Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Amen.

YES, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SAYASAN. HERE. COMMISSIONER WADZIAK.

HERE.

AND ACTING CHAIR FUNKA.

HERE.

LET THE RECORDS SHOW THAT COMMISSIONERS GOODDING AND LAU ARE ABSENT.

MAY I PLEASE HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA?

SO MOVED.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?

AYE.

AYE. THE MOTION PASSES WITH THREE AYES. Next on the agenda is oral communications. And this is for any members of the public who wish to address the commission on topics that are not on the agenda tonight. So just see if anyone would like to do that. And seeing none, let's move on to written communications. We did receive a binder of written communications, which Which we acknowledge, and I'll just briefly summarize, we received comments from Erin Becker on the Dark Skies Ordinance and how that would apply in the Baylands. Prioritization of native plantings and other elements of the specific plan from Michelle Bouchard from Caltrain. who was supportive of the value of transit-oriented development in the Baylands. And then there were several comments from Anthony Walker, who I think is one of the folks who's going to comment tonight, and from Alison Folk on greenhouse gas emissions impacts and how those impacts were assessed in the EIR, and also comments on the displacement impacts of commercial development in the Baylands. was a comment from diane glassman on the public arts advisor who's on the public arts advisory committee basically in support and having some comments on the implementation of public arts provision in the baylands from ali sapirman from the housing action coalition um requesting that we move swiftly and remove arbitrary constraints on the housing production, or what we call arbitrary constraints. And finally, Ariel Trubowski of the Mission Blue Nursery, who had comments on the proposed relocation of the nursery site. And that's all that I'm aware of. Staff, were there any more that were received? I think this was as of about 5 this afternoon.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. There were additional written correspondence submitted from Chute Mihaly, apologies for my Weinberger and that was the final document that we had there was an additional comment provided by shoot Mihaly Weinberger related to the final environmental impact report okay the agenda item this evening is a public hearing on the Bayland sub-area environmental review and

2021 ER1 specific plan, 2021 SP1 zoning amendment, 2021 RZ3 and a general plan amendment, 2021 GPA2. And the public hearing here is essentially to hear from members of the community about any one of these this evening. So the way this will go tonight is that there will be a presentation from staff, which will kind of recap some of the workshops that we've had and just to provide some background on the project. Then we'll open the public hearing. And the first part of that will be an opportunity for the applicant to say a few words. And then we'll open the public hearing to hear from members of the community. So with that, let's hear a presentation from staff.

Yes, thank you chair and commission. So tonight, as stated, you'll be holding a public hearing on the various entitlement applications and other related actions associated with the balance specific plan, which would establish a regulatory framework for build out of a mixed use neighborhood in the balance sub area within the city of Brisbane. The future of the balance has been a topic of Community concern and dialogue for more than a generation as development of this large and highly visible site has the potential to change Brisbane dramatically. These concerns, along with concerns regarding safety of the site and other environmental issues on this former landfill and rail yard, have informed the city's thoughtful and comprehensive planning effort for the sub area over the past 20 plus years. This has involved multiple environmental impact reports, public hearings, workshops, community meetings, community surveys, general plan amendments, and a ballot measure. POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING THE LAND USE FRAMEWORK FOR THE BAYLAND SUB AREA WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2018 THROUGH AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-1-18, WHICH WAS RATIFIED BY THE VOTERS AS MEASURE JJ. THE BAYLAND SPECIFIC PLAN NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND OTHER RELATED PLANNING APPROVALS REPRESENT THE CULMINATING STEP IN THE DECADES LONG PLANNING EFFORT FOR THE BAYLANDS AND IT'S A CRITICAL MILESTONE FOR THE CITY AND THIS COMMUNITY. Next slide. Okay, so tonight, staff and consultants presentation will provide an overview of the requested entitlements from the applicant, Baylands Development Inc. or BDI, an overview of the final EIR, additional information regarding remediation at the project site, including regulatory involvement and measures implemented to ensure effective remediation. an overview of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and a summary of the actions staff is recommending the Planning Commission take relative to the entitlement applications. AS A REMINDER, THE PROJECT TEAM CONSISTS OF VARIOUS CITY STAFF AND CONSULTANTS. SO THE CITY OF BRISBAYNE IS THE LEAD AGENCY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, OR CEQA, WITH THE PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPROVING THE BAYLANDS DEVELOPMENT. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IS LEADING THE PROJECT'S REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND APPROVAL PROCESS. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, OR ESA, IS SERVING AS THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANT FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN IN EIR. ESA technical specialists include a bevy of very qualified individuals, environmental planners, engineers, biologists, historians, archaeologists, air quality, GHG, and noise specialists, geologists, hydrologists, water resources, and hazardous materials experts. For the EIR, ESA serves as an extension of city staff to assist in CEQA compliance. So tonight, staff is joined by the following ESA specialists listed here on the slide who are available to both present materials and answer questions in Q&A following staff's presentation. I do want to note we're also joined by staff from EKI who are consultants to the city who have prepared peer review of the remedial action plans, landfill closure plans, and other related documents on behalf of the city to state regulatory agencies. SO THE COMMISSION IS TASKED WITH CONSIDERING SEVERAL PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND FORWARDING ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW IS THE BRISBANE BAYLAND SPECIFIC PLAN. OTHER RELATED PLANNING ACTIONS THAT REQUIRE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN AS WELL AS ZONING REGULATIONS AND TITLE 17 TO BRING THEM INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN. and provide direction to Council on mobility enhancements to Bayshore Boulevard contained in the Bayshore Mobility Plan. At a subsequent public hearing, the Commission will also consider and make a recommendation to Council on a Development Agreement, or DA, between the City and the applicant BDI. The DA is not before the Commission tonight. This evening, a separate public hearing will be noticed for the Commission's consideration of the DA. And finally, as a precursor to making its recommendations on the specific plan and other entitlements, the Commission will also consider the final environmental impact report or final EIR prepared for the project. This may be a familiar slide, but just to give a broad overview, the Brisbane Bayland specific plan will be the regulatory framework to guide development over time within the Bayland sub area consistent with the general plan. As a reminder, the specific plan is not the final design of a specific building or a prescription of how each building will be designed, nor does it dictate how open space and other recreation areas are to be programmed. THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND FIGURES IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN ARE ILLUSTRATIVE. THE SPECIFIC PLAN BALANCES POLICY DIRECTION WITH FUTURE ADAPTABILITY BY OUTLINING SPECIFIC LAND USES, INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DESIGN STANDARDS TO INFORM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. THE SPECIFIC PLAN ESTABLISHES REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUB AREA WITH 1800 TO 2200 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE SITE, 6.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES, 500,000 SQUARE FEET OF HOTEL USES, A MIDDLE SCHOOL, A VARIETY OF UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT, SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS INCLUDING A WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, WATER STORAGE, SWITCHING SUBSTATION, BATTERY STORAGE AND SOLAR FARM. AND OVER 150 ACRES OF CONSERVED, RESTORED AND ENHANCED HABITAT AS WELL AS ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PARKS AND RECREATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS. THE SPECIFIC PLAN THE COMMISSION IS CONSIDERING TONIGHT IS THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN. THIS WAS PUBLISHED ON MAY 14TH OF THIS YEAR ALONGSIDE THE FINAL EIR. THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN IS EVALUATED IN THE FINAL EIR AS MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE ONE. The 2026 staff recommended plan revises the 2025 plan prepared by the applicant. That's the plan that was described and evaluated in the. The commission hosted a workshop on May 28th at which staff and consultants provided an in depth overview of the history of the site, major milestones and project planning since 2005. And the 2026 staff recommended specific plan, these are all addressed in detail in the agenda report in tonight's packet and attachments 5 and 7. As discussed discussed at that workshop, the 2026 staff recommended specific plan adjust the applicants land use program and development standards to align with mitigation measures and city ordinances and policies. MANY OF THESE REVISIONS ARE PROCEDURAL OR ORGANIZATIONAL IN NATURE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CERTAINTY AND CLARITY AND FACILITATE STAFF'S ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN OVER TIME. KEY REFINEMENTS ARE HIGHLIGHTED HERE ON THIS SLIDE. AND AGAIN, A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN ITSELF IS IN ATTACHMENT 7 TO TONIGHT'S AGENDA REPORT. So coming out of the May 28th workshop, several key topic areas of interest emerged from both the public and the Commission. So those includes topics related to transportation and mobility, environmental and infrastructure, land use and development, and implementation and the public process. So moving on to the other related actions the Commission is being asked to consider tonight. To ensure consistency between the general plan and the specific plan, the commission will consider amendments to the. Title 17 of the municipal code, the zoning ordinance. THIS WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS OF LAND WITHIN THE BAYLAND SUB AREA OR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FROM THEIR PRESENT DESIGNATIONS TO BAYLAND SPECIFIC PLAN OR BSP. WE WOULD ALSO ESTABLISH THE LAND USE REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AS THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY GOVERNING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLAN AREA. AND FINALLY, IT WOULD DELETE CHAPTER 17.41 WHICH ADDRESSES INTERIM USES IN THE BAYLANDS AREA AS THE SPECIFIC PLAN ADDRESSES INTERIM USES. THE COMMISSION WILL ALSO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO REALIGN THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE BAYLAND SUB AREA AND THE BAYTIE SUB AREA TO MATCH THE BOUNDARY SHOWN IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. AND WOULD AMEND THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO REALIGN LAGOON ROAD to directly access the southbound US 101 freeway ramps at Sierra Point Parkway. Extend Sierra Point Parkway from its current terminus all the way north to Geneva. Add proposed Baylands roadways to the general plan circulation map. Designate the Geneva Avenue extension through the Baylands as a regional arterial and add a new roadway type for green local streets. A copy of the proposed amendments, the general plan and zoning ordinance are included in the agenda packet as well, attachments one and two. And finally, the commission will consider approval of the base or mobility plan, or BMP in conjunction with its consideration of the specific plan. The BMP was developed by the city's consultants fair and peers to address general plan policy. C1 and its associated program, which were adopted in 2019 under general plan amendment. GP dash 1 dash 19. ADOPTION OF MEASURE JJ. THIS GENERAL PLAN POLICY DIRECTS THE CITY TO STUDY THE DESIGN OF BAYSHORE BOULEVARD TO PRIORITIZE LOCAL ACCESS, MULTIMODAL TRAVEL AND REDUCED VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND REDUCE HEAVY REGIONAL CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD WHERE MOST VEHICLES HAVE NO ORIGIN OR DESTINATION IN BRISBANE AND TO IMPROVE SAFETY AND MOBILITY FOR RESIDENTS. As a 1st step to implementing that policy, the city commissioned a complete street safety assessment in 2022 that looked at the segment of Bayshore between San Bruno Avenue and old county road. This assessment provided the foundation for the recommended road diet on the northern portion of Bayshore Boulevard. So, overall, the would reduce Bayshore from 4 lanes to 2. OR ORGANIZING THAT WIDENING THE ROADWAY WOULD WORSEN THROUGH CUT OR CUT THROUGH CONDITIONS. THE BMP IS DESCRIBED IN GREAT DETAIL IN ATTACHMENT 8 TO THE AGENDA REPORT. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE AS WE STATED AT PAST WORKSHOPS, THE BMP IS NOT PART OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. IT ADDRESSES IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERSECTIONS IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIC PLAN, BUT ADOPTION OF THE BMP IS NOT REQUIRED IN ORDER TO APPROVE THE PLAN. I'LL GET US STARTED INTRODUCING THE FINAL EIR BEFORE I HAND IT OFF TO OUR CONSULTANT. SO IN ADDITION TO CONSIDERING THE ENTITLEMENTS WE JUST DISCUSSED, THE COMMISSION IS TASKED WITH MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. UNDER CEQA LEAD AGENCY CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR MEANS THAT THE FINAL EIR HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA. THE FINAL EIR WAS PRESENTED TO THE DECISION-MAKING BODY OF THE LEAD AGENCY. AND THE DECISION-MAKING BODY REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION IN THE EIR PRIOR TO APPROVING THE PROJECT, AND THAT THE FINAL EIR REFLECTS THE LEAD AGENCY'S INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS. FINAL EIR FOR THIS PROJECT WAS PUBLISHED ON MAY 14TH AND INCLUDES ALL COMMENTS SUBMITTED ON THE DRAFT EIR, RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS, REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR MADE IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OR AS A RESULT OF STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE PLAN. THOSE ARE ALL FOUND IN VOLUMES 4 AND 5 OF THE FINAL EIR. AND THEN VOLUMES 1 THROUGH 3 OF THE FINAL EIR CONTAIN THE REVISED DRAFT EIR INCORPORATING ALL REVISIONS. AS I NOTED, AND WE'LL DISCUSS MORE LATER, THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN IS EVALUATED IN THE FINAL EIR'S MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 1. AND I'LL NOW HAND THE PRESENTATION OVER TO TERI AVILA OF ESA WHO'LL WALK YOU THROUGH OTHER DETAILS. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR ARRES.

AND AGAIN, THANK YOU, DIRECTOR ERRES, AND GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THERE WE GO. AS DIRECTOR ERRES SUMMARIZED THE MAY 28TH SPECIFIC PLAN WORKSHOP, I'LL SUMMARIZE THE JUNE 11TH EIR WORKSHOP. We began with a discussion of what is the purpose of an EIR, which is essentially to inform the public and decision makers regarding ways that impacts could be either avoided or mitigated. We talked about the process for preparing, processing, and potentially certifying the EIR. and as well as what are the required contents required by the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. We discussed key terminology regarding project impacts, which include no impact, less than significant impacts with or without mitigation, and significant and unavoidable impacts. And significant and unavoidable impacts can either be impacts for which there are no feasible mitigation measures that could be applied or for which even with feasible mitigation measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. We talked about the nature of cumulative impacts. how mitigation measures are used and applied in an EIR, and alternatives to the project. We also presented a summary of EIR findings. And the findings, you know, again, we followed the framework of no impacts, less than significant, significant and unavoidable. There were a few key technical issues that have been of interest, and I will highlight them here. HAPPEN TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OTHER THAN AIR QUALITY AND NOISE, BUT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, ENERGY, WATER SUPPLY, HAZARDS AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES, TRANSPORTATION ITEMS, INCLUDING THE BAYSHORE MOBILITY PLAN. SO I'LL MOVE ON TO THE EIR FINDINGS. So, starting with the significant and unavoidable impacts, those relate to air quality and noise. And it is essentially the emissions of criteria air pollutants. It is also temporary or permanent increases ambient noise levels either during construction or related to stationary sources or along roadways and noise and vibration levels related to residential uses near the Caltrain right-of-way or construction related pile driving vibrations specifically during construction activities and again This is the whole of it. And again, while these, I'm highlighting the air quality and noise significant and unavoidable impacts, there are also air quality and noise impacts that are less than significant. And those are related to either the nature of the project or, you know, essentially the nature of the project. This is kind of going back to the environmental issues of interest that I noted a few slides earlier that we discussed on June 11th related to water some and these are all less than significant but related to water supply and we discussed both the provision and process for providing adequate water supply and We talked about the concept of energy neutrality. We talked about greenhouse gases highlighting the reduction of regional GHG emissions compared to growth occurring elsewhere and discussed the impact GHG-1 and how those mitigation measures have been otherwise required in the specific plan. We had a deep discussion about the Bayshore Mobility Plan, and then we also had an in-depth discussion about REMEDIATION AND ONGOING MONITORING RELATED TO THE LANDFILL AND MY COLLEAGUE MR. BURNS WILL TALK ABOUT THAT A BIT MORE IN A MOMENT RESPONDING TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED. DIRECTOR ERRORS MENTIONED THIS ALREADY, THE 2025 SPECIFIC PLAN OR THE BDI SPECIFIC PLAN IS EVALUATED AS THE PROJECT IN THE FINAL EIR, BUT THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN IS ALSO EVALUATED IN THE 2026 FINAL EIR, SPECIFICALLY IN CHAPTER 16, AS MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 1. AND IT CONCLUDES THAT IMPACTS WOULD BE EITHER THE SAME OR SIMILAR TO THE PROJECT EVALUATED IN THE EIR. SO THE EIR FULLY EVALUATED BOTH SPECIFIC PLANS. And with that, I will turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Burns. And if you would like, I'm happy to continue to forward a slide.

Yeah, that would be helpful. Thank you. Next slide, please. When we met last time on June 11th, we went through some details of the three main hazardous materials units that are on the site, that being the Brisbane landfill to the east, the OUSM in the northwest portion, and then OU2 in the southeast portion. In that time, we went over a number of details on how the remunerations would happen. This would include placing caps over the waste, It would include removal of soil where the caps were impractical, and then the extraction treatment of groundwater and leachate in particular places. Note that all of these actions that we're going to talk about a little bit more here are a prerequisite to Baylands development. That is, those things have to happen first and be completed before you can do the development. In talking with you last time, there were a couple... Can you speak more closely to the microphone? Oh, sorry. There you go. How's that? Is that better? Much better. Okay. Sorry. Do you need me to start over again or? Yeah, it was a good thing. Oh, just kidding. Okay. Okay. So, there were a number of specific questions on specific areas that came up last time where you do request a little more discussion, a little more detail on how certain things work. And so, that's going to be the topic of what I'll talk about now. Next slide, please. One of the topics that came up were the regulatory agencies that are overseeing the cleanup of those three hazardous materials units and questions along the lines of how does that work? You know, how do we know that they're going to stay involved? So, just to some background. The landfills are always assigned to the water board and that's because water and leachate tends to be the main issue there. Originally, the rail yards were both under the jurisdiction of the Department of Toxic Substance Control, short named DTSC. In 95, the rail yard site was split into the two OUs, the northwest one, which is the OUSM, and the southwest one, which is OU2. And the DTSC reassigned that to the water board due to the presence of a lot of petroleum hydrocarbons. The water board also focuses on petroleum hydrocarbons. The basis of their authority comes from two different areas. For the DTSC, their authority comes from the California Health and Safety Code, in particular, the Hazardous Waste Control Law and the Hazardous Substance Account Act. These are supplemented by Title 22 in the Code of California Regulations and the federally delegated authority under RCRA. For the water boards, they draw their authority from the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which is in California Water Code Division 7, with additional delegated authority from the Federal Clean Water Act. So these are the two regulatory agencies that will oversee this cleanup. And again, that's independent of the specific plan. They're going to be after getting those things cleaned up no matter what. So these enforcement orders that they have on these various sites, they will continue until the concentrations of the contaminants of concern decrease to below regulatory action levels. In other words, there's not a time limit. You know, however long it takes for them to achieve those goals, that's how long they're going to continue to oversee and insist on those things happen. One of the things that they will implement will be land use covenants. They'll assign land use covenants to each one of those units there. Those land use covenants require the protection and monitoring of the remedial actions that For example, the caps, it'll be placed over the waste and we'll talk about that in a minute. Again, these land use covenants are independent of the specific plan. Next slide please. One of the questions that came up was vapor mitigation and how does that work on some of the areas? There's contamination in the soil that tends to volatilize and gets up into the vapor area. And this is called a vapor intrusion issue. The DTSC has studied this for many years and has established requirements and documents and guidance on how you address this. So here's how it works. Whenever an entity wants to develop a particular parcel or property or whatever footprint it is, they have to check what the existing vapor concentrations are at that time, and then they need to design whatever they're going to build over this spot to deal with those particular concentrations. When you think about it, in essence, when they build a building, it's essentially you're taking a large box and placing it over this soil that has the vapor in it. And because it's a box, you can have vapor go up in that box and concentrate, which can get into your respiratory zone and that could cause the problem. So they require that they quantify what's the vapor coming out of the soil now. That informs your project design and so that you, what you do is you use various best management practices to deal with that just as kind of a stepping back here for the risk there. You've got 3 parts. 1st, you have the source that's going to be the contaminated soil and you've got the receptors that's. You and me, the public people, and then you have the migration pathway that goes from the source to the people. So the vapor mitigation is to interrupt that particular source or remove that source. So the typical BMPs you could do is you can dig up the contaminated soil and haul it off. You can install vapor barriers, much like the moisture barrier under your house, but considerably more robust. You can do active or passive ventilation, or you could do a combination of the both. Now, once they've built this structure on here, then they have to go back inside into the breathing zones and retest that to verify that, yes, it worked. We've been able to interrupt that migration pathway, and there's no risk to the occupants of this structure. Next slide, please. So let's talk about the cap. In a way, the caps that would be put over these units is similar. You've got all this waste that's buried. You're gonna be adding this cap on top of it. If you look through the feasibility studies and the remedial action plans, you'll see the geotechnical design. or you have your landfill quality geotextile, they'll have a bed underneath there and a bed over there to make sure that the weight on it doesn't tear that barrier. Then you fill a lot of fill on top of there to separate whatever you're doing at the surface from that cap. And so once built, that essentially prevents whatever is in that waste from being accessed by the public So, once they put those caps in the site owners are required to maintain those caps, they're required to inspect and report on those annually. Then those annual reports go into the 1 of those regulatory agencies. I mentioned either the for or the water board for the landfill or. And they continue doing that again until those concentrations drop below the regulatory action levels. Again, there's no, there's no time limit on there. However long it takes. That's how long it takes and the regulatory agencies will be involved with that for that whole time. So, these land use covenants again, they're established enforced by the regulatory agencies. When you develop over these caps, remember, all that remediation is a prerequisite before development happens. So if you're going to go and construct a building over one of these cap areas, you have to demonstrate that you're not going to disturb that cap. If you need to get down into the cap because of your foundation, you have to submit a plan to the DTSC or the Water Board demonstrating what is it you're proposing to do? How are you going to maintain the integrity of that cap? How are you going to restore the integrity of that cap? So it requires a plan to restore that once the disturbance is done. And then again, you have to monitor that until the concentrations come down to below regulatory action levels. And with that, Terry, I think that's the last one.

Yeah. Yes, sir. Thank you. I'm going to touch for a moment on the mitigation monitoring and reporting program that is associated with the mitigation measures provided in the EIR. The purpose of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, or MMRP, is essentially to ensure that the mitigation measures identified during the environmental review process and in the EIR are implemented. And as the lead agency, the City of Brisbane is tasked with adopting the MMRP and is responsible for its implementation. The MMRP is included in its entirety in Chapter 17 of the final EIR. The components of the MMRP include the specific action required by the mitigation measure, essentially what needs to be done, what is the timing of its implementation, that is, you know, when does it need to be done, who is responsible for ensuring implementation, And in some cases, it's not always the city. It could be the applicant. It could be a third party developer, a contractor, or other responsible agencies. What is the mechanism for reporting or monitoring? How do we monitor the implementation of the mitigation measure? And then lastly, what is the criteria to ensure that We've determined the city has determined the success of the mitigation measure and, you know, ultimately the provides accountability and documentation. It provides a record showing the lead agency has fulfilled its CEQA obligations, and it ensures that environmental impacts are reduced to the level disclosed in the final EIR. And with that, I think I move it over. Would you like me to continue, or would you?

Okay, so moving on to recommended actions. So, several commission actions are recommended by staff in connection with the requested entitlements. 1st, staff is recommending that the commission recommend the city council certify the final environmental impact report for the Brisbane Bay land specific plan. So, I'll reiterate in recommending certification, the commission would be recommending that the final was completed in compliance with was presented to the decision making body of the lead agency. AND THE DECISION-MAKING BODY REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION IN THE FINAL EIR PRIOR TO APPROVING THE PROJECT. AND THE FINAL EIR REFLECTS THE LEAD AGENCY'S INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS. NEXT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS. THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS ADOPTING THE 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN DATED MAY 2026 IN ESSENTIALLY AS A SPECIFIC PLAN UNDER THE GOVERNMENT CODE UNDER THE STATUTE STIPULATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. As well as as a zoning ordinance, which independently supports adoption of the plan. This includes the land use designations and development standards for the development framework that we reviewed earlier in this presentation. We're also recommending that the commission recommend approval of the general plan and land use general plan land use and circulation element amendments. Those would be to realign the boundary of the balance sub area, realign the roadways as we described earlier in this presentation, add those roadways to the general plan circulation map. And address other extensions and street types that are described in the specific plan. And staff's recommending Commission recommend approval to amend title 17 zoning of the Brisbane municipal code to implement the specific plan in accordance with the applicable government code statutes. This would be again to change the zoning designations of land within the specific plan area. TO BSP, BAYLAND SPECIFIC PLAN, ESTABLISH THE LAND USE REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, STEP FORTH IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AS THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY GOVERNING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLAN AREA, DELETE 17.41 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING INTERIM USES AND AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THOSE ZONE CHANGES. AND FINALLY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE BAYSHORE MOBILITY PLAN TO ENHANCE MOBILITY FOR BRISBANE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES By reducing the number of travel lanes along Bayshore Boulevard from 4 lanes to 2 South of Geneva Avenue, along with providing a median turnpockets and a multi use pathway and bike facilities along the corridor within the city of Brisbane. So, as detailed in the report, adoption of the plan is consistent with and implements the general plan specifically those amendments under GP dash 1 dash 18 as well as GP dash 1 dash 19, which together establish the allowable amount and type of development within the balance of area. As well as other development requirements, such as landfill closure plans that comply with title 27 remedial action plans for the entire site proof of a reliable water supply revenue, positivity. Preservation enhancement of key habitat areas. Protection and rehabilitation of the historic roundhouse for adaptive reuse and alignment with the city's sustainability framework for the balance. ADOPTION OF THE PLAN IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT. SO WHERE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 2A2 GENERALLY REQUIRES ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE BAYLAND SUB AREA THAT ALLOWS UP TO 2200 HOUSING UNITS BY RIGHT WITHOUT DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW AT CERTAIN MINIMUM DENSITIES TO MEET OUR 2023 TO 2031 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION ARENA. The proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, as described, would implement the staff-recommended specific plan. And finally, the proposed amendments to the general plan land use and circulation elements would ensure consistency with the specific plan as well. So that will conclude our presentation tonight, and we're happy to take any questions.

All right. Thank you very much. Fellow commissioners, Wojcik, Sison, any questions for staff?

Yes, I have a few questions. One concerns leachate and the management of toxic runoff. So I read in the EIR that the existing leachate management system limits leachate seepage, but that a more robust system will be installed to prevent leachate migration from the landfill. following landfill closure. So my question is why isn't the more robust system being installed now rather than later?

It's my understanding that they have just designed that particular system and they are going to install that. That installation will happen before any development and would happen independent of the specific plan. It's going to be a requirement by the Water Board.

Okay, and I also understand that there will be groundwater wells installed to monitor. Semi annually to ensure that the collection system is performing, but that the monitoring may become less frequent post closure. Is that correct?

only if the concentrations come down. They have to have those concentrations come down before the DTSC or the Water Board will allow the decrease of monitoring. It's not just the landfill that has monitoring networks. All three of those units will have monitoring networks. And again, the frequency will be dictated by what the concentrations are. They have to demonstrate that those concentrations are coming down before they would consider reducing the frequency.

And is that being monitored in perpetuity?

For as long as it takes for those concentrations to get below regulatory action levels.

And the water board is doing the monitoring, not the city?

The site owners are doing the monitoring under the jurisdiction of the regulatory agencies. The regulatory agencies are requiring them to do that, and the site owners are obligated to do so.

And, um, 1 other question regarding, um, vapor and air safety. Um, I read that, uh, there's going to be a methane gas detection system installed in commercial spaces, but I didn't read anything about residential is, is there going to be both. Or it's just on the commercial.

Um, I don't know that it's divided that way. What I do know is that they specifically want those for the landfill areas. Because the landfills are full of broccoli and green beans and the Brussels sprouts. My kids won't eat. And when that stuff degrades, it very commonly produces a lot of methane. And so landfills are particularly prone to generating methane. Hence you want to monitor for that.

And is that system in place continuously? I mean, it's.

It would continue until those methane levels come down below regulatory action levels, and that will take some time. Typically landfills take at least like 30 years to even get close to being closed.

Okay, thank you.

I just have one really general question for clarification. You mentioned that the mobility plan DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE APPROVED. CAN YOU COMMENT JUST FOR PROCEDURALLY ON THE SEPARABILITY OF THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS YOU MADE? LIKE IS IT A PACKAGE BASICALLY? YOU HAVE THE ZONING, YOU HAVE THE SPECIFIC PLAN, CERTIFICATION OF THE AR, ALL THOSE ELEMENTS.

YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THE RESOLUTIONS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. THERE IS ONE RESOLUTION FOR THE A variety of other entitlements, and then a dedicated resolution for the base short mobility plan. Um, but yeah, so generally it, the base for mobility plan is a related effort, but a separate effort. It does overlap and is impacted by the specific plan as we described. Um, but it is not a part. Um, it was evaluated in the year as well. But yes, your your action is not you are not required to recommend approval of the mobility plan in order to move forward with a specific plan And I think that part of your question Mr.

Chair was also about how the rest of the entitlement package and approval package fits together and Um, so to start the before taking any discretionary actions, the city has to comply with here that would require certification of the, so that would have to happen. before making any of the other approvals. Then before approving the specific plan, we have to make sure that both the general plan and zoning are consistent with the regulations that will be advanced through the specific plan. So the general plan amendments and zoning designations would need to be approved to basically set the table for the specific plan. Then the specific plan comes in to define those specific, to borrow the title, regulations that would apply to everything within the Baylands development area. And then as the director explained, the Bayshore Mobility Plan has related aspects to it. There are elements that do address circulation impacts associated with development, but there are other elements that do not need to be approved if you choose to advance the entire development package.

All right. Thank you very much. No more questions from the Commission? No. Okay. Then I suggest we open the public hearing. Jeremiah, correct? And to do that, I think we'll kick it off. And we'd like to invite the applicant to address the community and the Commission.

HAVE THE CLICKER. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, VICE CHAIR FUNK, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE BAYLANDS PROJECT TONIGHT. MY NAME IS STEPHANIE, WITH THE BAYLANDS DEVELOPMENT INC. AND ALTHOUGH I'VE ONLY BEEN WITH THE BAYLANDS ORGANIZATION FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS, My history with the Baylands Project actually goes back about 20 years. And if I can take a minute to give you a little bit of my background. I am a hydrologist by training, and I have nearly 30 years of research, policy, and advocacy work supporting communities to redeveloping contaminated properties. I started my career at USGS as a contaminant hydrologist, studying how contaminants move through the soil and to groundwater. I moved to Sacramento, where I worked on policy and legislation for the legislature on brownfield redevelopment for the state of California. And then for 15 years, I ran a nonprofit called Center for Creative Land Recycling, CCLR, which is a nonprofit that helps communities non-profits, for-profit developers, churches, municipalities attempt to redevelop contaminated properties. At CCLR, their priority was always, always making sure that the redevelopment was absolutely safe for future residents and visitors. My first experience with the Brisbane Baylands was in actually 2005. when CCLR facilitated a series of graduate architectural student design charrettes between University of California Berkeley graduate students and the city of Brisbane. Worked closely with the city manager, Clay Holstein at the time, and the former community development director, Bill Prince. And the Baylands has been on my radar ever since then. So in 2022, after Measure JJ passed, and after the pandemic, I jumped at the opportunity to join the Baylands team to bring this long plan, long awaited project to fruition. So after 20 years, it's hard to believe that I'm standing here this evening requesting the commission to recommend approval of this specific plan and the final EIR. So please pardon me if you see me pinching myself tonight at any time during my presentation. I have the clicker. Let me go back, because what I want to start with is just an overview of the development And I want to really impress upon the commissioners and the community that the Baylands is not just a collection of parcels being rezoned. It is a fully realized vision for how people live, work, move, and gather organized around a robust open space system. We'll talk a little bit about that. anchored by the Bayshore Caltrain Station and designed by renowned architect and urban planner Peter Calthorpe to function as a real neighborhood. There are four distinct planning districts, each have their own character, starting with a high-density transit hub near the Bayshore in the northern part of the Baylands, the Bayshore District, centered around the Caltrain Station, dropping down to mid-scale and lower-density townhome residential around the historic roundhouse, what we call the roundhouse district. and moving further south into the commercial district that we call the Icehouse Hill District. As well as jumping across the railroad tracks, we've got a campus commercial district with easy access to the 101 and the San Francisco Airport. I think one of the most important points that I want to make with this slide up here and this visual is that critically, all these districts are woven together by 148 acres of publicly accessible parks, trails, wetlands, and restored habitat, more than 25% of the site. plus the preservation of the 122 acre Brisbane Lagoon. In short, this open space is an amenity layer, is not, sorry, not just an amenity layer, but rather it is the structural backbone of the plan. Sustainability for the Baylands is a binding commitment, and it's not an aspiration. I think what distinguishes the Baylands from most other developments is that its sustainability standards are not guidelines. They are development requirements. Every building must be all electric. 100% of the site's electricity must come from renewable sources with energies generated onsite annually from a 55-acre solar farm, rooftop panels, and parking canopies. Every new residential building must achieve Greenpoint certification. Every commercial building must achieve LEED Gold. And natural gas infrastructure simply will not be built at the Baylands. A zero waste program targets 90% diversion of trash from the landfills. And the bottom line is that these ambitions or not something to be revisited at the project level. They are the floor for the Baylands specific plan. The Commission has an opportunity to make a decision on the development that we believe will be studied as a model for how California builds in the next generation and in the era of climate change. So I wanted to spend a minute on remediation, but I'm cutting that presentation short because I know you've heard from your city consultants and happy to answer questions later. But what I did want to emphasize is that Brisbane has already overseen a landfill development conversion at scale at Sierra Point. Under the same regulatory agencies, the Water Board and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, and those are the same agencies that will be overseeing the Brisbane cleanup. The Baylands is a more ambitious project in scope, but the point I want to make here this evening is that we are not charting unknown territory here. with the Baylands redevelopment. You may also wonder, has a project of this scale and complexity, meaning the building of homes and parks on former industrial land and a closed municipal landfill, has that been done successfully and safely before? And the answer is yes. And two excellent examples are actually Brisbane neighbors, Mission Bay and Emeryville. All three of these projects, Mission Bay, Sarah Point, Emeryville, share the same fundamental framework that the Bay Lens Plan will follow. One, contamination has been characterized and addressed through agency approved remediation plans and closure plans. Clean soil caps will be placed over residual conditions, utility systems, will be engineered to avoid disturbing contaminated material, residential uses prohibited where contamination is the most severe, and most importantly, long-term monitoring and maintenance agreements binding the development in perpetuity. The agencies overseeing the Baylands, DTSC, and the Water Board, and the Department well, DTSC and the Water Board are the same agencies that oversaw all three of these major redevelopment projects. The final point I want to make here is that the regulatory tools that are being used on the Baylands are proven. The approach is well established. And what the Commission is being asked to support is an application of well-tested framework to a site that in many respects is better understood, more thoroughly investigated, and more rigorously planned than its predecessors were at their equivalent stages of their development. Okay, I'm not gonna go over all of the cleanup plans again, but. Unless you're really dying to hear all the acronyms again, then that's okay. I want to just make a few points and emphasize some of the points that. Mr burns from made, which is essentially the cleanup is not left to the applicants. Good faith. Okay. The DTSC and the Water Board hold enforceable regulatory orders over the site, and Measure JJ explicitly prohibits construction from beginning until remediation is complete on each phase of the development. Financial assurances, including performance bonds, environmental insurance, are required. Once remediation is complete, the site will enter into a long-term operation and maintenance agreement with both agencies requiring monitoring and reporting in perpetuity or until Mr. Barnes said levels come down where there's no longer an environmental concern. I would just add that on the question regarding the methane in the commercial, that is for the landfill site. and there's no residential allowed on the landfill site, so that's why it's discussed commercial, but I will also mention that that landfill has been closed since 1967, so that's over 42 years, and there is really very little methane left on that landfill. It still has to be monitored for a certain period of time, but the methane levels are exceedingly low at the Brisbane landfill. Lastly, just regarding the environmental cleanup is the community process. Prior to the approval, the cleanup plans were presented to the Brisbane Baylands Community Advisory Group, the BBCAG. For those of you who don't know about CAGs, those are the community advisory groups. They're part of the Department of Toxic Substance Control, DTSCs. public participation program created to ensure that the public is informed and involved early, that their issues and concerns are heard, and that their comments are considered prior to final decisions by DTSC and in our case also the Water Board. In the case of the Brisbane Baylands CAG, which was formed in 2005 shortly after the Baylands submitted their application, for the development. The BBCAG has met over 40 times to review plans, ask questions directly of the project's regulators, both Department of Toxic Substance and the Water Board, as well as the Baylands team. Approving the specific plan, this specific plan, activates the framework that ties construction directly to the completion of the cleanup. No one moves in until the ground has been certified safe by the state agencies who have the legal authority to enforce it. So the documents before you tonight represents 20 years of planning. THE HISTORY HAS ALREADY BEEN GONE THROUGH BY THE CITY STAFF, BUT I WANT TO JUST MAKE THE POINT THAT AFTER MEASURE JJ PASSED, OUR TEAM WENT TO WORK, WE CREATED THE 2025 DEVELOPER PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH THE DRAFT EIR WAS BASED ON. WORKED ON A CITY PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN MAKING CHANGES TO THE 2025 PROPOSED WHAT THEY'RE CALLING THE DEVELOPER PROPOSED PLAN. AND I THINK WE JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARIFICATION, ONE BEING THAT After Measure JJ was passed, we went to work and created a very detailed, the 2025 specific plan, with a very detailed land use program, informing the new zoning, a comprehensive sustainability framework, plans to protect and restore habitats at the Baylands. But we also wanted to note that the specific plan preserves flexibility for a potential school site. And a 2021 study commissioned by the city did suggest that at full build out, a middle school may be needed, but the ultimate need and location, timing, and funding would be determined by the school district. We also want to note that the Bayshore Mobility Plan was a city sponsored proposal as this was the city's EIR and not a proposal from the Baylands team and was not a part of the 2025 developer proposed specific plan. Just a few items on the specific plan feedback, the 2026 specific plan feedback and again, This is the city sponsored and revised upgraded specific plan. Um, we wanted to point out a few things, um, that we thought were perhaps opportunities for refinement before. Finalizing the specific plan and 1 of them is the parking. We are 2025 plan already had a very aggressive, but flexible parking plan designed to reduce car trips. But the city's 2026 plan institutes a new maximum parking ratio that further restricts the parking for residents and visitors. And this is an issue where the parking restrictions reduce supply without actually reducing demand. If people need to drive, because transit is inadequate or because they have children or disabilities or jobs with irregular hours or because they're just carrying things, they will find parking somewhere. So they drive around and they park on nearby streets and neighboring commercial lots or in adjacent neighborhoods, displacing the problem rather than solving it. Our preference would be for a parking program that would allow flexibility based on shared parking, district parking, market conditions, ADA accessibility, family housing, and community needs. On implementation, the updated plan includes what we consider some overly restricted phasing requirements that would limit the project's ability to adapt to not only changing market, real estate market conditions, but also to the evolving community feedback on the development project. And then lastly, we we the balance has been and remains opposed to the high speed rails light maintenance facility even though the reduced facility to 45 acres from 200 acres originally was significant 45 acres is still is still A lot of develop a land that reduces our open space negatively impacts our stormwater detention basin and impedes additional sustainability infrastructure. On the landfill site. In short, we don't believe the maintenance facility is compatible with the Baylands project. In closing, I know commissions are sometimes asked to approve projects that feel inevitable, that proposals move forward regardless, and where the role of this body could be largely ministerial. The Baylands is not that project. It reflects 20 years of planning, environmental review, community engagement, and choices really hard choices about what kind of city Brisbane wants to be. Recommending an approval of the specific plan and the EIR is an affirmative act by this commission. It says that Brisbane is ready to take its place as a city that confronts the housing shortage, restores its ecological assets, builds around transit, and holds itself to the highest standards of sustainable development. That

Commissioners is the decision before you and I thank you for your time and your attention and happy to take questions Through the chair is your mic on At this point should should the Commission start with question the public has been very patient as well, but What do you think do you have specific questions? No, I don't over to the public.

Yeah, I

OK, I think we should then open the public hearing and invite you to. Uh, address the commission and the rest of the community. Um, I think there are some rules. 2 minutes, I think it'd be very good if you are concise and just clear in your points so that we can get through the evening. Um, and, uh, I think you will probably show a clock. Is that right? Jeremiah? It's gonna, it's gonna be rolling. So, um. So let's go ahead and get started. And just to kind of foreshadow what will probably happen at some point tonight, either we will get through all the comments, but maybe not. And then we'll probably choose to continue this meeting until next Tuesday. That's the most likely thing. So it's not like tonight is your one and only chance. But I think the more comments we get through this evening, the better. So with that, let's get started. And I'll just take the strips in order as I have received them here. So let's start with Storrs Hohen.

Hi, I'm Storrs Hohen. And it's exciting that the Baylands has gotten to this far. I mean, that there are... that there is a significant amount of work in this, and I would like to make several small comments. Since the noise from pile driving is going to have significant unavoidable impacts, I'D LIKE THAT THE CITY OR PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTS THAT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDE GUIDANCE AS TO HOW MANY DAYS PER YEAR OF PILE DRIVING IS GOING TO BE HAPPENING IN THAT FIRST PHASE AND ALSO IN THE SECOND PHASE. The developers have said throughout that they would be trying to use mitigated methods to reduce the noise of the pile driving. And I believe this is referred to as MM-NOI-1E. I would like to make sure that that is incorporated in the planning. AND AGAIN, SORT OF ANSWERING AND RESPONDING TO WHAT PAMELA ASKS AND DOUG Gooding brought up about the question about how the buildings would be regularly tested afterwards. Even if levels go down below the requirements of the different testing agencies, I would still like us to regularly test. I don't want Brisbane to be the next DAILY CITY WITH ITS MIDWAY VILLAGE. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MIDWAY HAD THE TOXIC SOIL CAPT AS WELL. AND THEN LASTLY, AND THE CITY I THINK HAS ANSWERED THIS WELL ENOUGH, BUT I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, I WANT TO ENSURE THAT BRISBANE'S PUBLIC ART ORDINANCE IS THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT AND IS NOT SUPERCEDED BY THE SPECIFIC PLAN. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Michelle Salmon.

I honestly don't know how I could say everything I think in two minutes. But I will say this, that we made a lot of comments about the hazards and hazardous materials when we reviewed the draft EIR. And I see where they've been listed, but I don't see where they've been responded to. I don't see anything about Lazari fuel and the PAHs and all the poisons there. I see a lot of gaps still, and gaps that were supposed to be answered or responded to in terms of toxic. This is moving forward, but our number one job is to make sure that it is safe for anyone who lives or works there. And it is an extremely toxic site, both sides. from 100 years of dumping of various materials. In particular, I'm very concerned about the possibility of radioactive material in the dump on the east side of the tracks prior to 1950. And you talk about covenants and independent plans and everything. I will say I'm absolutely against the mobility plan. I think that cripples the city of Brisbane could end up trapping us here. I also want you to pay careful attention to the history and the comments made that Dr. Aaron Becker submitted and the comments that were submitted by OSEC. And this is a really complicated and complex site we're dealing with, and it has the ability to break the back of Brisbane. It has the ability to make us bankrupt if we do not proceed with caution on who's responsible for what. And I know that Tuntex, Universal Paragon, whatever name they're going by now, has waited many, many years for their entitlements to build. But we also have waited many, many years and have suffered through a lot to try to mitigate the situation out on the Baylands and it's very toxic and there are a lot of things that have changed and it's a constantly changing scenario. So we need to really proceed with caution and protect the city of Brisbane as well as the future people that will live on the Baylands and work on the Baylands. So please don't take this lightly and please don't rush through this. Please don't rush through this, thank you.

Thank you very much. Speaking of OSEC, Anthony Walker, please.

Greetings good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Anthony Walker. I'm the chair of the city's open space and ecology committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here tonight on behalf of to bring your attention to a formal comment letter that the committee submitted. on the Baylands final EIR and the 2026 specific plan. I won't try to read it all or rehash any of it. It's many pages. So I just wanted to mainly point you toward it and ask that you give the concerns real consideration before deciding whether or not to advance the documents. I want to be clear at the outset, I think OSEC sees the Baylands potential as really compelling, something that could be a landmark sustainable development. And our comments are offered in that spirit, but a project of this import is really worth getting right. And so I'd like to, Point to a few things just the 3, I think biggest points. Um. At a high level 1st, um. We came to a consensus that the commission, um, we believe the commission should not advance the documents to the city council until the public has really had a chance to review them thoroughly and concerns raised have been addressed. Um, and that a qualified secret peer review is conducted. Um. We really, I think, universally have been feeling that this time around, especially, there's just not enough time to review all that's there. And second, the long-term greenhouse gas tracking and accountability be restored. The project's emissions don't go away simply because they've been reclassified. And removing the developer's obligations to address them shifts that cost onto the city and the public, ultimately. And third, the project's energy neutrality commitment under Measure JJ, that it be treated as a binding requirement that the voters adopted with any shortfall met by new local energy resources that benefit our community. So I'll stop there. I see that I'm out of time. These and other matters are detailed in the letter. And I respectfully ask that you read it, weigh its recommendations carefully and thoughtfully. Thank you very much for your time.

Yeah, thank you very much. Through the Chair, we do have three participants online as well with hands raised.

Okay, let's take one of the online participants, Chair Vine.

All right, Sam Sita, please address the Commission.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners. My name is Larissa Ogunyata, and I'm the Marketing and Communications Operations Manager of the San Mateo County Economic Development Association . For more than 70 years, SAMHSAIDA has worked to support a strong economy and thriving communities throughout San Mateo County, which is why I'm here to speak in support of the Baylands Project. The Baylands will deliver much-needed housing, create thousands of jobs, and provide new community amenities, all near high-quality public transit empowered by renewable energy. We recognize that analyzing a project of this size is an extraordinary effort, and we commend the City of Brisbane for their commitment to the public engagement and careful planning. But after more than 20 years of review, it's time to move the bail-in forward. We respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to recommend certification of the final EIR adoption of the economically viable specific plan so those benefits can finally become a reality. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's keep going with the online.

All right. Davin, in like five seconds, you should be able to address the Commission.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Devon Chan and I'm speaking today as board chair of San San Bruno mountain watch. Our mission is to care for San Bruno mountain through conservation, ecological restoration, education, and advocacy in partnership with local communities, such as Brisbane. Since 2009, mountain watch has operated mission blue nursery in Brisbane as a tenant of Baylands development company. growing thousands of native plants every year for habitat restoration to support rare and endangered species such as the mission blue butterfly. We've invested significant resources to build and operate the nursery at this site with the help of countless volunteers from Brisbane and the surrounding community. We're here to ask that the nursery remain at its current location rather than be relocated to Icehouse Hill as proposed in the specific plan. The proposed Icehouse Hill site has a number of issues, including inadequate parking and vehicle access and excessive shade, which is harmful to our plants. This would have a detrimental impact on the nursery's ability to continue to grow native plants for restoration work and on its ability to serve the Brisbane community. The nursery's current location falls within the specific plant's proposed community fields area. We believe the nursery and its existing native plant demonstration garden are a natural fit for integration into the design of the community fields. Just as playgrounds, sports, and picnic areas build community through gathering, so do environmental education, gardening, and volunteerism. We've submitted a written comment today that expresses Mountain Watch's preference for Mission Blue Nursery to remain at its current location and shows in detail how the existing nursery can stay in place and be integrated into the proposed plan to the benefit of the community and the ecosystem. We appreciate the opportunity to engage with the City of Brisbane on this topic and look forward to further discussion. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Darren. Appreciate it. There's probably one more online, right? Let's go ahead and finish.

We've gotten some additional since the first three, but we can go with Jeremy Levine. Just a couple seconds. Go ahead, Jeremy.

Hi. Good evening, Commissioner. Thank you, staff, for really helpful presentation for the baylands team this is jeremy levine speaking with the housing leadership council here to support moving this project forward and to also request that as you're thinking about how to respond to the eir and the specific plant plan broadly that you don't just think about the immediate concerns but about what it will take to make this project the best that it can be over the next 20 years as it That's how long it's going to take to build it. So providing the flexibility and the standards of the code and in the zoning that will allow this project to reflect evolving needs and evolving construction norms and technologies rather than being overly prescriptive in the plan today. We think the city has come a really long way on this project over the last 20 years. There has been a lot of progress. And we look forward to continuing to work with the city as it moves forward making the best project that it can. So thank you for your time tonight. Hope you enjoy the rest of the comments.

All right. Thank you very much, Jeremy. Let's, let's switch back to the to the room. And you'll let me know when more people get in queue. Let's hear from Denise Gregory, please.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Denise Gregory. A few comments. The Baylands project will bring in as many as 19,000 jobs, but only 2,200 housing units. And it's an imbalance that will make the housing crisis worse, not better. Second, the amount of commercial space could create a demand for more than 5,400 units of affordable housing. Third, measure JJ requires remediation of the soil to where it's safe enough for ground level residential use, including children playing outdoors in parks and backyards. And I strongly feel the project should not go forward until that can be guaranteed. Fourth, the draft environmental impact report had included mitigation measures that the developer would have had to pay for. Those measures were supposed to offset the impact of the Baylands Project greenhouse gas emissions, but the final environmental impact report removed the references to a whole chunk of these mitigations. And it's a betrayal of what the voters were promised and what they thought they were getting with Measure JJ. The mitigations need to be put back. Otherwise, the developer would be getting a free pass to back out of its zero carbon promise. And then lastly, just my own concern, sea level rise, earthquakes, Pacific up here. I just, has it been considered? the impact of sea level rise on this area of Brisbane? Thank you.

MR. Thank you very much, Denise. Let's hear from Cynthia Gomez, please.

Good evening, Commissioners. Cynthia Gomez, Unite Here Local 2, the Hotel and Hospitality Workers Union. And I believe there's reference to it, but I wanted to call out the letter from the environmental attorney, Shoot Molly, and Weinberger sent on behalf of Local 2 that I believe is in the record. We've said before how the project will make the housing crisis worse, precisely the opposite of its promise to make the housing crisis better. But tonight, I want to talk about other issues. Toxic soil. We believe that this project should not be approved in its current form, particularly toxic soil. It's widely known that the soil in the Baylands is heavily contaminated due to its former uses. the selected plan would leave, the remediation plan, would leave the vast majority of the toxic soil in place, covered by a cap. Among other problems with this approach, as reflected, the roots of plants can go through the imported soil and will grow horizontally under hardscape areas, As a result, land use covenants will be required that prohibit, quote, growing produce or vegetables for human consumption in native soil, end quote. It will be easy to write such prohibitions into a property's CC&Rs, but enforcing them for decades into the future is another matter. While the recording of those restrictions is a mandatory condition of the remedial action plan and feasibility study, neither the EIR nor the specific plan seem to contain any measures to ensure ongoing compliance. If it's unsafe to grow vegetables in the soil, who's gonna want their children playing in the dirt at playgrounds and parks? Who's gonna make sure that anyone reads the fine print? And the last reference, again, is I was reading the staff report and noticed all the listings of how this project is said to comply with Measure JJ. Conveniently removed was the energy neutrality promise that voters thought they were getting under Measure JJ. Those should be restored, and the project as currently constructed should not be approved. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's keep moving and hear from Scott Beale, please.

Good evening, commissioners. I represent the plumbers, pipefitters, HVAC service mechanics here in San Mateo County. And tonight you're gonna hear from an apprentice and a longstanding journey person who both live here in Brisbane and would really appreciate the opportunity to help build, in their home community. And one thing I want to bring to light, we've heard a lot of community benefits with career opportunities for our upcoming labor force being limited to some degree with new technology. It's nice to have career paths that are viable and allow for training of our future workforce. So again, we did do this a little bit out of order, but you'll be hearing from two Brisbane residents that have benefited from hard blue collar work. And we hope that you support that as a community as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much gone Through the chair we have happy to give some more online, or did you want to yeah?

Let's round out the the folks you were talking about Scott your your apprentices I don't know exactly who they are, but if you could come up and announce your name.

I'll just take you Good evening commissioners and esteemed chairperson and your staff I Want to let you know that I am in favor of this project. I'm a longtime resident of Brisbane and I raised my children here and I am a 467 member of the plumbers pipe fitters and HVAC and refrigeration fitters and I've always been in support of the project and I would like to ask that the commission or the city looks at the future of these workers that are gonna be there. I believe that you can make an impact in the school system, in the BES school system, the Panorama, and the Littman schools, that these will be children that will end up in the skilled trades it's a great opportunity for them and I would like to just encourage the city to do that because we're not just looking at you know buildings but we're looking at careers that can build these and when I first asked for a job in the trades I was told that we don't have jobs in the skilled trade labor they offer careers and it's been very good to me And my daughter's behind me. I want to give her an opportunity because she's also in the same local that I am. And I have a son also that is an electrician in San Mateo County. And it's been good to us and the city's been good to us. And I want to thank you.

All right. Thank you, darling. Emily, please go ahead.

Good evening, everyone, and commissioners. My name is Emily. That was my dad. I live here in Brisbane. I actually attended Brisbane Elementary and Littman Middle School. That's where I graduated from. I'm actually an HVACR apprentice right now. I'm going into my second year. And I ATTENDED A UNIVERSITY AND WHILE I DID, I EXPLORED VARIOUS CAREER PATHS BEFORE ULTIMATELY DECIDING TO BECOME A UNION MEMBER, WHICH I'VE FOUND TO BE THE MOST SUSTAINABLE PATH. THE BALANCE PROJECT FOR ME AND FOR MY FELLOW APPRENTICES REPRESENTS OPPORTUNITIES FOR APPRENTICES to learn, grow, and build careers while helping build our own community. It's projects like these that gives hope that one day I may be able to afford a home in the city that I grew up in. As everyone knows, it's very expensive over here on this side of the bridge, specifically Brisbane, because it's a beautiful, beautiful place. It's a town within a city, which I think is amazing. So I hope you will support a project that creates these opportunities for the next generation of our local labor force, both here in Brisbane and San Mateo County. Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you very much, Emily. Now, was there anyone in this series? I think Don, you mentioned, so you have, so Emily spoke. Was there, if not, then let's, Jeremiah, let's move on line.

All right, Ignacio, you may address the commission.

Yes, good evening. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, good evening, planning commissioner. My name is Ignacio Dairit. I am with the Center for Creative Land Recycling, CCLIR. And Stephanie mentioned I actually worked with her there for a few years. But my knowledge of the Baylands actually even preceded hers. I learned about this project when I was a graduate student at Cal. in 1986, so it's been that long. For the past 15 years, CCLR has been providing independent, neutral technical assistance for the Baylands. We are not partners to the developer. Our focus is strictly on safety and community benefit. Most recently, CCLR helped the city secure a $3 million grant for the environmental assessments for the peer review I helped hire EKI, who is now working for the city, and actually EKI worked for the city of Emeryville when I was working there 38 years ago. When I started working in Emeryville, the blighted industrial streets felt unsafe and pretty much maybe similar to what you see out there. Over two decades, we successfully transformed hundreds of acres of former rail yards and into thousands of homeless parks earning four national awards i know these projects can seem daunting however modern cleanup is highly regulated as had been mentioned we had many sites with institutional controls and i have not heard of any breaches in emeryville in the parks or in the houses The Baylands is an extraordinary opportunity to deliver safe, lasting assets for Brisbane, and I thank you for your leadership. Thank you.

Thank you, Nacho. Let's keep going with the next.

All right. Eileen, just two seconds, and then you may address the Commission.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Eileen McLaughlin and I represent the Citizens Committee to complete the refuge. I actually want to speak to something that's a process here about comment. Several weeks ago with the Sierra Club, Greenfoot Hills, and the Bird Alliance of San Mateo County, we submitted a letter of comment to the June 11th meeting, and we had anticipated it was a comment that would be sufficient to get to be here. We find that it's not. And we'd like to know what the process is. Do we need to resubmit it, say, if you're meeting next Tuesday, so that it is part of the discussion? We really developed our comments with the hopes of helping make this whole project a more successful one for Brisbane. Appreciate any advice that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Eileen. All the comments will be taken into advisement, and certainly when we deliberate, we will discuss among the Commission the comments that were brought up that we feel need further discussion, and the Commission can also ask staff and the advisers to address them. So I can assure you they will be read and addressed. Any more online? One more online? Let's take one more online. All right. Christina?

Hello there, thank you. I would recommend that the Planning Commission exclude the mobility plan from their recommendation to City Council. While I support the intention to reduce Bayshore to two lanes and to discourage the use of Bayshore as a pass-through for those traveling across Brisbane, for those having no start or destination within Brisbane, but it doesn't demonstrate exactly how to do this. Especially mysterious is the plan to have better access between Geneva and 101. As Michelle Salmon has already noted, we need to take great care with how we approach this goal. There is an exception I would like to make to the pass-through traffic though, and that would be bicycles. Bicycle travel can help reduce vehicle miles traveled. However, the mobility plan, is remarkably inadequate when it comes to bike infrastructure. While there are tiny patches of protected bike lanes, particularly at the intersections, much of the length of Bayshore is simply a white line of paint along the edge of the road. I don't consider that an encouraging form of bike infrastructure. In 2026, this is particularly surprising, especially since BDI is claiming to support better transportation alternatives. One thing that I don't think necessarily belongs in this document, but it's a concern of mine. I'm not even sure it's in the realm of the Planning Commission. And that is the financial capacity of the developer to actually pull this off. Have they demonstrated that they have the financing that they have? the essentially the capacity to be able to do this and not leave Brisbane with a partially started or finished project. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Christina. Some more online. Okay, that's it. Okay. So let's return to the room. Ali Sapirman.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ali Saberman, advocacy and policy manager at the Housing Action Coalition. HACC is a statewide pro-housing nonprofit representing developers, architects, attorneys, and labor partners across California. We've been closely engaged on the Baylands for years, and we're here tonight in strong support of the EIR certification specific plan adoption. Brisbane's housing element depends almost entirely on the site to meet RENA. There is no credible alternative. I've sent a number of comment letters to the city and HCD on this concern. The city has already missed its program to point a to rezoning deadline. HCD has issued a corrective action letter and further delay only compounds the city's legal exposure, including the builder's remedy risk. We also want to be direct about remediation. This is not an unresolved issue. DTSC, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and San Mateo County Environmental Health have all improved cleanup plans and are actively overseeing the process. The environmental review has been thorough and extensive. The final EIR is complete. The specific plan is before you. Brisbane has had more than two decades to plan for this site, and the region is watching. We urge the Commission to recommend certification and adoption of a plan that is feasible, flexible, and is ready to deliver homes to this community and region that we urgently need. Let's not wait another 20 years. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Allie. Mary Rogers.

Good evening. Mary Rogers. I sit on a sec with Michelle and Anthony and the comments that I will be relaying to you are based off extensive review of these documents. Not once, not twice, but probably 3 times. The environmental impact report is intended to provide. the factual analysis that supports the specific plan. When those two documents are not aligned, decision makers and the public cannot be confident that the environmental impacts of the project actually being approved have fully been analyzed. Approving the plan under those circumstances is like signing a contract after reviewing the wrong version. It undermines informed decision-making, transparency, and public trust. The question is not whether the Baylands specific plan should ultimately be approved. The question is whether it is appropriate to approve it before the environmental analysis fully and accurately reflects the project under consideration. Until those documents are consistent, complete, and describe the same project, approval is premature. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's hear from Andy Yu, please.

Good evening. My name is Andy. Well, this is the first time I ever come to a meeting like this. First ever, you know, follow up these plans. And like I say, I'm a journeyman person with the SMA worker local 104. I'm here supporting these projects. Development like this is not only good for Brisbane, but it will provide local construction jobs to the Brisbane residents, like myself. When a large project with a local worker not only benefit with the local families working on the projects, but the money will stay with the communities and support the local business also. And then I encourage you of supporting this project as well. Thank you. And then, I moved here 12, 13 years ago and then so I love this community and I love Brisbane so hopefully get something new get started and then so thank you, thank you.

All right, thank you very much Andy. Well, we're doing well here actually. Let's hear from Bart Powatoa. And thank you for the guidance on how to say your name.

You like the phonetic explanation there?

Yeah, I liked it.

Appreciate that. Evening, commissioners, chair, staff. I am Bart Pantoja, very close. I'm the business manager for the San Mateo County Building and Construction Trades Council. I'm here on behalf of the 21 construction trade unions and the 13,000 men and women in the union construction industry who live and work in San Mateo County, including those who reside here in Brisbane. We're excited to see the progress of the approval of the Bayland development that has been a long and arduous process to arrive at this point. We look forward to an approved development that will bring tremendous opportunity for life-sustaining wages, healthcare for construction workers and their families, and pension earnings that will allow these hard workers to retire someday. For the building trades, it's projects like this that open doors of opportunity for pathways to careers in construction through state-registered apprenticeships. that will provide everything I just named above. And as you heard from some of our local residents who've gone through apprenticeship, who are apprentices, that's something that's happening today, and this development will only magnify that. This is a complex and diverse development of immense size. Our highly skilled craftsmen and craftswomen are the best at what they do. We pride ourselves on performance, coordination, and quality production, all this while keeping safety a priority. Bayland Incorporated and Baylands Development understands this and is committed to utilize our network of highly competitive contractors that encompass these valued traits. We encourage you to move the recommendations of staff and let's build this thing. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Tom Traer, please.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Tom Traer. I'm a proud member of Local 104. I'm a lifelong resident of San Mateo County, been on the peninsula my whole life, and I've been with Local 104 fresh out of high school. So, 18, I left Carlmont, went straight down to the Union Hall and signed up. Good union job has allowed me to stay on the peninsula and remain part of this great community. Union careers offer living wages, great health care, and good pensions, and they're one of the best ways to boost the middle class and keep families in San Mateo County. Projects like this offer great opportunities to employ local workers with good construction jobs and also offer new careers to young people getting into the apprenticeship and get the same opportunities that I had to live and work in my community. Please join us in supporting this project. Thank you and have a good evening.

Thank you. Jake Hiltak, please. Please correct me if I got that wrong.

Good evening, Commissioners and Chairperson. I'm an apprentice with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and projects like this are great opportunities to put local apprentices like me to work in our communities. My training and work hours depend on large projects like the one we are supporting tonight. Developments that use local hire and apprentices will open up chances for more local people like me to get into good careers in the construction trades and a good pay and benefits. Please move forward with this project and help young people get opportunities in the trades like I did. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much. And then this is actually the last slip I have, and that's from Clara Johnson.

Good evening. I think that the environmentally preferred or superior alternative should be adopted instead of the one that has been adopted. And I also would like to talk about the mitigation measures. I think that every mitigation measure in the EIR should include enough details so that we might understand how and when the mitigation will be scheduled so that Common sense might help us understand whether the mitigation will be feasible physically, fiscally, and taking into account scheduling and phasing. If the mitigation measure does not say how the mitigation will happen, this means Excuse me. This means that nobody expects it to really to occur We cannot allow this kind of cavalier absence of explanation to go unchallenged You can see that the state regulators in my comments, which I will can't hand to Jeremiah It shows various state agencies commenting on how there isn't enough information to do an analysis in some of the mitigations. And I think that that is a problem, unfortunately, that occurs throughout the document. You if you can't do the analysis, you can't determine whether or not they're going to be effective. So it isn't complete until that's done. I hope that that will be worked on. There needs to be oversight of the scheduling so that it can be established that there is sufficient funding, regulatory approval, including elements like nesting for. issues regarding wildlife and other incontrovertible limiting factors, sufficient time allotted, trained workers and materials to accomplish the mitigation. It will be necessary to have an auditing entity that would make sure that mitigation measures were being implemented as described in the final EIR and on schedule as described in the final EIR in order that the project not slide into chaos. This auditing entity should be controlled, staffed, and supervised by the city. It should have the power to stop work on the project. Otherwise, it's kind of academic if you can't stop work on the project. And so far, I haven't seen any place where it calls for that. And that is because the mitigation plan is not being followed if we don't have enough information. The city will determine or could determine what kind of an entity that would do this auditing, a special district, a part of the successor agency to the redevelopment agency or something else. Its independence from the developer is essential to serve its purpose. It should be funded by the developer owner and it will need to have bond protection. The agencies that I listed here is the Water Quality Control Board, Fish and Wildlife Service, provided information to you, and I wanted to add in my comments to their comments. I thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Clara. Did anyone else online, Jeremiah? Okay, so we were actually able to get through everything. Okay, please go ahead, the mic is yours.

Besides two minutes not being enough, I grew up here in Brisbane in a blue collar family. My dad was in the trades, he later became a teacher. I've lived here all my life, I've seen so many changes, and I've dealt with the Baylands and the dump and everything else all of my life. But I want to make it really clear, especially to the group of people that are here, that we are, me personally, I'm not against housing and I'm not against unions. I am for safety of the people who are going to be living and working there. Yes, it's going to be hell for the people who live in Brisbane to hear piled driving hour after hour like we did just when they did the tunnel bridge. But I'm up here. I won't be alive when this is done. I'm old now. But I care about the future because there's an old Shaker proverb that says, live each day as if it is your last and as if you have a thousand years to live. We really need to think about the level of the forever chemicals that are out there, the possibility of nuclear waste, the possibility of stirring up a whole lot of dirt. I want people to really realize that the roundhouse isn't going to be where it is now. It's going to be 30 feet higher because that's how much dirt it's going to take to kind of try to protect you. You see these beautiful pictures of trees and boulevards and everything. Ah, but how deep are the roots for the trees? Is it going to penetrate the gap? These are all things that we need to think about and make sure that we've got all our ducks in a row or people will die, just like they died at Midway Village from getting sick living on Lamp Black. They're on their third iteration of trying to make that a safe place to live. Let's see if we can get it right the first time. Let's see if we can actually answer the questions, really examine the toxins that are there. I brought up a whole list of hazards and hazardous materials from Stauffer Chemical, the Boneyard, Lazari Fuel, the Roundhouse, and everything. And those things are not being addressed. I couldn't find where they were being addressed. There are things out there that we don't know about. And that is where I'm at. And yeah, I appreciate the union. I grew up in a union family. I appreciate having a house. I'm one of the really few lucky people who still lives on the street I grew up on. I want people to be safe. I don't want them to die from cancer and poisons that are out there. We need to do a really good job of cleaning it up before anybody lives there. And before people who were working there building this get sick from breathing the dust, get sick from breathing, moving all this toxin around without us being really careful about how we do it. So I ask you to really spend the time, hear the testimonies, read the, I've read 10,000 pages by now. I read the first EIR. I read this one. I read the specific plan twice. We really need to make sure that we get this right. And this is the next step is what your planning commission does. I'm really sorry we didn't have a community group like we did last time. But then it goes to the council, and they're relying on us and on you and on every step of the way to put in the safety things that will keep Brisbane from going bankrupt and to keep people from dying from living on a toxic dump site. Thank you.

Well, I think that exhausts the public comments tonight. I think that necessarily means it exhausts all the public comments. There was a suggestion that we continue. I think we should do that also out of respect for at least one comment received, that we should make sure that people have enough time to read and digest all this. That would be my recommendation to do that, just to make sure, even to give us enough time to really give everything we heard and all the correspondence we received due consideration. But as to next steps this evening, I'll take guidance from staff as well.

I think we should have a motion maybe to close the public hearing actually chair Before you you do that. I think we have a couple thoughts one if you do decide to Continue the hearing to a date certain which we can talk about in just a moment. We just leaving the public hearing open we can Continue to receive public comment via writing while the hearings open and there'll be another opportunity for public comment at your Continued hearing when the when the hearing continues so that that would be our suggestions that we we not Yet close the public hearing before you consider your motion to continue to a date certain you and the fellow commissioners may also want to see if there are. Um, particular questions or areas you'd like to highlight so that we can, um, as staff can bring more information back to you and touch on the topics that you're most interested in. Um, when we do reconvene after at that continued hearing. Um, and then before you, you do that, I did just want to provide a little bit more context. For a couple of the comments that you heard both orally here tonight and received in writing about the idea of needing more time with the EIR or conducting a peer review of the EIR, first just To to keep it in context sequel only requires a final to be distributed 10 days before it's certified and here the documents already been out for more than a month and a half and we're not even close to reaching a final vote on on certification. There's more than. Certainly more than what sequel requires in terms of the opportunity to digest and respond to that information and the idea of doing a peer review is common when an agency doesn't prepare its own environmental document. For example, as the environmental remediation plans and the wrap were being prepared, the city peer reviewed those so it could provide comments because it was separate regulatory agencies that had the ultimate authority over those documents. Or in some jurisdictions, an agency will allow an applicant to prepare environmental documents or prepare the technical studies that support the environmental documents. And in those situations, the agency will peer review those documents to make sure that at the end of the day, the documents reflect the agency's independent judgment. But it would not be common practice to have peer review done of an agency's own work. And here the EIR has been prepared by consultants that are contracted by and under the control of the city. So the city has directed all of that work product, reviewed all of that work product, and had it legally reviewed both by its in-house legal staff and outside CEQA legal experts. So I just wanted to provide that additional context and clarity for the process as you're considering how else you might want to move forward here tonight.

Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you. I think that's obviously good advice that we don't close the public hearing because it is sort of by definition still open. And your point about peer review is well taken. I think one way or the other, given the concerns we heard tonight about toxins and sort of unknown unknowns and whether things will be safe in the long run, I think we should dig into that and I think that the consultants who can address that I think would be – it'd be great to have them present here next time just to kind of address that. The process is peer reviewed. My understanding is it has been adversarial. It seems adequate to me, and I take the point both from the applicant and from the research I've done that this is not the first time sites like this have been remediated safely. But I think we have heard the concerns, and I think we definitely need those consultants here to have a deeper discussion on that because we just heard about it. I think that's definitely worth a discussion by the Commission. We heard other comments tonight about the fact that the EIR does not adequately evaluate the actual project under consideration. There were concerns about the energy neutrality pact, the impact, the downgrading of the greenhouse gas emissions impact. I guess that's basically saying the impact is offset by development that would take place elsewhere i think i'd like to hear a little bit more about that as a kind of a justification for for sort of reclassifying that risk i'd like to understand that rationale better um so that's mainly the concerns we heard there was some some uh one also raised about the city's long-term potential liability if it can't be funded um or if there are um liabilities that emerge over the long run that are you know expensive and that could I think break the back of the city. I think that's another thing that we need to talk about or hear more about. Commissioners Wozniak and Sison, anything you heard tonight that you specifically want there to be people for next time?

No, I think you covered it pretty thoroughly. I think continuing it until our next meeting, I believe the date is June 30th, that'll give, that's when the full commission will finally be present to address this. And it will allow us to digest the comments that were submitted today and more recently. So I think the additional time is good. So I'll make a motion to continue this to the hearing date of June 30th.

At what time, please?

I think 6.30 or 7.30? 6.30? 6.30. Okay.

It's on Tuesday. So that's a special meeting then. So...

Should we get a second on that?

Oh, I'm so sorry. And all in favour?

Aye.

So the motion to continue the meeting until next Tuesday passes with three ayes. Any items initiated? Any other items initiated by staff tonight?

Yes, thank you, Chair. I can announce that the open space element was continued to the July 16th council meeting. Unfortunately, they weren't able to address it at last week's meeting. And that's all I have tonight.

okay um any items any other as initiated by okay well i this is uh very enlightening for me and uh i think there's a lot um obviously for all of us for the commission and for the community to consider so thank you very much i think it's a it's a great and very engaging process thanks for being here

. .