[0:00] [music]

[0:10] [music]

[0:15] [music]

[0:20] [music]

[0:23] Heat. Heat.

[0:39] » [music]

[0:44] » Heat. Heat.

[0:47] [music]

[0:52] » [music]

[0:57] [music]

[1:06] [music]

[1:25] [music]

[1:28] » Hey,

[1:36] [music]

[1:39] honey.

[1:46] » [music]

[1:53] [music]

[1:55] » Hey,

[2:04] [music]

[2:08] hey, hey.

[2:14] » [music]

[2:20] [music]

[2:31] [music]

[2:43] [music]

[2:51] [music]

[3:00] [music]

[3:09] [music]

[3:20] [music]

[3:25] [music]

[3:31] » Heat. Heat.

[3:38] » [music]

[3:44] [music]

[3:57] [music]

[4:20] [music]

[4:30] [music]

[4:50] [music]

[4:58] [music]

[5:09] [music]

[5:14] » Oh, hey.

[5:23] » [music]

[5:33] » Heat. Heat.

[5:37] [music]

[5:41] Heat. Heat. N.

[5:46] [music]

[5:56] [music]

[6:02] Heat. Heat.

[6:04] [music]

[6:16] [music]

[6:23] Heat. Heat. N.

[6:35] » [music]

[6:40] [music]

[6:45] » Heat. Heat. [music]

[6:50] [music]

[6:54] Heat. Heat.

[6:55] [music]

[7:08] [music]

[7:16] Heat. Heat. [music]

[7:28] [music]

[7:35] [music]

[7:38] Heat. Heat.

[7:43] [music]

[7:48] [music]

[7:59] Heat. [music]

[8:11] [music]

[8:16] Heat. [music]

[8:37] Heat. Heat.

[8:44] Heat. Heat.

[9:44] » [music]

[9:50] [music]

[9:58] [music]

[10:05] [music]

[10:10] [music]

[10:17] [music]

[10:28] [music]

[10:35] [music]

[10:36] » Heat. Heat.

[10:41] [music]

[10:49] Hey,

[10:59] [music]

[11:05] [music]

[11:06] hey, hey.

[11:11] Heat.

[11:20] [music]

[11:25] Heat.

[11:28] [music]

[11:37] » [music]

[11:46] [music]

[11:47] » Heat. Heat.

[11:50] [music]

[11:55] Heat.

[12:05] [music]

[12:17] [music]

[12:21] Heat. [music]

[12:28] » [music]

[12:34] [music]

[12:40] [music]

[12:53] » Five,

[13:02] » I think.

[14:04] evening. Thank you for your patience

[14:08] with us. There's a lot of organizing

[14:10] going on here. This is not an easy

[14:14] thing to put these public hearings

[14:16] together.

[14:17] So, you are at the Brisbane special

[14:20] meeting of September 29th. Thank you for

[14:23] joining us tonight. And I'm calling this

[14:25] meeting to order at 5:42 p.m. Would you

[14:29] please consider joining me in the pledge

[14:31] of allegiance?

[14:34] » Pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[14:36] United States of America and to the

[14:39] republic for which it stands, one nation

[14:42] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[14:45] justice for all.

[14:52] All council members are here tonight.

[14:54] So, we have none attending remotely.

[14:57] City clerk, could we have a roll call,

[14:59] please?

[15:00] » Council member Davis

[15:02] » Here.

[15:02] » Council member Kern

[15:03] » Here.

[15:04] » Council member Lent

[15:05] » Here.

[15:05] » Council member Okonnell

[15:07] » Here.

[15:07] » And Mayor Mackin

[15:08] » Here. Can I get a first and second to

[15:10] adopt the agenda as it stands?

[15:13] » So moved.

[15:14] » Second. All in favor? I.

[15:17] » No one opposed.

[15:19] » This is a continuation of a public

[15:22] hearing.

[15:23] » This is a public hearing continued from

[15:25] September 14, 2026.

[15:29] And tonight we have two topics continued

[15:32] from the last meeting is air quality and

[15:35] greenhouse gas impacts and associated

[15:38] mitigation measures identified in the

[15:40] EIR. The second topic, the new topic is

[15:45] land use plans and design topics.

[15:50] I'm going to read the caveat that

[15:52] applies to all speakers both online and

[15:55] present. We welcome speakers providing

[15:58] public comment during tonight's

[15:59] continued public hearing, but please be

[16:01] advised this is a limited public forum.

[16:03] It's therefore important for speakers to

[16:05] stay on topic.

[16:07] on topic matters are those that are

[16:09] within the subject matter jurisdiction

[16:11] of the city of Brisbane. Speakers will

[16:14] have four minutes for each topic.

[16:17] There'll be a timer up on the screen.

[16:19] Please, please honor the 4-minute timer

[16:22] because remember, it's not that we don't

[16:24] want to hear you longer, but then you're

[16:26] taking time away from someone else and

[16:27] we want to be fair. Following these

[16:30] rules helps ensure the city council can

[16:32] get to all the items on the agenda,

[16:34] including hearing public comment on the

[16:36] items. If a speaker fails to follow

[16:38] these rules, they're disrupting the

[16:40] meeting and they'll be warned. I promise

[16:42] you. If a speaker continues to ignore

[16:45] the rules or is otherwise disruptive,

[16:47] their opportunity to speak will be ended

[16:49] and they may be precluded from speaking

[16:51] on any other items tonight. So, as some

[16:55] starting comments, I I think it's

[16:58] wonderful that all of you showed up.

[17:00] This process is not just about the

[17:03] council or the applicant or their their

[17:06] marketing agent. This is about an entire

[17:10] community

[17:12] making a massive change. And we're not

[17:16] here to just listen to you. We really

[17:20] hear a lot of your suggestions. We've

[17:22] had some wonderful speakers come up here

[17:25] and bring up things that we might never

[17:27] have thought of. And that's collectively

[17:30] the best of all worlds. So we encourage

[17:33] you to speak, ask your questions, ask

[17:37] ask staff. The developers

[17:40] representatives are here. Um some

[17:43] questions. You might sty everyone and

[17:46] we'll have to come back with an answer

[17:47] at another meeting. But please also your

[17:50] comments. Your comments are welcome too.

[17:53] We want to know what's on your mind.

[17:55] This is about ensuring the best possible

[17:59] project from all perspectives. There's

[18:01] not one side or another. It's all

[18:04] together. So, and we are advancing this

[18:08] whole process and you're part of it. So,

[18:10] thank you for joining us tonight and for

[18:12] everyone online as well.

[18:16] So the first item we have again is air

[18:18] quality and greenhouse gas impacts

[18:20] associated mitigation measures

[18:22] identified in the EIR. And so staff, we

[18:25] had a a report on this last time. Would

[18:29] you like to do a short recap on this or

[18:31] just dust off everyone's brain cells?

[18:34] You have anything you want to show us?

[18:37] » Yes, we can uh start the presentation.

[18:39] We have a brief recap and we'll pause.

[18:41] » Thank you. I appreciate that.

[18:50] All right. Uh, good evening, honorable

[18:52] mayor and council members. Tonight, the

[18:54] council will be holding the second in a

[18:55] planned series of public hearings on the

[18:57] Brisbane Bayland specific plan and other

[19:00] related approvals, which together will

[19:02] establish the regulatory framework for

[19:04] buildout of a new mixeduse neighborhood

[19:06] in the Bayand sub area of the city. Next

[19:09] slide.

[19:12] Tonight's presentation will be delivered

[19:14] as one contiguous segment. That's

[19:16] actually going to be two. Now, uh we

[19:18] will begin with a brief recap of the

[19:19] topics previously discussed followed by

[19:21] an overview of the land use plan and

[19:23] design topics contained in the specific

[19:25] plan. The focus for the second part will

[19:28] be on distribution and intensity of land

[19:30] uses, location of open spaces and

[19:32] amenities, the specific plans interface

[19:34] with sea level rise, objective standards

[19:36] and design guidelines, and protection

[19:38] and preservation of the roundhouse.

[19:40] After staff's presentation, the

[19:41] applicant will have an opportunity to

[19:43] address the council followed by a public

[19:45] comment period on the the topics.

[19:47] » Jeremiah, can I stop you? Can we break

[19:49] this into two parts so we don't go

[19:51] through the whole land use presentation?

[19:53] » We're not going to go through the whole

[19:54] land use presentation until later, man.

[19:55] » Okay, perfect. Thank you.

[19:59] » Next slide, please.

[20:02] Uh, as a reminder to the council and the

[20:04] public, this series of hearings is

[20:05] organized around the requirements of

[20:07] Measure JJ. Each meeting focuses on a

[20:09] specific set of topics and staff is

[20:11] seeking council comments, questions, and

[20:13] direction on the highlight the items

[20:15] highlighted during each presentation. At

[20:18] the end of each topic focus hearing, the

[20:20] goal is to have clear direction from the

[20:22] council so staff can prepare and refine

[20:24] a final recommendation for consideration

[20:27] at the concluding hearing. Tonight, the

[20:29] council will complete the remaining

[20:31] discussion from the September 14th

[20:33] hearing on air quality, greenhouse gas

[20:35] emissions, energy impacts, and

[20:37] mitigation measures. After that, the

[20:39] council will provide comments,

[20:40] questions, and direction on the land use

[20:42] plan and design standards. Uh, an ARA

[20:45] summarizing proposed changes,

[20:47] clarifications, and council requested

[20:48] modifications to the specific plan will

[20:51] be prepared and brought forward at the

[20:53] concluding hearing alongside staff's

[20:54] final recommendation. And to be clear,

[20:56] we are not asking the council to take

[20:58] any votes or formal action tonight.

[21:00] Instead, staff is seeking that clear

[21:02] direction on the topics covered in the

[21:04] presentation so we can return with a

[21:06] refined, complete, and accurate final

[21:08] package. Next slide.

[21:12] So, we have a updated look at the

[21:15] upcoming hearing dates and topics. We

[21:17] made changes after last meeting. Uh, as

[21:20] you can see, most of the meetings are

[21:21] now focused on one primary theme like

[21:24] water infrastructure, transportation or

[21:26] remediation. And we're happy to adjust

[21:28] the schedule further if council would

[21:30] like to. So, next slide. And we can

[21:34] actually go two slides forward.

[21:38] All right. At the last meeting, we

[21:40] walked through the key elements of the

[21:42] specific plan, its overall structure,

[21:44] and how it aligns with measure JJ, the

[21:46] planning commission's recommendations,

[21:48] and the plan's sustainability features.

[21:50] Staff also presented air quality and

[21:52] energy topics, which you did not get to

[21:54] discuss, and we'll continue that

[21:56] discussion here. Uh, so at this time, we

[21:58] will pause for council questions or

[22:00] comments, and then the council may open

[22:01] the floor for public comment on air

[22:03] quality, greenhouse gas emissions,

[22:05] energy, and impacts, and mitigation

[22:07] measures. Staff will track questions

[22:09] from the public and respond by the end

[22:11] of the meeting when possible. If more

[22:13] time or analysis is needing, we'll we'll

[22:15] bring back answers at a future hearing.

[22:20] » Thank you very much. Let's start with

[22:22] Council Member Okonnell.

[22:25] Questions for staff?

[22:27] » I have no questions at this time.

[22:29] » Council member Lens.

[22:32] » Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um

[22:35] All right. Well, I I have a decent

[22:37] amount of questions. So, um I'm going to

[22:40] start off with from the the packet from

[22:44] the last um hearing. So, it was on page

[22:50] nine

[22:52] impact greenhouse gas uh to regional GHG

[22:57] emissions less than significant. And the

[22:59] first line says the Bayland's 2200

[23:01] dwelling units, 6 and a half million

[23:03] square feet of commercial use, and

[23:05] 500,000 square feet of hotel. So I just

[23:09] want to get clarification from staff. Is

[23:12] the and and I've seen it throughout the

[23:14] specific plan and also in the EIR

[23:18] is the is the current specific plan that

[23:22] is before us. Is it

[23:25] addressing the the total buildout, the

[23:28] 2200 housing units and the 6.5 million

[23:31] square feet? Is that what this document

[23:34] is

[23:36] uh trying to um you know to deal with?

[23:43] The short answer is yes. That the

[23:45] specific plan does allow for

[23:48] the development of

[23:51] um that entire program. Yes.

[23:53] » All right. So, when we're looking at

[23:55] energy generation and greenhouse gas

[23:58] emissions and these other things, it's

[24:01] to accommodate 2200 housing units in 6

[24:05] and a half million square feet of

[24:06] commercial space.

[24:09] » That's correct.

[24:09] » Okay, great. Thank you. All right. So,

[24:12] um in that same paragraph,

[24:17] it says that um [clears throat]

[24:21] that these uses are already accounted

[24:23] for in the plan Bay Area 2050's regional

[24:26] growth projections because the project's

[24:29] transit oriented location design will

[24:31] reduce regional mobile source greenhouse

[24:34] gas emissions relative to that same

[24:36] growth occurring elsewhere in the

[24:38] region.

[24:39] Uh so is it saying that because other

[24:44] cities maybe aren't doing as um you know

[24:48] don't have as in a robust uh program of

[24:52] reducing emissions than say this plan is

[24:55] and therefore

[24:57] uh it's less than significant is am I

[25:01] getting that correct or if not if you

[25:04] could explain that a little bit better.

[25:11] » [clears throat]

[25:15] » Let's see.

[25:27] Oh, yeah. Uh so no I I think you

[25:28] captured it correctly that the um

[25:32] because of the location um because of

[25:34] the transit accessibility and because of

[25:36] the design features that have been

[25:38] incorporated

[25:40] um and required throughout the specific

[25:42] plan. The conclusion is that um

[25:46] development here would um reduce GHG

[25:50] emissions compared to a more a

[25:53] development that didn't have all of

[25:55] those features that didn't um meet those

[25:58] same performance criteria, didn't have

[26:00] the same sort of transit access. um and

[26:03] that didn't have the same mix of uses

[26:06] and that they would um a different type

[26:08] of development in a different location

[26:11] uh would be expected to increase the

[26:14] regional GHG uh at a much higher rate

[26:17] than this project. Um so by

[26:20] accommodating this level of development

[26:22] um this project helps um and putting it

[26:25] in such a strategic location where you

[26:29] get those benefits. um this project

[26:31] helps to um implement those GHG reducing

[26:35] goals.

[26:37] » Got it. And so based upon this

[26:39] particular

[26:40] view then mitigation measure me measures

[26:44] don't have to occur.

[26:48] » That's correct. This this impact was

[26:50] less than significant without additional

[26:52] mitigation measures. There are other

[26:55] mitigation measures incorporated

[26:58] um to promote um plan consistency which

[27:03] is a a separate impact category. Um but

[27:06] there are not um separate mitigation

[27:10] measures for the regional GHG emissions

[27:14] because that that was found less than

[27:15] significant.

[27:16] » Okay. And so based upon that regional

[27:19] viewpoint,

[27:21] uh it says here um because the project

[27:24] would result in a regional reduction in

[27:27] vehicle miles traveled in greenhouse gas

[27:29] emissions, the draft mitigation measure

[27:31] calling for mandatory offsets was

[27:33] removed from the final EIR. So offsets

[27:37] are mitigation measures

[27:40] if they were applied, right? I mean

[27:42] » In the in the that's correct. In the

[27:44] draft EIR, um there was a separate

[27:48] impact category with proposed mitigation

[27:51] measures uh which included offsets. In

[27:55] the responses to comments and the final

[27:58] EIR, um the offset requirement was

[28:02] removed as mitigation. It was found that

[28:04] that was not needed to have the project

[28:08] um result in a less than significant

[28:10] greenhouse gas emission because of the

[28:12] fact that the project would result in

[28:15] that regional reduction as you were

[28:16] talking about.

[28:17] » Got it. So then um also you know diving

[28:20] into the sustainability framework uh on

[28:23] page 18

[28:25] it says that all buildings should be

[28:27] designed for zerocarbon emissions by

[28:30] using best practices and passive design

[28:32] energy efficiency and renewable energy

[28:34] resources. Um I this could be a question

[28:38] for staff it could be a question for uh

[28:41] Stephanie. Is is that being required in

[28:45] the in the specific plan?

[28:49] » Well, the specific plan does have um

[28:53] individual requirements for projects to

[28:57] maximize um their on-site energy

[29:00] generating capabilities. There's

[29:01] mandatory solar, there's distributed

[29:04] battery facilities. Um the development

[29:07] standards that we'll be talking about in

[29:08] part two um definitely are designed to

[29:11] promote energy efficiency. So the

[29:13] specific plan does have a number of of

[29:16] requirements that help implement that um

[29:20] stated goal of the sustainability

[29:22] framework.

[29:22] » Yeah. So uh but here it says they they

[29:26] should be zero carbon. So um

[29:34] so to me that that that's stating that

[29:38] based upon that that we should be

[29:41] striving for the buildings to be zero

[29:44] carbon. So um yeah. So, can you kind of

[29:49] give some language uh how that might be

[29:52] worded in the specific plan

[29:55] » That

[29:56] » Well, the buildings are the buildings in

[29:57] the specific plan are zerocarbon. They

[29:59] all

[30:00] » Um because they would either produce

[30:03] energy or um draw from the uh renewable

[30:08] energy from the grid. That that's a zero

[30:11] uh a zerocarbon energy source. So the we

[30:15] think that that's consistent

[30:16] » And so would that show up in the lead

[30:19] certification

[30:20] to verify that?

[30:23] » Well, I the lead is a separate pro.

[30:25] There are also uh lead and other energy

[30:28] efficiency standards um layered on as

[30:32] requirements in the specific plan.

[30:34] » I I'm just Yeah, I'm just curious to

[30:35] know like how would we verify that a

[30:37] building is zero net or zero uh carbon

[30:40] emissions?

[30:42] Well, I mean any energy that it wasn't

[30:44] producing would be drawn from a

[30:47] zerocarbon the renewable energy program.

[30:50] Um so that kind of by default takes care

[30:53] of any any surplus with a zero energy

[30:55] source.

[30:56] » All right. Well, you know, u you know,

[30:57] if I could just get something maybe, you

[30:59] know, I'm missing it in the spec uh

[31:02] specific plan, but if uh staff can bring

[31:04] that forward, that'd be great,

[31:07] you know, at a future meeting. So, I'm

[31:09] I'm going to go into the

[31:11] » Sorry, before we move on, what what is

[31:12] it that you'd like us to bring forward?

[31:13] I just want to make sure.

[31:14] » So, I just want to know um how buildings

[31:17] are verified to be zero net emissions.

[31:20] Is there like some kind of certification

[31:22] that hey, this building is zero net

[31:24] emissions?

[31:25] » I mean, it's a it's a requirement

[31:28] um in the specific plan for all

[31:32] buildings to um be 100% use a 100%

[31:36] carbonfree energy source. So that would

[31:38] be verified compliance with that would

[31:40] be verified through the development

[31:42] review process. I'm not

[31:43] » Okay. So I guess the Cal Green standard

[31:46] is that I know for residential it's 2025

[31:50] 2030 for commercial

[31:52] it's not 2030 yet.

[31:56] » Council member Lance I have a question

[31:58] that's kind of getting at something

[32:00] similar. I don't want to take away from

[32:02] your time.

[32:04] I think maybe something that I was

[32:06] thinking we might need site sitewide

[32:10] carbon budgeting monitoring reporting

[32:12] and then a provision for corrective

[32:15] action if there's something that comes

[32:17] out of those numbers like if you know

[32:23] residents don't opt in to the eco 100 or

[32:30] what I think we have a really high I

[32:32] know you have told us we have like one

[32:34] of the highest adoption. But I think

[32:36] maybe while we assume everything is

[32:39] going to be zero carbon, maybe there is

[32:42] some kind of ongoing reporting that the

[32:45] city could receive correct just to

[32:47] ensure that that is true

[32:50] for years to come. So is that does that

[32:54] maybe get what you're looking for?

[32:56] » So there are certain certifications that

[32:59] um a building can apply for. Um, if you

[33:02] look in the sustainability framework or

[33:04] just even go online, you know, a

[33:08] building has has qualified to be zero

[33:11] net emissions. And so,

[33:14] smaller buildings have an easier time of

[33:16] doing that. Larger buildings have a more

[33:18] difficult time. So, um,

[33:22] » So that's where I'm asking staff if

[33:23] there's some kind of verification.

[33:26] » Sure. Maybe for that. Um if you look at

[33:28] section 4.3 of the specific plan, the

[33:33] zerocarbon buildings requirements, um it

[33:36] does have a long list of mandatory steps

[33:42] that a project has to go through and if

[33:44] it doesn't comply with those standards,

[33:47] it won't be issued permits to develop.

[33:49] So it it needs to meet these zerocarbon

[33:54] building requirements in order to

[33:56] develop.

[33:59] » Okay. Um I'm going to go to the EIR. I

[34:04] want to go to chapter 8 for the final

[34:07] EIR. And so um in doing my research you

[34:11] know just trying to get a understanding

[34:14] of how

[34:18] you know you look at measure JJ says

[34:19] it's supposed to be designed to um be

[34:23] energy neutral on an ongoing basis.

[34:26] uh

[34:29] you know we're looking at what 53% of um

[34:33] energy generation in the current

[34:35] specific plan.

[34:37] » Is that is that is that correct? 53%

[34:39] that's what they're expecting.

[34:42] » Well, that was a very conservative

[34:45] uh metric that was used in the EIR, I

[34:47] think, as was reported the specific

[34:49] plan. um assuming uh compliance with

[34:52] more up-to-date building code standards

[34:55] um we'd see a a much higher percentage

[34:57] of um of building energy use generated

[35:01] on site.

[35:02] » Okay. So um you know chapter 8 it talks

[35:06] about uh alternatives. So in the SQA

[35:09] process uh you know every development

[35:12] that goes through um this type of

[35:15] process has to have alternatives and so

[35:17] there are some no project alternatives

[35:19] and then there's four uh they call it

[35:23] reduce density alternatives. So there's

[35:26] an alternative number seven it's called

[35:28] reduce maximum building heights.

[35:31] So, in that particular um alternative,

[35:37] it calls for 1,800 dwelling units, not

[35:39] the 2200. It calls for 2.8 million ft²

[35:44] of commercial, 350,000 for the hotel. Uh

[35:48] that's on the west side and then 1.7 on

[35:51] the east side for a total combined of

[35:53] 4.5 million.

[35:56] It also has uh lower building height. So

[35:59] 12story max for commercial, eight story

[36:01] max uh for housing

[36:04] unlike the you know the current plan's

[36:06] got some 20 plus story uh buildings in

[36:09] it. So I'm not going to go into all the

[36:13] other things. I want to just go to the

[36:15] the greenhouse gas emission section

[36:19] and that's on 8146.

[36:22] I'm just go there.

[36:26] All right. So,

[36:29] there's a section that that has been uh

[36:32] that that was stried out and

[36:36] you had explained, Eric, that um we're

[36:39] this particular plan is addressing a

[36:42] regional

[36:44] perspective on greenhouse gas emissions.

[36:47] Whereas in the area that's that um is

[36:50] stried out, it's a specific plan area

[36:53] greenhouse gas uh

[36:57] evaluation. And this but since that was

[37:00] changed, that's why it it struck out,

[37:02] but I'm still going to read it uh

[37:04] because I think it's important. And so

[37:07] let me just let me just state what it

[37:09] says. Lowering building heights to

[37:12] reduce Bayland's development by 400

[37:13] dwelling units and two and a half. It

[37:15] says two and a half, but it's really two

[37:17] million square feet of commercial office

[37:19] use would reduce the specific plan's net

[37:22] increase of greenhouse gas emissions and

[37:25] reduce the severity of its significant

[37:27] unavoidable

[37:29] impacts.

[37:33] So um

[37:38] so you know so just you know looking at

[37:41] that when I'm assuming there was a

[37:44] greenhouse gas emission study

[37:48] to come up with you know these numbers.

[37:50] So um did it include this alternative in

[37:53] that study?

[37:56] you um probably want ESA to talk about

[37:59] it, but yeah, the EIR definitely

[38:01] includes a quantified GHG emission study

[38:05] um that uh the climate scientists at ESA

[38:08] prepared and they did compare um the

[38:12] project emissions to emissions expected

[38:14] with alternatives.

[38:17] So, I don't know if if yes, Bri I think

[38:20] we have um Brian Schustster from ESA is

[38:24] um available online and he can speak to

[38:27] exactly what was quantified and modeled

[38:29] if that's um what you're asking.

[38:32] Yeah, I just um

[38:36] you know looking at um before I I make a

[38:41] request I'm I'm I'm going to uh go to

[38:43] the other page

[38:45] and it's under air quality. So um

[38:58] okay. So,

[39:01] and you know, Stephanie, maybe you can

[39:03] answer this in regards to how um dirt is

[39:08] going from the east side to the west

[39:10] side.

[39:11] What's your um plan for for doing that?

[39:14] Is it going to be the conveyor belt or

[39:16] is it going to be trucks?

[39:22] Good evening, honorable mayor, council

[39:23] member Lince. the what is studied in the

[39:27] EIR is uh both um the preference in the

[39:32] EIR and quite honestly our preference is

[39:35] to find a way to go over the track and

[39:39] not have to go through the streets. Um

[39:41] and we have been in discussions with Cal

[39:43] Train about how to do that. We've talked

[39:47] about going over the track. We've talked

[39:49] about going under the tracks. we've

[39:51] talked about just going at grade across

[39:53] the tracks and those are still ongoing

[39:56] conversations

[39:58] » But um yeah again both were both were

[40:04] studied in the EIR both are still on the

[40:07] table our preference and the ER's

[40:09] preference is to uh try to avoid using

[40:12] the streets

[40:13] » Yeah that makes more sense yeah know

[40:15] absolutely

[40:16] » Yeah but we have um we have to work that

[40:20] through with cow train.

[40:22] » Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. So, um,

[40:26] so based on the potential of having

[40:29] these trucks use public streets,

[40:33] you know, that's a lot of truck

[40:34] emissions, a lot of uh a lot of trips.

[40:38] Um,

[40:39] is was that studied in the um emissions

[40:44] um evaluation all those trucks?

[40:48] Um, I know Brian, can you talk about

[40:51] what uh air quality modeling was done

[40:53] for truck trips during construction?

[40:58] » Uh, yeah, happy to answer that. Hey

[40:59] everyone, Brian Schustster,

[41:02] quality, climate, and energy.

[41:04] So the air quality analysis in the ER

[41:07] which includes both an estimate of mass

[41:10] criteria pollutant emissions like ozone

[41:13] precursors and dust as well as

[41:16] particulates as well as um health risks.

[41:20] So exposure of people to those emissions

[41:24] during both construction and operation.

[41:26] The construction analysis for both of

[41:28] those looked at on-road diesel trucks

[41:31] moving all of that soil, all two and a

[41:34] half million cubic yards from east to

[41:36] west um and not using the conveyor. And

[41:39] that was part of the contributing factor

[41:41] to um air quality impact or impact air

[41:44] quality one being significant and

[41:46] unavoidable. And to help mitigate that

[41:48] impact where AQ1 is mass emissions,

[41:51] [clears throat]

[41:52] uh the there's a mitigation measure AQ1F

[41:55] which requires best available control

[41:58] technology for soil movement. That could

[42:00] include an all-electric conveyor. It

[42:02] could include zero NOx emissions trucks.

[42:05] It could include some combination of

[42:07] those things or some other technology

[42:09] that might uh enable construction to

[42:12] occur um with the lowest emissions

[42:15] possible of moving that soil. So yes,

[42:17] short answer, yes. We analyzed in the

[42:19] air quality section diesel trucks moving

[42:21] that soil.

[42:22] » All right. So how many trucks were we

[42:23] looking at if if all of it had to be

[42:26] moved

[42:28] uh with a truck on

[42:30] » On streets?

[42:32] [clears throat]

[42:40] » Um give me can you give me like one

[42:43] minute?

[42:43] » Oh yeah yeah yeah sure. No, no problem.

[42:54] Isn't it something like 640 trucks a

[42:57] day? I mean round trips a day. So I

[43:01] don't know how many round trips you do.

[43:04] » I think

[43:05] » How many truck trucks that equates to,

[43:08] but I think the amount of round trips is

[43:10] 640.

[43:12] » Yeah, that's correct. So it's on average

[43:13] the 2.5 is about 640 round trips per day

[43:17] during the almost threeyear I believe

[43:21] soil movement activity.

[43:23] » All right peak uh so peak trucking hall

[43:26] peak truck peak truck activity is 640

[43:28] round trips per day. That's not an

[43:29] average that's peak.

[43:31] » But the route is like 3.6 miles or 3.8

[43:34] miles, right? So how many trips would a

[43:36] truck do a day? Then you could figure

[43:37] out how many trucks conceivably you're

[43:40] doing you're having each day.

[43:43] Yeah, that that calculation is pretty

[43:45] straightforward.

[43:46] » Yeah. So, I don't have a calculator, but

[43:47] I mean like is it in the

[43:51] I don't know hundreds of thousands of

[43:53] truck trips just kind of off the top of

[43:56] my head. I mean, if it's that many and

[43:57] you're talking about three years,

[44:01] » 640* 365

[44:06] » Three. Yeah. So, um, as a

[44:11] » It's over a 100,000 trucks. 100. It's

[44:14] it's about

[44:15] » A 20 cubic yard truck, 2 and a half

[44:18] million cubic yards. It's 125,000.

[44:21] Um,

[44:23] » As a oneway trip,

[44:24] » If I can add a question, um, was that

[44:27] air quality analysis based on the dirt

[44:30] only having to be moved once? Because

[44:34] won't the dirt some of it need to be

[44:36] moved twice to achieve final grade on

[44:40] both sides?

[44:43] And was that

[44:45] looked at?

[44:51] » I believe the analysis looked at moving

[44:56] a one-time movement of dirt from the

[44:58] east to the west side and not back

[45:00] again. But I can double check that.

[45:04] But won't it have to be moved back again

[45:06] some of it to achieve a cap?

[45:13] » I might defer to Michael if he's here on

[45:15] the cap

[45:17] » Because it's not engineered on the other

[45:19] side yet.

[45:20] » Yeah.

[45:23] » I don't I I don't know the answer to

[45:24] that question. I'm sorry.

[45:25] » Okay.

[45:26] » Developers shaking their head no. So, do

[45:28] you want to

[45:30] should we hear what they

[45:32] » Would you like to respond to that?

[45:42] » Good evening, uh, council members. I'm

[45:44] James Tasta with BKF. I've been

[45:46] supporting the balance project and

[45:48] balance development, Inc.

[45:50] uh for in terms of the earthwork,

[45:52] earthwork will moved once from the the

[45:56] the east side of the project to the west

[45:58] side and then it will be placed from

[46:01] both to achieve the environmental uh

[46:03] capping as well as some of the

[46:05] geotechnical searchcharge programs. It

[46:08] will not be then moved back to the east

[46:10] side after that.

[46:11] » Okay. So, um, you know, in regards to

[46:15] the trucks, so I mean, obviously, is

[46:18] this going to take a few years to get to

[46:20] that point where you're starting to move

[46:22] dirt? More trucks will be electric. Um,

[46:27] [clears throat]

[46:29] can we make a requirement in the

[46:31] specific plan that the trucks that are

[46:33] used be electric instead of diesel?

[46:41] That's a question for staff. Is that

[46:42] something that that we can put in

[46:46] » If if that's feasible and commercially

[46:48] available? Um but yeah, I don't I don't

[46:51] know that there's

[46:54] um

[46:55] that we have a a robust enough

[46:58] technology to say that we can definitely

[47:00] do that today. But we I certainly see

[47:03] language like that in other plans that

[47:07] uh qualify to the extent yeah feasible

[47:10] » Doing 100,000 truck trips um

[47:13] » You know and it's going by central

[47:15] Brisbane

[47:17] um and up in Northeast Ridge. Um yeah, I

[47:21] think that would be appropriate.

[47:22] » Brian, were you about to say something?

[47:25] Yeah, I was just going to add that the

[47:28] the EIR includes a mitigation measure

[47:30] which is mitigation measure 1 AQ1F which

[47:33] requires best available control

[47:35] technology at the time of construction

[47:37] and that means the lowest available the

[47:39] lowest emitting trucks commercially

[47:42] available

[47:43] uh if you can if they're if they're

[47:46] available commercially and you can buy

[47:48] them and operate them you the applicant

[47:50] must use those trucks

[47:52] » Okay

[47:52] » Or they must fill the conveyor or some

[47:55] combination of the two to achieve um the

[47:59] lowest NOx the lowest criteria plume

[48:01] emissions from material movement.

[48:04] » All right. So Brian, so what you're

[48:05] saying is that if that truck say it does

[48:08] exist, I'm assuming that it does today.

[48:11] But say if it does exist then that those

[48:14] would be the trucks that would have to

[48:16] be used.

[48:17] » Yes. Right. So the trucks would have to

[48:19] meet the requirements of the

[48:20] construction contractor for moving soil.

[48:22] There are heavy duty zero emission

[48:24] trucks available now. They would have to

[48:25] be available in the quantity, you know,

[48:28] with the with the in the quantity needed

[48:30] for these activities and have the

[48:35] capacity to basically they have to

[48:37] operate in the way that construction

[48:38] needs to occur. But if those conditions

[48:41] are met and those trucks are available,

[48:42] then yes, the mitigation measure would

[48:43] require that or some combination of

[48:45] additional technology.

[48:47] » Okay. Um,

[48:48] » So sorry.

[48:50] » Yeah. Yeah. I have no problem people

[48:52] jumping in. So

[48:54] » So because that's a mitigation measure

[48:56] in the EIR, is that um

[49:02] is that enough or should we include that

[49:06] language like whatever is the lowest

[49:10] emitting

[49:12] trucks available? Should we expressly

[49:14] state that in this specific plan? Well,

[49:16] if you end up adopting certifying the

[49:19] EIR and adopting the mitigation

[49:22] monitoring reporting program, all of the

[49:24] mitigation measures would become

[49:26] requirements of the plan. And so it

[49:28] would have you don't need to then repeat

[49:30] them. Yeah.

[49:31] » In the specific plan.

[49:32] » That's what I assume, but I just it's

[49:34] important to

[49:34] » Yeah. You know, to me, I think it's

[49:36] always better to just repeat

[49:39] just everyone understands. You know,

[49:41] these uh these EIR documents are pretty

[49:43] darn thick. I mean, the the specific

[49:46] plan is pretty thick, too, but uh not as

[49:48] » It's not five volumes. [laughter]

[49:49] » It's not five volumes. So, if the public

[49:52] wants to see it, it's a lot easier to

[49:54] find it. So,

[49:55] » So is is the council's

[49:59] thought that all of the mitigation

[50:01] measures should be included as

[50:03] standalone policies in the specific

[50:05] plan? Is that

[50:06] » I I'm just talking about this one here.

[50:09] So, I mean, that's just direct. I mean,

[50:10] we can bring it back, right? I mean,

[50:12] okay. Just want to make sure that we're

[50:14] tracking the conversation.

[50:16] » Yeah, exactly. So, um,

[50:20] so I'm go to page, uh, 8 158. It's, uh,

[50:24] impact GHG1.

[50:27] So, it's it's struck out here. It says,

[50:29] the Bayand specific plan would cause an

[50:31] increase in total greenhouse gas

[50:33] emissions generated within the Bayand.

[50:35] Lowering building height to reduce

[50:37] Bayland's development by 400 dwelling

[50:39] units and 2 million square ft of

[50:40] commercial office would reduce the

[50:43] specific plans and increase greenhouse

[50:45] gas emissions. And so, um,

[50:50] what I would like for us to evaluate

[50:53] when we have our discussions is, uh,

[50:57] doing a specific plan area greenhouse

[51:00] gas emissions, um, position as opposed

[51:04] to a regional one.

[51:07] So um then moving on to energy resources

[51:11] and this is still within um this

[51:14] particular um part of

[51:17] » Council member Lent. Can I ask a

[51:18] clarifying question to that statement?

[51:19] » Absolutely.

[51:20] » So you want to put into the final

[51:22] specific plan uh something very specific

[51:25] to the 680 acre bay project around

[51:28] greenhouse gas emission. So what I'm

[51:31] requesting is that when the council has

[51:33] its deliberations, this is one of the

[51:35] items that comes back to the council and

[51:38] we can decide whether or not we want to

[51:40] do the regional perspective or we want

[51:43] to do the site perspective.

[51:45] » Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

[51:46] » Okay. So um moving on to the energy

[51:49] resources.

[51:51] Uh it says here by reducing the total

[51:53] number of dwelling units and commercial

[51:55] square footage within the bailands the

[51:58] specific plan's 55 acre solar field

[52:01] would reduce overall energy use and

[52:02] generate a greater proportion of the

[52:06] specific plans on-site energy demand

[52:08] within the bailands.

[52:11] So I again I know we talked about you

[52:16] know trying to be energy self-sufficient

[52:18] that's a very tall order. Uh of course

[52:21] if you have a smaller footprint and

[52:24] that's less energy for that footprint

[52:27] and you have a 55 acre solar farm that

[52:31] um now can provide energy to

[52:35] um

[52:38] you know in greater proportions. So

[52:42] it also goes on to say in addition to

[52:44] the energy efficient features of the

[52:47] specific plan which is this alternative.

[52:49] This alternative would generate a

[52:51] greater proportion of energy if it

[52:52] consume it consumes as well as meet tier

[52:56] 2 Cal green standards.

[52:59] So, um just just putting that out there

[53:02] in in the public record and and and

[53:04] Stephanie, I know when we talked um last

[53:07] time you said that the the solar farm

[53:10] was going to be in the second phase, but

[53:12] when I read your specific plan, it said

[53:15] it was going to be in the first phase of

[53:17] development. It was going to be the west

[53:19] side when the west side gets developed

[53:20] that is going to happen at the same

[53:22] time. So, just kind of clarifying that

[53:26] for the record, unless you've changed

[53:29] your mind, but it's going to be in the

[53:31] first phase.

[53:37] Okay. Oh, did you want to respond to

[53:39] that? I mean, that that's what that's

[53:41] what I read. And it's also in it's in

[53:43] your specific plan that you had

[53:45] submitted and then it's also in this

[53:46] one, too.

[53:47] » Yes. I think you're referring to our

[53:49] phasing table. And if you look at it

[53:52] carefully, council member, it is the it

[53:55] is sort of sandwiched in between

[53:58] finishing the westside development and

[53:59] starting the east side development. So

[54:02] technically, I think it falls into the

[54:03] table of phase one, but it's at the end

[54:07] of the full development of phase one as

[54:09] we've moved all the dirt and the

[54:11] landfill has been closed or will be

[54:14] closed in in phases. Then then the solar

[54:18] farm goes in. So it's a little I know

[54:21] we're mixing with a lot of terms here

[54:23] but we're mixing it but yeah it is not

[54:25] the solar farm is not on day one.

[54:28] » Oh no we're not saying that it's during

[54:29] that that yeah

[54:31] » But it's during the transition I think

[54:32] what you're referring to when you said

[54:34] we said it was in phase one it was in

[54:36] the transition

[54:38] period between finishing phase one and

[54:40] moving on to the phase two development

[54:42] on the the commercial development on the

[54:45] east side. What can I just read it to

[54:47] you and then then maybe that's this is

[54:50] it from your plan. So it says u major

[54:52] site infrastructures such as the solar

[54:54] field, water recycling facility and

[54:57] constructed wetlands

[55:00] uh located within the

[55:04] uh eastern part of the site are also

[55:06] required to be completed concurrently

[55:08] with west.

[55:10] » Yeah. um side uh development as these

[55:14] provide the sustainable water

[55:17] » Uh needed storm water treatment, recycle

[55:19] water and renewable energy generation

[55:20] infrastructure for the development. So

[55:22] » Yeah. So that's okay.

[55:25] » So [laughter]

[55:26] yeah, we need to do the development to

[55:28] get the water for our recycling

[55:30] facility, right? You to recycle water,

[55:32] you need that makes sense. You need

[55:33] water.

[55:34] » You need a source. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And

[55:36] in order for us to build out the solar

[55:38] farm, that dirt has to be moved. So when

[55:41] we talked about it in our plan, it was

[55:43] really sort of at the end of phase one

[55:47] » Um as part as we moved into the the

[55:50] second phase on the the construction on

[55:51] the on the landfill the east side. Yeah.

[55:54] » Okay.

[55:55] » Sorry if that confused

[55:58] and

[55:58] » Yeah. I just wanted to get

[55:59] clarification.

[56:00] » Yeah.

[56:01] » Okay. Thank you. All right. Um that

[56:03] that's it for now, Madame Mayor. Okay,

[56:05] very good.

[56:08] Uh, Council Member Kern,

[56:12] » Thank you so much. Um, can I go back to

[56:15] Council Member Okonnell and her question

[56:17] about moving the dirt more than once?

[56:20] Um, it's got me over here thinking, uh,

[56:23] Council Member Okonnell, what was the

[56:25] reason that you asked that question

[56:26] specifically?

[56:30] it.

[56:32] » I think that there is

[56:34] an excess of dirt on the east side for

[56:38] what the project needs. I think to

[56:42] reasonably cap that project, they are

[56:45] going to need to take it below grade to

[56:48] cap the um east side.

[56:53] Meanwhile, they are going to have to

[56:54] move that dirt.

[56:58] Even if they're done with the west side,

[57:00] the east side still is going to be need

[57:02] to be excavated and the dirt moved on

[57:05] the east side to another section to be

[57:08] put back after they do the title 7

[57:12] closure. So that dirt is not going to be

[57:15] moved just once.

[57:18] That dirt is going to be moved around

[57:22] at least one more time on the east side.

[57:26] Not all of it, but all the remaining and

[57:29] the overfill that they've got is going

[57:33] to be moved more than once

[57:36] in my opinion. And I could be wrong,

[57:40] but if you play with a pile of sand,

[57:42] that's what you're going to get.

[57:43] » So, I guess my question Thank you for

[57:45] that. I I kind of thought that's where

[57:46] you were going. So I guess my question

[57:48] is in that case, can't additional dirt

[57:51] or cover just be brought in at that

[57:54] point for the east side? Does it need to

[57:57] be moved again?

[58:00] It's not engineered.

[58:02] » So it does have to be moved. It needs to

[58:03] be removed back down to ground level

[58:05] from what? Or to fill level to be

[58:07] properly capped and engineered or it's

[58:11] useless

[58:13] useless land.

[58:15] I'd love for the developer to

[58:20] » Yeah, [laughter] please step up. Thank

[58:21] you.

[58:23] » Thank you again, council members. I

[58:25] wanted to clarify. You make some very

[58:27] good points. So, the dirt will be moved

[58:30] Oh, excuse me.

[58:31] » You can pull it up.

[58:32] » Okay. My apologies. The the dirt will be

[58:35] moved once from the east east side to

[58:39] the west side. that 2.5 million to

[58:42] provide the environmental um cap as well

[58:45] as some of the geotechnical mitigations.

[58:47] It will not be moved back from the west

[58:50] side to the east side. The existing dirt

[58:52] on the east side will be moved around

[58:54] within the east side as the cap is

[58:57] provided for the title 27 closure of the

[59:00] landfill. But there we won't have a need

[59:02] to import more soil to to proceed with

[59:06] that process. And is it correct you have

[59:07] an excess of soil for that project?

[59:10] » This there's no offhaul contemplated.

[59:13] The soil is currently used in terms of

[59:16] um setting the pad grades within the

[59:19] east side of the project based on what

[59:21] soil it remains. It will be engineered

[59:24] per the geotechnical engineers

[59:26] requirements as part of the the capping

[59:28] process and creating the development

[59:30] pads.

[59:33] » Thank you.

[59:34] » Sure.

[59:39] Thank you for that answer and thank you

[59:41] for the question, Council Member Bonno.

[59:42] Um my only other question is in March of

[59:46] 25 um ESA reported that the or they

[59:50] stated that the project was not going to

[59:53] be energy neutral. And then in August of

[59:56] 26, um I just need a reminder on this.

[59:59] Something changed and they said that it

[1:00:01] was acceptable to buy uh additional uh

[1:00:04] energy from the grid that we weren't

[1:00:06] going to be generating on site. I'm just

[1:00:07] wondering if you can clarify what

[1:00:09] changed in that time period.

[1:00:11] » Well, the the that option was always

[1:00:14] available. I think the what changed was

[1:00:17] that context in which the policies were

[1:00:20] being evaluated. the calculations that

[1:00:23] were reported in the EIR were done um

[1:00:28] again to be using very conservative

[1:00:30] assumptions and to analyze whether or

[1:00:34] not the way energy was being used would

[1:00:36] create a physical impact to the

[1:00:38] environment, which is a slightly

[1:00:40] different question than um does council

[1:00:44] have the discretion to interpret the

[1:00:46] plan to be consistent with measure JJ?

[1:00:49] And in response to questions from the

[1:00:51] planning commission who were

[1:00:52] interrogating the same topic, um ESA

[1:00:56] worked on an analysis to help explain,

[1:01:00] you know, the tools that the decision

[1:01:02] makers could use to find the project

[1:01:05] consistent um based on the way it was

[1:01:07] using energy, uh the balanced goals of

[1:01:10] measure JJ and the um kind of intent

[1:01:13] behind the framework.

[1:01:16] » Thank you. No more questions at this

[1:01:18] time.

[1:01:19] » Council member, I'm sorry, Mayor Prom

[1:01:21] Davis.

[1:01:22] » It's It's okay. You can call me council

[1:01:23] member. Um

[1:01:25] well, Council Member Lent asked several

[1:01:27] of my questions in one form or another.

[1:01:30] So, I do have two left and first one is

[1:01:34] that the final EI identifies air

[1:01:37] quality-1 AQ-1

[1:01:40] as significant and unavoidable. And I'd

[1:01:42] just love to know from staff if you

[1:01:44] could explain what pollutants

[1:01:47] specifically are driving this

[1:01:48] significant and unavoidable conclusion.

[1:01:51] » Yeah. And for that we'll ask Brian to

[1:01:53] rejoin and he will walk us through that.

[1:01:56] » Do you want me to go to my next one

[1:01:58] while we're waiting for him or

[1:02:00] » Let's see. Um is Brian on? Are you ready

[1:02:03] to answer that or or should we come back

[1:02:05] to you?

[1:02:05] » Oh, there he is.

[1:02:06] » He's there.

[1:02:09] » Yeah, I can answer that. Give me one sec

[1:02:11] here.

[1:02:17] » It was AQ-1

[1:02:19] finally.

[1:02:19] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Yeah. Got

[1:02:22] it. I just want to get this uh

[1:02:25] fully right here. So, all right. After

[1:02:28] mitigation,

[1:02:33] pollutants that exceed thresholds

[1:02:34] include

[1:02:37] Okay. So the AQ1 evaluated construction

[1:02:41] rag NOX PM10 and PM2.5 those are

[1:02:44] different size particulates and ozone

[1:02:45] precursors for construction throughout

[1:02:48] the buildout as well as operations and

[1:02:53] combined construction and operations

[1:02:54] when those would overlap

[1:02:57] with mitigation [clears throat]

[1:02:59] all four pollutants would still exceed

[1:03:01] the significance threshold set by the

[1:03:03] air district. So that's ROG, NOX, PM10,

[1:03:06] and PM2.5.

[1:03:08] » Okay. And just to follow up, um how much

[1:03:12] of the significant air quality impacts

[1:03:14] are associated with construction and how

[1:03:17] much are associated with the final

[1:03:19] development? And I don't know how you

[1:03:20] quantify that by a percentage or

[1:03:23] [snorts]

[1:03:24] » Just give me some like thing I can

[1:03:26] visualize.

[1:03:29] » Sure. Let's see here how best to do

[1:03:32] this. the the for construction only

[1:03:37] the only pollutant that exceeds

[1:03:38] thresholds is NOx so oxides of nitrogen

[1:03:42] uh ROG PM10 and PM2.5 are well below

[1:03:44] thresholds whereas for operations for

[1:03:47] operations alone all four pollutants

[1:03:50] exceed the threshold so um construction

[1:03:54] emissions are for ROG for ROG PM10 and

[1:03:57] PM2.5 several orders of magnitude below

[1:04:00] operations we're talking less le than

[1:04:02] one pounds per day versus

[1:04:05] » Um between 60 and between 80 and 300

[1:04:09] pounds per day. And for NOx, it's about

[1:04:12] about the same. So construction NOX is

[1:04:15] about the same as operation NOX. Other

[1:04:17] pollutants are several hundred times

[1:04:19] higher for operations than construction.

[1:04:22] » Thank you.

[1:04:24] That's the extent of my questions on air

[1:04:26] quality.

[1:04:27] » Okay.

[1:04:29] I had some GHD ones, but

[1:04:31] » After you've asked yours, I do have a

[1:04:33] couple questions now. You want me to go

[1:04:36] first?

[1:04:37] » Sure.

[1:04:38] [clears throat]

[1:04:39] So when it came to the comment that

[1:04:41] council member Lent made on whether we

[1:04:45] have a regional greenhouse gas analysis

[1:04:48] versus a sightsp specific or project

[1:04:51] analysis.

[1:04:53] It basically is that if the development

[1:04:56] wasn't happening here, it'd be somewhere

[1:04:58] else. So there's no impacts to our

[1:05:02] project because we're absorbing the rest

[1:05:05] of the region's impacts. And I think

[1:05:08] that's a way to look at it where the the

[1:05:11] request from council member Lance is to

[1:05:14] have the impacts for our site fully

[1:05:18] disclosed

[1:05:19] and declared that they are significant

[1:05:23] compared to saying well if they were

[1:05:26] happening in Pleasanton they'd be more

[1:05:28] so ours aren't significant when they

[1:05:30] still are. And so that's a difference of

[1:05:33] opinion on how we look at it. And is it

[1:05:36] is that the only way we are legally

[1:05:38] allowed to look at impacts or is that a

[1:05:42] choice that our consultants or we as a

[1:05:46] city decided to look at the impacts?

[1:05:51] » Well, the the city has discretion to

[1:05:55] um define thresholds as long as there's

[1:05:57] a a basis and evidence. Um so it is it

[1:06:00] is a city decision uh within reason. um

[1:06:04] greenhouse gas emissions are

[1:06:07] not just a regional but a a global

[1:06:10] impact. So um the standard way to

[1:06:14] analyze that is through not a a

[1:06:18] sightspecific analysis but through a

[1:06:21] broader analysis. Um the um AARB, the

[1:06:26] California ER resources board, the

[1:06:28] expert state agency that's charged with

[1:06:31] um oversight of this, provides guidance

[1:06:33] and direction on how to evaluate um GHG

[1:06:38] impact. And it was in part due to the

[1:06:40] airboard's

[1:06:42] comments that the city uh chose to focus

[1:06:46] on a a regional threshold in the EIR

[1:06:48] rather than um a sightsp specific EIR.

[1:06:52] Um but ultimately it is it is the city's

[1:06:54] decision.

[1:06:56] quickly is is it termed it's something

[1:06:59] termed in the EI like if not here then

[1:07:01] there if not here or somewhere else like

[1:07:04] do you remind us what it's how it's

[1:07:07] referred to something like little phrase

[1:07:10] like that

[1:07:14] » That's the phrase I just used but

[1:07:17] » But it's like a it's like a cute little

[1:07:19] if not here then there or

[1:07:23] » There the yes Council member Davis, the

[1:07:26] the citation is from the Center of

[1:07:28] Biological Diversity versus Department

[1:07:29] of Fish and Wildlife, and it's um

[1:07:32] whether here or there,

[1:07:33] » Whether here,

[1:07:34] » Emissions associated with such

[1:07:36] population growth will occur whether

[1:07:38] here or there.

[1:07:40] » That's the term. One just sorry, one

[1:07:42] more quick thing I wanted to add for

[1:07:43] context. The ER also includes impact

[1:07:46] GHD3, which we haven't talked about. And

[1:07:49] GHD3 does evaluate the project's

[1:07:52] features and emissions at the project

[1:07:55] site in isolation. So GHD3 uses the Bay

[1:07:58] Area Air District's greenhouse gas

[1:08:00] thresholds which are pro project

[1:08:02] specific thresholds and it looks at

[1:08:04] consistency with carbs 2022 scoping plan

[1:08:07] and the scoping plan measures and

[1:08:09] attributes that apply to land use

[1:08:11] development projects like um the bay

[1:08:13] lands. So we also have GHD2.

[1:08:18] So, if I may, um,

[1:08:22] so you talked about having the dust and

[1:08:26] particulate and the NOX as being

[1:08:30] significant and unavoidable in during

[1:08:34] the entire buildout.

[1:08:37] How long do we expect the

[1:08:40] that buildout to take?

[1:08:43] And is it reasonable to have that effect

[1:08:46] on residentials that are occupied

[1:08:50] when it's going to be the commercial and

[1:08:52] the landfill h being cleaned up and

[1:08:54] having those significant impacts for 5

[1:08:58] 10 20 50 years. So what what time frame

[1:09:04] would it be that that they would be

[1:09:06] considered significant as a residential

[1:09:09] project that's next to an ongoing

[1:09:13] construction zone? Is there any metric

[1:09:16] for that?

[1:09:21] » I can help answer that. One moment.

[1:09:26] So impact AQ1 which is regional criteria

[1:09:29] plume emissions. So this is mass

[1:09:30] emissions. So how many pounds or tons of

[1:09:33] pollutants are being emitted? Uh that

[1:09:35] evaluation looked at all years of

[1:09:37] construction, phase one operations and

[1:09:40] full buildout operations. Uh so in ER we

[1:09:44] looked at construction through from 2026

[1:09:47] through 2033.

[1:09:49] Um and then full buildout uh phase one

[1:09:52] initial phase two and full buildout. And

[1:09:54] then full buildout rep represents annual

[1:09:56] emissions

[1:09:58] as the project is operational at the

[1:10:02] year that it's built out. And so we

[1:10:04] didn't look at like future years. Future

[1:10:06] years would be likely lower than that

[1:10:09] level because vehicles continue to get

[1:10:11] more efficient and technology improves

[1:10:13] and energy uh renewal, you know, all of

[1:10:15] that stuff gets better. Uh but to your

[1:10:18] question about expos like basically like

[1:10:19] residents uh ex potentially exposed to

[1:10:22] those pollutants during construction, we

[1:10:25] separately looked at in the EIR and

[1:10:27] that's a separate impact uh what that

[1:10:30] exposure to those emissions would look

[1:10:33] like from a health risk perspective for

[1:10:35] both on-site residents and off-site

[1:10:37] residents near the project site. And

[1:10:39] that is a separate evaluation in the IR

[1:10:41] with um with a separate threshold and

[1:10:43] mitigation. But when we looked at um

[1:10:47] significant impacts and we're using the

[1:10:51] regional model

[1:10:54] and it it's very different if you have a

[1:10:58] cloud of dust that is in this room

[1:11:02] versus a cloud of dust that's being

[1:11:05] analyzed over the entire city of

[1:11:08] Brisbane. that same amount of dust that

[1:11:11] might be in this room is so it lessens

[1:11:14] the impact when you look at it. Wouldn't

[1:11:16] it lessen the impact when you look at it

[1:11:19] from a regional impact for the particle

[1:11:23] size?

[1:11:24] » Yeah, I think I think I see what you're

[1:11:26] saying. Uh yes is the answer. So when

[1:11:29] you're looking at regional emissions,

[1:11:31] you're talking about all of the

[1:11:33] pollutants that project vehicles would

[1:11:36] emit, for example, wherever they're

[1:11:37] driving in the region in the 9ount Bay

[1:11:39] Area region potentially and beyond. And

[1:11:41] when you're talking about health risk,

[1:11:42] you're only talking about the the the

[1:11:45] local pollutants like dust that is being

[1:11:49] produced and dispersed at that receptor

[1:11:52] location. So if there's a house here,

[1:11:54] what is the local pollution that that

[1:11:56] house might be intaking during

[1:11:58] construction and during operation? So

[1:11:59] it's a it's a much smaller subset, if

[1:12:02] I'm understanding your question, than

[1:12:03] the full regional picture. And so that

[1:12:05] local impact, that impact at that single

[1:12:08] receptor point, that house, that

[1:12:10] resident point is

[1:12:12] um is le is less, I guess you could say,

[1:12:15] but the exposure is less, but the risk

[1:12:18] assessment only looks at that local um

[1:12:20] impact. And I think that that last point

[1:12:22] that what you just said is important. I

[1:12:24] want to make sure that we're doing an

[1:12:24] applesto apples comparison that the the

[1:12:27] health risk is, you know, very localized

[1:12:30] and done on those specific pollutants

[1:12:32] that affect

[1:12:35] um human health. When we're talking

[1:12:38] about a regional analysis for greenhouse

[1:12:42] gas emissions, it's a different type of

[1:12:44] impact. It's a different um type of

[1:12:46] analysis. So there and the EIR includes

[1:12:49] both the the regional look for how GHG

[1:12:53] emissions are handled as well as the

[1:12:56] criteria pollutants in the air quality

[1:12:58] section. So there um I just want to make

[1:13:00] sure that that folks aren't confused

[1:13:02] that we said that there's a regional

[1:13:04] analysis being done for greenhouse gas

[1:13:08] looking at it how we reduce uh GHGs

[1:13:11] throughout the region that doesn't

[1:13:14] affect the type of air quality and

[1:13:15] health risk analysis that was also done

[1:13:18] and that is very sight specific

[1:13:20] » And that's where you talk about the

[1:13:21] receptor locations

[1:13:22] » Correct and then there was a comment

[1:13:25] that you made a few minutes ago

[1:13:28] um that we looked at ways to find the

[1:13:31] project consistent.

[1:13:33] So is that where we are trying to

[1:13:36] manipulate

[1:13:38] the data to make it consistent or

[1:13:41] looking at how we look at the study to

[1:13:45] find what mitigation measures need to be

[1:13:47] done? I think yeah I I think it was a a

[1:13:50] phrase that that Brian used but would

[1:13:52] talking about comparing

[1:13:54] the

[1:13:56] project um to

[1:14:00] um the local air quality district's GHG

[1:14:03] thresholds and figuring out what needs

[1:14:05] to be done to make it consistent meaning

[1:14:07] what mitigation measures or

[1:14:09] modifications to the project need to be

[1:14:11] imposed so that it can meet the policy

[1:14:14] goals that are in the thresholds that

[1:14:16] the air district puts forward, not how

[1:14:20] do we cook the books so it looks better

[1:14:22] on paper.

[1:14:23] » That's what it sounded like.

[1:14:24] » Yeah. So, it's good. I'm glad that you

[1:14:26] asked so we could clarify that it was

[1:14:28] specifically and because that and that

[1:14:31] GHG impact 3 is identified as

[1:14:36] » Significant before mitigation. And so it

[1:14:38] was exactly that process that Brian was

[1:14:40] describing, identifying mitigation

[1:14:42] measures that could be imposed that

[1:14:44] would result in a less than significant

[1:14:46] impact under that that particular

[1:14:48] criterion. So it's um it's definitely a

[1:14:53] looking at what changes and requirements

[1:14:56] need to be imposed to meet the policies.

[1:14:59] » Thank you. That's all of my questions

[1:15:01] for now.

[1:15:02] » Before we move to the public, do we have

[1:15:04] anyone else on the council wants to ask

[1:15:06] another question? than you've thought

[1:15:08] of.

[1:15:08] » I I haven't. Madame Mayor, why don't you

[1:15:10] ask?

[1:15:11] » You've really gone in the weeds already.

[1:15:13] I don't need to go further.

[1:15:15] » Oh, okay. I just have just a couple more

[1:15:17] questions then, Madam Mayor. Um, so the

[1:15:19] air quality study, um, who who did the

[1:15:22] study,

[1:15:25] » ESA did the study, we did the study.

[1:15:27] » Okay. All right. So, this one wasn't

[1:15:30] this one didn't come from VDI.

[1:15:33] » No.

[1:15:34] » Okay. Okay. I'm just

[1:15:38] Thank you, Stephanie. Um,

[1:15:42] okay. I just I just So,

[1:15:45] are we going to have a little council

[1:15:47] discussion after the public speaks or

[1:15:50] are we going to have a break and then go

[1:15:52] on to the next item? What was your

[1:15:55] » Would be council's pleasure. Normally

[1:15:57] we'll we would go to the public after

[1:16:00] the council questions

[1:16:02] » Cuz I have some actually I have like a

[1:16:04] comment that I'd like to make after the

[1:16:07] the public speak.

[1:16:08] » Just remind me if I if I miss it.

[1:16:09] » Okay, great.

[1:16:10] » Did you have another

[1:16:11] » That that was it actually.

[1:16:12] » Okay. Anyone else? Okay, public. So, we

[1:16:17] have some slips from the previous

[1:16:21] meeting on the 14th. I have seven of

[1:16:25] them here. Again, just to remind

[1:16:27] everyone that if you wish to speak, we

[1:16:30] need you to fill out a slip or if you're

[1:16:32] online, use the chat feature and Ingred

[1:16:36] will fill out a slip and give it to me.

[1:16:39] We're doing these in the order. They're

[1:16:41] all numbered, first come, first serve.

[1:16:44] Um, I would I'm going to read some of

[1:16:47] the names off. And one of the things

[1:16:49] that was requested from the last meeting

[1:16:51] is I'm going to read the names off so

[1:16:53] you know what order you're in. And if we

[1:16:55] could please the next person be ready to

[1:16:58] come right up so we don't just sit and

[1:17:00] watch people walk up. I mean, you could

[1:17:01] even queue up on the sides and be ready

[1:17:04] to go. That would help us. I appreciate

[1:17:06] that. So, the first one I have, I'll

[1:17:08] read through them first. So, I'm going

[1:17:09] to have Paul Buscal, then Anthony

[1:17:11] Walker, then Linda Salmon, then Michelle

[1:17:14] Salammon,

[1:17:17] then Alli Zepperman and Clara Johnson,

[1:17:22] then Dana Dworth,

[1:17:26] and then Karen Cunningham in that order.

[1:17:28] So, first two, Paul, you're up first and

[1:17:31] then Anthony, you'll be after him.

[1:17:39] Thank you, council Paul Calbert, Spain

[1:17:41] resident. So, I sat on the draft

[1:17:44] environmental impact report committee

[1:17:46] and other formats and um we talked about

[1:17:51] the conveyor to transport stuff from

[1:17:53] that site. Um trucking that that stuff

[1:17:57] from the site is is not a viable plan.

[1:18:00] It's it's the it's viable as far as for

[1:18:03] construction. It's it's it's the best

[1:18:05] way to transport the soil is uh by

[1:18:07] trucks to have to put it on the

[1:18:09] conveyor. They have to handle it. They

[1:18:12] got to bring it over to the truck and

[1:18:13] then the loaders got to put it on the

[1:18:15] conveyor and then it's got to come off

[1:18:17] the conveyor and then a loader's got to

[1:18:19] put it back on trucks. But it's all

[1:18:22] within the site. It's not driving on the

[1:18:24] public rideway. It's within their site.

[1:18:28] Um, I know the CALR,

[1:18:30] it's been said that they're against a

[1:18:32] conveyor, although there's many times

[1:18:35] that temporary construction build

[1:18:37] bridges over their uh the wires over the

[1:18:41] tracks. Um,

[1:18:44] that way we could use an electric, as

[1:18:47] was said, conveyor. And I appreciate

[1:18:49] back when the developers

[1:18:52] uh seriously looked at a way of keeping

[1:18:55] the transfer of the soil off the

[1:18:58] streets. I mean, you mentioned central

[1:19:01] Brisbane and the ridge. So, I take it it

[1:19:04] can't go through San Francisco through

[1:19:06] Little Hollywood and down Beayshore,

[1:19:07] which was originally what they talked

[1:19:09] about. And we decided that that wasn't

[1:19:12] for any neighborhoods the right way to

[1:19:14] transport that amount of soil. So with

[1:19:17] that said,

[1:19:19] uh I don't know how we can

[1:19:23] convince Cal Train. I mean you need more

[1:19:26] the developer needs more than themselves

[1:19:28] going to Cal Train. We should be uh

[1:19:31] supporting that and uh explaining the

[1:19:35] advantages of transporting the stuff

[1:19:37] over with electric conveyor. If that's

[1:19:40] not a viable plan, um then I we should

[1:19:44] use the uh visitation creek channel,

[1:19:48] which uh is primarily tidal.

[1:19:52] And if we plugged up the uh outlet to

[1:19:55] the bay,

[1:19:57] I've never seen a flood on that road,

[1:19:59] even with maybe with one of the highest

[1:20:01] tides, but rainfall could be diverted

[1:20:03] and not come down the channel and then

[1:20:06] plug up the bayside and then we could

[1:20:08] run the conveyor underneath through that

[1:20:10] channel and underneath the cow train

[1:20:12] tracks cuz I believe underneath the cow

[1:20:14] train tracks here's a a brick tunnel

[1:20:17] that's a storm drain tunnel that could

[1:20:19] probably

[1:20:21] uh accommodate the conveyor. But anyway,

[1:20:24] we look at it. I mean, the idea of

[1:20:26] electric trucks, yeah, it's a great

[1:20:28] idea, but I don't think that's going to

[1:20:31] happen. I mean, it's just not to move

[1:20:33] that amount of soil. The diesel trucks

[1:20:36] are just I mean, those kind of trucks

[1:20:38] are meant for the highway. They're not

[1:20:40] meant for that kind of transport, even

[1:20:42] though they have the technology, but we

[1:20:46] don't need those trucks on the on our

[1:20:47] roadways at all. it should stay within

[1:20:50] the property. Uh, and if a conveyor

[1:20:53] isn't going to be a viable plan, then I

[1:20:56] I couldn't see why it would be

[1:20:57] unreasonable to have a crossover at the

[1:21:00] grade level of the tracks. It would just

[1:21:02] mean that Cal Train would have to have

[1:21:04] somebody on on site the whole time to uh

[1:21:08] allow trucks to cross in between trains

[1:21:11] coming. And I don't believe that the

[1:21:13] train except for freight runs at night.

[1:21:15] So they could have a nighttime

[1:21:17] operations, but what I'm really

[1:21:20] concerned about is the mitigation

[1:21:22] measures to deal with the dust. And

[1:21:25] nothing's being done there. Nothing's

[1:21:27] been done at the Corey with all that

[1:21:29] crushing of the concrete that came off

[1:21:31] the highway at hospital curve. So

[1:21:34] where's our uh oversight?

[1:21:38] And if they are going to be doing that,

[1:21:40] the mitigation measures should be

[1:21:41] monitored. And I mean seriously

[1:21:44] monitored. So, thank you.

[1:21:47] » Really quickly, can I just get a

[1:21:48] clarification from staff?

[1:21:50] » I I had one, too.

[1:21:51] » Oh,

[1:21:52] » Okay. Um,

[1:21:55] we heard Cal Train and Calrans and just

[1:21:58] to make sure

[1:22:01] the

[1:22:03] word that we had from Stephanie was that

[1:22:06] you were in negotiations with Cal Train,

[1:22:09] not Calrans. Is that correct?

[1:22:11] » Correct. it. So, it was not Calrans

[1:22:14] objecting to a conveyor

[1:22:17] » And it gets confusing. I know because

[1:22:19] there's some

[1:22:20] » I'm sorry I misspoke.

[1:22:21] » You You meant Cal Train. I figured that.

[1:22:23] » Yeah. Thanks.

[1:22:25] » Okay. Thank you. Well, I know we've kind

[1:22:27] of started talking about the conveyor

[1:22:29] and I mean I could see why we started

[1:22:31] talking about truck trips as it pertains

[1:22:33] to GHG and air quality, but I do want to

[1:22:36] just confirm that we're really going to

[1:22:38] get much deeper into this when we get to

[1:22:42] remediation and that really this meeting

[1:22:45] is not the time to be diving deep into

[1:22:49] earth movement. Um, the truck trips are

[1:22:53] kind of on the fringes in in terms of

[1:22:55] how they relate to air quality, but I

[1:22:57] just I just don't want us to get off

[1:22:59] track right now and really and and I'm

[1:23:01] sure the public this is something I know

[1:23:03] is a hot topic in the public and that

[1:23:05] people really want to weigh in on and

[1:23:06] I'm sure the council wants to weigh in

[1:23:07] on. I just want to make sure that we're

[1:23:09] staying on the topic of this meeting and

[1:23:11] so I want to understand

[1:23:14] that this is really not for this meeting

[1:23:17] and for remediation. Correct.

[1:23:20] Well, yeah, I guess it's it's up to the

[1:23:22] the council and the way that you frame

[1:23:24] the issues because yeah, you're you're

[1:23:26] right on both counts that there's a

[1:23:29] separate uh remediation focused meeting

[1:23:32] where there'll be much more talk about

[1:23:34] Yeah. how the technology, the

[1:23:37] technologies that are used, the process,

[1:23:39] the locations, um a lot of what you're

[1:23:42] talking about. Um but as you just

[1:23:44] pointed out as well to the extent it

[1:23:45] relates to the air quality impacts and

[1:23:48] the impacts that were being mitigated

[1:23:50] through the EIR that that is ostensibly

[1:23:53] what we're we're discussing here as

[1:23:54] well.

[1:23:55] » I'll just add that because we got if if

[1:23:59] I may.

[1:24:00] » So I mentioned the truck trips because

[1:24:02] of the dust

[1:24:04] uh is was my and and the diesel fumes. I

[1:24:07] mean, the diesel fumes within the site

[1:24:09] instead of the 3 and 1/2 miles was what

[1:24:12] I was kind of getting at. Thank you.

[1:24:14] » Anthony Walker.

[1:24:17] » And after Anthony, we have Linda Salmon.

[1:24:33] Right. Good evening everybody. Um

[1:24:36] so uh on greenhouse gas emissions um I

[1:24:40] just wanted to make a comment. The uh EI

[1:24:44] projects that the bailands will add um

[1:24:48] 51,260

[1:24:49] metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions

[1:24:52] uh annually at full buildout. Um

[1:24:55] Brisbane's entire 2023 communitywide

[1:24:58] inventory um was 71,222.

[1:25:02] Um so that equals approximately 72% of

[1:25:06] our total current emissions

[1:25:08] um added on top of what we're already

[1:25:10] dealing with. So without any uh

[1:25:14] counterveailing reductions or

[1:25:15] accountability

[1:25:17] um

[1:25:19] you know Brisbane's total would reach

[1:25:20] 122,480 metric tons. That's

[1:25:23] approximately

[1:25:25] 45% above the 2005 baseline that we're

[1:25:28] measuring this all against.

[1:25:31] Um so how we call that uh an increase

[1:25:34] that consequential less than significant

[1:25:36] with a straight face is kind of beyond

[1:25:38] me. Um a less than significant squa

[1:25:42] finding establishes a regulatory floor.

[1:25:44] It should absolutely not become

[1:25:46] Brisbane's climate policy ceiling in my

[1:25:49] mind. Um the draft IR included an offset

[1:25:53] program annual documentation um a

[1:25:56] true-up mechanism and personally frankly

[1:25:58] I thought parts of that framework went a

[1:26:00] little bit too far. Um

[1:26:03] but the final IR did not attempt to

[1:26:05] moderate it. Instead it snapped back in

[1:26:07] the other direction um the opposite

[1:26:09] extreme and removed any outcomebased

[1:26:13] uh measurement or accountability

[1:26:14] measures entirely. It crossed it all

[1:26:16] out. Um and what remains are design

[1:26:20] requirements. It's a checklist. Uh such

[1:26:22] as all electric buildings, electric

[1:26:25] vehicle infrastructure, um considered

[1:26:28] better than regional averages, and those

[1:26:30] are good requirements. I'm not against

[1:26:31] those. Um but, uh they do not tell us

[1:26:35] what the project actually emits.

[1:26:38] um whether the modeled reductions from

[1:26:40] those positive urbanist features

[1:26:43] actually occur or uh whether corrective

[1:26:46] action is needed. Um and you know being

[1:26:49] better than regional averages at this

[1:26:51] point is just not enough. We just had

[1:26:53] the hottest summer on record. Um

[1:26:57] our regional norms and business and

[1:26:59] usual are failing us miserably

[1:27:00] worldwide.

[1:27:02] Uh you know we need to aim higher. So,

[1:27:05] um I I just want to bring up um

[1:27:07] Brisbane's uh climate emergency

[1:27:09] declaration commits us to reducing

[1:27:12] emissions 66% below the 2005 baseline by

[1:27:16] 2030 um and achieving carbon neutrality

[1:27:20] by 2040. Um as of our last GHD inventory

[1:27:24] in 2023, we had achieved only uh a

[1:27:28] 15.73%

[1:27:30] reduction. [snorts]

[1:27:31] So, we are very far behind where we need

[1:27:33] to be. Um, Brisbane identifies itself um

[1:27:39] as you know with environmental

[1:27:41] stewardship as a core part of its

[1:27:42] identity. Um, but there is a profound

[1:27:45] hypocrisy in celebrating that identity

[1:27:48] while refusing to even track the actual

[1:27:50] missions of the largest single

[1:27:53] development in our city's history.

[1:27:55] Um, we should not dismiss our

[1:27:57] sustainability framework or climate

[1:27:59] emergency declaration as merely

[1:28:00] aspirational as has been done in the

[1:28:02] final EIR and look the other way. SQA

[1:28:05] didn't require solar panels on mission

[1:28:06] blue uh or converting the municipal uh

[1:28:10] pool off of fossil fuels. It didn't

[1:28:12] require the BBEP program and it didn't

[1:28:15] require the um

[1:28:18] climate emergency declaration um or

[1:28:21] writing a detailed sustainability

[1:28:22] framework to guide this whole process.

[1:28:24] We did those things because the

[1:28:26] community aspired

[1:28:28] to do more and to be better. Um

[1:28:30] aspiration is the reason we adopted the

[1:28:32] goals um more ambitious than the legal

[1:28:35] minimum requirements. Aspiration was the

[1:28:38] point. Um, so if this is really the best

[1:28:42] that we can manage when it comes to GHD

[1:28:44] in the Baylands, uh, we take those

[1:28:46] projections in the final at face value

[1:28:49] and neither the city nor the public may

[1:28:52] ever know whether those assumptions used

[1:28:53] to justify the project were accurate,

[1:28:55] conservative, or simply wrong. Um, you

[1:28:58] know, and frankly to my mind, if that's

[1:29:00] the best we can do, then I really don't

[1:29:02] want to hear anyone going on again about

[1:29:04] uh how much Brisbane cares about the

[1:29:06] environment. um you know our actions

[1:29:09] will have told a very different story um

[1:29:12] when it

[1:29:13] » Are you almost done we're past time

[1:29:15] » Oh apologies yeah um so at at a minimum

[1:29:19] um I urge you to uh reconsider guidance

[1:29:22] being offered um on GHD emissions and

[1:29:25] require uh periodic developer funded

[1:29:27] greenhouse gas inventories public

[1:29:29] reporting and ongoing city review thank

[1:29:31] you

[1:29:31] » Thank you Linda Sammon and after Linda

[1:29:34] we have Michelle Sammon

[1:29:36] I'm gonna go first.

[1:29:37] » Okay.

[1:29:40] » Michelle Sammon, Brisbane resident with

[1:29:44] um the GHG emissions and everything that

[1:29:48] um Anthony said. I totally agree and I

[1:29:50] support what he said and we really need

[1:29:52] to look to the the long future because

[1:29:55] this planet is in dire straits. But on a

[1:29:59] day-to-day issue, dust and um is a

[1:30:03] serious issue. And I will say that the

[1:30:05] bay lands does not have a good uh track

[1:30:07] record with dust mitigation. I myself

[1:30:10] have, you know, um Bay Area air quality

[1:30:13] control and speed dial. I used to be on

[1:30:15] a firstname basis with Dick, their

[1:30:17] investigator, who rarely showed up in

[1:30:19] time to do anything about it. Um, so I'm

[1:30:22] not really happy about moving, you know,

[1:30:25] 125,000 truckloads of dirt. Um, but some

[1:30:29] of the things that we could do to

[1:30:31] mitigate that is make sure that those

[1:30:33] loads are covered when they're moved so

[1:30:36] dust doesn't billow them out of the

[1:30:37] trucks everywhere. Um, and that didn't

[1:30:41] happen with the concrete coming from the

[1:30:43] freeway project. By the way, um I think

[1:30:46] all of us really suffered a lot during

[1:30:48] the smoke this past week from the Angel

[1:30:50] Island incident and then also all of the

[1:30:53] dust. I know that I've been horse. We've

[1:30:56] taken a really big load of dust from the

[1:30:58] Corey during this crushing process. Um

[1:31:01] everything's covered with dirt. And so I

[1:31:04] really want us to think about the

[1:31:06] dayto-day of covering the trucks. I'd

[1:31:08] like us to test this soil on a regular

[1:31:10] basis as they move through this pile

[1:31:13] because we do not actually know the

[1:31:15] origin of all of the dirt that is on the

[1:31:19] east side of the train tracks. And I

[1:31:23] think it's important because when we

[1:31:26] talk about GHG emissions, we're talking

[1:31:27] about the number of tons of pollutants

[1:31:31] that are in

[1:31:33] those emissions.

[1:31:34] And eventually those come to ground. I

[1:31:37] mean they float up and they come back

[1:31:39] down and when you water it it becomes

[1:31:43] silt and goes into the bay. And if you

[1:31:47] look at historical photographs and

[1:31:48] aerial photo photographs you can see how

[1:31:52] much siltation has happened just from

[1:31:54] the dirt that has blown off of the bay

[1:31:58] site over the last 10 to 15 years. And I

[1:32:02] used to commute that corridor every day.

[1:32:03] And sometimes in the afternoons the dust

[1:32:06] would be blowing so hard off of the site

[1:32:09] across the freeway and into Candlestick

[1:32:11] Cove and then on across the bay that it

[1:32:13] would be this big brown like swath of uh

[1:32:16] dirt in the air and it would it would

[1:32:19] there would be so much of it blowing off

[1:32:21] that it would be actually hitting the

[1:32:22] car with little dirt uh everywhere and

[1:32:26] it didn't matter how many times you

[1:32:28] called air quality control. So, I don't

[1:32:30] trust the regulatory agency to be able

[1:32:33] to handle monitoring the amount of dust

[1:32:35] that this produces and wetting it down

[1:32:39] is kind of moving the problem from the

[1:32:41] air to the water quicker than if it goes

[1:32:43] up and settles down. So, it really is an

[1:32:47] issue. And that's all I have to say, but

[1:32:49] I really think that we need to to really

[1:32:52] tighten a lot of the regulations on

[1:32:54] that. If we do have a conveyor belt, it

[1:32:56] needs to be a covered conveyor belt. Um,

[1:32:59] so that dust just doesn't blow

[1:33:01] everywhere. Dust is really, really

[1:33:03] dangerous and it causes silicosis for if

[1:33:07] it's been and it causes pollutants and

[1:33:10] it has nauseous things in it and we

[1:33:13] don't really want people to be breathing

[1:33:15] that

[1:33:16] and we don't want it in the water

[1:33:18] either. Thank you.

[1:33:21] » Thank you, Linda Salmon. And after

[1:33:23] Linda, we have Ally.

[1:33:27] » Hi. Sorry I'm late and without my notes.

[1:33:30] I just got back from the eye doctor and

[1:33:32] I can't even see. [laughter] So without

[1:33:34] » You can that's all we ask.

[1:33:35] » Um dust silica. Yeah, I have silica in

[1:33:38] my lungs from two seasons in the harm

[1:33:41] and it's not fun and uh it has caused

[1:33:44] other pro problems in my body and I

[1:33:47] don't recommend it to anyone. So I

[1:33:50] really I think we need to work better on

[1:33:52] this whole thing. In terms of the EIR

[1:33:56] itself, I really still do not feel that

[1:33:59] it's complete. It doesn't address so

[1:34:01] many issues like this. Um the idea that

[1:34:04] they're going to build out these single

[1:34:07] family homes on

[1:34:09] a 5t of clay and then expect nothing's

[1:34:13] going to happen. People aren't going to

[1:34:14] grow try and grow anything there. When

[1:34:16] they show pictures of houses with trees

[1:34:18] and gardens, not not real. The whole

[1:34:20] thing is not real. And I just want to

[1:34:23] add that I guess it was 32 years ago

[1:34:27] 1994 general plan which I was part

[1:34:31] author of um called for all kinds of

[1:34:34] things and allowed them to build at the

[1:34:36] beginning of the site where the slage

[1:34:38] lock is um where you might be able to

[1:34:41] get footing and have businesses and

[1:34:45] dwelling units not single family

[1:34:47] dwellings with children on toxic soil

[1:34:51] and dust.

[1:34:52] the way it seems like it's planned out.

[1:34:54] They're going to be having building

[1:34:56] houses and having kids there and then

[1:34:59] moving all the stuff from the the dump

[1:35:02] with I just not it's not not safe.

[1:35:06] Period. Period. It's not. And for us to

[1:35:09] do that, no. The other point I want to

[1:35:12] make is um let's not make the same

[1:35:14] mistake we did on the northeast ridge

[1:35:16] where as soon as they got the permits

[1:35:17] they sold it and then they ignored every

[1:35:20] single thing uh that we had conditioned

[1:35:23] to make it a safe place and make the

[1:35:26] construction safe which is why I sued

[1:35:28] them. [snorts] And I am just going to

[1:35:31] say one more time, if we're going to

[1:35:33] give do anything or give them permits

[1:35:35] for anything, it's going to be only for

[1:35:37] this owner. And if they sell it, then it

[1:35:39] all has to start over again. I'm sorry.

[1:35:42] This is not

[1:35:44] This is a show and we we're done with

[1:35:46] it. It's been how many years? Thank you.

[1:35:49] Hi.

[1:35:50] » Thank you.

[1:35:52] » Thank you. Um Ally and then after Ally,

[1:35:54] we have Clara Johnson.

[1:36:01] Good evening, mayor and council members.

[1:36:03] I'm Ally Saberman with the Housing

[1:36:04] Action Coalition. The Bayands is one of

[1:36:06] the most significant opportunities in

[1:36:08] San Monteo County to deliver new housing

[1:36:11] while advancing California's climate

[1:36:13] goals. In our comment letter on the

[1:36:14] draft EIR, we raised concerns about the

[1:36:17] proposed mitigation measure requiring

[1:36:18] the project to purchase offset credits

[1:36:21] for 1.5 million metric tons of CO2.

[1:36:24] We're raising this again because of the

[1:36:25] comments on this topic appear to

[1:36:28] misunderstand it. Requiring this project

[1:36:30] to buy carbon offsets will not produce

[1:36:32] better environmental outcomes. There's a

[1:36:34] reason this type of mitigation has only

[1:36:36] been applied to suburban straw projects.

[1:36:38] Spraw projects. Infill development in

[1:36:41] existing urbanized areas is the best way

[1:36:43] to protect natural and agricultural

[1:36:45] lands and reduce greenhouse gas

[1:36:47] emissions. Thank you for recognizing

[1:36:49] that and revising the final EI's

[1:36:51] greenhouse gas chapter to better align

[1:36:53] with the state and regional climate

[1:36:55] policy. That correction matters not just

[1:36:56] for the bay lands but for transit

[1:36:58] oriented housing across California.

[1:37:00] Thank you.

[1:37:01] » Thank you,

[1:37:03] Clara.

[1:37:05] Oh, there we go. And Dana, you're after

[1:37:08] Clara.

[1:37:19] Good evening. I'm here to state my

[1:37:22] support for the environmentally superior

[1:37:24] alternative because it has the least

[1:37:26] impact on the physical environment. It

[1:37:28] puts less pressure on our water supply

[1:37:30] and our electric power supply. I would

[1:37:32] prefer an even smaller project, but that

[1:37:34] choice is not offered. The specific plan

[1:37:37] is too large and lacks enough dedicated

[1:37:40] open space.

[1:37:42] We should view GHG gases from a local

[1:37:45] point of view. I think the pressure of

[1:37:48] the construction will be so loud and

[1:37:51] cause so much traffic for such a long

[1:37:53] time that people would become

[1:37:55] demoralized by the conditions. The

[1:37:58] animals that are near will probably

[1:37:59] flee.

[1:38:01] I appreciate the attempts at mitigation

[1:38:03] and wish there could be more effective

[1:38:05] ones in order to move that soil. I'm

[1:38:08] going from topic to topic to get through

[1:38:10] and get you on un further on the list.

[1:38:14] Uh in order to move the soil around,

[1:38:16] won't there be 1,200 daily trips, 640 in

[1:38:20] one direction and then going back to uh

[1:38:22] where they came from uh the other empty,

[1:38:26] » But that's still on the road

[1:38:28] » Fouling the traffic. And the truck trips

[1:38:31] are in the area of Blanken Tunnel

[1:38:34] Beayshore Boulevard, the tunnel avenue

[1:38:36] bridge with the trucks coming every

[1:38:38] three or four minutes for three years in

[1:38:42] order that the phasing functions

[1:38:45] well enough to avoid things descending

[1:38:47] into chaos. The phasing requires a very

[1:38:50] disciplined oversight by the developer

[1:38:52] and by the city. That discipline means

[1:38:54] on-site monitors and coordinators o

[1:38:56] overseeing work every day. They need the

[1:38:59] power to shut it all down when

[1:39:01] everything starts to go south on them.

[1:39:03] If the FEIR suggests a mitigation

[1:39:07] measure, then that mitigation must

[1:39:09] contain test des I'm sorry, text

[1:39:12] describing how it will be achieved.

[1:39:14] Otherwise, there isn't any mitigation in

[1:39:16] the FIR. There is a response to a

[1:39:19] comment that since it is not a

[1:39:21] significant impact, then we don't have

[1:39:23] to do anything under SQA. The fact that

[1:39:26] the measure was included in the document

[1:39:28] means there was a s it was of

[1:39:29] significance to someone and that maybe

[1:39:32] to a lot of people or to a threatened

[1:39:34] species. I think we can do better. I

[1:39:37] strongly object to the road diet that's

[1:39:39] included in the beayhore mobility plan

[1:39:41] because it fails to recognize that

[1:39:43] Beayshore Boulevard is a sub regionally

[1:39:46] important north south road. There needs

[1:39:48] to be more attention paid to protecting

[1:39:50] workers from the toxic contamination in

[1:39:53] the soil and airborne dust and extreme

[1:39:55] air pollution and noise intensity

[1:39:58] surrounding them constantly from Highway

[1:40:00] 101, Beayhore Boulevard, and the heavy

[1:40:03] construction. The landowner was not in a

[1:40:06] rush to get this project built here for

[1:40:08] decades. We should take the time needed

[1:40:10] to explore all the details and do it

[1:40:13] right. I GHG1 I think that we're going

[1:40:17] to review again. I know you're

[1:40:19] discussing I appreciate it in order to

[1:40:22] determine whether some of it should be

[1:40:24] not blocked out but rather keep and

[1:40:28] continue to be included.

[1:40:32] I'm interested in the idea that

[1:40:33] mitigation measures could be in the spec

[1:40:37] specific plan as policies and I hope you

[1:40:39] will consider that some more. Thank you

[1:40:42] very much. Thanks, Clara.

[1:40:44] » Thank you, Dana. And after Dan will be

[1:40:47] Karen Cunningham.

[1:40:54] » Thank you, Madame Mayor, council

[1:40:55] members. Um, I have two questions from

[1:40:58] the prior meeting and a couple of

[1:41:00] questions about greenhouse gas

[1:41:02] emissions. Um, what has happened to the

[1:41:06] city's agreement with the Oakdale Water

[1:41:09] District? Do we still have an

[1:41:11] obligation? because I remember the

[1:41:13] contract that was to be signed said that

[1:41:16] after a certain date if something hasn't

[1:41:18] happened that the city would continue to

[1:41:21] pay. Um and so I'm wondering if that

[1:41:25] expense is part of the revenue policy

[1:41:29] if you remember

[1:41:31] um regarding revenue policy are there

[1:41:34] any provisions

[1:41:36] um disre disallowing crypto or um the

[1:41:42] financing sources and the reason or even

[1:41:45] the ownership sources um and I would

[1:41:49] remind you of the experience with the

[1:41:52] Sunset building where there was a

[1:41:54] Russian oligarch that wants to put an

[1:41:56] 80story tower down on the old uh in

[1:41:59] Menllo Park on the old Sunset building.

[1:42:02] So, I'm wondering how we get protected

[1:42:04] from something like that. Um, regarding

[1:42:08] the greenhouse um, gas emissions, I

[1:42:11] would like to know if anything about

[1:42:13] Kinder Morgan was factored into it and

[1:42:16] if anything about the dump has been c

[1:42:19] uh, factored into it because as long as

[1:42:22] those two places are not mitigate or

[1:42:28] remediated from the start, they continue

[1:42:31] to off gas. And I would like to remind

[1:42:34] you of the gas report that Barbara Eel

[1:42:38] had presented and it mysteriously

[1:42:41] disappeared, but it showed that all

[1:42:44] along

[1:42:45] um the old [clears throat] dump there

[1:42:48] are emissions

[1:42:51] that exceed anybody's regulations.

[1:42:55] And

[1:42:57] um I [clears throat] don't understand

[1:42:59] why closing that landfill with the

[1:43:02] proper um there is only an interim um

[1:43:07] system set up that a proper system be

[1:43:10] done first or else you cannot say that

[1:43:13] you're reducing gas house emissions. Um,

[1:43:17] and the part about Kinder Morgan, I know

[1:43:21] we've been very careful not to bring it

[1:43:23] up, but um, it has had a spill. The

[1:43:28] spill uh, is heading towards the bay. It

[1:43:31] will continue to off gas unless the area

[1:43:35] around Mi um, Kinder Morgan is

[1:43:38] mitigated. And we were told that it's

[1:43:43] there's an industrial

[1:43:45] uh cleanup standard for Kinder Morgan

[1:43:48] and they expect there to be gas fumes

[1:43:52] because hey, it's a tank farm and

[1:43:54] therefore there's really no mitigation

[1:43:57] because that they expect all of those

[1:44:00] gas fumes to be coming off the tank

[1:44:02] farm. So, as long as you just ignore

[1:44:05] Kinder Morgan, you are doing the public

[1:44:08] a disservice. Um, so I would like to

[1:44:12] know um if those were factored into the

[1:44:17] greenhouse gas emissions, if by leaving

[1:44:22] them silent for 10 or 15 years, how much

[1:44:26] more we have to endure

[1:44:29] a program that should have been handled

[1:44:32] 35 years ago when the endangerment

[1:44:35] eminent endangerment orders were first

[1:44:39] ex um put on this property 1988.

[1:44:45] Just remind you. Thank you. Do we have

[1:44:48] Brian online still?

[1:44:51] » Yeah, it's a good question.

[1:44:52] » Brian, could you answer the question

[1:44:54] about whether Kinder Morgan and the

[1:44:58] euphemistic

[1:45:00] unregulated garbage dump were factored

[1:45:04] into emissions?

[1:45:07] If the sorry I don't I'm not sure I

[1:45:10] fully understand the question but if the

[1:45:11] question had to do with um hazardous

[1:45:13] materials

[1:45:15] » Release of hazardous materials and

[1:45:16] remediation is that

[1:45:18] » No she was talking about the fact that

[1:45:20] the the dump actually has emissions that

[1:45:23] have been ongoing for decades

[1:45:25] » And that Kinder Morgan also has uh as a

[1:45:29] tank farm a certain amount of gases that

[1:45:32] are emitted and whether those were in

[1:45:34] the calculations. conditions.

[1:45:37] » So I as Brian's thinking about that

[1:45:40] those would be part of what SQL would

[1:45:42] call the baseline conditions when we're

[1:45:44] analyzing impacts. They're impacts from

[1:45:47] the project. So we're looking at the

[1:45:49] project's effect on

[1:45:52] new emission sources. Um things that are

[1:45:55] already existing part of the environment

[1:45:57] are part of the environmental context,

[1:45:59] the setting, the baseline for the

[1:46:01] analysis. And then we're looking at at

[1:46:04] how the project makes changes to those

[1:46:05] existing conditions.

[1:46:07] » Very good.

[1:46:08] » Thank you,

[1:46:11] » Karen.

[1:46:11] » Hey, I guess uh Madame Mayor, city

[1:46:14] council, I guess my uh comment question

[1:46:17] here is kind of a followup to that. So,

[1:46:20] Brian, don't run away. um AQ-1

[1:46:24] um we have listed RO ROG NOX PM10 and

[1:46:29] PM2.5 as the the major issues.

[1:46:34] I want to take us back to when the bay

[1:46:40] lands was medical, military,

[1:46:44] and

[1:46:46] post 1906 earthquake. It's where all the

[1:46:50] waste went was into the Baylands and

[1:46:54] everything that was in those buildings

[1:46:55] including asbestous etc. Um, the

[1:46:59] [clears throat] one thing that has

[1:47:00] always stuck with me, and I've asked the

[1:47:02] question multiple times over the years,

[1:47:04] is what were our thermometers prior to

[1:47:08] the 1970s? Our thermometers were all

[1:47:12] mercury.

[1:47:14] And if you look at every piece of

[1:47:16] information we have relative to the bay

[1:47:18] lands and all of the studies that have

[1:47:20] been done, the word mercury does not

[1:47:22] show up one time in my searches on the

[1:47:24] city's website or anywhere else. And as

[1:47:28] we're talking about air pollutants

[1:47:29] relative to these truck trips, when soil

[1:47:32] contaminated with mercury is excavated,

[1:47:34] transported, or relocated, the mercury

[1:47:37] spreads through mechanical movement,

[1:47:39] dust inhilation, water runoff, and vapor

[1:47:42] emissions. So that is my comment and I

[1:47:45] think some of these things

[1:47:48] I don't know why they're not front and

[1:47:50] center on the things that we're talking

[1:47:52] about relative to moving this kind of

[1:47:54] dirt. So I really want you to think hard

[1:47:57] about that. That's my only comment.

[1:47:58] Thank you

[1:48:01] for

[1:48:01] » Brian. Did you have a comment on the

[1:48:03] mercury?

[1:48:06] Yeah, I would just say that I I think

[1:48:08] that will be covered in the uh uh an

[1:48:11] upcoming hearing on hazards and

[1:48:13] hazardous materials and as part of the

[1:48:15] hazardous uh remediation planning

[1:48:18] requirements.

[1:48:20] » Okay, thank you.

[1:48:22] Stores, sorry I didn't tell you give you

[1:48:25] forewarning. So after stores, we have uh

[1:48:28] Jeremy Lavine online. After that, we'll

[1:48:31] have Roland online, then Charles

[1:48:33] Spencer, and then Jordan Grimes online

[1:48:37] just to give everybody a little advanced

[1:48:39] notice. Thank you, Sto.

[1:48:41] » Hi, thanks so much for letting me ask a

[1:48:44] few questions and make a few comments.

[1:48:46] Um, again with Brian being up there,

[1:48:49] when I was looking at the EIR,

[1:48:53] um, and that it really does seem that

[1:48:57] the operational,

[1:48:59] uh, greenhouse gas emissions are is

[1:49:02] going to be the largest and it really

[1:49:04] seems that by far the largest driver of

[1:49:07] that is mobile, which I guess is just

[1:49:11] transportation. And I'd love to have

[1:49:13] clarification whether that's true. Um

[1:49:17] and then um on something else in terms

[1:49:22] of air quality. Um we uh several places

[1:49:26] in the EIR we talk about uh wastewater

[1:49:31] uh treatment plant. Um, and I just want

[1:49:34] to make sure that we do put some teeth

[1:49:36] in that it is modernly designed to

[1:49:41] reduce uh the noxious smells which come

[1:49:45] from waste water treatment because uh

[1:49:48] Brisbane has a history of being known as

[1:49:51] the smelly town and I don't want us to

[1:49:53] go back to that. Um, so those are my two

[1:49:57] comments. Thanks so much.

[1:50:00] Do we have a comment from the developers

[1:50:03] agent about the um wastewater treatment

[1:50:07] plant standards of design?

[1:50:10] I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

[1:50:12] If you'd like to make a comment, if not,

[1:50:14] we'll just go on.

[1:50:17] There is a mitigation measure that the

[1:50:20] um the water recycling facility will not

[1:50:24] stink.

[1:50:26] » Okay. [laughter]

[1:50:28] All right, Jeremy online. Jeremy Lavine.

[1:50:36] » Hey, good evening, Brisbane City

[1:50:38] Council. Uh, it's good to be back. I

[1:50:41] enjoyed watching the other meeting,

[1:50:43] though went a little long. My name is

[1:50:45] Jeremy Lavine. I'm the policy manager

[1:50:47] with the Housing Leadership Council of

[1:50:50] San Monteo County. I'm also, for what

[1:50:52] it's worth, a dues paying Sierra Club

[1:50:55] member and um you know amid all this

[1:50:58] discussion uh I thought a little bit

[1:51:01] about me might be helpful. Um I'm 29

[1:51:04] years old. I know it's it's it's young.

[1:51:07] I suspect that I'm uh less than half the

[1:51:11] median age of the people who have been

[1:51:13] commenting and so there's a lot of

[1:51:16] wisdom I've appreciated hearing. Uh, I'm

[1:51:19] not bringing that up to cast

[1:51:20] dispersions. I'm bringing it up to make

[1:51:22] the point that I have a really big

[1:51:24] vested interest in the future of the

[1:51:27] environment and the planet. I'm really

[1:51:29] worried about climate change. I'm really

[1:51:31] worried about being able to breathe

[1:51:34] clean air, about being able to have high

[1:51:37] quality water, about being able to live

[1:51:39] in communities that are healthy and

[1:51:42] sustainable and clean.

[1:51:46] And when I look at projects like the

[1:51:48] Baylands,

[1:51:50] I see so much opportunity. There is a

[1:51:54] cow train sitting next to a recycling

[1:51:57] plant and a dump. This is like what?

[1:52:02] Hundreds of millions of dollars,

[1:52:03] billions of dollars of infrastructure

[1:52:06] that are not able to get the kind of

[1:52:09] ridership. It's the lowest ridership

[1:52:11] station in the entire corridor because

[1:52:14] people can't live near it. There aren't

[1:52:16] enough jobs near it.

[1:52:19] There are many ways that this project

[1:52:21] will have local impacts. But man, when I

[1:52:23] think about local impacts, I think a lot

[1:52:25] about a police officer from Daily City

[1:52:27] who I talked to a few months ago. And I

[1:52:29] know it's Daily City, not Brisbane, but

[1:52:31] hear me out because I think Brisbane

[1:52:33] probably has some of the same

[1:52:35] circumstances also. This police officer

[1:52:37] was telling me about how he lives in

[1:52:41] Modesta and commutes every single day to

[1:52:46] Daily City. There's no public transit

[1:52:48] option.

[1:52:50] He sits in traffic for an hour and a

[1:52:52] half or two hours each direction just so

[1:52:54] that he can reach a good paying job and

[1:52:57] provide for his family. and he used to

[1:52:59] live in the peninsula, but as he got

[1:53:03] married and had kids, there was no home

[1:53:06] for him nearby.

[1:53:09] So, that seems like a pretty big cause

[1:53:12] of greenhouse gas emissions. That seems

[1:53:14] like a pretty big cause of particulate

[1:53:16] matter. You have somebody driving a car

[1:53:19] spewing up uh you know, rubber

[1:53:22] particullet and uh gas into the air uh

[1:53:26] for hours every day. going through

[1:53:29] communities across the peninsula going

[1:53:31] through Brisbane.

[1:53:34] So, uh

[1:53:37] you know this this EIR this project was

[1:53:40] first proposed when I was 8 years old.

[1:53:42] Uh in that time the median home price in

[1:53:45] Brisbane has more than doubled. The

[1:53:46] median rent has more than doubled. There

[1:53:49] are really big environmental impacts.

[1:53:51] There's already been a certified EIR for

[1:53:53] this project. Uh, you know, maybe it's

[1:53:56] because I don't have the experience of

[1:53:57] everyone in this room, but a lot of this

[1:53:59] conversation seems pretty redundant from

[1:54:01] what already happened just eight years

[1:54:03] ago. The conditions haven't changed. The

[1:54:05] conversation has just become more

[1:54:06] complicated. So, you know, speaking on

[1:54:09] behalf of myself as a young person

[1:54:12] looking to the future, not just to

[1:54:14] Brisbane or San Monteo County, but of

[1:54:16] the planet, I really hope that the

[1:54:18] council will really try to find a way to

[1:54:21] get to yes without imposing

[1:54:24] uh

[1:54:26] costs that make this impossible. without

[1:54:28] imposing costs that don't consider not

[1:54:31] just the global but the regional and the

[1:54:33] local impacts of a police officer or

[1:54:36] somebody like me who can't afford to

[1:54:38] live in the community and has so thank

[1:54:40] you for your time look forward to the

[1:54:41] rest of your discussion

[1:54:43] » Thank you Jeremy uh Roland online

[1:54:48] and after Roland we have Charles Spencer

[1:54:52] » Um thank you madame mayor and council

[1:54:55] thank you for the opportunity so I have

[1:54:57] an extreme extremely quick question

[1:55:00] uh which has to do with moving all this

[1:55:02] dirt across the Cal Train tracks and I'm

[1:55:05] wondering if it would be possible to

[1:55:08] prioritize the Geneva Avenue extension

[1:55:13] overpass over the Cal Train tracks and

[1:55:16] then that use that overpass uh for all

[1:55:19] the uh truck movements across the

[1:55:22] tracks. I believe you'd be cutting the

[1:55:24] truck mileage by about 90% and uh the

[1:55:28] pollutions accordingly. So if somebody

[1:55:31] could speak to that, that'd be much

[1:55:32] appreciated. Thank you.

[1:55:35] » Anybody want to tackle that?

[1:55:38] That might be a little difficult Roland

[1:55:41] to answer on the spot tonight. It's a

[1:55:44] bit subjective.

[1:55:48] » We do have the transportation topic in

[1:55:50] the next meeting. So uh we can take this

[1:55:53] question down and uh at that point we

[1:55:56] will have our transportation consultant

[1:55:58] and perhaps they can help us on that.

[1:56:00] » Okay, perfect. Thank you Kevin. Thank

[1:56:02] you Roland Charles Spencer.

[1:56:05] » Yes, thank you. I want to thank

[1:56:06] » Jordan Grimes after

[1:56:07] » For hosting this meeting. I have two

[1:56:09] questions concerning the cap. Uh the

[1:56:12] first underneath the cap the

[1:56:13] contaminated liquid will flow and I'd

[1:56:16] like to know what analysis you have on

[1:56:18] the direction of the flow and potential

[1:56:20] accumulation points. Second question

[1:56:23] also underneath the cap pressure will

[1:56:25] build. We've got heat from the top and

[1:56:27] heat from underneath below ground. Uh

[1:56:30] this the soil will not be able to

[1:56:31] breathe like it naturally would. So

[1:56:34] pressure is going to build. I'd like to

[1:56:35] know what analysis you have on how that

[1:56:38] pressure will relieve itself and where

[1:56:40] you expect it to relieve itself. Thank

[1:56:42] you.

[1:56:44] » Staff, you want to tackle that one?

[1:56:45] » Wait, isn't isn't that for like a future

[1:56:48] meeting?

[1:56:49] » Yeah. I mean, that that was what we were

[1:56:50] going to say is when we go through the

[1:56:52] remediation topic, we'll have the

[1:56:55] engineers and experts to talk about how

[1:56:57] those systems will work.

[1:56:58] » So, can you capture that? Try to just

[1:57:00] jot that question down to ensure that

[1:57:03] it's included.

[1:57:05] Yes. Thank you,

[1:57:08] » Jordan Grimes online.

[1:57:15] » Yes. Good evening, council honorable

[1:57:17] mayor. My name is Jordan Grimes and I'm

[1:57:19] the legislative director for Green Belt

[1:57:21] Alliance. We are a nearly 70-year-old

[1:57:24] environmental organization working

[1:57:25] throughout the Bay Area on conservation,

[1:57:27] climate resilience, and sustainable land

[1:57:29] use policy.

[1:57:31] Um, we've been longtime supporters of

[1:57:33] the Bayands project and have been

[1:57:36] tracking this very closely for for more

[1:57:39] than a decade now. I want to say there

[1:57:42] are a number of significantly or what I

[1:57:44] view to be significantly misinformed

[1:57:46] claims presented this evening during

[1:57:48] some of the comments about the EIR and

[1:57:50] and greenhouse gas reduction more

[1:57:52] broadly. So, I want to make this pretty

[1:57:54] clear. Advancing this project

[1:57:58] is one of the best things that Brisbane

[1:58:00] could possibly do in terms of reducing

[1:58:02] greenhouse gas emissions. Brisbane is

[1:58:05] not an island. It is a city that is part

[1:58:07] of a region and as such emission

[1:58:09] reduction has to be considered

[1:58:11] holistically with the entire region in

[1:58:13] mind. and creating a dense, walkable,

[1:58:16] transit oriented area and allowing tens

[1:58:19] of thousands of people to live and work

[1:58:21] there will have an enormous positive

[1:58:24] effect on reducing greenhouse gas uh

[1:58:27] impacts. The single largest source of

[1:58:30] emissions in the Bay Area and California

[1:58:32] more broadly is the transportation

[1:58:33] sector. It is driving uh it is you

[1:58:35] driving your car to get from point A to

[1:58:38] point B and it is other people driving

[1:58:40] their cars to get from point A to point

[1:58:41] B. That is where more than 45% of our

[1:58:44] emissions come from. They are the result

[1:58:47] of vehicle miles traveled and the only

[1:58:50] way to really deal with that uh is

[1:58:52] through land use change. Um and that is

[1:58:54] backed up by the UC Berkeley local

[1:58:57] government climate policy tool uh which

[1:58:59] allows local governments to look at

[1:59:01] different potential policies to reduce

[1:59:03] greenhouse gas emissions uh and which

[1:59:05] shows that additional infill development

[1:59:07] in Brisbane blows other GHG emission

[1:59:10] reduction strategies. uh things like

[1:59:12] heating, electrification, commercial

[1:59:14] efficiency, etc. out of the water. It's

[1:59:17] infill. We know this. It's it's infill.

[1:59:19] Um Green Belt first endorsed this

[1:59:22] project, as far as I can tell, back in

[1:59:24] 2011. And as a lifelong Samato resident,

[1:59:27] as as someone who grew up in this

[1:59:29] county, the fact that we are still

[1:59:31] debating this is frustrating to say the

[1:59:33] least when you think about how many

[1:59:35] metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions

[1:59:36] we could have prevented had it been

[1:59:38] built earlier. And that is that is

[1:59:40] something that I think the entire Bay

[1:59:42] Area has to reckon with. Certainly

[1:59:43] Brisbane is not the only uh city that is

[1:59:46] engaged this way, but it is a

[1:59:48] significant problem and fixing it is

[1:59:51] going to require us to think a little

[1:59:52] bit differently. Um so I do want to

[1:59:55] sincerely thank city staff uh for for

[1:59:58] advancing this for getting us to what I

[2:00:00] hope is the end of a very long and

[2:00:02] arduous process. Um I understand that

[2:00:04] many of the concerns this evening uh I

[2:00:07] understand where they're coming from. I

[2:00:08] I certainly believe that they're

[2:00:09] legitimate. Um but many of them are also

[2:00:12] unfounded and so I hope you will advance

[2:00:14] this project uh sooner rather than

[2:00:17] later. Um and look forward to attending

[2:00:19] the other meetings. Thanks so much.

[2:00:22] » Thank you. So I have two more slips and

[2:00:25] I have a question. Ariel, you have open

[2:00:27] space. We're on greenhouse gas

[2:00:28] emissions. Did you really mean open

[2:00:31] space?

[2:00:32] I was going to comment on open space on

[2:00:34] the um

[2:00:35] » Because that's coming up after this.

[2:00:39] » Okay. So, you want it then?

[2:00:41] » Yeah. Whenever you'd like me to comment.

[2:00:43] » Okay. We'll put you on the second part.

[2:00:46] So, I have Matt Rean or Reagan.

[2:00:52] » That's online.

[2:00:53] » Oh, sorry. Online. Matt.

[2:00:56] » Good evening, Madame Mayor, council

[2:00:57] members. My name is Matt Rean. I'm chief

[2:01:00] policy officer at the Bay Area Council

[2:01:03] and uh like my good friend Jordan who

[2:01:05] just spoke, we did first endorse this

[2:01:08] project uh back in 2011, back when

[2:01:11] council member Lance and I were much

[2:01:12] younger and much faster. Um hi. Um, I

[2:01:17] want to uh I want to paraphrase one of

[2:01:20] my favorite Joe Bidenisms um and urge

[2:01:23] you to resist the temptation to compare

[2:01:25] this project to the Almighty and instead

[2:01:28] compare it to the alternative. Uh the

[2:01:31] Almighty of of course is zero emissions

[2:01:33] which we know is a physical

[2:01:35] impossibility. Uh the alternative um is

[2:01:39] as Jordan Grimes explained uh tens of

[2:01:42] thousands of people living somewhere

[2:01:43] else. Uh San Monteo and the California

[2:01:46] coast at large. It's one of the lowest

[2:01:48] greenhouse gas places in the world to

[2:01:51] live. It's temperate. It's transit

[2:01:54] served. It's 50° in January. It's 50° in

[2:01:58] July. You don't need heat. You don't

[2:02:00] need AC. You can live without a car. You

[2:02:02] have access to services and employment

[2:02:05] within very short uh distances of where

[2:02:07] you live. It is the lowest GHG existence

[2:02:11] you can possibly have on the planet. So

[2:02:13] to build in these sites, if you care, if

[2:02:16] you honestly care about reducing

[2:02:19] greenhouse gases and impacts on our

[2:02:21] planet's climate, then sites like this

[2:02:25] be the absolute pinnacle of development

[2:02:28] and growth. Um the average per capita

[2:02:32] greenhouse gas production of a San

[2:02:34] Monteo resident is 7 tons.

[2:02:37] The average California resident is 9

[2:02:39] tons. People who live in the Central

[2:02:41] Valley, it's about 10 tons. that Sam

[2:02:43] that daily city cop who commutes every

[2:02:46] day two hours each way. He's not the

[2:02:48] only one who makes that commute.

[2:02:49] According to MTC data,

[2:02:52] 120,000 people every workday commute

[2:02:56] into the Bay Area from their homes in

[2:02:58] the Central Valley because we have for a

[2:03:00] generation refused to build sufficient

[2:03:04] housing to match our job growth. And we

[2:03:06] have forced all of our our affordable

[2:03:08] housing into autodependent far-flung

[2:03:11] suburbs in the Central Valley and

[2:03:13] beyond. They're the lucky ones. 40,000

[2:03:16] Californians each year move to Texas,

[2:03:18] one state. The per capita greenhouse gas

[2:03:21] production in Texas is 27 tons. That's a

[2:03:25] 400% increase over the residents that

[2:03:28] would live in this project in San Mato.

[2:03:31] So I would urge you do not compare it to

[2:03:33] the to the Almighty. compare it to the

[2:03:35] alternative to those alternatives.

[2:03:38] This project meets all of the standards,

[2:03:41] environmental standards and greenhouse

[2:03:42] gas reduction standards that have been

[2:03:44] laid out by HCD and by the California

[2:03:47] Air Resources Board. Again, if you care

[2:03:49] about the reduction of greenhouse gases,

[2:03:52] if you care about the future of the the

[2:03:54] planet and our climate, then this is

[2:03:56] exactly the sort of project that you

[2:03:59] should be approving. And it should not

[2:04:01] be taking 15 years to get it approved.

[2:04:04] And this is why we have a climate crisis

[2:04:06] and why we have a housing crisis because

[2:04:08] project like this are taking too long to

[2:04:12] get approved. So please move it forward

[2:04:14] as quickly as possible. Thank you.

[2:04:17] » All right. Thank you. That is all I have

[2:04:20] on slips. Do we have any other that I

[2:04:23] don't have? That being said, Council

[2:04:25] Member Lance, you asked me to circle

[2:04:27] back.

[2:04:28] » Yeah. Thank Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um

[2:04:31] you I appreciate all the comments that

[2:04:33] that people raised. Uh one of the

[2:04:36] comments from member of the public was

[2:04:40] about climate change and

[2:04:43] for me personally I think climate change

[2:04:45] is the greatest threat not only to

[2:04:47] humans but to all living things. Uh, you

[2:04:52] know, Anthony brought this up and I'm

[2:04:53] just going to read it again, which is

[2:04:55] resolution number 2021-62.

[2:04:58] And this is Brisbane's climate emergency

[2:05:00] declaration,

[2:05:02] which commits the city to reducing

[2:05:04] greenhouse gas emissions 66% below 2005

[2:05:07] levels by 2030 and achieving net zero

[2:05:09] emissions by 2040.

[2:05:14] I also want to echo what Anthony said

[2:05:16] about being better than average compared

[2:05:20] to the rest of the cities in the area

[2:05:22] and that that should be the standard

[2:05:24] that we shoot for. I think we can do

[2:05:26] better and I I want to partner with you

[2:05:29] EDI to make that happen.

[2:05:33] You know, in

[2:05:35] measure JJ, it's item G. It states

[2:05:38] Bayland's development shall be designed

[2:05:41] so as to be energy neutral on an ongoing

[2:05:43] basis.

[2:05:45] And so one of the requests that I'd like

[2:05:48] to make for a future discussion is for

[2:05:53] us to evaluate alternative 7

[2:05:56] and compare it to the current specific

[2:05:59] plan.

[2:06:00] In my mind, I think that uh alternative

[2:06:03] 7 is more in line with the measure JJ

[2:06:08] item

[2:06:09] where that is designed so as to be

[2:06:12] energy neutral on an ongoing basis while

[2:06:15] still providing the housing and

[2:06:18] commercial

[2:06:20] that we all need and that I I am in

[2:06:23] favor of. All right. Thank you. Any

[2:06:27] member of the council want to comment on

[2:06:29] that or have another comment?

[2:06:32] » I have just things that the public has

[2:06:34] mentioned that I just don't know that

[2:06:37] were answered.

[2:06:38] » Okay, I do too. Go ahead.

[2:06:39] » Um, so Michelle Sammon brought up

[2:06:42] requiring the trucks to be covered.

[2:06:45] » Um, and is that ex is that something

[2:06:48] that is a provision in the AIR that

[2:06:49] already requires that or is that

[2:06:51] something that we would need to build

[2:06:53] into this specific plan?

[2:06:56] Yeah, it's it's required in connection

[2:06:58] with the um the air quality um the

[2:07:03] um EIR does require um dust mitigation

[2:07:07] that meets all air district standards

[2:07:09] and um I think it's regulation six

[2:07:12] though Brian will correct me if I don't

[2:07:14] have that correct um has basically

[2:07:18] particulate matter and dust controls

[2:07:21] that are uh imposed on construction

[2:07:24] projects like this and That does include

[2:07:26] a requirement to have the trucks be

[2:07:27] covered.

[2:07:28] » Okay. I thought that was the case.

[2:07:29] » Is that only when they're on a public

[2:07:31] highway or is that covered when they're

[2:07:33] within a site?

[2:07:36] » I'd have to double check. I don't

[2:07:37] remember off the top of my head.

[2:07:38] » I I can answer that. It's all during uh

[2:07:41] it's all hall trucks transporting soil

[2:07:44] um offsite shall be covered. So any any

[2:07:47] any transport of soil requires covering.

[2:07:50] And on on that question, council member

[2:07:53] or mayor prom Davis, what about the

[2:07:55] conveyor belt that we're talking about

[2:07:57] as well? Is that included in that?

[2:07:59] » The Yeah, the the conveyor belt also is

[2:08:01] specifically addressed in the mitigation

[2:08:03] program. Thank you.

[2:08:04] » To have um you know, watering coverage

[2:08:08] and have the air district standards uh

[2:08:10] applied to it.

[2:08:12] » Okay. Um, and then I had kind of touched

[2:08:15] in the questions about like some

[2:08:17] sitewide carbon budgeting, monitoring,

[2:08:20] reporting, etc.

[2:08:22] But there was also something that I

[2:08:24] think that I had discussed with legal

[2:08:26] before about

[2:08:28] the more that the city involves itself

[2:08:31] in oversight beyond what's charged with

[2:08:35] the regulatory agencies,

[2:08:38] the more that the city then exposes

[2:08:40] itself to future liability. Um, and so

[2:08:45] I, you know, I

[2:08:47] I've heard this several times in these

[2:08:50] meetings where it's like, well, I don't

[2:08:52] trust um DTSC or I don't trust this

[2:08:57] agency to do their job and therefore the

[2:08:59] city needs to implement some kind of

[2:09:01] additional oversight.

[2:09:03] And I think it's important because that

[2:09:06] was kind of discussed a little bit here

[2:09:09] from the public tonight. If as

[2:09:12] well-intentioned as we may be and

[2:09:14] wanting to, you know, ensure that

[2:09:17] everything's done right, adding that

[2:09:19] additional level of scrutiny on the

[2:09:21] city's part, does that in fact now

[2:09:25] potentially expose us to liability if

[2:09:29] something does go wrong in the future?

[2:09:31] And they can point to the city and say,

[2:09:34] "Oh, well, you've you've involved

[2:09:35] yourself in the process of regulating

[2:09:37] this

[2:09:40] Yeah, I mean I guess it depends on the

[2:09:41] the specific topic and and actions, but

[2:09:44] yeah, in in general that's correct that

[2:09:46] if there's there's regulatory agencies,

[2:09:49] they have specific jurisdiction, they

[2:09:52] have a particular expertise, then it

[2:09:55] often can be, you know, the safest

[2:09:58] approach for the city to uh defer to

[2:10:00] those expertise and not um not

[2:10:03] [clears throat] try and and change that

[2:10:04] framework uh to avoid inserting yourself

[2:10:07] into a uh potential liability chain.

[2:10:11] » Yeah. So, you know, to to put these

[2:10:15] measures in place to avoid a problem

[2:10:17] could in fact create a problem,

[2:10:21] especially a major financial problem for

[2:10:24] the city in the future. So, I think it

[2:10:26] was just important that

[2:10:29] we hear a little bit more about that cuz

[2:10:31] I have a feeling that's going to come up

[2:10:33] again. Um,

[2:10:36] and I think all the rest of the things

[2:10:38] that have come up

[2:10:40] maybe are more for future meetings. So,

[2:10:44] I'll leave it at that.

[2:10:46] » Okay. So, I do have a question. Um,

[2:10:49] again based on Michelle Sammon's

[2:10:51] question

[2:10:54] because the east side has vastly

[2:10:58] unregulated not just garbage but toxic

[2:11:00] waste that was just dumped into the bay

[2:11:03] and moving soil from east to west. We

[2:11:06] know historically dirt or not [snorts]

[2:11:09] dirt but garbage and refues and toxic

[2:11:12] waste was deposited about 40t deep.

[2:11:16] is anywhere is this written into the

[2:11:19] specific plan? I I took a bit of um

[2:11:25] solless from what Michelle was saying in

[2:11:27] that if you're moving dirt and you're a

[2:11:30] contractor, how do you know when you've

[2:11:32] hit 40 ft? How do you know when you're

[2:11:34] moving dirt and suddenly you're hitting

[2:11:36] toxic waste? So, I don't know if anyone

[2:11:40] can answer that, but I'm I'm not saying

[2:11:43] that the city of Brisbane should assume

[2:11:45] any liability or do monitoring or

[2:11:49] testing, but should we not have

[2:11:52] something

[2:11:54] put in that specific plan addressing

[2:11:57] that issue just because of the anomaly

[2:12:00] of the east side? And it and it's it's

[2:12:03] the airborne contaminants, but it's also

[2:12:06] people who might be working out there,

[2:12:07] even the truck drivers. And whatever is

[2:12:10] airborne out there comes comes either

[2:12:14] south or it blows east into someone

[2:12:17] else's

[2:12:19] » Yeah.

[2:12:19] » Home or area.

[2:12:20] » And so the remedial action plans all

[2:12:23] identify uh quantitative metrics for

[2:12:27] handling of soil, soil vapor,

[2:12:29] groundwater. Um and again I think that

[2:12:31] when we're doing the rem remediation

[2:12:34] specific discussion uh we can get into a

[2:12:37] lot more detail about uh the different

[2:12:39] measures uh the type of testing that's

[2:12:41] already been done and and how that will

[2:12:43] be uh implemented and monitored going

[2:12:46] forward.

[2:12:47] » Okay. Thank you Eric. Anyone else

[2:12:50] council?

[2:12:52] » Nope. Okay. Do we need a break?

[2:12:55] » Yes.

[2:12:56] » Okay. Let's take a 10-minute break.

[2:13:00] It'll turn into 15, but we'll take a

[2:13:02] 10-minute break and we'll see you back

[2:13:04] here.

[2:13:04] » So, for the public and the next topic so

[2:13:07] that people can prepare their slips is

[2:13:11] distrib distribution and intensity of

[2:13:13] uses

[2:13:14] » Or what do you want to do next? Just so

[2:13:16] like if people want to submit slips,

[2:13:17] they know what the next thing is.

[2:13:19] » We have land use plans and design is

[2:13:21] coming up next. I've already got some

[2:13:24] slips, but you're welcome. Anyone who

[2:13:25] hasn't filled one out,

[2:13:27] » That's our city clerk. Just hand it to

[2:13:29] our city clerk.

[2:13:35] [music]

[2:13:48] [music]

[2:13:51] Heat. Heat. N.

[2:13:58] [music]

[2:14:12] » [music]

[2:14:19] » Heat. Heat.

[2:14:21] [music]

[2:14:27] » [music]

[2:14:33] [music]

[2:14:47] [music]

[2:14:56] [music]

[2:15:05] [music]

[2:15:07] » Heat. Heat.

[2:15:16] » [music]

[2:15:22] [music]

[2:15:28] [music]

[2:15:30] » Hey.

[2:15:39] [music]

[2:15:45] [music] Heat. Heat.

[2:15:52] [music]

[2:15:58] [music]

[2:16:06] [music]

[2:16:20] » [music]

[2:16:26] [music]

[2:16:42] [music]

[2:16:49] [music]

[2:16:52] » Wow.

[2:17:04] » [music]

[2:17:12] [music]

[2:17:19] [music]

[2:17:25] [music]

[2:17:31] [music]

[2:17:38] [music]

[2:17:48] [music]

[2:18:04] [music]

[2:18:11] [music]

[2:18:22] [music]

[2:18:33] [music]

[2:18:39] [music]

[2:18:55] [music]

[2:19:04] [music]

[2:19:21] [music]

[2:19:40] [music]

[2:19:48] » Heat. Heat.

[2:19:51] [music]

[2:20:05] [music]

[2:20:11] [music]

[2:20:19] » [music]

[2:20:25] » Heat. Heat.

[2:20:30] [music]

[2:20:35] » [music]

[2:20:43] [music]

[2:20:46] » Heat. Heat. [music]

[2:20:53] [music]

[2:21:02] » [music]

[2:21:07] [music]

[2:21:08] » Heat. Heat.

[2:21:16] Heat. Heat.

[2:21:20] [music]

[2:21:36] [music]

[2:21:45] » [music]

[2:21:48] » Heat. Heat.

[2:21:52] [music]

[2:22:02] » [music]

[2:22:14] » Heat. [music] Heat.

[2:22:21] Heat. Heat.

[2:22:26] [music]

[2:22:31] Heat.

[2:22:33] [music]

[2:22:44] [music]

[2:22:47] Heat.

[2:22:52] [music]

[2:23:50] Okay, we're back in session.

[2:23:53] Second topic is land use plans and

[2:23:57] design. Could we have a staff report,

[2:23:58] please?

[2:24:00] » Yeah, sure. We'll get the uh

[2:24:02] presentation up and really I'm just here

[2:24:05] to introduce Eric Callaway from ESA and

[2:24:08] he's going to review the specific plans

[2:24:09] land use plan and design standards.

[2:24:13] » Go ahead, Eric. Thank you for joining

[2:24:15] us. Of

[2:24:16] » Course, thank you for having me. Um and

[2:24:18] thank you Jeremiah staff and and

[2:24:20] council.

[2:24:25] Uh you can go to the next slide.

[2:24:30] So uh chapter two of the specific plan

[2:24:32] is the chapter that contains the plan's

[2:24:34] land use program and planning districts.

[2:24:36] This chapter establishes maximums of

[2:24:38] 2,200 residential units, 6.5 million

[2:24:42] square ft of commercial uses, 500,000 ft

[2:24:45] of hotel uses. You gonna head out?

[2:24:48] » Um, then this chapter establishes

[2:24:51] minimum average densities for the

[2:24:52] project by land use designation.

[2:24:55] » Higher densities are located to the

[2:24:56] north near the Cal Train station. Next

[2:24:59] slide.

[2:25:03] Then planning districts are established.

[2:25:06] Residential and mixeduse development is

[2:25:07] located on the west side of the plan

[2:25:09] area and the east side of the plan area

[2:25:11] consists of lower intensity commercial

[2:25:13] open space habitat and sustainability

[2:25:16] infrastructure. Next slide.

[2:25:21] Finally, the plan distributes the amount

[2:25:24] of permitted development across

[2:25:25] individual blocks within the planning

[2:25:27] districts. A development allocation

[2:25:29] process is established that allows those

[2:25:31] allocations to shift between blocks as

[2:25:34] long as the overall district level and

[2:25:36] plan level limits are maintained. Slide.

[2:25:42] Chapter 3 contains the plan's objective

[2:25:44] design standards and design guidelines.

[2:25:47] These standards and guidelines are

[2:25:48] organized into building standards,

[2:25:50] performance standards, and allowable

[2:25:52] uses. There are projectwide building

[2:25:55] standards which control characteristics

[2:25:56] of development including building height

[2:25:58] and scale, towers, ground floor design

[2:26:01] and public realm. And then there are

[2:26:03] building standards that are specific to

[2:26:05] a range of residential and commercial

[2:26:07] building types. Next slide.

[2:26:13] Performance standards control lighting,

[2:26:15] bird safe design, landscaping, noise and

[2:26:18] vibration.

[2:26:20] and allowable uses establish what

[2:26:22] specific uses are permitted,

[2:26:24] conditional, or prohibited in each land

[2:26:26] use designation, as well as establishing

[2:26:28] active ground floor requirements.

[2:26:31] Now, note that uses not listed in table

[2:26:34] 3.4.1 allowable uses are prohibited

[2:26:38] unless determined to be similar to a

[2:26:40] listed use through an administrative

[2:26:42] interpretation by the community

[2:26:43] development director.

[2:26:45] Next slide.

[2:26:50] So, as we discussed at the last meeting,

[2:26:52] chapter 4 establishes the requirement to

[2:26:54] dedicate 148.4 acres of land for

[2:26:58] recreational and habitat restoration,

[2:27:00] conservation, and open space. This

[2:27:03] exceeds the general plan requirement

[2:27:04] that a minimum of 25% of the plan's year

[2:27:08] 2,100 land area be preserved as open

[2:27:11] space.

[2:27:13] The approximately 26 acres expected to

[2:27:15] be inundated daily by 2,100 due to sea

[2:27:18] level rise are not counted towards that

[2:27:20] 25% requirement.

[2:27:23] Chapter 5, conservation in open space

[2:27:25] then establishes how that land creates a

[2:27:28] network of open spaces and amenities.

[2:27:30] Next slide.

[2:27:34] Now, that is accomplished by defining

[2:27:36] and locating a range of open space

[2:27:38] typologies across the plan area with

[2:27:40] conceptual programming and design

[2:27:42] guidance.

[2:27:43] Note that chapter 3 includes

[2:27:45] requirements for open area per unit,

[2:27:48] which may include private or common

[2:27:50] areas such as balconies, patios,

[2:27:52] courtyards, usable setbacks, outdoor

[2:27:55] recreation area, and rooftop gardens or

[2:27:57] decks. And these open areas are separate

[2:28:00] from the 148 acre public open space

[2:28:03] requirement. Next slide.

[2:28:09] Now, the plan protects against the

[2:28:11] 100-year flood, including 100 years of

[2:28:14] projected sea level rise primarily

[2:28:16] through three strategies. First, by

[2:28:19] prohibiting development on 26 acres

[2:28:22] projected to experience daily inundation

[2:28:24] by the year 20100.

[2:28:27] Areas subject to increased title

[2:28:29] inundation due to their proximity to

[2:28:31] Visitation Creek and Brisbane Lagoon are

[2:28:33] proposed to be open space with gradients

[2:28:36] of tidal and freshwater wetlands that

[2:28:38] can adjust to sea level rise.

[2:28:41] Second, the plan uh is to grade and

[2:28:44] maintain minimum protection against

[2:28:46] flooding and sea level rise. Public

[2:28:49] infrastructure as well as residential,

[2:28:51] commercial, and institutional

[2:28:52] development are proposed at elevations

[2:28:54] above the 100year flood, plus an

[2:28:57] allowance for more than six feet of sea

[2:28:59] level rise. And third, improve and

[2:29:03] manage ecological and hydraologic

[2:29:05] functionality of the plant through a

[2:29:07] network of public green spaces that's

[2:29:09] connected to the Brisbane Lagoon and

[2:29:11] Visitation Creek.

[2:29:13] This network will be designed to capture

[2:29:15] storm water, direct and treat seasonal

[2:29:17] runoff via multiple green infrastructure

[2:29:19] strategies, and establish

[2:29:21] echohhydraological landscape typologies

[2:29:23] appropriate to the region. Next slide.

[2:29:30] Now, the EIR used the state's most

[2:29:33] recent guidance to evaluate the plan.

[2:29:36] This guidance estimates that 6.5 ft of

[2:29:38] sea level rise has less than a one in

[2:29:41] 1,000 chance of being exceeded by the

[2:29:43] year 201100.

[2:29:45] Relative to the 2018 state guidance, the

[2:29:49] 2024 state guidance notes that existing

[2:29:52] and ongoing efforts to analyze and plan

[2:29:54] for the impacts of sea level rise should

[2:29:56] be able to proceed with little to no

[2:29:58] adjustments. There are likely very few

[2:30:01] if any situations in which work will

[2:30:03] need to be redone as a result of the new

[2:30:05] sea level uh scenarios.

[2:30:08] In the very unlikely scenario that sea

[2:30:10] level rise does exceed 6.5 ft by the

[2:30:13] year 2011 or into the 22nd century,

[2:30:16] potential adaptation measures that are

[2:30:18] being considered for lowerlying Bay Area

[2:30:20] communities include shoreline flood

[2:30:22] protection barriers such as levies or

[2:30:24] flood walls integrated with na

[2:30:26] nature-based solutions. Next slide.

[2:30:32] Finally, the plan requires that the

[2:30:34] historic roundhouse be preserved and

[2:30:36] repurposed to serve as one of the main

[2:30:38] focal points on the western side of the

[2:30:40] balance. That includes creation of a

[2:30:42] roundhouse park, implementation of a

[2:30:45] five-stage plan for restoration and

[2:30:47] adaptive reuse of the historic

[2:30:49] roundhouse and regulations in chapter 3

[2:30:52] requiring all balance development within

[2:30:54] 50 ft of the roundhouse or the machinery

[2:30:57] and equipment building to be designed to

[2:31:00] ensure their architectural compatibility

[2:31:02] with those historic structures. And with

[2:31:05] that, I'll pass it back to staff.

[2:31:09] » Thanks, Eric. Uh, next slide. As as we

[2:31:11] mentioned at the start of the meeting,

[2:31:13] staff isn't asking the council to make a

[2:31:14] final recommendation or take any votes

[2:31:17] tonight. We're sharing uh staff's uh one

[2:31:19] more slide, please. We're sharing

[2:31:20] staff's overall recommendation again for

[2:31:22] context. This slide is the same one you

[2:31:24] saw on September 14th. Uh real briefly,

[2:31:27] it staff's recommendation is to certify

[2:31:29] the final environmental impact report

[2:31:31] for the Bayland specific plan and

[2:31:32] improve the project entitlements

[2:31:34] including the general plan and zoning

[2:31:36] ordinance amendments, adoption of the

[2:31:38] Bayland specific plan and approval of

[2:31:40] the Beayshore mobility plan. And if the

[2:31:42] project is approved, the council would

[2:31:44] also adopt findings of fact and a

[2:31:46] statement of overriding considerations

[2:31:47] and a mitigation monitoring and

[2:31:49] reporting program. Next slide.

[2:31:52] Along with its final recommendation to

[2:31:54] the council, the planning commission

[2:31:55] also endorsed additional modifications

[2:31:58] to the specific plan. This slide

[2:32:00] indicates the commission's

[2:32:01] recommendations related to tonight's

[2:32:03] presentation and a topic for the council

[2:32:05] to consider. So it's one is to change

[2:32:08] the biosafety level BSL threshold for

[2:32:11] conditionally permitted life science

[2:32:13] uses from biosafety level four and above

[2:32:16] to level three and above. The specific

[2:32:19] plan currently mirrors the existing

[2:32:21] zoning requirements in the city for BSL

[2:32:23] levels at Sierra Point. Two, retain the

[2:32:26] Mission Blue Nursery in its current

[2:32:28] location. The nursery is located at the

[2:32:30] southern end of the Baylands within the

[2:32:32] Ice House Hill area and the plan

[2:32:34] proposes relocating it to a publicly

[2:32:36] accessible site on the south side of Ice

[2:32:38] House Hill, just a little north. and EI

[2:32:41] mitigation requires that the nursery not

[2:32:43] be displaced and its current site not be

[2:32:45] disturbed until the new site is fully

[2:32:48] ready for operations.

[2:32:50] Three, implement staff's recommended

[2:32:52] clarifications presented at the July

[2:32:54] 23rd planning commission meeting. These

[2:32:56] clarifications affirm that hospitality

[2:32:58] uses and building types are permitted in

[2:33:01] the high and medium density commercial

[2:33:03] districts and that minimum residential

[2:33:06] density and commercial intensity

[2:33:07] standards apply on an average basis by

[2:33:11] land use designation rather than block

[2:33:13] byblock. These changes improve

[2:33:15] administrative implementation of the

[2:33:16] plan. And four, consider requiring

[2:33:19] conservation easements for open space as

[2:33:21] suggested by written correspondence

[2:33:23] received. While conservation easements

[2:33:25] provide permanent legally binding

[2:33:26] protection against development, the plan

[2:33:28] already prohibits development within any

[2:33:30] area designated as open space through

[2:33:32] its land use plan and permitted uses by

[2:33:35] land use designation.

[2:33:37] Staff is available to provide more

[2:33:38] information regarding these topic

[2:33:40] specific commission recommendations.

[2:33:42] Next slide.

[2:33:44] [clears throat]

[2:33:45] And then one more. We're wrapping up

[2:33:47] here.

[2:33:50] Okay. Uh we have one last reminder of

[2:33:52] the upcoming hearings, dates and topics.

[2:33:54] Again, transportation and um is coming

[2:33:57] up on the 6th. Then we have phasing and

[2:33:59] remediation on the 15th, water

[2:34:01] infrastructure on the 20th. Uh again,

[2:34:03] we're happy to adjust the schedule

[2:34:04] further if the council would like. Next

[2:34:06] slide, and we'll conclude staff's

[2:34:09] presentation. So, at this time, the

[2:34:11] applicant is ready to address the

[2:34:12] council. Uh following BDI's

[2:34:14] presentation, the council may ask any

[2:34:16] questions about tonight's presentation.

[2:34:18] Uh staff will answer what we can now and

[2:34:20] note anything that requires more review

[2:34:22] for a future hearing. Once the council

[2:34:25] questions or comments are completed, the

[2:34:26] council may open the floor for public

[2:34:28] comment on tonight's topics. Staff will

[2:34:30] again track questions from the public

[2:34:32] and respond at the end of the meeting

[2:34:33] where possible. And if we need more

[2:34:35] time, we'll come back at a future

[2:34:36] meeting. Uh after public comment, staff

[2:34:38] is ready to receive clear council

[2:34:40] direction on the items discussed

[2:34:42] tonight. I'll give a quick summary. It's

[2:34:44] the kind of broader measure JJ topics

[2:34:46] and specific policy refinements. So,

[2:34:49] it's going to be measure JJ and design

[2:34:51] topics, distribution and intensity of

[2:34:54] those land uses that you saw from from

[2:34:55] Eric, location of open spaces and

[2:34:57] amenities, the specific plans interface

[2:35:00] with sea level rise and related design

[2:35:02] topics on the objective design standards

[2:35:05] and design guidelines in the plan and

[2:35:06] the treatment of the roundhouse. And

[2:35:09] then the kind of the the topics from the

[2:35:11] planning commission, whether to require

[2:35:13] conditional use permits for BSL level

[2:35:15] three and above, whether to retain the

[2:35:17] mission blue nursery in its current

[2:35:18] location, whether to clarify that

[2:35:20] hospitality uses and building types are

[2:35:21] permitted in medium and highdensity

[2:35:24] commercial, and whether to confirm the

[2:35:27] minimum uh excuse me, and whether the

[2:35:29] council wishes to consider requiring

[2:35:30] conservation easements for designated

[2:35:32] open areas.

[2:35:34] Um, finally, uh, before concluding the

[2:35:37] meeting, uh, staff recommends continuing

[2:35:38] the public hearing to a special meeting

[2:35:40] on October 6 at 5:30 p.m.

[2:35:44] Okay. I believe the applicant has a

[2:35:47] presentation.

[2:35:52] We have a few slides.

[2:36:02] Great.

[2:36:04] Good evening, Mayor Mackin, city council

[2:36:07] members. Thank you for the opportunity

[2:36:08] to speak with you tonight. I am Katie

[2:36:10] Loic Sunday. I'm part of the team at the

[2:36:13] Baylands and I'm also joined tonight by

[2:36:16] um BKF who you've already heard from as

[2:36:18] well as OJB Landscape Architects and our

[2:36:21] project designer. All of whom who have

[2:36:23] been with the project since um shortly

[2:36:26] after measure JJ or in James' case since

[2:36:29] I think 2006.

[2:36:31] Um, so we have a wealth of knowledge

[2:36:33] here with us tonight. If we could go to

[2:36:35] the next slide, please.

[2:36:42] » One moment.

[2:36:44] » Okay, no worries.

[2:36:46] Um, as we're moving on to the next

[2:36:48] slide, um, I'd like to begin the

[2:36:51] presentation tonight by talking about

[2:36:53] the land use map and providing some

[2:36:56] details on the characteristics of each

[2:36:58] district.

[2:37:03] I'll explain them while we're getting

[2:37:04] the slides going and then uh you'll get

[2:37:07] a visual in a minute. So, starting at

[2:37:10] the north of the map, which I'm sure

[2:37:12] you've all seen, is uh the Beayshore

[2:37:15] District and this is the northern

[2:37:17] gateway to the Baylands, this district

[2:37:19] covers the area west of the Cal Train

[2:37:21] tracks and north of Geneva Avenue. This

[2:37:24] district is the most urban transit

[2:37:26] oriented area in the specific plan. It

[2:37:29] concentrates highdensity uses near the

[2:37:31] beayshore Calr station while lower

[2:37:33] density housing at the western edge.

[2:37:36] Thank you. Um provides for transition to

[2:37:40] the surrounding neighborhoods. Um so

[2:37:42] again we were just talking about that

[2:37:44] northwestern quadrant and we call that

[2:37:46] the beayhore district. So when we move

[2:37:48] south of Geneva in that area that you

[2:37:50] see is uh predominant predominantly

[2:37:52] yellow um that is the roundhouse

[2:37:55] district. So, as you heard, that

[2:37:56] district really frames the historic

[2:37:59] Roundhouse Park, and it features a mix

[2:38:01] of single family, town home, and multif

[2:38:04] family housing types. These two

[2:38:07] northwest districts, Beayshore and

[2:38:09] Roundhouse, are the only districts in

[2:38:11] the Bayins that allow for residential

[2:38:14] uses. As we continue um further south,

[2:38:18] we go south of Main Street, you see

[2:38:19] those purple areas. That last district

[2:38:22] on the west side is the Ice House Hill

[2:38:24] district. in that area begins, as I

[2:38:26] said, south of Main Street and

[2:38:27] encompasses ecological park as well as

[2:38:30] Ice House Hill. And this district

[2:38:33] includes midrise um and research

[2:38:36] buildings as well as retail and public

[2:38:39] gathering spaces. As we go across the

[2:38:42] Cal Train onto the east side of the

[2:38:44] property, the campus east district

[2:38:46] provides for lowdensity commercial

[2:38:48] office development. And this district

[2:38:50] also provides trail connections to the

[2:38:52] Bay Trail and to the Visitation Creek

[2:38:55] Park.

[2:38:57] Also on the east side, we have the

[2:38:58] sustainability district which provides

[2:39:00] the essential infrastructure and

[2:39:02] renewable energy that enable the balance

[2:39:05] to function as a climate resilient

[2:39:06] community. All of these districts are

[2:39:09] connected by an accessible award-winning

[2:39:11] open space system which makes up more

[2:39:14] than 25% of the property as is required

[2:39:17] by measure JJ. Each of these open spaces

[2:39:20] are intended to preserve, enhance, and

[2:39:23] protect the ecological areas while

[2:39:25] balancing the needs of the community and

[2:39:27] protection of habitat resources. And

[2:39:30] throughout the project, um there's also

[2:39:32] an extensive bike and pedestrian network

[2:39:34] that connects the surrounding areas to

[2:39:36] the balin so that everyone can enjoy

[2:39:38] these new spaces. And we will be talking

[2:39:40] more about that when we get to

[2:39:42] circulation um which I believe is next

[2:39:45] week. And then one last thing I want to

[2:39:47] point out on this slide before we move

[2:39:49] on. Um so this map that we have right

[2:39:52] here is actually the land use map. Um

[2:39:55] that was the original version in BDI

[2:39:57] specific plan. So if you've seen the

[2:39:59] 2023 2025 versions of the specific plan,

[2:40:02] they have this map. As you just heard,

[2:40:04] um, Brisbane city staff are recommending

[2:40:06] some modifications to this map, which

[2:40:09] would relocate, um, some of the high

[2:40:11] density uses and then reduce the density

[2:40:14] south of Geneva Avenue. But despite

[2:40:16] these proposed changes, the overall plan

[2:40:19] is the same framework that was

[2:40:20] established by Measure JJ. 2200 units of

[2:40:23] housing, 6 and a half million square

[2:40:25] feet of commercial space, 500,000 square

[2:40:28] feet of hotel, and more than 25% of the

[2:40:31] land dedicated to open space. Next

[2:40:34] slide, please.

[2:40:37] So, just like every aspect of the

[2:40:39] specific plan, the balance

[2:40:40] infrastructure is guided by the general

[2:40:42] plan provisions established by measure

[2:40:44] JJ. One of those provisions is that the

[2:40:48] development shall be designed to protect

[2:40:50] uses [clears throat]

[2:40:50] from the 100red-year flood, including

[2:40:53] 100 years of projected sea level rise.

[2:40:56] To develop a resilient site, the

[2:40:58] specific plan includes a combination of

[2:41:00] permanent sea level resale level rise

[2:41:03] designs and adaptive approaches that

[2:41:05] allow the infrastructure to be adjusted

[2:41:08] over time in response to the actual

[2:41:10] measured sea level rise. Some of these

[2:41:12] measures include raising the elevation

[2:41:15] of the site so that the finished floors

[2:41:17] are protected from future sea level rise

[2:41:19] and flooding risks, construction of

[2:41:22] on-site uh storm drainage collection

[2:41:24] facilities and drainage improvements,

[2:41:26] some of which you can see in the graphic

[2:41:28] on the slide, establishing a new storm

[2:41:31] water detention area, and also planting

[2:41:34] vegetated slopes that diminish wave

[2:41:36] force, provide refuge to marsh wildlife,

[2:41:39] and provide plant community migration.

[2:41:41] space. These approaches prepare

[2:41:44] buildings, roadways, and open space

[2:41:47] areas for both sea level rise risks and

[2:41:49] associated flooding potential.

[2:41:53] Next slide, please.

[2:41:57] Um, so Eric already covered some of

[2:41:59] this, but I'll talk a little bit about

[2:42:01] the design standards in the balance. So,

[2:42:03] the Balin's specific plan includes

[2:42:05] multi-layered standards that create

[2:42:07] unique quality for each block, district,

[2:42:10] and building while allowing for

[2:42:12] flexibility and variation throughout the

[2:42:14] project. These standards set the

[2:42:16] allowable parameters for everything from

[2:42:18] building heights and facade design to

[2:42:21] entryway elements and rooftop mechanical

[2:42:23] systems. Our design approach emphasizes

[2:42:26] neighborhood compatibility while also

[2:42:29] recognizing, preserving, and celebrating

[2:42:31] the unique aspects of the site. For

[2:42:33] example, the historic roundhouse that

[2:42:35] you also heard about. As you may be

[2:42:38] aware, the roundhouse is a large brick

[2:42:40] building that was once used for the

[2:42:42] Southern Pacific Railroad to conduct

[2:42:45] daily maintenance on their trains. Um it

[2:42:49] is one of the few remaining round houses

[2:42:51] in the state and the specific plan

[2:42:52] includes the rehabilitation of that pro

[2:42:55] of that building to celebrate the legacy

[2:42:58] of the site. Roundhouse Park will be a

[2:43:01] unique multi-purpose feature of the

[2:43:03] Baylands. And some of the proposed uses,

[2:43:05] which you can see on the slide here, are

[2:43:08] a flexible lawn, outdoor dining, an art

[2:43:11] and history garden, event pavilion,

[2:43:13] birmed seating, and an open air theater

[2:43:16] that utilizes the cast iron columns and

[2:43:18] beams at the inner curved wall of the

[2:43:21] roundhouse.

[2:43:22] And that's all I have to cover, and I'll

[2:43:24] turn it over to Stephanie Shakovsky to

[2:43:26] finish our presentation. Thank you.

[2:43:33] Good evening, mayor, council members.

[2:43:35] Once again, Stephanie Shakovski with the

[2:43:37] balance project.

[2:43:39] Um, [clears throat] as we've been

[2:43:41] talking about, we all know that this EIR

[2:43:45] and this specific plan is going to shape

[2:43:48] this project for generations.

[2:43:52] And so to deliver the housing, the parks

[2:43:56] and the community benefits outlined in

[2:43:58] the plan, these documents

[2:44:01] must be economically viable

[2:44:05] and flexible enough to adapt to both

[2:44:07] market conditions and the realities of

[2:44:09] long-term operation.

[2:44:13] We have asked the council um in a letter

[2:44:17] that we sent last week to consider three

[2:44:21] changes to the city's current proposed

[2:44:23] specific plan. And I'm going to quickly

[2:44:25] run through those. First is that we

[2:44:28] asked the council to remove the land

[2:44:30] dedication for the highspeed rail light

[2:44:33] maintenance facility.

[2:44:36] As you know, the Bayands has been

[2:44:37] opposed to this project from the

[2:44:39] beginning, and we remain opposed to the

[2:44:41] LMF at the Bays. Setting aside 45 acres

[2:44:46] of potentially developable area for a

[2:44:49] speculative future highspeed rail light

[2:44:51] maintenance facility reduces our open

[2:44:54] space negatively impacts our storm water

[2:44:57] detention

[2:44:59] and impedes the sustainabil sustainable

[2:45:02] infrastructure projects on site

[2:45:04] particularly our battery storage

[2:45:05] project.

[2:45:07] It's also important to recognize that a

[2:45:09] high-speed rail light maintenance

[2:45:12] facility was never contemplated as part

[2:45:15] of measure JJ.

[2:45:18] And so it's not an issue the Brisbane

[2:45:20] community has voted on or weighed in on.

[2:45:24] We ask the council to align the

[2:45:26] bailand's land use program with the

[2:45:28] general plan policy established by

[2:45:30] measure JJ

[2:45:33] and plan these 45 acres for the balance

[2:45:36] sustainability open space and our

[2:45:38] infrastructure.

[2:45:40] If the highspeed rail authority

[2:45:41] eventually decides to proceed, they can

[2:45:44] acquire the property through a

[2:45:46] negotiated purchase agreement

[2:45:48] or the typical eminent domain process.

[2:45:53] The city's settlement with the highspeed

[2:45:54] rail authority gives the council, this

[2:45:57] council, the final decision. It is the

[2:46:00] council's decision

[2:46:04] to adopt the balance specific plan

[2:46:07] without the LMF area and we would

[2:46:10] respectfully ask that you consider doing

[2:46:11] so.

[2:46:13] Um, second, we ask the council to allow

[2:46:16] interimm uses that support the balance

[2:46:18] and makes way for the development. The

[2:46:21] city's 2026 specific plan revisions

[2:46:24] included new restrictions that ban

[2:46:26] interimm uses on the property outside of

[2:46:29] the outside of the 45 acres of the LMF

[2:46:32] set aside and prevents existing interm

[2:46:34] uses from continuing once their permits

[2:46:36] expire.

[2:46:38] Interimm uses create important

[2:46:42] really important revenue streams that

[2:46:44] help support our current environmental

[2:46:46] maintenance and environmental cleanup

[2:46:47] [clears throat] obligations.

[2:46:49] Uh we understand the city's concerns

[2:46:52] related to compatibility of interm uses

[2:46:55] and permanent development as well as the

[2:46:57] concern related to interm uses that may

[2:46:59] hinder the future development. But the

[2:47:02] specific plan can easily address both

[2:47:06] those issues directly through

[2:47:07] enforceable operating requirements and

[2:47:10] enforcable termination provisions for

[2:47:12] those interimm uses.

[2:47:16] Lastly,

[2:47:18] we asked the council to broaden the

[2:47:20] range of allowable commercial businesses

[2:47:23] um that are currently under the

[2:47:25] allowable uses table in the specific

[2:47:27] plan.

[2:47:30] Back in 2023 when the specific plan was

[2:47:33] submitted and accepted by the city, it's

[2:47:36] it had and still has a heavy emphasis on

[2:47:38] biotech.

[2:47:40] Uh while most market forecasters are

[2:47:43] predicting that first a stabilization of

[2:47:46] biotech and eventually a rebound of

[2:47:49] biotech, particularly in South San

[2:47:50] Francisco and the Brisbane market, no

[2:47:53] one no one can [clears throat] know

[2:47:55] today which businesses will be looking

[2:47:57] for space at the bays.

[2:48:00] Allowing a broader range of compatible

[2:48:02] uses gives Brisbane more competitive

[2:48:04] opportunities to attract employers and

[2:48:06] fill the commercial space as demand

[2:48:08] changes. We have requested the con the

[2:48:11] council consider allowing the following

[2:48:13] advanced manufacturing

[2:48:15] warehousing for businesses to store

[2:48:17] goods. We are not talking about large

[2:48:20] fulfillment centers and lastly any

[2:48:23] outdoor storage and select areas where

[2:48:25] low density commercials are permitted.

[2:48:29] And that is the conclusion of my remarks

[2:48:31] tonight and we are happy to answer any

[2:48:34] questions. Thank you. [clears throat]

[2:48:35] » Okay. Thank you. I think just based on

[2:48:38] that presentation, I'm going to start

[2:48:40] with a question for legal

[2:48:45] regarding the light maintenance facility

[2:48:49] and the settlement reached by the city

[2:48:52] of Brisbane with highspeed rail. Are we

[2:48:56] legally able to change the use of that

[2:48:58] property

[2:49:01] » Or do we know or do we need to

[2:49:03] investigate?

[2:49:04] » No, we can we can answer that for you

[2:49:05] right now, mayor. Um so the settlement

[2:49:07] agreement obligated the city to analyze

[2:49:11] the light maintenance rail facility in

[2:49:13] the EIR to bring forward and staff is

[2:49:17] recommending that. However, the

[2:49:19] settlement agreement does not bind

[2:49:21] council in terms of what its final land

[2:49:24] use decision is. So the council has the

[2:49:26] discretion under the the settlement

[2:49:28] agreement and under state law to um

[2:49:32] adopt either alternative.

[2:49:34] » Okay. Thank you. Council questions

[2:49:39] starting with uh Mayor Prom Davis.

[2:49:44] » This is for you, Stephanie.

[2:49:49] [gasps and laughter] You mentioned

[2:49:50] interim uses that um advance

[2:49:54] environmental cleanup.

[2:49:56] » Yes.

[2:49:56] » And I just would like for you to give

[2:49:58] some examples of what interim uses

[2:50:00] you're looking for.

[2:50:03] Um I think we've sent a list but it it

[2:50:06] would be along the lines of the uh

[2:50:09] existing interimm uses we have. So

[2:50:11] transdev

[2:50:13] um um outdoor storage as long as it's

[2:50:17] you know properly maintained um

[2:50:22] parking storage. We also have Avis as a

[2:50:24] tenant as you know. Um it's a surplus

[2:50:27] overflow for Avis,

[2:50:28] » But that's not really that doesn't

[2:50:30] really advance environmental. That's

[2:50:31] just

[2:50:32] » No, no, no. I'm sorry. The qu when I say

[2:50:35] it's the revenue that's generated to us

[2:50:38] that allows us to pay our environmental

[2:50:40] consultants who are doing the current

[2:50:42] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[2:50:43] » Um

[2:50:46] » Got [clears throat] it.

[2:50:46] » Sorry if that was No, that was

[2:50:48] » That's good. I think that's my only

[2:50:49] question for you.

[2:50:50] » Okay. Okay. So, you're good. Um,

[2:50:56] so

[2:50:58] for commercial and other non-residential

[2:51:00] development,

[2:51:02] what architectural and design review

[2:51:04] authority will the city retain

[2:51:07] when proposals come forward?

[2:51:14] So commercial and and non-residential

[2:51:16] properties would have to get a design

[2:51:18] permit very similar to what's going on

[2:51:20] the rest of city of Brisbane.

[2:51:21] » Okay.

[2:51:22] » Goes to the planning commission.

[2:51:24] Um, and

[2:51:28] are the architectural standards in

[2:51:30] chapter 3 intended to be a complete and

[2:51:33] final set of architectural standards for

[2:51:35] the entire buildout of the bays or can

[2:51:38] the city supplement or refine those

[2:51:40] standards as individual development

[2:51:43] areas move forward?

[2:51:50] uh they are intended [clears throat] to

[2:51:52] be all-encompassing uh but that is not

[2:51:54] to say that they cannot be amended over

[2:51:58] time. So uh I know with my experience

[2:52:01] with specific plans um that is one of

[2:52:03] the things that often triggers an

[2:52:05] amendment is new types of buildings

[2:52:08] appear that were not uh foreseen and

[2:52:11] then that would be the kind of thing you

[2:52:12] might want to change over time. But um

[2:52:14] but to answer the question, it is meant

[2:52:16] to address all the different building

[2:52:18] types that are proposed. I don't know if

[2:52:21] our uh design team wants to add anything

[2:52:23] more to that, but uh that's that's a

[2:52:26] response.

[2:52:27] » Great. Would the city have the authority

[2:52:29] to retain an independent architect,

[2:52:31] urban designer, or other qualified

[2:52:33] design professional to assist with

[2:52:35] developing architectural standards and

[2:52:38] reviewing subsequent

[2:52:40] development proposals

[2:52:42] within those standards?

[2:52:46] » Uh, a couple things with that. Uh, well,

[2:52:49] first of all, we do have a a design

[2:52:51] consultant on board who has had that

[2:52:53] task exactly. So uh we have some

[2:52:55] individuals from site lab and they have

[2:52:57] been working on the city's behalf uh to

[2:53:00] uh refine the standards that were

[2:53:02] proposed in the plan. Uh but then as a

[2:53:05] you know kind of policy or or um

[2:53:08] operations matter the city can always

[2:53:11] consider the use of third party or

[2:53:14] outside design consultants for any kind

[2:53:16] of design review. Um particularly the

[2:53:19] you know the commercial ones there's a

[2:53:20] little more leeway. It's a little harder

[2:53:22] on on housing developments. Um those are

[2:53:25] more applicable to objective standards,

[2:53:27] but um should the city want to have

[2:53:30] outside uh third party design review for

[2:53:34] the bayands and any other part of the

[2:53:36] city, that's always an option.

[2:53:37] » Great. I really want to make sure

[2:53:39] » Mayor Prom, can I ask one question?

[2:53:41] Yeah. Yeah. I thought we were working on

[2:53:43] the land use plan um based upon the

[2:53:46] presentation that was just given in the

[2:53:48] topic and design topics were a later

[2:53:50] topic in tonight's session. Are we

[2:53:52] merging all of these together?

[2:53:54] » I had them in another section but then I

[2:53:56] had thought that

[2:53:57] » Design was now

[2:53:58] » They're together. Yeah. So, okay. Thank

[2:54:00] you so much. I just need Yeah, I just

[2:54:02] need some clarification. Thank you.

[2:54:04] » Um okay. And then

[2:54:08] I think, you know, for me it's like I

[2:54:09] just want to make sure that this

[2:54:11] development looks amazing and it feels

[2:54:15] like Brisbane and is something that we

[2:54:18] can be proud of and when we drive

[2:54:21] through it, which we will, we won't say

[2:54:24] this is horrible. We want to be proud of

[2:54:28] what's there. And so, um, I think that

[2:54:31] having, you know, some oversight over

[2:54:35] that is essential because we don't want

[2:54:39] to look like just anywhere else, right?

[2:54:43] We want to look like us. So um

[2:54:47] so getting back to the objective

[2:54:49] development standards um

[2:54:52] so the specific plan describes many of

[2:54:54] its architectural provisions as

[2:54:56] objective development standards but does

[2:54:58] that mean that the city can only in

[2:54:59] enforce those specific standards that

[2:55:01] are written today or can the city

[2:55:03] develop additional objective standards

[2:55:06] as subsequent phases of the bailance are

[2:55:08] designed?

[2:55:13] » Yeah. So the I think it's similar to

[2:55:16] what um Kevin was explaining before. The

[2:55:20] the city can refine the standards. It

[2:55:23] can adopt new standards. It would do

[2:55:25] that through an amendment to the

[2:55:27] specific plan as it's as it's shown

[2:55:29] right now. Um the specific plan does

[2:55:32] include the all-encompassing design

[2:55:35] standards. And then it would be a

[2:55:37] question about um you know what that

[2:55:39] applies to perspectively. If you do

[2:55:42] adopt amendments um in the future, you

[2:55:45] would apply that to to projects that

[2:55:48] don't have vested rights. So it would

[2:55:51] » Right

[2:55:52] » Apply to things that maybe hadn't

[2:55:53] applied yet or um were still off in the

[2:55:57] future

[2:55:57] » Because I know objective standards

[2:55:59] that's really what's guiding the housing

[2:56:01] development whereas for commercial you

[2:56:04] have much more say in that um because

[2:56:07] often cities make it so difficult for

[2:56:12] housing developers by having all of

[2:56:14] these guidelines that projects don't

[2:56:17] move forward. And so I think that's a

[2:56:20] the state is trying to curb some of

[2:56:22] that. Um but I could envision us coming

[2:56:25] up with

[2:56:27] objective standards that maybe create

[2:56:31] um housing that's a little bit more

[2:56:34] refined in what we want to see. And so

[2:56:35] just wanting to clarify if that's

[2:56:38] possible um or if we need to work out

[2:56:41] all the kinks immediately.

[2:56:43] So, um

[2:56:48] the next the last question I have for

[2:56:50] this section

[2:56:53] um is there anything in the specific

[2:56:56] plan language already or is this

[2:56:59] something that we could add

[2:57:02] um as a condition that states that

[2:57:04] approval of the specific plan does not

[2:57:06] constitute final architectural approval

[2:57:09] of individual buildings and that the

[2:57:11] city will retain architectural and

[2:57:12] design review authority to the fullest

[2:57:14] extent permitted by the law. Um, and I

[2:57:17] don't know if there's anything legally

[2:57:18] problematic about including that

[2:57:20] provision. I know that obviously you're

[2:57:23] saying that that's something that we can

[2:57:25] do, but I'm wondering if it benefits the

[2:57:29] city to state that expressly and if so,

[2:57:34] maybe you could bring back language.

[2:57:38] » Sure. Yes. So the the specific plan

[2:57:41] doesn't approve any individual

[2:57:43] development project. It functions it's

[2:57:46] more than zoning. It has you many more

[2:57:48] details in it, but it's more like a

[2:57:51] zoning code than a conditional use

[2:57:53] permit or a specific development

[2:57:55] approval. Um it does have provisions

[2:57:58] that talk about what subsequent

[2:58:00] approvals and what that process is

[2:58:03] required um for a project that wants to

[2:58:06] seek individual development. and we can

[2:58:08] review that language to make sure that

[2:58:09] it's clear enough um that council has

[2:58:11] the type of architectural discretion

[2:58:13] that you're looking for.

[2:58:14] » I think it's just like clarifying and

[2:58:16] exerting as much

[2:58:20] architectural oversight and design

[2:58:22] oversight as we possibly can have is

[2:58:25] really what I'm

[2:58:27] hoping to achieve. So that's it for me.

[2:58:31] » Okay. At this time, I'm going to ask

[2:58:34] councel. Uh, we must have a motion to

[2:58:38] extend the meeting if we are to do so.

[2:58:41] If you'd like a discussion first, um,

[2:58:44] normally we extend the meeting for an

[2:58:46] hour. Sometimes we've done two hours and

[2:58:49] if we finish early, then we finish

[2:58:50] early. What is council's pleasure? I'm

[2:58:53] going to ask you each one at a time.

[2:58:55] Council member Kern,

[2:58:56] » Twoour extension.

[2:58:58] » Mayor Proim.

[2:59:00] Um,

[2:59:03] I would start with an hour.

[2:59:05] » Council member Lent.

[2:59:09] » I can only do one.

[2:59:12] » I feel I only have an hour left of me.

[2:59:15] » Okay.

[2:59:15] » Just saying.

[2:59:17] » And Council Member Okonnell,

[2:59:21] » I think that we should go for an hour

[2:59:23] and see where it takes us and see what

[2:59:26] the um appetite of the audience is. And

[2:59:29] if we start to they stop to start to

[2:59:33] drop like flies, we'll know.

[2:59:35] » Okay. So, my weighing in on it is the

[2:59:38] the complaints I got with the late

[2:59:40] meeting the last time. I would prefer we

[2:59:43] just extend an hour and see where we're

[2:59:45] at and see what how everyone feels.

[2:59:47] » I'll make a motion to extend till 9:30.

[2:59:51] » Okay.

[2:59:51] » Second.

[2:59:52] » All in favor?

[2:59:53] » I.

[2:59:54] » No one opposed. Okay. Um,

[2:59:57] Council Member Kern, questions.

[3:00:01] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, I guess my first

[3:00:04] question is, uh, regarding the, um, the

[3:00:08] light maintenance facility. Um, so, in

[3:00:10] my mind, and I guess I'm directing this

[3:00:12] towards you, Eric, um, and maybe you,

[3:00:14] Kevin, in my mind, it looks like maybe

[3:00:16] we have three options here. Uh, one is

[3:00:19] to accept the final specific plan, uh,

[3:00:21] in its current state right now. um

[3:00:24] reserving the land for highspeed rail.

[3:00:28] Um

[3:00:29] do we have an option to eliminate the

[3:00:33] reservation and adopt the plan and amend

[3:00:36] the plan later with some sort of uh

[3:00:38] additional reservation or change coding?

[3:00:46] Could you I' think the answer is going

[3:00:48] to be yes, but you say it say it back

[3:00:50] one more time so I can follow. I didn't

[3:00:52] I didn't

[3:00:52] » So my my thinking is is that we would

[3:00:54] adopt the final specific plan

[3:00:58] with or without the reservation

[3:01:01] and at some point in the future we could

[3:01:03] amend the plan when we have more

[3:01:04] information or

[3:01:06] » As council wishes.

[3:01:08] » Yes. So you if you were to adopt the the

[3:01:12] plan as recommended by staff um with the

[3:01:16] area that would allow for temporary uses

[3:01:19] within the area that could develop for

[3:01:21] future light rail maintenance facility.

[3:01:24] Um you could still amend the plan in the

[3:01:26] future to remove that, put other

[3:01:29] designations in along the lines of what

[3:01:31] BDI is asking for or make other changes.

[3:01:34] Um and the flexibility to do either of

[3:01:38] those either now or in connection with

[3:01:40] future amendments um in part was granted

[3:01:42] be under the EIR. We have both of those

[3:01:45] alternatives have been studied um that

[3:01:48] the project that was studied in the

[3:01:51] draft EIR includes the mix of land uses

[3:01:54] that um BDI is asking to include

[3:01:57] tonight. um the staff recommended

[3:02:00] version was included as one of the

[3:02:02] alternatives and the final EIR. So we do

[3:02:05] have information about um the

[3:02:08] environmental impacts from both

[3:02:10] alternatives and you could u so you have

[3:02:13] the flexibility to adopt them as part of

[3:02:16] this or in the future tearing off of

[3:02:18] that environmental work that was already

[3:02:20] done.

[3:02:22] » Thank you.

[3:02:24] Um, and one more option. Is it possible

[3:02:27] to adopt the final specific plan with

[3:02:32] the reservation for the railard with an

[3:02:35] exclam or an expiration date, meaning

[3:02:39] we're going to hold that zoning and that

[3:02:41] reservation for that space for 10 years.

[3:02:44] If highspeed rail does not come forward

[3:02:46] with an offer to buy the property, an

[3:02:48] offer to do something with the property,

[3:02:50] then it would expire and we would have

[3:02:51] to revisit it.

[3:02:53] » Yeah. you. So, you could structure that

[3:02:55] in in in two different ways. Um, you

[3:02:58] could have um allow for temporary uses

[3:03:01] for a period of time. Um, and then yeah,

[3:03:04] if there's a certain trigger hasn't been

[3:03:06] met, allow for the development of

[3:03:08] permanent uses or you could um set an

[3:03:12] expiration and and a future council

[3:03:14] could revisit it in the future. Um, but

[3:03:16] you could build in that sort of

[3:03:18] structure now if if you were interested

[3:03:19] in that.

[3:03:21] » Thank you. didn't mean to put you on the

[3:03:23] spot with all that.

[3:03:25] Um, I do have a question. I'm going to

[3:03:27] assume that this question is for staff

[3:03:29] and it's regarding uh the existing use.

[3:03:33] Um, we've got a bunch of them, folks. If

[3:03:35] you've not seen the documents, it's

[3:03:36] everything from the Kinderborn take farm

[3:03:38] to the Cal Train Rails to Golden State

[3:03:41] Lumber. Um, so we're going to be quote

[3:03:45] unquote moving dirt and changing the

[3:03:46] grading. Uh, we're just going to go

[3:03:48] around all of these facilities. Is that

[3:03:51] really? I mean, that's how we're going

[3:03:52] to plan to proceed.

[3:03:55] I got an entire row of people nodding

[3:03:56] their heads.

[3:03:57] » Yes, [laughter]

[3:03:59] » One of one of us will click in to say

[3:04:01] yes. But yeah, that's correct.

[3:04:02] » Okay.

[3:04:04] Thank you. And then last but not least,

[3:04:05] in the final specific plan, um this is

[3:04:08] in uh 2.5- or 2.5.2 in the Roundhouse

[3:04:13] District. It says a potential middle

[3:04:15] school grade 6th grade is proposed in

[3:04:17] the vicinity of Main Street. And it's

[3:04:19] got a list of blocks here on the map.

[3:04:20] B6, B9, B10, and C2. Are these actually

[3:04:24] these blocks? Are these actually large

[3:04:25] enough for a middle school?

[3:04:31] » Um,

[3:04:35] [snorts]

[3:04:37] we'll look at that a little more closely

[3:04:38] and get back to you.

[3:04:39] » Thank you so much. Those are all my

[3:04:42] questions for now.

[3:04:43] » Okay.

[3:04:45] Council member Lince.

[3:04:47] Madame Mayor, I have a lot of questions,

[3:04:49] so maybe uh Council Member Okonnell and

[3:04:51] yourself should ask questions.

[3:04:53] » Council member Okonnell.

[3:04:54] » Sure.

[3:04:56] » Um so if we were to

[3:05:00] um remove the reservation for highspeed

[3:05:03] rail,

[3:05:04] what will we lose in our negotiated

[3:05:08] settlement with highspeed rail?

[3:05:11] So the um the settlement agreement

[3:05:14] obligates highspeed rail to

[3:05:18] um use the smaller facility the 45 acres

[3:05:21] that are included in the specific plan.

[3:05:23] Previously they had considered a

[3:05:25] significantly larger facility and in a

[3:05:27] different location. Um so this should

[3:05:30] they go forward the settlement agreement

[3:05:32] locks them into the location that's

[3:05:34] shown um in the in the specific plan. Um

[3:05:38] there's also ongoing coordination and uh

[3:05:41] the opportunity with for them to um

[3:05:44] collaborate with the city on design and

[3:05:48] um potential mitigation measures related

[3:05:50] to reducing um you know visual impacts

[3:05:53] or undesirable impacts with the light m

[3:05:55] light rail maintenance facility. Um

[3:05:58] should we not be under the settlement

[3:06:00] agreement and they just go forward and

[3:06:02] condemn the property? um in theory they

[3:06:05] would then you design it the way they

[3:06:08] wanted without collaborating with the

[3:06:09] city on the design. Um and there's also

[3:06:12] um some consultant reimbursement costs

[3:06:15] that um would be

[3:06:19] uh funded if the staff recommended

[3:06:23] version of the plan is adopted.

[3:06:26] Isn't there more too?

[3:06:29] » So

[3:06:30] » About like when they would be able to in

[3:06:33] the settlement agreement about when they

[3:06:35] would actually be able to purchase it

[3:06:39] and also if they purchased it and didn't

[3:06:43] use it for light maintenance facility

[3:06:46] like there's also stuff around use. So I

[3:06:49] believe in the settlement agreement it's

[3:06:51] also that they could only use it for

[3:06:53] that. they could never they couldn't

[3:06:55] acquire the property and then oh we

[3:06:57] don't have funding we changed now we're

[3:06:59] going to put something else there right

[3:07:01] isn't that a key piece

[3:07:03] » So it was my understanding in the

[3:07:06] settlement agree agreement and you may

[3:07:09] need to get back to us on this um that

[3:07:12] we would have final design review we so

[3:07:15] it wouldn't just be a collaboration

[3:07:18] we would have many many tools in our

[3:07:21] toolbox to control noise,

[3:07:26] lights,

[3:07:27] » Uses, future uses. They couldn't just

[3:07:31] rent it out to Cal Train or use it to

[3:07:35] store their units. And so it gave us a a

[3:07:40] lot of um concessions um which is sort

[3:07:45] of unheard of with negotiating with

[3:07:47] highspeed rail. Um, so it gave us a lot

[3:07:52] of um power over what that facility

[3:07:56] looked like, sounded like to the

[3:07:58] residents um both at Brisbane and End of

[3:08:00] the Ridge and the new people that'll be

[3:08:03] moving into that area. Um, so

[3:08:08] while we I I I

[3:08:11] would like to really hear what those

[3:08:14] upsides and downsizes sides would be

[3:08:17] would mean to us and I think you can

[3:08:19] come back with those. Um

[3:08:23] [clears throat]

[3:08:24] and as council member um Kern said, we

[3:08:29] could later upzone or we could allow

[3:08:32] temporary uses, but in the letter from

[3:08:36] BDI,

[3:08:37] they're very concerned that they wanted

[3:08:40] to use that for infrastructure and

[3:08:42] drainage for the entire site. And if

[3:08:45] that is the case and the LMF did come in

[3:08:50] to use to eminent domain, there would be

[3:08:54] no place for the drainage and for the

[3:08:57] infrastructure. So I think if we gave up

[3:09:00] that settlement agreement, we would

[3:09:02] could put ourselves in and that whole

[3:09:05] project in jeopardy. So that's

[3:09:09] um one comment there or I guess question

[3:09:13] that you can get back to us on. Um

[3:09:18] and then the interim uses that their

[3:09:22] request for allow interim uses that

[3:09:25] support the property and make way for

[3:09:27] development. You know, their opening

[3:09:29] statement is that this the bay lands

[3:09:32] will be developed in phases over many

[3:09:34] decades, many decades.

[3:09:37] And so,

[3:09:41] do we really want to

[3:09:45] um is this asking to

[3:09:49] keep the use of crushing gravel? Is

[3:09:53] this, you know, uses that we really want

[3:09:56] to see? and and I I somehow missed the

[3:09:59] memo of the list of what uses they want

[3:10:03] to add. [clears throat]

[3:10:05] I didn't get that or notice it, but

[3:10:10] um

[3:10:15] and that goes along with the uh question

[3:10:17] that they wanted to bring the broaden

[3:10:19] the range of permitted commercial B

[3:10:21] businesses. And I do think that no one

[3:10:24] knows what is going to be useful, but I

[3:10:28] do think that bringing in more light

[3:10:31] industrial type businesses might be

[3:10:33] appropriate in the specific plan because

[3:10:37] there's a it's what's kept our Crocker

[3:10:40] Park so vibrant is that we have a lot of

[3:10:44] mixed smaller uses instead of just giant

[3:10:48] life sciences.

[3:10:49] So, I'd be interested to see if there

[3:10:52] was some mix that the city could bring

[3:10:56] into the specific plan that would allow

[3:10:58] some of those smaller

[3:11:01] um uses in in

[3:11:05] the permitted use in the industrial

[3:11:07] areas.

[3:11:09] » I second that interest.

[3:11:16] » That's it.

[3:11:17] » Okay. You want me to go ahead?

[3:11:20] » I'm going to be very short.

[3:11:22] » Okay.

[3:11:24] » I have a question and I I don't know

[3:11:26] where it lies or if it belongs in this

[3:11:28] topic tonight, but I found it

[3:11:31] interesting reading about pile driving

[3:11:34] and pile driving being inherent to

[3:11:36] certain type of structures. And tonight

[3:11:39] we've talked about the existing specific

[3:11:41] plan being proposed. some of those

[3:11:43] buildings 22 stories high and council

[3:11:47] member Lens's alternative where he was

[3:11:50] talking about much shorter buildings

[3:11:54] and I read about a mitigation measure

[3:11:57] mni1

[3:11:59] it talks about an alternative method to

[3:12:02] pile driving where geological conditions

[3:12:05] permit and so there's two questions in

[3:12:08] there at what point does the height of a

[3:12:11] building require pile driving on this

[3:12:15] particular site knowing that it used to

[3:12:18] be the bay water and it's all fill

[3:12:22] unregulated fill. Yes, it's had decades

[3:12:24] to compact but I'm not a geologist and

[3:12:28] I'm not a building engineer. So, first

[3:12:32] of all, what at what threshold is pile

[3:12:36] driving necessary? height of the

[3:12:38] building and also what is this reference

[3:12:40] to where geologic conditions permit that

[3:12:44] there could be an alternate method to

[3:12:46] pile driving.

[3:12:54] Should we

[3:12:58] [clears throat]

[3:12:59] » If you have to get back

[3:13:01] we'll we'll want to consult with the

[3:13:03] engineers and get back to you on that.

[3:13:05] » Okay. And and in that question is

[3:13:11] where geologic conditions permit I would

[3:13:14] like to then know also is it the whole

[3:13:16] site or is it only certain areas and if

[3:13:20] it's only certain areas if we could

[3:13:22] please identify which areas those are.

[3:13:25] Thank you

[3:13:27] council member Lent.

[3:13:30] » Thank you madam mayor. Um, you know,

[3:13:32] [snorts] I I was going to mention this

[3:13:34] earlier, I mean later, but since you

[3:13:36] brought up the pile driving, I'll just

[3:13:38] start right now. Um, because in

[3:13:41] alternative 7, it um has some

[3:13:45] interesting information that that I'd

[3:13:48] like to read. It says that uh lowering

[3:13:50] the heights of taller buildings while

[3:13:52] simultaneously reducing the spec

[3:13:57] specific plans. I'm tired. [laughter]

[3:14:00] uh overall development intensity could

[3:14:01] reduce the number of buildings that

[3:14:03] would require pile foundations. The

[3:14:06] combination of reduced building heights

[3:14:07] and development intensity could enhance

[3:14:09] the feasibility of of constructing pile

[3:14:12] foundations using quieter technologies

[3:14:15] which reduce the amount of pile driving

[3:14:17] required for the bailands

[3:14:19] development.

[3:14:21] Uh it goes on to say uh that it would

[3:14:24] also renderings. So you know in this

[3:14:27] chapter it talks about the the was it

[3:14:31] the low density residential and the mid

[3:14:33] density and the high and then same thing

[3:14:35] with commercial

[3:14:37] and I [clears throat] have to agree with

[3:14:38] them. I I don't know what that looks

[3:14:39] like you know to be quite honest with

[3:14:41] you. I mean obviously you all don't know

[3:14:44] what it's going to look like either.

[3:14:45] there's going to be these project uh you

[3:14:48] know applications that you know that

[3:14:49] will come before us but you know based

[3:14:52] upon what is in the specific plan and

[3:14:56] how you lay out the different districts

[3:14:59] it would be so helpful if you could use

[3:15:02] AI and [clears throat] just put it in

[3:15:05] there and and then do a presentation for

[3:15:08] the council and for the public so that

[3:15:10] we get an idea of okay what does a 24 to

[3:15:14] you 24story tower, you know, a couple

[3:15:17] towers, you know, look like with the

[3:15:19] other residential h how, you know, how

[3:15:22] does the, you know, the single family

[3:15:24] homes with, you know, where the

[3:15:25] roundhouse is, how does that really, you

[3:15:28] know, look like? So, just putting that

[3:15:31] out there and if you could bring that

[3:15:33] back, uh, you know, for a future, uh,

[3:15:36] hearing, that would be so beneficial.

[3:15:40] All right. Um

[3:15:43] so

[3:15:45] kind of [clears throat] piggyback on

[3:15:46] what you had said um Mor Prom Davis you

[3:15:50] know in regards to design standards for

[3:15:54] residential

[3:15:55] um yeah you know difficult however with

[3:16:01] the roundhouse area within that 50 foot

[3:16:05] area there's the curved residential

[3:16:09] there's the brick clad, right? There's

[3:16:11] trying to that histo, you know, that

[3:16:13] tied to the historic building.

[3:16:16] So, I'm curious, why only 50 feet? Why

[3:16:18] not, you know, maybe expand it to a

[3:16:20] little bit more? So, if you would mind

[3:16:22] come on up and

[3:16:24] talking about that.

[3:16:26] » Sure, I can speak to that a little bit.

[3:16:28] So, I think um the 50 ft that you're

[3:16:30] mentioning comes from the mitigation

[3:16:31] measure. So, I I do want to note that

[3:16:34] that came from um the city team. So,

[3:16:37] site lab may be able to speak a little

[3:16:39] bit more about why they chose um 50 ft

[3:16:42] as a radius. And while I'm up here, I

[3:16:44] did also want to mention um

[3:16:46] » The staff did add some helpful sort of

[3:16:49] inspiration photos to chapter 2 and

[3:16:51] three, if you look at um in chapter 3

[3:16:54] under each uh housing product type, so

[3:16:58] single family uh you know, multifamily

[3:17:01] mid, multif family high, etc., they do

[3:17:03] have some inspiration photos that might

[3:17:05] be helpful. But I do take your point

[3:17:06] that we can

[3:17:07] » Yeah, I think we can do better, you

[3:17:10] know, like maybe if there was kind of a

[3:17:13] like a like a drone footage, you know,

[3:17:16] something that's that really, you know,

[3:17:18] like gives you a feel.

[3:17:20] » Um, you know, as council member Davis

[3:17:22] had said, I mean, she, you know, we'd

[3:17:24] like to see this this uh site be

[3:17:26] beautiful. Yeah.

[3:17:27] » You know, and and and attractive.

[3:17:29] Absolutely. Everyone does. So, but being

[3:17:32] able to see it um would would be

[3:17:36] extremely helpful.

[3:17:37] » Okay. I appreciate that feedback and

[3:17:38] I'll let um the team answer your other

[3:17:40] question.

[3:17:41] » Okay, great. Thank you, Katie. So, yeah.

[3:17:43] Yes, the 50 foot.

[3:17:48] » We have our uh historical consultant

[3:17:50] online who's going to help answer that.

[3:17:52] Um Kathy's

[3:17:54] » Okay.

[3:17:56] » Hi, this is Kathy Cleveland. I'm a

[3:17:57] senior architectural historian with

[3:17:59] environmental science associates and I

[3:18:01] worked on the uh built environment

[3:18:03] [clears throat] analysis for the EIR. Uh

[3:18:06] the 50oot buffer specifically was

[3:18:09] regarding the historical significance of

[3:18:12] the roundhouse facility in order to

[3:18:15] minimize the visual impact of new

[3:18:19] construction in the immediate vicinity

[3:18:21] of the building itself. So the height

[3:18:24] restrictions, the materials, the brick

[3:18:27] uh requirements and the curve linear

[3:18:30] [clears throat] massing all kind of

[3:18:32] speak to that issue. So that's why the

[3:18:34] 50ft goer we wanted to encourage

[3:18:36] consideration

[3:18:38] of the [clears throat] resource the

[3:18:39] roundhouse as a historical resource. So

[3:18:43] yes, that's why.

[3:18:45] » Oh okay. So could that I mean is 50 feet

[3:18:49] the minimum? I mean, could it be 100 ft?

[3:18:52] I'm just I'm just kind of curious about

[3:18:53] like why it's 50 feet.

[3:18:56] » Uh, it was the idea of the immediate

[3:18:58] visual impact.

[3:18:59] » Just immediate. Okay.

[3:19:00] » Mhm.

[3:19:02] » All right. And then um

[3:19:06] you know also you know kind of

[3:19:07] piggybacking on what uh council member

[3:19:10] Davis said about

[3:19:12] having the buildings look inviting

[3:19:15] [clears throat] and and you know and

[3:19:17] kind of playing on the theme of of

[3:19:19] building thriving neighborhoods you know

[3:19:21] engaging. So um

[3:19:25] [clears throat] did you ever consult say

[3:19:27] with the urban lands institute or

[3:19:29] American institute of architects you

[3:19:31] know that where they're um you know

[3:19:34] helping developers helping cities to to

[3:19:38] implement those things. I see you nod

[3:19:40] your head like

[3:19:43] Okay. So, I mean I How about you guys?

[3:19:46] Did you Was that I mean I know you you

[3:19:49] know you're specialized in doing that

[3:19:51] but you know it's always good to get

[3:19:53] other opinions you know and the city has

[3:19:56] uh also utilize ULI and AIA uh for

[3:20:01] various parts of of Brisbane.

[3:20:04] » Uh I know I'm members of both and I

[3:20:06] think our design team is as well.

[3:20:07] » Likewise. Yeah, likewise. Um,

[3:20:13] good question, council member. Um,

[3:20:16] I would say,

[3:20:19] you know, a lot of our role in this

[3:20:22] project was shifting the design

[3:20:25] guidelines at the time into objective

[3:20:27] design standards. And so we and watching

[3:20:32] out for feasibility challenges

[3:20:34] associated with development. We did not

[3:20:37] add meaningful a significant number of

[3:20:40] design standards on top of the

[3:20:42] components that already existed in the

[3:20:43] plan from 2025 unless they directly

[3:20:46] addressed mitigation measures from the

[3:20:47] EIR.

[3:20:49] If we were to go down a path of doing

[3:20:51] more what you're describing, which is

[3:20:55] there's two sort of paths that we've

[3:20:56] taken on this. One is looking at

[3:20:58] precedent and we've done design

[3:21:00] standards and guidelines documents up

[3:21:02] and down the peninsula. Uh and the other

[3:21:05] would and our preferred approach would

[3:21:07] be to engage the community in what is

[3:21:09] authentically Brisbane and bring that

[3:21:12] character in that was not within the

[3:21:14] time constraints of sort of where we

[3:21:16] were to get from the 2025 applicant

[3:21:19] specific plan to uh this specific plan.

[3:21:23] So we we to the extent we could we added

[3:21:26] the layers well we directly added the

[3:21:29] layers associated with mitigation

[3:21:31] measures uh but we stopped short of

[3:21:34] trying to add additional layers to

[3:21:35] support the uh feasibility of the

[3:21:37] project and flexibility therein.

[3:21:40] » Okay. Thank you for just being upfront

[3:21:43] and and just straightforward. I I

[3:21:46] appreciate that. um you know, being

[3:21:48] under the gun, so to speak, right, to to

[3:21:52] to move this thing forward. Um I I think

[3:21:55] that would be a shame if that was to

[3:21:59] cause us not to have that kind of

[3:22:00] engagement and create those types of

[3:22:02] guidelines. Um, so

[3:22:06] I would like for staff and also to work

[3:22:09] with with the developer to think of a

[3:22:13] way given our schedule that maybe we

[3:22:17] could have that public engagement

[3:22:19] if that is something that the council um

[3:22:21] would be okay with as long as it doesn't

[3:22:23] disrupt our our current schedule.

[3:22:26] I'm I'm not sure you're asking for to

[3:22:30] have another hearing or engagement about

[3:22:33] what the the buildings are going to look

[3:22:36] like. So that

[3:22:39] but we don't even have someone who's

[3:22:41] going to build them yet. Wouldn't that

[3:22:43] be up to the developer, the actual

[3:22:46] builder to come in with those

[3:22:51] that information rather than trying to

[3:22:53] be prescriptive at this point in a

[3:22:55] specific plan?

[3:22:56] » Uh, well, you know, I'm just, you know,

[3:22:59] just I'm not an expert, but what uh I'm

[3:23:03] sorry, your name, sir?

[3:23:04] » My name is Woody Hansen from Site Lab

[3:23:06] Urban Studio.

[3:23:07] » Will is it?

[3:23:08] » Woody.

[3:23:09] » We Woody.

[3:23:10] » Woody. Oh, sorry. Gez, man. apologize,

[3:23:13] but from what what he said to me that

[3:23:15] made a lot of sense and that would be I

[3:23:17] think a real benefit um for for the

[3:23:20] community and for us as a council to

[3:23:22] » To put forth I think some buildings that

[3:23:25] that look really beautiful. So Woody,

[3:23:28] » Well I what I would clarify is

[3:23:32] uh

[3:23:33] you can always go further on objective

[3:23:36] design standards, right? But that runs

[3:23:39] up against feasibility the nature of

[3:23:42] feasibility and flexibility of a project

[3:23:44] and how prescriptive something looks. So

[3:23:46] our suggest what I was suggesting for is

[3:23:49] not to come forward with specific

[3:23:50] architecture but if there were

[3:23:52] components of the plan that feel under

[3:23:55] represented in terms of the level of uh

[3:23:58] definition you want to see in

[3:23:59] characteristics that are defining of

[3:24:02] Brisbane. Those would be elements that

[3:24:04] you could add as objective design

[3:24:05] standards that then future architecture

[3:24:07] would have to adhere to.

[3:24:10] » Okay. Thank thank you for clarifying,

[3:24:12] Katie.

[3:24:13] » Yeah, if I may. Um, thank you. It's it's

[3:24:16] a great topic because obviously we we

[3:24:17] all want the balance to feel like it's

[3:24:19] part of Brisbane and we don't want it to

[3:24:20] feel like it's this separate thing. You

[3:24:23] know, we want it to feel cohesive um and

[3:24:26] to reflect the community's values. And

[3:24:28] that's why, you know, this land use plan

[3:24:30] really was built around a long series of

[3:24:34] community workshops and input that

[3:24:35] happened when it was first put together.

[3:24:37] And then of course at the time we also

[3:24:39] did work with leading architecture firms

[3:24:40] to put it together. Um we were you know

[3:24:43] we engaged with ULI for a long time. And

[3:24:46] then I do have Allison Harvey from OJB

[3:24:49] on who can speak a little bit about the

[3:24:52] uh open space network that they recently

[3:24:55] received an award on. Um, and so I think

[3:24:58] I bring all this up to to illustrate

[3:25:00] that we are trying to be at the

[3:25:03] forefront of good design and making sure

[3:25:06] that this is a program that is practical

[3:25:09] and beautiful, but also realizing that

[3:25:12] the specific plan has to be able to

[3:25:14] adapt to changing conditions over time.

[3:25:16] We don't want to say all these houses

[3:25:18] have to be blue and then, you know, 10

[3:25:20] years from now everyone says I hate blue

[3:25:22] houses. So that's a simple example, but

[3:25:25] we really need to have that um

[3:25:28] adaptability in the specific plan. And

[3:25:30] so I think that's why we have a good mix

[3:25:32] right now of these design standards that

[3:25:34] kind of put the shell and the parameters

[3:25:36] in place, but then allow for some um

[3:25:39] growth and in dynamic uh changes over

[3:25:42] time as the community and and others

[3:25:45] give us input.

[3:25:46] » Yeah. Yeah. And I I hear what you're

[3:25:47] saying and I agree. you know, um, having

[3:25:50] those, uh, renderings I think would be

[3:25:52] really helpful. Um, you know, being able

[3:25:55] to apply say some ULI additional

[3:25:58] objective standards. I mean, obviously

[3:26:02] ULI is, you know, top of the line.

[3:26:05] They're not going to say, yeah, all the

[3:26:06] houses are going to be blue. Yeah.

[3:26:08] Right. They're going to provide

[3:26:09] objective design standards that

[3:26:12] » Provide the flexibility

[3:26:15] uh, and also have great design. So,

[3:26:17] » Yeah. Would it be okay for Allison to

[3:26:19] speak about um award? I think she I

[3:26:22] asked her if she would raise her hand on

[3:26:23] the Zoom. I don't know who's operating

[3:26:24] that.

[3:26:44] If if I may for just a moment, you know,

[3:26:47] when you talk about setting up a design

[3:26:49] standard, you know, you can tell when a

[3:26:51] house was built in the ' 60s, '7s, 80s,

[3:26:55] 90s, 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s. Is that

[3:27:00] what we want to design to when this is

[3:27:02] going to take decades?

[3:27:04] No, what it is is apply an objective

[3:27:07] standards that create flexibility. So,

[3:27:11] you know, the thing about buildings, you

[3:27:15] know, when a building has been designed

[3:27:17] well and it could you it could have been

[3:27:19] designed in the 1930s or

[3:27:22] 1950s and it might not look very well,

[3:27:25] very good. But you could have a building

[3:27:28] that was designed in the 1970s or or

[3:27:30] just a few years ago. But if it, you

[3:27:32] know, quality is, it never goes out of

[3:27:36] style. And so you have someone like ULI,

[3:27:40] you know, providing those objective

[3:27:42] standards, you're going to have the very

[3:27:45] best. So

[3:27:46] is your um colleague online?

[3:27:51] Allison.

[3:27:52] » Allison.

[3:27:56] Allison, go ahead.

[3:28:05] We we can come back to Allison if you'd

[3:28:06] like.

[3:28:08] » Can you hear me?

[3:28:09] » Oh,

[3:28:10] » Yes.

[3:28:10] » There we go. Go ahead.

[3:28:14] » Hello everybody. I'm Allison Harvey. I'm

[3:28:17] a landscape architect with OJB Studios.

[3:28:20] Um we have been involved with um the

[3:28:24] specific plan since 2019.

[3:28:27] And um one of the things that I'm

[3:28:30] extremely proud of is actually um the um

[3:28:34] specific plan um received a an ASLA a

[3:28:39] San Diego ASLA green ribbon award for

[3:28:43] its advancement in sustainability and

[3:28:46] sensitivity to um environmental needs.

[3:28:50] specifically looking at the American

[3:28:52] Society of Landscape Architects goals um

[3:28:55] in their climate action plan. And this

[3:28:57] just happened a couple months ago. Um

[3:29:01] and you know, another thing is that I'm

[3:29:03] very proud to be a part of OJB which has

[3:29:05] received uh four ULI awards for

[3:29:09] designing uh urban open space. So it has

[3:29:13] been a goal within this document to

[3:29:16] ensure that the the flexibility that

[3:29:19] we're we need as designers is there um

[3:29:23] but that there is a strong framework to

[3:29:26] the design that's going to yield um

[3:29:29] those values within that that I think

[3:29:31] you're talking about you know embodied

[3:29:33] by the ULI um which is about you know

[3:29:37] what makes great public space what makes

[3:29:39] great communities Um, and each open

[3:29:42] space that that we documented really

[3:29:46] strives to create unique opportunities

[3:29:49] within uh Brisbane

[3:29:52] um that that celebrates the character um

[3:29:55] of of the region.

[3:29:59] » Thank you, Alison. I appreciate that.

[3:30:01] » Yeah.

[3:30:02] » All right. Um,

[3:30:06] council member Kern mentioned uh the

[3:30:08] middle school and the size. Um,

[3:30:12] so

[3:30:14] the bay lands is in the Bayore School

[3:30:17] District. It's not in the Brisbane

[3:30:19] school district. Um, a couple of months

[3:30:22] ago, uh, some parents started a petition

[3:30:27] and I'm just curious, have have you seen

[3:30:29] the petition, Stephanie?

[3:30:32] » You have seen it. Okay. All right. And I

[3:30:34] I just printed it out um yesterday. It's

[3:30:37] got uh 284 signatures and the the title

[3:30:41] of the petition says one school district

[3:30:44] for all Brisbane students.

[3:30:48] I'm going to read a a a passage in it.

[3:30:51] Uh it says,

[3:30:53] "Our local schools are a vital pillar of

[3:30:56] our community. When the Northeast Ridge

[3:30:58] was built, the Brisbane School District

[3:31:00] served as the bridge uniting new and

[3:31:03] longtime residents. As new neighborhoods

[3:31:06] arise in the Baylands, how will we

[3:31:09] connect with these future citizens? So,

[3:31:12] yeah. So, I mean, do you feel that that

[3:31:16] schools are vital to community and um so

[3:31:19] that's the the first question and then

[3:31:22] that that connection? So, if you

[3:31:23] wouldn't mind coming to the podium,

[3:31:25] please. and Madison, if you want to add

[3:31:27] any questions. Um,

[3:31:29] » Yeah.

[3:31:30] » Yes.

[3:31:36] » Okay.

[3:31:37] » Thank you for that. Um, so of course

[3:31:40] obviously school is important to

[3:31:42] community and and we recognize that and

[3:31:44] we're aware of the the petition and and

[3:31:46] we want the balance to reflect the

[3:31:48] interests of the community. Um

[3:31:50] ultimately what school district the

[3:31:52] balance is is you know a more complex

[3:31:54] question that we can't answer alone

[3:31:56] that's going to require engagement with

[3:31:58] the community with both school districts

[3:32:00] probably with the department of

[3:32:02] education. So we're not we don't see

[3:32:04] ourselves as as the final decision maker

[3:32:06] on that. You know as part of the

[3:32:08] specific plan we responded to a city of

[3:32:11] Brisbane uh commission study that said a

[3:32:15] middle school would most likely be

[3:32:16] necessary. And so we set aside some

[3:32:18] potential parcels for a middle school.

[3:32:21] However, again, we are are really just

[3:32:25] here to be reflective of the community's

[3:32:27] needs. You know, we're not the ones who

[3:32:29] are going to define um what school

[3:32:31] should go there, but we're happy to

[3:32:32] participate in any conversations about

[3:32:34] that.

[3:32:35] » Okay. All right.

[3:32:38] Council member,

[3:32:39] » But don't you

[3:32:42] don't you do have a role to play? I

[3:32:43] mean, as the property owner and that the

[3:32:47] property is vacant, right? It's my

[3:32:50] understanding that properties of this

[3:32:52] nature, you could as a property owner

[3:32:55] petition the county to redraw the

[3:32:58] district lines and that would be

[3:32:59] something that would come from you. It

[3:33:02] wouldn't come from us. So, I do think

[3:33:06] that there is a little bit of a stronger

[3:33:07] role that you could play in determining

[3:33:10] the elementary school district that

[3:33:12] served by the bay lands.

[3:33:15] » Yeah, I'm vaguely familiar with that

[3:33:17] process. It's not something that um we

[3:33:20] have a lot of deep expertise on, but I I

[3:33:22] know what you're referencing about a

[3:33:23] landowner being able to put forward a

[3:33:26] request um to change the school

[3:33:28] district. Again, I I don't mean to say

[3:33:31] that we wouldn't be involved. We're

[3:33:32] happy to have these conversations with

[3:33:34] the community, to have these

[3:33:35] conversations with the district, but

[3:33:37] it's my understanding that even if we

[3:33:38] were to put forward um that request that

[3:33:42] it still would need to be approved by

[3:33:44] the appropriate districts and

[3:33:47] potentially the county, maybe even the

[3:33:49] state board of education. I don't know

[3:33:50] the exact details of that. So again, we

[3:33:53] I'm not saying we are not involved. We

[3:33:54] are happy to be involved. I think we

[3:33:57] just are not the main um we're not the

[3:34:01] folks who are guiding the direction that

[3:34:03] that's going. That really should come

[3:34:05] from the community and the parents in

[3:34:07] Brisbane and the school district. So, it

[3:34:09] needs to be a more collaborative

[3:34:10] discussion, but we are happy to take an

[3:34:12] active role in that discussion.

[3:34:16] » I'm asking, you have any other

[3:34:17] questions? I I have a couple more, but

[3:34:19] I'll if

[3:34:19] » I was going to I'll let you

[3:34:21] » Oh, okay.

[3:34:22] » Go and then I'll chime in.

[3:34:24] » All right. All right. So, um, getting

[3:34:26] back to the the petition there, it says

[3:34:29] here, um, when the Bayands was annexed

[3:34:31] into the city of Brisbane in 1963, so

[3:34:34] the city became a city in 1961. Um, its

[3:34:38] school district boundaries were never

[3:34:39] updated to match leaving the land in the

[3:34:42] Beayore school district. And back in the

[3:34:43] day, Brisbane and Bashore were one

[3:34:45] school district, the visitation uh,

[3:34:47] school district. Back in the 30s, they

[3:34:49] split up. Um, and then it goes on to

[3:34:52] say, you know, rather than accepting

[3:34:54] outdated boundaries that risk dividing

[3:34:56] us, we should embrace a one Brisbane

[3:34:58] vision. It just makes common sense for a

[3:35:02] small city to keep all of its elementary

[3:35:04] students together. And I hope I don't

[3:35:05] steal your stunt cuz I know that's

[3:35:06] something that's important to you. Okay.

[3:35:08] So um

[3:35:11] so then it goes on to say you know um

[3:35:13] for people to sign the petition and then

[3:35:16] to urge the Brisbane school district,

[3:35:18] the Brisbane City Council

[3:35:21] and the Bayand uh Development Inc. to

[3:35:23] collaborate on the necessary steps to

[3:35:25] unite all Brisbane students under one

[3:35:27] school district. So um

[3:35:31] I have this flowchart here. It's from a

[3:35:34] study that you guys um funded. It was

[3:35:37] maybe in 2019, right? And it gets to

[3:35:41] council member Davis's point, right?

[3:35:42] It's got this flowchart and it talks

[3:35:45] about how if there's property that's

[3:35:47] uninhabited that it's the, you know, the

[3:35:51] property owner. They're the ones to

[3:35:54] do the petition and then send it into

[3:35:56] the uh county superintendent goes before

[3:36:00] a committee and then that committee

[3:36:02] decides who's going to vote. So the only

[3:36:04] way for this really to start would be

[3:36:07] from you guys and I just curious to know

[3:36:09] if that's something that you are

[3:36:12] considering doing. I'm just just asking

[3:36:15] a question.

[3:36:23] Um I will have to take another look at

[3:36:26] the flowchart because I'm not intimately

[3:36:29] familiar with it tonight.

[3:36:31] » But yeah, I think as I mentioned, you

[3:36:32] know, we we want to be open to any kind

[3:36:35] of conversation around the whatever

[3:36:37] school might come to fruition at the

[3:36:38] balance. Um again, I just we aren't in a

[3:36:42] position where we should be moving

[3:36:44] unilaterally. I think we need to take

[3:36:46] into consideration all the different

[3:36:48] community stakeholders and make sure

[3:36:50] that you know everyone has an

[3:36:53] appropriate voice in this but we're

[3:36:55] happy to continue this conversation

[3:36:57] further. So to me, I mean, it seems like

[3:37:00] next steps are outside of a council

[3:37:01] meeting, but probably based on this

[3:37:04] conversation. I mean, you're when you

[3:37:07] were up at the podium last time, you

[3:37:09] said that the

[3:37:11] like the uh momentum really needs to

[3:37:14] come from the community. And I feel that

[3:37:16] the petition is exactly that. It is it

[3:37:20] characterizes the momentum in the

[3:37:23] community and the whole point of that is

[3:37:26] to inspire action from

[3:37:31] the city's leaders and also those who

[3:37:34] have the ability to affect this issue.

[3:37:36] So I feel like the momentum is already

[3:37:38] there, the parents are already there,

[3:37:40] the conversations are already happening.

[3:37:42] So that doesn't need to be validated.

[3:37:45] The petition has done that. that

[3:37:47] petition has more signatures than I

[3:37:49] think any petition we've ever received

[3:37:51] as council members in the 11 years that

[3:37:54] I've served.

[3:37:55] » Um, and so I think at this point, if you

[3:37:59] are serious about kind of exploring the

[3:38:02] conversation,

[3:38:03] what would be the next step would be to

[3:38:06] have some kind of meeting. Um, and that

[3:38:12] would bring to the table maybe couple of

[3:38:16] members of the Beayshore School

[3:38:18] District, couple members of the Brisbane

[3:38:22] School District, potentially

[3:38:25] a couple members of the city council,

[3:38:29] could be the um two by members of the 2

[3:38:32] by 2. But it seems like

[3:38:36] it seems like it's time to plan

[3:38:38] something. That's my takeaway and I

[3:38:41] don't want to get too far off of, you

[3:38:43] know, we're approaching 9:30, but I

[3:38:46] think

[3:38:47] » Based on the petition and your

[3:38:51] willingness to explore further, I think

[3:38:54] we should just plan a meeting.

[3:38:58] Absolutely. Yeah. I um I know there's a

[3:39:00] lot of folks here have been waiting to

[3:39:02] speak so I don't want to stand in their

[3:39:03] way too much longer but I think that

[3:39:05] this is a really important topic and I

[3:39:07] do think it's one that warrants probably

[3:39:08] having some discussion outside of this

[3:39:11] forum um and uh making sure that the

[3:39:14] appropriate stakeholders are there from

[3:39:16] both school districts and from this

[3:39:18] community and you know to make sure that

[3:39:20] it's a comprehensive conversation but

[3:39:22] we're happy to engage with that and I

[3:39:26] can talk to staff about the most

[3:39:27] appropriate way to go about setting that

[3:39:33] Yeah. Um, okay.

[3:39:37] Blands Boulevard, right? So, that's the

[3:39:39] shopping

[3:39:41] street,

[3:39:43] but it has, as far as I could tell, it

[3:39:46] doesn't have any residential. So,

[3:39:50] you know, past renderings that I had

[3:39:53] seen, you know, past uh specific plans,

[3:39:57] there was a like a like a neighborhood

[3:40:00] downtown, you know, something similar

[3:40:02] to, you know, maybe Noi Valley's uh

[3:40:05] little neighborhood downtown or um Union

[3:40:08] Street or something like that. Um

[3:40:11] is that something that you had

[3:40:13] contemplated but didn't you know decide

[3:40:17] to to implement

[3:40:22] » Conferring with our design?

[3:40:23] » Yeah.

[3:40:40] Um, I don't know if staff has a map

[3:40:43] handy of the specific plan, but I can

[3:40:46] sort of talk through it, but there is

[3:40:48] both residential and um, retail along

[3:40:51] Balin's Boulevard. So, there is a

[3:40:54] graphic also in the specific plan that

[3:40:55] outlines the areas where um, ground

[3:40:58] floor active ground flooror uses are

[3:41:01] permitted and where active ground

[3:41:03] flooror uses are required. And so there

[3:41:06] is some overlap between these things,

[3:41:07] right, between where um there's

[3:41:10] commercial, there's retail and then

[3:41:12] there's residential and then there's

[3:41:13] these opportunities for active ground

[3:41:15] floor. And so that is my understanding

[3:41:18] is sort of all mixed within um the

[3:41:21] different uses that border Balins

[3:41:24] Boulevard.

[3:41:25] » Oh, okay. Okay. So, you're saying that

[3:41:26] there is retail activity, commercial

[3:41:29] space down below and then uh residential

[3:41:32] above because I I I didn't see it but

[3:41:34] may you know may maybe I missed it and

[3:41:37] my bad.

[3:41:38] » Hi. Hi. Um hi council member. So yes. So

[3:41:41] here's a perfect language map. So if you

[3:41:44] like look at the balance blue bar and

[3:41:46] can zoom in a little bit on the right

[3:41:47] hand side those are all commercial uses

[3:41:50] and on the left hand side of balance is

[3:41:52] all residential.

[3:41:54] So the retail um it's essentially

[3:41:58] underneath all the commercial uses and

[3:41:59] then the on the left hand side is is is

[3:42:02] residential. So it's basically a true

[3:42:04] mixed use.

[3:42:05] » Okay. So residential is on one side of

[3:42:07] the street and commercial's on the other

[3:42:09] side of the street.

[3:42:10] » That is correct. That is correct.

[3:42:12] » Okay. Um

[3:42:15] All right. I'm just going to ask it. I

[3:42:17] mean obviously you know we have this

[3:42:19] this line right? and it's in measure JJ

[3:42:22] says that the line is um Main Street.

[3:42:26] » Um I'm just curious. I'm just going to

[3:42:28] ask you a question. If that line was a a

[3:42:31] little bit farther south, would you

[3:42:33] create more of a a true mixed use where

[3:42:35] you'd have commercial on the bottom and

[3:42:37] residential on top or would you just

[3:42:39] design it just like this? So in the um

[3:42:44] actually the our original proposed land

[3:42:48] use we had um asked for the residential

[3:42:52] use to allow some ground floor retail

[3:42:56] activities. Mhm. Mhm.

[3:42:58] » Um so

[3:43:02] I believe we so that was trying to

[3:43:05] structure you know this a little bit

[3:43:06] more um

[3:43:09] kind of like entrepreneurship of the you

[3:43:12] know the residents they can be a

[3:43:14] business owner themselves. So um that

[3:43:17] that was actually in our original

[3:43:19] proposal. Um but we don't have a true

[3:43:24] mix residential and

[3:43:28] on top of a commercial. What we do have

[3:43:31] is for all those com uh residential mid

[3:43:35] mid-rise buildings we do have a retail

[3:43:38] on the ground floor

[3:43:39] » And that's fa uh basically facing all

[3:43:42] the public like balance streets and the

[3:43:44] plaza.

[3:43:45] » Okay. All right. you know, um, as a as

[3:43:48] an item for us to to discuss, um, I I

[3:43:51] would like to discuss perhaps, you know,

[3:43:54] allowing some residential below, uh,

[3:43:57] Main Street to explore.

[3:44:01] » Uh, let's see.

[3:44:02] » Below,

[3:44:03] » Wait, can we do that because JJ defined

[3:44:05] a cleared boundary? I you know I what

[3:44:09] I'm looking at is you know not a you

[3:44:12] know potentially a significant but

[3:44:14] perhaps a some minor um movement you

[3:44:18] know obviously uh there's a lot of

[3:44:20] things in measure JJ that we're you know

[3:44:23] trying to work through and um so it's

[3:44:27] just something for the council to

[3:44:29] consider and and have uh staff come back

[3:44:31] with um you know some information

[3:44:35] » If if we were to deviate from measure

[3:44:38] JJ. Wouldn't we have to go back to the

[3:44:40] voters?

[3:44:41] » I I think these are questions, right?

[3:44:43] » Well, you know, I mean, I think, you

[3:44:44] know, let's let's have that discussion.

[3:44:48] » So, um,

[3:44:50] » Council Member Lens, just

[3:44:51] » Oh, okay. Yeah.

[3:44:52] » I don't understand what your question

[3:44:53] was. What is the ask?

[3:44:54] » Oh, the ask is to, uh, evaluate the

[3:44:58] potential of having some residential

[3:45:01] uh, below the Main Street line.

[3:45:05] » Thank you. But before staff does it, I

[3:45:07] mean, can we do that? Like if does that

[3:45:11] have to go back to the voters? Because

[3:45:13] that would not be in alignment with what

[3:45:15] JJ says right now. Am I right?

[3:45:18] » You're you're correct that that's not

[3:45:21] » Let me see if I can find the exact words

[3:45:23] from from JJ.

[3:45:27] Um while he does that, this is kind of

[3:45:29] circling back, but uh there is a figure

[3:45:31] in the specific plan and we did show it

[3:45:34] on our slides, but I kind of went by

[3:45:37] pretty quickly, but it does show where

[3:45:40] uh ground floor uh active ground floor,

[3:45:44] which would be for example retail

[3:45:46] stores, is required. And then there's

[3:45:48] another section. So you've got kind of

[3:45:50] the solid line where these uses are

[3:45:53] required on the ground floor. And then

[3:45:55] there's a dotted line and many more

[3:45:58] blocks that show where they can be

[3:46:00] allowed. They're not required. Um but

[3:46:02] there are

[3:46:04] uh three four block faces um on Baylands

[3:46:10] Boulevard um at the north end that would

[3:46:12] require that ground floor. So that's the

[3:46:14] solid line. And then there's another uh

[3:46:17] section just south of Main Street uh

[3:46:19] that would also require that.

[3:46:22] » Mhm.

[3:46:24] Okay. Um,

[3:46:28] yeah, I I I'll I'll ask um well, I'm not

[3:46:34] going to I guess figure it out tonight.

[3:46:36] Um, but I would like to perhaps maybe

[3:46:40] offline and just talk a little bit more

[3:46:42] about like what is the, you know, the

[3:46:44] actual like letter of the law.

[3:46:46] » Sure. Yeah. So, its residential uses

[3:46:49] shall be permitted only in the northwest

[3:46:52] quadrant of the site, bounded by

[3:46:54] Beayshore Boulevard on the west, the

[3:46:56] city and county of San Francisco on the

[3:46:58] north, the Cal Train Rail Line on the

[3:47:00] east, and the line of Main Street

[3:47:02] extended on the south as shown on the

[3:47:05] general plan land use diagram.

[3:47:06] » Okay. All right. So, what you're saying

[3:47:08] then is if there was to be a change, it

[3:47:11] would have to go back before the voters.

[3:47:13] any change of residential

[3:47:16] » That yeah that that that language

[3:47:18] because it it's residential uses shall

[3:47:20] be permitted only does look like that

[3:47:22] sort of

[3:47:23] » Because it's a shall

[3:47:24] » Um yeah mand clear fundamental mandatory

[3:47:27] policy where uh literal compliance would

[3:47:30] likely be required.

[3:47:32] » Oh okay.

[3:47:34] » All right. Uh couns if if I might if I

[3:47:37] may. Um the figure that Kevin was

[3:47:40] pointing to is a helpful one and it

[3:47:42] actually is slightly different than the

[3:47:43] one that was in the uh applicant

[3:47:46] presentation and that's to say that the

[3:47:49] that the uh solid red line requiring

[3:47:53] uh retail on the ground floor includes

[3:47:56] both commercial and residential

[3:47:58] buildings

[3:47:59] » In that zone. So, it is a mixeduse area

[3:48:03] if that if that helps.

[3:48:04] » Yeah. Yeah. No, no, I I I know that. All

[3:48:07] right. Thank you. [laughter]

[3:48:09] » Appreciate it. Um, yeah. You know, I'm

[3:48:11] just really, you know, as we're in this

[3:48:14] final stage is really thinking out loud,

[3:48:17] what's the best way to create the most

[3:48:21] um dynamic urban uh planning, right? And

[3:48:26] so, giving ourselves flexibility. I know

[3:48:28] that we made that decision uh back in

[3:48:30] 2018. Is that really something that um

[3:48:35] you know is appropriate for today? And

[3:48:37] perhaps that's a discussion that we can

[3:48:39] have um later on in the in the process.

[3:48:43] So that's really I guess maybe my ask is

[3:48:46] just to bring it back so the council has

[3:48:48] a discussion about it then.

[3:48:51] Uh let's see. Oh, okay. Mission blue

[3:48:55] nursery.

[3:48:57] Planet Commission said, uh, yeah, we

[3:49:00] should keep it. I know that you guys are

[3:49:02] talking about putting it in the shooting

[3:49:05] range. Um,

[3:49:11] yeah, just um,

[3:49:14] uh, and I know that, uh, Ariel is here

[3:49:18] as well.

[3:49:20] I hope we we keep it in that place. Um,

[3:49:25] okay.

[3:49:27] you know, the um ice house hill. So, I I

[3:49:31] know it's in the uh sustainability

[3:49:34] framework and it talks about um having

[3:49:37] an urban farm in that north uh u area

[3:49:42] and um there's the the agreement that

[3:49:45] you have with the folks that have the

[3:49:47] horses. Um, is that something that that

[3:49:49] you um, yeah, thought about perhaps

[3:49:53] retaining, you know, some kind of rural

[3:49:55] connection uh, that Brisbane, you know,

[3:49:58] kind of has that's, you know, that you

[3:49:59] can't find in other parts of this area.

[3:50:02] Everything's just all been built up. One

[3:50:04] of the great things about living in

[3:50:05] Brisbane is that we've kept our roots.

[3:50:08] So, is that something that you you

[3:50:09] thought about? I see you nodding your

[3:50:10] head, Stephanie.

[3:50:13] » [clears throat]

[3:50:14] » The current plan does contemplate the

[3:50:15] stables staying in them and and and I

[3:50:18] believe um

[3:50:21] the horses can still graze on the ice

[3:50:24] house hill and that's a actually

[3:50:27] discussed in the EIR.

[3:50:30] » Okay. Okay. All right. Good.

[3:50:34] Think I might be done. Oh yeah. Um so

[3:50:39] we got a letter from buildup in regards

[3:50:43] to um childc care facilities and um you

[3:50:48] know it's talked about in the um

[3:50:50] sustainability framework you know as one

[3:50:53] of those uses that that you should just

[3:50:56] have and so and I was curious to know

[3:50:59] that

[3:51:00] you know it stated that it's a

[3:51:04] you know it's a allowed use But there's

[3:51:07] there isn't any like talk about. So I'm

[3:51:09] just curious why that wasn't why you

[3:51:12] didn't put that in there as like yeah

[3:51:14] we're going to do this.

[3:51:22] » Um I mean child care is an allowed use

[3:51:26] in I think all of the residential and

[3:51:28] most of the commercial if not all of the

[3:51:30] commercial areas. So almost in most

[3:51:32] areas of the property childcare is an

[3:51:34] allowed use. So, um there's there's no

[3:51:37] issue with the child care operating on

[3:51:39] the property.

[3:51:40] » Okay. So, you know, from their letter,

[3:51:42] um they they add, you know, as you know,

[3:51:46] something for us to consider, you know,

[3:51:49] and they they they state in the specific

[3:51:51] plan in section 2.2 to um integrate

[3:51:55] child care as a central community

[3:51:57] infrastructure. Plan for licensed child

[3:51:59] care and early learning facilities as an

[3:52:01] integral component of the Baylands with

[3:52:04] facilities conveniently located in

[3:52:07] relation to residential neighborhoods

[3:52:09] and employment centers and planned and

[3:52:11] phased in coordination with development

[3:52:13] and occupancy. I see you nodding your

[3:52:16] head. Okay. I mean like I I would like

[3:52:18] for us to have that as an item for us to

[3:52:21] consider. um implementing into the

[3:52:24] specific plan when we talk.

[3:52:26] » I support that.

[3:52:27] » Okay, cool. Um

[3:52:31] » Me too.

[3:52:35] » Playgrounds or the not playground, the

[3:52:37] ball field. All right, so the current

[3:52:39] ball field is, you know, you hit a home

[3:52:42] run, you hit the tank farm, you get an

[3:52:44] extra prize. So, um

[3:52:49] I'm just kind of curious why the ball

[3:52:50] fields weren't next to the school, which

[3:52:52] just seems like an obvious place to put

[3:52:54] a ball field. You know, you you want

[3:52:56] residential. Um and you know, so the you

[3:53:00] know, the folks that are living there,

[3:53:01] they can they can walk and and and

[3:53:04] play baseball or play soccer. So, but

[3:53:07] that that that site is isolated. So, I'm

[3:53:09] just kind of curious why that location

[3:53:11] and would you consider placing it in

[3:53:14] near the the residential neighborhoods?

[3:53:18] » Um, so a lot of the locations of the

[3:53:22] different uses on the land use plan were

[3:53:24] informed by some workshops that the team

[3:53:26] conducted with um OJB and some of our

[3:53:29] other consultants in 2019. And there was

[3:53:32] a real desire from the community to have

[3:53:34] the ball fields close to central

[3:53:36] Brisbane. Um, and a unique feature of

[3:53:39] that property where the community fields

[3:53:41] is contemplated is that there will be a

[3:53:43] trail that connects through the old

[3:53:45] beayshore tunnel and connects up with

[3:53:48] the current um, Crocker Recreational

[3:53:50] Trail. And so that also gives kids an

[3:53:52] opportunity to cross underneath beayhore

[3:53:55] um for, you know, a little bit of a a

[3:53:57] quieter route to get to the ball fields.

[3:53:59] and it's closer to town. So, that was

[3:54:02] the the history of how that came about.

[3:54:04] » That's good to know. All right.

[3:54:08] » Okay. Um and and I have the last

[3:54:10] question, Madame Mayor, and it's in

[3:54:13] regards to uh sea level rise. So, um

[3:54:18] thank you for sponsoring the the study

[3:54:21] for the lagoon u being one of those um

[3:54:25] funders. So, um the mayor and I sit on

[3:54:29] the sustainability

[3:54:31] um I mean on the u sea level rise,

[3:54:34] sorry, uh committee and uh you know, we

[3:54:38] recently received an update regarding

[3:54:40] the lagoon study and um I'm I'm just

[3:54:44] kind of curious like you guys are the

[3:54:47] vast majority owner of the lagoon,

[3:54:49] correct?

[3:54:50] » All right. So,

[3:54:51] » Of what?

[3:54:52] » Of the lagoon.

[3:54:53] » Oh, yes. So, um,

[3:54:57] you know, during the last, uh, King

[3:54:59] Tide, the lagoon,

[3:55:02] you know, it might have broke its banks.

[3:55:04] You know, it was pretty close. It was

[3:55:05] lapping up against, um, uh, Sierra Point

[3:55:09] Parkway

[3:55:10] or Boulevard. Um, one of the options to

[3:55:16] mitigate that is is doing a a title

[3:55:19] gate. And, um,

[3:55:23] yeah. So, I'm just curious, you know,

[3:55:25] like you know, this property

[3:55:29] during um you know, these these king

[3:55:31] tides and as as um sea level rise

[3:55:34] expand,

[3:55:37] the lagoon is going to just spread out,

[3:55:39] right? Unless we do something, right?

[3:55:41] It's going to impact other properties.

[3:55:42] So, I'm just curious like what what

[3:55:44] you've been thinking about in regards to

[3:55:47] how to keep your properties in front in

[3:55:50] the lagoon from spilling over into other

[3:55:53] um properties nearby.

[3:56:01] » I might ask if Allison is still on,

[3:56:04] although it's she's in a different time

[3:56:05] zone. It's quite late. Um but we'll see

[3:56:08] if she raises her hand. Um there are a

[3:56:11] number of sea level rise sea level rise

[3:56:15] related um measures planned for the

[3:56:18] lagoon and especially for the lagoon

[3:56:20] park. I think in terms of like this tide

[3:56:22] gate you're talking about. Obviously we

[3:56:24] sat on some of those um planning

[3:56:26] committee meetings. I think that's

[3:56:28] something that would probably have to be

[3:56:29] studied further to understand what makes

[3:56:32] the most sense in conjunction with the

[3:56:35] mitigations that we are implementing um

[3:56:38] and how those would come together. So,

[3:56:41] and I don't know if Alison

[3:56:43] » Can you all hear me?

[3:56:44] » Yeah,

[3:56:45] » You can hear me. Okay, good. Um, so I

[3:56:49] think like if if when you look at the

[3:56:53] specific plan again, you can look at the

[3:56:56] there's some elevations

[3:56:58] um or sections through the Bay Trail. I

[3:57:00] think that those exemplify the challenge

[3:57:03] here and that is that it's it's not

[3:57:06] really a title gate issue. It's a like

[3:57:09] highway 101 is really low and so there's

[3:57:13] a larger infrastructural challenge um to

[3:57:17] controlling that edge of the bay.

[3:57:20] Does that make sense?

[3:57:23] » Yeah. No, I mean all those factors uh

[3:57:25] play into it. Uh the consultants who um

[3:57:30] are doing the study have presented

[3:57:32] several options for us to evaluate.

[3:57:36] It seemed like the tide tidal gate was

[3:57:39] um

[3:57:40] » Maybe um

[3:57:42] » Well it it's I guess I should say it it

[3:57:45] piqued my interest and seemed um to be

[3:57:48] economical as well as um being able to

[3:57:51] um not really impact infrastructure and

[3:57:56] and um be used when the tide is high and

[3:58:00] then when the tides go down the gate

[3:58:03] goes up and and and we're fine. So, um,

[3:58:08] » I do think I I am not an um don't

[3:58:13] represent the ecologist point of view on

[3:58:15] this, but there are sensitive mud flats

[3:58:17] that line the edge of the lagoon. So I

[3:58:21] would say before you know deciding on

[3:58:24] anything that we would really want to

[3:58:26] make sure that those are preserved to

[3:58:30] the ext like greatest possible extent

[3:58:32] that we can and that a tide gate would

[3:58:35] not impact that whatsoever.

[3:58:39] » And

[3:58:40] » All right thank you.

[3:58:41] » We also oh from um the ESA team we have

[3:58:44] Dr. Matt Brennan who um was also

[3:58:47] involved with the EI and looking at sea

[3:58:49] level rise.

[3:58:50] » Um so he might be able to um add some

[3:58:53] additional technical information for

[3:58:54] this question as well.

[3:58:57] » Uh sure. Good evening council members.

[3:58:59] My name is Matt Brennan. I'm a coastal

[3:59:01] engineer and I've worked on sealed

[3:59:03] adaptation projects along the bay

[3:59:05] shoreline as well as h helping with

[3:59:07] drafting the EIR and also the seal

[3:59:10] technical report for this study. Um I I

[3:59:13] [clears throat] in my mind I would think

[3:59:14] that these are somewhat independent. Uh

[3:59:17] the northshore of the lagoon that's

[3:59:19] mostly within the specific plan area

[3:59:22] actually is relatively high and has a

[3:59:24] pretty good adaptation approach in terms

[3:59:27] of its um basically on the north shore

[3:59:29] of the lagoon because of the space there

[3:59:32] and because of the proposed um uh

[3:59:35] setback for the road there you can

[3:59:37] basically create a horizontal levy there

[3:59:39] if you've heard that terminology. So,

[3:59:41] it's actually a good setting along the

[3:59:43] specific plan site to create this sort

[3:59:46] of gradually gently sloping 50 to1 slope

[3:59:50] that can gently allow uh wetland

[3:59:53] habitats to move up slope. Um you'd

[3:59:56] almost call it like a managed retreat

[3:59:58] there for um uh I'm missing the name of

[4:00:01] the roadway right now, but um some

[4:00:03] Lagoon Road,

[4:00:04] » Right? So, Lagoon Road will actually be

[4:00:06] set back by like two or 30 hundred feet

[4:00:08] under the plan area. um that will allow

[4:00:11] for this very nice green ecoone slope.

[4:00:15] So the specific plan area on the north

[4:00:17] shore is actually better situated than

[4:00:19] most of the lagoon shoreline to be able

[4:00:22] to adapt to sea level rise in this way

[4:00:24] that has a much more nature-based

[4:00:27] transgressive space under the other

[4:00:30] report that I believe you're referring

[4:00:32] to um council member Lens which is the

[4:00:35] SSAP program and Chaffenhe uh adaptation

[4:00:39] plan for the lagoon that addresses the

[4:00:42] other two you know if you think of the

[4:00:43] the ba the lagoon as a triangle, the

[4:00:46] other two shorelines. So, I think there

[4:00:48] may be other decisions that you make for

[4:00:50] the other two shorelines

[4:00:53] um of the lagoon. But in terms of the

[4:00:56] southern part of the plan area, which is

[4:00:58] the northern part of the lagoon, it's

[4:01:00] actually fairly well accommodated to

[4:01:03] adjusting to sea level rise without a

[4:01:05] tide gate.

[4:01:06] » Madame Mayor, if you don't mind, I think

[4:01:09] I may be confused about the structure of

[4:01:11] this meeting. Last time we had a

[4:01:14] meeting, we did

[4:01:18] um

[4:01:19] measure JJ compliance

[4:01:23] public comment. Then we did energy use

[4:01:26] public comment. Then we didn't make it

[4:01:30] to GHG air quality. So we rolled that

[4:01:33] topic over. We started with that public

[4:01:36] comment. Then I thought we are doing

[4:01:40] land use and design guidelines public

[4:01:42] comment and then open spaces and

[4:01:45] amenities public comment sea level rise

[4:01:48] public comment. So are we

[4:01:50] » Asking all of our questions right now?

[4:01:52] because I have questions about open

[4:01:54] space and amenities and I have questions

[4:01:55] about sea level rise but I thought that

[4:01:58] I'm withholding those questions until we

[4:02:00] get so I just don't know like

[4:02:03] » Because we're at 9:30

[4:02:06] » So I almost feel like going forward and

[4:02:08] I don't know if this is appropriate

[4:02:10] really to suggest because it really is a

[4:02:11] departure from our process but I see so

[4:02:14] many people in the room here and I'm

[4:02:16] also cognizant of the amount of time

[4:02:17] that the council has taken in this

[4:02:19] meeting and in the meeting last time for

[4:02:22] hour questions and to the point that a

[4:02:25] lot of people didn't get to ask their

[4:02:26] questions and had to come today and

[4:02:28] still wait like an hour, hour and a half

[4:02:30] minimum to get to the question that they

[4:02:32] were here for last time. I wonder if

[4:02:34] next time we should just start with the

[4:02:36] public's comments and then ask our

[4:02:39] comments. Ask our start with the

[4:02:41] public's questions and the public's

[4:02:42] comments and then we ask our questions

[4:02:45] because we really were taking a

[4:02:47] significant amount of time which is part

[4:02:49] of the process and it is part of our

[4:02:51] job. But I'm seeing all these people in

[4:02:53] the room. I know Ariel is here for open

[4:02:56] space and we haven't even I don't think

[4:02:59] we've even gotten to that. So,

[4:03:02] I'm just trying to think of how we can

[4:03:04] better utilize our time and if I'm

[4:03:06] understanding the structure of this

[4:03:08] meeting right,

[4:03:10] » We're following the same structure that

[4:03:12] we normally would do, which is a staff

[4:03:14] report, council questions, and then the

[4:03:17] public. And that's just simply how we've

[4:03:20] been doing it. I'm not saying it has to

[4:03:22] be that way. That's

[4:03:23] » So, should we right now be asking

[4:03:25] questions about open space and amenities

[4:03:27] and also sea level rise? Because last

[4:03:29] time we took it topic by topic. Each

[4:03:32] topic we asked questions and then the

[4:03:35] public came like Michelle commented like

[4:03:37] three four times, right? And and Paul

[4:03:40] commented several times because we took

[4:03:43] it just with their this tonight has

[4:03:46] multiple topics within the subject

[4:03:49] matter. So we did it topic by topic and

[4:03:51] I just I was assuming we were doing it

[4:03:53] like that. And I don't know

[4:03:56] » The answer to your question is this is

[4:03:59] the way it was set up on the agenda.

[4:04:00] » Okay.

[4:04:01] » So it's the whole ball of wax.

[4:04:03] » Okay.

[4:04:04] » So if I may, I would make a motion to

[4:04:07] extend the meeting by half an hour, but

[4:04:09] that we go straight into public comments

[4:04:12] if the [snorts] council members could

[4:04:14] wrap up their comments. Um

[4:04:16] » Not doing anymore.

[4:04:18] » And then we could hear from the public

[4:04:20] who's here so that we get their point of

[4:04:23] view. But with that, I'd make a motion

[4:04:24] to extend half an hour.

[4:04:26] » And are you including then continuing

[4:04:28] council questions to the next meeting

[4:04:31] since

[4:04:31] » I think we have to Well, we're going to

[4:04:34] continue the meeting. Yes.

[4:04:35] » Yes.

[4:04:35] » Okay. I'll second. I'm sorry.

[4:04:37] » And I was just going to say and instead

[4:04:39] of going right to the public, I had one

[4:04:41] comment on what you were saying about

[4:04:43] the lagoon,

[4:04:44] » But I didn't get a chance.

[4:04:46] » Sorry. Sorry.

[4:04:47] So um

[4:04:50] » I make a motion to extend the meeting

[4:04:52] for half an hour.

[4:04:53] » Second.

[4:04:54] » All in favor?

[4:04:55] » I

[4:04:56] » I

[4:04:56] » Okay. So the meeting will be extended

[4:04:59] till 10:30. I'm sorry, 10 o'clock. Um a

[4:05:03] question for um Mr. Brennan,

[4:05:09] in the sea level rise subcommittee in

[4:05:11] the meetings that we've had and what you

[4:05:14] characterized on the north shore of the

[4:05:16] lagoon, we were actually told that there

[4:05:19] was a problem at the intersection right

[4:05:22] near our bridge and that is the north

[4:05:25] part of the shore and that potentially

[4:05:28] that could affect the Cal Train tracks

[4:05:31] and it wouldn't affect the Lagoon Road

[4:05:33] being moved further north on the east

[4:05:36] side of Lagoon Road, but on the west

[4:05:39] side that it would and they were very

[4:05:41] concerned about that. So, it's more of a

[4:05:43] comment that maybe

[4:05:46] it would be a good idea to consult with

[4:05:50] all the consultants that are working on

[4:05:52] that project and one shoreline because

[4:05:55] we did go over that about railroad

[4:05:57] tracks and the roadway where everything

[4:06:00] intersects in that little corner and

[4:06:02] that they had identified it as a problem

[4:06:05] area.

[4:06:08] » If I may, Mayor Macken, I just want to

[4:06:10] build on that. We also have those

[4:06:12] existing use areas that I mentioned

[4:06:13] earlier and that includes Ricology

[4:06:16] » And that includes Golden State Lumber,

[4:06:18] Kinder Morton Tag Farm. They're not

[4:06:20] being raised up. They will also be low

[4:06:22] areas um that are would be subject to

[4:06:25] flooding once everything is graded and

[4:06:26] raised. So, I just want to just add that

[4:06:28] in before Matt uh potentially dives into

[4:06:30] the question there. Thank you. And one

[4:06:32] other thing that I was going to say is

[4:06:34] that one of the other comments that was

[4:06:37] made in the meeting we had about that

[4:06:38] was that it's not just that it's a part

[4:06:41] of a lagoon, but that's where there's a

[4:06:43] lot of runoff especially in storms. It

[4:06:46] comes down that hill naturally feeds

[4:06:48] into the lagoon part of it there and

[4:06:51] that that's why that area might be

[4:06:53] subject to flooding. So

[4:06:56] » Sure I happy to comment on those. I I

[4:06:58] have not reviewed the in detail the area

[4:07:01] outside the plan area though although I

[4:07:02] am familiar with Shaff and Wheeler and

[4:07:04] their work to a certain degree uh with

[4:07:06] regard to Lagoon. I think you may be

[4:07:07] talking about where Tunnel Avenue

[4:07:09] crosses railroad tracks and that small

[4:07:10] drainage creek that comes out there. I

[4:07:12] think that actually is technically

[4:07:14] outside of the plan area. So I haven't

[4:07:15] looked at that in detail and that would

[4:07:18] in my mind be sort of in that western

[4:07:22] side of the you know if you think of the

[4:07:24] lagoon shoreline is just a triangle but

[4:07:26] obviously the western side needs to meet

[4:07:27] the northern side at that northwest

[4:07:29] corner and often with civil rise I

[4:07:33] totally agree that while it may meet the

[4:07:35] conditions on one parcel you have to

[4:07:37] obviously work with the grades that go

[4:07:39] from one parcel to the adjoining parcel.

[4:07:41] So both those things can be true. Um,

[4:07:45] let's see. The other one that was

[4:07:47] brought up was sorry was the uh Kinder

[4:07:49] Morgan. I know Kinder Morgan came up as

[4:07:51] a specific question in um some of the

[4:07:53] comments on the EIR that I responded to

[4:07:56] and we looked at the elevation there.

[4:07:58] Kinder the Kinder Morgan partial is not

[4:08:00] quite as high as what is proposed for

[4:08:03] the rest of the Baylands, but it's

[4:08:04] pretty close. So, while it may not be

[4:08:07] resilient for quite as much sea level

[4:08:09] rise as the specific plans proposed

[4:08:11] grading, it was fairly close. say, you

[4:08:14] know, up to 5t of sea level rise and

[4:08:16] sort of was just starting to infringe on

[4:08:18] the edges. I don't know the particulars

[4:08:20] about Golden Gate lumber, but like I

[4:08:23] said, Kinder Morgan was a comment that

[4:08:25] was um brought up for the EIR that we

[4:08:27] did look at in detail. Um, one of the

[4:08:30] last ones is for the other drainage part

[4:08:32] is um, there's that small creek that

[4:08:34] comes out under Tunnel Avenue which is

[4:08:36] just south of the specific plan area,

[4:08:38] but there is also Visitation Creek which

[4:08:40] is part of the drainage from the

[4:08:42] hillside. And there is some um concern

[4:08:46] about drainage and flooding along like

[4:08:48] Beayshore Boulevard and like the

[4:08:50] Levenson detention basin right where

[4:08:52] like there's that sort of corner of

[4:08:53] Beayshore Boulevard. um that area under

[4:08:56] the specific plan would be protected

[4:08:58] because there would be um to your point

[4:09:00] about like you know the opportunities

[4:09:02] for using a tide gate. The specific plan

[4:09:04] proposes adding a tide gate um to

[4:09:08] visitation creek for the areas on the

[4:09:10] eastern side of the parcel. So that same

[4:09:12] idea of having a tide gate that doesn't

[4:09:14] allow tides to propagate upstream um

[4:09:18] would occur. That tide gate would be

[4:09:20] just on the eastern side of the proposed

[4:09:22] storm water detention basin.

[4:09:24] Um, and just to revisit back to the

[4:09:26] question about the LMF, the LMF would

[4:09:28] reduce the size of the detention basin

[4:09:31] that was proposed originally in the

[4:09:34] older specific plan. Um, and so that's

[4:09:37] where some of that benefit of having

[4:09:40] that detention basin and then the tide

[4:09:41] gate that would, you know, sort of be on

[4:09:43] the east side and allow that detention

[4:09:45] basin to not get inundated with the

[4:09:47] tides would be reduced.

[4:09:49] Um, it could be addressed and as a as an

[4:09:53] alternate that has been discussed in

[4:09:54] some of the revised plans by having some

[4:09:56] other ways of conveying water or sort of

[4:09:59] a dealing with that reduced conveyance,

[4:10:02] reduce storage volume that would be

[4:10:03] there for the LMF.

[4:10:07] Okay, thank you very much.

[4:10:12] All right,

[4:10:14] I'm going to read the names that we've

[4:10:16] got on slips. So that you know the order

[4:10:20] we first will have Melissa Foley

[4:10:24] followed by Paul Bascal,

[4:10:26] Anthony Walker,

[4:10:28] Alli Zapperman,

[4:10:32] Clara Johnson, Karen Cunningham,

[4:10:37] Michelle I can't read. Alammon,

[4:10:43] Ariel,

[4:10:45] Linda Salmon,

[4:10:48] Roland,

[4:10:50] Eileene Mclofflin.

[4:10:52] » Did you call mine, Colleen? Mine was all

[4:10:54] on one sheet.

[4:10:57] » That was the one you couldn't read.

[4:10:59] » Oh, that's the one I can't read. Okay.

[4:11:03] Oh, okay. Yes, that's [snorts] you.

[4:11:06] Alman, it's Salmon. All right, Melissa

[4:11:08] Foley.

[4:11:15] Great. Good evening, mayor and council

[4:11:17] members. My name is Melissa Foley and

[4:11:19] I'm a science director at the San

[4:11:20] Francisco Estuary Institute or SFBI.

[4:11:23] We're a research nonprofit that provides

[4:11:25] science to managers and communities to

[4:11:27] revitalize nature in our communities in

[4:11:29] the Bay Area. SFI reviewed and provided

[4:11:32] independent ecological planning and

[4:11:34] design recommendations to BDI to

[4:11:37] incorporate into the updated balance

[4:11:38] specific plan that you're considering

[4:11:40] this evening. The recommendations we

[4:11:42] provided align the best available

[4:11:44] science on native plants, wildlife safe

[4:11:47] design and connectivity with feedback

[4:11:49] from local environmental organizations.

[4:11:53] The Balins will be the first of its kind

[4:11:55] development in the Bay Area that

[4:11:56] intentionally brings together people and

[4:11:58] nature at this scale by employing a

[4:12:01] range of nature-based solutions to

[4:12:03] provide multiple benefits ranging from

[4:12:05] access to nature to heat mitigation to

[4:12:08] biodiversity that will support healthy

[4:12:11] and resilient outcomes for people and

[4:12:13] wildlife. As long as the balins is

[4:12:16] planned, designed, implemented, and

[4:12:18] maintained with these multiple benefits

[4:12:21] in mind, the balins can serve as an

[4:12:23] example to cities throughout the Bay

[4:12:25] Area of how communities and nature can

[4:12:28] thrive together. I wanted to highlight

[4:12:30] three examples from the specific plan

[4:12:33] that stand out for the region.

[4:12:35] First, the commitment to a high

[4:12:37] proportion of native plants throughout

[4:12:38] the project area and 100% native in the

[4:12:41] habitat restoration enhancement and

[4:12:43] other sensitive areas is commendable. A

[4:12:46] diverse assemblage of native vegetation

[4:12:48] will support local wildlife, expand

[4:12:51] populations of locally adapted plants,

[4:12:53] and reduce maintenance needs,

[4:12:55] particularly the need for irrigation

[4:12:57] once plants are established.

[4:13:00] Second, by recognizing the importance of

[4:13:02] the bayons for supporting local and

[4:13:04] regional habitat connectivity, wildlife

[4:13:06] movement, and habitat access to green

[4:13:08] space, uh, sorry, human access to green

[4:13:11] space. This specific plan takes a

[4:13:13] landscape scale view that is needed in

[4:13:15] the Bay Area to make our urban areas

[4:13:17] healthier for people and wildlife and

[4:13:19] more resilient to climate change.

[4:13:22] Third, the wildlife safe design features

[4:13:25] included in the specific plan,

[4:13:26] particularly for lighting and building

[4:13:28] design, ensure that the developed areas

[4:13:30] introduce as few hazards as possible for

[4:13:33] wildlife while ensuring residents

[4:13:35] safety.

[4:13:37] I know there will be challenges along

[4:13:38] the way of implementing this project and

[4:13:41] trade-offs among all of the ambitious

[4:13:42] goals. A functioning ecosystem is at the

[4:13:45] heart of thriving communities. So I

[4:13:47] encourage the city of Brisbane to lean

[4:13:49] in and make this an example of urban

[4:13:51] planning and development that is looked

[4:13:53] to throughout the region. Thank you.

[4:13:57] » Thank you. Melissa

[4:13:59] Paul

[4:14:06] scale Brisbane resident.

[4:14:08] Um so as far as sea level rise

[4:14:10] adaptability

[4:14:12] um visitation creek seems to be would

[4:14:16] seem to have the most impact on the

[4:14:20] development.

[4:14:21] Uh so a thought for that would be uh

[4:14:26] possibly to close off the outlet to the

[4:14:30] bay

[4:14:31] and on the railroad side which was not

[4:14:36] unregulated landfill

[4:14:39] run a pipeline

[4:14:41] from Visitation Creek to the lagoon

[4:14:46] along the backside of

[4:14:49] the corpyard

[4:14:51] and not have the channel with the leech

[4:14:54] in the unregulated landfill. That's an

[4:14:57] issue.

[4:14:58] And then that could be just filled in

[4:15:01] that channel

[4:15:03] because unlike

[4:15:05] the lagoon

[4:15:07] which was stated to have

[4:15:10] uh habitat in the mud flats,

[4:15:13] that channel

[4:15:15] east of tunnel.

[4:15:17] Uh

[4:15:19] while it does support habitat, it's it's

[4:15:21] not mud flats and it's leech and it's

[4:15:23] garbage and all kinds of stuff. So, what

[4:15:27] if we just

[4:15:29] didn't deal with that part of the

[4:15:30] channel and ran that water to the

[4:15:32] lagoon?

[4:15:34] So, that was one thing I thought we

[4:15:36] could do. The other thing that I thought

[4:15:38] we could do, and I mentioned it before,

[4:15:41] is move the housing out of the bayons.

[4:15:45] Um,

[4:15:47] I like the idea of the smaller units and

[4:15:50] maybe live, work was mentioned, like

[4:15:53] people that own businesses.

[4:15:55] uh not necessarily families

[4:15:58] um for a lot of reasons. I'd like to see

[4:16:01] the development because there aren't

[4:16:03] entitlements yet. And Cliff, you

[4:16:05] mentioned that you getting close to

[4:16:09] wrapping this up. You'd like to get this

[4:16:12] moving. I don't think we're close at

[4:16:15] all. and we should have a entertainment

[4:16:19] center or some real big draw in the bay

[4:16:22] lands to take advantage of the public

[4:16:25] transportation that's inadequate for

[4:16:28] housing. You know, the the housing

[4:16:31] transit orientated

[4:16:33] doesn't work. It's not frequent enough.

[4:16:36] So,

[4:16:39] I think we should move the housing to

[4:16:40] the Levenson property

[4:16:43] uh and set money aside through the HCP

[4:16:46] because it's in the HCP for the fragile

[4:16:49] habitat on the upper slopes. The lower

[4:16:52] slopes are impacted by eucalyptus trees.

[4:16:56] Uh it's right near infrastructure,

[4:17:00] street, water, sewer. Uh talking about

[4:17:03] water, if we just took the housing out

[4:17:05] of the bay lands, maybe not all of it,

[4:17:09] but the family style homes, not homes,

[4:17:13] but probably highrises.

[4:17:16] Uh

[4:17:17] give the developer a density transfer

[4:17:19] like we did in the acres. We gave people

[4:17:22] that own property in acres an

[4:17:25] opportunity to build twice the density

[4:17:28] down here because we wanted to save the

[4:17:30] habitat. I think building homes in the

[4:17:34] bay lands

[4:17:36] with the issue with liquefaction even if

[4:17:39] they go down to you know highrises of

[4:17:42] course are going to go to the bedrock.

[4:17:44] They have to. They did it out at the

[4:17:45] marina. All those buildings are pile

[4:17:48] driven in the bedrock. the same 40 ft of

[4:17:51] mud. So, [clears throat]

[4:17:54] let's

[4:17:55] take this opportunity to make something

[4:17:57] really special. I mean, you mentioned

[4:18:01] having something special there. Let's

[4:18:03] get these these houses built in our

[4:18:06] school district. We don't need to be

[4:18:08] working with the school district that

[4:18:09] doesn't want to work with our school

[4:18:11] districts.

[4:18:13] So, we have a pedestrian bridge going

[4:18:16] over from those

[4:18:18] highrises

[4:18:20] into the bay lands eventually, but we

[4:18:22] need to build houses now, right? And

[4:18:25] maybe they could help us do it. Thank

[4:18:27] you.

[4:18:29] » Anthony Walker,

[4:18:32] is he still here?

[4:18:35] No. Okay. Ally

[4:18:54] Good evening, mayor and council members.

[4:18:55] I'm Ally Saperman with the Housing

[4:18:56] Action Coalition. We urge the council to

[4:18:59] certify the final EIR and adopt a

[4:19:01] Bayland specific plan that is feasible,

[4:19:04] flexible, and able to deliver thousands

[4:19:06] of homes, including affordable homes.

[4:19:07] this regently this region urgently

[4:19:09] needs. We already committed to the

[4:19:11] bayands as a majority of the site

[4:19:13] inventory in the housing element. The

[4:19:15] city could have chosen to build housing

[4:19:17] elsewhere, but instead you all committed

[4:19:19] to the Baylands. Due to significant

[4:19:21] delays on the b on the bayands plans on

[4:19:23] June 30th, HCD revoked its finding that

[4:19:27] ba that Brisbane's housing element

[4:19:28] complies with the law. Brisbane is now

[4:19:31] exposed to the builder's remedy, loss of

[4:19:32] state funding, court imposed penalties,

[4:19:35] and referral to the attorney general.

[4:19:37] There's a clear simple path back to

[4:19:39] compliance. Adopt the bayands specific

[4:19:41] plan and zoning. The baylands will take

[4:19:43] decades to build out, so the land use

[4:19:45] plan must be flexible enough to adapt

[4:19:47] over time while still delivering housing

[4:19:49] and community benefits. We recognize

[4:19:52] this is a complicated project and the

[4:19:54] city has put substantial effort into

[4:19:55] getting here. But these hearings are

[4:19:57] already behind schedule and after 20

[4:19:59] years of analysis and public input, it's

[4:20:01] time to move forward. Brisbane, our

[4:20:03] region, and the state cannot afford

[4:20:05] further delays. Thank you.

[4:20:07] Okay. Thank you,

[4:20:10] Clara Johnson.

[4:20:12] Clara still here?

[4:20:14] » No longer.

[4:20:14] » No. Karen Cunningham.

[4:20:18] No.

[4:20:19] Michelle.

[4:20:24] » I am still here. I'm still alive. Uh,

[4:20:28] it's been so long I forgot what I was

[4:20:29] going to say. No, what I really want to

[4:20:31] say is I think that the draft DIIR is

[4:20:35] still incomplete and one of the areas of

[4:20:37] greatest concern for me is the lead

[4:20:40] deposition along Old Bay Shore and along

[4:20:45] the 101 and that has not been studied.

[4:20:47] It is not in the draft which I read. Um

[4:20:52] we've had lead gasoline uh vehicles

[4:20:55] going there from 1925 till 1992.

[4:20:59] That's a lot of lead deposition that

[4:21:01] hasn't been studied and also pollution

[4:21:04] from tires, etc. And that's where you're

[4:21:07] planning to put a school and that's a

[4:21:09] really really bad idea unless we figure

[4:21:13] that out. Um, so that's really been on

[4:21:16] my mind a lot. I'm a yes for

[4:21:18] conservation easements. Um, I'm a yes

[4:21:22] for lower heights of the buildings. I

[4:21:24] think 12 stories is just plenty. um

[4:21:28] design. The Dacon building built at

[4:21:31] Sierra Point Park out at Sierra Point

[4:21:34] was an award-winning design. It was a

[4:21:37] building beyond belief when they first

[4:21:39] built it. And yet over time it was

[4:21:42] bought by somebody else and remodeled

[4:21:44] into something that is really not very

[4:21:46] spectacular. I just want to remind

[4:21:48] people of that. And um there are many

[4:21:51] more things that came up during this,

[4:21:52] but I'm going to be brief. The only one

[4:21:54] thing I want to make sure I do is invite

[4:21:56] everybody to come Monday night here in

[4:22:00] this room uh for the Brisbane and

[4:22:02] Baylands Community Action Group meeting

[4:22:06] where representatives from the

[4:22:09] Department of Toxic Substance Control

[4:22:12] and the Regional Water Quality Control

[4:22:15] Board will be here to answer questions

[4:22:18] about remediation.

[4:22:20] And I think it is very very important

[4:22:22] for the community to attend so you

[4:22:25] really do learn more about what lies

[4:22:27] beneath. Thank you.

[4:22:30] » Thank you Michelle. Ariel. Ariel. Ariel.

[4:22:35] » I know.

[4:22:37] » Poor Ariel.

[4:22:38] » I know.

[4:22:44] » Good evening Mayor and members of the

[4:22:46] city council. Thank you very much for

[4:22:48] the opportunity to talk and thank you

[4:22:50] for the pointing me to the right comment

[4:22:52] period. I didn't want to talk about

[4:22:54] green houses, greenhouse gases, but I do

[4:22:56] want to talk about a greenhouse. Um I'm

[4:22:58] here with San Bruno Mountain watch, but

[4:23:00] also here representing Mission Blue

[4:23:02] Nursery. Um as you know, the nursery has

[4:23:04] been on the bay land since 2009. We

[4:23:06] really appreciate the support of the

[4:23:08] Bayands Development Company that's given

[4:23:10] us that property to use for those many

[4:23:12] years. And we think of the nursery as

[4:23:15] the example of um of the greening of the

[4:23:20] bayand. It's a place that was a piece of

[4:23:22] empty Bay and over these past uh years

[4:23:26] with the support of the community has

[4:23:27] been transformed into a really beautiful

[4:23:30] community gathering place into a a place

[4:23:32] that's grown hundreds of thousands of

[4:23:34] native plants for restoration on on San

[4:23:37] Bruno Mountain. It's also a place that,

[4:23:40] as noted in the uh bailance plan,

[4:23:42] connects the mountain with the bay. We

[4:23:45] see egrets at our nursery garden. Um we

[4:23:47] see just awesome scrub jays on Monday

[4:23:50] and our oak trees. We have painted

[4:23:52] ladies and green hair streaks and um any

[4:23:54] swallow tails and more butterflies that

[4:23:56] use our nursery. And so um the values

[4:23:59] that our nursery embodies using and

[4:24:01] growing locally native plants and

[4:24:03] connecting the mountain with the

[4:24:04] community um are values that we see

[4:24:07] represented in the Brisbane open space

[4:24:10] plan um or in the open space plan and

[4:24:13] the balance uh specific plan. We

[4:24:16] appreciate that the balance specific

[4:24:18] plan requires the use of native plants

[4:24:20] in the restoration locally sourced

[4:24:23] native plants in the restoration of open

[4:24:25] spaces like Ice House Hill. Um, we

[4:24:28] really loved being part of that, the

[4:24:30] first Ice House Hill habitat restoration

[4:24:32] event in partnership with the city of

[4:24:33] Brisbane last December and we'd love to

[4:24:36] see more events like that happen in the

[4:24:38] near future and long term to restore not

[4:24:41] just um ice house and the butterfly

[4:24:43] habitat there, but also um the

[4:24:45] visitation creek and the marsh habitat

[4:24:48] and upland habitat around the Brisbane

[4:24:50] lagoon.

[4:24:52] Um we think that the nursery can be a

[4:24:54] key part of future restoration around

[4:24:56] the the balance properties uh growing

[4:24:58] plants for these areas and also for um

[4:25:02] the urban portions and and community

[4:25:04] parks. And so we really want to thank

[4:25:06] the planning commission and city staff

[4:25:08] for the recommendation that the nursery

[4:25:11] um stay in its current location. That's

[4:25:13] where we think it would best um operate.

[4:25:16] And we think it could also fit well um

[4:25:19] as a site of recreation where students

[4:25:21] and community members could be going to

[4:25:23] exercise and could also be coming to

[4:25:25] volunteer as well as another form of

[4:25:27] outdoor recreation. And so to um

[4:25:31] conclude, we just want to say we

[4:25:33] appreciate these portions of the open

[4:25:36] space um plans that are in the Balance

[4:25:39] Pacific plan and we support uh the

[4:25:42] passing of a balance plan that keeps the

[4:25:44] nursery in its current location and

[4:25:46] includes this uh sensitive restoration

[4:25:48] to happen. Um, so thank you very much.

[4:25:51] And if I could just take a few seconds

[4:25:52] on a separate note to thank the council

[4:25:54] also for um co-sponsoring the meet the

[4:25:58] mountain fair that happened this past

[4:25:59] Saturday. It was a really beautiful

[4:26:00] event and the city staff that supported

[4:26:02] it, Andy, Isaiah, Jeff Ricardo, and

[4:26:04] everyone else. Um, we just really want

[4:26:06] to say thank you. So, um, thank you very

[4:26:09] much.

[4:26:10] » Thank you, Linda Sherman.

[4:26:23] Hi. I hope we have time after all this

[4:26:26] is done when we have public comment

[4:26:28] again because having it in the middle of

[4:26:29] it is kind of crazy, at least for me.

[4:26:33] [clears throat]

[4:26:34] I'm not opposed to having dwelling units

[4:26:38] on the bayand. When we did the 1994

[4:26:41] general plan, we gave plenty of FS so

[4:26:45] that u some highrises I don't know about

[4:26:49] 20 stories but you know could be built

[4:26:52] with dwelling units like apartments that

[4:26:55] could be either bought or rented to

[4:26:57] working people on top of it so that they

[4:27:00] weren't on toxic soil directly. And I

[4:27:04] still [clears throat] think that that's

[4:27:05] the best solution for housing on the bay

[4:27:08] lands and uh rather than putting um

[4:27:12] actual people on the toxic stuff. It's

[4:27:16] just not it's not [clears throat] safe.

[4:27:23] And instead we got from um I don't know

[4:27:27] TUNT sequest whatever you're calling

[4:27:29] yourself now. We had this incredible

[4:27:31] architect that came here to Brisbane.

[4:27:33] Some of you may remember you were around

[4:27:35] and with this wonderful building that

[4:27:37] everybody in the town was so happy about

[4:27:39] and saying yes, we're going to have

[4:27:41] this. It was it's it was beautiful. And

[4:27:43] do you remember that Terry? I don't know

[4:27:45] if you were here, but anyway. So, and

[4:27:48] then

[4:27:50] it got taken away just like just like

[4:27:52] that. It's what what we had agreed for

[4:27:55] what we had put in the in 30 some odd

[4:27:59] years ago. So when you're complaining

[4:28:00] about 20 years versus 30 years, I mean,

[4:28:04] we're going we've been doing this for

[4:28:05] hella long time,

[4:28:08] [clears throat] it's definitely time to

[4:28:09] come to some kind of a plan that is also

[4:28:13] flexible that will allow dwelling units.

[4:28:17] I call them dwelling units, not houses,

[4:28:20] because houses implies that they're on

[4:28:22] the land and they can have a garden and

[4:28:24] do all kinds of other things that houses

[4:28:26] do. And this is not safe for this area.

[4:28:30] Squa is about safety. It's not about not

[4:28:33] building. It's about safety. And this is

[4:28:36] why we're not building on our own

[4:28:37] mountain because our soil ray wacky is

[4:28:41] subject to landslides in a big way as we

[4:28:44] discovered a few years back uh a couple

[4:28:47] years ago on on the other another canyon

[4:28:49] next to us. And this is why we said no

[4:28:52] more no more. This is why we started the

[4:28:54] program of building up land, taking land

[4:28:56] where this wouldn't happen. And we have

[4:28:59] the same problem here. We do have a

[4:29:02] lagoon and the lagoon gets fed in part

[4:29:05] by mountain by stuff from the from our

[4:29:08] mountain that comes down. So it's fresh

[4:29:10] water and salt water. And there is a

[4:29:12] problem with the overpass that I think

[4:29:15] it was Walt Peters who when he was part

[4:29:18] of their our our city um identified and

[4:29:23] that has never been fixed and it has to

[4:29:25] be done. So we have we do have issues

[4:29:27] that we have to do before we can do

[4:29:30] other kinds of buildings and figuring

[4:29:32] things out. So in some sense we're not

[4:29:35] there yet. In another sense we could be

[4:29:38] there. We don't have an adequate EIR

[4:29:41] that still doesn't look at the racetrack

[4:29:43] and the glue factory and other stuff

[4:29:45] that happened on the bayands. We need to

[4:29:48] remedy that before we can actually do

[4:29:51] authorize a general plan. And if there's

[4:29:54] some way that the the any authorizations

[4:29:57] or permits that we give can be made for

[4:30:00] this owner only and if they sell off the

[4:30:03] property as a whole, I think they're

[4:30:05] planning to do then they have to start

[4:30:07] all over again. I'm sorry, but we don't

[4:30:10] want another situation that we had on

[4:30:11] the northeast ridge. Thank you.

[4:30:17] » Thank you. Uh Roland, is Roland still

[4:30:19] online? City clerk.

[4:30:25] » Yeah, we're already see still here and

[4:30:27] sorry I didn't beat the 10:00

[4:30:30] um hour. I'm going to be very quick. So,

[4:30:33] a couple of answers. Um Madame Mayor

[4:30:36] with regards to the question about

[4:30:37] silent piling the answer is called it's

[4:30:41] called geon pile g i k e n

[4:30:46] first came across them in 2008 and most

[4:30:49] recently they were used by the uh boring

[4:30:52] company in Las Vegas for the people

[4:30:55] mover for the convention center. Now

[4:30:58] moving on to the uh last item is uh my

[4:31:02] proposal to basically elim completely

[4:31:05] eliminate the um HMF in Brisbane and

[4:31:09] relocated to Oakland and I'm pleased to

[4:31:12] inform you that

[4:31:15] um well first of all this has been

[4:31:17] rejected in the EIR as an alternative

[4:31:20] but I'm going to explain to you why

[4:31:22] that's not necessarily right. The state

[4:31:25] rail plant was modified in 2018 to

[4:31:29] modify the Salesforce transit center

[4:31:32] from the terminus which is what the

[4:31:34] highspeed rail lottery still thinks it

[4:31:37] is to a true station and it was

[4:31:40] reaffirmed in 2024 in the 2024

[4:31:44] California still state rail plan. Thank

[4:31:47] you and good night.

[4:31:49] » All right, thank you. And this is my

[4:31:52] last one. Eileen Mclofflin online.

[4:31:57] Eileen.

[4:32:00] [clears throat]

[4:32:02] » Good evening.

[4:32:03] » Yeah. Can you hear me?

[4:32:04] » We can hear you. Go ahead.

[4:32:06] » Okay. Good evening, Mayor Mack and

[4:32:08] members of council. I am Eileen McWin

[4:32:10] representing the citizens committee to

[4:32:12] complete the refuge. We are co-signers

[4:32:15] and co-authors of the joint letter

[4:32:17] referred to as the Sierra Club letter.

[4:32:20] We are pleased that multiple

[4:32:21] recommendations of the letter have been

[4:32:24] considered in the city's process.

[4:32:28] Remarkable and exceptional intentions of

[4:32:31] the specific plan will establish,

[4:32:34] restore or enhance ecologically rich

[4:32:37] areas, providing habitats that attract

[4:32:39] and serve increasingly biodiverse

[4:32:42] wildlife communities. We sincerely hope

[4:32:45] you will see those intentions become

[4:32:47] reality.

[4:32:49] Indeed, it has been recommended that

[4:32:51] conservation easements be applied to

[4:32:54] help ensure those ecological goals can

[4:32:57] be met. We hope that requirement is

[4:33:01] established

[4:33:02] toward that goal. And as discussed in

[4:33:05] our letter, we recommended that the

[4:33:07] city's dark skies policies be improved

[4:33:10] on behalf of healthy habitats.

[4:33:14] In general, dark skies policies

[4:33:16] emphasize limiting the escape of light

[4:33:19] skyward and is controlled within urban

[4:33:22] areas. The needs of ground dwelling

[4:33:25] species and species that are mobile at

[4:33:28] night are often not considered in those

[4:33:30] dark skies skyward policies.

[4:33:34] Night creatures have biologically

[4:33:36] adjusted to thrive in the darkest

[4:33:38] conditions. Light exposes them to

[4:33:41] predators, reduces their time to forage,

[4:33:44] and is a stressful disturbance affecting

[4:33:48] their reproduction.

[4:33:50] For those reasons, light fixtures as on

[4:33:52] trails needs to be placed and shielded

[4:33:56] to prevent spill into sensitive

[4:33:59] habitats. Local windows, balconies,

[4:34:02] outdoor lighting of sport sports courts

[4:34:05] or other fixtures should be timed and

[4:34:07] shielded to avoid light spill into those

[4:34:12] sensitive habitats that we so want to

[4:34:14] see developed here.

[4:34:17] One lighting reference used in the

[4:34:19] documents as a daily standard is the

[4:34:22] brightness of the full moon. This was

[4:34:25] confusing. We note that the light of the

[4:34:28] moon is full or near full for a very few

[4:34:31] days of each month. Night creatures

[4:34:35] reduce their activity during those

[4:34:37] bright nights. For that reason, daily

[4:34:41] light fixture standards should not be

[4:34:43] set to the light of the full moon as

[4:34:46] neither we nor ever experience a full

[4:34:50] moon every night. Please reset the

[4:34:53] outdoor and habitat adjacent light

[4:34:55] standard to 2700 Kelvin and be

[4:34:59] restricted to a warm color range that

[4:35:01] does not spill into ecologically

[4:35:05] sensitive areas.

[4:35:07] Again, we look forward to an

[4:35:09] ecologically rich shoreline for

[4:35:12] Brisbane. Thank you.

[4:35:15] » Thank you. Next I have Dao Jane Pi

[4:35:20] online.

[4:35:24] » Hello.

[4:35:26] Um so uh hopefully you can hear me. Um

[4:35:30] good evening council members. Uh my name

[4:35:32] is Dow Jane Pay. I'm the program and

[4:35:35] operations manager for Buildup Sanonteo

[4:35:37] County. Uh really quick, Buildup is a

[4:35:40] multis sector initiative whose mission

[4:35:42] is to preserve, expand, and improve

[4:35:43] child care facilities. and I'm here

[4:35:46] tonight to build on the letter that we

[4:35:48] sent to the city council dated September

[4:35:51] 11th, 2026. Thank you to council member

[4:35:54] Lent for calling attention to that

[4:35:56] letter tonight. Um and I really

[4:35:58] appreciate this opportunity to

[4:36:00] participate in the the baian's project

[4:36:02] uh project process. Um because tonight's

[4:36:06] discussion is specifically about the

[4:36:07] land use plan, we did want to point out,

[4:36:10] which I think we did in our letter also,

[4:36:12] is that we didn't see child care

[4:36:15] specifically addressed in the staff

[4:36:16] report. So with 2200 new homes and 6.5

[4:36:21] million square feet of commercial

[4:36:22] development, the Baylands project um

[4:36:25] when completed will create child care

[4:36:28] needs from both new residents and it

[4:36:30] will also bring in a significant new

[4:36:32] workforce. Child care is a part of the

[4:36:35] economic infrastructure of any community

[4:36:38] and it allows parents to work um and it

[4:36:41] helps employers to attract and retain a

[4:36:43] workforce.

[4:36:45] Brisbane already recognizes daycare as a

[4:36:48] residential supportive use in its

[4:36:50] general plan. Our request is that child

[4:36:52] care should also be intentionally

[4:36:54] considered as the council continues to

[4:36:56] discuss how uses are distributed across

[4:36:59] the bays, particularly in relation to

[4:37:02] residential neighborhoods and employment

[4:37:04] centers.

[4:37:06] With the scope of this project, you all

[4:37:08] are really designing and planning for uh

[4:37:11] for residents and a workforce that

[4:37:13] doesn't exist in Brisbane yet. Um, and

[4:37:16] that's a really hard job. It's a really

[4:37:18] hard job to predict the future.

[4:37:21] But we already know that child care is

[4:37:23] infrastructure and is an integral part

[4:37:25] of any thriving city. Uh as we've said

[4:37:30] throughout this process, allowing child

[4:37:32] care is not the same thing as planning

[4:37:33] for child care. So tonight's

[4:37:35] [clears throat] land use discussion is

[4:37:36] an important opportunity to make sure

[4:37:38] that this planning begins. Um, I just

[4:37:42] wanted to give a special thank you to

[4:37:44] council member Lent for reading our uh

[4:37:46] for reading buildup's recommendation to

[4:37:48] add a child care goal to section 2.2 and

[4:37:52] supporting this addition to the specific

[4:37:53] plan. Um, I also think I heard council

[4:37:56] members Kerna and Davis voice their

[4:37:59] support for the addition. Buildup is

[4:38:01] always available for continued

[4:38:03] discussion with all city council members

[4:38:05] um about our recommendation. And I also

[4:38:08] wanted to spend uh to to say thank you

[4:38:10] to the entire council and the city staff

[4:38:13] for the care and careful analysis you

[4:38:15] are putting into this project. It really

[4:38:18] shows in your questions and your

[4:38:20] comments and and the staff reports and

[4:38:22] presentations. Um I wish I could say

[4:38:26] this was probably going to be the last

[4:38:28] uh you know meeting that goes until 10

[4:38:30] 10:30, but I I I think this is just the

[4:38:32] beginning um of these long uh special

[4:38:36] meetings. But I do look forward to the

[4:38:38] upcoming discussions and participating

[4:38:40] in this exciting journey with you all.

[4:38:42] Thank you and have a good night.

[4:38:45] » Thank you. That's all the slips that we

[4:38:48] have and we are now out of time. That

[4:38:52] being said,

[4:38:54] um could I get a first and second to

[4:38:56] continue the public hearing

[4:38:59] uh to October 6, 2026 at 5:30 p.m.

[4:39:05] » When we say continue the public hearing,

[4:39:07] are we continuing the public hearing on

[4:39:09] the topics of land use and design topics

[4:39:11] or are we moving on to the next topic,

[4:39:13] which is transportation and transit

[4:39:14] topics?

[4:39:15] » We still had council questions on the

[4:39:18] land use topic. So that portion will

[4:39:22] appear on the next hearing along with

[4:39:24] some other topics.

[4:39:26] » To clarify, it is one public hearing.

[4:39:29] You are continuing the public hearing on

[4:39:32] the approvals before the council. You

[4:39:34] can discuss the topics as you'd like at

[4:39:37] the next meeting.

[4:39:37] » Okay. Thank you for that.

[4:39:40] » Okay. So, I did want to mention when in

[4:39:42] the initial presentation from staff,

[4:39:45] they did leave off the Monday, October

[4:39:48] 26th meeting in the announcement of the

[4:39:51] meeting schedule.

[4:39:54] » Okay. Thank you, Council Member

[4:39:56] Okonnell.

[4:39:56] » And with that, I'll second the motion.

[4:39:59] » I I didn't get a first, I don't think.

[4:40:01] » Oh, I'll make the motion to continue the

[4:40:03] meeting to

[4:40:07] » I need a second

[4:40:08] » October 6th.

[4:40:09] » I'll second. All in favor?

[4:40:11] » I I

[4:40:13] » Thank you everyone. Thank you for your

[4:40:15] endurance. Thank you for showing up in

[4:40:17] your interest, your comments, and your

[4:40:19] questions. Have a good night.

[4:40:21] » Thank you.

[4:40:22] » All right.

[4:40:28] [music]

[4:40:34] [music]

[4:40:36] Heat. Heat.

[4:40:39] [music]

[4:40:44] [music]

[4:40:52] [music]

Untitled meeting

Transcript