Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. . . . . . . Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you.

Three, two, and one. We are good.

Good evening. The June 11th meeting of the Brisbane Planning Commission will now come to order. And we have a roll call, please, Steph.

Yes, Commissioner Lau. Present. Commissioner Siazon. Here. And Chair Gooding.

Here.

And let the record show that Commissioners Funke and Watsiak are absent.

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

I'll make a motion.

Second. All in favor? Aye. None opposed? The motion passes with three ayes. Regarding the consent calendar, are there any members of the public who would like to pull any item from the consent calendar? The staff will post a Zoom number on screen and allow 30 seconds for anyone in the room or any Zoom participants to raise their hand to so indicate. If we can start that, please. While we're waiting for that to pass, are there any commissioners who would like to remove any item from the consent calendar? Hearing none.

All right, Chair, it looks like we do have a member of the public wishing to speak at this time.

To speak regarding removing an item or just on oral communication?

Through the Chair, there are no consent calendar items. Okay. So there's no action required on this item and you can move to oral communications, which is the next opportunity Perhaps that member of the public was looking for.

Is there anyone in the room who would like to speak on any items that are not on tonight's agenda? I believe we have one in front of me from Clara Johnson, is that right?

It was clarified to me that I should wait and speak during my workshop.

That is correct.

Okay, very good.

That is correct.

Great, thank you very much. Anyone else who would like to speak on any item not on the agenda tonight? We're going to start another little Zoom for, I think, 30 seconds in case there is anybody. Again, this is to address the Commission on items not on the agenda, so not regarding the topic of the workshop.

Okay, one minute has elapsed.

All right, thank you very much. Moving on to written communications, we do acknowledge that we received one written communication recently from the Sierra Club, raising several issues. And I will probably sort of fold, I had a couple questions about that that I'll just fold into my questions for the workshop in general as those topics come up. Other than that, are there any more recent written communications staff?

There are none.

Thank you very much. There is no old business and there is no new business. So move on to the topic of the day, which is a workshop regarding the Baylands specific plan, environmental review and the public hearing process.

Thank you so much, Chair. And we're going to resolve a technical issue that we're having. So hold on just a second.

No problem.

Okay, thank you so much. So tonight, we are going to focus on the final EIR for the Bayland specific plan. Tonight's presentation will consist of five segments. Each segment will be broken up into key topic areas. After the substantive segments, which are two through five, we'll have a Q&A session with the Commission. And staff and consultants, just like last time, will provide answers where we can. We may need to defer more detailed responses to future meetings. And then if time allows and at the chair's discretion, the public may also be invited to ask questions at the end of the presentation. And we'll note those questions down and provide responses as needed in the future as well. Okay. Okay, so we have our 1st segments tonight, which are a summary of the May 28th workshop, which focused on the specific plan and then segments 2 through 5 will introduce the project team again, provide an overview of the purpose and process and overview of the project itself. The contents of the and key terminology. SEGMENT THREE WILL ADDRESS THE EIR FINDINGS. SEGMENT FOUR, THE BAYSHORE MOBILITY PLAN. AND SEGMENT FIVE, NEXT STEPS. Great. Okay. So just a brief summary. At the last commission meeting on May 28th, we provided a workshop on the specific plan. We provided an overview of staff. You also heard an overview of the plan's sustainability, open space, circulation, infrastructure, financing, and implementation chapters, which included a variety of topics, but highlighted just discussion of Geneva Avenue extension, a little bit on the Bayshore Mobility Plan, and transportation demand management strategies. We also reviewed the implementation framework in detail, so addressing overall project phasing, The development allocation process that is a new element of the 2026 staff recommended plan, affordable housing procedures, monitoring requirements, et cetera. So that. Workshop was intended to set the foundation for tonight's workshop, which is a more detailed dive into the environmental analysis and we can have next time please. It also generated a number of questions and comments from both the commission and members of the public. So. Just highlighting a couple of the main themes we heard on the 28th. So, transportation and mobility was a significant topic of discussion. So a lot of questions related to the Geneva Avenue extension, future best rapid transit service, the base or mobility plan. improvements to Bayshore Boulevard, parking, and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Another major theme was regarding environmental and infrastructure issues. So water supply, sea level rise adaptation, site remediation, groundwater conditions, and greenhouse gas emissions. Other questions were also raised about the land use program, including housing and affordable housing, commercial development intensity, building heights and the towers, and overall development capacity of the site. And other comments also asked about implementation and process related topics. So, phasing infrastructure, delivery, remediation, sequencing and opportunities for continued public engagement as the project moves through the public review process. Many of these topics are addressed in the final and will be discussed further tonight. So, moving on, just a refresher on the project team and roles. So, in the context of the, the city of Brisbane is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. So, as lead agency, we are the public agency that's principally responsible for approving balance development. The community development department is leading the entitlement and environmental review process in coordination with other departments. At the city, and then environmental science associates, or is the city's environmental and planning consultant for the specific plan. And you met many of their team members last time. SOME OF THOSE SAME FOLKS ARE HERE WITH US AGAIN TONIGHT. SO ESA'S TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS INCLUDE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS, ENGINEERS, BIOLOGISTS, HISTORIANS, ARCHEOLOGISTS, GREENHOUSE GAS OR QUALITY AND NOISE SPECIALISTS, GEOLOGISTS, HYDROLOGISTS, WATER RESOURCES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EXPERTS. AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AR, ESA SERVES AS AN EXTENSION OF CITY STAFF TO ASSIST IN CEQA COMPLIANCE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OR THE NEXT SLIDE. THANK YOU. SO TONIGHT THE KEY EXPERTS WHO WILL BE PRESENTING TONIGHT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAM INCLUDE BRIAN SCHUSTER REGARDING AIR QUALITY, NOISE, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY. TODD GORDON WILL SPEAK ON WATER SUPPLY ISSUES. MICHAEL BURNS IS A REGISTERED GEOLOGIST AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPECIALIST WHO WILL SPEAK ON HAZARDS AND REMEDIATION. AND THEN MATT GOING, PRINCIPAL WITH FAIR AND PEERS WILL ADDRESS TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.

Next slide, please.

We'll also have other technical team members available online to address questions that might come up during Q&A. So just briefly acknowledge them here. So Kathy Cleveland, excuse me, historian, who can speak on historic resources issues. Ashley Sims, a registered archaeologist who can speak on archaeology and paleontology. Brian Pittman, a certified wildlife biologist who will speak to biological resources. Dr. Matt Brennan, senior engineering hydrologist who can discuss sea level rise issues. Eric Callaway, who can speak to LEED and sustainability matters. And Bev Choi for environmental planning issues related to this specific plan. as well as Woody Hanson from a site lab who are sub consultants to ESA and he can provide additional details as needed on the specific plans objective design standards I am going to that concludes segment one so I'm going to turn the presentation over now to Terry Avila of ESA thank you thank you director Ayers and it's nice to see you mr. chair and members of the Planning Commission could you go to the next slide please

So this segment, we're going to talk about in general terms, you know, what the EIR is, what is its purpose, what is the process. Next slide, please. So at base, an EIR is a detailed factual document. It is prepared for informational purposes to analyze the project's physical potential significant effects on the environment, and to identify mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid or reduce any potential impacts. It is intended, as I said, to be informative, to inform the public, public agencies, organizations, and decision makers as to the potential environmental effects if a project were to be approved and how we could avoid or minimize those impacts. Next slide, please. So this project obviously has had quite a long history, and there's a history slide that goes back even further, but just with respect TO THIS EIR, IT BEGAN WITH ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF PREPARATION IN 2020. AND THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT WITH A PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING AT THAT TIME. THERE WERE SOME CHANGES TO THE PROJECT AND SECONDARY NOTICE OF PREPARATION WAS ISSUED IN 2023. AND AGAIN, THERE WAS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT THROUGH A SCOPING MEETING. We prepared a draft EIR, which when published then began an about five-month public review process, during which there was yet another opportunity for public input during a draft EIR public meeting in June, just about this time a year ago. And we are here Right now we're at the at the stage where we're at workshops and hearings with the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission will then consider their recommendation as to certification of the EIR and approval of the project a recommendation made to City Council and We'll follow on then with additional hearings at City Council where they will act on certifying and or approving the project. And if they choose to certify the EIR and approve the project, then a notice of determination will be filed. WHICH ESSENTIALLY INDICATES THE CEQA PROCESS HAS BEEN CONCLUDED AND A PROJECT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. NEXT SLIDE. OH, BEFORE, SORRY. JUST AGAIN, OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THIS PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS AND THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING PROCESS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT. NEXT SLIDE. WE WENT THROUGH THIS TWO WEEKS AGO, SO I'LL MAKE THIS BRIEF, BUT THE PROJECT INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, RETAIL, AND OTHER KIND OF ASSOCIATED USES, A HOTEL, MIDDLE SCHOOL, VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. and just shy of 160 acres dedicated to conservation, restoration, enhancement, including active and passive parks and recreational improvements. Next slide, please. the project history I'm going to try to wean this down just a bit but it essentially began in 2005 when the applicant first filed a specific plan or the property owner did and that initiated kind of the preparation of the specific plan on application and it continued through to 2011 when the applicant then submitted a revised specific plan addressing the entirety of the site and that began preparation of a programmatic EIR City Council certified the program EIR in 2018 and approved general plan amendment 1-18 and which was then placed on the ballot for ratification as Measure JJ, which was approved by the voters in November of that same year in 2018. Subsequently, General Plan Amendment 1-19, which was related to fully implement Measure JJ, was approved in 2020. That required revisions to what was then the current specific plan. So between 20 and 23, the applicant prepared a revised specific plan. which commenced then the environmental process for what's in front of you today, this EIR. That's when we started the NOP. And then subsequent to that, there were some revisions to the specific plan. So what's in front of you, this EIR reflects the 2025 developer-specific plan. Next slide, please. Contents of an EIR, which will be on the next slide. So the draft EIR includes all of the information required by CEQA, content summary, project description, analysis of impacts, which includes the setting, significant effects, mitigation measures, as well as an analysis of alternatives to the project. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT BOTH OF THOSE A LITTLE BIT MORE LATER. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS, GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS, EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ARE NO IMPACTS, AND THE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE CONSULTED OR USED TO PREPARE THE EIR. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. The draft EIR evaluated all of the topics identified in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, so I think that's about 19 of them. Next slide. Following preparation, publication, and public review of the draft EIR, we've prepared a final EIR. which includes the draft EIR, the individuals, whether it be agencies, organizations, individuals that commented on the draft EIR, the lead agency's responses to those comments, and any revisions to the draft EIR that were either made in response to comments received or as staff initiated changes. and what is on the city's website. Importantly, the draft EIR includes the revisions, so it's easier to read and to digest. Next slide. So some terminology around EIRs. One important construct before I go into these is the concept of a threshold of significance, which is an identifiable either quantitative or performance-level criteria that we use to measure the significance of an impact. With that in mind, then we make conclusion one conclusion and it is not on this slide is no impact there is just simply no impact another conclusion is that it is a less than significant impact meaning that the physical environmental effect does not exceed the threshold of significance using whatever the applicable methodology is Then we get into cases where we have a potentially significant impact, and then that can either be determined less than significant if we can apply feasible mitigation, or it can be significant and unavoidable if, even with feasible mitigation, we can't reduce the impact below the identified threshold. So in general terms, there's no impact. less than significant, less than significant with mitigation, or significant and unavoidable. Next slide, please. So cumulative impacts are also analyzed, and cumulative impacts are essentially when there are two or more effects when considered together. could compound or increase an impact. A project's cumulative impact is considered significant when its incremental effect in connection with other past reasonably foreseeable or future projects would make a substantial contribution to what's already a significant cumulative impact. THAT'S A LOT TO DIGEST IN ONE SLIDE. SO HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. MITIGATION MEASURES, I'VE MENTIONED THAT THOSE ARE APPLIED. ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE APPLIED. AND THOSE ARE ACTIONS, CONDITIONS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, REDUCE, ELIMINATE significant environmental impacts. They must be determined to be feasible, and they must be fully enforceable and able to be – fully enforceable, measurable, and able to be monitored. Next slide. An AIR must also describe a range of alternatives to the project or its location that would avoid or substantially lessen its environmental impacts while attaining most but not necessarily all of the project's objectives. The purpose here is to foster informed decision-making and So the range of what's possible is in front of the decision makers. In terms of alternatives, we need to evaluate a no project alternative, and there'll be more on that later. And from the range of alternatives, identify which is environmentally superior, meaning resulting in on balance the fewest environmental impacts. And so oftentimes that can be the no project alternative, but if it is determined to be so, then the ER needs to identify another environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Next slide.

Great. Thank you, Terry. All right. We're going to break here. Um, if there's any questions from the commission on the material that you. Just absorbed floor is open.

I had just 1 question about process, um, in terms of the, the timeline you said of the commission considering recommendations and then the city council taking them up and certifying or modifying and certifying. Are there any any, um. LEGALLY MANDATED HARD DEADLINES FOR THOSE COMPLETION POINTS?

I DON'T KNOW, COUNSELOR PHILLIPS, IF YOU WANT TO HANDLE IT. I CAN CERTAINLY, THE 10 DAYS, I CAN START WITH ONE THING. WE HAVE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS TO PUBLIC AGENCIES 10 DAYS BEFORE CERTIFICATION, CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATION AT CITY COUNCIL, AND THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. SO THAT'S THE ONE THAT CAME TO MY MIND.

I think I did this wrong. I learned where the button is since the last time I was here, so that's progress. Because the project involves legislative decisions ultimately by the City Council, it's not subject to things like the Permit Streamlining Act and things that do impose hard statutory deadlines. HAVING SAID THAT, WE DID SEE A LONG HISTORY OF PROJECT MAKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS AND OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'RE UNDER DIRECTION TO TRY AND BRING THIS FORWARD TO COUNCIL ON THE TIME FRAME THAT WAS SHARED ON THE SLIDE WITH YOUR FIRST HEARING HERE AT THE END OF JUNE, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE HEARINGS THROUGH THE SUMMER AND THEN A RECOMMENDATION BEING BROUGHT FORWARD TO COUNCIL FOR ITS CONSIDERATION. IN SEPTEMBER WITH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO DELIBERATE FURTHER AS NECESSARY AFTER THAT.

THAT SEPTEMBER TIMELINE POINT IS DESIRED BUT NOT LEGALLY MANDATED ANYWHERE?

THAT IS THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE FROM COUNCIL IS TO WORK WITH THAT SCHEDULE, YES. THANK YOU. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING THIS SEGMENT.

Any other questions? Okay. I will go ahead and hand it back to Teri, who will take you through the next segment.

Teri Manolio- All right. Here are the kind of a summary of the findings of the EIR. Next slide, please. Next there we go. So these are no impacts and no impacts occur with respect to agriculture and forestry resources and mineral resources as there are no such designated resources on the project site There are no impacts associated with tribal cultural resources and that was concluded following the required consultation with designated tribes and No fault traversing the site, so no potential for fault rupture. And lastly, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems as the site would connect to municipal systems. Next slide. So now these are less than significant without mitigation, meaning they're simply less than significant. The project would not divide an existing community during operation, oftentimes that's thought of when you think of a freeway bifurcating a town. So certainly not the case here. It would not create substantial and unplanned growth. It would not displace existing housing or businesses Mm-hmm. It would not inhibit the city's ability to provide housing for You know a variety of economic segments and it would not result in urban decay It would not conflict with the tree ordinance and is not expected to disturb human remains and Similarly, it will not physically deteriorate a park or recreational facility, an existing park or recreational facility. It would not. Also, we looked at the Candlestick Point windsurfing resources and with respect to the building placements and It would not deteriorate that recreational resource. And as my colleague, Todd Gordon, he will talk about water supplies. There's the provision of adequate water supplies, and the project would maximize waste diversion and would not impact landfill capacity. Next slide. So these slides, I'm just going to run through quickly because my colleagues are, while they're less than significant, they're going to touch on these. But transportation, we would not exceed the vehicle miles traveled according to the thresholds for either construction or operation, would not create inconsistencies with plans, either with respect to air quality or energy. And then I will leave Brian Schuster to talk in much greater detail on greenhouse gas emissions. Next slide. Now these are less than significant impacts with mitigation. So division of a community during construction required mitigation mostly because it's a significant construction project. So there's that. Conflicts with adopted plans policies that really folds that's really a roll-up of what's addressed throughout the EIR There would not be With mitigation effects on scenic vistas or resources there would not be an inconsistency with any plans, programs, policies, or with respect to nighttime lighting or daytime glare. Effects related to water quality and flood hazards would be reduced to less than significant. Next slide. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, AGAIN, WITH MITIGATION, THERE WOULD NOT BE IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS, ANIMALS, HABITATS, WATERS OF THE U.S., WATERS OF THE STATE, AREAS SUBJECT TO STATE LANDS COMMISSION OR BCDC COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS OR FISH OR WILDLIFE MOVEMENT. And the plan would be consistent with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, which has a focus on a number of species of butterflies. Cultural historic resources, in this case the roundhouse, and archeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Next slide. geology soils and seismicity slope stability fine with mitigation paleontological resources falls under geology but I continue to think of it under cultural but it is not and with mitigation that is also less than significant The provision of new and expanded public facilities would be properly mitigated, and there would be no exacerbation of fire risks. I'm going to have the same admonition I did with the less than significant without mitigation. Transportation, air, and GHG will be covered in much more detail with my colleagues, but Essentially, you know this project would facilitate other travel modes transit bicycle pedestrian would not create hazards, you know to vehicles bicyclists or pedestrians and would not impede access for emergency vehicles would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or odors and I'm going to skip GHG and let Mr. Schuster cover that in detail, which is coming up in a moment. Same with vibration. It would not result in temporary or permanent increase in vibration or expose people to high vibration levels. And hazards and hazardous materials, any routine transport use disposal or management are covered by a vast range of regulations. And similarly, there would not be any hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or waste used or emitted within one quarter mile of a school. So these are the significant and unavoidable impacts. I'm just going to allow the screen to speak for itself. You see it's air and noise. And if you could go to the next slide, you will see more noise. And with that, I will turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Schuster, who will address air quality, noise, GHG, and energy.

Okay. Thanks, Terry. Evening, Commissioners. I'm going to talk about air quality, noise, greenhouse gas, and energy. Starting with this slide, we have one significant and unavoidable air quality impact. This is AQ1. AQ1 looks at overall regional criteria pollutant emissions for construction and operations of the project. The EIR concludes that construction and operational emissions would exceed Bay Area regional thresholds without mitigation and identifies all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions from sources including construction equipment and trucks, fugitive dust, paints and consumer products, emergency generators, operational trucks and passenger vehicles and other sources. However, given the size and scope of the project, These mitigation measures are not enough to reduce emissions below the bright line. Criteria pollutant thresholds, and this impact remains significant and unavoidable. I want to make a distinction between the health risk impact, which is, which looks at, uh, toxic air, contaminant exposure. That impact is less than significant. So 1 is just regional mass emissions of ozone precursors in particular matter. Next slide a little bit more on some mitigation measures in the to address this significant impact. Construction measures target fugitive dust offered equipment trucks. And paints during construction, there's a soil movement measure, which requires best available control technology to move. Excavated soil from East to West, which may include a electric conveyor system. Operational measures include controls on emergency generators, again, painting, EV charging, truck idling and loading docks, and low VOC consumer products, among others. Many of these measures also reduce health risks and greenhouse gas. Next slide. summary of the AQ2, which is exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants, primarily DPM and fine particulate matter, or PM2.5. This analysis looked at existing offsite homes near the project site, as well as new onsite receptors, receptor meaning children, residents, schools, daycare, hospitals, that kind of thing. Basically, anywhere a child or potentially susceptible person could live. The analysis also looked at cumulative health risks. So. Would the project exacerbate existing sources of tax commissions? These include things like us, 1 and 1. Caltrain and rail sources on the rain, uh, railway. PERMITTED STATIONARY SOURCES AND OTHER SOURCES WITHIN A RADIUS OF THE PROJECT SITE THAT EXISTS CURRENTLY. AND THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL AIR FILTRATION AT RESIDENTS AND SCHOOL LOCATIONS. Couple of short FAQs here. What controls construction dust? The project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, or SWPPP, requires dust controls, including air district best management practices. These include things like watering exposed surfaces, covering haul trucks, street sweeping, speed limits on unpaid roads, equipment wash off, et cetera. Diesel generators is another topic that came up in response to comments. The project has extensive solar and battery backup systems. And so the question is, why do we need diesel generators? The main reason is it's required by California building code for certain building. Types during power outages and emergency use. To supply critical power, and these generators will only be needed during those emergency events and the onsite battery systems will substantially reduce the need for those generators. Although the did assume a conservative assessment of their operation during operations. And finally, data centers and warehouses, those are not permitted uses at the Baylands, so the EIR did not evaluate impacts or quality impacts from data centers. Moving on to noise, the first significant and unavoidable impact we have is noise one, which evaluates construction noise. The analysis considers the full build-out multi-year construction, daytime and possible nighttime work, both on-site and off-site noise receptors and a wide network of monitoring locations. Sources include pile driving, soil hauling, on-road trucks, and off-road equipment. The various thresholds evaluated include local code standards, which are time and noise levels, expresses dBA or decibels above ambient or total decibel levels. Next slide. The analysis found that noise sources would exceed those thresholds in some cases, mostly from overlapping construction activity and pile driving near occupied uses as well as trucks hauling soil on Bayshore Tunnel and Blanken. The thresholds are lower for nighttime, so there's also some nighttime impacts. There are a lot of mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, including hour limits on construction, further hour limits on pile driving, barriers, mufflers, and enclosures, a public notice and complaint process, and construction noise control plans for development, which require city approval. However, despite those measures, the impact remains significant and unavoidable because pile driving and other activities may occur simultaneously near uses, near receptors. Sorry. Where's my mouse? Oh, there we go. Next slide. My computer just crashed.

But I have a backup.

Does it have my notes?

It has notes.

I printed out a copy of this. So I will go to the hard copy. Where were we? Noise 2, right? OK. Here we go. So Impact Noise 2 looks at operational stationary noise sources. These are things like mechanical equipment, HVAC, loading docks, parking, wastewater reclamation facility, and amplified sound and battery station and substation, battery storage and substation. Mitigation for this impact includes similar ones for construction, screening setbacks and barriers, mufflers and enclosures, loading dock controls where trucks would park and operate, and future acoustical studies on development, which, again, require city review before approval. The finding here is that although individual sources can be controlled and must meet standards to reduce their individual noise impact, the impact of aggregate noise sources will exceed the threshold so in other words noise from multiple sources happening at the same time next slide impact noise three is operational roadway noise so this is vehicles mostly tire noise on road road surfaces the ei are evaluated a phase one and a full build out Thresholds were exceeded on Guadalupe Canyon, Geneva Tunnel, and Geneva and Tunnel depending on the year. Uh, the mitigation measure is kind of a menu of options approach, depending on the roadway and the level of jurisdiction that the city has over that roadway. But includes things like. Traffic volume reductions speed limits. Barriers and setbacks between roadways and sensitive uses. Acoustical treatments and buildings to absorb the noise. As well as engineered asphalt, which reduces road tire noise on the on the road itself. So the conclusion here, again, is significant unavoidable, largely because not all affected roadways have enough mitigation to reduce noise below the DBA thresholds and limited jurisdiction the city has over things like traffic volume.

OK.

Although I will note that, and Matt will touch on this later, that the project has a very comprehensive tdm program to reduce trips and bmt all right so the remaining noise impacts are listed here these are less than significant at the project level but are cumulatively considerable so four is rail freeway and airport airport noise which includes things like cal train high speed rail construction and operation and other transportation off-site transportation noise Five is construction vibration. So this is vibration from construction activities. Again, a cumulatively considerable impact due to overlaps with high speed rail activities mostly. And then noise six is rail vibration exposure. And this is operations of rail. So Caltrain high speed rail plus project vibration would have a cumulative effect.

OK. Next slide.

Moving on to greenhouse gas. The draft EIR, this is a major revision in the final EIR, which removed impact GHG-1. GHG-1 focused on project site emissions and compared to a net zero threshold, or basically a zero threshold of greenhouse gas. This was removed in the final EIR to better align with air districts, the Bay Area Air District's greenhouse gas thresholds, which are a BMP list of project features, and also to better align with the state's goals, climate goals for housing, transit-oriented development, and other related objectives. So the EIR did evaluate greenhouse gas under IMPACT GHG 2, which was a quantitative assessment of emissions, as well as GHG 3, which was a consistency analysis with applicable plans and policies. Next slide. Greenhouse Gas 2 IMPACT GHG 2 looks at whether locating Uh, whether plan growth growth at the billions would increase regional emissions compared to that growth occurring elsewhere. So it's a, it's a regional perspective. Focused on mobile sources and transportation. The EIR concludes that because of the project's transit-adjacent location, its mixed-use plan, its aggressive TDM program, it will produce significantly lower per capita VMT than the regional average and would decrease regional mobile source emissions as a product of being in place and operating. So this impact was found to be less than significant. greenhouse gas 3 looked at consistency with climate policies, plans and standards, including the air districts thresholds for. Carbs 2022 scoping plan and other local policies, like, and the cap. This impact required some mitigation for full consistency, including Calgary and Tier 2 EV charging, which is an air quality mitigation measure, and land use and transportation measures for transit supportive densities and TDM. With those measures, this impact would be less than significant.

Next slide.

Here are some of the greenhouse gas mitigation and project features that the specific plan includes. Notably, many of the mitigation measures that were acquired under former impact are have been incorporated into the specific plan and are required. So, these are listed here, including low global warming, potential refrigerants, preferred parking for alternative fuel and ride share vehicles. 0, mission shuttles and 100% renewable fuels for the wastewater reclamation facility. As discussed in workshop, 1, the specific plan includes a full suite of sustainable features, which reduce greenhouse gas as well, including lead green point rated all electric buildings, solar batteries and so forth. So, removal of impact 1 did not remove a lot of the greenhouse gas, reducing features of the project that were required in the draft. All right and then we're on to energy and I'm almost done. So, energy, we had 2 impacts on energy. 1 is looking at the, uh, whether the project consumes energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner. And given the sustainability features and efficiency features of the project. Like, I mentioned previously as well as the extensive solar and battery systems. This, uh, impact was found to be less than significant. And impact 2 looks at, um, conflict with energy plans and policies, including regulation, like title 24 and Calgary and standards charging requirements, uh, city reach code. And transit oriented growth framework of plan Bay area. So, with, um, this, this impact was also less than significant because the project complies with all of those. And then finally, a slide summarizing various features that reduce energy demand of the project, including transit and vehicle fuel reductions, electric and efficient buildings, on-site renewable generation, and off-site renewable requirements for a remainder of electricity, battery storage, and EV charging.

And I think that's the end of that.

OK. Good evening. I'm Todd Gordon. I'll be going over the water supply technical area. Next slide, please. I wanted to start by clarifying the distinction between the water supply assessment and the approvals that would be required to actually provide water service. The water supply assessment, or WSA, is an analytical document prepared for SECO review. Its purpose is to evaluate whether sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project and other projected demands over the planning horizon. The WSA was prepared by EKI and approved by Cal Water. The WSA is not a water service agreement. Like any development projects, water service would require subsequent approvals and implementation agreements before service is provided. Measure JJ addresses a related but separate requirement. Measure JJ requires that a reliable water supply be secured prior to site development. So the question addressed by the final EIR is whether sufficient water supplies are available. The question of how water service would ultimately be implemented involves subsequent regulatory actions and water service agreements that would occur outside the CEQA process. In short, the WSA evaluates water availability while future approvals and implementation agreements are the mechanisms through which water service would be established consistent with Measure JJ's requirement that a reliable water supply be secured before development proceeds. Next slide, please. The final EIR relies on the approved water supply assessment to evaluate water supply impacts. The water supply assessment analyzed whether sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Bayland specific plan and other projected demands over a 20 year planning horizon. It evaluated water availability under normal year conditions, single dry year conditions, and multiple dry year conditions consistent with California's SB 610 water supply planning requirements. Using that analysis, the final EIR evaluated whether available water supplies would be insufficient to serve existing customers, Baylands development, and other planned future development within the proposed service area. In other words, the detailed supply and demand analysis is contained in the WSA, or Water Supply Assessment, and the final EIR relies on that analysis to reach its CEQA conclusions. Next slide, please. So based on the approved water supply assessment and supporting analysis, the final EIR concluded that sufficient water supplies are available through 2045 under normal year conditions. The analysis also evaluated drought conditions. Under dry year and multiple dry year scenarios, the assessment incorporates implementation of applicable water shortage contingency plans and other regional water supply reliability measures. Based on that analysis, the final EIR concludes that impact utility one for water supply would be less than significant. The final EIR also identifies several future actions that would occur outside of the CEQA process, including service area expansion actions and approvals involving LAFCO, the CPUC, and the SFPUC, and future water service implementation agreements as required. These are implementation and regulatory steps that would occur after sequel review and are separate from the final determination regarding water availability. Next slide please. And then turning to recycled water treatment and distribution, an important component of the project's overall water strategy is the proposed balance water recycling facility. The facility would create a local drought resistant recycled water supply that reduces demand on potable water supplies and benefits both the Baylands and other customers within CalWaters South San Francisco District. The system would provide recycled water for landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses including toilet flushing and cooling systems. The facility is designed with approximately one million gallons per day of treatment capacity. And then breaking that down, approximately 0.52 million gallons per day would serve Baylands uses, and approximately 0.43 million gallons per day would be available to other South San Francisco district customers. By replacing potable water with recycled water for non-potable uses, the facility would reduce Baylands potable water demand by approximately 462 acre feet per year, and improve overall system reliability This recycled water component is one of the key features evaluated in the final EIR that supports long-term water supply resilience for the project and the surrounding service area.

Thank you, Todd. Michael Burns, I'll be talking about the hazards of the remediation process. Next slide, please. For this particular area, there are three main hazardous materials sites. These consist of the former Brisbane landfill, the San Mateo County portion of the Universal Peregrine Corporation Operable Unit, which is called the UPC OUSM, and then Operable Unit OU2. I'll go into some of the details in a minute, but I want to touch base on a couple of important points here. One, the remediation of these three sites is the responsibility of the Regional Water Quality Control Board AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL AND IS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THIS PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE APPROPRIATE SITE REMEDIATION MUST PRECEDE BAYLAND'S DEVELOPMENT. THE GENERAL PLAN REQUIRES SITE REMEDIATION BE UNDERTAKEN AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE BAYLAND'S DEVELOPMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THESE REMEDIATIONS ARE GOING TO BE PROCESSED REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO HERE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE THE THREE MAIN AREAS ARE. To the right is the Brisbane landfill that borders on San Francisco Bay, and then that's Tunnel Road that comes up in between them. In the northwest is the UPC OUSM Operable Unit, and then Operable Unit 2 is in the green just to the south there. Next slide, please. So the former Brisbane landfill is a closed, unlined landfill where buried waste is covered with fill and inert debris. Some of the surface area is developed, some of the surface area has hardscape, and some of it is pervious. Some of the surface also has clean fill that has been stockpiled for future use. This landfill has an active landfill gas collection system, a groundwater monitoring network, and a leachate seep collection system. The leachate contains dissolved metals, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The planned remediation for this consists of removing the stockpiled clean soil, installing a cap, and constructing a leachate collection system. Because the landfill is online, the leachate collection system will also extract groundwater. This will serve to capture and pull groundwater from the UPC OU and the OU2 sites located west and adjacent to the landfill. FOR THIS PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY, THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY IS THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD. THEY WILL BE PLACING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS THAT REQUIRE THE CAP INTEGRITY BE MAINTAINED. THE CAP MAY NOT BE DISTURBED WITHOUT WATER BOARD APPROVAL AND A PLAN TO RESTORE ANY DISTURBED CAP AREAS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. The UPC OUSM is in the northwest area north of Geneva. This OU consists of some of the formal rail yards that at one time included repair shops, paint storage, a lumber yard and planning mill, oil and sludge traps, and other associated railroad infrastructure. The OU is currently vacant, which has various remaining foundations and building slabs. To date, some contaminated soil has already been removed from the site, and a groundwater extraction and treatment system operated from 1995 to 2008 to extract contaminated groundwater. The constituents of concern here for soil are arsenic, lead, mercury, polynuclear aromatic compounds, naphthalene, diesel, and aerochlor. For soil vapor and groundwater consists of various chlorinated solvents. For this OU, the planned remediation will consist of installing and maintaining cap, removing contaminated soil where a cap emplacement is impractical, and installing soil vapor mitigation systems where soil vapor testing indicates soil vapor above regulatory action levels. For this operable unit, the DTSC is the responsible agency that will enforce remediation and the land use restrictions, which, similar to the other site, means you cannot disturb that cap without approval from them and a plan to restore and maintain that integrity of the cap. Next slide, please. Operable Unit 2 consists more of the former rail yards that are west of the landfill and south of the other operable unit. At one time, in addition to the rail yard operations, they had turntables and roadhouse, machines and erecting shops, a 3 million gallon oil tank, a tank and boiler shop, and the switching yard and a solid waste dump site. Currently, the site is vacant with various foundations and building slabs and has the Caltran tracks along the east side. The current use in the industrial way area to the south is automobile garages, storage warehouse, and a boxing ring. So the remediation to date has consisted of removing of underground storage tanks and contaminated soil. For this area, the chemicals that are concerned are arsenic, lead, diesel, and chlorinated solvents in the soil, and then chlorinated solvents in the soil vapor and groundwater. Similar to the other operable unit, the planned remediation will consist of installing and maintaining a cap, removing contaminated soil where the cap emplacement is impractical, installing soil vapor mitigation systems where soil vapor testing indicates soil vapor above regulatory action levels inside buildings, and finally, operating an in situ groundwater remediation system to reduce volatiles to below regulatory action levels. For this operable unit, the Water Board is the responsible agency that will enforce remediation and land use restrictions. Again, those land use restrictions, including you cannot disturb that cap without their approval. So, in closing, the site remediation for all three of these sites is a prerequisite to Baylands development. The land use restrictions will be established and enforced to protect and maintain the remedial actions. And on that one, I'll turn it over to the next speaker.

I think that's me. So more on alternatives and other components of the EIR we've not yet touched on. I TALKED ABOUT THE NEED FOR ALTERNATIVES. CEQA REQUIRES AN EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT THAT WOULD ATTAIN MOST OF THE BASIC PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND REDUCE OR ELIMINATE IMPACTS, ONE OF THEM BEING A NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. IN THIS CASE, WE LOOKED AT BOTH NO PROJECT, NO BUILD, MEANING NOTHING OCCURS, NO PROJECT GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT, And then we clustered the alternatives into the proposed projects density, where we included the same density but did things slightly differently. And one of those, and it incurs both under the proposed density and a reduced density, is DEVELOPMENT AROUND A 45 ACRE LIGHT MAINTENANCE FACILITY. BUT UNDER THE PROPOSED DENSITY, IT WAS JUST HOW DO YOU BALANCE COMMERCIAL USES, SOME WHERE YOU REDUCE BUILDING HEIGHTS AND KIND OF TO THE WEST IN THE TOWERS, BUT THEN YOU WOULD INCREASE OFFICE HEIGHTS AND THEN REDUCED DENSITY, WHICH IS JUST LESS DEVELOPMENT. AND SO LESS COMMERCIAL, LESS DEVELOPMENT, BUT STILL THE 45 ACRE LMF, AGAIN, THE BALANCED COMMERCIAL, BUT LESS, AND REDUCED BUILDING HEIGHTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND OF THOSE, AND THIS ISN'T TERRIBLY SURPRISING, USUALLY THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CHOSEN IF NOT ONE OF THE NO PROJECTS IS A REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE. IN THIS CASE IT WAS REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE 7 WHICH WOULD REDUCE BUILDING HEIGHTS AND REDUCE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, IT WOULD STILL NOT REDUCE THE AIR QUALITY AND NOISE IMPACTS THAT MR. SCHUESTER DISCUSSED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL, EVEN WITH FEASIBLE MITIGATION. NEXT SLIDE. SO LAST OR TWO WEEKS AGO IN TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PLANS, WE TALKED ABOUT the 2025 specific plan, which is the subject primarily of the EIR, of the body of the EIR, and the 2026 staff-recommended specific plan. So as I said, the 2025 specific plan is evaluated in the body of the EIR, but we also evaluated the 2026 staff recommended specific plan as modified alternative one in the final EIR in its own chapter in chapter 16. And we concluded that impacts would be either the same or similar to those evaluated in the EIR, meaning that there would be no new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. Next slide. Then we also in the draft EIR, we also, you know, understood the changes that HAVE OCCURRED IN THE 2025 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS EIR. BUT WE ALSO WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE 2018 certified program EIR and kind of see how those how the impacts compared and we have again a separate chapter I think it's chapter 9 where we did that comparison and we concluded similarly that there would be no new significant impacts or more substantially severe impacts associated with the 2025 specific plan project as compared to the project described in the 2018 certified final EIR and then also a footnote and I meant to mention it earlier we did incorporate appropriate mitigation measures from the 2018 program EIR into the CIR and then added on MITIGATION WHERE WE NEEDED TO DO SO OR IT WAS FEASIBLE TO DO SO. NEXT SLIDE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. WE'RE AT OUR NEXT Q&A SESSION. THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION PACKED INTO THAT SEGMENT. SO LET US KNOW, PLEASE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE TOPICS WE JUST LOOKED AT, AIR QUALITY, NOISE, GREENHOUSE GAS, WATER SUPPLY, HAZARDS AND REMEDIATION.

Yeah, I have a question um So once the project let's say you've done your remediation and the capping and your project is done. Is there any Continuous monitoring afterwards to make sure that you know the caps are still intact and whatnot and everything is still safe and

Yes, in all of the remedial plans for all three of those operable units, they include chapters that describe how you're going to maintain the cap in perpetuity. In addition, the city would be putting together a mitigation and monitoring reporting program that would also look at that and make sure that those measures have been implemented. Great, thank you.

So I have a few questions. I'm going to bounce around from topics because my notes are all on the sequence the IR was as opposed to less than significant. Bear with me. I'm going to bounce around. We're not doing mobility yet. Is that correct?

Yeah, that'll be later.

I'll hold those questions then. Thank you. The energy resources, I had a question. I ran across a note that the solar field, the large 55-acre solar field, does not come online, according to this plan, until late 2037. Did I understand that correctly, or did I get it wrong?

Is that it?

It's it. It's at 4.11-38.

Yeah, the solar field is, I'm not sure which exact year it is, but it is part of the second part of construction, like phase two.

It's part of phase two?

Yeah, or the end of phase one, somewhere in there, about midpoint.

I was just... I'm curious about that because it's one of the premises, back up that sentence.

2037, you're right.

You premised your conclusions about less than significant impact on local energy resources by pointing to how self-sufficient the project will be for energy. But what I'm hearing is that for the first 10 years of the project, there will be no solar field And the only solar generation will be rooftops of those buildings that are completed. Would that be fair to say?

That is correct. The distributed solar and the building distributed battery will be online as those buildings are constructed. And the utility scale solar field will not be online and used for onsite uses until it's done in 2037. That's correct.

Can you, I understand you're not the construction engineers, but can you explain or give us some idea of why the solar field is sort of kicked down the road that far, leaving the project not energy self-sufficient for a decade?

I'm not sure. I'm sorry I can't answer that question, what the phasing plan is, but I would open that to others.

MS. Yeah. I think it's fair that we get back to you guys on that.

MR. Okay. Thank you. MS. Yeah. Thanks. MR. The – I'm trying to not use all the acronyms that I've read about and learned because it gets dizzying, but the remedial action plans are the plans that the developer will be compelled to employ to remediate the toxic hazards, correct? And my question really is the monitoring of compliance with those RAPs is performed by

Well, for example, in the landfill, you always have an annual inspection program that whoever it is that's managing the landfill is obligated to do, where they go and they look at the whole site, they look at the size, they make sure that none of the cap areas have been disturbed, that they're not seeing seeps in unusual places. And this requires an annual report that's given to the regulatory agency.

This might be a question for staff, but what input along the way does the city have in terms of the monitoring or working with others to assure or at least to monitor compliance with the RAPs?

Well, as I understand it, the city would be putting together a mitigation and monitoring reporting program where you're looking at all the mitigations that you have in the EIR that you certify to make sure that those things are actually done.

Fair enough, thank you. That sounds to me like that's mitigation I'm monitoring once DTSC and RRW have signed off on the RAPs. And I'm falling into the acronyms. But once that's been done, and DTSC and the Regional Water Board not walk away, but are done with their piece, Is the additional monitoring or the ensuing monitoring the burden of the City?

Let's correct that. The DTSC and the Water Board are not done. They will have annual reports and sometimes it goes to have a five year report. The landfill is a minimum of 30 years. So the Water Board and the DTSC, they do not walk away. Bear in mind that each of those sites has, for example, groundwater monitoring systems. Those get monitored either quarterly, semiannual, or annual. Those reports go into those regulatory agencies and will continue to do so until those levels fall below regulatory action levels.

Thank you. That kind of leads to one of the sort of side issues. Did you folks get the Sierra Club letter that was received recently? I think it was recently this week. So I had a question that sort of, this would be the right time to ask that question, I think. They raised an issue that I confess I didn't fully understand about the Schlage groundwater plume potential hazard. Can you address their comment and the extent to which The EIR has considered what the remediations are for that.

Yeah, I have not seen that letter. However, we did evaluate the Schlage site as part of the EIR. They're located a little bit to the west of the development area and they have their own operable unit that is managed by the DTSC. They had done a variety of cleanup actions in the past and it achieved some closure, but they have been reopened and the DTSC is requiring further action on their part, even as we speak.

Um, water, I'm sorry to interrupt. I have a preliminary answer on the solar field. So the, the solar field is located on the former landfill site and is dependent on the title 27 landfill closure. So, it basically, which, like, the. The landfill closure and remediation and movement of soil materials will be done over a. Extended period of time and the solar field won't be able to begin construction and completion until that is done Okay, thank you.

That's that's helpful Great answer, but it seems to be the correct answer Okay water the EIR concludes that there's a less than significant risk of a water supply creating or passing a threshold of something. Get lost in the language there. And in there is information that if your report included analysis of the potential circumstances under which the Bay Delta plan would be significantly approved, or big chunks of it would be, and that if I read it right, in a long-term drought, we'd have shortfalls demand versus supply up to 50% or 53% if the drought were long enough or bad enough. Can you explain how that much shortfall translates to less than significant? I'm kind of troubled by that.

well that goes back to the water supply assessment which incorporated looking at those different scenarios of a normal year a single dry year and multiple dry years and in the cases of those drought scenarios there was implementation of the water shortage contingency plans which is I believe a six stage steps were more restrictions on water use such as potable water use for irrigation and things like that would be limited the longer and more serious drought conditions as those continue.

As I read the six step sort of crisis level one, two, three, four, five, six is sort of how I read it. It eventually translates to there will be significant shortfalls of water if the Bay Delta plan is in effect. and Cal Water is stuck with the ramifications of that. Is that simplistically correct?

I guess technically there would be shortfalls, but the Baylands development itself doesn't change those scenarios and the water supply availability for the service area. So what I mean to say is that the Baylands would be under the same restrictions as the rest of the service area, and the development of the Baylands would not increase or would not limit the ability for Cal Water to serve its service area.

Is there any circumstance under which the Baylands would be able to reach into the rest of Brisbane's supply of water because Cal Water is being impacted by the Bay Delta Plan?

I don't believe so, but I could get back to you on that. But I do know that the water supply assessment evaluated multiple future scenarios, and it assumed, including the worst case scenario, that the implementation of the Bay Delta plan amendment. And so that analysis was specifically structured to address the uncertainty for the SFPC supplies.

IF I MAY THROUGH THE CHAIR. SO THE CAL WATER SYSTEMS AND THE BRISBANE WATER SYSTEMS ARE INDEPENDENT, SEPARATE SYSTEMS. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. ALTHOUGH REGIONALLY WE ARE ALL CUSTOMERS OF SFPC WATER, THERE ARE DIFFERENT SUPPLIES. WE HAVE INTERTIES, BUT THOSE ARE REGULATED THROUGH INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS. There should not be an impact as far as utilizing Brisbane water towards Baylands. Cal Water would be serving it. They would be the water provider.

So if Cal Water is being really hammered by the ramifications of the Bay Delta plan, it will not per se affect the rest of Brisbane's supply?

We could be impacted in other ways, but not directly by the Cal Water operation, correct. Okay, thank you. That's helpful.

My other questions are about mobility, so thank you very much.

Okay. Any other questions of the commissioners? Okay. Let's move on then to the next segment, and that will be the Bayshore Mobility Plan and other transportation items. Do we have Matt going on Zoom?

Yes. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Matt Going with Farron Piers, and I'll be summarizing the transportation EIR impacts and mitigation measures, and then provide a deeper dive into the Bayshore Mobility Plan. Next slide. So starting with the transportation findings from the EIR first. Vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, was found to be less than significant. That's primarily because it is a transit-oriented project with a mix of uses and strong transportation demand management. For other topics like transit, walking, biking, safety, and emergency access, those are all less than significant with mitigation. This means that there are improvements that are needed to address impacts, but they are well-defined and achievable. Those include better connections for walking, biking, and transit, safety-focused roadway designs, and maintaining emergency access as the site builds out. Next slide. I also want to clarify a few transportation topics that came up during the specific plan discussion in our last meeting. First, green streets are designed to be short local streets that by design have low speeds and low volumes. They're designed to prioritize walking and community activities while still accommodating local access, parking, and deliveries within designated areas. There are many examples of these that have been in effect for decades throughout the country in cities like San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Monica, Boston, and others. And these recognizing the benefits of the safety of these types of measures and the Community benefit they provide for local local streets. The Federal Highway Administration caltrans other agencies have established design standards that this project would be consistent with to ensure safety. And this includes key features like maintaining a clear 20 foot right away for emergency access. designating parking and loading areas to make sure that those activities don't block the through right away and then ADA accessible pathways separate from the shared space. Second, there was a couple questions about parking and just want to highlight that the parking project uses parking maximums and transportation demand management measures to encourage transit walking biking and ride sharing. And as a result parking ratios are actually quite a bit lower than those found in most traditional suburban office developments, and I think that a good example what come up came up in the prior meeting was. The idea of South San Francisco east of one on one area, which was actually used to as an example to how to develop the program and parking ratios. And so the final transportation topic that came up a lot was the base or mobility plan, and so, while this is a separate city initiative, it has been evaluated in conjunction with the balance transportation analysis. As it can help mitigate some of the safety impacts i'm now going to ship to the rest of the to this plan for the rest of my presentation. So this discussion about the future of Bayshore did not start with Baylands. The Bayshore Boulevard was the original Highway 101 and has thus functioned as a regional through route with 60 to 80% of traffic traveling through Brisbane. The city has long expressed a desire to reduce regional traffic using Bayshore through the city. Brisbane's general plan is very explicit in through program C.1.B that a development of a strategy that reduces regional traffic through the community while improving local mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses is important. And so this Bayshore Mobility Plan is the outcome of that and several kind of prior planning efforts that I'll be describing later in my presentation. And so this is really a unique moment for Brisbane because Bayshore has served in the role that it has for many years. And with the Baylands Pacific Plan, there's now several additional roadways that could provide additional access through the community that could be redundant with Bayshore. Next slide. So first, one of the most important challenges for Bayshore is safety. Bayshore is on the city's high injury network, and today it operates with near freeway speeds. As this graphic shows, the likelihood of severe injuries and fatalities increases significantly as speeds increase. And this is not just about pedestrians. It affects drivers as well, who are much more likely to be killed or injured at higher speeds. And so, this is especially important for areas where there's more activity, where there's a lot of crossing activity and different movements, and that includes central Brisbane and the changes that will happen on the northern segment of Bayshore next to the future Baylands. Next slide. With respect to who is using Brisbane today and how would Baylands change things, we can look at the traffic patterns. This is an example roadway segment that shows that between existing as well as existing plus Bayland traffic, the volumes would be quite a bit below the theoretical roadway capacity of the roadway as it is today. So local travel demand with or without the Baylands is not what would drive congestion in the future necessarily. Next slide. But what we see is that when we add regional traffic, the picture changes. And regional traffic makes up the majority of traffic today on the corridor and is projected to continue to grow as things like Candlestick Hunters Point and other development projects build out in the area. So under future conditions, really regional traffic uses all available roadway capacity that is on Bayshore. under any scenario that's been evaluated through the different studies over the past years. So the issue here, once again, what Brisbane does locally with respect to land use is less important than how Bayshore functions within the regional network. And this is consistent. This is what the findings were from the previous Baylands EIR, as well as the general plan, as what's captured in the general plan. Next slide. So this slide summarizes how kind of existing versus, this is consistent with prior analysis as well as the current analysis, existing versus future traffic patterns. We see large increases in regional traffic, travel times will increase because of that, and then existing safety issues remain. So the question that has faced Brisbane for decades is what role should Bayshore play in the future? Next slide. And this is where the Bayshore Mobility Plan comes in to address the general plan goals. So city staff and the project team developed five goals for the Bayshore Mobility Plan based on the issues outlined in the city's general plan, as well as other recent studies. This includes the prior EIR and also the city's local road safety plan that was completed a few years ago. First goal is that the plan should improve safe access for people and land uses already along Bayshore, such as the Sierra Point trailer park. Currently, this community is disconnected from the rest of the city's walking and bicycling network and drivers need to pull directly out onto a fast arterial when exiting the community. Next slide. Second, the plan should improve multimodal connectivity for people traveling between Baylands and the existing city of Brisbane. This figure from the Bayshore Mobility Plan illustrates gaps in the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks that the plan could close. Next slide. Third, and most importantly, as highlighted in the general plan, is to reduce Bayshore's role as a regional cut-through route and to make it function more like a street serving Brisbane residents and So this figure here illustrates that Bayshore and Tunnel Road have a combined six lanes today providing north-south access, with Bayshore taking the primary role for regional through traffic. Next slide. And this map illustrates the future that's envisioned within the general plan, where Geneva Avenue more directly connects to 101, thus providing a more direct route to US 101 from regional trips from Daly City and San Francisco. Further, the Sierra Point Parkway extension would provide an additional route for traffic parallel to US 101. So overall, fulfilling the general plan's vision would provide drivers more direct routes for regional traffic while maintaining at least the same number of north-south vehicle lanes through Brisbane. Next slide. And finally, the last two goals were to provide a safer, more comfortable corridor for all travelers and to improve the corridor's look and identity as a Brisbane street. Next slide. So additional studies have been completed since the previous EIR that can meet some of these goals. For example, in 2022, the city conducted a complete street safety assessment that evaluated a road diet concept for the southern portion of Bayshore. This is south of Old County. This would take it from four lanes to two lanes on that section, with the goal of improving safety, lowering vehicle speeds entering Brisbane from the south, and creating space for a multi-use pathway along the west side of the corridor connecting the Sierra Point trailer park to the rest of the city. So this really is intended to connect that area better also organize the parking area in that area better as well by providing more space for people to enter and exit the road. Next slide. Another study. that was finished recently was the city's local road safety plan, which identified changes to signals, lane widths, striping or hardening edges, and dynamic feedback signs. Some of these measures have now been implemented over the last year or two. And so while these measures have kind of a low to medium effectiveness on improving safety, they provide spot improvements, they do have little effect on reducing overall speeds or attractiveness to the through traffic. Other common roadway safety options for arterial roadways that provide greater safety benefits and could also reduce regional traffic include separating users through sidewalks or multi-use paths, replacing signals with roundabouts, reducing the number of lanes, or intersection features that narrow the crossing distance. Ultimately, because the local road safety plan did not achieve all the plan's goals, additional features were reviewed for the corridor. And sorry, next, one more slide. And these are the other common strategies that I mentioned for arterials. Next slide. So if Bayshore, that lane reduction on Bayshore from four to two lanes is continued from the section that was studied previously in 2022, north of Old County Road. Basically, this would provide a consistent cross-section for the entire corridor. And this would be more effective, it could reduce speeds to 35 miles an hour or below, making Bayshore less attractive as a regional cut-through route while still maintaining local access. The reclaimed roadway space could then allow for features such as a class one multi use path safer crossings median treatments transit improvements and emergency access features. Next slide. So, as I mentioned this reclaim space could allow for a continuous multi use path along Bay shore that could provide connectivity throughout along the entire length of. of Bayshore Boulevard, creating a lower stress route for people walking and biking throughout the city and also allows for better access to transit and safe routes to school near the Baylands. Next slide. And so there are specific intersection improvements as well that are identified in the plan and this location at Main Street, which is on the kind of the left side of the figure is the existing leg of Main Street and the Main Street would continue through into Baylands. And this is actually part of the mitigation measure for the Baylands specific plan. As this is intended to serve as a safe route to school connecting Bayshore Heights and Daly City to the Baylands with a school on either side. And so the design shown here with one lane in each direction reduces the distance that children and other pedestrians would need to cross by half. It also helps lower vehicle speeds as drivers entering a more active part of the city and provides protected areas for where people can can safely wait before crossing. These physical improvements would be paired with operational measures such as crossing guards during school hours. Stepping back this illustrates a broader point that as activity increases along the corridor, you know whether people walking biking. turning in and out of the Baylands on in vehicles, the current high speed conditions on Bayshore become increasingly incompatible with how those intersections will need to function to provide slow, safe access into the site. Next slide. So returning to these figures showing the example of how local versus regional contributions Um, with the road diet, uh, the kind of local traffic under existing and and future conditions with the balance would not exceed the road. The roads capacity. Um, next slide. Um, but once you add on the regional traffic. Under any scenario, you're going to see that regional traffic exceeds available capacity. However, with the road diet, it does achieve some of those goals of reducing the amount of regional vehicles that are traveling through the city by nearly 40% based on those projections. Next slide. so in conclusion returning to this chart looking at just future conditions and you know as the city evaluates what options that it could take with bayshore the city continues it's going to be faced with these very challenging set of issues where regional traffic and travel times are expected to increase as development happens outside of brisbane the bayshore mobility plan presents an option for reducing some of this regional traffic while providing safety improvements and multimodal travel options WHETHER THE CITY ADOPTS THIS PLAN OR EVALUATES OTHER PLANS FOR BAY SHORE, THEY WOULD ALL NEED TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BAYLANDS DEVELOPMENT, SUCH AS THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF WIDE CROSSINGS, FAST VEHICLE SPEEDS THROUGH THE BAYLANDS AREA. WITH THAT, OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.

YEAH. THANKS. WE'RE AT OUR NEXT SEGMENT.

Um, so regarding, uh, Bayshore and reducing it from two lanes each way to one. My concern with that is, um, traffic is a growing problem in the Bay Area, you know, and, um, and I feel like the city of Brisbane removing you know, regional through traffic by switching to one lane each way. I think it'll create, add to the traffic problem. I think we need to be working together, you know, in the Bay Area. I mean, if cities like Brisbane start to turn all their roads to one lane roads because they don't want through traffic, then I think we're putting on ourselves I think we're creating a detriment where what everybody gets pushed to one on one, you know, and you know, and I think that that just clogs things more on our roadways. And my other concern for residents of Brisbane is, you know, we have Crocker Park and we have all those semis coming from there. And when I go on Bay Shore, and I find myself in front of a semi, I'm glad there's an extra lane that I can move and go around the semi. So now if you change it into one lane, I'm stuck behind that semi and the exhaust, and God forbid, I'm sandwiched between two semis. And what if there's an accident? And there's not another lane for me to move to. I mean, I think that's a concern. So regionally and for local residents, I think doing this is more of a detriment than a benefit. At least that's how I see that. So that was one concern. The other concern is the concept of shared streets where you're allowing e-bikes, scooters, pedestrians, cars to share the same space. And that's very concerning for me in terms of safety issues, because I go to San Francisco a lot, and I see those scooters and those bikes. They don't stop for anyone. They don't even stop at stop signs most of the time. So if you're saying that we're going to create a space that allows all those modes of transportations to be used alongside families and children's and strollers and pets and people with mobility issues. I think it's a recipe for disaster. So that concept is very concerning for me. So as a safety issue, and I don't know if it was discussed, but as a potential liability issue for the city, if we approve something like this and someone gets hurt and it was, you know, a concept of traffic concept that we approved? Does that expose the city? So I would like that to be addressed as well. So that's it.

Really, would you like me to hop in here?

Yeah, if you could address the, the congestion concern and. Yeah, please do.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, 1st, 1st, for base, base, short mobility plan. Yeah. I mean, this is, this is really. Um, the, how much Brisbane takes the burden. Of regional traffic through its community is the 1 that specifically has been debated, you know, and and, you know, led to the general plan. Um, including that statement that, you know, regional traffic should should be moved out, particularly, you know, with this opportunity with, you know, Sierra Point Parkway. And as I discussed the Geneva Avenue, so that's a, that's a, that's a real. Real challenging trade off for the city. Um, how much. There's all the side effects, of course, of of. Fast traffic, the safety issues that I talked about, you know, safety, safety is primarily the result of speed of speeds, traffic speeds. And so fast traffic speeds where people operate is that creates that challenge. Air pollutants and other and noise and other stuff. So yeah, that's, that's, that's, that's the core core of the decision that the city has debated for many years. Let me just talk briefly about the green streets, because just to clarify, these are very short local streets. They're basically one block long. The design standards, the reason why this would not be any different than building any other street typology is because it's an accepted design standard that is acknowledged because they don't end up having safety issues because they have design, they have design requirements such as horizontal and vertical deflection. And what that means is that you'll have, for example, like a raised crosswalk entering the neighborhood block. The neighborhood block will be short enough and there will be parking on one side versus the other side. So the speeds are limited to 10 to 15 miles an hour in this type of street. And that's what the design standards are based on. So Brisbane has accepted Caltrans Highway Design Manual as its design manual for its streets. So it wouldn't be doing anything new by accepting this type of street with respect to um liability or deviating from things and nor would are they designed so that people can go fast and through and with with high speeds so i hope that clarifies what how how those would actually function so you're saying that they're no longer than one block because i thought from the maps they go for longer than that You'll notice on the maps that there's one block on either side. There's basically right turn in and out from the major corridors. It's really just four people on that one block who are coming in and out. So you're talking about several dozen houses depending on the density of whether it's townhomes or apartments.

Okay.

And the plan does provide through routes. It has separated bike facilities, for example, on Baylands Boulevard through the site. So that's where if you are going through farther distances, you would travel on a street like that where you're separated from people walking and biking because it's kind of the difference between a local street versus a through street.

My question or concern is similar to the Commissioner's. In reducing the lane volume by half on Bayshore to reduce the speeds for safety, Well, first of all, I don't think for a lot of residents here in the city are probably in favor of reducing those lanes because of the concerns for traffic. But there must be other alternatives to reducing the speed than taking away half the lanes. Whether it be more traffic lights or something else, I mean, there must be some other alternatives.

Yeah. Sorry, thank you, Commissioner. Yes. And what you one thing you just highlighted is more more traffic lights. One of the features of Bayshore is long distances between signals. So cars have a long, long time to accelerate. And particularly coming down into the Baylands area near Main Street, you're coming down a hill. It is very easy to pick up speed there. And there's the toolbox of like engineering measures that are available to reduce speeds for four lane cross section when you have a long wide distance are pretty limited to the measures that I that I did present, you know, roundabout slows slows vehicle vehicles as they go into it, reducing travel lanes does signal density would be another thing, but there's no there's no roadways. there's still going to be a long distance between intersections. So that is really the challenge on Bayshore Boulevard in its design.

With installation of signals, you do shorten the distance, so you don't have these long straightaways for drivers to generate that speed. So why is that not a possibility?

It would, like with the Baylands, like putting signals that there's like two new signals south of Geneva. So there'd be two signals. They're still, the spacing is, you know, over a thousand feet. Typically you have to get it down to say like under 500, 300 feet, somewhere in that range, like a city block type of scale to really get those benefits. But There certainly would be some benefits from providing two new signals on Bayshore as a part of the Baylands project. And options could be evaluated to what other locations are there to continue to slow vehicles. Yeah, it's a challenging configuration to slow speeds based on engineering toolboxes.

Thank you. I have a couple questions on the same issues. Going back to the green shared streets for a minute, and I'm not being flipped, but it would be interesting to see how a Waymo pulls in there and deals with pedestrians and bikes and scooters and vehicles and cars coming in and out of driveways. Where do Amazon trucks, are there provisions for delivery trucks to be able to pull out of the main flow? I'm hearing yeses to that, but we're mixing up a lot of uses, and I have concerns. We're hearing from you guys that this is becoming an accepted design standard. which I have to take on faith. I haven't seen one, so I just can't comment on that. Leaving that aside for a minute, Bayshore, there's a place in, I think it's chapter 13, page 46, where it says that you predict that traffic volume would be reduced by 40% by going from two lanes down to one. And I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm sure there are other factors I'm ignoring. But that leaves 60% of the volume on 50% of the lanes you used to have. That translates to me to more congestion, particularly at peak hours. So I'm concerned that we're gaining, perhaps, in safety, but losing life quality issues by making things more congested during the times that things get really busy, plus add on a lot of trucks that are a fact of life in Brisbane. Totally get and commend the design features that add a real sidewalk on all of Bayshore. We've been needing that for a long, long time, and bike lane and all that sort of thing. It's only on one side of the street, but that's probably a right-of-way room issue, and I get that. But that's a safety issue that is great, and I think would take care of a lot of people's concerns. The speed on... I'm on Bayshore probably four or five times a week. I occasionally see somebody going a little fast, but I don't see freeway speeds. Maybe I'm lucky. But I think putting up a couple of... speed cameras somewhere along there, and I'm sure Brisbane PD would know exactly where they'd go best, would pay for themselves in a matter of months, and that'd be a part of a solution that doesn't congest our streets further. So that's my two cents. If there's any, I don't mean to, there wasn't a question there, but if you have some response that elicits, I'd be happy to hear it.

Yeah, I think the challenge that the city has faced is, you know, congestion and travel times get a lot worse. Use whatever kind of in these in the traffic forecast of the future. And yeah, travel times get worse and you know, basically regional regional traffic that fills the capacity. So It really depends on how much, yes, on how much regional traffic is going through it. Yes, travel times will increase under any scenario. They may increase more if under two-lane scenario. There are certainly design features at the turning movements and stuff like that in and out of Crocker Park will accommodate trucks, so trucks will be good. THERE'S EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION AND OTHER FEATURES TO HELP EMERGENCY VEHICLES THAT COULD MOVE ALONG THE CORRIDOR. BUT, YEAH, HOW MUCH VEHICLE, REGIONAL VEHICLE TRAFFIC IS ULTIMATELY THE QUESTION.

THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE QUESTION I FORGOT TO ASK IN THE LAST SEGMENT AND I APOLOGIZE. MAYBE I CAN SLIP IT IN. This is about the, it was actually in the general responses to comments section about battery capacity for the project in terms of energy self-sufficiency. And I think I read a note that the 250 megawatt battery storage facility is not actually a project requirement. It was simply I guess a design proposal or a suggestion. I'm not sure. Can anybody address that? That sounds to me

Like a significant factor in energy self-sufficiency, and if it's not going to get built it's not there That is accurate that the 250 utility scale battery is not a requirement of the project and Its operation was not considered in the EIR as part of the energy analysis so in other words the project with its distributed battery and solar distributed solar and utility scale solar and other design features would still be extremely efficient and provide More than half of the demand more than half of the onsite consumption will be provided by onsite generation and that's independent of the regional battery. So, having the utility scale battery would. Would increase that potential, um, onsite and also serve as a regional grid resource, but it is not. It is not part. It is not a requirement of the project. That is correct.

Did I misunderstand that this project is supposed to be 100% energy self-sufficient?

The project is not 100% energy self-sufficient.

OK. OK.

It's about half at full build out.

My mistake. I think that's all the questions I have on this site.

Thank you very much. Just one more follow up on the Bayshore lane reduction. Just a thought, so if you added traffic lights or stop signs or whatever to slow down traffic, If it made the road conditions or travel less favorable for regional traffic, wouldn't they theoretically find alternative ways of going through, like using 101, so we don't have to cut down those lanes?

Yeah, any features that reduce the attractiveness so that people can drive 45, 55 miles an hour through the community would have the effect of discouraging people from driving through the community. So I think, yes, you're touching on there's a variety of different options. The most effective would be a road diet. Other ones could be signals, roundabouts, what have you, but different options. intersection control changes. And yeah, you're ultimately trying to keep them on 101, particularly as the buildout of Geneva Avenue is finished.

Okay. Any other questions on mobility?

I don't think so. Thank you.

Okay. All right. We'll move on then to next slide. Okay. So that's concluding the substantive presentation tonight. Next slide, please. So just reiterating what's ahead of you all. June 25th is the first public hearing, only notice public hearing that we have for the specific plan and final EIR. So that's the public hearing at which the commission will be presented with staff's recommendation and asked to consider formal action on those applications as well as the general plan amendments and zoning amendments that accompany the approval of the specific plan. as we discussed last time. it's ultimately up to the commission's discretion to determine if they need to continue the hearing so if that is the case we had shared some dates that we had already confirmed are available for any continuances and i can repeat them tonight so those dates would be june 30th which would be a special meeting if if scheduled july 9th which is a regularly scheduled meeting july 14th is also available for a special meeting if needed Um, so, yeah, ultimately, if if the commission determines that's necessary, the public hearing would be continued to a specific date that you would identify at the June 25 public hearing. Next slide please.

Thank you.

Okay, so just go over again the components of the project that Commission will be considering. So obviously the specific plan, the related general plan amendments, which would impact the land use element and circulation element, those are intended to bring those elements into consistency, ensure consistency between the specific plan and general plan. There are also zoning amendments that would be required, so namely adopting a Brisbane specific plan zoning designation and applying that to the specific plan area. Putting it in the zoning essentially that the specific plan is the governing zoning document for development within the specific plan area. AND THEN, AGAIN, JUST TOUCHING ON TONIGHT'S FOCUS ON THE EIR, I WANT TO REITERATE THAT EACH OF THOSE PROJECT COMPONENTS THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE CONSIDERING WERE ANALYZED IN THE EIR. SO THE PROJECT IS THE WHOLE OF THE ACTION. SO ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS YOU GUYS WOULD BE CONSIDERING WERE EVALUATED IN THE EIR. AND WE DID TOUCH ON THIS LAST TIME, I'LL JUST REPEAT, NOT ALL COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION. Um, so, namely those that are not related to planning or zoning actions, so we listed these before I'll reiterate them. So, relocation of the Brisbane fire station establishment of a middle school. Um, those are examples of things that do require city approval, but aren't. Um, won't be presented before the commission for formal recommendation. So, in addition to the general plan and zoning regulations that we touched on, that would be required to implement the specific plan approval. As we discussed last time, this project will involve a development agreement. which is subject to the Commission's review as well as approval by Council. And as a reminder, development agreements are contracts. So it's a contract between the City and the developer that crystallizes the rights and responsibilities in connection with future development between those two parties. Development agreements are adopted by ordinance. SO THEY'RE REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION FOR ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, AND THE COUNCIL WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEFORE COUNCIL TAKES FINAL ACTION. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PREPARED COMMENTS.

I HAVE A QUESTION THAT MIGHT BE OBVIOUS, BUT IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE JUST FOR ONE SECOND, PLEASE. THANK YOU. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT I ASSUME WOULD BE AT A DIFFERENT STAGE IN THE PROCESS. WE'D HAVE TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS AND THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD ALSO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT CERTIFICATION BEFORE YOU CAN DEVELOP AN AGREEMENT BASED ON THAT RESCOPED PROJECT.

CORRECT? I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INVOLVED CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, IS THAT THE SCENARIO YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT?

YES.

Okay, well, if that was the case, then well, 1st, the council is going to act on the development agreement prior to taking final action on the specific plan. So, if there's anything negotiated in the development agreement. That impacts the specific plan council would incorporate. You know, revisions the specific plan to make those things consistent, um, into their, um. Into their ordinance or motion approving the project. And I don't know, Eric, if you have any other kind of guiding language for them on that.

Yeah, in general, the development agreement involves some of the timing mechanisms, some implementation mechanisms, but it doesn't involve physical changes that are different than what's already been analyzed in the final EIR. So it's anticipated that it's part of the overall project. The environmental impacts won't change, though it is correct that the development agreement is not yet done, so that will come back to the Commission at a separate hearing, apart from when you've begun your work to look at the zoning general plan, specific plan and EIR recommendations, though, as Director Ayers was just saying, we will be looking for your recommendation on that BEFORE THE WHOLE PACKAGE GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HEARD YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THOUGHT ON THE ENTIRE PACKAGE BEFORE THEY START TAKING ANY ACTIONS.

THANK YOU.

THAT HELPS. THANKS.

OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES YOUR PRESENTATION?

IT DOES.

THANK YOU. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR ALL THE WORK. A LOT IN THERE. We have public comment time?

At your discretion, we do.

We certainly will take some public comments. I have one slip request for public comments. Are there any others from the folks here present? OK, I see about four hands, so we'll get to this. But I would ask if there's anybody at home who wishes to comment, can you please raise your hand electronically so we can keep a head count and get to you folks in due course.

We have one attendee with their hands raised online.

Okay, we'll get to that too. If I can ask you, as we did the last hearing, to try to limit your remarks to about two minutes, just to let everybody have a chance and get everybody home at a reasonable hour. The first speaker who gets to speak is the one who fell out of slip, and that's Clara Johnson.

Good evening, with regard to the mobility plan that you are discussing, I think that closing down two lanes of Bayshore is a disastrous idea. You are adding two lanes over by the airport for the connector, I understand that. We live on a peninsula with a mountain in the middle. In an emergency, you have 800,000 people who will be trying to, if they have to get out of San Francisco, how will they do it? How many ways do they have? How many roadways are they? We're very few. And that is a dangerous situation. I imagine if you talk, have you run this by San Francisco just to see since you're affecting them in a great way? You're affecting South San Francisco, creating a horrible, I have to stop talking because I have a lot of other things to say. But I really hope you will not approve that. And I understand perhaps some of it has already been approved. I don't believe the public is aware of that. I think you can fill the room when they learn what is planned. So the best alternative I think would be at least what we have available to us would be the environmentally superior one. I think that there's a lot of detail that isn't taken care of. Well, there's a lot of detail that is taken care of, but there's many things that aren't said. You don't seem to have any information to speak of from the regulators. It seems like there's monitoring going on right now. There has been monitoring going on for quite a while, and it's all available to you through EnviroStore and GeoTracker, and I would say that it would be a good idea for you to invite the project directors of OU2, the landfill, and also OU1, which is now called OUSM. And the HRA, the Health Risk Assessment, It doesn't say anything about the fact that there are literally dozens and dozens of chemicals and they are simply not mentioned because the way they would access, the people would be exposed to them would be through the air touch or ingesting them. And that is less likely, but it isn't impossible. That's why they're monitoring all the time. They have to monitor for perhaps 30 years, perhaps more. It depends on what the figures say as to how much of the chemicals are there. And when will you notify the people who have accounts on the water that they're gonna get a new water source? Are they gonna be even notified at all? Is there any, does that have to be done? When are you gonna talk to the Division of Drinking Water of the Water Resources Board in Santa Clara? to tell them what you're planning to do. It's kind of like water is gonna be unbelievably more important than it ever has because it's gonna be less and less available. And I think that everything has to be looked at in a context. You can't look at Brisbane as something that dropped out of the sky and happened to land on a peninsula. We're not in the valley, the Livermore Valley, where you can go in all directions and perhaps with too many hills interrupting you from building more roads. This is not that place. And I think that that's what's so terrible about that other... suggestion that you had. You needed more than one mitigation monitor. You need to require that the developer stage things in such a way so that they're not putting the maximum pressure on the monitors. And you need more people. You need ways to control their behavior. You need ways to stop the work if it's necessary and they're kind of going wild. And it's kind of, how are you gonna do that? You know, things can be built and arranged. You have to want to do that. You have to have insight into the future that this is not 2D. This is a three-dimensional project that we have to have more control over, and we don't have enough. In some places, you have great control over it. And in some places, you're not taking into account how the world is changing, how fast do things change. there are going to be more alternatives, more methodologies that you can use to do these things. So once people say things like, well, this is not feasible, what does that mean? What does significant mean? Every time you think of these words, how much of an impact are you gonna have on people? I would assume that the purpose of this is so that the human beings who live here and around Brisbane would be well served by everything that you're trying to do. I think that's your goal. But I think that, I think the paper version and the 3D version is at odds and there needs to be a lot more. Defining, what's a data center? You're not gonna have data centers? What does that exactly mean? I've been looking into data centers and it's kind of like, it needs to be defined. The innovation center, over proposed for the of Valley Drive area in the quarry is a planned data center. That's what they have in their marketing materials. There's not what they're telling the city, something rather different. But I think that you need to define things. Maybe it'll be called an innovation center. You have to put some statistics with it about what will you be doing that is different from a data center, even if you don't call yourself that. And the cost of handling long-term maintenance is not covered.

If I can ask you to please sum up.

Well, I would say one thing. I think that... You know, when you have five sections, it might be nice if you let people speak at the end of each segment. I understand you're controlling it in a way that maybe makes sense because you are allowing yourselves to take in the information and ask questions. But having comments at the end of each segment would be helpful for people who want to participate.

Thank you.

Thank you. Who else had their hand up? This lady right here.

I will try to be concise. First, I also do agree that having the commentary segment by segment, even if it's only submitting written questions over the internet, would be very helpful. As far as water, we have currently a $100 sewer surcharge on our city utility bills that comes through basically every month, a couple hundred dollars for sewage costs in each bi-monthly bill. I did not see how the sewage outputs from the planned Baylands construction was going to be going or whether it would in any way increase the needs for our own sewage infrastructure, but I would very much hope that that information is available long before we start construction. As far as remediation, vapors of concern is something that would probably need to be monitored in every residential unit and probably also every commercial unit. Without that, the residents are basically potentially getting poisoned without even realizing it. I would assume they'd put some sort of monitoring structure in each basement and provide the reports on that on a monthly basis to their residents. As far as noise, I didn't hear a peep about how the noise would go on all night long, but I did hear that construction could continue during the night. And speaking as somebody with sensitive hearing who is kept awake by the airplanes until late in the night and starts up early in the morning, I'd really hate to find that the last five hours was destroyed by their pile driving. Speaking of the immobility plan, I'd really rather that my 30 to 45 minute commute to the city each day and back each way didn't turn into an hour and a quarter. I get the impression that that is something that's going to be happening based on their design and unlike regional traffic, which could theoretically find alternate routes, we are a captive market. We're going to have to put up with anything they do. Let's see, and landfill, we don't really care. Aging grid substation. I didn't hear that their power would be independent, and I was wondering if it would be routed north into San Francisco or south, and their power usage would run through our own grid substation, which basically fails every time somebody looks at it funny. At least a half a dozen times a year during windy nights more often. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Can I see hands again, please? This gentleman here.

Hi, I'm Frank Cohen. Moved to Brisbane about three years ago from Campbell in the South Bay. I think this is a wonderful community, especially the arts that happen here. There is a group of artists that meet once a month that is kind of like an artist support group. I haven't seen anything like that in the rest of the Bay Area. THE NIGHT OF ARTIST SHARING, WHICH IS HELD ONCE A YEAR, IS AN AMAZING RESOURCE FOR ALL OF THE ARTISTS THAT ARE HERE. AND SO I WAS CONCERNED WHEN I LOOKED AT THE FEIR PAGE 4.3, SECTION 63, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE PUBLIC ART FUNDING IS GOING TO BE REDUCED BY ABOUT HALF COMPARED TO THE NORMAL BRISBANE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS. And I'm just trying to figure out why. So some of the reduced funding can be directed towards restoring the roundhouse, which was one of the first things that I noticed when I moved here. I was thinking like, wow, I took a bunch of pictures and it just seemed like such an interesting old historic building. So it's cool that funds are being kind of earmarked for that restoration, but overall the developers of this that are gonna be required under this FEIR are gonna basically be spending half as much as they do currently And it seemed from talking to some of the old timers here in Brisbane that that little allotment of money for public art was really hard fought. So I'm here to urge that we basically don't do this. It seems like the FEIR appears to be weighing a trade off. It's like less money for public art overall. but some money can be used to preserve a major historic landmark. And I would hope that we could continue with the existing amount of spend on public art because it makes the life and living here just all that much better. So thank you for letting me express myself about this.

Thank you. Appreciate it. The lady in the purple sweater.

By remarks for time, the two minutes, 30 seconds, let's see how I do. So the Baylands, Cynthia Gomez, by the way, a unit here local too, the Hotel Workers Union and Hospitality Workers Union. The Baylands specific plan has serious issues related to its jobs, housing imbalance, the toxicity, and greenhouse gas emissions. Tonight I will focus on the first and third. LAST MEETING I SHARED NUMBERS ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL PART OF THE PROJECT CREATING AN ESTIMATED NEED FOR 5468 BMR HOUSING UNITS WHILE PROVIDING ONLY 330. IT GETS WORSE. EACH 100 MARKET RATE UNITS CREATES A NEED FOR OVER 30 BMR UNITS ACCORDING TO A 2016 SAN FRANCISCO ANALYSIS. Applying that pattern here, the estimated 1,870 units of market rate housing in the Baylands would create a need for another 561 BMR units. So altogether, the project would create a need for 6,029 BMR units while providing only 330. That's a nearly 5,700 housing unit-sized hole that would impact the entire region. And on whom would that impact fall the hardest? On low-wage workers, such as but not limited to hotel and hospitality workers. This displacement will have an environmental impact that's inadequately discussed in the. The articulates these impacts and talks about longer commutes contributing to higher VMT marshals these concepts to support the idea that the balance project will fix these issues, but then ignores that 5700 housing unit size whole. As the project worsens the regional jobs housing imbalance, more and more working class residents will be pushed to far flung exurbs such as Antioch and Tracy. As this happens, not only will they be uprooted, but their long commutes will contribute to increased GHG emissions. The DIR concluded that those emissions alone, never mind the displacement impacts, would be significant and unavoidable, producing 51,260 metric tons of CO2 annually at full build out. The DIR listed numerous mitigations that would make a huge dent in that, I'll try to speed up, while still not bringing it below the threshold of significance. And then apparently in response to pressure from developer advocates such as Housing Action Coalition and Yimby Law, The FEIR just deleted the significance conclusion that a whole chunk of the associated mitigation measures were gone. And gone was the energy neutrality of the project that voters thought they were guaranteeing through Measure JJ. So please reduce the amount of commercial development, restore the GHG impact and the mitigations associated with it, and address the environmental impacts of displacement. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes.

I WASN'T GOING TO SAY ANYTHING, BUT I JUST HAVE TO MENTION THIS BAY SHORE SITUATION. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID, PAMELA. AND IN SAN FRANCISCO, THEY'VE REDUCED THE TRAFFIC LANES ALL OVER THE CITY, MAINLY THE MAIN ROUTES TO THE BAY BRIDGE, GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE. They've reduced the lanes and put in bus lanes. Well, they had the bus lanes, but anyway, the bus lanes gave them priority and the bike lanes. So I drive through there. The bike lanes are empty. The buses are empty. It's gridlocked traffic because people are still going to the Golden Gate Bridge or to the Bay Bridge. It doesn't stop the traffic. They're just trying to control They want people out of cars onto bikes and it just doesn't work. So the traffic gridlock is much worse by reducing lanes. And I agree with everything that was said about if you reduce the lanes on the Bayshore, the traffic is still gonna be there and it's gonna go somewhere else. It's like water kind of, they'll find other ways. So I just had to mention that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers in the room? Can we go online to see who wants to speak?

Yes, we have one online speaker, Michelle Salmon. Michelle, you have been unmuted.

Thank you. I understand the conundrum we're up against. Tuntext, Universal Paragon, Brisbane Baylands Development Inc., or whatever name they're going by now, is anxious to get their entitlements, their entitlements to build. Whether they actually do it or not, I don't know. They haven't so far for the entitlements they've already gotten. But we need to take this really seriously. I feel all of a sudden like we're being pushed and rushed and crushed. because they want their entitlements. And there's all this issues in the state about housing. But this is really not a very complete draft EIR. The draft EIR that I read didn't match with the specific plan that I read. And there's a lot of things that are wrong with it. I'm really concerned about it. And I feel like we're pushing this through. without really proper study by the Planning Commission, without proper study by the people of Brisbane really knowing what's going on. The thought of taking Bayshore down to two lanes is crazy. We have traffic coming in from Guadalupe, we have the Crocker Industrial Park, we have a potential high traffic development in the quarry, and we have Amazon. where Van Waters and Rogers used to be. And we also have a sea level rise where you need to contend with, and it's coming a lot faster than we think it is. So I know that you're doing your due diligence and you asked very great questions tonight. Please listen to everything that Clara said. She knows where the bodies are buried more than anyone. She's done the bulk of the heavy lifting on this project for the last 30 years. This is really a serious issue for Brisbane, a serious safety issue, a serious financial issue. and a serious squeeze issue. And like Claire said, we would be trapped. And many San Franciscans would be trapped. And I've seen what it's like when Bayshore is closed and the freeway is closed and you can't go anywhere. So I appreciate the Planning Commission. I appreciate the city staff. Please do your job to the best of your ability and do not be pushed and do not be rushed. Thank you so much. More to come.

Thank you. Anybody else online?

No other hands are raised.

Thank you. Can I ask the staff a question while we're still here? Sure.

Can I just ask a quick question? The chair, is your mic on?

I just had a curiosity. During a remediation, if there were some sensors that, like let's say they were doing construction, and one of the sensors went off with, you know, higher toxicity level or something that they were noticing. What's the plan of action, you know, especially if they've built that unit, that area?

I assume you're talking about vapor intrusion? Yes, anything. What the DTSC and the Water Board will require for each of the structures that are built is they do a vapor test inside the habitable space of the structure to figure out what is the particular concentrations in there. If they're above regulatory action levels, then that site owner has to do some sort of mitigation to drop those levels down or you can't occupy the building.

Right, I understand that. So where do the occupants of that building go? And how is that rectified in a reasonable manner? Or can you get vapor intrusion because you're doing construction at a site 500 yards further down that's causing that?

My understanding is they do the study before occupancy. So you have to go and test the air inside your habitable space, make sure that it's safe. And if it's not, then it will allow you to occupy the space. There's not an after for it. You test it before you allow people to live in there.

So once it's tested and it's supposedly within a reasonable level, acceptable level, then there's no more further testing that's needed?

I don't know if they do any follow-up testing or not. I can look into that.

Yeah, so you're asking about ongoing monitoring, right? So once these residential units or commercial units are built and a sensor, a monitoring sensor were to be triggered because of, it sounds like you're near scenario, some sort of construction, something's happening. Could be, but maybe not a construction impact. Then what is the course of action? Yeah, it sounds like we'll get back with more information on that. Through the chair, oh, sorry.

You previously referred to some ongoing monitoring that will be done on various different topics. I guess the issue is would this kind of vapor sensitivity be one of the issues that is subject to continuing monitoring? So that's just restating the question, I guess.

Yeah, thank you. Okay. Thank you. Through the chair, are there any other questions? responses that you want staff to make if possible based on the public comment um I had one one comment I could share if you are open to it um so I just want to address the uh comments we heard on the public art fee so the final EIR is analyzing the developers 2025 specific plan right It also evaluates other alternatives. The staff 2026 recommended specific plan does not carry forward the proposal in the 2025 plan to deviate from the public art ordinance as it is. CURRENTLY APPLIES AND IS APPLICABLE. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN CONTAINS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE PUBLIC ART ORDINANCE TO BE APPLIED AS IT IS IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY, NOT AS PROPOSED IN THE 2025 VERSION OF THE PLAN.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. APPRECIATE IT. AS TO THE DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS YOU WERE DISCUSSING, BY THE WAY, THE It is quite likely, I think, that we will need to continue the initial hearing for further discussion. And to use those dates, I'm available for all the subsequent dates. I regret I will be unable to make the June 25th hearing for long-planned family obligations. But I'll be here for all the rest of them. Okay, thank you. Are there any other items initiated by staff?

Um, I will. Announce as we did at the last meeting, I believe that the June 18th council meeting will take up the open space element update. That you all saw in May, so that is next Thursday and I think those are all the items I'll share tonight. Thanks. Thank you.

Any commissioner have any items to initiate. All right. In that case, we will stand adjourned until the next regular meeting on June 25th. Thank you.

so so