City Council - Special Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. so so

Welcome to the Brisbane City Council special meeting. Can you hear me now? Okay. I think we need some new microphones. Again, welcome. You are at the Brisbane special meeting of September 14th. Calling this meeting to order at 540. My apologies were a little bit late. We had a meeting before this. Let's start out with the Pledge of Allegiance. I hope you'll join me.

The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible,

WE HAVE A FULL HOUSE OF COUNCILMEMBERS HERE TONIGHT. NO ONE ATTENDING REMOTELY, SO CITY CLERK, COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE?

COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS? HERE. COUNCILMEMBER KERN?

HERE.

COUNCILMEMBER LENS?

HERE.

COUNCILMEMBER O'CONNELL?

HERE.

AND MAYOR MACKIN?

HERE. CAN I GET A FIRST AND SECOND TO ADOPT THE AGENDA AS IT STANDS?

SO MOVED.

SECOND. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Unanimous. We move on to the public hearing portion. And I have a couple things I'd like to say. I'm really pleased to see the room full tonight. You know, I heard a couple things recently about how we've had a plan on the table for 25 years in Brisbane. And I just have to dispel that myth because there have been a lot of different ideas on this property. And I don't know if everyone knows that. There hasn't just been one plan on the table. There's been a series of changes and modifications. The property out there is very, very complex. And I hear it referred to as a garbage dump. It was a garbage dump and, by today's standards, what we call hazardous waste dump at the same time. That entails a lot of special care in order to make things feasible for a development. So it's important. I hope that with these public hearings, you'll learn way more about this instead of big generalizations. And a lot of people over all this time, we've had a succession of different employees from the developer side. And it's been tough for everyone to keep up because there have been so many changes. And fortunately, I look at some of the delays were really very consequential and helpful because we learned so much more that we didn't know at the beginning. And one of the most important things is we have a commitment to make a very good development and make a development that's successful. You can't do that if you don't understand what you're dealing with. So maybe just for a little levity here, you know, years ago when I LOOKED ONLINE AND THERE WERE IDEAS THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. THERE WERE MANY UNUSUAL PLANS THAT WERE BEING CONSIDERED. THE FIRST ONE WAS IT WAS GOING TO BE A FINANCIAL CENTER WITH SKYSCRAPERS AND IT WAS GOING TO BE BIGGER AND TALLER THAN SAN FRANCISCO. And that was taken off the table. And then it was going to be an amusement park. It was going to rival Disneyland. And that was taken off the table. And then there was going to be, it was going to be almost like an event center with the world's tallest man-made waterfall. And that was taken off the table. So I'm not saying this to say that nobody knew what to do. I'm saying it so that you understand there's been lots of different approaches, thoughtful approaches, very innovative approaches to say, what can be done there? You're dealing with a toxic site. You're dealing with bay water that was filled with all kinds of refuse and dirt from surrounding hills. And it requires special accommodations to make that either livable or usable for the long term. SO WE ARE ALL COMMITTED IN BRISBANE TO A POSITIVE OUTCOME. AND I CONSIDER ALL OF YOU HERE AS COLLABORATORS BECAUSE OUR STAFF, OUR LEGAL TEAM, OUR CONSULTANTS, THE DEVELOPER, THE COUNCIL WE'RE NOT ALL EXPERTS, AND WE ARE ALWAYS THE BEST OF THE SUM OF OUR PARTS. WE NEED YOUR INPUT. I ALSO JUST WANT TO DISPEL ANOTHER MYTH. IT'S VERY EASY TO GO TO A CITY AND SAY TO SOMEONE, ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THIS? AND SOMEONE SAYS NO. OR OH, YES, I AM. YOU'RE GOING TO FIND BOTH. I think it's very unfair to say, just because a couple people say they're in favor or not in favor, that that characterizes a whole city. That's not applicable here. Things have changed over time. The plans have changed. And the plans have changed for a reason. And we've been doing that collaboration with the developer. That's why we have a new plan on the table. So I hope tonight we can be respectful, even if we disagree. and that we can understand that all the opinions are valid. We need to hear what you have on your mind. We need to hear some of you are experts in different fields. We need to hear that information. We need to hear your concerns. We need to hear your Brilliant ideas and harebrained schemes too. Your concerns, your anxieties, all of it. We have the developers team here tonight. They are not the property owners. They are the employees of the development team. They are here also to answer your questions. You can ask hard questions. They've had hard questions before. Our staff is here tonight. They can answer your hard questions as well. If there's something that is asked tonight that either the staff or the developer can't answer, AND THEY NEED TO GET BACK TO YOU, WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU AT ANOTHER MEETING IN THE FUTURE WITH THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS. SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PLAY STUMP THE DEVELOPER OR STUMP THE STAFF. PLEASE UNDERSTAND SOME THINGS WE WANT TO GIVE YOU A CORRECT ANSWER OR A COMPREHENSIVE ANSWER RATHER THAN TRYING TO ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEADS. SO THAT BEING SAID ALSO, WE NORMALLY HAVE A TWO-MINUTE LIMIT FOR SPEAKERS. WE'VE DOUBLED THAT FOR THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS. TONIGHT WE HAVE THREE TOPICS ON THIS AGENDA. SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'LL HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION, WE'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION BY THE DEVELOPER, AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO THE FIRST TOPIC, SOLELY THE FIRST TOPIC, THE COUNCIL WILL GET TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN All of you and anyone online, you'll get to ask your questions or make your comments pertaining to that first topic. THEN WE'LL GO ON TO THE SECOND TOPIC IN THE SAME VEIN WITH THE COUNCIL ASKING QUESTIONS AND THEN THE PUBLIC ABLE TO COMMENT OR ASK QUESTIONS AS WELL. AND BY DOING THAT, I HOPE THAT THIS WORKS IN THAT IT'S VERY COMMON WHERE SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING AND IT SPARKS IN YOUR MIND, OH, THAT MAKES ME THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE. SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO THEN COMMENT, BUT WE WOULD APPRECIATE When you make your comments or questions, stick to the topic that we're discussing, because we'll get to your other topics later. You are welcome to speak on all three topics when those come up. But each time, there'll be no raised hands or people just coming up to the podium. We want to keep it orderly. We're trying to preserve first in, first out on the podium. Fill out a speaker card. Hand it to our city clerk at the end of the dais over there. There she is. That's Ingrid. And that way we can kind of keep it orderly. All right. That being said, I'm going to read our caveat about public hearings. We welcome speakers providing public comment during tonight's public hearing, but please be advised it's a limited public forum. What does that mean? It's important for speakers to stay on topic. On topic are those matters that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. speakers will have four minutes for each topic. The topics are measure number one, measure JJ and the general plan requirements that govern the Bayland specific plan. Topic number two, measure JJ and the general plan requirements that govern the Bayland specific plan. Number three, air quality and greenhouse gas impacts and associated mitigation measures identified in the EIR. And I think we have a problem. One of these was copied twice. Topic number two, city clerk, could you please clarify? I can look it up as well.

Topic number two is the specific plant sustainability program and designing for ongoing energy neutrality.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. So following these rules helps ensure the city council can get to all the items on tonight's agenda, including hearing public comments on items. If a speaker, please don't go there. If you fail to follow these rules, you're disrupting the meeting and you'll be warned. And if you continue to ignore the rules or if you're otherwise disruptive, your opportunity to speak will be ended and you may be precluded from speaking on other items tonight. We don't want to go there. We want to learn from each other tonight. SO THAT BEING SAID, THE FIRST ITEM IS THE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE BAYLAND-SPECIFIC PLAN. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT MEASURE JJ AND THE GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS THAT GOVERN THE BAYLAND-SPECIFIC PLAN. COULD WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT, PLEASE?

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. IS MY VOLUME GOOD FOR EVERYONE? SOUNDS GREAT UP HERE. OKAY. JUST LET ME KNOW IF I NEED TO SPEAK LOUDER. WE ARE THANK YOU SO MUCH, MOLLY. SO GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. AS THE MAYOR NOTED IN HER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, OVER THE PAST 20 PLUS YEARS, THE COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND BRISBANE COMMUNITY AT LARGE HAVE ENGAGED VERY THOUGHTFULLY AND CAREFULLY IN A VARIETY OF PLANNING EFFORTS RELATED TO THE FUTURE OF THIS LARGE AND HIGHLY VISIBLE SITE IN BRISBANE. WHICH, AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, IS A FORMER LANDFILL AND RAIL YARD. SO TONIGHT THE COUNCIL WILL BE HOLDING THE FIRST IN A PLANNED SERIES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE BRISBAYNE BAYLAND SPECIFIC PLAN AND OTHER RELATED APPROVALS WHICH TOGETHER WILL ESTABLISH A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR BUILDOUT OF A NEW MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CITY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. SO TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION WILL BE STRUCTURED INTO THREE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS. THE FIRST SEGMENT WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND SUMMARIZE THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT CONCLUDED LAST MONTH. THE SECOND SEGMENT WILL ADDRESS THE PLAN'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE 2015 SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK FOR THE BAYLANDS. And the third segment will provide a brief overview of more technical aspects of the project related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy impacts that were evaluated in the EIR. After staff's presentation, as the mayor noted, there will be an opportunity for the applicant, Baylands Development Incorporated, or BDI, to address the council, followed by comment periods tailored to each of the three segments in the presentation. Next slide, please. SO WE'D LIKE TO START WITH SETTING SOME EXPECTATIONS FOR WHAT COUNCIL WILL BE DOING TONIGHT AND AT FUTURE ANTICIPATED HEARINGS. SO AGAIN, TONIGHT IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF ANTICIPATED HEARINGS ON THE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR AND OTHER RELATED APPROVALS. THEY'RE ORGANIZED AROUND MEASURE JJ'S REQUIREMENTS. WE DISCUSSED THAT ON SEPTEMBER 3RD. SO TONIGHT AND AT SUBSEQUENT TOPIC FOCUSED HEARINGS, STAFF IS LOOKING FOR COUNCIL COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK ON THE TOPICS THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED TONIGHT. AT THE END OF EACH TOPIC FOCUSED MEETING WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE SOME CLARITY ON COUNCIL'S DIRECTION OR FEEDBACK ON EACH TOPIC, WHICH WILL THEN INFORM A FINAL RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AT THE CONCLUDING HEARING. THIS WOULD ALSO BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ERRATA OR A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT ALIGNS WITH THAT DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL OR CAPTURES NEEDED CLARIFICATIONS THAT STAFF OR COUNCIL MAY IDENTIFY. So again, to be clear, we're not looking for council to take any votes or take formal action on the project tonight. Next slide, please. OK. So next, we'll briefly review the specific plan. Next slide, please. SO AS I NOTED, THE BAYLAND SPECIFIC PLAN WILL BE THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME WITHIN THE BAYLAND SUB AREA OF THE CITY CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN. THE SPECIFIC PLAN BALANCES POLICY DIRECTION WITH FUTURE ADAPTABILITY BY OUTLINING SPECIFIC LAND USES, INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, AND OTHER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD APPLY TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THE PLAN ESTABLISHES REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 1800 TO 2200 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE SITE, 6.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, RETAIL, LIFE SCIENCE, OFFICE CAMPUS USES, 500,000 SQUARE FEET OF HOTEL USES, MIDDLE SCHOOL, VARIETY OF UTILITIES, SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS INCLUDING WATER RECYCLING, WATER STORAGE, SWITCHING SUBSTATION, BATTERY STORAGE AND A SOLAR FARM. and 157 acres devoted to conservation, restoration, and enhancement as habitat, as well as active and passive recreation, parks and recreational improvements. Next slide, please. JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY SOME TERMS, SO THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN, WE'LL REFER TO IT JUST SIMPLY AS THE SPECIFIC PLAN. THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING THIS EVENING. IT WAS PUBLISHED IN MAY OF THIS YEAR ALONG WITH THE FINAL EIR. THE 2026 SPECIFIC PLAN IS EVALUATED IN THE FINAL EIR AS MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 1. ITSELF, THE 2026 SPECIFIC PLAN REVISES A SPECIFIC PLAN SUBMITTED BY BDI, THE APPLICANT, IN 2025. THAT 2025 PLAN WAS EVALUATED IN THE ERR AS THE PROJECT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER RELATED CITY APPROVALS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE SPECIFIC PLAN. THE FIRST I'LL MENTION IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO THIS IS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL PLAN AND MEASURE JJ. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT'S VESTED RIGHTS AND PHASING REQUIREMENTS. ALSO DEFINE PUBLIC BENEFITS AND ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS NECESSARY TO SATISFY MEASURE JJ. The development agreement is currently in process. It will be reviewed by the Planning Commission before being considered by the City Council. Another related approval is approval of a water agreement between the City and Cal Water to extend Cal Water's service area to the Baylands. This would be subject to City Council review and approval before site development, consistent with Measure JJ. ANOTHER ITEM IS FUTURE RELOCATION OF FIRE STATION 81 FROM ITS EXISTING SITE ON BAYSHORE TO A NEW FACILITY ON VALLEY DRIVE. THIS IS CALLED FOR IN THE EIR AND THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FUTURE APPROVAL BY BOTH NORTH COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY WOULD NEED TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR ACTUAL SITE DEVELOPMENT. SO THIS WOULD INCLUDE GRADING PERMITS, SUBDIVISION AND PARCEL MAP APPROVALS, ENTITLEMENT PERMITS SUCH AS DESIGN PERMITS FOR COMMERCIAL AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL. AND OF COURSE BUILDING PERMITS FOR STRUCTURES THEMSELVES. I'M NOW GOING TO HAND THE PRESENTATION OVER TO JEREMIAH ROBINS WHO'S A SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE CITY. HE'S GOING TO DIVE INTO THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. All right, tonight we'll briefly summarize how the Planning Commission evaluated the specific plan and the final EIR and highlight the Commission's final recommendations to the City Council. Next slide. THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW BEGAN WITH TWO PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ON MAY 28 AND JUNE 11. THESE PROVIDED AN OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE FINAL EIR. THE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGAN AFTER THE WORKSHOPS BEGINNING ON JUNE 25 AND CONTINUING UNTIL JULY 23. AT THE THIRD PUBLIC MEETING ON JULY 23 AND AFTER RECEIVING EXTENSIVE PUBLIC COMMENT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A FOURTH MEETING WAS HELD ON AUGUST 13 WHERE THE COMMISSION DELIBERATED AND FINALIZED THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL. The Commission's recommendation, summarized on this slide, was as follows. One, certify the final EIR and adopt the 2026 specific plan, subject to the following additional considerations. Improve transparency in remediation, reporting, and establish an energy audit enforcement mechanism. REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR BIOSAFETY LEVEL 3 AND ABOVE LAB USES. ENHANCE CIRCULATION SAFETY ESPECIALLY ON CLASS 1 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND EXPAND SHUTTLE SERVICE. RETAIN THE MISSION BLUE NURSERY IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION. SUPPORT OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. AND INCORPORATE STAFF'S JULY 23 CLARIFYING EDITS TO BOTH CHAPTER 3 AND 9. Two, adopt the elements of the Bayshore Mobility Plan that directly implement mitigation measures identified within the final EIR. Any other elements of the plan, such as the Bayshore Boulevard road diet, were not recommended to be adopted. However, the Commission also recommended further study of a continuous pedestrian bicycle facility or sidewalk along Bayshore without implementing the road diet. Next slide. NEXT WE'LL OUTLINE MEASURE JJ'S REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BAYLAND SPECIFIC PLAN, SINCE MEASURE JJ SHAPES TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION, ESPECIALLY AROUND SUSTAINABILITY, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION AND WATER SUPPLY. NEXT SLIDE. AS MOST OF US LIKELY RECALL, MEASURE JJ IS THE VOTER APPROVED AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE'S GENERAL PLAN THAT PASSED IN NOVEMBER 2018 WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. It set the allowable amount and type of development within the Baylands and also incorporated requirements to protect the city from mitigatable impacts associated with the project. These additional requirements are organized into topics and we'll be referring to them as Measure JJ topics throughout the presentation. These Measure JJ topics directly correlate to the language incorporated into the general plan under policy BL1 and also table 1.4.1 of the Bayland specific plan. THE FOLLOWING TOPICS WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED AT FUTURE HEARINGS INCLUDE A SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK, ONGOING ENERGY NEUTRALITY, COMPREHENSIVE REMEDIATION AND LANDFILL CLOSURE PLANNING, DEMONSTRATED RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY BEFORE DEVELOPMENT MOVES FORWARD, REVENUE POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY, HABITAT PROTECTION AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION, ROUNDHOUSE PROTECTION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE, SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT PROGRAM. AND AS A POINT OF INFORMATION, MEASURE JJ TOPIC 3K, WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED IN DEPTHS ON OCTOBER 6, HAS BEEN COMPLETED AS OF 2025. THIS DETAIL WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERAL PLAN MEASURE JJ CONSISTENCY TABLE OR ATTACHMENT 3 TO THE COUNCIL'S REPORT TONIGHT. NEXT SLIDE. THE SPECIFIC PLAN INCORPORATES SUSTAINABILITY THROUGHOUT THE PLAN TO DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENCY WITH MEASURE JJ. THESE MEASURES EMPHASIZE LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE INCLUDING ENERGY NEUTRALITY, LOW CARBON MOBILITY, RESILIENT WATER SYSTEMS AND ECOLOGICAL STEWARDSHIP. THE FOUNDATION FOR THESE REQUIREMENTS ORIGINATES IN THE CITY'S 2015 SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK. THE NEXT SLIDE OUTLINES HOW THAT FRAMEWORK INFORMED MEASURE JJ AND IN TURN SHAPED THE SPECIFIC PLAN. IN 2015, THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTED A SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK FOR THE BAYLANDS PREPARED BY INTIGO GROUP, THAT'S NOW INTROBA, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE BAYLAND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. THE FRAMEWORK IS BASED ON ONE PLANET LIVING PRINCIPLES. One Planet Living is a set of 10 principles developed by Bioregional and designed to achieve an ecological footprint based on the resources available on Earth, hence One Living Planet, or excuse me, One Planet Living. And it includes the social and economic aspects of sustainability as essential elements to achieving sustaining harmony between development and nature. FOR TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION, IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER MEASURE JJ DID NOT REFERENCE SUSTAINABILITY ALONE. IT WAS INTENTIONALLY ALIGNED WITH THE FRAMEWORK'S 10 ONE PLANET LIVING PRINCIPLES TO ENSURE BAYLAND'S DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT'S ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IS SUSTAINABLE. THIS SLIDE SUMMARIZES THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FRAMEWORK AND MEASURE JJ. ZERO CARBON BUILDINGS, ZERO WASTE AND MATERIALS AND FOOD ALIGN WITH CHAPTER 4 OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND MEASURE JJ TOPIC 3G. Sustainable transport aligns with topic 3D. Sustainable water aligns with topics 3B and 3J. Open space and habitat align with topic 3H. Culture and heritage align with topic 3I. Economic vitality, recreation, health, safety, and happiness align with topics 3D and 3E with the specific plans of land use, circulation, and open space chapters. General Plan Policy BL1, which incorporates the requirement of Measure JJ directly into the General Plan, directs the Brisbane Specific Plan Sustainability Program to incorporate the sustainability framework principles and advance energy neutrality on an ongoing basis. At this time, I'm happy to introduce Eric Halloway from ESA, who will review the Specific Plan's sustainability components in more detail.

Eric Halloway Thank you, Jeremiah. Can you hear me?

Go ahead. We can hear you.

Yes, thank you. Great. Thank you. So I'll be providing a brief high-level overview of the sustainability provisions of the specific plan based on Chapter 4. Next slide, please. So as staff just noted, the plan's approach to achieving sustainability is based on the 10 principles established at Bayland's sustainability framework. and the policies and regulations in the sustainability chapter of the plan are organized based on these principles. Next slide, please. Requirements in the sustainability chapter addressing zero carbon buildings as a principle, next slide, include a requirement that commercial buildings must achieve LEED Gold certification for building design and construction, and a requirement that residential projects must achieve Greenpoint certification. This chapter also establishes the requirement that 100% of the electricity used by development in the plan area must be generated from renewable sources, including a minimum of 85,000 megawatt hours of on-site solar generation at build-out. Natural gas usage is prohibited in residential and commercial buildings, and buildings must be designed to achieve the most stringent building efficiency performance standards in the Brisbane Municipal Code. Next slide. In addition, Chapter 7, Infrastructure of the Plan, describes proposed electrical system improvements, including a solar energy field and the delivery of a utility-scale battery storage facility, which would help the project take better advantage of the renewable energy generated on-site. Next slide. Requirements in the Sustainability Chapter addressing sustainable transportation. Next slide. include the requirement that all Baylands residents and tenants have access to amenities through the bicycle network, including a variety of recreational, civic, and convenience uses. A comprehensive transportation demand management program is required to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. An overall plan-wide cap of 11,000 off-street vehicular parking spaces is established, and the onsite shuttle system described in Chapter 6 is required to be zero emissions. Now, sustainable transport is also enabled through regulations in other chapters. Next slide. That includes Chapter 2 land use program and planning districts, which provide for a diverse mix of uses and for higher density uses clustered near transit in order to enable Baylands residents, workers, and visitors to take more trips using active modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled. And Chapter 3, Development and Design Standards, further supports walkability through pedestrian-oriented building and parking design regulations, such as entry requirements and active ground floors. Next slide. And Chapter 6 establishes the multimodal people-oriented street network designed to support walking, biking, transit, and vehicles, rather than prioritizing any single mode. This chapter establishes how the transportation network must be integrated with the open space network, include transit connections, and include design guidelines to ensure that new streets have facilities that support different modes of travel. Next slide, please. Now, requirements in the sustainability chapter addressing open space and habitat. Next slide. include a requirement to dedicate over 148 acres of land area for recreation, habitat restoration, and conservation. This chapter includes requirements for bird safe building design, and it includes requirements for landscaping to be designed for climate adaptation, sea level rise, biodiversity, and long-term resilience. Next slide. Requirements in the sustainability chapter related to the remaining principles include the requirements to establish a zero-waste program, the requirement to construct a water recycling facility, and the requirement for buildings and landscaping to be designed to minimize water use, prohibit the use of potable water for non-potable uses, and manage stormwater with a network of green infrastructure.

Next slide.

And finally, this chapter includes a requirement for development to use local and sustainable materials. and a requirement for the project to provide a space for a small urban farm and community garden, as well as a farmer's market to provide access to local and sustainable food. This chapter requires support for culture and heritage through the restoration and adaptive reuse of the roundhouse and a public art program. Finally, this chapter supports economic vitality, equity, and ecology by requiring development that is net revenue positive on an annual basis and requiring a mix of housing types, sizes, and density to serve diverse income levels. Now I'm going to hand it over to my colleague, Brian Schuster, to discuss air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy.

Great. Hello, council members, members of the public. I'm going to talk a little bit about the FINAL EIR'S AIR QUALITY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY ANALYSIS. NEXT SLIDE. QUICK SUMMARY ON THE IMPACTS THAT THE FINAL EIR FOUND FOR THE BRISBANE BAYLAND SPECIFIC PLAN. THESE ARE THE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. SO FOR AIR QUALITY, CREATED AN INCONSISTENCY WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA CLEAN AIR PLAN. GREENHOUSE GAS EFFECT ON REGIONAL GHG EMISSIONS WHICH IS IMPACT GHG2. and energy resources, consume energy resources in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary way, impact EN1, and create an inconsistency with programs, plans, ordinances, and policies for renewable energy and energy efficiency, which is EN2. So these impacts were less than significant and no mitigation is required. Next slide. Three impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation, so that means that mitigation measures were required to be implemented to reduce this impact. FOR AIR QUALITY, WE HAVE TWO, EXPOSURE OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS, THIS IS HEALTH RISK, TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EXPOSURE, AQ2, AND ODORS, EXPOSURE TO ODORS, WHICH IS AQ3. AND FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, THIS IS IMPACT GHG3, WHICH IS CREATE AN INCONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE PLANS, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS.

NEXT SLIDE.

We have one significant and unavoidable impact in the EIR for these topics, and that is for air quality, which is emissions of criteria air pollutants for nonattainment pollutants, both for the project and for cumulative. And that's impact AQ1. Next slide. All right, so go into a little more detail on air quality impacts and mitigation measures. Next slide. Impact AQ1, which was the one significant and unavoidable impact in these topic areas, is the regional criteria of pollutant emissions. So these are reactive organic gases, oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. So this evaluated those pollutants, those mass emissions from construction and operational activities. Those emissions exceeded the air district's thresholds, and so the EIR requires a suite of mitigation for construction, soil movement, and operational emissions to reduce those emissions, and you can see a summary of those here. Clean equipment, soil movement technology to reduce trucking emissions, things like clean emergency generators, EV charging, and so forth. However, with these mitigation measures, the project still exceeds the Air District's thresholds, and so this remains significant and unavoidable. Next slide. Impact two is health risk, so this is exposure of sensitive receptors, which are children, people with medical conditions, childcare facilities, residents generally, to projects' tack emissions, which includes diesel particulate matter and small fine particulate matter, or PM2.5. The analysis looked at both offsite, so nearby offsite residents, as well as future onsite residents at the project site. So the mitigation measures here include all of the measures in AQ1, as well as MERV 13 filtration required for all residential and school buildings. With implementation of all of those measures, the impact is reduced to less than significant.

Next slide.

Just a few air quality FAQs here. So what controls dust? There are stormwater pollution prevention plans and also the air districts required best management practices to reduce fugitive dust, which are required, and the MMRP ensures compliance of those. THE DIESEL GENERATORS ARE REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, DESPITE THE PROJECT'S ROBUST SUITE OF BACKUP BATTERY POWER, AND THEY'LL ONLY BE USED DURING EMERGENCIES, SO NOT DAY-TO-DAY USAGE. AND THEN FINALLY, DATA CENTERS ARE NOT PERMITTED USES UNDER THIS SPECIFIC PLAN, NOR ARE LOGISTICS WAREHOUSES. SO THE ANALYSIS AND THE EIR DID NOT CONSIDER THOSE EMISSIONS. GREAT. NEXT SLIDE. GREENHOUSE GAS. NEXT SLIDE. WE HAVE TWO GHG IMPACTS. ONE IS TWO GHG2 WHICH IS REGIONAL GHG EMISSIONS. THIS LOOKS AT WHETHER LOCATING BAYLANDS DEVELOPMENTS AT THE SITE WOULD INCREASE REGIONAL EMISSIONS ACROSS THE NINE COUNTY BAY AREA COMPARED WITH THAT BASICALLY THE BUILD OUT OF OF THAT DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT THE PLAN. AND SO BECAUSE OF THE PROJECT'S TRANSIT LOCATION, MIX OF USES, TOD AND TDM PROGRAM, IT WOULD PRODUCE LOWER PER CAPITA, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER PER CAPITA VMT WHICH IS VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED In other words, the project would produce fewer mobile emissions versus the regional non-project scenario. And so from this perspective, the project does not produce a significant impact. Next slide. FINALLY, GHC 3 LOOKS AT CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE CLIMATE PLANS AND STANDARDS. SO BAY AREA AIR DISTRICTS THRESHOLDS, THEIR CEQA THRESHOLDS FOR GREENHOUSE GAS, CONSISTENCY WITH CARB'S LATEST SCOPING PLAN, AND LOCAL POLICIES INCLUDING MTC'S TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES POLICY. THIS MEASURE REQUIRED A FEW MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LOWER PARKING RATIOS ALONG WITH A REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL EV CHARGING AT THE SITE WHICH MEETS CAL GREEN'S TIER 2 VOLUNTARY REQUIREMENTS. WITH THOSE MEASURES THIS IMPACT IS LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. JUST A FEW MORE NOTES ON NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SOME OF THE PROJECTS FEATURES BEYOND THE SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES THAT ERIC MENTIONED TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK INCLUDING LOW GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL REFRIGERANCE preferred parking for alternative fuel and ride share vehicles, zero emission shuttle operations, and a wastewater reclamation facility utilizing 100% renewable fuels. And then all the specific plan design features that Eric summarized, including all electric buildings, lead design, and so forth, also reduce emissions at the project site. OK, next slide. And just a few more on energy, and then I'm done. Next slide. So Impact EN1 looks at the project's construction and operational energy demand. These include all sources of energy, buildings, vehicles, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, electricity, and so forth. BECAUSE OF THE PROJECT'S ADVANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY DESIGNS, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE LOWER PER CAPITA ENERGY USE THAN REGIONAL THAN TYPICAL REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD COMPLY WITH ALL OR WOULD NOT PRODUCE WASTEFUL OR INEFFICIENT CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY. AND THIS ALSO FACTORS INTO THE PROJECT'S ON-SITE SOLAR DISTRIBUTED UTILITY SCALE SOLAR AND BATTERIES.

NEXT SLIDE.

IMPACT EN 2 LOOKS AT CONFLICT WITH ENERGY PLANS INCLUDING CAL GREEN CODE, TITLE 24, BRISBANE ENERGY CODE, GENERAL PLAN AND REGIONAL PLAN B AREA. THE PROJECT WOULD COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH PLAN B AREA. SO THE FINDING HERE IS LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

NEXT SLIDE.

Finally, a short bullet list summary of some of the features that reduce energy demand from mobile energy, gasoline, diesel, through transit-oriented land use, TDM, trail service, shuttle service, all electric buildings on the building side, and efficient building design, onsite renewable generation, this is the large solar field, plus distributed solar across the site, distributed battery storage, and EV charging infrastructure. to reduce gasoline vehicle emissions and energy, reduce gasoline consumption. Sorry. All right. Next slide. And I think I'm done.

Thank you, Brian. Okay. Next slide, please. Okay, so we noted at the top of the meeting staff is not looking for Council to make a final recommendation tonight or vote tonight, but we are sharing staff's overall recommendation on the project just for informational purposes. That recommendation at this time is to approve THE PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS, WHICH CONSIST OF A VARIETY OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ADOPTION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN ITSELF, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, APPROVAL OF THE BAY SHORE MOBILITY PLAN, AS WELL AS CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. AND ATTENDANT TO THAT, THE COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERWRITING CONSIDERATIONS. as well as adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. So just for information. Next slide, please. Next slide. Thank you. So I wanted to show here before we jump into the comment period just the projected future hearing dates and anticipated topics consistent with what Council saw on September 3rd. As we discussed at that time, this is a framework, so ultimately if Council feels it needs to be adjusted in terms of topics, Council can provide that direction to staff. Next slide, please. OKAY. SO THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. AT THIS TIME THE APPLICANT BDI IS PREPARED TO ADDRESS COUNSEL ON TOPICS HIGHLIGHTED IN TONIGHT'S STAFF REPORT. AND THEN FOLLOWING BDI'S COMMENTS, AS THE MAYOR NOTED, STAFF IS PREPARED TO RECEIVE COUNSEL FEEDBACK OR QUESTIONS IN THREE SEGMENTS ON A TOPIC BY TOPIC BASIS, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE ON THE SLIDE, THOSE THREE TOPICS. THE FIRST WE'D BE ASKING FOR COMMENTS ON WOULD BE REGARDING MEASURE JJ AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. THE SECOND TOPIC WOULD BE SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. AND THE THIRD AND FINAL TOPIC WOULD BE THOSE TECHNICAL ITEMS THAT BRIAN JUST REVIEWED, AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY IMPACT ANALYSIS FROM THE EIR. AFTER COUNCIL FEEDBACK OR QUESTIONS ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC, THE COUNCIL CAN INVITE THE PUBLIC TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THAT TOPIC AS WELL. AND AGAIN, AS NOTED BY THE MAYOR, I'LL JUST REPEAT IT. IF ANY QUESTIONS ARE POSED BY THE PUBLIC, STAFF WILL MAKE NOTE OF THEM AND PROVIDE ANSWERS AS WE'RE ABLE AT THE END OF THE MEETING. SO DEPENDING ON THE QUESTION, WE MAY NEED MORE TIME TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE ANSWER TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT ARE RECEIVED. And then finally, before we jump into that, I just want to note at the end of the comment segment tonight, staff is recommending that the council continue the public hearing to a special meeting on September 29th at 5.30 p.m. to continue review of the plan and EAR topics. So I will end there. And again, the applicant is prepared to address council at this time.

INGRID, ARE YOU DRIVING? OKAY. GOT IT. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR MACKLIN, HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS STEPHANIE SCHAKOWSKI. I'M REPRESENTING THE BAYLANDS DEVELOPMENT INC. THIS EVENING. And although I've only been with the Baylands organization for about four years, my history with the Baylands goes back 20 years. And Mayor, if you will indulge me just a minute, I do want to give a little bit of my background. I am a contaminant hydrologist by training. I have nearly 30 years of research, policy, and advocacy. IN HELPING COMMUNITIES REDEVELOP CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES. I STARTED MY CAREER WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY IN MENLO PARK AT THEIR RESEARCH FACILITY WHERE WE STUDIED THE MOVEMENT OF CONTAMINATES IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER. AND THEN I THEN MADE THE BRILLIANT MOVE TO GO TO SACRAMENTO WHERE I WORKED FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE. I WAS GOING TO BRING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO SACRAMENTO. WHERE I WORKED FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE ON POLICY AND LAW REGARDING REDEVELOPING CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES. THEN FOR 15 YEARS I RAN A NONPROFIT CALLED THE CENTER FOR CREATIVE LAND RECYCLING THAT WORKS WITH COMMUNITIES, MUNICIPALITIES, FOR-PROFIT AND NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS WHO ARE WORKING TO REDEVELOP CONTAMINATED LAND. AND AT C-CLAIR OUR FIRST PRIORITY IS ALWAYS MAKING SURE THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT IS ABSOLUTELY SAFE FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. my first experience with the Brisbane Valence was in 2005 and Honorable Mayor you forgot a couple of other ideas that had been floated for in one of them was the Opera House and the 49ers Stadium However in 2005 was when the application of FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED. SO IT HAS BEEN 20 YEARS. THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2005, AND WE ARE STILL WORKING OFF THAT SAME 2005 APPLICATION TONIGHT. THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2005 APPLICATION AND WHAT IS BEFORE US THIS EVENING IN ESSENCE WAS THAT ORIGINAL APPLICATION HAD 4,400 HOMES DESIGNED FOR THE BAYLANDS. BUT Shortly after the application went in, my nonprofit came and worked with the city of Brisbane in bringing a series of graduate architectural student design charrettes from UC Berkeley to Brisbane, working with the city of Brisbane. And at that time, I worked very closely with the city manager, Clay Holstein, and the community development director, Bill Prince. And the balance has been on my radar since 2005. So in 2022, After Measure JJ passed and after the pandemic, I jumped at the opportunity to join the Baylands team to bring this long-planned, long-awaited project to reality. So after 20 years, I find myself a little speechless that I'm standing here finally tonight requesting approval of the specific plan, but I promise I'll try to stay composed and find my voice this evening. Just a little table setting. I just want to make it obvious that the Bayland is not a collection of parcels with zoning applied to them. It is a fully realized vision for how people will live, work, move, and gather organized around a very robust open space system anchored by the Bayshore Caltrain Station and designed by renowned architect and urban planner Peter Calthorpe. to function as a sustainable, interconnected neighborhood. There are four distinct planning districts, as the staff pointed out earlier, woven together by 148 acres of public open space, a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network, and multiple transit connections. Next slide. And one more. Next slide. I think it's useful to talk, to use some case studies and some models as we work through the process here in the upcoming hearings. The Baylands has a very unique history of industrial uses that do require careful planning, but when it comes to environmental cleanup, land use zoning, and financial feasibility, I want to be very clear that we are not charting new territory here. Brisbane has been here before with the redevelopment of the former landfill at Sierra Point under the same regulatory agencies that will oversee the Baylands and the same local government oversight. While the Baylands is clearly more ambitious in its scope than Sierra Point, the tools that we will be using collectively are proven and the approach is well established. Another development worth discussing as we move through the process is Mission Bay. Mission Bay wants a collection of, again, like the Baylands, old rail yards and vacant industrial properties. Today it's one of the nation's premier life science districts, home to thousands of residents, major employees, and billions of dollars of private investment. That transformation began in the late 1990s. AND IS NOW A COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE ASSESSED VALUE OF MISSION BAY HAS INCREASED 340% OVER ITS PRE-DEVELOPMENT BASELINE FROM LAND THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY WORTHLESS AS A CLOSED INDUSTRIAL SITE TO ONE OF THE MOST VALUABLE NEIGHBORHOODS IN SAN FRANCISCO. LASTLY, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT BAY MEADOWS, AND THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WILL BE RETURNING TO IN FUTURE HEARINGS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE CLOSEST AND MOST RELEVANT CASE STUDY FOR THE BAYLANDS. THE FORMER HORSE RACING TRACK, MASTER PLAN, MULTI-PHASE, MULTI-USE COMMUNITY NEXT TO THE HILLSDALE COW TRAIN STATION THAT TOOK 20 YEARS TO FULLY BUILD OUT. THEY WERE APPROVED IN 2005 AND THEY JUST LAST MONTH PUT THEIR LAST TWO COMMERCIAL PARCELS UNDER CONTRACT. SO IT IS NOW FULLY BUILT OUT. although it's not a brownfield site like Mission Bay or Sierra Point, like all previous developed urban land, it did require cleanup. There are three underground storage tanks, legacy herbicides, pesticides, lead and arsenic in the soil, and significant asbestos removal. So not on the category of Mission Bay or Baylands, but still, like every urban infill site, THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL, HISTORIC ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUPS THAT NEED TO BE CARRIED OUT BEFORE THE SITE CAN BE PROPERLY REUSED. BEEN DONE SUCCESSFULLY MANY TIMES BEFORE, AND IT WAS DONE SUCCESSFULLY AT BAY MEADOWS. BAY MEADOWS IS CONSIDERED A HUGE REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESS BY THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, BY THE DEVELOPER, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY BY THE COMMUNITY WHO NOW LIVE AND WORK AT THE BAY MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT. This council is being asked to support tonight is an application of a well-tested framework of environmental regulations, zoning rules, financial feasibility that are better understood, more thoroughly investigated, and rigorously planned than its predecessors like Mission Bay, Sierra Point, or Bay Meadows at their equivalent stages of development. Can I get the next slide, please? So before staff pulls out the cane I do want to get to tonight's agenda items which is compliance with measure JJ and the specific plan I Just want the council and the Brisbane community to know that from the land use program to the sustainable State sustainability framework every aspect of the specific plan has been carefully designed to comply with the requirements of measure JJ I WON'T GO INTO THE DETAIL REGARDING THE CONSISTENCY BECAUSE THE CITY HAS THE CITY STAFF HAS PRESENTED THAT TO YOU AND IT'S DONE A GOOD JOB DESCRIBING IT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO MEASURE JJ CONSISTENCY TABLE ALSO KNOWN AS ATTACHMENT THREE IN THE STAFF IN YOUR PACKAGE TONIGHT. But what distinguishes the Baylands from most other developments is that its sustainability standards are not guidelines. And this is an important point. They are development requirements. 100 percent of the site's electricity will come from renewable sources, with energy generated onsite annually from a 55-acre solar farm, rooftop panels, parking canopies, and significant battery storage. We believe that we have met both the letter and the spirit of energy neutrality in Measure JJ. And we also believe this council has the opportunity to support a development that will be a model of sustainable development and energy efficiency in California. Can I get the next slide, please, Molly? One more. GHGs. The California Air Resources Board, CARB, the state agency in charge of air quality and GHG reductions, has made it clear that California cannot meet its climate targets unless people drive less. And the only way to reduce driving is to build homes near jobs and transit. The state of California is so confident in their theory that they spend their own cap and trade carbon offset funds on that program. Through its affordable housing and sustainability community grant program, the state provides grant funds to housing and jobs near transit. In other words, transit-oriented development is not a source of emissions the state wants to offset. Transit-oriented development is the offset. CARB has made it clear that the Baylands project is consistent with the state's climate action plan and could be eligible for funding from its cap and trade dollars that go to its grant programs. I THINK LASTLY THE CITY'S EIR AND ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED BY CITY STAFF ALSO ANSWERS THIS QUESTION DIRECTLY CONCLUDING THAT, QUOTE, THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A NET REDUCTION IN REGIONAL GHG EMISSIONS OVERALL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO IN CLOSING, I JUST AGAIN I want to emphasize that the Bay Lines reflects 20 years of planning, environmental review, community engagement, and choices about what kind of city Brisbane wants to be. It says that Brisbane is ready to take its place as a city that confronts the housing shortage, restores its ecological assets, builds around transit, and holds itself to the highest standards of sustainable development. This is the decision before this council. I thank you for your time and attention, and we look forward to productive conversations over the course of these approval hearings. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Stephanie. I appreciate that. All right. We're teeing up now. The council will be able to ask questions. And a reminder, this is on Measure JJ and general plan requirements only as topic number one. Let's start. I also want to thank staff and all the consultants for your presentation tonight. Really appreciate the detail on everything. Mayor Pro Tem Davis, would you like to start?

YOU KNOW, I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO START ON ENERGY USE, SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH MEASURE JJ FIRST.

YOU WANT TO JUST WAIT WITH QUESTIONS THEN UNTIL WE GET TO THAT TOPIC?

I MEAN, I HAVE MEASURE JJ QUESTIONS, SO I CAN ASK THOSE, BUT I WAS HOPING TO GO FIRST ON ENERGY USE.

LET'S JUST STICK TO TOPIC NUMBER ONE, PLEASE.

THE SPECIFIC PLAN INCLUDES A TABLE SHOWING HOW IT COMPLIES WITH EACH OF THE MEASURE JJ TENANTS AND GENERAL PLAN BAYLANDS PROVISIONS. SO FOR THE PUBLIC, SOME OF THIS IS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SOME OF THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEAR THESE ANSWERS LIVE TONIGHT. CAN STAFF EXPLAIN WHAT THE CITY IS ACTUALLY DETERMINING WHEN IT FINDS THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH A GENERAL PLAN PROVISION AND DOES CONSISTENCY MEAN THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN CONTAINS PROVISIONS ADDRESSING THE SUBJECT Or does consistency mean that the substantive requirement or objective of the general plan provision will actually be achieved?

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. THIS IS ERIC PHILLIPS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO THE QUESTION OF PLAN CONSISTENCY I THINK DEPENDS ON THE STANDARD THAT IS IN PLAY. SO THE TOP LINE STANDARD IS THAT A SPECIFIC PLAN AND ALL DEVELOPMENT THAT FLOWS FROM THAT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, MEANING THAT IT DOESN'T FRUSTRATE THE CORE PURPOSE OF THOSE POLICIES. AND THE GENERAL PLAN HERE WAS AMENDED BY THE VOTERS TO INCORPORATE ALL OF THE POLICIES OF JJ. SO THE MEASURE JJ POLICIES MUST BE ADVANCED. THEY CAN'T BE FRUSTRATED IN THEIR PURPOSE BY THE PLAN OR BY DEVELOPMENT THAT FOLLOWS. HOWEVER, COURTS THAT INTERPRET AND REVIEW A CITY COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S THE CITY COUNCIL'S JOB TO WEIGH AND BALANCE COMPETING PRIORITIES WITHIN A PLAN THAT IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE every component of the general plan or every policy and that it is the city council's obligation and responsibility to weigh and balance those conflicting measures and make an overall consistency determination. The one exception to that is for policies that are fundamental, mandatory, and clear that are so prescriptive that have mandatory words like shall and must. Courts, depending on their context, will look at those types of policies and say that those are obligations and you have to make sure that your plans and subsequent development projects implement those policies specifically.

Thank you. So of the measure JJ and BL.1A through K requirements, which are actually enforceable development standards in the specific plan and which are objectives, policies, or commitments that depend on future discretionary decisions. And for anything that is not an enforceable development standard, WHAT MECHANISM ENSURES THAT THE COMMITMENT WILL ACTUALLY BE IMPLEMENTED AS THE BAYLANDS DEVELOPS OVER POTENTIALLY DECADES BY DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS?

SO I THINK THAT IS THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS ONE OF THOSE TOOLS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ADOPTED WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN ULTIMATELY SHOULD BE STANDARDS THAT ARE ABLE TO Be both mandatory on future development and that when they're carried out will accomplish those policy goals that are in measure JJ here the council also has the opportunity to enter into a development agreement with the property owner that will Give an additional level of protection in addition to the regulatory powers and the specific plan there can be a contractual agreement that BIND'S FUTURE OWNERS AS WELL WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND, BUT THAT CAN GIVE ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS TO HELP IMPLEMENT AND PROVIDE OVERSIGHT FOR THOSE POLICIES IN MEASURE JJ. TONIGHT WE'LL GET INTO MORE DETAIL ON SOME OF THOSE MEASURED JJ POLICIES AROUND SUSTAINABILITY AND IN THE FUTURE MEETINGS WE'LL DIVE INTO SOME OF THE OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS FOR OTHER MEASURED JJ POLICIES LIKE FISCAL POSITIVITY, REMEDIATION AND THOSE TYPES OF TOPICS AS WELL.

THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE MORE HERE. SO MEASURE JJ ESTABLISHES REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BAYLANDS AS A WHOLE. AND INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS WILL COME FORWARD THROUGH DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, I PRESUME. SO AT WHAT POINT DOES THE CITY DETERMINE WHETHER A PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND MEASURE JJ AND INCLUDING ITS CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON THE BAYLANDS? TO ADD TO THAT, CAN A FUTURE PROJECT BE APPROVED IF WHEN COMBINED WITH PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT, IT CAUSES THE BAYLANDS AS A WHOLE TO FALL SHORT OF A MEASURE JJ REQUIREMENT?

I GUESS THERE WOULD BE SOME, OUR VIEW WOULD BE THAT THERE WOULD BE SAFEGUARDS THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE BEFORE THAT. SO THE SPECIFIC PLAN SHOULD BE THE FRAMEWORK THAT ENABLES DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR up to the levels contemplated within JJ and to advance those policies and requirements that are expressed in Measure JJ. So then when individual projects are coming forward with an application for a subdivision map or to do design review or to get a use permit for those uses, the city would still need to evaluate THOSE FUTURE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN INCLUDING MEASURE JJ. SO IF THERE WERE A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT WEREN'T CONSISTENT WITH THOSE STANDARDS, THAT COULD PROVIDE A BASIS TO DENY THAT FUTURE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

Okay, got it. So, and if actual development ultimately does not achieve a Measure JJ requirement that the city determined the specific plan was consistent with, what authority does the city have to require corrective action? And is there a specific monitoring, enforcement, or amendment mechanism either in the specific plan or development agreement for that situation?

AGAIN, I THINK THE ANSWER WOULD DEPEND ON WHICH SPECIFIC POLICY WAS IN QUESTION. THE TOP LINE DEFENSE WOULD BE TO NOT APPROVE A PROJECT THAT WERE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS AND THE MANDATORY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AFTER A PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED AND DEVELOPED, IT DEPENDS ON THE SPECIFIC MEASURE JJ POLICY ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD BE MONITORED ON AN ONGOING BASIS.

THOSE ARE MY MEASURE JJ QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER LENTZ.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. STEPHANIE, WOULD YOU MIND COMING TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE? YOU KNOW WHAT? OKAY. HOW'S THAT? IS THAT BETTER? I'LL TRY AND PUT MY MOUTH TO THE MIC. HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. HOW ARE YOU DOING, SAVINI?

GOOD. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.

NICE. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS GREAT THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORY. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WERE IN YOUR SHOES. MANY, I'M SURE, WOULD LOVE TO BE IN YOUR POSITION RIGHT NOW. THEY PUT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT INTO IT. MAYBE NOT. MAYBE THEY WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN YOUR SHOES. YOU KNOW, THEY, YOU KNOW, WORKED WITH THE CITY, THE COMMUNITY, PUT FORTH BDI'S VISION INITIALLY. YOU KNOW, THAT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU SAID THAT, YEAH, YOU WEREN'T, YOU JUST BECAME AN EMPLOYEE A FEW YEARS AGO, ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO, BUT THAT YOU HAD BEEN WORKING, YOU KNOW, SO TO SPEAK, CONNECTED TO THE BAILINGS. AND I REMEMBER WHEN THOSE CAL BERKELEY STUDENTS DID DO THAT I guess, assignment, right, and provided their input. And I have to say, it was excellent. The council thought the feedback and the passion that they put into wanting to see the Baylands be a model for sustainable development, you know, it had an impact. So, you know, thank you for being a part of that. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT MEASURE JJ, RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN MEASURE JJ WAS ON THE BALLOT, UPC BDI ENDORSED IT. SO I'M CURIOUS IF MEASURE JJ WAS ON THE BALLOT THIS NOVEMBER, WOULD BDI ENDORSE THE MEASURE?

I think so, yes. I mean, I think we have gotten to a plan that is, yeah, that we've worked through, you know, for the last eight years now since Measure JJ passed. But yeah, I think we've gotten to a place with Measure JJ and we're very comfortable with the specific plan.

Okay, okay, great, great, yeah. You know, because when Measure JJ passed, ALL THE REQUIREMENTS WERE PUT INTO THE GENERAL PLAN, RIGHT? AND SO THE SPECIFIC PLAN HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. I HAVE THE BAYLANDS 2026 SPECIFIC PLAN RIGHT HERE. DO YOU FEEL THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN?

YES. THAT IS, YEAH. I THINK THAT IS THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT, AND WE CONCUR WITH THAT.

THAT IS CONSISTENT. OKAY, GREAT. JUST KIND OF LIKE UNDERSTANDING WHERE THE FLOOR IS, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE STAND. SO I APPRECIATE PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION TO ME. OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN I THINK OF THIS this endeavor that we're on. I think of it a lot like the Lord of the Rings. You know, there's these three books, right? The first book is you guys putting forth your specific plans, you know, which enabled us to then have the draft EIR, and then staff taking the plan, amending it, creating this specific plan, which then allowed us to create the final environmental document. AND THEN THAT THIRD BOOK REALLY IS THE PUBLIC. THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDED THE FIRST SEVERAL CHAPTERS AND NOW IT'S THE COUNCIL THAT'S GOING TO WRITE THAT FINAL BOOK WITH ALL OF US. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU THINK OF floor of rings, right? There was the ring, the thing that bound everybody together. Here, it's really measured JJ, right? All of us, right? We're all bound to uphold what is in the ballot measure because the public voted for it. Granted, it was tough, right? 45% of the population did not or the voting community did not vote for it, right? But 55 percent did. And it became the law of the land. So, you know, you're going to be hearing a lot from me in regards to Measure JJ because, you know, I have an obligation. I HAVE AN OATH TO THE PUBLIC TO UPHOLD THAT MEASURE, WHICH IS NOW IN OUR GENERAL PLAN. SO I JUST WANTED TO GET A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNDERSTANDING. THERE WAS IN OUR PACKET, THERE WAS A LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS. AND I WAS SURPRISED, RIGHT, THIS LONG LIST HERE OF ALL THESE FOLKS THAT ARE PROPERTY OWNERS. I'M JUST CURIOUS, DO WE HAVE A MAP OF WHERE THESE OWNERS ARE LOCATED?

IT IS NOT IN YOUR PACKAGE, BUT I BELIEVE A MAP EXISTS. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT IS THE ENTIRE BAYLAND-SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, WHICH INCLUDES A LOT OF PARCELS THAT WE DON'T OWN, AS YOU SEE THERE.

YEAH. YEAH, OKAY. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FROM STAFF IF WE COULD JUST GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE ALL THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE LOCATED AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LAND THAT'S OWNED. I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE'S WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS THAT MAYBE IN YOUR PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS OCCURRING ON THEIR LAND? IS THAT HAPPENING? SOME OF THE LAND THAT IS OWNED BY THESE FOLKS, IS IT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN? NO. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT. YES. AND THEN SUNQUEST IS THE SOLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE EVALUATING IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. GOOD. AND THEN BECAUSE OF THAT, CAN YOU JUST GIVE US A SOME PAST PROJECTS THAT SUNQUEST HAS COMPLETED IN THE U.S., SAY, THE LAST 10, 20 YEARS?

Well, not off the top of my head, but I believe it was Sunquest who built the condos that are adjacent to Executive Park. Okay. Same ownership. I'm not sure if it was the same actual entity. But yeah, if you're familiar with those condos over, they're called Sunquest. I forget. Point. Bay Point condos. Are you familiar with those?

Yeah. No, I sometimes I'll run over there on the Candlestick Park Trail. And yeah, I've seen those condos before. OK, so this is something this is a project that SunQuest had had built. Yes, I believe.

Yes. Yes.

Okay. All right. All right.

There's a difference between an owner, a developer. I'm not sure what the question is directly. I mean, SunQuest is not a developer. They're a landowner. They bring in development partners. So there was a development partnership on those condominiums. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Okay. All right. So, yeah. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind just kind of explaining, like, how that process works, you know, like, you would go out and get partners or others to help build, right? Because, I mean, we all want, you know, the project to be built. Right.

Yeah. So let me use an example because I think it's one that I want to keep coming back to because it's very relevant, privately owned property in San Mateo called the Bay Meadows Racetrack. That was purchased by one owner called Stockbridge. Stockbridge then brought in a master developer called Wilson Meaney. Wilson Meaney planned the development and brought in different developers for the for sale section of Baylands. They developed the rental parcels. They brought in a partner at Bridge to build the affordable. They've brought in a THEY DIDN'T BRING THEM IN, BUT THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL, WHICH WAS BUILT ON THE BAY MEADOW. SO THESE DEALS ARE ALWAYS VERY, THEY'RE MULTI-LAYERED, THEY'RE MULTI-STRUCTURED. SO SUNQUEST IS NOT, THEY ARE THE OWNER. THEY WILL NOT BE THE PERSON ACTUALLY DOING THE DEVELOPMENT. THEY WILL BRING IN A MASTER DEVELOPER AND THEN THAT MASTER DEVELOPER WILL ACTUALLY LIKELY BE BRINGING IN EXPERT RETAIL DEVELOPERS IN HOUSING, MULTI-FAMILY, AFFORDABLE commercial. Got it. Got it. Yeah. Okay.

All right. Thank you for that. Sure. Yeah, yeah. That's it for now. I'll let other council members ask questions, and I'll come back later. Madam Mayor.

Okay. Council Member O'Connell.

Really, my interest is in other sections, but in the matter of item JJ, and this is directed to staff, If a condition is in JJ and it's reflected in the specific plan, it's enforceable by right by the city. And if it's something that is in a development agreement, it's enforceable through contractual law with the developer. Is that the correct way to look at it? We would have to use the courts to enforce a development agreement where we can use our permit system to enforce something that's in the specific plan.

think that depends on the way that a development agreement were framed it's it's quite common to have rights and obligations in a development agreement be a little bit more self-enforcing for example a certain commitment would need to be fulfilled by the developer before A particular time was reached and before they could get a second tranche of building permits for example so that makes it a little bit easier for a city to enforce compliance if it has the remedy built into the development agreement to pause development or time future development approvals to the delivery of those obligations that are in the development agreement

And if I could just add, you know, we have some examples. OUT IN SIERRA POINT OF RECENTLY DEVELOPED PROJECTS SO BOTH THE GENESIS MARINA PROJECT AND THE SHORE WHICH WERE DEVELOPED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ALSO HAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT PROVIDED ADDITIONAL ASSURANCES AND BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC. FOR EXAMPLE, I'M THINKING OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR GENESIS MARINA TO BE LEAD I'M GOING TO SAY GOLD. I'M HOPING THAT'S CORRECT. IT MAY BE SILVER. BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IMPOSED. SO WHEN STAFF WAS REVIEWING THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION AND THE REVISED DESIGN PERMIT APPLICATION, THAT CARRIED OVER AND, YOU KNOW, THEY NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THAT AS A STANDARD ESSENTIALLY. IT WAS IMPOSED IN THE D.A. VERSUS LIKE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OR ANOTHER COMPONENT OF THE DESIGN PERMIT ITSELF. SO JUST TO POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE LOCAL EXAMPLES OR RECENT EXAMPLES WHERE BOTH THE ENTITLEMENTS OR THE APPROVALS WERE KIND OF HAND IN HAND WITH THE D.A. WHEN STAFF IS REVIEWING AN ACTUAL PROJECT.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP AND MAKE SURE THAT FROM STEPHANIE THAT I GOT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF ONE OF COUNCILMEMBER LENTZ'S QUESTIONS. ON THE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS THAT'S WITHIN OUR PACKET, ON PAGE 150 OF 151, THERE'S MANY, MANY PROPERTY OWNERS, AND YOU'RE SAYING NONE OF THESE ARE PART OF WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING TO BUILD ON? THAT ARE NOT OWNED BY YOU?

I'D HAVE TO CHECK THE MAP, YEAH. A lot of those are very small parcels that are owned by other people. So, yeah. But I'd have to check the map, and I can get back to you on that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Sure.

That's all my questions at this point.

Through the mayor if staff could address that question as well So I do want to clarify the list of owners that was attached to the packet It was attached to the public notice it included both owners of property within the specific plan area It also included owners within 300 feet of the property So that is a clarification that we need to make the list was not titled properly So I hope that's clear. So it was a list that included owners within the specific plan area as well as owners within 300 feet. We used that list to generate the noticing.

That makes it actually much clearer that it was titled incorrectly because some of these names on this, I believe I know they're not in the specific plan, but who knows what else they may own.

IN CHAPTER 1 OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN HAS THE EXACT MAP THAT COUNCILMEMBER LENTZ WAS ASKING FOR, WHICH HIGHLIGHTS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WHICH PROPERTIES ARE NOT OWNED BY SUNQUEST. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A PARCEL THAT RECOLOGY OWNS, AND THOSE ARE MAPPED ON A FIGURE IN CHAPTER 1 IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN.

YEAH, IT'S FIGURE 1.6.1. THAT'S ON PAGE 1-15 OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN.

BUT NOT IN TONIGHT'S PACKAGE.

WELL, THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS ATTACHED AND LINKED FROM TONIGHT'S STAFF REPORT, BUT CORRECT, WE DIDN'T PULL IT OUT AS AN ATTACHMENT.

WHAT PAGE IS THAT?

IT IS ON PAGE 1-15 OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND IT'S FIGURE 1.61, LAND OWNERSHIP.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANKS.

COUNCIL MEMBER KERN?

THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL GOOD QUESTIONS SO FAR. I'VE GOT A FEW REGARDING JJ CONSISTENCY. AND ANYBODY CAN TAKE THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE DEVELOPMENT IF CAL WATER FAILS TO SECURE FINAL REGULATORY APPROVALS FOR WATER SERVICE?

Measure JJ requires there to be a guaranteed permanent source of water before development activities occur. So if that's not through CalWater, it would be incumbent upon the property owner to secure water rights through a different mechanism before any development could occur.

Thank you, Eric. NEXT QUESTION IS, WHAT LEGAL PENALTIES APPLY IF ACTUAL POST-CONSTRUCTION ENERGY USE ENDS UP BEING HIGHER THAN THE ON-SITE SOLAR PRODUCTION?

IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE PLAN, THERE ARE NO PENALTIES.

THANK YOU. And last but not least, we are seeing so many changes on this front, so many changes in the predictions. How will sea level rise defenses be updated over time if the state flood projections change before the year 2100?

And for that, we can see if we have an initial answer from our consultant team. We do have expert environmental scientists from ESA. However, the sea level rise will be a specific topic at one of our future hearings where we'll do a much deeper dive on that. So we might not have all of the answers for you on that one this evening.

Great. Thank you. Those are all my questions at this time.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS. BECAUSE THIS SEEMS TO BE BROUGHT UP IN MANY CIRCLES, IF STAFF COULD RESPOND TO THIS, THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE ASKING WHY WITHIN THIS PROJECT WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 6.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET AND WHY WE WOULD INSIST ON COMMERCIAL IN A DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN JUST MAKING IT ALL HOUSING.

THE SOMEWHAT CIRCULAR ANSWER IS THAT MEASURE JJ PROVIDES FOR BOTH HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT WAS THE MIX THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. HOWEVER, SOME OF THE LOGIC BEHIND INCORPORATING THAT LEVEL OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS TO HELP meet the other policy goal of Measure JJ to have a development that's fiscally positive to the city on an ongoing basis. Residential land uses tend to demand more public services and can cost more to service than they generate in tax revenue or other revenues to the city. But other commercial developments SUCH AS RETAIL OFFICES, HOTELS, CAN GENERATE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE AND OTHER FEES THAT WILL HELP THE DEVELOPMENT LONG TERM BE FISCALLY POSITIVE TO THE CITY AND ALSO FRANKLY LIKELY BE FISCALLY POSITIVE FOR THE DEVELOPERS SO THERE'S SUFFICIENT ECONOMIC RETURN TO HELP FINANCE THE LEVEL OF CLEANUP AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NEEDED TO HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT OCCUR AT THE BAYLANDS.

So I'd just like to further clarify. So I also hear if you just built housing all over the project, you'll, as a city, have this windfall of tons of property tax. So if I'm to go back to what you said, property tax alone would not be sufficient to carry the weight of services that would be required and also to make this development feasible for the developers?

THAT LIKELY IS CORRECT, AND WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH WITH THE CITY'S EXPERT REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS TO HELP PUT SOME MORE DETAILED NUMBERS TO THAT, AND SOME OF OUR FUTURE MEETINGS WILL BE REPORTING BACK ON THOSE RESULTS, BUT THAT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING, YES, AND CERTAINLY WHEN The program of Measure JJ was being discussed back in 2018. The city's economist, Kaiser Marston, did weigh in and say at the time feel that that land use mix would be fiscally positive for the city.

Proof of a reliable water supply prior to site development. What exactly characterizes the first step as site development? Is it remediation? Is it infrastructure? Is it an application for permits for housing or commercial development?

Yeah, so it's not expressly defined in Measure JJ, but city practice would be to treat the first issuance of a building permit as site development activity that required that water source.

So a building permit would be for commercial or residential?

Correct. That's correct.

Okay. So would this present a potential conundrum if there was infrastructure and remediation and no water? And is that legal under the tenets of California state law to move ahead on all of those steps without having a water source?

I'm not sure, move forward on which steps? I'm sorry, I didn't totally follow your question there.

If you were going to create a subdivision within the state of California, I believe, and I can't cite it for you, I believe there may be some state laws that require you to say, here's the water source that's going to be used for this development.

WELL, THERE WAS A WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT PREPARED EVEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE EIR, AND YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, EVERY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S SUBJECT TO CEQA AND PROPOSES AT LEAST 500 HOUSING UNITS OR AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HAS TO GO THROUGH A WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPLY THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. EARLY IN THE PROCESS, BEFORE THERE'S APPROVALS ISSUED, LONG BEFORE THERE'S DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. HERE CAL WATER DID PROVIDE AN EARLY WILL SERVE LETTER. THERE'S A WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH THE EIR. AND THEN MEASURE JJ PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THOSE FIRM WATER RIGHTS BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT CAN BEGIN TO OCCUR.

Okay, so that's before any development can occur is before a permit application is submitted for housing or commercial development.

I BELIEVE A PERMIT COULD BE APPLIED FOR, BUT A BUILDING PERMIT WOULDN'T BE ISSUED UNTIL THAT REQUIREMENT WERE SATISFIED. NEW SPEAKER OKAY.

AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE OVER THE DURATION OF VARIOUS INCARNATIONS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE BRISBANE ON THIS PROJECT, THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT WATER SOURCES INDICATED. AND SO I JUST WONDERED IF IN FACT A WILL SERVE CONSTITUTE AS A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WE'LL TEASE THAT APART A LITTLE BIT. BUT THERE'S NOT A FINAL CONTRACT TO PROVIDE WATER SERVICE TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE SECURED AND APPROVED BEFORE, AGAIN, BEFORE THAT SITE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY CAN OCCUR.

OKAY. AND I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE IN BRISBAYNE WE HAVE NO EXTRA WATER FOR ANYONE HERE WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT. MY OTHER QUESTION, AND STEPHANIE, THIS ONE IS FOR YOU. SO PARLAYING OFF OF COUNCILMEMBER LENTZ'S QUESTION ABOUT PROPERTY OWNER VERSUS DEVELOPERS, WE KNEW UNIVERSAL PARAGON AND NOW IT'S BDI. HAS UNIVERSAL PARAGON DISAPPEARED? AND IS IT NOW BDI? AND SO IF YOU ARE THE DEVELOPER, ARE YOU THE SOLE DEVELOPER? IS THIS SOMETHING WHERE YOU WOULD BE PARTNERING WITH OTHER DEVELOPERS? WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO'S DOING WHAT.

AND WE'RE STILL FIGURING IT OUT, TOO, MADAM MAYOR. SO BDI, BALANCE DEVELOPMENT INC., IS THE ENTITLEMENT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ARM OF SUNQUEST. UPC WAS THE FORMER SAME ROLE. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. I WASN'T AROUND FOR THE HISTORY AND THE CHANGE, BUT, YEAH, I THINK YOU CAN You can, I think for purposes of this discussion, forget about UPC. It is Baylands Development Inc. who is the entitlement and property management arm for SunQuest. Again, the way we envision this happening as it does with all of these very large sites, particularly the privately owned, Mission Bay is a little different because that was mostly city owned property. SO THAT'S WHY I KEEP GOING BACK AND REFERRING TO THE BAY MEADOWS PROJECT, WHICH WAS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A 100-ACRE SITE OWNED BY A ONE-OWNER STOCK BRIDGE WHO BROUGHT IN A MASTER DEVELOPER CALLED WILSON MEANIE. WILSON MEANIE THEN BROUGHT IN RETAIL DEVELOPERS, SHEA HOMES, and TriPoint did the housing at Bay Meadows. Bridge Housing did the affordable housing. And Wilson Media actually built the commercial. So, it's often a very, you know, it's a stack of a master developer and then bringing in a lot of retail developers, either, you know, selling pads or long-term leasing them.

So you're saying that that's something that BDI would employ as well? Absolutely, yeah.

There's no other way to develop these large complicated sites. You do need what we call the retail developers. Those are the Shea Homes and the commercial developers who do this kind of work day in and day out. As Council Member Lentz pointed out, our company is not a development arm. We don't develop. We own property and then we SELL IT OR WE BRING IN OTHER PEOPLE TO DEVELOP IT. COUNCILMEMBER O'CONNELL.

I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, BUT NOT FOR STEPHANIE, FOR STAFF.

I DO HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR STEPHANIE, BUT I COULD DO IT AFTER YOURS.

COUNCILMEMBER O'CONNELL, GO AHEAD.

I JUST WANTED TO ASK STAFF, WHEN YOU SAID THAT There has to be a water agreement, a guarantee before any building permits are issued. You also said water and infrastructure. So does the infrastructure have to be built or guaranteed to that project before it can be approved? You said the word infrastructure, so I'm wondering if that's included.

Can I ask a clarifying question? Okay. So are you asking does a water supply agreement need to be provided prior to infrastructure being developed on site?

No. Does infrastructure need to be provided before a building permit is approved?

Got it.

Water infrastructure.

THERE HAS TO BE A RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE COULD POTENTIALLY BE PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT WAS BEING ISSUED.

So it's possible that within this specific plan, water would be built out, water infrastructure would be built out to just supply each individual section as a building permit was issued? Or would all the water infrastructure be put in place before they started issuing building permits?

I think it would be unusual to see a site of this scale have all of the infrastructure be installed up front. It's more common to phase it along with development. Typically, the way that the city regulates that is through a subdivision improvement agreement or A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WHERE THE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE TO BE THAT WILL SERVE THE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED AND BONDED FOR AND DELIVERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IT WILL SERVE.

NEW SPEAKER SO BONDED FOR YOU MEANS CITY PROVIDED?

NEW SPEAKER NO, THE DEVELOPER.

NEW SPEAKER DEVELOPER PROVIDED. OKAY. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER COUNCIL MEMBER LENTZ.

Yeah, just to follow up on your question to Stephanie. Stephanie, you wouldn't mind coming up, please. So during the Planning Commission hearings and our hearing, right, there's the specific plan and then there's the development agreement, right? And the DA is a contract between the city and who on your side? Is it SunQuest? Is it BDI?

Well, no, it's BDI. We're acting as the agent for SunQuest, yes.

Okay, so you have the authority. You've shown proof to staff that you have. I mean, it's a big contract, right? So we need to make sure we dot all our I's and cross all our T's.

Yes.

Okay, so that's in writing.

Our CEO will be, yeah, signing the contract. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, FEEDBACK FROM THE OWNERSHIP. BUT, YEAH.

I'M JUST ASKING WHO IS AUTHORIZED AND THEN, OF COURSE, YOU HAVE A CONTRACT AND YOU HOPE THAT EACH SIDE UPHOLDS CONTRACT AND, YOU KNOW, NOT ALL CONTRACTS GO AS PLANNED. SO WE JUST NEED TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE ON COUNCIL? NO? OKAY.

I DO HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION, MADAM MAYOR, FOR STAFF.

GO AHEAD.

AND THAT IS IN REGARDS TO FISCAL IMPACTS. IT'S ON PAGE 11. SO IT'S TALKING ABOUT REVENUE POSITIVE FOR THE CITY ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. LET'S SEE. THE APPLICANT HAS PREPARED A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROJECT. And this analysis is undergoing peer review by the city's consultant, Kaiser Marston Associates. So where are we with that? And when will that be available to the council?

THAT REVIEW IS STILL ONGOING. I'M NOT SURE IF THE CITY MANAGER HAS ANY OTHER MORE ACCURATE RESPONSE OTHER THAN WE ARE STILL WORKING WITH KAISER MARSTEN ON THAT.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. THROUGH THE CHAIR, JEREMY DENIS, CITY MANAGER. WE'RE HAVING AN INTERNAL CONVERSATION TOMORROW TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS RELATED TO SCOPE. ONCE WE RESOLVE THAT ISSUE WITH KAISER MARSTEN, IT WOULD TAKE APPROXIMATELY FOUR WEEKS TO GET A PRODUCT BACK FROM THEM.

NEW SPEAKER Okay. Okay. And then I'm curious. So in this paragraph it talks about being revenue positive. But will we also have a fiscal analysis identifying projected costs for remediation and infrastructure such as water, roads, open space? And then how those costs will be paid and by who? Are we going to have like that complete fiscal analysis?

THAT'S NOT DOING A FULL PRO FORMA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT PART OF THE ECONOMIST SCOPE RIGHT NOW. BUT THE SPECIFIC PLAN CONTEMPLATES A MIXTURE OF FINANCING SOURCES WHICH COULD INCLUDE OBVIOUSLY PRIVATE INVESTMENT, STATE GRANTS AND FUNDING SOURCES AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BOND WITH A COMMUNITY FINANCING DISTRICT, OR AN INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT, AND THOSE ARE MECHANISMS THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING IN MORE DETAIL IN CONNECTION WITH THE REVENUE POSITIVE PART. EXACTLY. THE REVENUE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

YEAH. I WASN'T PLANNING TO BRING IT UP BECAUSE I KNOW WE'LL BE DISCUSSING IT IN OTHER AREAS, BUT THIS IS KIND OF LIKE TEEN YOU UP, RIGHT, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE SOME KIND OF FISCAL ANALYSIS OF THOSE AREAS. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY NOT IN GREAT, YOU KNOW, GRANULAR DETAIL, BUT JUST HAVING A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING FOR THE COUNCIL SO THAT AS WE MOVE INTO OTHER PARTS OF DISCUSSION, WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION. AVAILABLE? OKAY. THANK YOU.

CAN I HAVE A QUICK FOLLOW-UP ON THAT? PLEASE. SO CONSIDERING THAT KAISER MARSEN NEEDS AN ADDITIONAL FOUR WEEKS AT LEAST, I IMAGINE THAT THE HEARING THAT WE'LL HAVE EXPLORING A NET POSITIVE FOR THE CITY IS GOING TO BE AFTER THAT FOUR WEEKS? WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION.

NEW SPEAKER NO, I DON'T THINK THAT DISCUSSION WOULD MAKE ANY SENSE WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION.

NEW SPEAKER I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE DATE OF THAT MEETING IS, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S MORE THAN FOUR WEEKS AWAY.

NEW SPEAKER IF WE HAVE TO ADJUST THE SCHEDULE, WE'LL DO SO.

For the record, it's projected for October 15th, which is about a month away.

Well, it's tight. So, I mean, we were definitely going to need to have time to review that analysis and the public needs time to review that analysis before we can have an informed conversation on that date. So we may need to plan ahead and do some adjusting.

Correct. IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE THAT THE CONSULTANT COULD FINISH A DELIVERABLE MORE QUICKLY. WE'LL EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO BE EFFICIENT.

NEW SPEAKER ANY OTHER COUNSEL QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. I HAVE SOME SLIPS. WE'RE STILL ON THIS TOPIC. YOU'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THIS TOPIC. SO IF ANYONE ELSE anticipates wanting to make a comment or ask a question, if you haven't filled out a slip, would you please do so now? Just on this topic.

Which is, can you restate?

Yes, this topic is Measure JJ and the general plan requirements that govern the Bayland-specific plan.

Madam Mayor, perhaps you did and I missed it, but I think you mean to open the public hearing?

I'm going to in a second. Very good. Didn't get there yet. okay so i see some people filling out slips and and i'll remind just for this first go around anyone online go in the chat feature on zoom city clerk will be there they'll create the speaker slip for us and put you in the queue to speak. That being said, I'm going to open the public hearing now. And the first slip I have is from Arnold Galarza. I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing name, Arnold. Yes, sir. If you could step up to the podium, please. Thank you.

Yes, my name is Arnold Galarza. That's G-A-L-A-R-Z-A. And I own the property at 3840 Bayshore Boulevard. And I noticed that my name was on the Baylands list of owners, but my partial's not. So my partial number is 007-553-050. And it's not on the list. I'm across the street from the project. And I just wanted my name to be deleted and have a record showing that.

Okay. Julia, could you respond to that, please?

SURE. SO WE ACKNOWLEDGED I THINK MAYBE 15 MINUTES OR SO AGO THAT THE ATTACHMENT THAT MR. GOLARZA'S NAME APPEARED ON WAS MISTITLED. IT REPRESENTS NOT ONLY OWNERS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BUT ALSO OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN 300 FEET. SO WE ACKNOWLEDGE PUBLICLY THAT HE'S NOT AN OWNER OF LAND WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLANT AREA. HIS NAME APPEARS ON THE LIST AS HE IS AN OWNER WITHIN 300 FEET.

I HOPE THAT'S SUFFICIENT. NEW SPEAKER. COULD I HAVE MY NAME REMOVED FROM THAT LIST?

NEW SPEAKER. JULIA, HE'S REQUESTING HIS NAME TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST.

THE WE HAVE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE LIST IS TITLED PROPERLY, BUT WOULD CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THAT NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET.

That'd be fine. I just need it. I just need my name removed Okay, all right.

Thank you any for the problems with that sir if you would contact our planning department They'll square that for you.

Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you Next one I have is Paul Buskell Post Galbraith been resident

thank you council and everybody here tonight um I just wanted to bring up things I've brought up in the past regarding JJ and you know it would have been a Superfund site had housing been mentioned back in the day but housing was never mentioned that's why it's a brownfield with that said I SAT ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMITTEE, THE EIR, THE THIS, THE THAT, HEARD YOU GUYS, CAME TO MEETINGS, THE DEVELOPERS, THE BUILDERS, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AT LEAST TEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. SO I HAVE AN IDEA FOR THE HOUSING. I'LL START THERE. I'D LIKE TO SEE US AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND HAVE THE HOUSING MOVED. to the lower portion of the Levinson property that's adjacent to infrastructure, Bayshore, Main Street, We can make the connection to Guadalupe and the park like people wanted to see. We could get funding to maintain the butterfly habitat that's above the properties. Just like we did a density transfer in Brisbane to give property owners a right to build more density because of their habitat that had value. we should give the developer a density transfer right for hazardous areas that they moved housing out of the baylands and put it into a property something we could do now get the housing built and for some of you that might not know the hot issue about the housing in the baylands is none of those kids are going to be in the brisbane school district they're in the bayshore school district that's not okay can't have a city that has children in their community that are in a different school district like that that's a hostile school district I'll say that publicly so with that said A general plan amendment could look at that. We need to pump the brakes on this development. Now we have Candlestick being, I mean, they're moving fast-tracking on Candlestick. Maybe a lot of the infrastructure the Baylands was going to have to do as far as the connectors to the highway could be accomplished through that development. Maybe they could bring high-pressure water like San Francisco has for their firefighting, which two-thirds of the water that's going to be required for the Baylands is supposed to be for firefighting. and redundancy. That's everything the high pressure system can do for the Baylands development. They're talking about bringing in the transit into the Baylands. Developments near transit, most people that live in those developments don't use the transit because it's not frequent enough. They get their cars and they have to drive to where they're going. So these transit orientated developments don't really fly. Let's bring something big here. Let's bring a big event center. You know, the state tried to come in with high-speed rail, another thing that delayed this project. Then they tried to do excessive condemnation, taking more land than needed. Once the state comes in, there's no planning department in Brisbane that can have any say in a state development data centers project. whatever they want to do so we have to be careful we need to pump the brakes cal water is not a reliable source san francisco water turnout if you want to do a development agreement with or whatever it is with cal water Maybe instead of relying on one water source coming into the Baylands from Cal Water, you have a 44-inch main and a 60-inch water main from Hetch Hetchy. And to Mayor Mackin's point, yes, there isn't enough water allotment for Brisbane. However, if we could accomplish, like I had mentioned to the Baylands, creating a non-plottable water tank or Having our own high-pressure water system that we pump Baywater like San Francisco does for their high-pressure firefighting systems So thank you. Oh Was that it? I didn't see the clock. I didn't even think you started it yet.

We started no. Okay.

Thank you Thank you for letting me rant but please pump the brakes on this we we need to look at this from a different standpoint nowadays, especially with candlestick going on and

Thank you. Next one I have is Randall Venable.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Randall Venable. I'm a business owner here in Brisbane and a homeowner, I'd probably say. 30 years ago, I realized that when I moved to Brisbane, that just like my business, change is revolutionary and it's also evolutionary. And what I found about Brisbane that really made my decision to move here is WAS AS A BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS, I REMEMBER GOING INTO HARDWARE. YOU GUYS PROBABLY ALL KNOW BILLY, HIS FATHER, SECOND GENERATION. I WALKED UP TO HIM AND SAID, HEY, I JUST MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MY BUSINESS AND I'M LOOKING FOR CREDIT. You know, shook my hand. He says, you already have the credit. And so that was what made me feel like small town Brisbane was important. And I'm glad I moved here. I'm very happy to be a citizen. So the revolutionary part of this is change is revolutionary. And not everybody's going to like it. Not everybody's going to appreciate it. But it has to come in time. I think the JJ project is going to be good for this city. It's going to be good for our business. I'm really hoping that the project, however, does include our small business. And small businesses are important. Small businesses like the Seven Mile House, my business, other businesses. We need to have a place. So hopefully the project doesn't move us out and keeps us part of this community. So thank you.

Thank you. Don Wagner.

Esteemed Council, thank you for allowing me to just address you guys. I'm not going to go into all the reasons that I support the project, but I'm just asking for your support for Measure JJ and the specific plan, and I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Mary Rogers.

Good evening. I'm here because I sat through all of the planning commission meetings regarding Bayshore Boulevard getting sliced the road diet down to two lanes. And I was surprised to see staff recommending the mobility project as is. So I'm hoping that you don't approve that. But if you happen to approve that road diet, I would like to see the following analysis. Traffic needs to be monitored street by street. We all know the chaos on visitation in San Bruno as of today. Can you imagine that with the Baylands project and all the traffic coming through town? CONDUCT BASELINE TRAFFIC COUNTS BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION SO RESIDENTS IN THE CITY CAN OBJECTIVELY MEASURE ANY CHANGES AFTERWARD. ACCOUNT FOR THE FULL BAYLANDS BUILDOUT WHEN EVALUATING POTENTIAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS RATHER THAN MODELING ONLY CURRENT CONDITIONS. SET MEASURABLE THRESHOLDS FOR CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC, SPEEDING NOISE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY WITH A COMMITMENT TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION IF THESE THRESHOLDS ARE EXCEEDED. Report the results publicly and provide residents with a meaningful opportunity to review and respond to the data. SO THAT'S ONE THING. SECONDLY, YOU DID BRING UP LOOKING AT THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THIS BIG PROJECT. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT COUNCIL SEE THE NET POSITIVE, ITS REVENUE, LESS EXPENSES. SO EXPENSES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE MODELED OUT. YOU GUYS SHOULD NOT BE SIGNING ON THE DOTTED LINE UNTIL YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS TO THE CITY OF BRISBANE. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AT LEAST PUT A STAKE IN THE GROUND AND HAVE THAT ANALYSIS DONE BEFORE YOU SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE. THIRDLY, I'M SURPRISED OF ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL HAS BEEN ASKING STAFF AND BACK AND FORTH. AS THIS IS A HUGE PROJECT THAT IMPACTS BRISBANE, THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE BRISBANE. AND I'M SURPRISED THAT SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. I MEAN, WE ARE CLOSE TO SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, AND SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE PRETTY BASIC. WE SHOULD ALREADY KNOW THIS. SO PLEASE, BE ON TOP OF IT. THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU, MARY.

Then the salmon.

Well, I think if I had been here, if JJ was going on, it would not have passed. I would have got at least 6% people against it. But anyway, we have all kinds of problems. I think one is the ownership. So is SunQuest the same as Tuntex? I'm not really sure if that's the same owner, if they've actually changed owners or just changed their name. But one of the problems we had on the Northeast Ridge is as soon as we passed said the government permits, they sold everything to Brookfield, which then Brookfield ignored all the things that they were supposed to do, which is why I sued them. But anyway, so we have to have some kind of protection in terms of what's happening, who's responsible. IS IT THE OWNER? IS THE OWNER STILL TUNTEX? WHAT'S GOING ON? SO FOR THE PROPERTY, EVERYTHING IS SOLD. ANY KINDS OF CONSTRICTIONS, WHATEVER, HAS TO GO WITH IT. AND THEN LET'S SEE. THIS HAS TO BE JUST MAJOR. THE EIR ITSELF. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S PART OF MAJOR J.J., BUT TO ME IT IS. AND IT'S INADEQUATE. FIRST OF ALL, THE TANK FARM DOWN BELOW IS NOT CONSIDERED. THAT'S SUPER EXPLOSIVE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF YOU HAVE ONE ROAD TO GET THERE FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THERE. We have the glue factory, the race courses, other things that have existed there where they're planning to build homes that are not considered. None of the toxics from there are dealt with. And then how can you have gardens on clay caps? One of the things that hasn't been talked about, they talk about sea level rise, but they haven't talked about liquefaction in the case of earthquakes. I'm sorry. It's not going to happen. You've got a five-foot clay cap. You have an earthquake. It's going to disappear. And you're not going to want children on it. Thirty-two years ago, writing the 1994 general plan, I gave enough FARs where they could build infrastructure that was commercial along Bay Shore with dwelling units up above for the people who work there, not for kids playing on toxic soil. And I really think that needs to be considered. As to water, we don't have enough water even for the houses that exist in California now. And there's no way you're going to get more water from anywhere else. Are you going to put a desalination plan there, plant? I don't think so. It's not going to happen. So there's a lot of stuff that's still going on that's still not possible to do. And we talk about electricity. I guess we'll wait for the sustainability measures, topic number two. But we have problems here that still have not been dealt with. And I'm just asking you, please, to go over everything with a fine-tooth comb because it's not at all settled as far as I'm concerned. And believe me, we gave them plenty of latitude to build something 32 years ago, and they didn't.

Ms. Salmon, would you like your question answered about Tuntex? I believe Stephanie could respond to that.

That would be great.

I can, please don't quote me on this, but I believe Tuntex has been completely dissolved and Sunquest is the owner of the Brisbane Baylands.

Okay. Thank you. I have a Doug Cheshire, I believe.

Good evening, Mayor Macklin, fellow council members and staff. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Doug Cheshire. I'm a field representative for Carpenters Local 217 here in San Mateo County, where I represent over 1,200 members here in San Mateo County, but over 36,000 in Northern California alone. I'm here tonight to ask that you approve the specific, or excuse me, affirm that the specific plan is consistent with the Measure JJ and the general plan. And For nearly two decades, this development has sat idle, waiting for this moment. The Baylands is a once in a generational development that will create and advance jobs throughout its lifetime and beyond. Right here in Brisbane and throughout San Mateo County. That being said, partnering with a responsible union contractor, the Baylands team is providing an opportunity that many developers leave out of the equation. and that is committing to the community and those who build it. That commitment will create jobs with livable wages, health care, retirement benefits with apprenticeship opportunities to local construction workers that include minorities, women, at-risk youth, ensuring that they will develop the skills necessary to have a successful, lifelong career in the construction industry. That alone will leave lasting impacts on working families right here in Brisbane and throughout the region for decades to come. This development will also provide 2,200 units of much needed housing in walkable neighborhoods with increased connectivity with parks and trails helping meet the city's housing needs. I'd like to thank city staff and the applicant team for their hard work in crafting such a well thought out development. This is not just another project. This is the moment. Please move this project forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, John. Nancy Laksamana.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. I have been here also all of these years and grew up in Visitation Valley. So I'm well versed in knowing what this property has been 60 years ago, closed the dump. We actually, our family home, looked down upon it from the hill near Schlage Lock. I'm thrilled that you said early on, prefacing this conversation, Ms. Mackin, that we're all looking for a positive outcome. The voters of Brisbane, even though it was a 55-45 gap, it was actually 21% more people voted for the project than didn't. So I hope that you will continue with that spirit THAT THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE OF BRISBANE VOTED ON EIGHT YEARS AGO AND TRULY WANT AND NEED AND REQUIRE THAT MEASURE JJ DOES EXACTLY WHAT ALL OF YOU ARE DEMANDING. IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, NOT JUST THE GUIDE POSTS OR THE GOAL POSTS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. So I really appreciate what you've done. I also appreciate what the Planning Commission has done, voting unanimously to move this forward to you to this point. Long overdue, but I totally get what we've done, and I support you in what you have required of this process. We believe that this is really the moving forward for Brisbane, or at least I believe that this moving forward for Brisbane as it was written in Measure JJ. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy. Emily Wagner, is it?

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Emily. I'm a Brisbane resident, and I'm also a union apprentice. And as a 25-year resident, you might be able to guess my age from that. I believe that community expansion right now in Brisbane should be viewed as an opportunity to build a stronger, more diverse, and economically resilient city. This growth can bring meaningful benefits to our community, such as new housing, new businesses, new jobs, and increased opportunities for all of us. As my career and my independence grows, I would love to be able to continue living and working in our city. As our community grows, thoughtful development, which seems to be the goal here, can also attract employers, strengthen our local economy, and provide the infrastructure and services that we need as a growing community. I understand that growth should never come at the expense of safety or quality of life. And as someone who spends a lot of time on different project sites, plans change. They change all the time. New recommendations and resources are required to keep the health and safety of everyone at the utmost importance. I believe if we keep safety as our priority, this project will responsibly thus be successfully developed. We should remember that responsible growth is not about choosing development over community, which would mean advocating for growth at any cost, but more so it's about finding a balance that allows our city to move forward while also protecting the people who call it home. Thank you.

Thank you. Lizzie Tapia? Hi, Lizzie. Come on up here.

Hi, everyone. Good evening, council members. My name is Lizzy Tapia. I'm the president of Unite Here Local 2, the hotel and food service workers union. Local 2 has commented over the last few months about multiple aspects of this project. Today we want to focus on one issue that is of utmost importance to our members, which is the quality of permanent jobs of the project and how that relates to the issue of sustainability. According to the ballot question for Measure JJ, THE DEVELOPMENT MUST ABIDE BY THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK PRINCIPLES. THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK FOR THE BAYLAND STATES THROUGHOUT THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING ABLE TO LIVE WHERE YOU WORK IS AN OPTION THAT MANY WORKING CLASS PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER ACHIEVE. THE FRAMEWORK NOTES THAT ONE OF THE FACTORS DRIVING THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS IS THE LACK OF JOBS THAT PAY WELL ENOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH THE COST OF LIVING. SO WHAT ARE JOBS THAT PAY WELL ENOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH THE COST OF LIVING? WE BELIEVE THEY'RE JOBS WITH AFFORDABLE FAMILY HEALTH CARE. JOBS THAT HAVE LIVING WAGES, JOBS THAT HAVE RETIREMENT SECURITY. ALL OF THOSE ARE FACTORS IN ADDRESSING AFFORDABILITY. The developer of this project has reached out to us and we're talking with them about this very issue. Our members care deeply about bringing good jobs to Brisbane. As you contemplate this project, we hope you will keep our concerns in mind. Thank you.

Thank you. Michelle Salmon.

Michelle Salmon, Brisbane resident. Contrary to what people might think, and spell my name correctly, contrary to what people might think, I am not opposed to the project overall. And it is going to move forward. But I'm very concerned about the toxins. I'm very concerned about where things are going to be placed. And I'm very concerned about the viability overall for the city of Brisbane. And I'm also concerned that it will be taking place at the same time as a potential project in the quarry. But one of the things that – there were several things, and one of them is that I'm still not comfortable with the draft EIR – or the EIR – There are data gaps that were not addressed, and there were questions that were put forth. You know, in 1925 we started using leaded gas, and we used leaded gas until 1992. There is significant lead deposition all along Old Bay Shore and all along Highway 101 that has not been studied in the EIR. There are other data gaps, and I've brought them up, And they really have an impact on where we place things. For instance, a school. So I am very concerned about that. And so as we move forward, my number one thing is that whatever we do is safe. I also was really unclear about the answer about the water. Before they break ground, do they have to have a water source for the entire project? Or is it going to be piecemeal? Because water is going to become more and more scarce as we move forward. That's pretty obvious when you look at climate change and you look at current trends and the sustainability barriers that we are surpassing every day that we will not be able to go back on. And so if we proceed with this, I do want to make sure that we have all water that is needed for this project committed before we start. Because one of the things in Measure JJ is it has to be a full sustainable plan and fully, you know, like pays for itself. And then the other thing is that we're talking about GHG emissions per capita. What capita number are they using for that? The current one, the expected one, the one that includes, you know, population growth that's continuing to happen. So there are a lot of things that still, is it going to be absolutely safe for future residents? Well, we darn well better make sure that it is. Because we don't want people dying out there. We don't want them dying to live on the Baylands. And so that's the part that I take seriously. And I don't want these nice workers to get sick working with toxic materials and toxic dust. I don't want people who are going to live out there or work out there get sick and get cancer. Oh, yeah, they're going to need medical insurance. We don't need another toxic site. And this is why remediation is... is really, really important. We really need to focus on making this as clean and safe as we possibly can. And if we can't make it clean and safe for people to live there and work there. Well, that's a problem. Thank you. And also, it is not comparable to the three projects that Stephanie brought up. Those were very different things. Each project is unique. And this is particularly the Sarah Point project that was a planned, diked, layered, manifested, and Title 27 closed landfill. That is a way different thing than what we're talking about here. I just really want to make that clear. Thank you.

Ms. Salmon, would you like your question answered about the water?

I would like my question answered. And the other thing I think that might speed this up is if when you say who's coming up, you could say who's going to be next after them so they're all prepared and ready to go faster.

Okay.

Okay.

So staff, the question that she asked was about whether the water had to be secured for the entire site or if that could be done in phases for different.

Yeah, because if it's done piecemeal, I don't think we're going to get the water and we'll never get the project to where it is revenue positive for the city of Brisbane and we'll be left hanging.

So Measure JJ does require the reliable water supply to support proposed uses within the Baylands prior to site development. So that does suggest that the water contract has to cover adequate supply for all future development before any development begins.

Thank you. We need to make sure that is really locked in, and we really need to make sure on this entire thing that we dot our I's and cross our T's. And you have brought up some very astute questions tonight, and so have the people who have come and spoke. So let's take note and tighten our belts and get this done, but let's get it done right.

Okay. Thank you, Michelle. So the next speaker card I have is for Ali, and you're going to hate me, Zapperman. I'm not sure if I'm saying it right. And Clara, you will be after her. Clara Johnson will be after that.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. My name is Allie Saperman, very close, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. We support the Bayland Specific Plan as an implementation of Measure JJ, the general plan amendment Brisbane voters approved in 2018 specifically to make this development possible. Voters gave the city a clear mandate. UP TO 2,200 HOMES AND 7 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ON THE SITE. THAT MANDATE HAS BEEN SITTING ON THE SHELF FOR YEARS WHILE BRISBANE'S HOUSING ELEMENT FELL OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. THE SPECIFIC PLAN BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS HOW THE CITY FINALLY DELIVERS ON WHAT VOTERS ALREADY APPROVED. WE URGE YOU TO ADOPT A PLAN THAT STAYS FAITHFUL TO MEASURE JJ'S FRAMEWORK WHILE GIVING THE PROJECT ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY TO ACTUALLY GET BUILT OVER THE DECADES IT WILL TAKE TO CONSTRUCT. A PLAN THAT TECHNICALLY SATISFIES MEASURE JJ ON PAPER BUT CAN'T ATTRACT FINANCING OR SURVIVE CHANGING MARKET CONDITIONS DOES NOT HONOR THE VOTER'S INTENT EITHER. IT'S TIME TO TRANSLATE THAT 2018 VOTE INTO AN APPROVED BUILDABLE PLAN. THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

CLARA JOHNSON. AND AFTER CLARA WE'LL HAVE KAREN CUNNINGHAM.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. I WAS GRATIFIED BY HEARING WHAT YOU WANTED TO KNOW. AND I APPRECIATE THE HELP WITH THE AUDITORY PROBLEM AND THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR A MINUTE. I THINK THAT REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE FOR THE PUBLIC. And I think we need to keep looking at JJ. I certainly have needed to look at it over and over because it contains the instructions for what many members of the public are saying that is needed. The problem is that the current version of the FEIR does not comply with those instructions. If you follow what JJ requires, then this whole enterprise will be in much better shape. In my opinion, you should choose the environmentally superior alternative for the sake of the environment and the community. The document presented here states that overall, the environmentally superior alternative has fewer impacts on the physical environment And that, to me, means it's straightforward. You don't have to question that. If the document itself states it, I think we're all on the same page. I ask you to slow down this process for the sake of everyone here, so that we can think, reflect, and that you can make a decision under not so much pressure. I agree with the person who said that it's hard when you're also working on the quarry project in its EIR stage. And it's difficult because everything else continues without abating the needs on your time, and the staff's time, and the public's time. I think there will be a better project if you do slow down. And the project can be well overseen by the city in a logical, safer, and controlled way. Our integrity as a city will be preserved and our future will be assured. In addition, the Bayshore Mobility Plan, the part of it I object to is the road diet. And if we get that road diet, then we're all going to be suffering long-term gastric difficulties. I wanted to ask, I recall that SunQuest was a wholly owned subsidiary of UPC. Now, I believe that Universal Paragon was a subsequent name of Tantec, so I'm not sure of that. But I think there are BDI and Sunquest wholly owned subsidiaries of Universal Paragon Inc. or of another yet unnamed corporation. I think that I'd sure like to know that. And I thought that the water infrastructure had to be provided for the entire project. And I mean the basic infrastructure in order that, maybe I'm wrong and I'd like to know, or perhaps it was for an entire phase. I thank you very much for listening and I commiserate with you how much trouble you're going to have making this decision.

So, Ms. Johnson, you had two questions in there. Yeah. One, you asked if SunQuest was a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal Paragon. So maybe Stephanie can answer that for you. And the other question you had was that the water structure. So I'm assuming you're talking pipes versus water.

I'm talking about the main pipes that's required for a water supply to take off from. It seems like that would be a lot to build at the beginning, but I recall that people, we all kept saying it's for the entire project. I believe that's what it says in the general plan somewhere. Okay, so let's find out for you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

SO, STEPHANIE, COULD YOU ADDRESS THE SUNQUEST PARAGON CONNECTION?

HI, I'M KATIE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS FOR BDI. I'LL TOUCH ON THIS A LITTLE BIT. WE'RE GOING TO DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH ON THE HISTORY OF THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE. I'VE BEEN WITH THE COMPANY ABOUT TWO YEARS. STEPHANIE'S BEEN WITH IT ABOUT FOUR YEARS, AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 20 YEARS, SO THE STRUCTURE, OF COURSE, HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME. BUT AS STEPHANIE MENTIONED, WE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENT ENTITY. THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS IT PROCEEDS LATER ON WILL MOST LIKELY HAPPEN WITH PARTNERSHIPS WITH BDI. BUT WE CAN LOOK INTO ALL THE VARIOUS NAMES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS AND GET BACK TO YOU.

WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. AND STAFF, IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE QUESTION.

SO WE TOUCHED ON THIS A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, BUT GOING BACK TO MEASURE JJ, IT DOES TALK ABOUT HOW EACH INCREMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH APPROPRIATE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, SITE AMENITIES, OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH ARE TO BE PROVIDED AT DEVELOPER'S COST. AND I THINK THAT IT'S THE SAME MECHANISM THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING BEFORE, THAT AS A PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT IS APPROVED, THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED AND, AGAIN, BONDED FOR AND PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT. IF I'M NOT CAPTURING THE CITY SIDE OF THAT PROCESS PERFECTLY, I'LL DEFER TO OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ADD ANOTHER LAYER OF TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO MY ANSWER.

Thanks, Eric. Yes. So essentially, when we have a phase of development, whatever the size is for that first phase, whether it's all of it, half of it, whatever it ultimately comes through, city staff would look at that. I mean, it's not just city staff here. We're talking about fire suppression, all of that. So all the utilities would be looked at from that perspective. Is it going to meet the demand, not just for service, but also fire flow in case of an emergency, even if something else doesn't build out? So it's really subjective to what that initial phase looks like, and it would be sized appropriately. Mains, all of that would be in place to at least serve that. I wouldn't expect a developer to not want to dig up a pipeline and upsize it in the future, so you'd likely go in with the larger size that's necessary up front. But again, it's really subjective to what that initial phase would really look like before we can make a determination of whether it needs to be in place.

one little clarification with that. So if you're in remediation phase, how do you get a water supply for dust suppression?

There's multiple ways. A lot of times you would get a hydrant meter to pull for construction water. You can have a temporary connection to an existing service. Yes, that would still need to be done and it would have to be by a separate means.

Okay. Thank you. I have Karen Cunningham, and afterwards I have Frank Cohen.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, City Council. First of all, I was one of the authors of Measure JJ, as you know, but the people sitting behind us might not. So I have some real concerns that we stick to what we've voted for. It was a very horrible time in Brisbane. It was a horrible time for the city council. It was a horrible time for the people in Brisbane. We felt we were torn in a thousand different directions, but ultimately Measure JJ came through. I have 25 questions. Just kidding. Just five. Stephanie, you're happy, right? You appreciate that. Good. Thanks. Okay. I'm going to quote Measure JJ in my questions just so you can know that the things I say here are actually in Measure JJ, and you can go and check it. So, one of the things before I start is, you know, there was financial responsibility for this entire project. Who should be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved landfill closure and remediation plans? We still do not have any testing that was ever done for mercury. And we know that there was hospital waste out at the Baylands. And what was that hospital waste? Mercury thermometers, correct? And we haven't done any testing for that. So that's just off Measure JJ, and then I will continue. So who should be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved landfill closure and remediation plans? Measure JJ says, a clear schedule for landfill closure and site remediation to be completed and enforcement mechanisms such as fines, permit suspension, et cetera, if the schedule is not maintained. The developer must also provide assurances guaranteeing ongoing remediation performance and site management. The current proposal does not reflect this. And I could go on, but I'm going to run out of time, so I won't. Excuse me. I also had questions about the water supply. Obviously, that is super important. I think it's been clarified, but Measure JJ says, a reliable water supply approved by the City of Brisbane to support the proposed users within the Baylands shall be secured prior to site development. I had much more to say about that, but I'll leave that as well. And who should ultimately pay for public infrastructure and services that are required? Measure JJ says, EACH DEVELOPMENT PHASE MUST INCLUDE ALL NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITIES AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY AND BE ENTIRELY FUNDED BY THE DEVELOPER. THE PROJECT MUST BE REVENUE POSITIVE IN THE CITY AT ALL TIMES WITH PROJECT GENERATED REVENUE EXCEEDING CITY COSTS DURING EVERY PHASE OF THE FULL BUILDOUT. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL DOES NOT REFLECT THIS. And I've got more information I'll come back to you with at a later time. Questions from Measure JJ, how to produce the positive revenue. Measure JJ says the Baylands development shall Revenue positive to the city on an annual basis where all city costs example annual operating costs maintenance and replacement of equipment facilities infrastructure Cultural resources and habitat production and management etc are exceeded by the project generated revenues to the city Example the city's general funding enterprise funds special funds etc during all phases of development upon final build out. That is not reflected in the current proposal. There's also questions about the annual development plan. Each development phase must include all necessary transportation improvements, utilities, infrastructure and amenities as determined by the city and be entirely funded by the developer. We have not mentioned anywhere who is responsible. And I see in some of the things that we've got in the current proposal that some of this stuff might get back to the homeowners out on the Baylands. That was not what we proposed. So there's my questions and a couple of comments. I can provide you with actually the five pages of information that I'm citing here. But thanks for listening.

So Ms. Cunningham, do you want these questions addressed?

I don't think they can be addressed right now. I mean, I'm looking at the current proposal. That's not what's in the current proposal. That's why I'm asking questions.

Okay.

So I think those questions need contemplation by you and by staff and not just some perfunctory answer right now in the dais. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Frank Cohen. And after Frank, we will have Emmett Cunningham.

Hi, everyone. I'm a renter at 284 Mendocino Street, just up the alleyway from here. Been here for three years, and I absolutely love it. One of the fun things is to drive on Lagoon Road. It's been repaved repeatedly yet today. It has substantial dips and rises because the underlying landfill continues to settle The EIR predicts as much as 30 inches of settlement in the former landfill and 38 inches in the former rail yard potentially occurring over decades What specifically will be done differently underneath and do bail in streets that will prevent them from becoming another lagoon road? I? And who bears the cost of repairing those streets and underground utilities 10, 20, or 30 years after construction? I do have a second issue to raise. so the brisbane's public arts ordinance requires qualifying private development to contribute one percent towards public art earlier baylands drafts reduced that to one half percent i see that the staff deleted that half percent language in the 2026 specific plan but i don't see an explicit one percent requirement replacing it can staff confirm on the record that Baylands development will be subject to a full 1% requirement under Chapter 15.85 with no exemption, reduction, credit, or alternative calculation created by the specific plan or development agreement. That's my question. And if the intent is the full 1%, why not just state 1% explicitly in the specific plan?

Would you like those questions answered?

Sure.

All right. So the first question is dealing with the subsidence, 30 to 38 inches. Staff, you want to take that on?

Who's responsible for paying for those fixes?

Okay. So we're talking about you mentioned underground infrastructure and also what would be different from the current roadways that we've seen some settling. They're working on it. And if we don't have the full answer, we can always bring that back. Because sometimes things are not as simple as they seem. So we'd rather have a good response. I see our director of public works is going to respond to this.

AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORTATION NETWORK, ALL OF THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF TO DO. LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT HAVE YET TO BE FULLY DEVELOPED. IT COULD BE CITY OVERSIGHT, COULD BE THROUGH ANOTHER FINANCIAL MEANS, BUT THAT HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED YET.

OKAY. AND YOUR SECOND QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE 1% TOWARDS PUBLIC ART. STAFF, COULD YOU ADDRESS THAT, PLEASE?

SURE. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING IN CHAPTER 4, SECTION 410, REQUIRES A BALANCE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM TO BE PREPARED AND IMPLEMENTED THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S PUBLIC ART ORDINANCE, AND IT CITES CHAPTER 1585 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. HEARD THAT THE RESIDENT IS ASKING COULD WE JUST EXPLICITLY STATE WHAT THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PROGRAM ARE, CERTAINLY YOU COULD OPT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE WHEN YOU ULTIMATELY TAKE ACTION ON A SPECIFIC PLAN. I WOULD JUST MENTION THAT REFERENCING THE ORDINANCE ITSELF IS KIND OF AN EVERGREEN BEST PRACTICE BECAUSE IF THE ORDINANCE ENDS UP BEING CHANGED IN THE FUTURE THEN IT'S NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY CONFLICT WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN. BUT ANYWAY, IT IS A REQUIREMENT IN CHAPTER 4 THAT IT COMPLY WITH THE PROGRAM WHICH DOES PRESENTLY HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT.

NEW SPEAKER SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO STATE THE 1%.

All right. Thank you. Emmett Cunningham. And after Emmett, we have Wilbur M. Hello.

First of all, thanks to everybody who's been working on this. It is a very long list. I won't even begin to try to say thank you to everybody. Councilman Kerr, I loved your question about penalties. Without penalties for not actually meeting requirements, the proposal turns into a gentleman's agreement. And thus, how do we enforce it? How do we do that for solar? How do we do that for financial? How do we do that for water? Are there any penalties on these things? I think it's a great question. I think we just need to take it one step further. NEXT QUESTION. HOW LONG DO THESE BUILDING PERMITS LAST? I'M CONCERNED ABOUT US WAITING FOR TEN YEARS AFTER WE ACTUALLY GIVE SOMEBODY A BUILDING PERMIT TO DO SOMETHING AND THAT WE ACTUALLY GET THIS THING MOVING INSTEAD OF JUST HANGING ON. I DIDN'T SEE ANY KIND OF LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT ACTUALLY PUSHES THEM TO MEET A SCHEDULE THAT IS SET IN STONE ALREADY OR A GOOD SCHEDULE THAT PEOPLE CAN EXPECT. IT SAYS THAT THEY NEED TO MEET A SCHEDULE, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THAT SCHEDULE IS ONCE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE EVERYTHING WRITTEN DOWN. SO I'M SORT OF TRYING TO SAY LET'S GET THIS MOVING AND MAKE SURE THEY HOLD IT ON SCHEDULE. WE'VE BEEN BURNED BY THIS KIND OF STUFF IN TOWN BEFORE WHERE SOMEBODY HAPPENS TO HAVE AN OPEN-ENDED PERMIT FOR A VERY, VERY, VERY LONG TIME, AND IT DIDN'T EXPIRE SO I DIDN'T HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE, SO THEY CONTINUED NOT DOING SOMETHING FOR YEARS. NEXT ONE. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE ACTUAL WATER USAGE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT GUARANTEED BY CAL WATER OR WHOEVER PROVIDES THE WATER GUARANTEE? IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION. WE'RE ASSUMING THAT WE'RE PERFECT IN MAKING OUR ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT'S GOING TO GET USED. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT WHEN PLANNING THESE KINDS OF THINGS, I'VE BEEN WRONG MORE TIMES THAN I'VE BEEN RIGHT. SO MAYBE YOU GUYS ARE WAY BETTER THAN I AM OR MAYBE THEY ARE. ANYWAY, LASTLY, QUOTING, EACH DEVELOPMENT PHASE MUST INCLUDE NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND AMENITIES AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY AND ENTIRELY FUNDED BY THE DEVELOPER. THAT BRINGS UP A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION THAT SORT OF CONFLICTS WITH WHAT I WAS HEARING EARLIER. DOES THIS MEAN NO CFDs OR MELLOROOTS? CFDs ARE PASSED ON TO RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS. IS THIS CONTRARY TO THE PHRASE ENTIRELY FUNDED BY THE DEVELOPER? SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, MELLOROOTS IS JUST AN EXTRA $600 A MONTH TO THE PROPERTY OWNER OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS DEPENDING ON THE SIZE. IN OUR AREA IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE IN THAT AREA. SO ALL OF A SUDDEN THOSE THOSE HOME PRICES ARE GOING TO GO UP IN TERMS OF THE PRICE OF THE HOME IS GOING TO BE STABLE, BUT THE ACTUAL COST OF OWNING THAT HOME IS GOING TO BE MUCH HIGHER. THAT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE. THAT'S SORT OF A SURPRISE. I'M GOING TO PUSH YOU GUYS TO CLARIFY THAT CFDs ARE NOT PASSED ON TO THE RESIDENTS LIKE WAS ACTUALLY COMMENTED ON EARLIER. IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER OR CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, I'D BE DELIGHTED.

Okay, so your first question. Tief. Penalties.

Yes.

For permits. First of all, how long do building permits last? And I would tee that one up by saying I know there are extensions granted. Different cities have different ideas on that. Could we address that first?

Sure. So a building permit, once issued, has a term of one year. Anytime there's an inspection, that's automatically extended by a year. There are, well, so yeah, I'll keep my answer there.

Does that help? That does help. I just want to make sure that we're making, we have infrastructure in place to make sure things get moved forward at a consistent pace and that they take those permits out in a timely manner.

Okay.

Penalties.

Penalties.

I didn't see any talk about penalties in there about not meeting the requirements. So basically if they don't meet the requirements, oh well, whatever.

When you say requirements, could you clarify what you mean requirements for?

If the solar, if there's a requirement for 100% of the amount of energy used in the Baylands being up in solar, WHAT IF THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY USED IS IN EXCESS OF THAT? WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES? WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES OF NOT BEING FINANCIALLY EVEN, LIKE THE CITY IS NOT GETTING AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY EXPECTED? WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES FOR WATER IF WE DON'T HAPPEN TO HAVE ENOUGH WATER SECURED AND WE ACTUALLY GO OVER OUR WATER USAGE? IF THERE'S NO PENALTY INVOLVED, Oh, well. So we made it a guess, and we were wrong, and too bad. So sad. Tough to be you.

So you're looking for what are the consequences of not meeting the elements. I think that's a legal question, perhaps.

Yeah, and a lot of these are topics that are going to be discussed at future meetings. We have specific meetings set aside to talk about the fiscal positivity infrastructure, so there will be a lot more DETAIL ON THOSE PROVISIONS AT OUR FUTURE MEETINGS. WE THINK THE PLAN IS SET UP TO BE PROSPECTIVE SO THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, BUILDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE INTEGRATED AND DISTRIBUTED ON-SITE ENERGY GENERATION. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MEET CERTAIN ENERGY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE ENFORCED VERY CLEARLY UP FRONT. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS TO INCORPORATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT. THE PENALTY FOR NOT COMPLAINING WITH THOSE WOULD BE THAT YOU DON'T GET YOUR PERMIT ISSUED AND THAT SECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T GO FORWARD. SO THOSE TYPES OF MECHANISMS ARE ALREADY STRUCTURED IN THE PLAN. AS WE MENTIONED IN RESPONSE TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, THE PLAN DOESN'T CURRENTLY HAVE A PENALTY CONSTRUCT BAKED IN FOR WHAT HAPPENS IF A FUTURE HOMEOWNER USES MORE ENERGY THAN WE'RE CURRENTLY PROJECTING. ARE WE GOING TO PENALIZE THAT PERSON? THERE'S NOT A GREAT MECHANISM TO DO THAT. THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED AS PART OF THE PLAN, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS IN FURTHER DETAIL IF THAT'S COUNCIL'S INTEREST.

And the final question was about Melrose districts. If staff or everyone here can explain what that means and CFDs.

Actually, I understand what Melrose are. What I don't understand is the fact that we would be taking out Melrose, which passes on the cost to the homeowner or the business people, when in fact the text on JJ says, and be entirely funded by the developer.

Understood. Understood. I just want to make sure everyone understands what we're talking about since you brought it up. Eric, you want to try to field that? Or Julia?

Okay. A CFD is a way to create revenue to fund infrastructure by borrowing against future assessed property values. And as the speaker said, there are assessments placed against developed property that pay the future owners will pay in order to service the debt that was incurred to put the infrastructure in as an initial matter. I GUESS IT'S A LITTLE PHILOSOPHICAL ABOUT WHETHER A DEVELOPER IS PAYING FOR SOMETHING OR A FUTURE HOMEOWNER IS PAYING FOR SOMETHING. MONEY IS SORT OF FUNGIBLE. IF THEY WEREN'T PASSING IT THROUGH VIA AMELO-ROOSE, THEN THE SALES PRICE POTENTIALLY WOULD HAVE TO BE HIGHER TO MAKE UP FOR THE COST OF PROVIDING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. I GUESS IT STARTS TO GET A LITTLE ABSTRACT ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS. I THINK ONE WAY TO LOOK AT THE PROVISIONS OF MEASURE JJ AND THE CONCEPT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO STICK TO IS THAT IT'S NOT IN CREATING NEW COSTS THAT DRAIN THE PUBLIC FISK OR THAT THE CITY IS BEARING OUT OF ITS GENERAL FUND OR THAT THE TAXPAYERS AS A WHOLE ARE EXPOSED TO. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE, MORE TARGETED TO RAISING REVENUE TO PAY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIFIC IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AREA.

I think part of the question also was that Measure, if I got this right, is that Measure JJ was requiring that these transportation, utilities, infrastructure be developer funded. And I believe Mr. Cunningham was pointing out that Amela Roos is not developer funded. It's homeowner funded. Is that correct what you're asking? Correct.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE. THAT'S THE QUESTION I THINK I JUST ANSWERED.

NEW SPEAKER What you said was basically that the money is fungible and somebody's going to be paying one way or the other. And it really basically says that we're bypassing that portion of the measure JJ, which says be entirely funded by the developer, which would be passed on to the homeowners or business people, but the mechanism by which it's passed on is up for debate is what you're saying.

I DON'T KNOW, MAYOR, IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC QUESTION WE CAN ASK, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WANT US GOING BACK AND FORTH.

I HAVE SOMETHING THAT I THINK MIGHT CUT THROUGH. IS THIS LEGAL'S INTERPRETATION THAT MEASURE JJ SAYING THAT IT'S ENTIRELY FUNDED BY THE DEVELOPER, THE INTENT BETWEEN ENTIRELY FUNDED BY THE DEVELOPER IS SUCH THAT THE COST BURDEN DOESN'T FALL ON BRISBANE AS A CITY OR RESIDENTS THAT DON'T LIVE THERE, CURRENT RESIDENTS, AND THAT ENTIRELY FUNDED BY THE DEVELOPER COULD INCLUDE AMELA ROOS BECAUSE THOSE COSTS DON'T FALL ON THE CITY BUDGET. IT'S NOT ON THE CITY BUDGET. IT'S NOT ON TAXPAYERS THAT DON'T LIVE WHO HAVEN'T CHOSEN TO LIVE AT THE DEVELOPMENT. IS THAT WHAT I'M BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE HAVING A DIFFERENCE OF INTERPRETATION. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THAT'S LEGAL'S INTERPRETATION OF WHAT ENTIRELY FUNDED BY THE DEVELOPER IS AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE WHAT MR. CUNNINGHAM'S INTERPRETATION MEANS.

IT'S UP TO COUNSEL TO DECIDE WHAT THE INTERPRETATION IS. I THINK WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS A PERFECTLY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION.

THERE ARE MANY POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS AND THE POINT OF THIS IS WHAT IS THE INTERPRETATION AND IT'S NOT CLEAR. I'LL STEP BACK.

City attorney? Yes.

I was trying to say we should head back and forth.

Okay. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next we have Wilbur M., and after Wilbur M., we will have Larissa. Wilbur, are you here? Yes.

This would be online.

Oh, I'm sorry. That's why I don't see you. I don't see you. Go ahead, Wilbur.

Go ahead.

Can you hear me okay? Okay. We're getting there.

There's an echo.

Sorry, let me turn something off here. Good evening, Mayor Mackin and Brisbane City Council members and staff. Can you hear me clearly? Hopefully, that's the only question I'll be asking. Thank you for the opportunity for a public comment. My wife, Anna, and I are both small business owners in San Francisco's Visitation Valley neighborhood, right across the Brisbane City line. I was born in Hawaii. My wife is Pacific Islander also, and we represent the Pacific Islander Cultural District designation. within our Leland's Merchant Circle, which also includes business owners Ken and Kelly McCord of Mission Blue Cafe and over two dozen small business owners along the corridor. We acknowledge that while tonight's meeting focus is the Brisbane Baylands, the broader Baylands development includes the future Leland Main Street Economic Corridor in Viz Valley of Southeast San Francisco. Leland and several other streets will be extended from Viz Valley into the Baylands, so we We have a shared invested interest in this project, especially in light of last week's candlestick groundbreaking for additional San Francisco housing. So, on behalf of the Leland merchants, we are urging and excited for you to vote tonight to move forward with balance final environmental impact report and specific plan. Our hope is that approval in Brisbane can really help unlock momentum for the San Francisco side of the project as well. There will be, you know, obviously many new residents, workers, visitors, event participants and attendees in both Brisbane and San Francisco, which will create more demand for local restaurants, cafes, shops, small businesses and other neighborhood serving businesses. And so as the Bayland develops, it can really provide space for additional small businesses to open, expand, to serve the growing community, close to transit, parks, workplaces, housing. And so this project has a significant regional impact for the Southeast of San Francisco small business community. And we ask that you think of us as you make your recommendations. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Larissa? Is Larissa online as well? Okay. Larissa? Larissa, go ahead. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Good evening. Mayor Mack and Brisbane city council members. My name is Laura and I'm the marketing communications operations manager for the San Mateo county economic development association, also known as Sam Sita for more than 70 years. Sam Sita has worked to support a strong economy and thriving communities throughout San Mateo county. I'm here to speak in support of the balance project, because we believe in the. formative opportunity it represents for Brisbane, San Mateo County, and the broader region. The Baylands will deliver much-needed housing, create thousands of jobs, and provide new community amenities, all near high-quality public transit empowered by renewable energy. We recognize that analyzing a project of this size is an extraordinary effort, and we commend the City of Brisbane for their commitment to public engagement and careful planning. After more than 20 years of public engagement, thorough analysis, and environmental review, we would very much appreciate the city moving forward with this long-awaited project. We respectfully encourage the Brisbane City Council to recommend certification of the final EIR and adoption of the economically viable specific plan so these benefits can finally become a reality. Thank you. Thank you very much.

We've reached the end of our slips. I'd like to ask staff, would you like a five-minute break? Let's take a five-minute break. Please, let's not turn it into 15. Five minutes, stretch your legs. We'll be back for the second topic. Thank you.

music music Bye. so so Thank you. ¦ ¦ so ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon Thank you. Thank you. . . . . .

Thank you. © transcript Emily Beynon

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. We're at a three-hour mark. And that being said, we would need a motion from the council to extend the meeting. My suggestion is we try for an hour and see where it lands. If someone would like to make that motion, please.

I'll make that motion to extend the meeting until 9.30. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, that carries. We're moving on to the second section, which is the specific plan sustainability measures.

Madam Mayor, if you wouldn't mind, there were some comments that were made at the last section that I would just like to quickly maybe clarify with staff. One of those was a comment made by Mary Rogers about the road diet. And I believe in the introduction. YOU COMMENTED ON THE ROAD DIET AND HOW THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF. AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING, DID I HEAR THAT STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT RECOMMENDATION OR YOU WERE JUST NOTING THAT THEY MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION?

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS WE SUMMARIZED EARLIER WAS ADOPTION OF THE MOBILITY PLAN, WHICH CURRENTLY INCLUDES THE ROAD DIET PROVISION, BUT CORRECT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ELIMINATION OF THAT COMPONENT OF THE MOBILITY PLAN.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. AND THEN ONE THING THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM PAUL BUSCAL FOR MANY YEARS HAS BEEN ABOUT THE LEVISON PROPERTY. So I think it's important to just get some more information about the likelihood that his suggestion could occur. So could you do me a favor and let me know how many acres the Levison property is?

Sure, that property is just under 22 acres.

Okay, and then for the properties slated for development on the Baylands for housing, how many acres would just the housing be?

A little over 50.

Okay, so by that assessment, if there was a transfer, just even, no density transfer, just an even transfer from 50 acres to 22 acres, we would see the density on the Levison property have to double, more than double in order to accommodate 1800 to 2200 units.

I think it's fair to say that. And I would also just note that the Levinson property is included in the habitat conservation plan for the San Bruno Mountain area, which would, it also has habitat on it that would reduce the developable area as also encumbered by some easements that further reduce the developable area. So total size 22 acres, but developable size probably much less than that.

SO WE'RE TALKING LIKE SKYSCRAPERS TO FIT IF WE WERE TRYING TO FIT ALL THAT HOUSING THERE.

IT'S SAFE TO SAY HIGHER DENSITY.

MUCH HIGHER DENSITY. SECONDLY, IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE EXPLORED AND LET'S SAY WE ACTED UPON THAT, DO YOU PRESUME THAT IT WOULD BE LIKELY THAT THE STATE WOULD THEN SAY, OH, Now there's all this land, there's continues to be land available on the Baylands. So now with your new housing needs allocation, you seem to still have all of this developable land at your fingertips. So we could conceivably give you another number of 1500 units or 1800 units because you clearly still have some place for those units to go.

IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'M NOT GOING TO PRETEND TO KNOW ALL OF THE INTRICACIES THAT GO INTO THE RENA. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT ANY SITE IN THE BAY AREA THAT'S ADJACENT TO A TRANSIT STATION, WHICH THE BAYLANDS DOES HAVE A CAL TRAIN STATION, WOULD PROBABLY BE IDENTIFIED IN FUTURE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATIONS AS A PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT SITE OF SOME KIND. SO CAN'T PROJECT THE FUTURE, BUT I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY REMAIN A SITE THAT WOULD LEAD TO ASSUMPTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN THAT PROCESS.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY. AND THEN ONE OTHER THING, KAREN CUNNINGHAM BROUGHT UP TESTING FOR MERCURY. AND I JUST, I KNOW THIS IS REALLY NOT COVERED IN TONIGHT, BUT DO WE KNOW IF WE'VE TESTED FOR MERCURY OUT THERE?

WE CAN LOOK AT THE Well, I was going to say, yes, we are scheduled to discuss remediation at a future meeting. In fact, that meeting would be October 6th. So we can certainly address it then. But we can look at the wraps and see if we can come up with an answer before the end of tonight's meeting. If not, then certainly we can address it at that future meeting.

Okay, great. That's it for me, Madam Mayor.

Okay. So, topic two moving on is sustainability measures of the specific plan. And I would note that in the staff report, we have energy use and sustainability together, although I see energy is now under topic three. So, we've made a bit of a change in how we're approaching this. I just want to be sure. BECAUSE TOPIC THREE IS AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY IMPACTS. AND I HAVE TOPIC TWO AS SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. CORRECT?

SO I CAN CLARIFY THROUGH THE MAYOR? SO ENERGY NEUTRALITY IS A PART OF THE SUSTAINABILITY DISCUSSION. SO THEY CAN BE ADDRESSED DURING THIS SECTION. AND THE LAST SECTION IS RELYING ON THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS. SO THE ENERGY IMPACT THAT MR. SCHUESTER HAD REVIEWED IN HIS PRESENTATION.

WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT THE ENERGY IMPACTS WOULD BE UNDER TOPIC TWO OR THREE?

I guess I should have said more clearly, it's a bit more nuanced. So the provision in measure JJ for energy neutrality can be addressed with this topic two. And then topic three is reserved for questions or comments on the technical aspects of the EIR, which evaluated air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emission impacts, and energy impacts.

Okay, so topic two, sustainability measures that also includes energy neutrality. That being said, if anyone filled out a slip and you were going to talk about energy neutrality, you might want to fill out another slip for this section. That being said, we start with council questions. This is the last time, and I have Council Member Kern. You have questions you'd like to start with.

You know, Mayor Mackin, I think it's better that we start with our subcommittee members and have them go through their questions first as they have been headlong into this material. And I think it will answer some of the other council members' questions.

Okay. If you're suggesting I do rotate all the council members so we don't start with the same people.

I know, I know.

Are you suggesting we start with the subcommittee?

I think we should start with the subcommittee.

Is the subcommittee okay with that? Yeah. Okay. All right. Council Member Davis? Sure. Mayor Pro Tem Davis, I should say. Oh, no problem.

So I know there was a lot of discussion about energy neutrality, the Planning Commission. We just got to do it again. So I know you probably answered a lot of these questions. Some of them are addressed in the staff report. We should still go through the song and dance because I think it's really important. So in Volume 4 of the EIR... 4.11-1, Volume 2. Oh, no, sorry. It's Volume 2 of the EIR. Chapter 4, 11-1. There's the definition of energy neutral. It states energy neutral means generating sufficient energy on site to meet the specific plan's demand for energy on an annual basis for buildings, outdoor lighting, street lights, traffic signals, landscape irrigation, non-commercial on-site electrical equipment, Electric vehicle charging whose energy is metered as part of on-site buildings and all on-site infrastructure such as operation of the on-site water storage tank and the water recycling facility. Would you agree that this is the correct definition of energy neutral?

Well, I think that the EIR used a especially conservative definition because it was analyzing through a very particular lens looking for potential physical impacts related to the way the project uses energy. When you look at the language of measure JJ where it just uses the term energy neutrality without it being defined and then read that in the context of the sustainability framework a lot of the sustainability framework talks about energy use from buildings a little bit more narrowly and so there's there's a BROADER INTERPRETATION THAT THE COUNCIL COULD LOOK TO SHOULD IT WANT TO WHEN INTERPRETING AND APPLYING MEASURE JJ.

NEW SPEAKER Okay. SO THAT BRINGS ME TO THE BAYLANDS NET ON-SITE ENERGY CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS. THIS IS A TABLE IN APPENDIX 1. any energy resources technical report. It's on 4.11-7. So it's in the appendix of volume two. So in looking at the numbers, it says a full specific plan build out. The estimated onsite electricity consumption is 172,882 megawatt hours per year. And then in the next column of the table, it says the estimated on-site electricity generation is 92,445 megawatt hours per year. And the percentage of Baylands electrical demand met by on-site generation is classified as 53.5%. So it then looks like based on that, about 47% of the project's energy would need to be supplemented by the grid. And I just wanna first confirm if that 92,000 figure, is that encompassing all of the onsite generation or just the solar farm? BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DID TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SHADE STRUCTURES WITH SOLAR AND ROOFTOPS WITH SOLAR, AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF ALL OF THAT IS ENCOMPASSED IN THE 92-THOUSAND. I'M SEEING NODS.

YEAH, SORRY, THE 92 ENCOMPASSES THE DISTRIBUTED SOLAR IN THE SOLAR FIELD.

OKAY, SO I JUST UNDER MAKING SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING, LIKE, THE REPORT CORRECTLY. 47% OF THE PROJECT'S ENERGY NEEDS WOULD NEED TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY THE GRID. IS THAT CORRECT?

NEW SPEAKER IN THE EIR'S DEFINITION OF ENERGY NEUTRALITY WHICH YOU DID SUMMARIZE INCLUDING THOSE USES, EV CHARGING, WATER RECLAMATION AND SO FORTH, LOOKING PURELY AT ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OVER THE COURSE OF A CALENDAR YEAR AT BUILDOUT COMPARED TO ON-SITE GENERATION OVER THE SAME TIME PERIOD. ASSUMING THERE ARE SOME CAVEATS ABOUT WHICH CODE WE'RE COMPLYING WITH AND THE ENERGY REPORT ASSUMED TITLE 24, 2022 CALGREEN STANDARDS, WHICH IS FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE GIVEN THE SPECIFIC PLANS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUILDINGS. HOWEVER, YES, BASED ON GIVEN THOSE ASSUMPTIONS DONE IN THE EIR'S MODELING, 53% WOULD BE GENERATED ON SITE.

So then on page 17 of the sustainability framework, it states, the project will be designed to produce its entire annual energy needs, meaning that it will likely produce more than it uses in the summer, feeding power to the nearby community. Loads separate from these categories, such as industrial process loads, will also be met with onsite renewable energy sources if they are electric. DOES STAFF FEEL THAT A SITE THAT GENERATES 53.5% OF ITS ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL NEEDS ON SITE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK AND IN TURN, consistent with measure JJ, which states under G, the required specific plan for the Baylands shall include a sustainability program for new development consistent with the principles of the sustainability framework for the Brisbane Baylands final report accepted by the city council on November 5th, 2015. Baylands development shall be designed so as to be energy neutral on an ongoing basis. SO JUST TO RECAP THE QUESTION, DOES STAFF FEEL THAT A SITE THAT GENERATES 53.5% OF ITS ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL NEEDS ON SITE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK AND MEASURE JJ?

IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO COUNCIL TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY, BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY PATHS TO SUPPORT THAT DETERMINATION IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE IT. FIGURES THAT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT DON'T GIVE ANY CREDIT FOR ON-SITE ENERGY STORAGE AND THE USE OF BATTERIES WHICH CAN HELP DECREASE RELIANCE ON THE GRID IN ADDITION TO WHEN THERE'S TIMES OF OVERSUPPLY LIKE IN THE SUMMER, THE PROJECT COULD EVEN BE FEEDING INTO THE GRID. MEASURE JJ DOES REFERENCE CONSISTENCY WITH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK, BUT THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK ALSO TALKS ABOUT WAYS TO INCORPORATE CARBON NEUTRALITY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT AND THROUGHOUT THE WAY THAT THE PROJECT USES ENERGY. IT GIVES A MENU OF OPTIONS, INCLUDING ON-SITE PRODUCTION, INCLUDING options for off-site production, for using clean energy purchased from the grid to meet the energy demands. So there's not a single narrow path that is mandated.

THANK YOU. SO TO TALK ABOUT THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK, IT ALLOWS OFF-SITE RENEWABLE ENERGY TO FILL A GAP. SO BUT OF COURSE IT IDENTIFIES THAT AS KIND OF BEING OF LAST PREFERENCE. WHAT IS THE REQUIRED ACCOUNTING STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THAT COMBINATION ACTUALLY ACHIEVES ENERGY NEUTRALITY? And are we going to, is there some kind of ongoing mechanism in which we're going to be tracking how much is being supplemented by the grid versus how much? I mean, we have projections, but are we going to be tracking this on an ongoing basis?

SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS TO ADD IN DIFFERENT TRACKING MECHANISMS. THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENT SORT OF OPTIONS AND BACK END REPORTING THAT ARE STARTED TO BE EXPLORED IN THE STAFF REPORT THOUGH I THINK STAFF'S ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATION IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO ENSURE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS PRESCRIPTIVE UPFRONT STANDARDS ABOUT DESIGNING THE BUILDINGS TO THE HIGHEST APPLICABLE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS, TO HAVING THE AS MUCH ON-SITE DISTRIBUTED PRODUCTION AS IS FEASIBLE AND TO SUPPLEMENT WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY FROM THE GRID AS NEEDED AND THOSE SORTS OF UPFRONT REQUIREMENTS ARE JUST I MEAN, THEY'RE EASIER TO ADMINISTER. THEY'RE EASIER FOR THE CITY TO QUANTIFY AND UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF UP FRONT. THERE STILL COULD BE SOME OPTIONS FOR BACK END TRACKING IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO.

NEW SPEAKER SO, OKAY. AND, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT how looking at Westlight and future residents that live at the Baylands, they may choose not to have 100 percent renewable energy, the eco, ONE HUNDRED OPTION, I THINK THE OPT OUT RATE IS TWO AND A HALF PERCENT, I THINK FOR WESTLIGHT IN GENERAL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.

I WOULD SAY GOING FORWARD THAT WESTLIGHT WILL BE A HUNDRED PERCENT RENEWABLE AT THIS TIME. THAT'S A GOAL. BUT WITHIN A COUPLE OF YEARS THAT WILL BE A REALITY BASED ON CONTRACTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. THE SITES HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

SO IF PEOPLE OFFED OUT, IT'S SUCH A SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD TIP THE SCALES REALLY MUCH. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.

BRUCE BANE IS 98% NOW ON WESTLIGHT. OKAY. GOOD.

I THINK THE REST OF THE STUFF THAT I THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ARE REALLY ABOUT CONSISTENCY AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S REALLY FOR US TO EVALUATE WHETHER SOMETHING IS CONSISTENT AND PART OF MY QUESTIONS ARE JUST KIND OF TRYING TO GAUGE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WE'RE MISSING. Is there some kind of test that staff has undertaken as it pertains to the specific plan and how it addresses each of the 10 principles? Or does the applicant have to demonstrate that substantive sustainability outcomes contemplated by the framework will be achieved? How much of this is really... on us and how much of it is on them in the back end. I think I'm trying to figure out, it goes back to your previous comment about you try to build as much in upfront and do we see there being kind of wiggle room in this specific plan as written that maybe doesn't have a standard strong enough to accomplish consistency with the principles, things that are measurable and accountable versus just more desires.

I THINK STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH MEASURE JJ, INCLUDING THE WAY THAT IT REFERENCES AND INCORPORATES THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK, INCLUDING THOSE PRINCIPLES. THOUGH IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC EITHER ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES OR QUANTIFIABLE STANDARDS THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT STAFF TO INCORPORATE, WE CERTAINLY CAN DO THAT TOO.

OKAY. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS ON ENERGY. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER LENTZ.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I'M JUST GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME THING THAT COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS SAID. THE REQUIRED SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE BAYLAND SHALL INCLUDE A SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK FOR THE BAYLANDS. BAYLANDS DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DESIGNED AS TO BE ENERGY NEUTRAL ON AN ONGOING BASIS. SO MY QUESTION FOR STAFF, IS THERE AN ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENT STUDY DETAILING HOW THE DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME WILL BECOME ENERGY NEUTRAL ON AN ONGOING BASIS SO THAT WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION, WE COME UP WITH THESE NUMBERS. Is there some kind of study that was done to extrapolate that information?

THE EIR DOES INCLUDE THE ENERGY PROJECTIONS THAT WERE SUMMARIZED.

HOW DID WE GET TO THOSE PROJECTIONS? IT WOULD BE NICE IF THERE WAS A STUDY THAT SHOWED, HEY, YOU BUILD THESE HOMES TO BE ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENT. MAYBE THESE BIGGER ONES, THEY CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH. WE GOT THE SOLAR FARM.

Sure. We have our technical experts here who can walk us through some of that methodology on how that work is done.

Do we have a study, though? That's my question. Is there like a document that we can go to?

Sure. I'll do my best to address that. What we do have, which is the basis for the EIR's energy analysis as well as air quality and greenhouse gas pertaining to energy use, IS A 2023 ENERGY STUDY FOR THE BAYLANDS WHICH WAS I BELIEVE COMMISSIONED BY BDI AND THE NUMBERS THAT COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS CITED COME FROM THAT STUDY. THE AMOUNT OF SOLAR GENERATION AND ON-SITE CONSUMPTION FOR BUILDINGS, EV CHARGING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SO FORTH COMES FROM THAT STUDY. IT WAS DONE COMPLIANT WITH 2022 CAL GREEN CODE. WHICH HAS NOW BEEN SUPERCEDED AND WILL BE SUPERCEDED AGAIN VERY SOON, DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE OR CONSIDER THE LEAD AND GREENPOINT RATED STANDARDS OF THE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN AND SOME OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN. SO FROM THAT EXTENT IT IS OUTDATED FROM ENERGY AND IS CONSERVATIVE. THERE HASN'T BEEN AN UPDATE TO THAT STUDY SINCE 2023. THAT ALSO DOESN'T REFLECT YOUR QUESTION ABOUT ONGOING, LIKE, ONGOING MEASUREMENTS, RIGHT, AS BUILDINGS ARE BUILT. codes are updated and solar becomes more efficient and so on and so forth. There is not currently a mechanism in place to do that.

Okay. So that particular study, you said that it's in the EIR? Yeah.

It's a reference in the EIR.

Okay. Reference, but you can get the whole document.

Oh, yeah. It's in the administrative record for the EIR. Okay.

And then do we have a master infrastructure plan AS IT RELATES TO ENERGY GENERATION, INDICATING HOW THE INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE BUILT, HOW IT WOULD BE FINANCED, AND WHEN IT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED. IS THERE A TIMELINE? YOU HAVE THIS DEVELOPMENT PHASING GOING ON. HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT YOU'RE BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE? IS THAT ALL MARRIED UP?

THE SPECIFIC TIMING AND PHASING MECHANISMS ARE INTENDED TO BE DEFINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO AS WE CONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS ON THAT, WE'LL BE ABLE TO DEFINE THOSE WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE PRECISION.

NEW SPEAKER Okay. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS COMING OUT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK. SO LET'S SEE. Okay. In regards to the solar farm, so, Stephanie, if you wouldn't mind coming up, please, I have a question in regards to that.

Yes, come forward.

Yeah, so, as far as, like, your timeline, when were you planning to build the solar farm in regards, in relation to the other developments?

So currently the solar farm is part of our phase two development. Phase one will consist of moving all of the imported soil from the landfill site, from the east side to the west side. to raise the site out of the 100-year flood zone, some extra height for sea level rise, and a five-foot clean cap. That process, it will be a phase development over time. Those mounds have to come down before we can put the solar farm in. So the solar farm will be phased at a later, probably with phase two is what we're contemplating right now.

Okay, so you're saying that phase one doesn't have any buildings. It's just moving dirt from one end to the other?

Well, that's your grading and your early infrastructure, yeah. And then phase one will be, yeah, it'll be houses and commercial.

Okay, so phase one does include houses.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And does it include commercial as well?

Yes, God willing. Yes, that's the whole plan is there will be phasing of both the housing and the commercial throughout the phase one. And so there's some terms in the specific plan and, you know, which maybe should agree on some terminology here. But we can talk about phase one is the whole west side. the rail yard site, and phase two, kind of the landfill site.

Okay, I just wanted to be clear that you're not contemplating building the solar farm until after some homes have been built. I guess maybe the entire west side has been built.

Because we don't have the, yeah, we can't not, where the solar farm is currently contemplated in a specific plan is where the soil mounds are. So the soil mounds have to come down, be moved to the west side, And then once that land is down, then the landfill cap can go in and the solar farm can go in.

Got it. Got it. Okay. So since the homes and the commercial on the west side won't receive any of the energy from the solar farm until later, are the homes that are being built, are they going to be energy self-sufficient?

Well, they will all have, the plan has solar, rooftop solar and battery on every unit. Yeah, I know that.

But I mean, like, you know, I was looking at this one project up in Davis. And granted, it was smaller. It was only, I think, 1,200 homes. SELL SIGNIFICANT SIZE. AND THAT SITE GENERATED ABOUT 87% OF ITS OWN ENERGY NEEDS, WHICH IS A LOT HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN THE EIR. SO OBVIOUSLY, IF THE HOMES ARE MORE ENERGY sufficient, I mean, efficient and- And they are designed that way. Right, designed that way and you're maxing out the solar. Yes. You know, is that something that you have contemplated? You know, having houses just be, you know, like, hey, you don't have to have a PG&E bill. I mean, I think that would be a pretty good, you know, selling point for homes if you didn't have a PG&E bill. Just kind of curious if you had been thinking about that.

Yes, of course. I'm not convinced that we can, without the full solar farm, that each individual home or individual building is going to be self-sufficient. And because the solar farm is coming at a later phase.

Yeah. But yeah. Yeah, maybe we get that updated. Who knows, right? We'll see. SO I'M CURIOUS ON THE BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY, RIGHT, THE 30 MEGAWATT. SO I KNOW WHEN I WAS WATCHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS GOING TO BE THIS PRIVATE, I GUESS, 250 MEGAWATT, BUT I SAW IN THE STAFF REPORT I THINK IT COULD BE UP TO 500 MEGAWATT, WHICH I THINK IS GREAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE BATTERY STORAGE. BUT I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, WHO Like who owns that 30-watt energy, you know, megawatt energy? Like it's generated on site and then during the day and it goes there. Like so who owns that and how is it then distributed back out?

You're talking about our local. The local one, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That would be owned by the development.

It would be owned by the development. Okay. And the same thing with the solar farm being owned by the development.

Yes, could be. I mean, it could be a private partnership, but right now it's contemplated that it would be, yeah.

And how would then the energy be sold?

The energy is sold through a very complex contract with PG&E. The larger utility scale battery that you mentioned- THAT IS ACTUALLY THROUGH A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE INDEPENDENT GRID AND PG&E. SO THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER KIND OF COMPLICATED AND COMPLEX STRUCTURE THERE.

ALL RIGHT. SO ON PAGE 16, IT DOES TALK ABOUT you know, requiring buildings to maximize onsite solar generation. So I'm glad that, you know, you're contemplating that and, you know, going to work with staff. you know, as Councilmember Davis, you know, said, you know, on page 17, it talks about the project will be designed to produce its entire annual energy needs. Obviously, you know, that's a pretty tall order. But, you know, having some kind of study that kind of shows, okay, this is, THIS IS HOW YOU CAN STRIVE FOR IT, AND THEN PERHAPS AS TECHNOLOGY GETS BETTER, YOU KNOW, THAT WE CAN PIVOT AND CONTINUE TO BE LESS RELIANT ON THE GRID. EVEN THOUGH WE ARE TAKING IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, WE'RE TAKING IN 100% RENEWABLES, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULDN'T BE SUBJECTED TO BROWNOUTS. SO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, OKAY. SO OKAY. NODDING, THANK YOU. OKAY. LET'S SEE. YOU KNOW, IN THE FRAMEWORK IT TALKS ABOUT OTHER ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES, RIGHT? GEOTHERMAL, USING BIOGAS FROM POTENTIAL WATER, I MEAN, YEAH, WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAD THOUGHT ABOUT AND PERHAPS WOULD CONTEMPLATE?

I BELIEVE, COUNCILMEMBER, IF YOU READ THE THOR AND THOMAS

The water balance study?

No, that's the Brown and Caldwell water balance study. The Thornton Thomas study is the energy balance study.

Okay, got it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so it does mention other alternatives.

It looks at all, yes, it looked at everything in the sustainability framework and makes an opinion on it.

It makes an opinion on it. Okay. Yeah, I apologize for not...

HAVING READ ALL OF THOSE STUDIES, I'M SHOCKED.

MY BAD, YES. BUT I WILL GET ON IT TOMORROW, I PROMISE.

YES, YES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE QUESTIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THAT AFTER OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS.

On this topic on this topic.

Yeah, or should I just continue or you know, I want to make sure that I answered your question Which was you know If the solar farm is not up when the first homes or commercial development go in are we still considering that energy neutral? I believe and I don't want to put words in your mouth But I believe that was the question you were trying to ask and I think the answer is yes BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDINGS, BECAUSE EACH BUILDING WILL HAVE ITS OWN SOLAR AND BATTERY, AND ALSO WE WILL BE REQUIRING EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WEST LIGHT 100% ENERGY RENEWABLE. SO YES, FROM DAY ONE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT EVEN THOUGH THE SOLAR FARM ISN'T UP, WE STILL CONSIDER THE FIRST WE WOULD CONSIDER, HOPEFULLY YOU WOULD CONSIDER THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT ENERGY ENERGY NEUTRAL.

I'M DEFINITELY TAKING IT ALL IN. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION, SO I CAN GET AN UNDERSTANDING FROM YOU. PART OF MY PREPARATION, I WAS READING THE LUMINARY. THERE WAS A GREAT ARTICLE, KATIE, THANK YOU. JUST TALKING ABOUT THE SUSTAINABILITY MODEL FROM ONE PLANET LIVING AND THAT COMMITMENT And yeah, you know, I'm talking about, you know, demonstrating how principles from zero carbon energy to sustainable water can be successfully put into practice. The balance builds on these proven approaches. You know, it talks about how the One Planet Living principles or science-based, right? And so, you know, when we were putting together the framework, there was one rule that we could not break, and that was to apply something that did not exist, right? So we had to, everything that's in that framework, right, are best practices. So there, you know, I know that there's, you know, some folks that say, oh, well, it's aspirational. So it's, uh, you know, maybe it's a wish list. That's not the intent. The intent was to try and achieve a standard that's above just the basics. And you're doing, you know, I think a good job of it. I think, you know, part of KNOW, MY ROLE AS A COUNCILMEMBER IS TO TRY AND GET YOU TO PUSH MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE, RIGHT? BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT MAKES EVERY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT MAKES THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT BETTER. AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, MEASURE JJ WAS PASSED BY THE VOTERS, RIGHT? AND THE FRAMEWORKS IN MEASURE JJ. AND THUS, YOU KNOW, THINGS NEED TO BE CONSISTENT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, MY NUMBER ONE LIKE, YOU KNOW, CALL TO ACTION IS TO FULFILL WHAT PEOPLE VOTED FOR. SO.

UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. AND I THINK WE AND I THINK IN MY OPENING COMMENTS I'VE STATED THAT WE THOUGHT WE MADE THE BEST EFFORT ABOVE AND BEYOND THE BEST EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR SPECIFIC PLAN WAS CONSISTENT WITH MEASURE JJ BECAUSE IT WAS A VOTER INITIATIVE. AND I THINK THE STAFF'S staff report tonight and their consistency table also, I think, shows that we're consistent. But happy to continue the dialogue.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Great.

Happy to hear recommendations that, you know, we haven't already considered.

Absolutely.

Because I think we've considered everything. All right.

Thank you, Stephanie. All right. Yeah, I have other questions, but I'll come back later, Madam Mayor.

Okay. Council Member O'Connell.

Thank you. You know, I'm having a little bit of difficulty with the phasing where we're doing. Did you want me to pause? Oh, I thought I was getting a hand signal from you. No, I guess not. The guy who's looking. I'm sorry. I have a little issue with the sustainability goals when it comes to the solar generation. And that with the solar generation, solar farm, that's slated for Zone 2, Phase 2, they're still not going to be meeting their on-site generation, even with that. And so... And we're looking at a 20, 30, 50-year build-out. So if we're not going to get done with phase one for 10, 15, 20 years, they're going to be so far in the hole on sustainability, on generation, on electric, if they're not planning to put that solar farm in until they cap the landfill. And so how is it that... we can make sure that they're going to be creating on-site generation beyond what their initial needs are when homes may be able to come close to on-site sustainable generation with their rooftop solar. Businesses very seldom can. And so I don't see how they're going to be meeting their sustainability goals within Measure JJ if that solar farm is not done until the landfill is closed. And we have no – I know that's in a later section that we're going to be dealing with phasing and how we come up with the financials on this, and that's really where my – major, major, major concerns with this project are. But I also have concerns about the sustainability of closing the landfill after homes are on the other side and what that's going to look like with digging out and capping that landfill. And I don't know how that reflects in our sustainability goals as far as what that trucking is going to look like and how we offset that. Does staff have any ideas of how we're offsetting that portion of the sustainability program? Or I'm asking too esoteric a question.

I GUESS WE CAN SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT HOW TO PROVIDE A MORE THOUGHTFUL RESPONSE. CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CONCERN AND THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SO WE CAN TARGET THAT RESPONSE FOR YOU?

Again, I think it's more in the next section where we talk about greenhouse gas and mitigation for air quality and things of that nature, how they're going to, you know, I know that those are impacts that we cannot, that will be significant. But if we're doing this project in a phase one and phase two, where a lot of the earth moving and compaction is gonna be happening after there's residents there, it doesn't seem that that's a very sustainable or healthy goal, and that those impacts are going to be immeasurable to the residents that are going to be there.

I SEE. I UNDERSTAND. THANKS. THERE'S KIND OF THE DISCUSSION OF SUSTAINABILITY FROM AN ENERGY NEUTRALITY PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT? AND THEN THERE'S SUSTAINABILITY FROM GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AIR QUALITY IMPACTS. NOISE. NOISE, OF COURSE. SO THAT'S ALL PART OF SUSTAINABILITY. SO APOLOGIES FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION. IN THE EIR, SO WE HAVE THE EIR EVALUATES AIR QUALITY IMPACTS TO EVALUATES REGIONAL EMISSIONS LIKE GREENHOUSE GAS. THE AMOUNT OF TONS OF POLLUTION COMING OUT OF CONSTRUCTION TRUCKS, OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT, AND OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES LIKE VEHICLES AND STATIONARY SOURCES AND SO FORTH. AND THEN IT ALSO LOOKS AT EXPOSURE OF RESIDENTS TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS FROM MOSTLY DIESEL COMBUSTION AND PARTICULATE MATTER, BOTH FUGITIVE AND EXHAUST BASED. SO FOR THE HEALTH RISK IMPACT, THE EXPOSURE, LIKE THE HUMAN HEALTH EFFECT OF THOSE EMISSIONS FROM TRUCKING, FROM OFF-ROAD CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, those impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level with a whole slew of mitigation measures. So tier four, low emitting construction equipment, cleaner on-road trucks meeting certain standards. All the soil hauling trucks have to be zero emission or very low emission. There's also a provision to include an electric conveyor system to move soil from east to west that would have no emissions. There are filtration standards on homes. There's dust suppression. There are Tier 4 generators and cleaner generator controls. It's a long list of things that would reduce those health risk exposure impacts for residents to ongoing construction by the thresholds used in the EIR, at least to a less insignificant standard.

Okay. Well, some of my questions are going back to the greenhouse gas. Can I continue with this line, even though I'm sort of crossing borders? Sure.

THAT'S ACTUALLY THE NEXT TOPIC.

I KNOW.

CAN WE FINISH THIS ONE?

OKAY. THEN I WILL, I'M DONE.

BECAUSE, OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER KURT?

THANK YOU SO MUCH. AGAIN, ALL GOOD QUESTIONS. MY QUESTION IS AROUND SPECIFICALLY MOBILITY AND EMISSIONS. WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING SOME SORT OF EVALUATION ON THE REPLACEMENT OF IT SAYS .2.82 TONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVALENT PER EMPLOYEE REGARDING THEIR COMMUTING AND COMMUTING REDUCTION BEING A TRANSIT HUB. HOW WILL WE MEASURE THAT IF IT'S THE ONLY WAY I CAN THINK ABOUT MEASURING THAT IT WOULD BE SELF-REPORTED. HOW ARE WE GOING TO FIGURE THAT OUT IF THAT'S ACTUALLY ATTAINED?

Could you please cite that figure again and where it appears? Sure.

It's under mobility and emissions. It's the replacement of 0.282 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per employee per annual commute cap. This is under the transportation demand management guidelines. And I'm just wondering how we're going to measure that at that point.

Can you give us a, if you have other questions, we can look that up while you're bringing others forward.

I think my next question is for Stephanie, if you don't mind. You're doing a great job tonight, by the way. So I've had the opportunity to tour two water treatment plants over the last two weeks. I've learned a variety of things about water recycling. One of them was from an engineer very recently that said you were not allowed to call it toilet to tap any longer. That's an old term. So I'm pretty fascinated by that. But in terms of the phasing, we keep going back to the phasing, and I understand that. In terms of the water treatment facility, can you just tell us a little bit about what phase that will come in? Because you're going to need water to recycle, right? And at some point, you're going to have to switch off fresh water to move over to water recycling. You're going to have to have enough volume in which to recycle that. And I understand, right, there's human usage water. We can turn that into a couple different things. And there's also stormwater runoff that we can use, too. So I'm just curious what your thoughts are on that.

IS IT OKAY IF I ANSWER A QUESTION THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT? WE DO HAVE A WHOLE SESSION ON WATER COMING UP. BUT COUNCILMEMBER KERN.

IT'S IN THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK.

OKAY. YOU GOT ME. I WILL TELL YOU WHERE WE ARE TODAY. WE COMMITTED IN OUR ORIGINALLY TO A WATER RECYCLING FACILITY FOR THE BAYLANDS. In the meantime, as we were searching for a water supply, Cal Water came to the city and to us and said, hey, we have, you know, they have SFPUs. They have a big bucket of SFPUC HHG water. and our what they what they asked us to participate in and we have a letter of intent with them, but what we asked them to participate what they asked us to participate in was increasing the doubling the size of our water recycling facility that in exchange for them supplying us potable WATER OR DRINKING WATER FOR THE BAYLANDS PROJECT. THEY WOULD LIKE OUR WATER RECYCLING FACILITY WASN'T COMING ON UNTIL WE HAD ENOUGH ACTUAL SEWER WATER TO RECYCLE. AND THEN OUR INITIAL PROPOSAL THAT WAS I THINK IT HITS AT ABOUT 20% OF DEVELOPMENT, BOTH COMMERCIAL AND COMMERCIAL. WE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE ENOUGH SEWER WATER. CAL WATER PROPOSAL WOULD LIKE TO START THAT WATER RECYCLING FACILITY ON DAY ONE. THERE'S A CATCH. BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY SEWER FOR THEM, SO THEY WOULD BE IDEALLY TAKING SEWER WATER FROM THE CITY OF BRISBANE'S CURRENT SYSTEM AND THE BAYSHORE CEMETERY DISTRICTS. And using that and recycling the water there so that they have, so the water recycling facility is up and running early. That we're still working on that structure of that actual deal. But did I ask you a question?

I think he did.

Did you actually? Yeah. So our water recycling facility, if the Cal Water deal doesn't happen, our water recycling facility would come in at about 20, after 20% development we have actually have. Yeah. The Cal Water deal is another, has a different structure to it. It would happen sooner. And they are, did you happen to tour the West Bay Sanitary Water Recycling Facility in Sharon Heights?

The one down in San Mateo and the one at Google. Bayview. It's called Bayview.

Oh, yeah, those are very small, yes.

They are small, yeah. Small footprint, for sure.

Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. West Bay Sanitary has done a half MGD water recycling facility at Sharon Heights, and they're in the process of developing a one MGD, which would be what we are talking about with Cal Water, at the Meta site in Memo Park. Got it. Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

Can I follow up on that? Is the proposed water recycling treatment center on the landfill?

Yes.

How could that be done if the landfill is not closed?

It's in the northern. Oh, well, so the landfill closure plan. Can I answer a question that's not on the agenda here? Because we have a whole session on remediation later.

Okay.

It's sustainability. I know. I answered Councilmember Kern's question. It's part of the framework. You got me. What was the question?

How can it be?

How can it be if the landfill is not closed?

The landfill closure plan and the cleanup plans for the rail yard site are they will proceed with each increment of development. And the water recycling facility is in the northern part of the landfill. All the soil mounds are all in the southern part of the OF THE LANDFILL SIDE. THE NORTHERN PART IS FAIRLY FLAT. SO WE COULD PUT THE WATER ROOF RECYCLING FACILITY IN. IT WOULD HAVE TO, THOSE ACREAGES, SAME WITH THE BATTERY STORAGE, THOSE ACREAGES WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH TITLE 27 CLOSURE. YES. NEW SPEAKER OKAY.

THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER YEAH. AND THE LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN WOULD would proceed also with each increment of development. And that was approved by both the county and the water board. And it is quite typical for landfills of this size to go through that kind of phased closure. Thank you. But we can talk more about that when remediation comes up. More to come.

Thank you. AND WE CAN DOUBLE BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT, BUT TAKE US A SECOND TO FIND THE METRIC AND THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK THAT YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT. IT IS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDED KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, WHICH I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 35 OF THE FRAMEWORK, SO IT DOES USE THAT SAME METRIC THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, STEADY PROGRESS TOWARDS GHG EMISSIONS OF .282 TONS. PER EMPLOYEE PER YEAR. IT IS QUALIFIED BY THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THESE ARE NOT MEANT AS PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS, BUT AS METHODS THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO HELP ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THE PRINCIPLES, AND THE MEASURE JJ REQUIRES CONSISTENCY WITH THE GOALS AND THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK. HOWEVER, WE DON'T HAVE THE PRECISE CO2 PER EMPLOYEE. IT WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO TEASE THAT OUT OF THE DATA FROM THE EIR. THE EIR COMPILED FULL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BASED ON ALL TRAVEL PATTERNS, COMMUTERS, SHOPPERS, OTHER SORTS OF TRIP DEMAND. IT DOES SHOW A REGIONAL REDUCTION IN GHG EMISSIONS RELATED TO VMT FROM THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, WE THINK IT IS LIKELY THAT ONCE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO AGGREGATE THAT NUMBER OUT THAT WE WOULD BE BELOW THAT THRESHOLD THAT'S ESTABLISHED IN THE 2015 SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK GIVEN IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN EV ADOPTION, FUEL EFFICIENCY, AND OTHER VEHICLES. SO WE THINK THAT IT WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO DIVIDE THAT OUT OF THE MODEL FOR YOU, BUT WE THINK THAT WE'LL HAVE A GOOD NUMBER THAT COMPARES FAVORABLY TO WHAT'S IN THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK WHEN THAT'S DONE.

Thanks, Eric. In my mind, I wasn't even thinking about the EV adoption. Thank you. Thank you.

Is that all your questions? Those are my questions. Okay. Exactly. We are at very on the precipice of the end of our one-hour extension of the meeting. Council's pleasure. Do we want to extend another hour?

I mean, no, but it's not unrealistic to think that this is going to get done in a half hour. So I think we need to extend for an hour.

Second.

Is that a motion? Yeah. And a second. All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? No. Okay. So our one hour will be at 1029. My question, sustainability. I'm going to parlay off of Council Member Lentz who talked about electrical power. And the comment was made if there was a lot of energy generated that maybe the residents wouldn't have to pay anything. And so this is kind of a question and statement at the same time in that Normally with solar, because early solar adopters, their goal was to put so much solar on their home that they would pay nothing. And PG&E learned, wait a minute, we're not doing that. And so you saw distribution costs appear on the bill, along with other itemized things. And that was NEM 1, and we're now in NEM 2. And that's already closed, and we're in NEM 3. And so usually when you propose solar, PG&E has to approve the amount of solar. So if they anticipate that you're going to be putting mega solar, they'll say, no, no, you can't install all that. We won't connect it all. so that you do end up paying something. That being said, it kind of leads into my question in that, and we'll see if there's a question in here. When you look at the sustainability with solar farms and solar on the buildings and battery storage, The other misconception that people have is, well, if we just generate tons of this energy, it's all going to go to the grid, and they're going to be so happy. And now the grid, there's so much solar queso, which is the California system operators going, no, no, no, no. We can't, in the daytime, we get tons. It's at night we don't get energy. There's no sunlight. So during the daytime, they're now trying to slow down what's coming their way because they can't take it on, which brings us to batteries. And so here's my question in that. How did you come up with the size of batteries? And you're talking about distributed energy resources. Familiar, Westlight is a program that they're promoting. How did you come up with calculations on these batteries based on what? You don't have anybody living there, and you're coming up with a battery size. And so it parlays off what our Mayor Pro Tem asked is, these are estimates. What if they fail? What if the usage is more? And there's no perfect assurance. But I'm just curious how the calculations came about. Because I didn't see a study, and maybe I missed something. So staff, I don't know if you want to field that question. In that also, I would point out for Council Member Lentz, all those residences and businesses will still have separate metering. They're not going to just be on the developer's meter giving them free energy. Even if there's way more energy produced, I don't believe the developer plans to just give free electricity to everybody all the time. Correct? I mean, I don't quite understand how you're going to parse that out because you do have certain electrical needs infrastructure. I get that. And if you're operating a water recycling facility, you're going to need energy for that. But I want to dispel any myths that because there's going to be a giant solar farm that it's community owned, which it's not because you clarified that you own it. This isn't going to necessarily translate to people living there getting only distribution costs on their PG&E bill. Is that correct? And maybe this is premature to, you may have to come back on that. I'm trying to find out how you came up with the calculations for all of this. Anybody? Anybody?

Yeah. Staff can provide some context, perhaps. Brian?

Yeah, as far as the calculation of battery storage, I would point you to the same Thornton Thomas Eddy report that we use in the EIR to calculate the project's energy balance, the 2023 report, which does look at, it has a phasing plan of Bayland's energy consumption over build-out, looking at the various districts being built out through the build-out horizon. and the amount of community solar, building solar, community battery, building battery also being built to kind of smooth the duck curve that you mentioned, that is the one place that I'm aware of where battery size was contemplated to try to achieve as close to that energy neutrality goal as possible.

And if you don't know who are the tenants in the commercial sector, you have no idea what their energy consumption is. That's where my brain is rattling, sorry, because I'm saying it's a moist finger to the wind calculation, kind of.

Yeah, I think it's a little bit more than a moist finger to the wind.

Okay, good. Reassure me.

But I do not have the Thornton-Thomas Eddy study in front of me, but it did take in, and they analyzed the specific plan. you know, all the commercial and all the residential and the types of residential. And they used industry standards on, you know, what is a typical office use? What is a typical biotech, you know, lab use? And so it was a very detailed study that came up with the the estimates for the battery and the distributed battery. And you are also very correct about where we are right now in California on our grid. We have done a really good job of sending a lot of solar and a lot of wind to the grid. And the grid is having to drop a lot of that right now.

And that's where the batteries come in. Exactly. And that's why the battery is very important.

Both our distributed battery on site and on individual buildings, as well as this utility scale battery that we're planning for. very important to the overall grid. Whether anybody's going to have a zero PG&E bill anymore, that's hard to guess. But our goal was to try to meet the goal of energy neutrality in Measure JJ, and I think we've gotten there with the plan that we've put forward to you. TONIGHT. BUT ARE YOU ASKING GREAT QUESTIONS? YEAH. AND THEY ARE ALL AND A LOT OF THE ACTUAL STUDIES THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT ARE IN THE THORNTON-TOMASETTI STUDY. AND WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU. IT WAS I BELIEVE IT WAS APPENDED IN THE EIR. BUT IT'S SOMETIMES HARD TO CONNECT. I CAN'T. YEAH. I TOTALLY APPRECIATE THAT NOBODY'S GOTTEN THROUGH ALL OF THE STUDIES. I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED IN COUNCILMEMBER GLENN'S. I HAD NO PROBLEM CALLING YOU OUT.

NONE AT ALL. SO ONE THING, IF YOU COULD CLARIFY, AND THAT WAS COUNCILMEMBER O'CONNELL ASKING YOU ABOUT BUILDING THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND THE WHEN THAT PHASE GOES IN AND YOU INDICATED IN THE NORTHERN PART, BUT WHAT I DIDN'T QUITE GET CLEARLY OUT OF THAT WAS SO IF IT'S NOT ON THE EAST SIDE, IT'S NOT PHASE TWO? IS THAT CORRECT? If it's not on the east side, it's not phased.

Well, you mentioned that phased. Well, the water recycling facility, if we do the deal with Cal Water, it would be an early phase. Yeah. When I say phase two, I'm really talking about, you recall we have two and a half million square feet of commercial on the landfill site.

Yeah.

When I talk about the phasing, I'm really talking about the construction and phasing. So a lot of this super infrastructure, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

No, I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether that facility would be in place when the first homes are built. Which facility are we talking about? The water recycling.

Again, THE CAL WATER DEAL DOES CONTEMPLATE VERY EARLY. THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY WOULD GO EARLY AND QUITE LIKELY BEFORE THE FIRST HOUSING, BUT NOT WE HAVEN'T WORKED THE DEAL OUT TOTALLY YET WITH CAL WATER. IF IT'S OUR RECYCLING FACILITY THAT WE COMMITTED TO UNDER THE SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES, THAT WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE WERE 20% BUILT OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY SEWER we don't have any water to recycle. So we need a certain amount of water to actually run a water recycling facility. So that would be, so yeah, there's two sort of scenarios here that we've, that have been contemplated in our, one is our recycling facility a smaller facility just for the Baylands, and then the Cal Water larger 1 million gallons per day water recycling facility that would come online earlier.

Okay. And my concern there is what Council Member O'Connell started with also is just the timeline. And, you know, does something get built and then it takes 10 years before that facility is constructed? So I guess we don't really know.

Yeah, and I think we'll work this out as we get closer to really hashing out the phasing of the project. But we also need to make sure that as we work through that, we need flexibility because we need flexibility to respond to market conditions. So it's a little, it's a complicated puzzle. I know we're gonna talk later, much later in our hearings about the phasing, but these are all great questions. And yeah, we do wanna talk about when things get put in place, but we also need to keep in mind, yeah, project feasibilities and market, being sensitive to market conditions. Okay, thank you.

That's my question. Slips. Number one I have here is Mr. Paul Buskell, and second I have is Nicole

If you have slips, bring them up.

Nicole and Darren are no longer at the meeting.

Nicole's no longer here with us?

And Darren?

No. And Darian no longer here with us?

No, Madam Mayor. Yes, of course. So we have Paul Pascal and then Anthony Walker.

Okay.

And then Linda is after Anthony. Okay.

Okay, so in order, I have Paul, Anthony Walker, Linda, Michelle, and Susan Brennan. That's what I have. Okay, Paul, you're on. And Clara.

I have Ellie Sapirman. I don't think she's here. Oh, Ellie's here. Number seven. I don't have...

I don't think I had Ali on this topic. I have her down for number two also. Oh, yes. Okay. My mistake. Yes. Okay. Sorry, Ali. We got you back. And then Clara. Clara just submitted. And Clara just submitted. Okay. All right. Paul, sorry about that. Go ahead.

Okay. Thank you, counsel. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED. I LEARNED SOMETHING NEW TONIGHT. I SHOULDN'T JUST BE HAVING THESE COMMENTS. I SHOULD BE ASKING QUESTIONS. THAT WAY THEY COULD BE ANSWERED. BECAUSE EVERY TIME I COME UP WITH COMMENTS, I JUST GET NODS AND WALK BACK TO MY SEAT. BUT I REALIZE TONIGHT WHEN YOU ASK IT IN THE FORMAT OF A QUESTION, THEN I GET ANSWERS. One of the questions I have tonight, instead of the usual comment that I've been having, are how can we move forward with this complex situation when there's still wording in there that mitigation measures will be done when feasible? I mean, come on, who's gonna determine if it was feasible or not? That's not okay. I mean, that in itself should be enough for us to just put the brakes on, not slow this process down. So I don't agree with that. So I would like some clarification on what that actually means. And the other thing is when mitigation measures will be done when feasible, that could leave this community on the hook for a lot of stuff down the road. Bonds, things that future generations of Brisbane are gonna have to pay off to fix the problems. And I don't wanna be a Karen. I hope there's no Karens in here, but I probably shouldn't say that, I'm sorry. Bad taste. But I don't wanna be a sky is falling type of person, but There's a lot of stuff going on here. And I know everybody's worked very hard for the last 20 years on the issues. But when we have words like mitigation measures will be done when feasible on every topic, that's a huge loophole. And I can't believe that's still in the EIR. And another thing that I'm concerned about is when we talk about open space. As most people know, open space is just public property. There's no value in it for environmental value or anything more than just public space. Now, that puts a burden on the city, 25% open space in the Baylands, because now we're responsible for the 25% open space, and who knows what we're going to be left with if mitigation measures were done or weren't done. One of the other concerns I have is wording in the document that refers to open space and or open areas. And as you know, open areas are private property. usually have public access but nothing more than lawns parking lots breezeways whatever it is it's private property but in the document it says open space and or open areas so the word and the the meaning and or to me means Nothing has to happen. It could all just be open area, private property, and no open space. So I've been bringing this up for years. I mean, when I sat on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Committee, that was the one thing that I could find in the documents that was relevant to something I could relate to. AS OPPOSED TO HAVING ALL THESE PROFESSIONALS AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE EVALUATING THESE THINGS THAT ARE PRETTY COMPLEX. BUT WHEN YOU PUT A COUPLE SIMPLE WORDS IN A SENTENCE, AND IF IT'S OVERLOOKED, ONCE YOU SIGN THE DOCUMENT TO APPROVE IT, IT'S A DONE DEAL. SO WE CAN BE LEFT HOLDING THE BAG. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT TO THIS POINT. I REALLY DON'T. THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT WE'VE JUST BEEN GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS. AND SOMETIMES IT FEELS LIKE A DOG AND PONY SHOW. AND I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN PUTTING YOUR TIME AND EFFORT INTO IT, BUT IT'S A BIG DEAL. AND SO THE COMMENTS YOU MADE ABOUT, WELL, IS THIS GOING TO BE READY WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING? THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES. AND SO IF WE CAN'T EVEN GUARANTEE IF MITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE DONE, WHAT GOOD IS THE WHOLE DOCUMENT? THANK YOU.

So Mr. Bouskal, would you like your questions answered? Yes?

I don't need to stand here because that's the end of my comment or questions. But thank you.

Yes?

Yes, I would. Thank you.

So your first question was mitigation measures done when feasible. What does that actually mean? What are consequences? Who decides?

WELL, FEASIBLE IS A SPECIFIC TERM IN CEQA. THAT AN ACTION IS CAPABLE OF BEING ACHIEVED IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT COST, POLITICAL REALITIES, ENVIRONMENTAL, LEGAL, SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS. WHEN YOU MAKE FINDINGS ABOUT THE EIR, YOU WILL MAKE FINDINGS THAT THE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE FEASIBLE. CEQA REQUIRES YOU TO ADOPT ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES TO REDUCE PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS FEASIBLE TO DO SO. SO THE WORD FEASIBLE IS ALL OVER THE EIR. THE COMMENT IS CORRECT. BUT THE MITIGATION MEASURES THEMSELVES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE EIR ARE THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS FEASIBLE. SO ULTIMATELY, IF COUNCIL FOLLOWS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, TO CERTIFY THE EIR, MAKE THOSE FINDINGS, AND ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, YOU WILL BE ADOPTING ENFORCEABLE MITIGATION MEASURES AND FINDING THAT THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE FEASIBLE TO COMPLY WITH.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

So, thank you No, it didn't Okay, so just being aware of time. Oh, yeah, I'll be I'll be quick.

Okay.

Yeah, I didn't need a big explanation But it says when feasible it does it doesn't say that these items have been determined to be feasible it says that each item is is STATED TO BE DONE WHEN FEASIBLE. THAT'S ALL MY COMMENT WAS. I DIDN'T NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE TERM OF FEASIBILITY. I JUST MEANT HOW WE COULD ALLOW SOMETHING TO BE STATED WHEN FEASIBLE. THAT WAS MY COMMENT OR INQUIRY QUESTION.

NEW SPEAKER AND THE OTHER QUESTION HE HAD WAS OPEN SPACE VERSUS OPEN AREAS. And he pointed out there was a lack of guarantees where it says open space or open areas.

Is that a statement?

Is there a question that they cannot answer?

Well, I think the question in there was, is it allowable to be either or? Is that the question?

Yeah.

Yes, it could be either or and or open areas. So open space and or open area. Now if it said open area and or open space and or, you wouldn't ALLOW IT TO BE JUST OPEN SPACE IF IT SAID AND OR OPEN SPACE. JUST LIKE WE WOULDN'T ALLOW IT JUST TO BE OPEN AREA IF IT SAYS AND OR OPEN AREAS. AND OR. IT'S EITHER OR WAS MY QUESTION. IT'S LIKE THERE'S A EITHER OR POSSIBILITY.

So could you restate the question? Because are you making a point as a statement or are you asking a question to be clarified with that?

Yeah, I'm asking for the question to be not clarified, but is there a possibility that if it says and or that it could be the or instead of the and?

Who has the discretion to decide? Thank you. Is that the question?

Yeah. Thank you for putting that in.

Okay.

I GUESS I WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION OF WHICH DOCUMENT EXACTLY MR. BUSCAL WAS REFERRING TO. JUST LOOKING AT THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK ITSELF, THE PORTION ADDRESSING OPEN SPACE AND HABITAT ADDRESSES PROVISIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE AND OPEN AREAS. I'M SEEING SOME LANGUAGE THERE IN THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PLAN ITSELF, WE CAN ADDRESS WHERE IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT'S ADDRESSED. SOUNDS LIKE BDI MAY BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS IT AS WELL.

IF I MAY, AGAIN, KATIE WITH THE BALANCE TEAM. THIS IS ACTUALLY A QUESTION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SEVERAL TIMES. I THINK IT ORIGINATES FROM THE LANGUAGE IN MEASURE JJ. THERE'S A TABLE AND IT SAYS 25% OF DEVELOPABLE AREA MUST BE OPEN SPACE SLASH OPEN AREA. AND SO WE DO GET THIS QUESTION A LOT. LIKE, ARE YOU JUST GOING TO COUNT, YOU KNOW, MEDIAN STRIPS AND PLAZAS AS OPEN SPACE? AND THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO. IF YOU WERE TO COUNT BOTH OPEN SPACE AND OPEN AREA, IT'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PROJECT. BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRUE OPEN SPACE AS DEFINED IN THE GENERAL PLAN THAT'S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, HAS REAL HABITAT BENEFITS, ET CETERA, IT IS THAT IS MORE THAN 25% OF THE DEVELOPABLE LAND. AND I'LL ALSO SAY THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SOLAR FARM. That does not include the lagoon. And that calculation was also done taking into account the acreage that will be lost to sea level rise.

So maybe that's something that would be worthwhile clarifying.

Well, I think what Paul's getting at is clarifying ownership as part of that. and maintenance, right? So open space, I think being city's ultimate responsibility to potentially our property versus open area of being publicly accessible space that's privately owned and maintained. I think that's really something that's, this is gonna get hashed out in a later you know, a later session and potentially even through the development agreement or who's owning what and who's, you know, ultimately liable and who's going to maintain and all of that. I see that being a down the road thing.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Anthony Walker.

I APPRECIATE YOU HANGING IN. I'M A LITTLE BIT LOOPY MYSELF SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS. I'M ANTHONY WALKER RESIDENT. I SUBMITTED A LONGER WRITTEN COMMENT. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ IT IF YOU HAVEN'T. BUT TONIGHT I WANTED TO FOCUS ON ONE SPECIFIC TOPIC FROM THAT LETTER, AND THAT WAS VERY SIMPLY, WE ALREADY HAVE GUIDING DOCUMENTS TO TELL US WHAT THE BAYLANDS IS SUPPOSED TO DO, HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK, AND I REALLY HOPE THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW THEM. SO, YOU KNOW, MEASURE JJ IS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND IT SAYS THAT THE BAYLAND SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK. AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DESIGNED SO AS TO BE ENERGY NEUTRAL ON AN ONGOING BASIS. AND I THINK THAT DESIGNED PART OF IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. THE FRAMEWORK TELLS US WHAT THAT MEANS. THE PROJECT SHOULD PRODUCE ITS OWN ANNUAL ENERGY NEEDS AND FOR ANY SHORTFALL IT ESTABLISHES AN ORDER, RIGHT, MAXIMIZE ON-SITE GENERATION FIRST, EVALUATE ADDITIONAL GENERATION WITHIN BRISBANE SECOND. and only then procure renewable electricity from the grid to fill any remaining gap. And I do feel like that second leg there is being entirely skipped over. I haven't heard any discussion of off-site renewable anything in Brisbane. I WANTED TO BRING UP AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S AUGUST 13TH MEETING, THE AUGUST 7TH MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY ESA WAS INTRODUCED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AS ATTACHMENT FIVE. AND IT ADVANCES AN INTERPRETATION OF THE PROJECT THAT GENERATING ROUGHLY HALF OF ITS ELECTRICITY ON SITE AND PURCHASING THE REMAINDER CAN NEVERTHELESS SATISFY JJ'S REQUIREMENT FOR ONGOING NEUTRALITY. I RESPECTFULLY BELIEVE THAT THAT INTERPRETATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE VOTER ADOPTED LANGUAGE AND THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK THAT MEASURE JJ EXPRESSLY INCORPORATES. THE CURRENT PLAN WOULD GENERATE 53% OF ITS ELECTRICITY ON SITE AND CALLING THE REST ENERGY NEUTRAL BECAUSE FUTURE OCCUPANTS WILL PROMISE TO BUY RENEWABLE POWER FROM THE GRID THAT MAY MAKE THE ELECTRICITY CARBON FREE, BUT ON PAPER, BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT ENERGY NEUTRAL. THE FRAMEWORK TREATS PROCUREMENT AS A FALLBACK, NOT THE DEFINITION. AND THESE ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE CONCEPTS. RENEWABLE ENERGY IS NOT THE SAME AS ENERGY NEUTRALITY. THEY'RE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. SO I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT MOVING THE GOAL POSTS, RIGHT? ESA's own March 2025 Energy Resources Technical Report said FORTHRIGHTLY, THE PROJECT WOULD CONSUME MORE ELECTRICITY THAN IT GENERATES AT EVERY STAGE OF BUILDOUT AND WOULD THEREFORE NOT BE ENERGY NEUTRAL. THE UNDERLYING BALANCE HAS NOT CHANGED. WHAT HAS CHANGED IS THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT ENERGY NEUTRALITY MEANS. RIGHT? AND THAT'S NOT A MINOR TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION. I WOULD SAY IF THE CITY BELIEVES THAT THE VOTER ADOPTED REQUIREMENT SHOULD NOW MEAN SOMETHING MATERIALLY DIFFERENT, FROM WHAT THE FRAMEWORK AND ESA'S EARLIER ANALYSIS THOUGHT IT SHOULD, THAT'S A CONSEQUENTIAL POLICY DECISION THAT REALLY SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY BEFORE THIS COUNCIL. NOT SOMETHING TO QUIETLY BECOME CITY POLICY THROUGH A LATE STAGE CONSULTANT MEMORANDUM. And I am over, so I will cut myself off there.

So before you disappear, I don't know if you had a question in there, but are you suggesting that or asking, would the purchase of off-site production suffice for energy neutrality? IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEVELOPER CAN PURCHASE PART OF A PROJECT IN THE ARIZONA DESERT THAT GENERATES ELECTRICITY, AND THEY HAVE A CONTRACT FOR THAT.

NEW SPEAKER WELL, ACTUALLY, NO, I WASN'T ASKING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK EXPRESSLY SAYS, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. IT HAS TO BE IN BRISBANE. IT'S QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

NOT ON THE BAYLANDS BUT COULD BE IN ANOTHER PLACE.

OFF SIDE IN BRISBANE.

IN THE CITY LIMITS.

IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY I THINK THAT MAY BE SORT OF A MENTAL BLOCK OR MAYBE WE NEED A GIANT OPEN FIELD SOMEWHERE TO PUT A SECOND SOLAR FARM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT MAY COME OFF AS THAT'S INFEASIBLE BUT THERE'S NO REASON YOU COULDN'T put distributed solar all over Brisbane, for example, and have the same effect, right? If it's measured in, it's got to be an offset, a certain number of kilowatts, kilowatt hours produced to meet a shortfall, right? Then there are many ways to do that.

Gotcha. And now I got you.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Can I ask the developer something real quick, if you wouldn't mind? Sure. Super fast. How big is your property at Sierra Point? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? HOW BIG IS YOUR PROPERTY AT SIERRA POINT? HOW MANY ACRES?

DON'T QUOTE ME, BUT I THINK IT'S ABOUT SEVEN.

SEVEN?

OKAY.

DO YOU THINK THAT COULD BE A PLACE FOR SOME OFFSITE, I MEAN, OFFSITE ENERGY GENERATION?

It is our belief that our current plan with the solar farm that we're building and all the solar and the battery storage meets and exceeds the definition of energy neutrality.

Did you have further question on that?

No, I mean, it wasn't really an answer to my question, but.

Okay. Linda Salmon.

Well, it's well past my bedtime, so I might not be very coherent. But I see lots of problems. Back when we did the first assessment 32 years ago about what was happening in the Baylands, I think it was pretty clear that we weren't wanting to have single-family homes. on toxic soil with clay caps or anything else because they were showing pictures of beautiful gardens growing out of these things and people having growing their food on toxic soil and it was like not possible. So I still contend that that's not feasible. So back to sustainability. First of all, We had decided the reason we did the FARs the way they were in the 1994 general plan is that the build-out could be commercial, With above it, dwelling units, apartments, condos, you could buy it or rent it. And above that, solar panels. And maybe in between, if they wanted, they could put hydroponic gardens. Something to that effect. AND EVERYTHING WOULD BE SUSTAINABLE AND WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH AT THE NORTH END OF IT AND NOT AT THE MOST TOXIC AREA OF THE BAYLANDS, YOU KNOW, BELOW ICEHOUSE HILL AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND WE FELT THAT THAT WAS A PRETTY GOOD IDEA. WELL, APPARENTLY, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY DECIDED THAT THAT WAS NOT GOOD, AND SO THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, SCREW YOU, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THIS AND DO THAT, AND WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER PLAN. WELL, THE NEW PLAN HAS FOR HOUSES fancy homes that are going to cost a fortune for people who want to live there. And guess what? Those people are not going to, they're going to want to do it their way. They're going to want to have saunas and swimming pools and all kinds of other things going on. It's going to be a real problem. So I think that we really need to come back and rethink this whole project the way it's happening, the way they're presenting it right now. I really don't think that it's viable and it's not ever going to be energy neutral. I'd like to know WHEN THEY DECIDED HOW MUCH WATER PEOPLE NEEDED, WHEN THEY DECIDED HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY THEY'RE GOING TO NEED, AND ALL THESE OTHER FACTORS, BECAUSE THINGS HAVE CHANGED DRASTICALLY, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE EVEN MORE AS WE GO FORWARD. SO TO ME, THE MOST FLEXIBLE THING IS TO BEGIN, IF THEY WANT TO BEGIN BUILDING, TO BEGIN BUILDING UNDER WHERE THE SLATE LOCK IS, WHERE THERE'S SOME GROUND YOU CAN GET UNDER. AND START SLOWLY BUILDING BUSINESSES ACROSS FROM BAYSHORE THAT WOULD HAVE DWELLING UNITS UP ABOVE FOR NOT HAVING KIDS ON TOXIC SOIL. THAT IS JUST A NO-NO. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WE CANNOT DO IT. I CAN GO ON AND ON, BUT I'M REALLY TIRED AND WILL SAVE THE OTHER COMMENTS FOR LATER.

Thank you, Linda. Michelle Salmon. Is Michelle still here? She might be online. She's online. Oh, Michelle. I'm here. Oh, good. Okay. Go ahead, Michelle.