Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Bye. . . . . . Thank you. . . . . Thank you.

Thank you.

¶¶ . . . .

And we'll be beginning that momentarily. We'll be going live in 10.

Good to go.

Good evening. The May 28th meeting of the Brisbane Planning Commission will not come to order. May we have a roll call, please?

Yes, thank you, Commissioner Lau. Make sure your mic is on.

Sorry, present.

Thank you, Commissioner Wadziak.

Present.

And Chair Gooding.

Present.

And note for the record, Commissioners Funke and Sayasan are absent.

Thank you. I may have a motion to adopt the agenda, please.

Aye, so moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye. The agenda is adopted with three ayes. Moving on to the consent calendar, is there any member of the public who would like to pull an item from the consent calendar? Staff will post a Zoom call number on screen and announce the members will have 30 seconds to raise their hands to so indicate or to raise your hand from the audience. Meanwhile, is there any commissioner who would like to remove any item from the consent calendar? Seeing none.

30 seconds is passed.

Thank you. We have a motion then to adopt the consent calendar. I move to adopt the consent calendar. Any second? All in favor? Aye. Adopted with three ayes. Moving on to oral communications. We have three requests to speak regarding the Baylands plan, which will happen toward the end of this particular meeting. We simply ask if there are anyone who wishes to address the Commission on any items not on tonight's agenda. And we will start a Zoom timer as well for one minute. Anybody in the audience? Seeing none. While we're waiting, staff, are there any written communications regarding the NEW BUSINESS ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA?

Okay, 1 minute has passed and no hands are raised.

Thank you. Um, there's no old business or new business. The only item on tonight's agenda is a workshop regarding the Baylands specific plan. And there will be a staff presentation.

Yes, thank you. Good evening chair and commissioners. We will pull up a presentation shortly. THE OBJECTIVES FOR TONIGHT'S WORKSHOP ARE TO INTRODUCE THE CITY'S TEAM, INCLUDING THE CONSULTANTS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR A REVIEW OF THE BAYLAND SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED MATERIALS, DEFINE KEY TERMINOLOGY RELATED TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND PROVIDE A BRIEF PROJECT HISTORY, PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, INCLUDING AN OUTLINE OF WHAT HAS CHANGED BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER'S 2025 SUBMITTAL AND THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED VERSION OF THE PLAN, A GUIDE ON HOW TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE PLAN, and then discuss what comes next after tonight's workshop. I'll wait for the technology to catch up to me. Oh, there we go, okay. So we are gonna split the presentation tonight into four segments. It is gonna be a lot of information. So after each segment, we're going to break for a 20-minute Q&A period for the Commission to pose questions to staff and the consultants. And we'll provide answers as we're able. We may ultimately need to defer more detailed responses to future meetings. ALSO, IF TIME ALLOWS AND AT THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION, THE PUBLIC WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION. SO ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC WILL BE NOTED AND RESPONSES PROVIDED AT FUTURE MEETINGS. SO THE FIRST SEGMENT WILL CONSIST OF INTRODUCTION, PROJECT TEAM, KEY TERMINOLOGY, PROJECT BACKGROUND, PLAN OVERVIEW, HOW TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE PLAN. WE'LL BREAK FOR A Q&A. CAN YOU DO NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? THANK YOU. SECOND SEGMENT WILL BE OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN ORGANIZATION AS WELL AS CHAPTERS ONE THROUGH THREE OF THE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE THIRD SEGMENT WILL BE CHAPTERS FOUR THROUGH SIX. AND THE LAST WILL BE CHAPTERS SEVEN THROUGH NINE AND OVERVIEW OF NEXT STEPS. OKAY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY. MOVING INTO SEGMENT ONE. SO INTRODUCING THE PROJECT TEAM. SO THE TEAM CONSISTS OF A NUMBER OF CURRENT AND FORMER CITY STAFF AS WELL AS A CONSULTANT TEAM THAT COLLECTIVELY WORK TOGETHER TO REVIEW THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOP STAFF'S RECOMMENDED 2026 VERSION OF THE PLAN. THE STAFF AND CONSULTANT TEAM ALSO PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN. SO STAFF MEMBERS FROM MANY CITY DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE PROJECT MATERIALS, INCLUDING PUBLIC WORKS, NORTH COUNTY FIRE, FINANCE, THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. AND THEN THE CITY CONTRACTED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES OR ESA TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS RELATED TO THE PROJECT. Uh, yes, his team includes a number of specialized sub consultants. Um, that includes site lab and Farron peers. Um, both of whom have representatives here tonight. Um, and then so tonight from the city team, we have myself, Julia airs, community development director. Um, we have the public works director and city engineer. We also have Eric Phillips with the City Attorney's Office, Senior Planner Jeremiah Robbins. With ESA, we have Terry Avila, who is the Project Manager, Bev Choi, the Planning Lead. We'll also hear from Jeff Caton, Matt Brennan, and Todd Gordon. And then we'll also hear from Woody Hanson with SiteLab, some subconsultants to ESA, and Matt Goyne, Transportation Lead with Farron Pierce. and we'll have other members of the ESA team available to support the workshop as needed. Great. So the focus of tonight's workshop is on the Bayland specific plan. So let's start with defining what that document is and clarify how different versions of the plan are identified. So a specific plan is a detailed planning and zoning document used to guide development for a defined geographic area. In this case, the Bayland sub area of Brisbane. It implements the broader goals of a general plan. It functions as a blueprint for development of the sub area. Outlining specific land uses infrastructure needs and design standards, specific plans are standalone regulatory documents that are separate from the city's general plan and zoning. They must be consistent with the policies laid out in a general plan and are used to implement such policies. Specific plan is a legislative action, meaning it must be adopted by resolution of the city council following a recommendation from the planning commission. Tonight you'll hear staffing consultants refer to the 2025 applicant specific plan and the 2026 staff recommended specific plan. The applicants plan is the plan that's been available on the city's website since April of 2025. IT'S THE LATEST VERSION OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE DEVELOPER AFTER MEASURE JJ WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, AND IT'S THE PLAN THAT WAS ANALYZED IN THE EIR. THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN IS A MODIFIED VERSION OF THE APPLICANT'S 2025 PLAN. IT'S BEEN REVISED TO BETTER REFLECT THE CITY'S VISION FOR BAYLAND'S DEVELOPMENT AND RESPOND TO ISSUES THAT EMERGED DURING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. THE UPDATED 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED VERSION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN WAS RELEASED ON MAY 14TH ALONG WITH THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. IN GENERAL AS WE'LL GET INTO IN MORE DETAIL TONIGHT THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN DOESN'T MODIFY THE OVERALL PLAN STRUCTURE OR ORGANIZATION FROM WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN 2025. THERE ARE SOME MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. and other city adopted plans and ordinances. And we'll cover the significant differences between the two plans throughout the presentation tonight. Next slide, please. Great. um tonight you will hear presenters refer to the project so the project consists of the bayland specific plan and several related actions that require city approval each of the related project components were analyzed under the eir since the project as defined under the california environmental quality act or sequa is very broadly defined as the whole of an action Not all project components are subject to the planning commission's recommendation. Namely, those are that are not planning or zoning related. For example, relocation of the Brisbane fire station establishment of a middle school require city approval, but are not subject to formal planning commission review. Proposed amendments to the city's general plan and zoning regulations are going to be reviewed by the commission before the council takes action. Likewise, the project will also require a development agreement. So a development agreement is a contract between the city and the developer that further defines rights and responsibilities in connection with future development. Development agreements must be adopted by ordinance and the planning commission will make a recommendation ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES ITS FINAL ACTION. HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE. AND HERE'S A CLOSER VIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE. THIS SITE IS JUST OVER 680 ACRES IN SIZE. ABOUT 122 ACRES CONSIST OF THE LAGOON. EXISTING USES INCLUDE A PORTION OF OPERATIONS, GOLDEN STATE LUMBER, THE KINDER MORGAN TANK FARM, MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY, BRISBANE FIRE STATION AND THE CITY'S CORPORATION YARD. And this is an expert excerpt of the project description from the, so it describes what the plan is putting forward. Um, it would include 1800 to 2200 residential dwelling units, 6.5Million square feet of commercial space. 500,000 square feet of hotel use. And those are consistent with the limitations of measure JJ. It also includes a middle school infrastructure of a variety of different types, as well as sustainable components, and then 157 acres of open space, including passive and active recreation areas and conserved and restored habitat areas. Okay. This project has quite a history. Um. The city's 1994 general plan required submittal of a specific plan for the balance to determine permitted uses and establish development standards for future development. In 2005, the property owner submitted a general plan amendment and initial Brisbane balance, specific plan applications. IN 2011, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN AND AT THAT TIME THE CITY BEGAN TO PREPARE A PROGRAMMATIC EIR FOR THE PROJECT. A PROGRAMMATIC EIR ALLOWS FOR FUTURE PROJECT LEVEL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS TO TEAR OFF THE ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAMMATIC EIR TO EVALUATE PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS. The planning commission reviewed the program and specific plan from September 2015 to August 2016 and city council review of the same began thereafter and concluded in July 2018 when it ultimately certified the final and approved general plan amendment dash 1 dash 18. Sorry, go back. As part of their motion, Council also directed that the general plan amendment be placed on the ballot for ratification by the voters. That ballot measure is known as Measure JJ, and it was approved by the voters in November of 2018. Because the original specific plan submitted by the developer in 2011 was inconsistent with the adopted general plan, it couldn't be approved at the same time. SO BETWEEN ROUGHLY 2020 AND 2023, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED REVISED VERSIONS OF A DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. WHILE NOT COMPLETE, THESE INITIAL DRAFTS PROVIDED ENOUGH INFORMATION TO THE CITY TO BEGIN PREPARING A PROJECT LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN WERE SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER, CULMINATING IN THE APRIL 2025 DEVELOPER'S PLAN, WHICH WAS EVALUATED IN THE DRAFT DIR. And as I mentioned, the final year was published just a couple of weeks ago, along with the 2026 staff recommended version of the specific plan. So just to give an overview, the developer specific plan's vision is to concentrate development close to existing and proposed transit links, preserve, restore, and make accessible the site's key natural features, create active and pedestrian friendly streets, frontages, and destinations, and incorporate sustainable design into site development. Consistent with measure JJ, as I noted, the plan would allow for 1800 to 2200 units of housing and up to 7Million square feet of commercial, including the hotel component consistent with measure JJ as well. Residential uses are only allowed in the Northwest quadrant of the site. So, in general, staff's recommended revisions to the applicant's 2025 plan do not modify the overall structure of the plan or its organization. The many of the proposed revisions are procedural or organizational in nature to provide additional certainty and clarity and facilitate staff's ability to implement the plan over an extended period of time. The plan generally was refined to align with state law, specifically incorporating objective development standards for residential development, ensuring consistency with housing law related to density, parking, accessibility, affordability, to improve the implementation and feasibility of the plan, such as indicating the relationship between the specific plan and the development agreement, to improve clarity and internal consistency within the plan across chapters and throughout standards, And update any technical analysis figures are supporting materials based on the final. So, as we've discussed, the specific plan is the regulatory framework to guide development approved under the city's general plan over time. It's not a final design of specific buildings or a prescription of how each building is to be designed. It does not stipulate how open space and other recreation areas are to be programmed. Likewise, photographs or figures in the specific plan are illustrative only. So instead of dictating final design, The plan balances policy direction with future adaptability by outlining specific land uses, infrastructure needs, and design standards to inform future development project applications. As an example, the development regulations in the specific plan establish objective standards for a potential building's mass, height, and density, but specific details of individual projects within the plan area will be refined through subsequent permit approvals. A new commercial building in the Baylands will require a design permit. FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUST LIKE ANY OTHER NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING. RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WOULD REQUIRE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WHICH IS REVIEWED MINISTERIALLY BUT ALLOWS OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION. SO OVERALL THE SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY AND ALLOWED LAND USES MUCH LIKE BRISBAYNE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING FOR SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT TO ADAPT TO CHANGING OR EVOLVING MARKET CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT OR POST DEVELOPMENT All right. Now we will break for our first Q&A opportunity with the Commission. So at this time, any Commissioner questions on the material that was just presented can be presented to staff. We'll answer as we're able and we'll reserve up to 20 minutes for this segment.

I had one question about items that are not subject to the Commission's review. And I understood you to say that the water agreement that is described in the specific plan for an agreement between the applicant and Cal Water is not within our purview to discuss or review?

Not subject to the Commission's review. Sorry? Not subject to the Commission's review.

I noted, and this is stepping outside of the plan for a moment to the EIR, the EIR sort of the very end of the analysis about water describes the issue about the Bay Delta plan and potential for that. There's kind of an uncertainty right now surrounding exactly what will be the result of the litigations and negotiations between Cal Water and a bunch of other agencies about the future of water supply to the Bay Area. Given that uncertainty, I'm just curious, structure-wise or policy-wise, how do we deal with a specific plan that requires the applicant to provide water as a condition of the project, but on its face leaves that kind of not set in stone?

So how does the commission act on the requested entitlement approvals without that agreement being part of your consideration? Is that what you're asking? Yeah.

That was better put than I said it.

Well, I just want to make sure I understood.

I don't know, Eric, if you have anything to add on that.

Buttons in a different spot that I'm used to finding it. Thank you for the assist Eric Phillips from the city attorney's office. So it it's director Iyer said that the Specific water agreement is not something that the cleaning commission is charged with reviewing the EIR does go through an analysis of the water supply when we get to the EIR DISCUSSION IN A SUBSEQUENT WORKSHOP THAT WILL BE PART OF, I GUESS, THE FACTORS THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS. BUT BOTH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND COW WATER ARE SPECIFICALLY CHARGED WITH MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE SUPPLY. AND THEN THE CITY WILL BE INVOLVED IN MAKING SURE THAT, I GUESS, THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT ANALYSIS AND THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RELATED TO PROVIDING WATER TO THE PROJECT HAVE ALL BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND ANALYZED.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY. SO I UNDERSTAND THEN THAT THE TIME FOR US TO RAISE THIS CONCERN ABOUT THE UNCERTAINTY OVER WATER SUPPLY IS WHEN CONSIDERING THE FINAL EIR.

Correct, because the specific water agreements are not something that the Planning Commission has jurisdiction over.

Am I correct that the specific plan has a provision that requires the water issue to be resolved by the applicant before proceeding with the project?

Correct. There will have to be a demonstration of available water in order for reconstruction and occupancy to continue through the plan.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

I have no other questions.

Thanks. Okay. No other questions from commissioners? All right. We will proceed then to our next segment. okay so overview of plan organization okay so the specific plan is organized as shown on the slide here so starting with the vision executive summary and introduction followed by chapter two which addresses the land use program sets out the land use framework and district organization for the specific plan area INCLUDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, BLOCK LEVEL DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS, AND MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AMOUNTS. CHAPTER 3, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND OTHER PHYSICAL CONTROLS, IT ALSO ESTABLISHES ALLOWABLE LAND USES THROUGHOUT THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. SO THIS IS WHERE STANDARDS LIKE HEIGHT, MASSING, SETBACKS, AND PARKING ARE FOUND. CHAPTER 4 SETS OUT THE PLAN'S APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY. CHAPTER 5 ADDRESSES CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE, SO THE PROPOSED system of open space, including biological resource areas to be conserved, wildlife habitat areas and wetlands, as well as urban parks and recreational space. Chapter six is circulation, so that describes the circulation network, identifies the components and standards required for access and movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and vehicles. Chapter seven addresses infrastructure, so grading, stormwater, potable water, sanitary sewer, recycled water, ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS. CHAPTER 8 ADDRESSES FINANCING. SO PUBLIC FINANCING STRATEGIES AND MECHANISMS. IT ALSO ADDRESSES MEASURE JJ'S REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT RESULT IN A NET FISCAL BENEFIT TO THE CITY. AND FINALLY CHAPTER 9 ADDRESSES IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN. SO THE STEPS THAT MUST BE TAKEN, INCLUDING PHASING, DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. SO AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED PLAN DOES NOT CHANGE THIS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. I'M HAPPY NOW TO HAND THE PRESENTATION OVER TO BEV CHOI, THE PLANNING LEAD WITH CITIES CONSULTANTS ESA. DO WE HAVE BEV ON ZOOM?

YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH, JULIA. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. AS JULIA MENTIONED, BEV CHOI FROM ESA, AND I AM ALSO HAPPY TO BE HERE AND KICK OFF THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF THE BAYLAND SPECIFIC PLAN. AND BEFORE WE JUMP TO THE NEXT SLIDE, I WANT TO NOTE THAT FOR EACH CHAPTER YOU'RE GOING TO FIRST HEAR AN OVERVIEW OF THE 2025 PLAN, FOLLOWED BY A SUMMARY OF THE KEY REFINEMENTS THAT THE TEAM HAS MADE THAT ARE REFLECTED IN THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I know this is a large PowerPoint. All right. Excellent. Well, starting 1st, with chapter 1, the introduction. This chapter really sets the foundation for the plan as Julia had mentioned earlier on. This chapter describes the Bay lands as a future transit oriented, a mixed use district that integrates a number of uses. We've got housing. There's employment, commercial, open space, multimodal connections, all of which you'll hear more in tonight's presentation. Chapter one also lays out the core planning principles for the project, which emphasizes, again, concentration of density in your transit, creating this walkable environment for neighborhoods, integration of natural systems and open space, as well as ensuring that the sites develops in a sustainable manner. And this introduction chapter also explains how the specific plan works in tandem and is in compliance with the general plan and the EIR. Next, please. So pivoting over to the 2026 staff recommended plan, there are no substantive changes to those core elements that I had just described. The vision is consistent. Those planning principles are consistent as well. And the 2026 staff plan and its proposed changes are really, again, as shared earlier, intended to help guide the development over time. AND ITS PURPOSE IS NOT TO ESTABLISH ANY SORT OF FIXED FINAL SITE DESIGN. AND SO ACCORDINGLY SOME ASPECTS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONTINUE TO BE REFINED THROUGH SUBSEQUENT PROCESSES. AND AS STAFF AGAIN DESCRIBED EARLIER, THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY OF THIS PROJECT TO THE SITE CONDITIONS, MARKET FACTORS THAT MIGHT CHANGE. over time as well as phasing as the project is implemented over the years. And again, you'll hear more on implementation when we get to chapter nine. So in summary, chapter one remains consistent with the 2025 applicant specific plan, and it continues to function as an overall framework that will guide development for the Baylands. Let's move on to chapter two now, which will focus on land use. Next, please. So in the 2025 applicant plan, this chapter establishes several land use goals, which are directly tied and support the general plan. As mentioned earlier, the land use program shown here in those gray bullets are consistent with Measure JJ. It establishes that overall scale and mix of development. within the plan area the 2025 applicant plan also organizes the site and includes a number of different land use designations which make up this pattern and what we do see in that plan is that most of the intensive residential and commercial development is generally north of main street and due west and essentially along the cal train right-of-way In the 2025 land use plan, it also has a mix of commercial open space, sustainable infrastructure uses that are spread across the rest of the site. Next, please. So, as you can see in the legend on the right-hand side, the 2025 plan Um, includes 3 residential land use destinations. That's the low, medium and high that you're seeing in in the yellow, orange and brown. And these destinations allow for a variety of housing types and this includes things from town homes to mid and high rise. multifamily, and you'll hear more about this housing mix in the next segment. Chapter 2 also identifies existing uses and explains how they relate to the future and long-term development within the plan. Next, please. So shifting gears now over to the 2026 plan, the land use pattern. I should say it builds upon the 2025 applicant-specific plan. In other words, it's not a wholesale change. It really builds upon it. The refinements focused on updates to block configuration and land use boundaries. And this was really in response to infrastructure planning, open space systems, and the potential high-speed rail light maintenance facility. The 2026 plan also includes refinements related to tower development standards. You'll hear more about that in Chapter 3. Again, these targeted refinements build upon the 2025 plan and improves the coordination between the land use with the other components of the specific plan and provides for a clear framework for future implementation, which is key. Next, please. So this slide compares the 2025 land use plan on the left-hand side as labeled with the 2026 staff recommended land use plan on the right. And if you go to the next slide, this further highlights those focus refined areas that have been incorporated into the 2026 plan. And if you look at the right-hand side in the circle area, IT CONCENTRATES HIGHER INTENSITY COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EVEN CLOSER TO THE TRANSIT STATION TO THE NORTHERN PORTION. IT'S THOSE IT'S TINY BUT IT'S THOSE BLOCKS IN RED AND BROWN WITHIN THE CIRCLED AREAS. AND THIS APPROACH IS IN LINE WITH THE STATE'S EMPHASIS ON LOCATING HOUSING AND JOBS NEAR MAJOR TRANSIT. I also had mentioned previously the future high-speed rail light maintenance facility. And within the circled area, it's that gray bump out to the east of the Caltrain right-of-way. And as you generally move south and east of that transit core development, generally transitions to lower intensity uses and larger open spaces across the rest of the site. Next, please. So one of the key additions in the 2026 plan is the introduction of average minimum density and intensity standards. And what this does is help support the delivery of the program that we've heard about already in this presentation. That's referring to the 1800 to 2200 unit for residential and the associated commercial. And so how this works for residential, there's an average minimum density standard for each of those residential land use designations. Again, that's the low, medium, high that you saw. And these are average minimums that are applied to I SHOULD SAY, NOT APPLIED TO EACH BLOCK, BUT APPLIED TO THE DESIGNATION, AND THAT DIFFERENTIATION IS KEY. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT DENSITY CAN VARY ACROSS THE SITE. THIS MEANS THAT A RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES CAN BE ACCOMMODATED, AGAIN, SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIFAMILY UNITS, AND THIS MEANS THAT DEVELOPMENT CAN RESPOND TO SITE CONDITIONS, CHANGES IN MARKET FACTORS, AND PHASING. And similarly, the 2026 plan establishes average minimum floor area ratios for the commercial land use designations. And this is to help support the commercial development program, again, that we heard earlier, which is capped at 7 million square feet, which includes the hotel use. And so to reiterate, the plan allows flexibility at the block level WHERE DENSITY AND INTENSITY CAN VARY FROM BLOCK TO BLOCK SO LONG AS THE DISTRICT MAXIMUM IS NOT EXCEEDED. AND MORE ON HOW THIS FRAMEWORK IS IMPLEMENTED WILL BE PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 9. ALSO IN THE 2026 PLAN, WE'LL NOTE THAT ALL THE PLANNING GOALS HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO THIS CHAPTER ALONGSIDE THE LAND USE A FRAMEWORK, PREVIOUSLY THESE GOALS WERE SPREAD ACROSS MULTIPLE CHAPTERS, SO THIS UPDATE PLACES THEM INTO ONE LOCATION FOR EASY REFERENCING. NO CHANGE IN POLICY, REALLY MORE ABOUT CLARITY AND USABILITY. ADDITIONALLY, THE DISCUSSION OF PLANNING DISTRICTS AND BLOCKS HAVE ALSO BEEN RELOCATED TO CHAPTER 2. FROM CHAPTER 3 WE PULLED IT UP, AND THIS UPDATE MORE CLEARLY now ties the site layout with the block organization to the overall land use plan. And so to summarize, the updates to Chapter 2 are not about changes to the land use program itself. These updates really focus on refining how the plan is organized, how the plan is applied, again, improving overall clarity and consistency. while providing a more defined structure for implementation, which is important, while still maintaining flexibility in how development is distributed and phased. And so with that, that concludes the overview for the first two chapters. And with that, I am going to pass it over to Woody Hanson from SiteLab to go over the chapter three highlights. Thank you.

Thanks, Bev. Good evening, Commissioners. Next slide, please. Chapter 3, Development and Design Standards, establishes the objective development and design standards that will regulate the Baylands urban form and design character. The design standards and guidelines in the 2025 applicant-specific plan established distinct densities and building types with standards and guidelines informing the character of development within each. Building standards set development controls for 10 building types that are envisioned within the plan area. Five of them are residential, from single family homes to multi-family high rise. And five of them are non-residential, including commercial, campus, hospitality, and amenity buildings. Each of these building types include a series of requirements, including maximum heights, setbacks, parking, facade design, and ground floor design, to name a few. THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN MAINTAINS THE SAME OVERALL VISION AND DESIGN INTENT WHILE REFINING THE STANDARDS TO IMPROVE OBJECTIVITY, CLARITY, AND LONG-TERM IMPLEMENTATION. THE FOLLOWING SLIDES WILL WALK THROUGH THE WAYS IN WHICH THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN HAS EVOLVED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. Objective developments and design standards in chapter 3 cover a wide range of building design and development topics, including building scale, massing, parking frontage and architectural design as shown on this slide. One key structural change we made to Chapter 3 was expanding the project-wide standards section, consolidating standards that apply universally across the 10 building types I mentioned, rather than repeating them within each individual building type. This restructuring streamlines conformance review and more clearly distinguishes the standards unique to each of the building types. Next slide. Here, we're using the example of building height to describe what type of standards shifted from building types to the project wide standard section. So, on the left, you're seeing how height building height is measured, which does not vary by building type. So those definitions were consolidated into the project wide section to improve consistency and reduce repetition. What the maximum building height permitted by each building type is, as you're seeing on the right, DOES CHANGE AND HENCE IS DEFINED WITHIN EACH BUILDING TYPE SECTION. SIMILARLY, PODIUM AND PARKING GARAGE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS CONTINUE TO BE TAILORED WITHIN EACH BUILDING TYPE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. LAND USE CATEGORIES PERMIT A VARIETY OF BUILDING TYPES AS OUTLINED IN TABLE 3.1.1 AS YOU'RE SEEING ON THE LEFT AND AS BEV DISCUSSED. EACH OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES PERMIT TWO TO THREE DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPES WITHIN THEM. supporting flexibility and long-term development feasibility as market conditions evolve over time. As Bev noted in Chapter 2, establishing the minimum density requirements applies an average across each land use category, rather than applying them to individual blocks, allowing flexibility for some areas to develop with lower density housing products, while others develop more intensely to meet the overall minimum requirement. The following slides highlights where building types are permitted in the plan area. Duplexes and single family homes are permitted within the low density residential area shown in yellow, which represents a substantial portion of the residential land area within the plan. The minimum average density for this land use is 25 dwelling units per acre on average. Next slide. Townhomes and multifamily low building types are permitted within the low density and medium density residential areas, which are in the yellow and orange as you're seeing on the slide. Each together account for a large majority of the residential land area. For reference, when we say multifamily low building types, this includes any buildings with a maximum height of up to 50 feet or four stories. These buildings may be designed as flats or townhome units over flats or stacked townhomes. Minimum average density for these land uses range from 25 dwelling units per acre in the yellow zone to 75 dwelling units per acre in the orange zone. Next slide. Multifamily mid-building type includes buildings with a maximum height of 110 feet, commonly referred to as mid-rise. These building types are permitted within the mid-density and high-density residential zones shown in orange and brown on the screen. As you can see, the majority of these areas are located adjacent to the Caltrain right-of-way or in proximity to the Caltrain station, concentrating higher density residential development closest to transit access and supporting the specific plans transit oriented development framework. Minimum average densities in these land uses range between 75 for the orange zone and 95 for the brown zone dwelling units per acre. Next slide, please. Multifamily high building type includes buildings with a maximum height of 270 feet. These building types are permitted within the high density residential areas shown in brown Minimum average density for the land use in this zone is 95 dwelling units per acre. Next slide. In summary, a large majority of the residential land area has the flexibility to be developed using lower density residential building types that are four stories or less, such as duplex, single family homes, townhomes, and multifamily low. so long as that average minimum density of the plan in their respective land use zones are met. These building types are often identified today by developers in the region as those that are most suitable to the current market from a construction cost perspective. Conversely, a focused portion of the residential land area permits multifamily high and multifamily mid building types over four stories in height, and those areas are concentrated nearest THE TRANSIT STATION. THIS OPTIONALITY PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY TO RESPOND TO CHANGING MARKET CONDITIONS OVER TIME WHILE PRESERVING LONG-TERM OPPORTUNITIES FOR HIGHER-DENSITY TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT NEAR THE STATION. NEXT SLIDE. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TOWERS WERE ALSO ADDED FOR TOWERS PERMITTED WITHIN THE HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL AND HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL land use categories, the 2026 staff-recommended specific plan refined tower locations to concentrate the tallest buildings closest to the transit center. Towers up to 270 feet in height, which were previously permitted farther south toward Main Street, are now consolidated north of Geneva Avenue. Building types up to 270 feet in height are limited to those areas closest to the transit with heights stepping down to 150 feet maximum and 110 feet maximum south toward Geneva Avenue and west toward Bayshore Boulevard to reduce visual massing and provide a more gradual transition in scale to surrounding development. The 2026 staff recommended plan also includes new standards limiting THE PROJECT TO A MAXIMUM OF FOUR TOTAL TOWERS WITH NO MORE THAN ONE TOWER PER BLOCK WITHIN HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL AND HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS. WHAT THIS DOES IS MAINTAINS A MINIMUM TOWER SEPARATION BY DEFAULT AND PRESERVES VIEW CORRIDORS AND AVOIDS A CONTINUOUS WALL EFFECT ALONG THE BAY FRONTAGE. Tower standards are applied to any floors above 110 feet in high density residential land uses and above 150 feet in high density commercial land uses. The standards on the following slides control the dimensions of the tower, which as you're seeing here, start at that tower start line of 110 and 150 feet respectively. Next slide, please. Residential tower standards apply to portions of buildings above 110 feet, with tower floor plates limited to 12,000 square feet. Commercial tower standards apply to portions of buildings above 150 feet in height, with a tower floor plate limited to a maximum of 15,000 square feet. Both residential and commercial towers are limited to 270 feet in height and a maximum diagonal floor plate dimension of 190 feet. What this does is reduces perceived bulk and limits excessively long tower forms. Sample tower sizes are shown for reference in the figure here on the right. Next slide, please. Towers are also required to be oriented in a specific way, generally perpendicular to the Caltrain right-of-way to help preserve scenic views toward the San Francisco Bay and the San Bruno Mountains. and avoid creating a continuous wall of development along the bay frontage. To implement this standard, tower facades longer than 110 feet are required to be oriented within 15 degrees of the Caltrain right of way, reducing visual blockage and maintaining those view corridors that I mentioned. Next slide. Additionally, building breaks are now required along Bayshore Boulevard and Sierra Point Parkway frontages to reduce the perceived length and scale of buildings along these prominent corridors. These building breaks must be at least 30 feet wide and 40 feet deep. They must occur at grade, and they must remain fully open to sky without overhead structures. Standalone residential buildings, including continuous rows of townhomes and single-family UNITS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THIS REQUIREMENT AND MUST BE BROKEN EVERY 250 FEET COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS MUST BE BROKEN EVERY 300 FEET NEXT SLIDE PLEASE THE 2025 APPLICANT SPECIFIC PLAN INCLUDED A RESIDENTIAL FLEX SPACE DESIGNATION THAT ALLOWED A FOR GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ALONG THE FRONTAGES SHOWN IN THE PURPLE DIAGRAM ON THE LEFT Residential flex space included a requirement that quote all revenue generated within the residential flex space uses must be distributed to the owner of the dwelling unit above. The 2026 staff recommended plan merged this residential flex space into the active ground floor framework, which you're seeing in the middle of the slide here. TO SIMPLIFY ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE PLAN AREA AND ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR AN ONGOING REVENUE TRACKING AND MONITORING PROCESS FOR CITY STAFF. THE FRONTAGE WHERE ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR SPACE IS ALLOWED AND REQUIRED, AS YOU'RE SEEING ON THE RIGHT, IS CONSISTENT TO THE PLANS THAT YOU ARE SEEING FROM THE 2025 APPLICANT PLAN ON THE LEFT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. Focused parking updates were incorporated to support transit oriented development and improve site design efficiency. Standalone parking garages are prohibited within multifamily mid and multifamily high residential buildings to prioritize residential density on transit adjacent parcels. Consistent with that approach, the podium height for multifamily mid buildings has increased from 15 feet to 25 feet to better accommodate integrated parking structures within the podium and within the building footprint, enabling buildings to self-park and accommodate parking demand within the project site. Campus low standards were also refined to permit podium parking while prohibiting surface parking, supporting a more urban and pedestrian-oriented site design approach. Next slide, please. The 2026 Staff Recommended Plan removed a range of individual signage guidelines and instead requires a future comprehensive signage program to provide additional flexibility and allow signage design to evolve over time. And finally, in addition to refinements for objectivity and clarity in standards language, the 2026 Staff Recommended Plan introduced a comprehensive standard numbering system, and additional refinements to improve organization, streamline conformance review, and support long-term plan administration. Thank you. And I'll turn it over to the city staff to conclude segment one and initiate Q&A.

Great. Thank you. All right. So at this time, we'll invite any questions from the commission on the material that you just heard.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions. I guess first off, with the 6.5, I guess 7 million square feet total, is there a minimum development part or is it sort of just cannot cross that threshold?

So staff's recommended plan does propose a minimum average FAR for commercial development.

And then just I'm getting this part correct regarding the flexibility on the block level. So it's the per sort of area can be flexible, but then across the entire district of the entire Baylands area has to be the average number has to be consistent or has to be met. So that's my question.

Um, can you repeat that?

Yeah, I guess I'm trying to understand the, there was a comment about the, um, within the block. It could be flexible, but is it across the entire balance zone?

Then all the, like, the high has to be some average how the minimum and average densities and actually relate on a. Plan wide basis. Um, I don't know. Does yes, or site lab want to tackle it?

Uh, yes, I can expand on that and so, um. clarifying that the flexibility is on the block in that within the specific plan, there is additional units that you can build. However, you cannot exceed the district maximums, as you noted. And so this allows for flexibility in the densities and the product types that we had mentioned. And within Chapter 9, there's a development allocation process so that YOU KNOW, NOT ONE OR TWO OR A FEW PROJECTS ESSENTIALLY CAPTURE ALL THE UNIT CAPACITY OR THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE DEVELOPMENT. SO CORRECT IN THAT DISTRICT MAXIMUMS CANNOT BE EXCEEDED.

THANK YOU. AND I GUESS A BLOCK IN THIS CASE IS A CITY BLOCK OR A BLOCK OF LIKE THE DESIGN BLOCKS THAT WE HAD THERE?

BLOCKS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT YOU SAW LARGELY WITHIN THE CHAPTER 3 CONTENTS.

So I guess along those lines with the blocks and the towers then, I guess the, because it was a four maximum total towers and it was one per block, but there's only sort of two blocks there, or is it, was I not seeing that correctly, I guess?

So maybe if we go back to one of the slides that have a zoom in, you can probably more clearly see the blocks in which we're referring to where towers allowed, are allowed in which Woody had Yeah, 1 of those should work. Um, yes, and if you can see that there are 2. Uh, the red blocks, which are the high density commercial 1 tower is allowed on each and 1 tower is allowed on each of the high density residential. Making up 4 towers in total. Got it.

Thank you. And then I guess how tall is 270 feet? Just I have a reference of how many stories that is.

Yeah, that's roughly 25, 26 stories for a residential building and probably closer to 15 stories for a commercial building.

And then can you give me an example of maybe an exempt and non-exempt roof features?

I may need to come back to you on that and dig back into the standards.

And then one last question, I guess, my side regarding the maximum dwelling, then that would be determined by the height in terms of at least the minimum is 95 dwelling units, but it could be whatever the height maximum is there then.

Yes, that's correct.

And then final question I think for me is there was a comment on the active ground floor plan is allowed and required. So then all of that area has to be commercial on the first floor there. Is that correct?

GO AHEAD MAYBE TO FIVE OR SO SLIDES LATER. THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION. A COUPLE MORE.

53. TRY TO SLIDE 53. THANK YOU.

THERE YOU GO. SO THE FIGURE ON THE RIGHT IS THE ONE IN THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN. It's not terribly clear on this slide, but there are dashed lines and there are solid lines. So the dashed lines are where they are allowed and the solid lines are where they are required. And so the solid lines are really up closer to the Caltrain station and extending to the south. But all of that rest of that land and frontage is dashed line, which suggests it's allowed but not required.

I DON'T THINK I THINK MY QUESTIONS ARE MORE ABOUT CIRCULATION AND MOBILITY. SO I'LL HOLD ON UNTIL WE REACH THOSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSION QUESTIONS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL HAND IT ON OVER TO IS IT JEFF? THANK YOU. JEFF WHO WILL GO OVER CHAPTER FOUR.

Oh, good evening, Commissioner. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Yeah, Jeff Caton with ESA covering the sustainability chapter. So next slide, please. So for the 2025 applicant-specific plan, Chapter 4 was prepared in accordance with the final Bayland Sustainability Framework, which was accepted by the Council in November 2015. And that framework identifies key sustainability principles to be addressed in future Baylands development and establishes an approach for implementing those principles over time. The framework includes aspirational goals and performance indicators to guide future development rather than mandatory project specific requirements. And the framework is organized around the 10 principles that you can see listed here on the slide. These come from a reputable sustainable development organization called One Planet Living. And you can go to the next slide. In terms of green building requirements, the 2025 specific plan incorporated strategies from the 2022 version of LEED for neighborhood development. It also required that commercial buildings achieve LEED gold version four or higher, which is not specified on the slide, but specified in the plan. And that residential buildings comply with green pointed rated checklists and the current checklist as of 2022. IT ALSO SPECIFIES THAT COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS CAL GREEN, SUPERCEDES CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS OF PRIVATE RATING SYSTEMS. The 2025 Chapter 4 also established standards tied to each of the 10 sustainability principles, addressing topics such as renewable energy, building electrification, water conservation, waste reduction, EV infrastructure, and habitat integration. And a few examples are shown here on the slide under zero carbon buildings, one being to require 100% of the development's electricity from renewable energy, including a minimum of 85,000 megawatt hours of on-site solar generation at build-out. Another example is prohibition of natural gas usage in residential and commercial buildings. And a third example is meeting CalGreen Tier 1 requirements for building, insulation, energy, and water conservation, and the other GREEN BUILDING ATTRIBUTES YOU SEE LISTED HERE. NEXT SLIDE. SO TURNING TO THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN, IT UPDATES AND REFINDS SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE CHAPTER 4 TO IMPROVE CLARITY, ALIGN WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS AND STRENGTHEN OVERALL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS. AND ONE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT CAL GREEN 2022 IS NO LONGER IN and has been superseded by the more stringent 2025 update to the state building code. So for example, the requirement for development to include EV ready and EV capable infrastructure that was tier one in 2022 is now mandatory in the 2025 code. Other refinements include requirements that strengthen alignment with the one planet principles. So for example, under zero waste, there's a requirement to develop and implement a zero waste program with Recology to divert 90% of non-hazardous waste from landfill disposal. Next slide. The green building certification requirements in the 2026 recommended plan have also been updated. For commercial buildings, there's now a requirement to achieve the LEED Gold certification under building design and construction. So it's more specific and it's also specifies that it's the standard in effect at the time of the development application. Similarly, for residential, the requirement is to comply with the version of Greenpoint rated certification in effect at the time of application. The 2026 also specifies that these certifications shall be secured and paid for by the developer. And if either rating system becomes inactive or outdated, the CD director shall identify a successor or equivalent rating system that achieves comparable or greater performance. Next slide. And lastly, on Chapter 4, There is a clarification of the relationship between green building certification and applicable city and state regulations regulations to accommodate the possibility of regulations changing over time. And it states that if an applicable law regulation or ordinance precludes a building from obtaining the required level of lead or green point certification. The CD director shall approve an alternative method to determine that the development achieves equal or greater level of green building performance based on substantial evidence provided by the applicant.

Good evening. My name is Matt Brennan. I'm a hydrologist and restoration engineer who helped analyze this specific plan for sea level rise and also help redesign the creek and lagoons open space to better accommodate sea level rise as part of the 2026 staff recommended plan update. Next slide. So from the outset, the 2025 applicant specific plan laid out an interconnected set of open space that we preserved from development while enhancing that development and also integrating with a larger setting. The plan integrates a range of open space topologies, as seen in that table on the right, including ecological and passive recreation areas. recognizing that several of the plan area boundaries will be affected by sea level rise, degrading places much of the plan at elevations well above the bay that won't be affected by sea level rise. For the open spaces along the bay that sort of by definition will be affected by sea level rise, particularly along the lagoon and the creek, those corridors were intentionally designed to engage with tidal conditions and adapt over time as sea level rise. I'll discuss a little bit more detail later about how that's done. BUT OVERALL THE TAKE AWAY HERE AS YOU CAN SEE IS APPROXIMATELY ONE THIRD OF THE PLAN AREA WILL REMAIN AS DEDICATED OPEN SPACE EVEN UNDER FUTURE SEAL RISE CONDITIONS WITH ONLY ABOUT 26 ACRES TRANSITIONING FROM REGULAR TO REGULAR TITLE INUNDATION OVER TIME. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT 174 TO THE 148 IN THE TOTAL IN COLUMN FOR OPEN SPACE. NEXT SLIDE. The open space framework was designed in relation to the surrounding ecological systems and nearby habitat areas. You can see on the left figure there, the nearby open space directly informs the connectivity and serves as a reference site, as reference sites for the open space in the specific plan area. The 2025 applicant plan also emphasizes the use of native and site appropriate plant species within the open space and in landscaping. The specific selection of plant species, including the use of locally sourced or regionally appropriate materials, will be further refined during detailed landscape design and implementation. As you see on the right there, there's diversity of wetland and habitat types going from tidal to freshwater, and those are integrated to the design. The extensive open space ranges in elevation along the Creek or Lagoon to lower elevations, ranging from about zero to seven feet above mean low or low water, to achieve tidal inundation, versus and achieve marshes, where most of the plan area and the developed areas are at 17 feet or above, which address the flood risk even for long-term conditions with sea level rise. Next slide, please. Here you can see a host of the different type of open space types, starting at the top left and going across. There'll be recreation that takes advantage of the bay views. There's pathways for stormwater flow and absorption. There's tidal shoreline gradients into the next row. There's gathering places that are tables. There's sports fields. There's play structures for children. At the bottom there, you see an example of a cross section which shows the idea of ecotones or transitions from the tidal low-lying areas up to freshwater wetlands that support habitat adaptation over time. But then at the upper edges of that cross section, you see the higher elevations of the development that will be outside of flood risk. And there you also see the room for wildlife like those oyster catchers in the lower right. Next slide, please. So on to the 2026 plan and the update. So here this the 2026 staff recommended plan helped refine the grading that occurred, particularly on the creek and Lagoon Park to add topographic diversity. We updated the CLRI's projections that were used to analyze the plan to the best available science as per state and federal guidance. And finally, we assess the projected changes in tidal inundation with sea level rise that would occur in those areas subject to increased inundation with sea level rise. I'll explain all these in the next three slides. Next slide, please. So first, here's a zoom in on how the 2026 plan has refined grading along the creek and the lagoon. You can see here that there's more diversity of habitats that occur in all these, both these open spaces, and they have to be designed to engage with the bay now, but also to sort of transition gracefully with time and sea level rise. At ESA, we have over 40 years of designing tidal wetlands like these, and so we, along with the city staff, understood refinements to the 2025 grading strategy. We added topographic diversity, those sort of different colored hues of blues and greens that you see there. And we also added a preference toward tidal marsh, since that's a habitat that can really only exist on the edge of the bay and is considered a better use of that type of shoreline. Next slide, please. Before I go on to the analysis of how these shorelines transition, I just want to touch on the best available science and how that's transitioned between the plans. So the best available science from the 2025 plan was getting developed was the State of California's Ocean Protection Council's 2018 guidance as the best available for most of the plan development. And those are listed in that first column there for different conditions for 2050 lower and upper bounds and 2100 upper and lower bounds. In 2024, the Ocean Protection Council updated the sea level rise projections. You can see those in the next column lining up for comparison. And so for the 2026 plan, we used these updated conditions from the Ocean Protection Council. You can see there's relatively minor differences of a few tenths of a foot between the 2018 sea level rise projection and the 2024, so it didn't change much. THE 2024 OPC GUIDANCE ARE ALSO BASED OFF OF 2022 FEDERAL SEA LEVEL RISE GUIDANCE OR CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL. So here's an example of that, going back to that first table of how we were looking at how habitats are preserved with sea level rise in open space. So on the top panel where it says zero feet of sea level rise, that would be the present, the conditions soon after build out. And you can see there that there's sort of those different shades of green, sort of a darker blue with subtitle, meaning to be inundated all the time. The sort of greenish blue would be intertidal, meaning exposed to fluctuating tides across the day. If you go to 3.1 feet of sea level rise, that was the lower bound for 2100, which is also considered the most likely condition to occur by 2100 according to the best available science. And then it could go as high in an unlikely case by 2100, but becoming more likely once you get beyond 2100, up to six and a half feet of sea level rise. And we also considered that assessment as well, which shows more of that subtitle moving gradually up the slope. Originally, actually, the 2025 plan helped enable this by setting back Lagoon Road, and you'll see here that's preserved here. Instead of having that dip down towards the Bay Shoreline, Lagoon Road here is set back to allow for this progression and allow things to move gradually upslope. This is what some people refer to as a good example of horizontal levee as a common framing that gets used for this type of shoreline planning. So it's this type of mapping I said that helped develop that table on the front that showed along the creek and along the lagoon how only 26 acres would be changed in its inundation pattern with that six foot of sea level rise condition. And also I wanted to mention, although not part of this specific plan, the city and the county are currently working on the broader sub-regional shoreline adaptation plan. That will look at the entire city shoreline. And that... THE WAY IN WHICH THIS SPECIFIC PLAN WAS DEVELOPED WAS CONSISTENT WITH THAT BROADER EFFORT THAT THE CITY WILL BE ENGAGING WITH SOON. WITH THAT I'LL PASS IT OFF TO MATT GOING HE'S FROM VERON PEARCE HE'S GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CIRCULATION.

GREAT THANK YOU MATT. ANOTHER MATT BUT GOOD EVENING I'M MATT GOING WITH VERON PEARCE AND I'M THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER LEADING THIS EFFORT AND I'LL BE STEPPING YOU THROUGH CHAPTER SIX WHICH INCLUDES CIRCULATION TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY. SO FIRST, STARTING WITH THE 2025 APPLICANT SPECIFIC PLAN, THE PLAN INCLUDED A DETAILED CLEAR STREET HIERARCHY INCLUDING ARTERIALS, COLLECTORS, LOCAL STREETS, AND A NEW STREET CATEGORY FOR BRISBANE, GREEN SHARED STREETS. ALL STREET TYPOLOGIES INCLUDED DESIGN FEATURES THAT ENABLE WALKING, BIKING, TAKING TRANSIT, DRIVING PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES. RATHER THAN PRIORITIZING ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL MODE. NEXT SLIDE. THE PLAN INCLUDED A DETAILED SERIES OF NETWORKS FOR WALKING AND BIKING WHICH WERE INTEGRATED INTO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CREATING A CONTINUOUS LOW STRESS ROUTES ACROSS THE SITE AND TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. NEXT SLIDE. THE PLAN ALSO INCLUDES A FAIR FREE SHUTTLE SYSTEM, MOBILITY HUBS AND STRONG CONNECTIONS TO REGIONAL TRANSIT SUCH AS MUNI, SAMTRANS, and future rapid transit corridors. Next slide. The 2025 applicant plan included a transportation demand management program with the goal to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. It included a whole suite of different measures, some of those that are listed here. Next slide. And finally, the applicant's plan included detailed street designs, street standards for each street type, along with accompanying design guidelines such as street widths and the types of features that would be included on each street. so now shifting to the 2026 staff recommended specific plan the question for for us and the staff wasn't really to change direction but rather to how do we make this circulation system clear safer and more implementable to make sure that the city and future project phases have clear information to move from and make decisions on next slide So, starting back with the overall street hierarchy, which remains more or less the same under the 2025 staff recommended specific plan, you have your regional and minor arterials collectors, local roads, green, shared streets and access roads. This section also provides a clear map of how these streets function across the site and the design standards associated with each roadway. There's a variety of changes and tweaks to those design centers to make them more clear and to update them to to modern standards. And that includes things such as reducing the design speeds for the arterials from 35 miles an hour to 30 miles an hour to recognize recent state law changes that recognize that lower posted speeds can result in improved safety. The roadway network also includes defined intersection controls that will make it easier for future decisions to be made about what types of controls are appropriate for each location. And finally, the 2026 staff recommended plan clarifies how. Private local streets, green, shared streets and access roads relate to the city dedication requirements as well as clarifying when the city engineer review is critical to review and approve final design details. Speed limits warrants site distance or design vehicles used to design the roadway. Next slide. The most substantive change between the 2025 applicant plan and the 2026 staff recommended plan is on Geneva Avenue. So I want to go into a little bit more detail on this for a few slides. 1st, staff made revisions to create a consistent cross section that aligns with Brisbane's general plan as well as the 2013 by county study. As a brief reminder, the 2013 by county study included an agreement to support growth, both at the Bay lands as well as candlestick hunters point and other development in the area. Um, that would be supported through shared infrastructure, such as a rebuilt candlestick interchange as well as the Geneva Avenue extension. Next slide. So, as shown in green on this slide, the 2025 applicant specific plan was consistent with those prior plans on either side of the Geneva Avenue bridge by providing room for transit only lanes that could serve the future bus rapid transit service. However, as shown in blue, those transit only lanes are missing from the Geneva Avenue bridge, thus creating an inconsistent cross section and a gap in the transit network. Further, the 2025 applicant plan did not include features such as shoulders over the bridge that would allow cars to pull over for emergency vehicles using the bridge to cross and access both sides of the site. Next slide. So the 2026 staff recommended specific plan addresses these concerns by closing the gap with continuous transit only lanes over the bridge. And this would also benefit fire truck access from the new fire station east of the bridge, which could use those transit-only lanes to bypass traffic on Geneva Avenue and negate the issue of cars needing to pull over. Next slide. So this image shows a cross-section from the 2025 applicant's specific plan of Geneva Avenue bridge, where it touches down west of Caltrain. THIS IMAGE SHOWS THAT ALL FOUR LANES PROPOSED IN THAT PLAN WOULD ALLOW MIXED FLOW VEHICLES. AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE POSED BY THIS CONFIGURATION IS THAT THERE ARE TWO FRONTAGE ROADS ON EITHER SIDE, ONE WESTBOUND, ONE EASTBOUND, AND THIS CONFIGURATION COULD RESULT IN POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND LONG SIGNAL DELAYS DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY IT INTRODUCES TO THE INTERSECTION. IF YOU CAN PRESS ONCE MORE, WE CAN GET THE 2026. THERE WE GO. AND THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN ADDRESSES THIS ISSUES BY ADDING THE TRANSIT ONLY LANES THAT ARE SHOWN IN THE ORANGE AND BY REMOVING THE EASTBOUND FRONTAGE ROAD THAT WAS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GENEVA AVENUE BECAUSE IT WASN'T NECESSARY FOR CIRCULATION OF THE SITE AND THIS DRAMATICALLY SIMPLIFIES BOTH THE HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND THE SIGNAL TIMING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AT THIS LOCATION. NEXT SLIDE. So now i'm going to step back and just talk about the how all the rest of the features kind of the plan elements were changed the 2026 plan addresses the pedestrian experience. By expanding detail on sidewalk and crosswalk design standards and including more detail about how this public realm space would include landscaping seating bike parking transit amenities and other features. IT ALSO PROVIDES ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON HOW OFF-SITE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS WOULD WORK, SUCH AS THROUGH ISAS HILL. NEXT SLIDE. IT ALSO INCLUDES MORE DETAILS FOR BICYCLISTS AND THE BICYCLE NETWORK, WHICH INCLUDES IMPROVED OFF-SITE CONNECTIONS AND ESTABLISHES STANDARDS FOR THOSE OFF-SITE CONNECTIONS, SINCE MANY OF THEM REQUIRE OTHER AGENCY INTERACTIONS AND APPROVALS. SO THIS INCLUDES CONNECTIONS TO CENTRAL BRISBANE, CROCKER PARK, THE BAY TRAIL AND VIA MAIN STREET TO THE BAYSHORE HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD IN DAILY CITY. BECAUSE THESE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION, THE TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION WILL OCCUR THROUGH SUBSEQUENT DESIGN AND INTERAGENCY APPROVAL PROCESSES. THE 2026 STAFF PLAN MAINTAINS THE BASIC TRANSIT STRATEGY by continuing to connect Baylands to the Regional Transit Network through Caltrain, Muni, Samtrans, Commute.org services, and maintains the shuttles and access for the planned BRT. The shuttle phasing remains tied to future developments, And there are mobility hubs throughout the site that I described earlier. And these were defined more clearly to provide first and last mile linkages between transit, bicycling, walking, as well as features such as car share, EV charging, and pick up and drop off activity to concentrate mobility activity within each neighborhood. THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT WERE ADDED TO ENSURE THAT ANY NEW OR IMPROVED BUS STOPS ARE DESIGNED TO CONSISTENT STANDARDS FOR THE APPLICABLE SAM TRANS STANDARDS THAT WERE ADOPTED RECENTLY. NEXT SLIDE. THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WAS ROBUST IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN AND THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN STRENGTHENS IT BY ADDING DETAIL to ensure that the program meets or exceeds the city's adopted TDM ordinance, as well as adding information to ensure that there is clear timing and accountability in implementation of those TDM measures. Uh, the program must be ready before the 1st, residential and non residential certificates of occupancy are issued. And commute dot org's role in certifying. Each buildings as being compliant with the program is has been added and this is for consistency both with Brisbane's common processes as well as throughout the rest of San Mateo county. And finally, the trip production and reduction objectives remain in place, although there were some clarifications just to make sure that they are consistent throughout the specific plan. And finally, for parking the overall 11,000 space parking cap has been maintained, but the district allocation is slightly different than what was in the original plan. Um, just providing some more flexibility to match and to match the, the land use, uh, reallocation that you heard earlier. Uh, the 2026 plan includes, uh, more detail on bicycle parking, especially for public spaces and trail heads as well as adding clear standards for rack placement, sidewalk clearance, access and on by on street by corrals. Next slide. Overall, when comparing the 2025 applicant specific plan to the 2026 staff initiated plan, the transportation vision remains very similar in that it's focused on multimodal and people oriented access. Uh, the staff, the 2026 staff plan responds to staff comments by making the chapter more precise and easier to implement. And also clarifies what role the specific plan will have versus what will continue to be refined through future design engineering and city review processes. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Great. So that ends segment three. So we'll open up the floor now to the commission for any questions on those chapters.

Thank you. Just a few questions. I guess the first one is just beyond 2100. I guess how would that horizontal levy hold? And I know that's maybe outside the purview, but is there projections on sea level rise beyond the 2100?

There are in the OPC 2024 goes out to 2150. I'm not as familiar with those, but I would say that the 6.5 feet, I think, starts to maybe get more into like the more likely range, depending on at that point, the uncertainty starts to sort of grow, depending on what the greenhouse gas emission scenarios looks like over the next 75 years or so. SO IT DOES BECOME THE 6.5 FEET WOULD BE MORE LIKELY. AT 2100, IT'S LIKE LESS THAN A TENTH PERCENT IS THE CURRENT SORT OF ASSESSMENT OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF 6.5 FEET OF SALE RISE TO JUST GIVE YOU A SORT OF POINT OF REFERENCE.

THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY IT FOR SURE, SIERRA POINT PARKWAY IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. IS THAT CORRECT?

MATT, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT?

THE SIERRA POINT PARKWAY EXTENSION BETWEEN LAGOON ROAD AND GENEVA AVENUE EXTENSION IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PROJECT. SO THE EXISTING SECTION OF SIERRA POINT PARKWAY SOUTH OF LAGOON ROAD IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW.

THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

Thank you a couple of questions 1st to sort of on the exterior on the outsides of the project. Geneva. Running eastbound comes out at Beatty Avenue correct?

That's correct at the intersection of Beatty and Alana currently, and I just pulled up a map and compared it to.

Figure 6.3.1, which I think what you were using to show all the streets and stop signs. What happens, or phrase it better, does this plan or do you guys have in mind anything about what happens to Beatty Avenue once the Geneva traffic gets there? And are the off ramps from 101 and onto southbound 101 still in existence at the end of this?

I can answer part of that's a that's a great question because the candlestick interchange of course is one of the the something that does require coordination with other agencies because it is subject to the by county and of course coordination of San Francisco and countywide agencies so the way that the specific plan is designed is is features that Brisbane can control and so what Brisbane can control is the Geneva Avenue extension ending at the intersection of Beatty and Alana and those existing ramps. And what the EIR recommends is that similar to past studies, you know, a reconstruction of the candlestick interchange would be required to support the amount of growth in the Baylands and as well as all the other kind of regional growth that's happening at the same time.

And I appreciate your answer is we may not be able to control that, but I think planning for it might be indicated. Because looking at it as a lifelong resident, this is finally a way to get from Geneva to 101 quickly. The current alternatives are really tortuous. Has there been traffic analysis done that many expected traffic not generated by Baylands, but generated by Southeast San Francisco using Geneva to get to 101?

Yeah, and that's all presented as a supplement to the final EIR. Okay. And I'm going to look to Julia to- Okay, so that's EIR, not specific plan?

Which we'll address at the next workshop.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. Bayshore Boulevard, and this may be I made the mistake of reading ahead in the to get extra credit. So this may be our question, not a specific client question, but I read somewhere that the intent is to narrow base for Boulevard down from 2 lanes each way to 1 lane each way. Is that correct?

That is correct. That is the base or mobility plan that was developed, uh, to be consistent with the general plan goals for, uh. you know, aligned with creating a roadway that is less of a regional throughfare, which it serves as today, and creating more of a local route through design by imagining what the design could be to improve safety and circulation for people within Brisbane. There's a – let me stop there.

MR. Maybe I have, you know – not in the right point in the process here with this question but it seems to me and maybe other folks listening and sitting here that as it is bayshore gets pretty backed up from people using it as i'll turn to the 101 as a north-south thoroughfare um narrowing it down further seems counterintuitive but can someone explain What the traffic gurus think about this?

Yeah, understood. I mean, so this has been, you know, studied for many years. And one of the features of Bayshore Boulevard is that because of the current design, it was, you know, former alignment of Highway 101 that now Brisbane has taken over. The design features still remain the same as a highway high speed kind of facility through the city. And there's a lot of downstream effects of that roadway safety. The amount of cars that are traveling through through Brisbane, and what those studies have shown is that it's anywhere from 60 to 80% of cars on the road at any 1 time are traveling through Brisbane itself. And so if you look at just locally generated traffic from the existing city or from the Baylands, Baylands itself, you'll find that even with the Baylands, if you just look at local traffic, it doesn't it wouldn't exceed the capacity of a one lane in each direction facility. And it comes down to the city's decision of how much regional traffic do you want to allow on this street? It's either because under the current design it facilitates easy access for people to get through the community um and with by redesigning the facility it's looking at ways to make it more of a locally oriented street that discourages through trips high speed through trips through the community and uh you know making it so it's more convenient for people to stay on 101. And it's really been intended to partner with the Geneva Avenue Extension. That allows, of course, then those people to get on and off 101 and without driving through the community.

Okay. Thank you for the answer. I'm still troubled by it, but I appreciate your input. A couple more. Oh, this one's about sea level stuff. And this is maybe getting a little deep in the weeds. No pun intended. But when you put sea level as zero on these plot maps, the elevation maps, the sea level changes four times a day in the bay. What is sea level zero? Is it mean low low, or is it king tide, or something in between?

Commonly, sea level rise is indexed off of mean sea level, which is just the average of all the tidal time periods. If you take every 10 minutes, you take the tide and you average those. So it's the middle of the tide range is generally what it's referenced to.

This mattered to me because I was trying to do math about where the base floor plans are for every building in the Baylands, and they need to be above sea level plus 6.5, I gather is the thinking, right?

No, so that's what the mean sea level is what the bay is at most of the time. What the elevations based on for flooding, which is from the floodplain management that comes sort of flows down from FEMA regulations, is that calls for the finished floor under present conditions to be a certain elevation above the base flood elevation and so the base flood elevation is not what the bay is doing every day but it's doing when you have a storm surge event that combines and you have bay tides to be several feet higher so the hunt is also referred to as a hundred year flood or more technically the one percent annual chance And so for reference, means in the elevations that are currently used in the plan, which are NAVD 88, that's an absolute like surveyors datum. Mean lower low is about zero. Mean sea level is about three. Mean higher high water or the high tides is about seven. A king tide is about nine. And the 100 year flood event is about 10 in present day conditions. So you would take the 10 feet of today's 100-year flood and add the 6.5, and that's how you get to 17. Okay, thank you.

That's very helpful. I think just two more. Green shared streets. I read that with really great interest because it's probably the newest, most different thing about the circulation stuff going on in the Baylands. Are there any other major communities or areas in this country that have adopted this sort of concept? As I envision it, we've got cars and pedestrians and kids and micro mobility vehicles all sharing the exact same space.

Yeah, the street design standards for these are based on standards that are adopted by the USDOT and Caltrans both have this type of like roadway as a design facility. Shared streets are fairly common. they're somewhat rare but becoming more common let's let's put it that way um because they uh do provide this shared space um experience and you know i think the best some of the best examples there in the bay area are in san francisco now where you have you know slow streets that have been converted into that type of feature and they do measure the thing how san francisco measures safety on those streets is by measuring the number of vehicles and the speeds to make sure that there's the you know speeds do not exceed that which can be safe for people walking and biking and sharing the space so thank you that those are that's pretty new in San Francisco the slow streets are there any other communities that you know of you know maybe put you on the spot but but that have had these you know for long enough that there's really a track record Treasure Island has several that they've built recently, and I'll have to get back to you on other examples, but yeah.

That's fine. Thank you very much. Lastly, the parking spaces, and I was looking at figure 6.7.1, where it seems to show that the maximum off-street parking spaces are, you know, 1,100 here, Twelve hundred there and then ice house hill gets six thousand one hundred and fifty. What's the thinking there because that seems to be a pretty light use district. My concern is with that wind up being. Kind of a. It's a poorly used phrase about dumping ground for extra parking places that people will then walk from. So what is ice house hill get so many more spaces than the more dense districts.

Can you point to the exact table that you're looking at? Thank you.

It's on page 6-47 of the whole plan.

All right, so the reason why ice house hill district does have it the most parking spaces is because it actually is 1 of the most intensity intensely used districts, um, because it has so much office space, but commercial space there as millions of square feet of commercial space. So just keep in mind that in general kind of commercial space is going to have. more parking, more vehicle trips per kind of square foot per area than the residential will because you just fit more people there.

Thank you. You just reminded me that Ice House Hill, the north part of it is the mid-rise commercial, right? Exactly. Okay. Thank you. That's exactly what I wanted to know. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions from the Commission?

I just have one question on what's the future projection of how the circulation of people be driving their cars most of the time? Or how are we getting encouraged more mass? transit use or dealing with shared ride services and dropping them off and that traffic? Or encouraging more bicycle? What's the projection and how is that being designed?

Sure. So maybe we can step through that slowly. And the first part of that answer is it's in the EIR. Yeah, so we estimated the mode share and the amount of kind of people that would drive for different trips versus walking, biking, taking transit, understanding that people, you know, travel in different ways for different types of trips. So you might drive for a commute trip, but you could walk for, you know, going to see friends or going to the restaurant or stuff like that within the station area. And so it accounts for that kind of those different travel patterns. In terms of evolving Mobility, there is information in the EIR just describing how level people's behaviors and the amount that we drive or travel has changed over time. We are making slightly fewer trips per person, vehicle trips per person these days, just with more work from home activities, for example, even though we are doing things like ordering from Amazon and DoorDash and stuff like that more frequently. The net effect of a lot of that is that we're – vehicle trips are slightly down would be one effect. But we're not – within the EIR itself, it kind of looked at existing travel patterns as is, given that we really don't know how the future's going to evolve and we have to kind of plan for a range of outcomes.

that made me think of something that, will Amazon trucks be allowed to double park on green shared streets for DoorDash?

I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Thank you. OK, I think that exhausts the questions for this segment.

Okay, great. All right. Um, I will then hand it on over to Tom or sorry Todd.

Yes. Oh, I see online.

Hello. Good evening. Todd Gordon. Uh, we could go to the next slide. Um, the infrastructure chapter describes the infrastructure improvements needed for development of the balance. The balance infrastructure was guided by general plan provisions as well as the principles of sustainability framework for the balance as described in chapter 4 sustainability framework. Next slide please. The specific plan does not include final grading plans. Chapter 7 establishes the overall grading approach, including a grading sequence and grading and geotechnical criteria that will guide site development. detailed grading design is addressed through subsequent city approvals for grading infrastructure and site specific development projects. grading will be used to move soil from the area east of the caltrain right away to the area west of the caltrain right away. This movement of soil is necessary to establish finished pad and road elevations to comply with the approved remediation and landfill closure plans. and to address settlement, storm events, sea level rise, and flood risks. Next slide, please. The 2026 staff recommended specific plan clarifies infrastructure design, performance criteria, and city review requirements. It includes updates to grading, geotechnical and drainage approaches to reflect the refined site design and offsite coordination. Next slide. The 2026 staff recommended specific plan integrates the updated state sea level rise guidance from 2024 that was talked about earlier, including building free board and related design adjustments. Some refinements included increasing the free board from 1 foot to 2 feet. And the updated sea level rise scenarios based on the 2024 guidance had refined terminology from, say, risk aversion estimates to what was called scenarios. And some changes to these were from low to medium and medium to intermediate high. Next slide. Refinements to the stormwater management strategy included, uh, detention, sizing, conveyance systems and reliance on existing covert capacity under U. S. 101. There was an addition of a 23.6 acre stormwater detention area. And, uh, the plan will be required to accommodate all increased runoff and address the specific plans, incremental contribution to flood risk. To areas with existing deficiencies and existing buildings that are either below or partially below future 100 year storm event elevations with title flow and estimated year 2100 intermediate high scenario sea level rise. review and approval by the city engineer will be required to confirm that conveyance capacity for stormwater is sufficient to accommodate the 100 year peak storm event within the piping system and streets such that building finished floor elevations provide a minimum of one foot freeboard above the 100 year storm event. Updates to the water supply, demand, storage, and recycled water strategy included a change in water provider and build out assumptions. There are some more refinements to the existing retail and wholesale water service agencies, as well as more clearly defining CalWater's role as a water provider. Some other changes with the 2026 staff recommended specific plan included including three water storage tanks with the 2025 planning only having one water storage tank. There is some clarification regarding the water recycling facility byproducts and transfer to SFPC. And also the water recycling facility will be constructed and operated using 100% renewable fuels. Next slide. Updates to the electrical infrastructure planning included system upgrades and accommodation of potential future utility scale battery storage. They removed the references to infrastructure planning that were in progress at the time of the 2025 plan. Those were ongoing studies at the time. There was updates to the battery storage facilities to a 500 megawatt, two gigawatt hours of battery storage. There was removed references to potential hydrogen facility for an alternative energy source and revised details about upgrades to existing offsite PG&E infrastructure. And that will be subject to review and approval by PG&E and if required, the CPUC. Um, that's it for infrastructure, so I'll pass it back to the city.

Great, thank you. All right, so moving on to chapter 8 next slide please. OKAY, SO CHAPTER 8 ADDRESSES PUBLIC FACILITIES AND FINANCING. IT IDENTIFIES THE FUNDING FRAMEWORK FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF PARKS, ROADS, UTILITIES, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT. SO GENERALLY IT OUTLINES A RANGE OF FINANCING MECHANISMS. IT ASSUMES PRIMARY RELIANCE ON DEVELOPER-LED OR PROPERTY OWNER-LED FINANCING AND ESTABLISHES A CONCEPTUAL FUNDING APPROACH. IT'S NOT A DETAILED FINANCING PLAN. IT ALSO REFERENCES GENERAL PLAN POLICIES THAT REQUIRE THE BAYLAND'S DEVELOPMENT TO BE REVENUE POSITIVE TO THE CITY ON AN ANNUAL BASIS DURING ALL PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT AND UPON FINAL BUILDOUT. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED 2026 SPECIFIC PLAN REINFORCES THAT THE FINANCING STRATEGY IS CONCEPTUAL AND FLEXIBLE, CONFIRMS FINAL FINANCING MECHANISMS WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE IMPLEMENTATION STAGE AND STRENGTHENS THE LINKAGE TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR A POSITIVE FISCAL IMPACT. AGAIN, THAT BEING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REVENUE POSITIVE TO THE CITY ON AN ONGOING BASIS. THERE ARE NO MAJOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO THE FINANCING APPROACH RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. So I'll hand it off now to Senior Planner Jeremiah Robbins, who will go over Chapter 9.

Good evening, everybody. This is the last chapter. So Chapter 9 of the 2025 applicant-specific plan, it broadly established the overall implementation process for the plan, and it set a framework for the sequence of development in two phases. The first is basically west of the Caltrain right-of-way. And then the second one would be east of the right-of-way. This framework includes requirements for the completion of remediation and landfill closure prior to certain development activities, such as grading. Chapter 9 also identifies the process for subsequent city approval for grading, subdivision, and site-specific development, as well as high-level monitoring and compliance reporting process to ensure the overall target densities within the plan are met. Next slide. So for staff's recommended 2026 specific plan, it includes, excuse me, a handful of substantive updates to Chapter 9. So it really strengthens the role of the development agreement in controlling timing and sequencing of the infrastructure and parks and open space relative to site-specific development permits. It adds a development allocation process that was alluded to prior this evening, and that's to manage units and square footage over time to maintain flexibility while ensuring site-specific developments do not use up a district's maximum allowable development prior to build out. The process for this is generally it requires the applicant to submit a development allocation table for a district and a block plan to demonstrate how density and intensity and building types within the district are consistent with the density and intensity standards contained within the specific plan. So this is going to happen concurrently with a tentative map, which is when we're establishing parcels and roadways for a district. And that's all prior to site specific development approvals. Other staff changes that we expanded and clarified subsequent planning applications and building permit approval processes and submittal requirements consistent with state and local provision. We enhanced the monitoring and compliance so we can track build out and ensure consistency with plan limits and phasing requirements. It provides a process for planning for and providing affordable housing in compliance with the city's inclusionary housing requirements. And it establishes a procedure that. Currently operate and for our active and permitted interim use permits within the bail and sub area. Next slide. Additionally, though not explicitly discussed in Chapter 9, additional implementation requirements added to the staff's recommended 2026 specific plan include submitting a universal design program for approval by the city. And that would establish standards for accessible design to exceed building code standards in residential development that's related to a housing element requirement. And then last, it's going to establish allowable interim uses within the plan area and specifying that new interim uses are limited to the potential light maintenance facility area within that sustainability district and the existing permitted interim uses presently operating with the Baylands may continue to operate under their current term, but they may not be subsequently renewed and no new requests may be granted outside that light maintenance facility.

all right so that concludes our overview of the plan in comparison of the developer's plan to staff's recommended changes so now going over next steps so we'll have another workshop coming up on june 11th that will focus on the eir as we indicated earlier and we'll also go over the upcoming public hearing process in more detail That will be followed by the 1st public hearing for the project, which is on June 25th. Council meetings are anticipated to follow roughly starting in September. So, regarding the public hearing, so, to the extent the commission would need more public hearings beyond June 25th. Ultimately, it's up to the commission to continue the June 25th public hearing to a date certain. For planning purposes, we have identified dates. We know the commission is available for any needed continuances and we wanted to share those potential dates. So those would be Tuesday, June 30th, which would be a special meeting. Thursday, July 9th, which would be a regular meeting and Tuesday, July 14th, which would also be a special meeting. So, that concludes the overall presentation from staff. We can move on now to our last Q and a session with the commission. I'm on chapter 7 through 9.

Thank you clarification on what the medium high risk scenarios versus intermediate high risk scenarios are and sort of the differences between them.

I can handle that one. So those are referring to the two different OPC plans that I mentioned before. So the 2018 scenarios used sort of that risk-based approach. And so there was like a considered a low risk aversion scenario and a medium high risk aversion scenario. Those were kind of two scenarios that were sort of in the medium and the high range. They had confusing names and they're trying to sort of update them. The 2024 plan is then the one that uses a low GENERALLY THE PLANNING RANGE FOR THERE THAT I HAD PROVIDED ON THE SLIDE, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE I GAVE A 2100 LOW END AND THE HIGH END IS THAT THE ONES FOR 2400 ARE THE INTERMEDIATE IS THE LOW END THAT I WAS GIVING, THE 3.1 FEET, AND THE HIGH SCENARIO IS THE 6.5, AND THERE'S THE ONE THAT WAS BEING REFERRED TO IN THAT ONE BEFORE IS THE INTERMEDIATE HIGHS BETWEEN THOSE TWO IS 4.8. THIS IS VERY HARD TO EXPLAIN, LIKE, VERBALLY, BUT I Does that address the question? I feel like I may have got everyone confused there. And then the medium-high one, the only one is that one is from 2018, and it roughly corresponds to the current high scenario, and that's like that row that was on the table before that was like it was 6.9 as a medium-high risk aversion, and now under the high scenario, it's 6.5. So it's mostly just sort of terminology name changes, but it's kind of the... YOU KNOW, WHAT'S EXPECTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AND THEN LIKE THE UPPER END.

THANK YOU. AND THEN MAYBE, CAN I GET SOME MORE CLARIFICATION ON THE TIMING AND SEQUENCING OF THE PHASING THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS, SORT OF THE HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY THERE?

SURE. JUST PLAYING UP THE PLAN. So, overall phasing is addressed in section 9.2 of chapter 9, and it sets kind of broad parameters for the 2 proposed development phases. So phase one overall would be commercial and residential development on the west side of the site. So that's going to occur before anything happening on the east side. Phase one itself will progress in stages. So as site remediation and grading activities are completed. phase one also includes some major site infrastructure, like the solar field water recycling facility and wetlands on the eastern portion of the site that would be those will be required to be completed concurrently with phase one development, because they would serve phase one. And then phase two would be the east side campus East district. WHICH WOULD BE THE FINAL PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. IT CAN ONLY OCCUR AFTER EXISTING SOIL THAT'S BEING STOCKPILED IS MOVED TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE AS PART OF LANDFILL CLOSURE ACTIVITIES. AND THEN AGAIN PHASE TWO WOULD ALSO PROGRESS IN STAGES ITSELF AS GRADING AND LANDFILL CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETED. SO THAT'S THE BROAD TWO PHASES ESTABLISHED IN THE PLAN. AND THEN AS JEREMIAH INDICATED IN THE PRESENTATION, that the specific plan changes recommended by staff tie specific timing of delivery of infrastructure, roadways, parks, to specific development permit phases within the various phases one and two. So that would be addressed in the development agreement. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

That's a question that I think I know the answer to, but I want to air it out for the benefit of folks here and or at home. The specific plan does require that the developer comply and complete all of the site remediation requirements imposed on them before construction can begin, correct?

the phasing would allow construction and remediation to occur in stages over site development.

Right, but they can't construct anything until that area is remediated first, and then they can move on down the line.

Yeah, I don't know if anyone on the team wants to add more to that.

In general, that's correct, that remediation has to precede development, and then as Director Ayers and Senior Planner Robins were just describing the development agreement will help be another tool to define the specific benefits and amenities that are provided in conjunction with the development milestones that are happening as after that remediation is completed.

And my understanding is that the conditions and the requirements, the details of site remediation are set not by the city, but rather by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Regional Water Quality Control board.

Yep. Yep. Those are in there too long acronyms and you got you got them both. Right? Yeah. There are 2 specialized technical agencies that have jurisdiction and authority over the various remediation plans. And then the city's role will be to peer review those and to ensure that development is. And remediation is conducted pursuant to those standards as before any development happens. following approval of implementation of those plans thank you very much i have no other questions going once

So I guess we're on to the public comments. I received three requests, and I saw one more come up, and we'll take those in a moment. Do we have any folks online that may wish to ask a question?

Yeah, staff will check. So yeah, at your pleasure, you can invite.

Do you need a speaker, Seth? Since we do have a variety of folks asking questions, I would like to ask everybody to, number one, to please try to stay within the context of the specific plan and not the whole EIR, because there will be other workshops and opportunities to ask questions about that. It's a public meeting. You can ask whatever you want, but I'm asking for some discipline about that so we can discuss what we've been talking about rather than what we're going to talk about later. And also, just as a practical matter, I'd like to ask folks to stick to about a two-minute limit on your question, and we'll do our best to either answer it if we have an answer, or staff will commit to coming up with a response at the next opportunity. MR.

Through the chair. We have no one online with their hands raised, if you want to start here.

MR. Okay, great. The way I received them, I'll read them. The first request is from Nancy Laxamana.

Thank you very much. I have a few questions. Overall, I was quite interested in everything that was shown today, and I appreciate all the work involved. Very interested in the transit question. I had a lot of same thoughts, Doug, as you went along. The transit over the bridge, east to west, six lanes, sounds like overkill to me when you have four lanes, two and two, on the Geneva, two and two, as it is right now on Bayshore. Totally do not like the idea of the Brisbane connection on Bayshore going to one on each side. I think every single town I can think of, including in San Francisco on the non-highway areas, Embarcadero, 19th Avenue, Sloat, is two and two. To have us go to one lane is, to me, really going to kill a lot of the transit in this area, even Colma. I mean, what, 1,400 live people? I mean, there's two and two. So I think that should be rethought. The transit at, I mean, the parking spaces around commercial, 6,000 open parking spaces to me kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a transit-centric development. I think that has to be really reconsidered. DEFINITELY LINKS TO TRANSIT WOULD BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMERCIAL AREA, BUT I THINK THAT'S WAY TOO MUCH. AND I THINK RESEARCH SHOULD BE DONE MORE ON WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WITH PARKING, AND I'M TALKING THE EAST OF 101, ALL OF THAT WHOLE COMMERCIAL AREA, WHAT HAS WORKED, WHAT HAS NOT WORKED, AS WELL AS SOUTH OF MARKET, WHICH ACTUALLY, DESPITE THE TRANSIT BEING, I THINK, AND THE CROSS, A LOT OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION, I think overall has worked, except they weren't really planned out for as we are doing with a clean slate. So I think the transit question is very important, and we need more details on that and more research of what has worked in areas around us. But overall, I think it's great. I think from a public facility thing, I would love to see a gym for the kids in our town, a full-size gym to be worked into a facility somewhere in the Baylands. OVERALL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. NEXT COMMENTER IS DARREN CLARK.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS.

AND AGAIN, IF YOU CAN TRY TO RESTRICT YOUR COMMENTS TO ABOUT TWO MINUTES.

I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. JUST A QUICK COMMENT. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Darren Clark. I'm a field representative for Carpenters Local 217, which covers San Mateo County. The Brisbane Baylands project represents a significant opportunity for the community. Projects of this scale have the potential to generate meaningful economic activity, support local businesses, and create good jobs for the residents throughout San Mateo County. From the Carpenters perspective, it is important that this project moves forward. It is built by It is built by a responsible contractor, one who is committed to area standard wages, state-accredited apprenticeships, and provides health care to ensure that workers are trained, supported, and able to build long-term careers in the trades. We believe that a balanced approach, one that considers economic growth, workforce standards, and community impact, can help make this project successful for all stakeholders involved. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Cynthia Gomez is next.

Good evening, my name is Cynthia Gomez. I'm a research analyst at Unite Here Local 2, and I'm here to express our strong opposition to the current development proposal as embodied in the specific plan. We represent around 15,000 hotel and food service workers in the Bay Area, thousands of whom, some of whom live in Brisbane, and thousands of whom live in neighboring cities within a few miles of the project site. As currently proposed, the project would harm our members, the residents of Brisbane, and residents of the entire region. The specific plan should not be approved until it's significantly revised to address serious problems in these areas. The jobs housing imbalance, the toxicity of the site, the greenhouse gas emissions caused by the project, an entire impact that was eliminated from the EIR. Tonight, I'm just gonna talk about the first item, but there is plenty to say on the other points. At 19,000 jobs and 2,200 housing units, the project would actually worsen the housing affordability crisis. Commercial developments induce a need for housing. There are established methodologies to determine how much. For example, a 2019 analysis for San Francisco found that each thousand square feet of office development creates a need for approximately 0.8 units of below market rate housing. If these factors, including those affecting other commercial uses, were applied to the Baylands development, the commercial portion of the project alone would require the development of 5,468 BMR units alone. In other words, far more BMR units alone than the total number of housing units proposed for the project. Large commercial developments create costs, one of which is the need to subsidize BMR housing. A key purpose of nexus studies like what I mentioned is to allow cities to estimate those costs so that they can lawfully impose development impact fees to mitigate those costs. Measure JJ requires that the Baylands development be fiscally positive for the city. Brisbane does not have to allow the developer to profit from commercial development while externalizing the costs. Brisbane should prepare a nexus study for the development similar to those prepared elsewhere. based on those analyses the city should include appropriate affordable housing requirements in the specific plan in the development agreement and Satisfy those by including affordable housing in the project and by imposing development fees to make up for that need Given that the vast majority of the need for affordable housing is generated by the commercial portion of the project The city should also negotiate with the developer to sharply reduce the amount of commercial development Therefore resulting in a more feasible and responsible project. Thank you

Thank you. Next, Clara Johnson, please.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I have a couple of suggestions that relate to the presentation. I'm out of hearing, and I think that for people who have difficulty, and there's quite a few older people in this town, might benefit if you use captioning, closed captioning, along with the many other things that you've tried to do in order to make people able to attend your meetings. and I also wish that you would do more PR, trying to get people to come to your meetings. This is the biggest project that this town will ever have, and it's probably the biggest project that the staff has ever handled, and I'd almost bet on it, and it's certainly the biggest project that most people would be involved in if they make themselves involved. It's very important, I think, with a city that is founded on the spirit of independence that people are encouraged to participate. It's not your fault they're not here. But I think you could consider adding a workshop in order to an extra one because people build. There is conversation. They learn about it from their neighbors that this is taking place. If they could understand that probably this series of hearings here and at the City Council are gonna be it. This is the real thing. We've been here working on this thing since it's not just 2005, it goes back to when they closed on the property in 1990. And just because there's been all that history, what needs to be presented is a kind of a comprehensive view of what the issues are. In your presentation here, I think it's well organized and I can see that the staff is trying to make it, taking this huge thing that they have to put into a funnel and trying to make it easier to handle. And I think that's a goal that We can all appreciate why. But I believe that what you presented here leaves out a whole bunch of information. And I know this is your first step. But you can't assume that people know what's in the April 25 version of the plan. The April 25 version of the plan has a much better executive summary than the one that's in the current plan. The one in the 25 plan is 96 pages long, and this one is just a very small fraction. It provides a lot of information, not only for you, but for the council members and for the public. I think that one of the best pieces of advice anybody could give you is that you should not just consider the regulators equivalent to everyone else's opinion when it comes to the toxic contamination of the site. It's almost glossed over entirely in the information that I've seen recently. And the toxics are still there. They're remediated to the legal level. They're monitored. And you have a great staff at the local regulatory agencies who you can depend on. They are trained, educated, and experienced in doing this work. And you should have an opportunity to talk to them. because that helps you understand that there's issues that are not being discussed here that need to be discussed because it affects the way you're going to write the conditions that you that you recommend the way the council is going to write the conditions There are issues about like the local, the landfill is something that goes on forever. It's unlined. There's the possibility of liability for the city in the future. You're approving this project and that I think that you should think about that rather than have that sort of glazed over. And I think that's very important and I hope you'll take it to heart and take a look at EnviroStore. which is the DTSC site, and GeoTracker, that's the site for the water board. I'm concerned also about a lot of issues of what underlies other than the toxics, the bay mud, what are the possibilities? How much possibility that you're gonna have trouble with groundwater rise? I see that's not mentioned, not even mentioned. How about if you over allow the problems with groundwater rise with the problems of sea level rise, and then what are you gonna get? What does that look like? I don't know if you legally have to, but it would seem to be prudent to do so. And concerning toxics, the tidal action near the tank farm is such that I did see the report where it showed it, that the water was within six inches of the ground level. underneath and that's like and I so since it's so near the The tank farm I think that that's it's something that really should be looked at again. I really should take that into consideration and Other things have been mentioned here the the mitigation the first mitigation measure on greenhouse gases There's a historic thing going on today. The Air Resources Board had a meeting on their recommendations, mandates for the future. And since 9 a.m. this morning, it's only about 5.30 or 6 o'clock, they shut that down all day.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but that is about the EIR, not about the specific plan.

Oh, okay. And I would say with the specific plan, it should be smaller. I think you should have a better ratio of housing to commercial. And so that means to me, you need to cut down the amount of commercial in the project. And maybe that will help you get closer to meeting the greenhouse gas goals that you're trying to meet. And I think the plan, should be just described in much more detail. It's almost like you have conclusions and all the information that went into the analysis of that is not here. Are you going to go and see that? How is that going to be shown? You're going to show that to the public. The public does not like it if they feel that everything is being glazed over and they will They will react in spite of the small numbers you have here today. People are and it's I think that it's important to say that it's the people you work for. They work for the city council works for and that should always be kept in mind. And I appreciate that that will happen. And I'm surprised you have two absent members. Are there five members on the commission, or are you short? They're just not here. Okay, thank you very much. There's one other thing, but I'm afraid I'm going to forget it, and you probably have two minutes up already. So thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you very much. Last, but certainly not least, Janice Al Young.

Yeah, I agree with Claire that it was a lot of material that was presented tonight, and so I'm just wondering if we could get tonight's slides available to look at.

Yeah, through the chair, we will provide the slideshow on the meeting web page.

And then to that end for the next meeting, if it's possible to get slides with the agenda beforehand so we could at least get a little glimpse of what's to be presented would help. I don't know how much in advance you get the slides ready, but. it was really difficult to follow all of the points that were being made just because of the breadth of the information that's in this report. So, you know, the water is a huge part of what's needed for this development. And so I'm just wondering, because I don't know how these things work, why is not the water agreement under the authority of the planning commission?

And through the, Through the chair, so the water supply assessment is something that's approved by the water district. The water district has a plan that they're working on to acquire sources through the Public Utilities Commission. The water supply assessment does, as we talked about at the beginning of the meeting, inform the analysis within the EIR itself. So that indirectly we will be informed about water availability and environmental impacts related to that. APPROVAL OF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT IS SOMETHING THAT IS THE WATER, UNDER THE WATER BOARD'S PURVIEW.

AND I THINK, AM I CORRECT THAT THE DEVELOPER MUST SHOW, MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO WATER BEFORE THE, TO COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT?

YES, CORRECT. AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL HAVE DIFFERENT MILESTONES RELATED TO infrastructure, availability, and other public services and amenities that are related to unlocking the different development caps. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, folks. That concludes the public comment. Chair, we do have one public commenter who has raised their hand. Okay. Go ahead and put them through. Michelle Salmon, you may speak.

Planning Commission, thank you very much for looking at this. Your task is not light, and I appreciate the work that you've put in. I wish all five of you were there. I have a couple of comments. One is taking Old Bay Shore down to two lanes from four lanes will have a significant impact on traffic and access to central Brisbane, Crocker Park, the Northeast Ridge, plus Guadalupe Canyon Parkway. And if there is a problem on the 101, traffic would come to a complete standstill. But that's just one of thousands of comments that I can make. The most important comment I want to make right now is you should listen to every single word that Clara Johnson said. She is one of the most smartest and well informed people on this subject. I want to be Clara when I grow up because she is brilliant. And she knows what she's talking about because she sat on the BB keg and she has listened to every single one of these. And she's worked her entire like last half of her life on this project. And she knows what the hell what the heck she is talking about. So please listen carefully. Go back and review everything she said. She is spot on. I concur with everything, including closed captioning. So yay, Clara. Please, please go back and listen to everything she said. Follow her advice. She knows where the bodies are buried. Okay. And where the toxins are. And, you know, we are going to move forward with this. But let's move forward with this as safe as possible. Let's make sure that the EIR and the specific plan are in alignment. with mitigating the most toxic areas of the Baylands. And I just, I think that there's a lot here. I read the specific plan. I worked on the draft EIR, you know, read that. And I don't feel confident that we have the best plan in front of us. I'm really appreciative of the work that the staff did to mitigate a lot of the things that were very negative about that. But there's still a lot of work to be done on this. So please go back and review what Clara said and follow her well-informed advice. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Michelle. Okay, I think that concludes the workshop for this evening.

On your slides, you showed that some things were from the staff recommended plan and the others were from the developer submitted plan. That's very confusing, and is that something that by the time you get to the public hearing, it'll be all the same plan that you're reading from? I think there's a purpose that you're doing that for, but maybe for legal reasons, or maybe as well as clarity to just call it one name, you know? It doesn't, you're recommended, staff recommended plan of 26 and the developer plan. It's kind of, this is all one plan. You're not submitting three plans, just the one. So that was just a suggestion. And I don't know if this is EIR or not, but the... What's going to be very important is when everybody moves in and they're occupying and they have a body that's going to be judging, monitoring of the toxics and various other kinds of things. And that body, it's so important how that's set up so that you are sure that they're reading the monitoring reports, they're understanding them. They're structured so that they have technical people who are working for them, and that has to be mandated very specifically because people get confused. They aren't sure what their powers are, or they're not really sure how powerful they are, and they'll be very powerful as time goes on because they're the ones who are going to be there, and everyone else is at a little bit more of a distance because the project in their area is complete. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other hands up?

I see no other hands raised.

All righty. Any items initiated by staff?

None tonight.

Any items initiated by any commissioners? All right. In that case, we are adjourned to our next regular meeting of June 11th at 6.30 p.m., which will be another workshop. Thank you all very much for attending.