03:48] separately from this project, we are

[3:03:50] looking at doing an update of that

[3:03:52] document, but that is yet to be started.

[3:03:56] » Okay.

[3:03:58] All right.

[3:04:00] Let's go back then to Council Member

[3:04:02] O'Connell. You have you have no more

[3:04:04] questions?

[3:04:06] » Not on this section. No.

[3:04:07] » Okay. Mayor Prom Davis

[3:04:11] just um a quick question. So

[3:04:15] we have you know the TDM shuttle service

[3:04:18] and those are um aimed at achieving

[3:04:22] certain transportation performance. What

[3:04:24] happens if those don't actually achieve

[3:04:28] the anticipated results we're looking

[3:04:30] for? and is there a mechanism that we

[3:04:32] could use to require additional action?

[3:04:38] » Great question. Um, so commute.org has

[3:04:42] uh through the TDM their countywide TDM

[3:04:45] program has a monitoring program that

[3:04:46] they have set up and so they they do

[3:04:49] they oversee routine monitoring

[3:04:50] throughout the throughout out the

[3:04:52] county. Brisbane although has adopted

[3:04:54] its own ordinance um is working with

[3:04:57] commute.org or to facilitate that type

[3:05:00] of monitoring for local projects. So,

[3:05:02] they would be responsible for helping

[3:05:04] the the city do that type of monitoring

[3:05:06] in coordination with the TDM coordinator

[3:05:08] through surveys and and their other

[3:05:10] typical things that they gather.

[3:05:13] » I'll just I'll just add on that the city

[3:05:15] uh we already have kind of partnership

[3:05:17] with commute.org. They have this one

[3:05:19] commute platform which is really that

[3:05:21] kind of monitoring program and we we do

[3:05:24] submit we don't submit but we we use

[3:05:25] that platform to to monitor projects

[3:05:28] that are currently subject to our TDM

[3:05:30] ordinance.

[3:05:30] » Thank you.

[3:05:33] » Uh Council Member Kern,

[3:05:37] » No additional questions.

[3:05:39] » Okay, then let's see. Uh Council Member

[3:05:42] Lent,

[3:05:44] » I'm ready to move on to Geneva Avenue.

[3:05:47] Okay. So, I have one more question.

[3:05:51] Under regional transportation network,

[3:05:54] it says Brisbane currently has two free

[3:05:58] shuttle bus routes and that is I'm

[3:06:00] calling attention that is factually

[3:06:02] incorrect. The two routes were

[3:06:04] consolidated into one. So, the specific

[3:06:08] plan needs to reflect that. That's the

[3:06:11] end of my questions also. So, we have

[3:06:14] some members of the public. Madame

[3:06:16] Mayor, would you be immunable to a fivem

[3:06:18] minute break?

[3:06:19] » Sure.

[3:06:19] » Yeah, that'd be great.

[3:06:20] » Let's do a break and we'll come back

[3:06:21] with public questions.

[3:06:23] » Thank you.

[3:06:29] [music]

[3:06:34] [music]

[3:06:42] Heat. Heat.

[3:06:44] [music]

[3:06:49] [music]

[3:06:55] [music]

[3:07:00] [music]

[3:07:05] » [music]

[3:07:10] [music]

[3:07:18] [music]

[3:07:29] [music]

[3:07:34] [music]

[3:07:42] [music]

[3:07:50] [music]

[3:08:02] [music]

[3:08:07] [music]

[3:08:16] [music]

[3:08:21] » Hey, hey, hey.

[3:08:32] [music]

[3:08:42] [music]

[3:08:57] » [music]

[3:09:21] » Hey,

[3:09:23] [music]

[3:09:29] [music]

[3:09:34] hey, hey.

[3:09:36] [music]

[3:09:45] » [music]

[3:09:53] » Heat. Heat.

[3:09:55] [music]

[3:10:00] Oh, [music]

[3:10:12] [music]

[3:10:19] [music]

[3:10:20] hey.

[3:10:28] Let it go. [music]

[3:11:05] » [music]

[3:11:12] [music]

[3:11:26] [music]

[3:11:46] [music]

[3:12:12] [music]

[3:12:17] [music]

[3:12:25] » Hey,

[3:12:28] hey,

[3:12:33] hey.

[3:12:46] » [music]

[3:12:48] » Heat. Heat.

[3:12:52] [music]

[3:12:57] [music]

[3:13:02] » [music]

[3:13:07] [music]

[3:13:09] » Heat. Heat.

[3:13:12] [music]

[3:13:18] Heat. Heat.

[3:13:24] [music]

[3:13:47] » [music]

[3:13:52] [music]

[3:13:53] » Heat.

[3:13:55] Heat.

[3:13:58] [music]

[3:14:14] We're back in session

[3:14:17] and we're on public questions. First one

[3:14:21] I have Karen Cunningham. Is she still

[3:14:23] here?

[3:14:24] » No. Okay.

[3:14:27] Next one I have Ron Colona.

[3:14:31] After Ron I'll have Michelle Linda

[3:14:35] Salmon.

[3:14:37] » Okay, both are gone.

[3:14:40] Go ahead, Ron.

[3:14:41] » Okay.

[3:14:43] Uh what started this or initiated my

[3:14:46] being concerned about the transportation

[3:14:49] linkages? Uh when they had the Bank of

[3:14:53] America site, what are we going to do

[3:14:55] with that? how could it be used? And I

[3:14:57] thought, well, now that I'm associated

[3:14:59] with the seniors intimately,

[3:15:02] unfortunately, the uh the concerns of

[3:15:06] the seniors uh who aren't going to be

[3:15:08] using many of the bike paths, aren't

[3:15:11] going to be doing so many walks and all

[3:15:13] this other stuff.

[3:15:15] uh it seemed like a hub

[3:15:18] in that general area that could link

[3:15:23] uh getting over getting across bayshore

[3:15:26] which I guess you could and I'm thinking

[3:15:29] of a smaller vehicle not shuttles

[3:15:32] shuttles from what I've noticed them

[3:15:35] don't

[3:15:37] uh accommodate that many people in any

[3:15:39] one trip you see one or two people

[3:15:42] they're never never full of uh

[3:15:45] individuals.

[3:15:47] So why what if they had smaller

[3:15:49] vehicles,

[3:15:51] battery operated vehicles that could

[3:15:54] link especially, you know, as seniors

[3:16:00] that wanted to say go to the marina

[3:16:02] parks. You're going to have several

[3:16:03] parks in the marina now all through the

[3:16:05] place.

[3:16:07] Uh also the you know the transfer

[3:16:10] spots you know the bay train the bus

[3:16:13] stops and the other things these could

[3:16:15] all be useful get for getting seniors to

[3:16:18] u various places and they're more likely

[3:16:21] to use this stuff than the people that

[3:16:24] are bikers or whatever

[3:16:27] the uh

[3:16:32] the BFA site is I mean that's

[3:16:34] unimportant that's just got me thinking

[3:16:36] about

[3:16:37] But I'm thinking if you got to smaller

[3:16:40] vehicles, they don't have to be

[3:16:43] you got to get somewhere between being

[3:16:45] street legal, I guess, and and

[3:16:48] being of a useful size.

[3:16:52] But uh you know like the the Whimos you

[3:16:56] you've seen those light blue colored

[3:16:58] extended you know something uh something

[3:17:01] that could take the number of people

[3:17:03] that would probably be using it at max

[3:17:07] and uh

[3:17:10] [clears throat]

[3:17:10] loading them on and going to more

[3:17:12] multiple sites. I mean you could take

[3:17:14] that vehicle up into the ridge, you

[3:17:16] could take it into the inner city, you

[3:17:17] could take it out to the marina.

[3:17:20] So, uh,

[3:17:23] the other thing that was I was thinking

[3:17:24] about is that, well, if we use these

[3:17:27] smaller vehicles, and they're

[3:17:28] presumably,

[3:17:31] uh, they're absolutely going to be

[3:17:33] battery charged,

[3:17:35] but what about all these parking

[3:17:37] facilities within

[3:17:40] site?

[3:17:42] There's no way. There's no reason to not

[3:17:44] have panels that could be used for

[3:17:47] charging these vehicles overnight so

[3:17:50] they'd be ready to

[3:17:54] go wherever they're being scheduled to

[3:17:56] go that day.

[3:17:58] Uh, and one thing I noticed, I thought

[3:18:01] of this years ago, but I had not heard

[3:18:03] of it until recently, that uh, in

[3:18:06] Australia where they the side the panels

[3:18:09] weren't only on the roof. They were also

[3:18:12] on a building siding.

[3:18:15] And we [clears throat] have some

[3:18:16] highrises that are going to be, you

[3:18:17] know, with a south facing going to get

[3:18:20] more charging than you need.

[3:18:22] [clears throat]

[3:18:24] So, um,

[3:18:27] well, that's it. you how you would

[3:18:28] integrate all these notions. Uh I don't

[3:18:32] have a clue but I just thought that

[3:18:35] would be a nice answer to a lot of

[3:18:37] problems. Thank you.

[3:18:38] » Thank you. Online we have Roland.

[3:18:43] [clears throat]

[3:18:51] [clears throat]

[3:18:53] » Rolling your mute. There we go.

[3:18:55] » Yeah. Thank you. Um, [laughter] uh,

[3:18:57] Madame Mayor and Council, is this the

[3:18:59] appropriate time to talk about the

[3:19:01] interface between, uh, Cal Train and the

[3:19:03] Geneva Avenue extension, or should I

[3:19:05] wait until the next item?

[3:19:07] » I think I would wait till Geneva Avenue

[3:19:10] extension.

[3:19:12] » We'll do. Thank you.

[3:19:13] » Okay,

[3:19:14] can I just want to follow up on Ron's

[3:19:17] uh, comment staff, real quick.

[3:19:20] » So, I'm sorry. There we go. Yeah. Yeah.

[3:19:23] So, I wanted to follow up on uh Ron's uh

[3:19:25] comment about, you know, potentially on

[3:19:29] demand smaller

[3:19:32] um shuttles, you know, say in central

[3:19:36] Brisbane and the Northeast Ridge

[3:19:38] connecting to the proposed shuttle that

[3:19:43] uh that the developer is proposing. Is

[3:19:46] that is that shown anywhere in the

[3:19:48] specific plan or mentioned? It's not not

[3:19:53] shown no specifically, but yeah.

[3:19:56] » Okay. But that that could be something

[3:19:58] that could be implemented.

[3:20:02] » Okay. If you want to I thought I saw

[3:20:04] something in there, but just very

[3:20:06] briefly if you wouldn't mind.

[3:20:08] » Yeah. If you look at table 6.5.1

[3:20:12] proposed bays shuttle routes, there's a

[3:20:16] reference to the um

[3:20:19] » On demand, right? the shuttles being

[3:20:21] provided at specific intervals on

[3:20:24] weekdays or in some cases on demand

[3:20:28] service on weekends.

[3:20:30] » Yeah. So, you know, if people had the an

[3:20:34] app on their smartphone and they could

[3:20:36] request that and catch the shuttle and

[3:20:39] then come to the designated shuttle

[3:20:42] route and then get on the shuttle. Okay,

[3:20:45] that sounds like something that that

[3:20:46] could possibly be done. All right. Thank

[3:20:49] you.

[3:20:50] » All right. We go on to the next section.

[3:20:52] Geneva Avenue Extension Council

[3:20:55] questions. Let us start with Mayor Prom

[3:20:59] Davis.

[3:21:02] Um, I just have one question in this

[3:21:05] section

[3:21:07] and

[3:21:09] provided the council is on board, I'd

[3:21:12] like for us to consider removing

[3:21:16] references in the specific plan that

[3:21:17] establish future ownership or a specific

[3:21:20] funding mechanism for major

[3:21:21] infrastructure such as Geneva Avenue

[3:21:23] extension. And I think that the specific

[3:21:26] plan should establish the transportation

[3:21:29] improvements that are necessary to

[3:21:31] support the development, but I don't

[3:21:33] think that it should predetermine the

[3:21:35] city's ownership of those facilities or

[3:21:37] what financing mechanism will be used to

[3:21:39] deliver them. And those are really

[3:21:42] implementation and financing decisions

[3:21:44] that should be addressed through a

[3:21:46] development agreement or other

[3:21:47] appropriate actions as a project moves

[3:21:49] forward. And I would ask staff to revise

[3:21:52] table 8.2.1 2.1 so that it identifies

[3:21:55] the improvement and its role in the

[3:21:58] transportation system but does not state

[3:22:00] city-owned or EIF funded as

[3:22:05] predetermined outcomes. And I don't know

[3:22:07] if that's I mean I know they're kind of

[3:22:09] listed maybe it's listed as ways these

[3:22:12] might be funded but I think

[3:22:15] I don't want that table to be

[3:22:18] misunderstood as this is for sure how

[3:22:20] it's going to be funded. Um

[3:22:24] so I know there is like a little caveat

[3:22:27] below that. Um

[3:22:32] so

[3:22:32] » I think it's clear what you're saying. I

[3:22:35] understand what you're saying. So yeah,

[3:22:37] that's just my that's that's less of a

[3:22:39] question and more of a staff direction.

[3:22:42] And of course, the rest of the council

[3:22:43] would have to be on board with that

[3:22:44] change. But to me, I really am concerned

[3:22:47] about anything that prescribes ownership

[3:22:50] for the city or outlines that the city

[3:22:52] may be collaborating in um financing.

[3:22:58] » Okay. Thank you. Uh Council Member

[3:23:01] Okonnell.

[3:23:03] [cough]

[3:23:05] » [clears throat]

[3:23:05] » So to and and this is maybe a bit

[3:23:08] esoteric, but the Geneva Avenue

[3:23:12] extension is serving not only the

[3:23:15] project and creating a way to get over

[3:23:20] the tracks. Um but it's also ser serving

[3:23:23] the larger community.

[3:23:25] Um,

[3:23:28] if it doesn't get built,

[3:23:31] what will we need to do to meet our

[3:23:36] the goals of the circulation

[3:23:39] and the TDM goals?

[3:23:43] And can

[3:23:46] because of this project and that it

[3:23:48] serves other communities besides just

[3:23:51] this project, can we

[3:23:56] require that the developer pays for that

[3:24:04] [clears throat] in the specific plan.

[3:24:13] So

[3:24:15] complicated question. So maybe I maybe

[3:24:17] the city attorney and I can um try to

[3:24:20] take this one on. So the specific plan

[3:24:24] and EIR identify that it would need to

[3:24:27] be completed as a part of the phase one

[3:24:30] construction. So west of west of uh Cal

[3:24:34] Train tracks to support that level of

[3:24:36] growth. Um, and so that's that the

[3:24:40] extent of the EIR analysis is based on

[3:24:42] that needing to be in place as a

[3:24:45] mitigation measure. Um,

[3:24:49] » And that would mean it would need to be

[3:24:50] developer funded.

[3:24:53] » I'll turn it over to the city attorney

[3:24:54] for that one. And maybe we're delving

[3:24:57] into

[3:24:59] the financing portion of it, but it's

[3:25:02] really my concern that if it doesn't get

[3:25:05] developed and if the this developer is

[3:25:09] selling little sections off to be built

[3:25:13] in phases that which phase is going to

[3:25:17] pay that I mean which block of housing

[3:25:21] or commercial is going to pay for that

[3:25:24] because that's going to a tremendous

[3:25:26] amount of money.

[3:25:30] But what is and I'm relating it back to

[3:25:32] what our

[3:25:35] ramifications of them not doing it are

[3:25:39] once 80% of phase one's built

[3:25:49] » And you can come back with that. Yeah,

[3:25:50] we'll have to we'll have to go through

[3:25:52] the mitigation monitoring program a

[3:25:53] little bit and tease that apart to give

[3:25:55] you a more comprehensive answer.

[3:25:57] » Okay. Thank you.

[3:25:59] » Okay, Council Member Lance.

[3:26:03] » Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, can we pull

[3:26:05] up figure 6.3.2?

[3:26:09] That's the one that's got Geneva and

[3:26:11] it's I guess it's maybe going towards it

[3:26:17] says uh Geneva Avenue Bridge and Geneva

[3:26:19] Avenue frontage roads.

[3:26:28] » It's on my slides. So if

[3:26:31] » Yes, we saw it.

[3:26:32] » City clerk. Yeah, I'm trying talking to

[3:26:34] the city manager here. Sorry. It's okay.

[3:26:44] » [cough and clears throat]

[3:26:49] » Do you know it slide number?

[3:26:56] » Yeah, it's going to be Keep going. Keep

[3:26:58] going. It's two more. One more. There

[3:27:02] you go.

[3:27:03] » Okay. There you go. All right. If we can

[3:27:06] make that one bigger, that'd be great.

[3:27:13] All right. Well, maybe that's as Okay,

[3:27:16] there we go. Thank you. So, um,

[3:27:20] so looking at the bottom picture, so we

[3:27:23] have six lanes. Two lanes going west,

[3:27:26] two lanes going east, and then we have

[3:27:28] the two BRT

[3:27:30] lanes in the center. So when it crosses

[3:27:34] over the train tracks, how do we funnel

[3:27:38] these six lanes underneath the 101 to

[3:27:42] get out to Candlestick?

[3:27:46] So that's where Geneva Avenue would

[3:27:49] connect to the new Candlestick

[3:27:52] interchange.

[3:27:53] And I understand that this is a really

[3:27:56] complicated part of the regional

[3:27:59] transportation connections here, but the

[3:28:01] candlestick interchange um as envisioned

[3:28:04] through the bycounty study was

[3:28:07] identified as a mitigation measure and

[3:28:10] that the bayands as identified in the by

[3:28:12] county study would need to contribute

[3:28:14] its fair share towards that project you

[3:28:16] know which candlestick development in

[3:28:18] San Francisco also contributes to. So

[3:28:21] that is where the Geneva Avenue

[3:28:24] as proposed by the developer would then

[3:28:26] connect into that new interchange.

[3:28:31] » Did your company uh do that study?

[3:28:34] » We did the trans the traffic analysis of

[3:28:39] the different scenarios I just described

[3:28:41] of what would happen if you build the

[3:28:43] Geneva Avenue with or without the

[3:28:45] candlestick interchange. Do you have

[3:28:46] some renderings that show us I mean

[3:28:48] right now we just have a cut off bridge

[3:28:50] and that's it.

[3:28:51] » The bridge to nowhere

[3:28:52] » Bridge to nowhere.

[3:28:53] » We we no there were no no renderings. We

[3:28:56] didn't prepare any renderings for the IR

[3:28:58] analysis. It's it's reference there were

[3:29:01] you know designs prepared for the by

[3:29:04] county study and the follow-up project

[3:29:05] study report CALR project study report

[3:29:08] that was completed in 2015.

[3:29:10] Now what the EIR identifies is that

[3:29:14] because of change conditions since 2013

[3:29:18] and 2015

[3:29:20] um the by county study and the project

[3:29:23] study report will all need to be updated

[3:29:26] to reflect current kind of traffic and

[3:29:29] travel conditions through this area. So

[3:29:31] what we did is we analyzed okay would

[3:29:34] the prior

[3:29:36] c as proposed candlestick interchange

[3:29:39] that has you know this funding by county

[3:29:42] funding agreement would that address the

[3:29:45] significant impacts in the project? The

[3:29:46] answer is yes and that that part of the

[3:29:50] process is a reg regionally significant

[3:29:53] coordinated pro program as you were

[3:29:55] referring to earlier as part of these

[3:29:57] these conversations that will need to be

[3:29:59] updated for final design um and through

[3:30:03] CALR standard process because CALR has a

[3:30:06] standard process that is of course

[3:30:07] outside of the city's control to to

[3:30:11] dictate.

[3:30:11] » Yeah. You know, there's another slide

[3:30:13] that you showed and it had maybe it was

[3:30:16] yours, Katie, where it it shows that,

[3:30:19] » You know, there's a little arrow.

[3:30:21] » Yeah. If you go

[3:30:21] » Across and then it goes underneath the

[3:30:23] freeway and um but when you look at

[3:30:27] this, I mean, if this is what you're

[3:30:28] building and then this is what could

[3:30:32] happen if you don't get people to come

[3:30:35] together and work something out, that

[3:30:38] doesn't seem possible.

[3:30:40] Can you

[3:30:42] maybe just step me through that your

[3:30:44] your point again and if there's a

[3:30:46] question in there? Sorry.

[3:30:47] » Yeah. Well, so yeah, so I'm just I'm I'm

[3:30:49] trying to grasp what what's being shown

[3:30:52] to us.

[3:30:53] » Yeah.

[3:30:53] » And what we're going to approve.

[3:30:56] » Y

[3:30:57] » So we have six lanes going across the

[3:31:01] tracks and they're going to continue

[3:31:05] east.

[3:31:06] There's um there's a you know kind of

[3:31:08] very simple diagram that shows the

[3:31:11] arrows and where things go and one of

[3:31:13] the arrows goes underneath the freeway

[3:31:16] coming from Geneva.

[3:31:20] So I'm just trying to square that up.

[3:31:22] How does that happen if you don't have

[3:31:25] the partnership from all of the you know

[3:31:28] the the regional players?

[3:31:32] » Yeah. I mean that's it's it's

[3:31:34] fundamentally like a two two-part

[3:31:36] project that would need to happen. Um

[3:31:39] you know the what the developer in the

[3:31:41] specific plan shows is that it ends the

[3:31:43] Virginia Avenue extension ends at the

[3:31:45] existing intersection of Alana and Batty

[3:31:48] um which is a three-legg intersection

[3:31:51] today and you know theoretically you

[3:31:53] could put a fourth leg there but

[3:31:55] operational the problem the challenge

[3:31:57] that we identified in the EIR and that's

[3:31:59] why that that's why the rebuilding the

[3:32:03] interchange is a part of the mitigation

[3:32:05] strategies because it's not proposed by

[3:32:06] the

[3:32:08] So we have so there is a mechanism now

[3:32:11] for same as what candlestick has to do.

[3:32:14] Candlestick couldn't control rebuilding

[3:32:16] the interchange but the city of San

[3:32:18] Francisco required that Candlestick

[3:32:20] contribute their fair share to real

[3:32:22] rebuilding you know candlestick can can

[3:32:25] build the Harney way side of things but

[3:32:27] then they can't do the interchange. So,

[3:32:30] it's it's it's mirroring what what

[3:32:32] candlestick eir did um on on the other

[3:32:36] side.

[3:32:38] » Okay. I mean I mean really what you're

[3:32:40] you're showing us is basically uh an

[3:32:45] infeasible Geneva Avenue extension

[3:32:49] bridge, right? I guess maybe you could

[3:32:51] use part of Geneva Avenue extension as

[3:32:54] it, you know, say west of the tracks,

[3:32:58] but that after that it's you can't, you

[3:33:01] know, why would you build it

[3:33:03] » Unless you you know, you could make the

[3:33:05] connection to the other side.

[3:33:07] » Yeah. And and that's and that's where

[3:33:08] that that regional project that's Yes.

[3:33:10] That's

[3:33:12] Yes. This is the the complicated nature

[3:33:14] of it. Theoretically, you know, you

[3:33:16] could build build a structure while

[3:33:18] Kennel stick is being, you know, move

[3:33:20] move forward as well, create a

[3:33:22] connection to the existing intersection.

[3:33:24] What we found is that that, you know,

[3:33:26] that's probably going to be overloaded

[3:33:28] pretty quickly. I mean, that's this is

[3:33:30] this is the crux of the problem that the

[3:33:31] prior EIR identified for for Baylands um

[3:33:35] to as well. So this is this is really

[3:33:37] just a consistent kind of framework

[3:33:40] um from both the prior EIR the by county

[3:33:44] study the candlestick EIR

[3:33:47] um

[3:33:49] that this this ER relied on.

[3:33:51] » Okay. So I'm sorry you know if I just

[3:33:54] can

[3:33:55] » Is it going to I just want to ask just

[3:33:56] one more question.

[3:33:57] » We got one per council member.

[3:33:59] » Okay. All right. I'll come on back. No

[3:34:01] you know you guys should ask the

[3:34:03] questions on this too. One per council

[3:34:05] member Kern.

[3:34:05] » Absolutely. Thank you so much. Um, you

[3:34:08] guys checked off quite a few questions

[3:34:10] that I had already on here. So, I guess

[3:34:13] Matt, let me just ask you this real

[3:34:15] fundamental, super basic question.

[3:34:18] Can the candlestick exchange exist

[3:34:22] without the Geneva Avenue extension?

[3:34:27] » Can the candlestick interchange uh exist

[3:34:30] without the Geneva Avenue extension? Um

[3:34:33] it's

[3:34:36] uh in all prior planning documents the

[3:34:38] two of them have been identified

[3:34:41] together.

[3:34:42] So that um that's not something that we

[3:34:45] studied as a part of this project.

[3:34:48] » Okay. That was a very fundamental

[3:34:49] question. I get it.

[3:34:50] » Yeah.

[3:34:51] » So I'm going to reverse the question and

[3:34:53] say can the Geneva Avenue extension with

[3:34:56] exist without the candlestick exchange?

[3:34:59] I'm going to guess you're going to say

[3:35:00] yes. And I'm going to guess that that

[3:35:02] means the traffic coming off the

[3:35:04] extension will be routed onto Alana Way

[3:35:06] and then Harney Way and then on through

[3:35:08] the existing on-ramp going northbound.

[3:35:10] Exa

[3:35:10] » Ex Ex. Exactly. And and as I just

[3:35:14] described like that creates a

[3:35:15] challenging situation.

[3:35:17] » Absolutely.

[3:35:19] » Okay. Thank you. I don't have any other

[3:35:20] questions.

[3:35:23] » So I'm going to parlay off of what's

[3:35:25] just been

[3:35:27] » Just put on the table.

[3:35:30] We have a specific plan to approve and

[3:35:33] we're being asked to approve this Geneva

[3:35:35] extension which really could completely

[3:35:40] transform into something else based upon

[3:35:44] Calrans and a byount another by county

[3:35:48] study on this. So why would we even be

[3:35:52] approving the design other than a

[3:35:55] concept?

[3:35:59] » I think that's essentially what you are

[3:36:01] approving right now. You know what the

[3:36:03] specific plan outlines is that there are

[3:36:07] two travel lanes in each direction. You

[3:36:09] have separated facility, you know, bike

[3:36:11] and ped facilities on either side. And

[3:36:14] you provide the the BRT lanes as called

[3:36:17] for in prior regional planning studies.

[3:36:19] So there's there's no, you know, kind of

[3:36:21] like engineering design associated with

[3:36:23] it. Um there's an alignment. There's

[3:36:26] enough detail that you can analyze, you

[3:36:28] know, what the environmental impacts

[3:36:29] would be.

[3:36:30] » Um

[3:36:32] » Were those configurations

[3:36:34] something that were in the bycount

[3:36:36] study? Because I know they did look at

[3:36:39] Geneva. Was it that configuration with

[3:36:42] the double-decker and the the way the

[3:36:44] lanes are are laid out? Um I think I

[3:36:47] think and maybe the I don't know if the

[3:36:49] applicant wants to speak to this of like

[3:36:51] how they changed the design of Geneva

[3:36:53] but it it's it's slightly different but

[3:36:55] and that's why one of the reasons why

[3:36:57] the PSR would need to be um updated the

[3:37:00] the the overall configuration though of

[3:37:02] what we what I just mentioned that is

[3:37:05] the same. Uh there are were four lanes

[3:37:08] previously for vehicle traffic. there

[3:37:10] are two BRT lanes um down the middle and

[3:37:13] there have been plans of how you then

[3:37:15] connect the BRT under the freeway and

[3:37:18] allow the you know vehicle vehicle

[3:37:21] traffic to to go over under Highway 101.

[3:37:25] Um

[3:37:26] » So again I'm going to come back to this.

[3:37:28] It seems to me we should be approving a

[3:37:31] concept of

[3:37:33] some vagaries of lanes and connections

[3:37:36] without a final design that's has an

[3:37:40] illustration that may be completely

[3:37:41] obsolete

[3:37:44] because

[3:37:46] we're approving a design is is there's

[3:37:49] an illustration and and I would feel

[3:37:52] personally more comfortable in approving

[3:37:54] a concept noting that this is to be

[3:37:58] determined by a by county study rather

[3:38:00] than specifics that may all change.

[3:38:05] » Well, I mean I

[3:38:07] I think that that that that is kind of

[3:38:10] what just to reemphasize what Matt had

[3:38:12] said. That is more or less what the

[3:38:13] specific plan is. It's the lane

[3:38:17] configuration and the expression of how

[3:38:20] the street would work, but it's not the

[3:38:23] engineering for it. It's not the actual

[3:38:27] design of that infrastructure that that

[3:38:29] is something that would happen later as

[3:38:32] part of you know the process that you

[3:38:34] were just describing. So I I'm

[3:38:37] guess I'm not sure what you what

[3:38:40] component of it you would prefer not be

[3:38:43] in the plan. If we could be more clear

[3:38:45] about that then we can

[3:38:47] » I I would

[3:38:49] mostly I'd like specificity in this

[3:38:52] case. I'd probably like more esoterica

[3:38:55] in that it's going to be out of our

[3:38:58] hands if it's a byount study and calrans

[3:39:01] they're going to determine what it looks

[3:39:03] like. I I'd be more comfortable if it's

[3:39:05] if it just said it would encompass

[3:39:09] theoretically blah blah blah blah blah

[3:39:11] than showing something specific that may

[3:39:13] never even end up exactly like that. If

[3:39:19] we could just kind of tone it down. If I

[3:39:21] may hope u may add a little bit to this.

[3:39:24] So um yeah reiterating what was just

[3:39:27] said that it is a concept before you and

[3:39:28] it's not completely designed. I think

[3:39:30] the what this document's doing is

[3:39:33] looking at the potential impacts as far

[3:39:34] as the ER itself is concerned to make

[3:39:37] sure that what what is being proposed as

[3:39:39] at a concept level doesn't we capture

[3:39:42] whatever those impacts are as part of

[3:39:43] our review. um when when we move forward

[3:39:47] when this moves forward at some point it

[3:39:49] you're right it might change um a little

[3:39:51] bit uh that's something that's going to

[3:39:53] be up to by county so Santo County and

[3:39:55] San Francisco city and county um but I

[3:39:59] think what we're trying to make sure is

[3:40:00] that we have covered whatever those

[3:40:02] potential impacts of that improvement

[3:40:04] would be with with related to this

[3:40:06] specific plan um and that's still going

[3:40:10] to be something that needs to be flushed

[3:40:11] out

[3:40:11] » Yeah I don't disagree with what you're

[3:40:13] saying

[3:40:14] » And and Maybe there's some maybe we can

[3:40:16] maybe there's some language tweak in the

[3:40:17] specific plan that make that a little

[3:40:19] bit more clear.

[3:40:19] » Yeah. Thank you.

[3:40:22] Okay, back to questions. Council member

[3:40:25] Kerna, you're first.

[3:40:28] » Thank you. I guess my only remaining

[3:40:30] question is to the applicant. Do you or

[3:40:33] do you not need the Geneva Extension

[3:40:36] Bridge to stop I I'm not This is not an

[3:40:39] inquiry. Sounds like it is. But do you

[3:40:41] or do you not need that bridge in order

[3:40:44] to remediate and build infrastructure

[3:40:46] and all of the work that you have to do?

[3:40:58] » Yeah, if I understand the question

[3:41:00] correctly, we do not need the bridge for

[3:41:02] the remediation of either the landfill

[3:41:05] or the um railard site.

[3:41:09] Um, the bridge is a regional

[3:41:11] transportation project as was studied in

[3:41:14] 2013 by the Bay County and just to be

[3:41:17] also clear in that study, the Geneva

[3:41:21] bridge is part and parcel with the 101

[3:41:25] exchange. Um, not sure um, and not sure

[3:41:31] if we have our engineer online, but I

[3:41:35] don't think those two pieces have to go

[3:41:37] together. Um, I don't think there's a a

[3:41:41] good way to bring the Geneva over the

[3:41:44] railroad tracks and then down as you

[3:41:47] suggested onto Harney. It's just too

[3:41:49] complicated. So, the whole concept in

[3:41:52] 2013 was this regional transportation

[3:41:55] plan. And to be clear, that was a by

[3:41:58] county study. It also studied um it also

[3:42:02] claimed states

[3:42:05] that and the reason the study was done

[3:42:07] was because the Hunter Point shipyard,

[3:42:09] Candlestick, Schlleg,

[3:42:12] Baylands, Brisbane were all coming into

[3:42:14] the pipeline and there was an estimated

[3:42:17] you know the number of travel trips and

[3:42:20] people living there. Um and that there

[3:42:23] would would be no need for any of this

[3:42:25] if none of those projects ever happened.

[3:42:28] Second thing in the study was that um it

[3:42:32] was a fair share program. So for the

[3:42:35] Geneva extension

[3:42:37] I believe uh the balance project has

[3:42:40] about a 34%

[3:42:42] share of the Geneva extension. The other

[3:42:46] large shares are San Francisco se San

[3:42:49] Francisco County, Sanonteo County and

[3:42:53] the other large developments.

[3:42:56] So,

[3:42:58] » Okay. I mean, so what I'm hearing you

[3:43:00] say is

[3:43:00] » Ask a question again, Council Member

[3:43:02] Kern. Just

[3:43:04] » Do you are [laughter] I'm just kidding.

[3:43:07] [gasps]

[3:43:07] » So, what I what I'm hearing is if the

[3:43:09] bridge is never constructed, it doesn't

[3:43:11] impact you at all. You're going to move

[3:43:13] forward with your infrastructure

[3:43:14] projects, building houses, multi-use,

[3:43:17] commercial. You don't need the bridge to

[3:43:18] do any of that.

[3:43:19] » We do not need the bridge for that. No,

[3:43:21] it is a regional transportation um

[3:43:23] project.

[3:43:24] » Okay. Thank you for that.

[3:43:25] » Mhm. Mayor Prom Davis,

[3:43:29] » I don't have any more questions for this

[3:43:30] section.

[3:43:31] » Okay,

[3:43:34] Council Member O'Connell.

[3:43:37] » Mine's going to be Mine's going to be a

[3:43:39] three-prongong and I don't really expect

[3:43:42] an answer um until you can come back.

[3:43:48] What is the mitigation requirements

[3:43:52] for the candlestick project? the Schlage

[3:43:55] lock project.

[3:43:57] Um, [clears throat] and how do they

[3:44:00] how do their mitigation

[3:44:03] um measures for those two projects

[3:44:06] affect if Candlestick and the Geneva

[3:44:10] Bridge ever get built?

[3:44:13] And so, are they in violation of their

[3:44:15] mitigation measures if it doesn't, just

[3:44:18] like we would be in violation of our

[3:44:20] mitigation measures if it doesn't?

[3:44:24] And then this third prong would be when

[3:44:29] I was back um on CCAG

[3:44:32] a decade ago maybe more. Um they had a

[3:44:37] project list for the interchange

[3:44:40] um projects that were under

[3:44:43] consideration or wish lists.

[3:44:45] » And there was two that affected

[3:44:48] Brisbane, three actually. the tunnel,

[3:44:51] the the bridge over 101, the Beayshore

[3:44:55] exit, Cal Palace exit,

[3:44:58] um

[3:45:00] Zero Point interchange,

[3:45:03] and the Candlestick interchange, and

[3:45:05] they were all considered so far down the

[3:45:09] bottom of the project list as far as

[3:45:12] CCAG was saying that they will never get

[3:45:17] built was basically what CCAG had to me

[3:45:21] when I was there

[3:45:23] » That those projects were in the north

[3:45:26] county and they did not have priority

[3:45:29] for

[3:45:31] CCAG as a whole. I don't know if we can

[3:45:34] find out if those projects have moved up

[3:45:37] their list

[3:45:38] and also what mitigation has been asked

[3:45:43] of Schlleglock project or Baylands

[3:45:48] North, whatever you want to call it, and

[3:45:50] the Candlestick project and how that

[3:45:52] might affect if those two ever go

[3:45:54] through on our project.

[3:46:03] few questions in there. So, let me move

[3:46:05] try to move slowly here. Um,

[3:46:08] » I said I didn't need a response tonight

[3:46:10] because I think it might need a little

[3:46:11] but I mean if you can

[3:46:13] » Um I I can speak to briefly

[3:46:19] cags processes for example when they do

[3:46:21] prioritization um ties approved projects

[3:46:24] you know is is would be one of the

[3:46:26] things that they need for something that

[3:46:28] is a developmentdriven project. And so

[3:46:32] it's yeah, this these interchanges are

[3:46:34] not going to get prioritized until you

[3:46:36] have approved projects that require it.

[3:46:40] Um

[3:46:40] » So until San Francisco pushes

[3:46:43] » Or or or Brisbane or until the bay lands

[3:46:46] are approved

[3:46:48] because the bay lands is what is why one

[3:46:50] of the reasons you know it's all the

[3:46:52] projects within this the the by county

[3:46:54] agreement, right?

[3:46:55] » Okay.

[3:46:56] Um

[3:46:58] and the

[3:47:02] yeah I mean the candlestick EIR

[3:47:04] identifies as a mitigation measure and

[3:47:06] so yes the city of San Francisco is

[3:47:09] responsible for ensuring that the

[3:47:12] Kennlestick development falls through on

[3:47:14] their obligations to contribute to to

[3:47:16] that project

[3:47:22] and Sim Schlleglock has a role too as

[3:47:24] well. they have a fair share

[3:47:26] responsibility as well.

[3:47:29] » Okay.

[3:47:30] I' I'd prefer a a little more indepth

[3:47:33] when we can get it, but thank you.

[3:47:35] » Of course,

[3:47:37] » Council Member Lent.

[3:47:39] » Yes. Um Stephanie.

[3:47:42] So, um

[3:47:45] I'm trying to remember. I thought that

[3:47:47] there were some renderings of that

[3:47:50] exchange and that the Geneva Avenue

[3:47:53] extension just stayed on pillars, right?

[3:47:56] It was just a podium that that that then

[3:47:59] just continued east.

[3:48:02] » So

[3:48:02] » To where

[3:48:03] » To over, you know, to the exchange.

[3:48:06] » Yeah. Connecting to the to the 101

[3:48:09] exchange. Yeah. That's the grand plan.

[3:48:11] » Yeah. And over to Executive Park like

[3:48:14] find those renderings. I think it would

[3:48:16] be helpful if if you could.

[3:48:18] » Um I know you're saying that they don't

[3:48:20] exist, but I thought I could have swore

[3:48:21] there was some renderings.

[3:48:23] » Council member Lent, you are correct. I

[3:48:25] think in some of our workshopping over

[3:48:28] the years, we BKF, our engineers,

[3:48:32] presented some kind of conceptual

[3:48:34] sketches and there were a couple of

[3:48:37] different options.

[3:48:38] » Okay.

[3:48:38] » Yeah. And yeah, I think we can I can

[3:48:42] excavate those for you, but they were

[3:48:45] they were conceptual.

[3:48:47] » I know. I totally get it. I mean, it

[3:48:49] just kind of gives us an understanding

[3:48:50] of like, okay, what how it would work,

[3:48:52] » What the scope would be.

[3:48:54] » Yeah. Yes, I can I can find those.

[3:48:57] » Um

[3:48:58] » Okay.

[3:48:58] » But but I think it, you know, I think

[3:49:01] it's they're not in our specific plan

[3:49:03] because as Katie said, it's not part of

[3:49:05] our specific plan. the the Geneva

[3:49:08] extension, the bridge obviously is in

[3:49:10] the middle of our project. So So we have

[3:49:12] to talk about it and we have to describe

[3:49:14] it and as um Council Member Connell

[3:49:18] says, it's it's it is conceptual in our

[3:49:21] in our design. It's not a hard and fast

[3:49:24] design, but it was, you know, a

[3:49:26] collaborative effort over many years

[3:49:28] with our transportation people and the

[3:49:31] [sighs]

[3:49:32] various agencies and to put those that

[3:49:35] what you're seeing in the specific plan

[3:49:37] in there. But it is conceptual.

[3:49:39] » Yeah. And it hinges on a lot which is

[3:49:41] you know all these other developments

[3:49:44] happening

[3:49:45] and to create the need for it and and

[3:49:50] just to remind that it's a fair share

[3:49:52] project meaning the county both counties

[3:49:56] and all the cities and all the

[3:49:59] developers have a fair share both in the

[3:50:01] Geneva bridge extension and in the 101

[3:50:04] and in fact in all seven of the priority

[3:50:06] projects that are discussed in the 2013

[3:50:08] 13 by county and I think we've all kind

[3:50:11] of agreed um that that plan does need

[3:50:15] updating.

[3:50:18] » Yeah. You know, again, not having the

[3:50:21] Geneva Avenue extension going all the

[3:50:23] way to the 101.

[3:50:24] » Yes.

[3:50:25] » Basically, any development that occurs

[3:50:28] in the Baylands, when people go south,

[3:50:31] they're going to travel along Beayshore

[3:50:33] and go through Brisbane, right? So

[3:50:35] that's going to be a major impact to uh

[3:50:38] our city. So

[3:50:40] » Having the extension go all the way

[3:50:42] across to the 101

[3:50:44] » Alleviates that. And so

[3:50:46] » It's a great proposal and it's a great

[3:50:49] project. Nobody's Yeah. Nobody's

[3:50:51] debating that.

[3:50:52] » Yes.

[3:50:53] » I think we're just debating timing and

[3:50:56] and and need and and fair share.

[3:51:01] I don't think it's so much a debate, but

[3:51:03] really more we need to have the talk,

[3:51:06] right? We need to have those

[3:51:07] conversations and and work together.

[3:51:10] » Yes.

[3:51:10] » Okay. That's

[3:51:11] » Okay.

[3:51:12] » Okay.

[3:51:13] » You do realize archaeology is part of

[3:51:16] SQA. So, you're finding old renderings

[3:51:18] is part of your job you never thought

[3:51:20] about. It's

[3:51:21] » Probably a mitigation.

[3:51:23] [laughter]

[3:51:24] » All right. [snorts]

[3:51:26] Back on the question round. Council

[3:51:29] member O'Connell,

[3:51:31] » I'm done for tonight.

[3:51:32] » Okay.

[3:51:34] Council member Kern,

[3:51:36] » No further questions.

[3:51:39] » Council member Lent.

[3:51:40] » I am done on this particular item.

[3:51:43] » Okay. So, am I So, we have public

[3:51:47] question comments. First one I have

[3:51:50] here, Roland

[3:51:52] online.

[3:51:56] Thank you uh madame mayor and council

[3:51:58] and I'm glad you left me to the last

[3:52:00] item. So what I'd like to do is to speak

[3:52:04] uh to the current proposal um to connect

[3:52:07] the bay calrain station to Geneva Avenue

[3:52:10] via a shuttle. is suggest an alternative

[3:52:14] that provides a direct connection

[3:52:17] between Cal Train and Geneva Avenue by

[3:52:20] doubling the length of the Cal Train

[3:52:22] platforms to 1,400 ft and shifting the

[3:52:27] entire station 7 ft so south to

[3:52:31] intersect with the Geneva Avenue

[3:52:34] extension overpass.

[3:52:37] With regards to elevations, the Cal

[3:52:39] Train tracks remain at the current

[3:52:42] grade, but both sides of the tracks rise

[3:52:45] to the same level as the overpass, which

[3:52:48] ends up being level with the bailance

[3:52:50] development.

[3:52:52] This change in elevation

[3:52:55] introduces an opportunity to eliminate

[3:52:58] the current Cal Train Berlin Mall that

[3:53:01] cuts the bay lines in east and west

[3:53:03] halves by opening up multiple

[3:53:06] opportunities to build open space or

[3:53:09] even buildings above the tracks. And

[3:53:13] then I don't know if you have the slides

[3:53:14] but the last slide is actually a

[3:53:16] 15year-old

[3:53:17] uh Jonathan Shar sharpen slide um

[3:53:21] showing Geneva Avenue above the the

[3:53:24] Cathine um tracks and platforms but that

[3:53:28] slide is missing escalators or

[3:53:30] inclinators connecting both sides of

[3:53:32] Geneva Avenue to the Catra platforms.

[3:53:36] In closing,

[3:53:37] the reconfigured station was designed to

[3:53:41] provide regional resilience if rail

[3:53:44] traffic in the San Francisco tunnels is

[3:53:46] interrupted. And it does so by providing

[3:53:50] massive capacity for transfers to and

[3:53:53] from MUN

[3:53:55] and even trans buses and light rail for

[3:53:59] people to get on or off their final

[3:54:01] destinations. And last but not least, I

[3:54:04] would like to circle back to the comment

[3:54:06] I made last week about accelerating the

[3:54:09] delivery of the overpass section of the

[3:54:12] Geneva Avenue extension and use this

[3:54:15] overpass to eliminate 80 to 90% of truck

[3:54:19] miles um travel up and down uh Ton

[3:54:23] Avenue as currently proposed. Please

[3:54:26] consider the construction of the

[3:54:28] overpass section only as a potential

[3:54:32] mitigation measure. Thank you.

[3:54:35] » All right. Thank you. Next, Michelle

[3:54:38] Sammon, you're online.

[3:54:43] [clears throat]

[3:54:44] » I kind of agree with what Roland just

[3:54:47] said because I'm looking at the map

[3:54:49] right now and the rail tracks biseect

[3:54:54] this project. east and west. And right

[3:54:57] now there's no overcross across those

[3:55:00] railroad tracks except for the tunnel

[3:55:02] avenue bridge. And this would the

[3:55:06] without building the overpass

[3:55:09] doesn't need to connect to the freeway,

[3:55:11] but without building some kind of

[3:55:12] overpass over the train tracks, this is

[3:55:15] really kind of two separate

[3:55:16] developments. It's it's not like

[3:55:19] cohesive at all. And I don't see how

[3:55:22] they're going to do that. So, I I didn't

[3:55:23] really agree with where I'm sorry,

[3:55:26] Stephanie, but I I don't understand how

[3:55:27] you could not have to have an overpass

[3:55:30] to make this project work over the

[3:55:32] railroad tracks because then that does

[3:55:36] that mean people who worked on the east

[3:55:38] side could only access it from uh 101

[3:55:42] and people on the west side could only

[3:55:43] access access it from Old Bay Shore. I

[3:55:47] mean, it just doesn't work without an

[3:55:49] overpass. So, something needs to be

[3:55:52] figured out there. And indeed, an

[3:55:55] overpass would definitely cut down on a

[3:55:57] lot of truck traffic.

[3:56:00] Thank you.

[3:56:01] Okay, Linda Salmon. Uh, do we have Linda

[3:56:05] online? No. Okay, then we move on to

[3:56:13] That's it. Actually, there's two cards

[3:56:15] for Linda.

[3:56:17] All right,

[3:56:19] we've exhausted Geneva Avenue Extension.

[3:56:22] We'll now move on to Beayshore Mobility

[3:56:25] Plan. Questions starting with Council

[3:56:28] Member O'Connell.

[3:56:30] » It's 9:26 and I don't feel obligated or

[3:56:34] obliged to extend the meeting any

[3:56:36] longer.

[3:56:38] » I I agree with that, too. We're at a

[3:56:40] break, so I think uh and we said 9:30.

[3:56:44] I think we should ex um have that item

[3:56:47] be moved to the next meeting.

[3:56:49] » Okay. So, Council Member Kern, your

[3:56:51] opinion,

[3:56:53] » You know, I just want to plow through

[3:56:54] the agenda and keep going. However, this

[3:56:56] is a logical time to break at this point

[3:56:59] if we're going to do that.

[3:57:00] » And Mayor Prom,

[3:57:02] » I'm just curious for next meeting, how

[3:57:05] many questions, give or take, does

[3:57:06] everyone have? I actually only have a

[3:57:08] statement about this. I don't really

[3:57:09] have a question. Um, do you all have a

[3:57:12] lot of questions about this item? No,

[3:57:14] but I have a couple, especially as it

[3:57:17] relates to the last item that we

[3:57:20] discussed.

[3:57:21] » I don't have questions, but if this is a

[3:57:23] public hearing, we have lost our public.

[3:57:25] » Yeah. No, I it's just for the next time.

[3:57:27] I'm just trying to gauge how how robust

[3:57:31] this conversation will be at the next

[3:57:33] meeting. So,

[3:57:34] » We have three slips from the public.

[3:57:37] Someone who stayed, Charles Spencer, has

[3:57:39] stayed for this. We also have David

[3:57:42] Brown. David, are you here? Yeah, there

[3:57:44] we go. David public comments then

[3:57:46] » First,

[3:57:46] » Please. Sure. Let's do the public

[3:57:49] comments.

[3:57:49] » All right, David, let's start with you.

[3:57:52] » I'll make a motion to extend the meeting

[3:57:55] 10 minutes.

[3:57:57] » Second.

[3:57:58] » All in favor? I.

[3:58:00] » Anyone opposed? No. Okay, David, you're

[3:58:02] on.

[3:58:09] Well, good evening, Madame Mayor and

[3:58:12] council members.

[3:58:15] Thank you for squeezing me in. Uh, I've

[3:58:18] been a Brisbane resident for over 34

[3:58:22] years

[3:58:24] and, uh, I'm very encouraged to attend

[3:58:27] last week's as well as this week's

[3:58:30] meeting on the bay lands. I feel a lot

[3:58:31] of gratitude for the uh intelligence um

[3:58:36] hard work and skill involved in so many

[3:58:39] people um are working hard to create a

[3:58:42] worldclass development with minimal

[3:58:45] environmental impact in the bay lands.

[3:58:48] And I want to also uh make kudos to the

[3:58:52] development team for the video. As a

[3:58:55] documentary filmmaker, I really

[3:58:56] appreciate what's involved with a

[3:58:59] production like that.

[3:59:01] Um, but as you well know along with many

[3:59:05] of my colleagues that we have concerns

[3:59:08] and uh I'd like to start with one

[3:59:10] sentence from Brisbane's own

[3:59:12] environmental impact statement on the

[3:59:14] bays

[3:59:16] at peak grading of the bays

[3:59:21] site. uh the number of hall trucks would

[3:59:23] quote almost wholly occupy the inbound

[3:59:27] Tunnel Avenue bridge substantially

[3:59:30] reducing emergency vehicle access.

[3:59:33] This is cause for serious concern for

[3:59:36] me.

[3:59:38] This environmental impact report is

[3:59:40] analyzing 640 roundtrip truck hauls a

[3:59:44] day, including 160 during a peak hour,

[3:59:48] nearly three a minute for approximately

[3:59:51] 34 months.

[3:59:53] Just think about what that means on

[3:59:55] Tunnel Avenue on the tunnel bridge.

[3:59:58] These aren't wide. They're not wide

[4:00:00] roads with large shoulders where trucks

[4:00:03] can simply pull over when they hear a

[4:00:06] siren.

[4:00:07] Tunnel Avenue is also our evacuation

[4:00:10] route. Provides access to existing

[4:00:13] businesses along Tunnel and going south

[4:00:16] towards Sierra Point. So, what h happens

[4:00:19] when there's a fire?

[4:00:22] What happens when someone needs an

[4:00:24] ambulance?

[4:00:25] What happens if Brisbane needs to

[4:00:27] evacuate?

[4:00:30] Now, at the queueing of the trucks

[4:00:33] without electric trucks, and I've done

[4:00:35] some research, electric trucks are

[4:00:38] coming down the pike, but there's not a

[4:00:41] lot of them yet. Um, and without

[4:00:45] electric trucks, there'll be serious

[4:00:47] diesel engine noise and exhaust

[4:00:51] along with dust and increased traffic

[4:00:53] noise.

[4:00:55] The proposal is uh nearly three truck

[4:00:58] calls a minute during peak calls. So I

[4:01:01] would just request um the staff do a

[4:01:04] little bit more research on the

[4:01:06] likelihood of uh hundreds of electric

[4:01:09] trucks being available when they're

[4:01:11] needed.

[4:01:14] And 34 months is only an estimate.

[4:01:16] Construction schedules, as you folks

[4:01:19] know well, have a way of becoming

[4:01:21] longer.

[4:01:23] I submit that no community should be

[4:01:25] asked to endure years of this level of

[4:01:27] truck traffic,

[4:01:29] noise, dust, and interference with

[4:01:32] emergency access so simply to

[4:01:34] accommodate a development project.

[4:01:38] Development has to accommodate the

[4:01:39] safety of the community.

[4:01:42] No developer has the right to put

[4:01:43] people's lives in jeopardy.

[4:01:46] So, I submit before this plan is

[4:01:48] approved, the city should require the

[4:01:51] developer to provide a hauling route or

[4:01:54] a a viable uh conveyor plan that

[4:01:58] minimizes our daily environment.

[4:02:01] I'm sorry, maintains our daily

[4:02:03] environment and preserves emergency

[4:02:06] access at all times. Thank you.

[4:02:09] » Thank you, Charles Spencer.

[4:02:19] I would like to thank the council for

[4:02:21] hosting this meeting. Uh my name is

[4:02:22] Charles Spencer and I'm a Brisbane

[4:02:24] resident. I have two questions. Not sure

[4:02:26] the best place to ask these questions,

[4:02:28] but the first the combined development

[4:02:30] of the bailands visitation valley

[4:02:33] candlestick park uh with or without the

[4:02:35] road diet has the potential to strangle

[4:02:38] Bisbraane central Bisbane retail and its

[4:02:41] um its soft capital infrastructure. What

[4:02:45] economic analysis have you done to uh

[4:02:48] demonstrate the impact on Brisbane with

[4:02:50] all this development? Second question,

[4:02:54] um what are the plans for pedestrian and

[4:02:57] sidewalk

[4:02:58] uh safety from uh throughout the length

[4:03:01] of beayhore uh as it uh parallels uh

[4:03:05] Brisbane? Thank you.

[4:03:07] » Okay, thank you. U Michelle Sammon, last

[4:03:10] one

[4:03:13] online.

[4:03:16] There we go. Sorry, I had to wait to be

[4:03:17] unmuted. I am very much against the uh

[4:03:21] beayshore mobility p plan. Taking it

[4:03:24] down to one lane in each direction would

[4:03:27] truly put the city of Brisbane at high

[4:03:30] risk. Um, and it would be a traffic jam

[4:03:33] all the time with the amount of trucks

[4:03:36] going in and out of Amazon, the amount

[4:03:37] of trucks going in and out of Crocker

[4:03:39] Industrial Park, the traffic coming off

[4:03:41] of Guadalupe Canyon Parkway, and the uh

[4:03:45] future traffic uh from the Baylands and

[4:03:49] the Gene even the Geneva extension. I

[4:03:51] still think there will be a tremendous

[4:03:53] amount of traffic on Old Beayshore

[4:03:56] because if you're at the intersection of

[4:03:59] Geneva and um Beayshore and you want to

[4:04:02] go south on 101,

[4:04:05] the Geneva Extension actually wants you

[4:04:07] to go east by northeast before you can

[4:04:10] go south. Whereas the inclination is to

[4:04:13] just go south because Old Beashore goes

[4:04:15] south, southeast, south to where you

[4:04:18] want to be. Um, and without the Geneva

[4:04:22] extension,

[4:04:24] I it's just not going to work. But also

[4:04:26] with the Geneva extension, it's not

[4:04:29] going to make Bayhore any less traffic.

[4:04:31] There's going to be more traffic than

[4:04:32] ever because of population growth,

[4:04:35] access, truck traffic. Oh, and God

[4:04:37] forbid we should approve the Corey

[4:04:39] project, which will add even more trucks

[4:04:41] coming in and out that need to use

[4:04:44] Beayshore to access Crocker Industrial

[4:04:46] Park. So I I I understand the oh la

[4:04:52] wonderful part of the uh beayore

[4:04:55] mobility plan and the um you know having

[4:05:00] all these different you know taking it

[4:05:02] down to two lanes to slow it down. It

[4:05:04] won't slow it down. It will bring it to

[4:05:06] a standstill. So please take that off

[4:05:09] the table. And um yeah, I'd love to have

[4:05:12] safe pedestrian and bike path next to

[4:05:15] Old Bay Shore, but um I also don't want

[4:05:19] a row of cars just stopped there all the

[4:05:21] time. And environmentally, because

[4:05:23] they're going so slow and stalled out in

[4:05:25] traffic, it is definitely going to

[4:05:26] increase our greenhouse gas emissions

[4:05:29] having uh the beayshore lack

[4:05:32] [clears throat] of mobility plan. Thank

[4:05:34] you so much and sorry for staying so

[4:05:36] late.

[4:05:38] » Okay, thank you Michelle. So, we are

[4:05:40] tableabling council questions

[4:05:43] until the next meeting

[4:05:46] and

[4:05:49] this meeting is

[4:05:51] » I just have one question. Um,

[4:05:53] » One second.

[4:05:54] » You have to continue the public hearing.

[4:05:57] » You need a motion.

[4:05:58] » I'll make a motion to continue the

[4:06:00] meeting to o

[4:06:02] » October 15th.

[4:06:03] » O, I'm sorry.

[4:06:04] » October 15th.

[4:06:05] » October 15th at 5:30 p.m.

[4:06:08] » Okay. And then I just

[4:06:09] » Second.

[4:06:09] » Oh, just so

[4:06:10] » All in. Okay.

[4:06:12] » All in favor?

[4:06:13] » I

[4:06:14] » So I just want to um just to you know to

[4:06:18] see if there's any objection. You know

[4:06:20] last uh I think maybe the last hearing

[4:06:22] we talked about having a peer review for

[4:06:25] the on-site injury study and just you

[4:06:28] know just giving council I mean staff

[4:06:30] direction to move forward with that. So

[4:06:32] I just if there's if there isn't any

[4:06:35] objections to to move forward with that.

[4:06:38] » Council member Okonnell,

[4:06:40] » I think that the study is

[4:06:44] stale enough that we wouldn't want to

[4:06:46] just peer review it.

[4:06:48] » So just Okay, I maybe just do a new one.

[4:06:51] I hear you.

[4:06:53] » Council member Kern, your opinion?

[4:06:56] I object um until I see an estimate of

[4:07:00] uh labor and cost to do that. Thank you.

[4:07:02] » And projected timeline

[4:07:06] that that's how I I mean you don't have

[4:07:07] to feel that way but

[4:07:08] » Okay. So staff can you come back to us

[4:07:11] with answers next meeting timeline cost

[4:07:15] and what was the other

[4:07:18] » Staffing?

[4:07:19] » We are working

[4:07:20] » Time and money mayor. That's it.

[4:07:21] » Time and money.

[4:07:22] » We're working on uh obtaining a

[4:07:24] proposal. So, we'll be able to report

[4:07:25] that back to you.

[4:07:26] » But I think the consensus is we're

[4:07:29] potentially looking at a a new study.

[4:07:31] » A new study, not a peer review.

[4:07:33] » Not a peer review, right?

[4:07:34] » And maybe not a new study.

[4:07:36] » Maybe not.

[4:07:40] » Okay.

[4:07:41] » You Kevin, were you going to say

[4:07:43] something?

[4:07:43] » Oh, just the the estimate we were

[4:07:45] pursuing was for a peer review. So, um

[4:07:48] this is a little different. We can

[4:07:52] » It it was my

[4:07:57] » It it seems that a peer review of an old

[4:08:00] study is as much work,

[4:08:04] » Right,

[4:08:05] » As

[4:08:07] a new study. I don't I don't know. I

[4:08:10] It's too late in the day for me to I

[4:08:12] haven't had it explained enough to me to

[4:08:15] authorize to do. Let let's just come

[4:08:17] back with both recommendations. That

[4:08:20] will solve the problem. Okay. All right.

[4:08:23] All right. All right. This meeting is

[4:08:25] adjourned at We're one minute. Well,

[4:08:27] we're more than one minute. 9:37 p.m.

[4:08:30] » I gave us till 9:40.

[4:08:32] » Yeah.

[4:08:32] » Okay. Oh. Oh. Oh, wow. Okay. We're

[4:08:35] there.

[4:08:38] [music]

[4:08:45] » [music]

[4:08:50] [music]

[4:08:57] » Heat.

Untitled meeting

Transcript