Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Thank you. you 🎵 🎵 ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶

Okay, we're going to start in 10, 9, 8.

Good evening, all. The June 30th meeting of the Brisbane Planning Commission will now come to order. Staff, may we have a roll call of commissioners?

Yes, thank you. Commissioner Funke?

Present.

Commissioner Lau?

Present.

Commissioner Sayasan? Here. Commissioner Watsiak?

Present.

And Chair Gooding?

Here. MAY WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA, PLEASE?

SO MOVED. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION PASSES WITH FIVE AYES. THIS BEING A SPECIAL MEETING, THERE IS NO CONSENT CALENDAR. AND THIS BEING A SPECIAL MEETING, I BELIEVE THERE ARE NO ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON THE AGENDA. WE DO HAVE ON THE AGENDA The continued public hearing regarding Baylands Subarea Environmental Review 2021 ER1, Specific Plan 2021 SP1, Zoning Amendment 2021 RZ3, and General Plan Amendment 2021 GPA2. I believe the first item on the agenda is a presentation by staff in response to questions by the commissioners from the previous meeting.

Thank you. Okay.

The first item, can you hear me now? Okay. First item on the agenda is a presentation by staff in response to questions from the commissioners from the last meeting.

Well, thank you. Good evening. And tonight is the continued public hearing. For the balance specific plan and associated planning actions. So here's a brief overview of what we're going to do tonight. 1st, we'll have an introduction to the evenings materials and a quick recap of last week's public meeting. Then we'll have staff presentation as well as consultant presentations on the. Items that the commission had identified for follow up at last week's meeting. We'll have some special information on the remediation process and ongoing monitoring. We'll also present some staff recommended clarify or requested clarifications on the specific plan and other related actions. And then we'll close with a revisit of staff's recommendation on the project.

Julia, I realize that we also have some written communications that arrived since the previous meeting. Should I simply iterate those now or do you want to wait till later?

Yeah, you could do it now.

I think I have the fairly comprehensive list of communications received in written form since the last meeting. We received communication from Clara Johnson regarding some issues with REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND THE WILDLIFE AS THEY RELATE TO THE EIR. SOME COMMENTS FROM DAVID CALB REGARDING PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS OF THIS PROJECT TO BRISBAYNE. THE SIERRA CLUB RESUBMITTED THEIR PREVIOUS JUNE 10TH LETTER. MICHELLE SAMMON RESUBMITTED AN EXCERPT FROM A SCOPING MEETING FROM 2011. TRAVIS CLARK SUBMITTED A letter in support of the project, and Michelle Salmon submitted a letter opposing the mobility plan. And I believe that OSEC resubmitted their earlier report as well. We also received communication from Dana Dilworth regarding the EIR and the specific plan. And a second written communication from Clara Johnson.

Okay, thank you chair. All right. Okay, so the commission met last week. This was the 1st, public hearing on the project, and it's associated entitlements and other planning actions. So, at that meeting, the commission heard a presentation from staff. Acknowledge written communications received, opened the public hearing, heard a presentation from the applicant and also took public comment on the project. After public comment concluded the commission, keeping the public hearing open, directed staff to return at tonight's special meeting with more information on 5 key topic areas. That came out of both oral and written testimony and the commission's own questions. So, we'll be presenting information on that tonight at the commission's direction. So that will be addressing how changes between the 2025 specific plan and the 2026 staff recommended specific plan are reflected in the final and discuss consistency between the and specific plan to summarize site remediation details and process focusing on known and potentially unknown contaminants. approved remediation plans, overall safety for residents, workers and visitors of the sub area during and following remediation. Uh, next to identify the city's potential liability and financial risk related to required site remediation development and occupancy post remediation review the final approach to greenhouse gas emissions. That impact analysis and evaluate the project's impacts and to finally discuss the project's consistency with the general plan. In light of measure, JJ policies can calling for the specific plan to include a sustainability framework. That's consistent with the 2015 sustainability framework for the balance project and that development be designed to be energy neutral and ongoing basis. Okay, so, as I noted, we will be addressing those 5 topic areas. We are also going to present some information on requested clarifications to the specific plan as well as the base or mobility plan following staff's presentation and any commission questions of staff. The commission should accept additional public comments and ask for the clarifying questions of those providing testimony if needed, including the applicant team before considering closing the public hearing and commencing deliberations. So at this point, I'll hand it off to Eric Phillips with the City Attorney's Office, who will kick off the follow-up presentation on those items requested by the Commission.

Thank you, Director, and good evening, Chair, members of the Commission. As Director Ayers just said, my name is Eric Phillips. I'm Special Counsel to the City from the City Attorney's Office.

Sorry.

I'm addressing the commission. Thank you. So the first question that the commission asked for a response to was to clarify where the specific plan and specifically the 2026 specific plan that's being recommended to this body is analyzed in the EIR and to ask for confirmation or whether there are inconsistencies between the current specific plan that you are being recommended to take action on and the analysis that's in the EIR and so first I wanted to point out that the recommended specific plan is analyzed in the EIR as modified alternative number one and the way that that analysis works is it compares the analysis of the impacts of the specific plan that's being analyzed to the impacts that were already disclosed in the draft EIR because it's true that the draft EIR began its analysis in the analytical framework on the specific plan as it was originally proposed by the applicant and through the review process that specific plan has evolved and Been replaced by what's now recommended before you by by staff the staff recommended specific plan The important thing to note, though, is that the analysis shows that the specific plan that's recommended before you would have the same or fewer less severe impacts than what was already disclosed in the draft EIR. And I just want to highlight that this approach is exactly how CEQA is designed to work. There is case law from the Court of Appeal the Sustainable Treasure Island versus San Francisco case, where the Court of Appeal held that the CEQA process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project. In other words, it is common and part of CEQA for the project to evolve and be developed modified to incorporate new suggestions throughout the process that's what staff has done so far i wouldn't be surprised if you all make recommendations that have further changes to the plan i'm sure council will do the same and what we have to look at the analytical framework that we'll use is whether any of those changes if those changes make new or more severe impacts than what were already disclosed in the draft EIR, then we would have to recirculate the EIR. But if that threshold isn't met, then. the changes in the project don't undermine the EIR or invalidate its findings and its conclusions. And then the last thing I'll say about that is that the CEQA findings will cover any of those further changes as the project evolves so the final record of what the city approves and what the final project is will be described in the sequel findings that will set forward the analytical framework that explains how the analysis throughout the entirety of the EIR covers each of the impacts associated with the final plan, whatever version that is by the time we're done with this process. So I did want to just start this process by Again, reemphasizing that the changes that we've seen are not inconsistencies or issues with the EIR. And as I've mentioned earlier, it's exactly how the CEQA process is designed to work for the project to continue to evolve and improve throughout the process. So I just wanted to reassure you all of that. NOW, I THINK FOR THE SECOND PIECE OF THIS, I DO WANT TO TURN IT BACK TO THE CONSULTANT TEAM TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS REMEDIATIONS OR SOIL CONDITIONS AND THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTIONS FROM OUR INITIAL HEARING.

Thank you and good evening. For the first meeting, we discussed the main hazardous material sites, which consists of the Brisbane landfill and the operable units that cover the former rail yards, that is, OUSM and OU2, which you see on the screen there. The discussion covered the chemicals of concern, the responsible regulatory agencies, the planned remedial actions, and the land use restrictions that would ensue from that. For the next meeting, we delved into some details regarding the regulatory agencies, vapor intrusion, and the caps to be placed over the buried waste. For this meeting, let's take a step back and review the overall regulatory process, followed by summarizing the overall history of the investigative and remedial actions today. APOLOGIES FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE SLIDE, BUT THERE REALLY ARE A LOT OF STEPS TO THE OVERALL PROCESS. REGULATORY AGENCIES HAVE ESTABLISHED A PROCESS FOR THE INVESTIGATION, EVALUATION, REMEDIATION AND CLOSURE OF WASTE SITES. IN SHORT, THE PROCESS GOES FROM SCOPING AND PLANNING TO REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TO FEASIBILITY STUDY TO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN TO IMPLEMENTATION. THE OVERSEEING REGULATORY AGENCIES ARE REVIEWING COMMENTS ON EACH STEP AND THE PROCESS WILL NOT PROCEED UNTIL THEY ARE SATISFIED WITH EACH. For the project scoping, your initial phase includes reviewing site data that you have at that time, developing conceptual models, and then setting the overall objectives of what you want to accomplish. For the remedial investigation phase, you conduct a field sampling and laboratory analysis to characterize the contamination and assess the risks to health and the environment. For the feasibility study phase, you develop and screen your cleanup alternatives based on the regulatory requirements and evaluation criteria, and at the end of that, you recommend one. You next then go through your remedial action plans, your remedial design implementation plans, and your remedial designs. All of this integrates the findings, recommend your preferred remedial actions for the regulatory decisions, design your work plans, design your pre-designed investigations, and put together your construction and implementation planning documents. Finally, you have the remedial action where you actually go and implement the remedy. Note that the process may vary some depending upon the regulatory agency and the nature of the site, but all the steps are to be conducted. For example, for the landfill, it prepares a closure post closure plan, which is simply the remedial action plan and remedial design facilities. It's just designed specific to landfills. So the regulatory agencies review every submittal and they must provide approval before the next steps are taken. Next slide, please. So in this case, the Brisbane landfill began operations in 1932 and stopped receiving waste in 1967. Now, modern waste disposal practices were not yet developed by 1967, and formal regulatory closure plans had not yet been required. So the first regulatory order to improve landfill operations was issued by the Water Board in 1958. Cleanup and abatement order number 94-134 was issued in 1994, and the first waste discharge requirements were adopted in 2001. MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER BEGAN IN 1988 AND HAS CONTINUED TO DATE. A LANDFILL GAS EXTRACTION SYSTEM WAS INSTALLED IN 1991 AND IS STILL IN PLACE. IN REVIEWING GEOTRACKER, THAT'S THE WEBSITE WHERE THE WATER BOARD POSTED ITS DOCUMENTS, 214 SITE DOCUMENTS AND 89 MONITORING REPORTS HAVE BEEN POSTED FROM 1958 TO DATE. The documents include various regulatory agency orders, work plans, investigative reports, and monitoring and remedial actions. The rail yards area was originally bay lands that were filled in with rock blasted from a nearby road cut through a visitation point and with rubble from the 1906 earthquake. The rail yards and associated industries began operations in about 1914 and continued through the early 60s. Environmental investigations at the rail yards began in 1982. Originally, it was all under the jurisdiction of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, or DTSC for short. The rail yards were split into two operable units, OUSM and OU2, in 1995. In reviewing EnviroStor, that's the website where DTSC posts its documents, they have 134 documents that have been posted for OUSM between 1985 and 2025. Again, these documents include various regulatory agency orders, work plans, investigative reports, and monitoring and remedial actions. For the area that was split off, the website has 29 site documents and 10 monitoring reports that have been posted since 2016 to date. Again, these include the various regulatory agency orders, work plans, reports and actions collectively. These various reports document thousands of samples collected and analyzed today, thousands of labor hours expended to document, investigate and develop remedial actions and closure plans for these waste sites and hundreds of hours of regulatory oversight.

Good evening. My name is John Montgomery Brown and I work with EKI Environment and Water. I completed my Ph.D. at Stanford in where I studied emerging contaminants that are present in potable and non-potable water reuse systems. And I've been working with EKI since 2007, and we've been engaged really by the City of Brisbane to conduct third-party review of draft documents prepared by the project developer since 2018. Over the course of this work, we participated in various meetings with the city, the regulatory agencies, as well as the project team. We've reviewed a number of different work plans including things like the bayland specific plan and it's supporting documents such as the groundwater modeling that was conducted to evaluate the effects of sea level rise as well as the sea level rise vulnerability assessment we've reviewed documents such as the data gap reports for ousm and ou2 the landfill closure plan as well as the import fill sampling time the feasibility study, remedial action plan, and the follow-on work plans, and reports that were related to specific elements of the proposed remedies, human health risk assessments, as well as the remedial design and implementation plan, and they're supporting construction documents and mitigation measures. In reviewing these reports, we looked at things like the historical site activities that were conducted at a variety of different, at all of these different parcels, such as the facilities that were located in the industrial way process, industrial way portion of the site, such as the Hyden Blue Plant. It was eventually acquired by the Stauffer Chemical Company. We reviewed evaluations that were conducted to assess whether or not radioactive materials from Hunter's Point were ever transported to the Brisbane landfill. We looked at the analytes, the analytical methods that were used, the sampling procedures, as well as reviewed the analytical data. As was previously mentioned by Michael, during the data gap evaluations, over 1,400 soil samples and 150 groundwater samples were collected and submitted for the analysis of over 100 chemicals of potential concern in soil and groundwater. These chemicals included things like petroleum hydrocarbon compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds, volatile organic compounds, compounds such as dry cleaning solvents, semi-volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, asbestos, and other things. We've also reviewed things, you know, also in the course of this work, we've reviewed the work that was conducted within the Bayland Soil Processing Center to characterize that material to determine whether it's suitable to bring onto OUSM and OU2 for use as a cap, which, you know, would be accessible or for exposure by residents and everybody else. And so, you know, over the course of that work, over 4000 samples were collected and these samples were composited into, you know, 150 samples that were analyzed for pretty much all of the compounds that they know to analyze for or that they can analyze for and that for which there are screening levels. I think I mentioned some of these already over the course of this. We reviewed the remedial technologies that were proposed. We evaluated the exposure pathways, potential receptors, and mitigation measures that were being proposed by the developer, as well as we reviewed the documents for their compliance with city and regulatory requirements. After reviewing the documents, we discussed the findings with the city and provided our comments and red lines to BDI and its consultants, and when necessary, participated in subsequent meetings with them to discuss our technical comments and to develop appropriate solutions. After that, BDI usually incorporated the comments that we had, they revised their documents, and we would review these revised documents to confirm that the comments and concerns were addressed and this process was repeated as necessary. And in a few instances, we also assisted the city with preparing comment letters to the regulatory agencies that were submitted you know, commenting about the documents such as the OU2 RDIP and the SM RDIP.

Thank you. Great. So we'll continue from there. The related question to the information that you were just presented was related to potential risks to the city as an entity. What liability might the city face related to the cleanup efforts or if contamination were to somehow remain on site? I actually don't have as much to say about this as some of the other topics that we're going to talk about because the city actually faces very little direct liability here. This is privately held property. It's not publicly owned land. The city is not directly responsible for the remediation and the review of a land use plan of development plans. is not the type of action that creates liability risk for the city in connection with those approvals. The risks fall with the property owner and the developer to ensure that they are taking all necessary steps to protect the public health and comply with the regulatory scheme that has been described. I'll also point out That some of the policies in Measure JJ are applicable here as well and help provide some further assurances. One is that residential, that the Measure JJ calls for the development agreement to include specific means for enforcement by the city of these other environmental cleanup conditions, including suspension of building permits during the construction phase. In addition, there's the section that talks about sufficient assurances for the ongoing performance of site remediation in connection with development. So as we continue to work on the development agreement and include the phasing plan within that document, you'll see additional structures that relate the efforts to complete cleanup tied to the ability to proceed with development. And again, making sure that all necessary regulatory steps have been completed before development commences on portions of the site. So that's still a component that will be layered on top of all of the steps that you've already heard about so far tonight. The final two questions that we were asked to look into a little bit further and bring back to the commission first was with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. And I want to spend a little bit of time talking about the way the analyzes the project's contribution to greenhouse gas. And to start, I just want to take a step back and remind everyone of the analytical framework that this EIR and EIRs throughout the state use when analyzing greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions are obviously not a site-specific problem or a local problem. It's a regional and, in fact, a global issue. And because of that, state policy and common practice in EIR developments are to look at GHG, again, as a regional issue and look at it from a cumulative perspective. And when we take that perspective, the EIR's analysis shows that the project will contribute to greenhouse gas emission reductions as compared to developing comparable levels of development that are projected by Plan Bay Area in other portions of the region. And that's because, again, the site is a prime location with transit-oriented development, access to the Caltrain station. It has a mix of uses. It has TDM measures and active transportation framework integrated throughout the plan. It incorporates all electric development. It has a solar field. It has a planned battery. All of the commercial scale battery that helps balance out energy demand throughout the course of the year. All of these steps reduce the way the project consumes energy and reduce the way that it would contribute to carbon emissions compared to, again, other development that's projected to occur throughout the region. So that supports the EIR's conclusion and analysis that the project will end up with a reduction in regional greenhouse gas emissions. To support that analysis, the EIR includes two separate frameworks. One is a quantified GHG emissions and compares it then in relation to the state's goals. It also compares the project's environmental performance with various state and regional climate policies. And it provides enough analysis and evidence to support the conclusion that the project is consistent with those regional plans and policies. And what that means is that the project is going to meet its fair share of contributing to the state's climate targets, reducing by 45 percent emissions by 2030 and a zero emission framework by by 2040. Having said all that, I do want to acknowledge that. The draft EIR included an additional obligation of the project in the form of a proposed mitigation measure that would require carbon offsets for onsite GHG emissions that the project would still create. But in light of that framework that I was talking about, the decision was to remove that and not treat that as an actual significant impact. And I think, hold on one second. I just want to highlight some language from CARB, which is the California Air Resources Board, the expert state agency charged with the development of the state's climate goals and state policy related to greenhouse gas emissions. And CARB's scoping plan, which helps describe the steps that agencies have to take in relation to projects and when evaluating projects for greenhouse gas emissions, CARB's scoping plan advises that jurisdictions should avoid creating targets that would be impossible to meet as a basis to determine significance. For example, a net zero target may imply that GHG emissions of any project that are not reduced or offset to zero would be considered significant and potentially unavoidable. This would lead to undue burdens and frustrate project approval processes, which may be particularly problematic for residential development in climate smart infill areas. Ultimately, a net zero target that makes it more difficult to achieve statewide goals by prohibiting complicated projects that are needed to support the state's climate goals, like infill development or solar projects, would not be consistent with the state's goals. So viewed through that framework, it was decided that the mitigation measure to require an offset program for basically a net zero GHG framework would not be consistent with the state's goals. It's not required by CEQA. And so we've advised to remove that from the draft to the final EIR. I guess having said that, notwithstanding that change, the set of mitigation measures that are incorporated in the EIR and the climate policies that are reflected throughout the specific plan, as I said, still contribute to an overall plan that results in a regional reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. So that's the important takeaway from our perspective and that supports the final conclusions in the EIR. And then finally, I want to go back to Measure JJ one more time and look at the sustainability policy so we can talk about that a little bit. As has been discussed by this Commission and in public comment, Measure JJ does have a policy. It says that the required specific plan for the Baylands shall include a sustainability program for new development that is consistent with the principles of the sustainability framework for the Brisbane Baylands. And that was a document that was approved in 2015. and that Baylands development shall be designed so as to be energy neutral on an ongoing basis. However, Measure JJ does not define exactly what energy neutral is supposed to mean in that context. When Measure JJ was adopted, it was implemented in connection with a program level EIR. The program level EIR analyzed impacts of development that interpreted the sustainability program requirement and the energy neutrality requirement as meaning that the development would be carbon neutral, that it would use no fossil fuels and energy consumed on site. And so we'll come back to that in a moment. But I wanted to highlight the fact that Measure JJ, again, is not specific or clear exactly what that what that term means and we look at it in the context of what energy neutrality was thought to mean in 2018 and the way it was analyzed in connection with the program eir that was specifically prepared in connection with that language i think that it's A VERY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION TO LOOK AT IT AS A CARBON NEUTRAL LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT. AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PROJECT THROUGH THAT LENS, I THINK WE CAN QUITE EASILY CONCLUDE THAT IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH MEASURE JJ'S REQUIREMENTS. because as I mentioned, the project does have all electric development. It has the solar array on site. It has commercial scale battery that's proposed. We know from the EIR that over 54% of all energy consumed can be developed just using the solar and other on-site energy generating sources. that's before we take any credit for the battery and how that would further reduce energy demand from the grid from the project and then to the extent there is surplus energy demand the project would be using excuse me all clean choice energy from PG&E so it would still be a carbon neutral energy project. So I think, again, with that framework, we can conclude that it is consistent with Measure JJ. I do want to acknowledge that the EIR uses a more conservative framework. It came up with its own definition of energy neutrality that looked just at energy production on site. And so because only that 54% of energy that's being consumed is being produced literally on site. They said that it would not be energy neutral, but that's a much more conservative approach than Measure JJ requires. So notwithstanding the data that's in the EIR, we think that there's enough information here and analysis to support that conclusion of consistency with Measure JJ. And I think that that takes us through the 5 key questions that the commission had asked us to bring back. So I will pause and pass it back to you or to to talk about some further clarifications to the content of the specific plan.

Great, thank you so much. Mr Phillips. Good evening commission that show with. THIS ITEM HERE RELATES TO MINIMUM AVERAGE DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS. THROUGH COMMENTS THAT THE TEAM HAS RECEIVED DURING THIS PROCESS, STAFF IDENTIFIED THE NEED TO PROVIDE SOME MORE CLARITY ON HOW THESE STANDARDS ARE APPLIED. AND THEY ARE APPLIED BY LAND USE ASSIGNATION RATHER THAN ON A BLOCK BY BLOCK BASIS. The staff recommended specific plan already applies this thinking of the minimum residential densities and commercial intensities on an average basis across each applicable land use designation. And so consistent with that framework, staff recommends clarifying that the minimum density and intensity standards within the one-half mile area of the Bayshore Caltrain Station are also applied. AGAIN, ON AN AVERAGE BASIS ACROSS APPLICABLE LAND USE SEGMENTATION. SO HAVING THIS CLARIFICATION WILL MAKE THE PLAN'S INTENT CLEAR AND ENSURE THAT THE STANDARDS ARE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE RELATED IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS. NEXT, PLEASE. THIS ITEM IS RELATED TO HOSPITALITY USES. THROUGH STAFF REVIEW AND INCONSISTENCY WAS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING WHERE HOSPITALITY USES ARE PERMITTED. THE PLAN HAS AN ALLOWED USE TABLE AND WITHIN THAT TABLE IT PERMITS HOSPITALITY USES WITHIN HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL, MID DENSITY COMMERCIAL, LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL AREAS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS WITHIN THE PLAN THAT ONLY PERMIT the hospitality building type within just the high density commercial area. So there is a discrepancy here. And as a result, there needs to be revisions to ensure that the plan is internally consistent. And so here presented are two different options, as you can see bulleted here. Option one would be to limit hospitality to high density commercial areas only, which is currently consistent with how the existing HOSPITALITY BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS ARE APPLIED. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS OPTION IS THE MORE RESTRICTIVE OPTION AND WOULD REDUCE FLEXIBILITY REGARDING WHERE HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT COULD OCCUR WITHIN THE SITE AND ON THE MAP OVER TO THE RIGHT, THE POTENTIAL HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL HOSPITALITY LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN IN THAT RED CIRCLED AREA. SO MOVING ON TO THE SECOND OPTION, THIS WOULD BE TO ALLOW HOSPITALITY in both high density commercial and mid density commercial areas. And looking at this option, it would provide additional flexibility regarding where future hospitality could be located. And of course, that would then require some targeted revisions to those hospitality provisions. And on the map, again, the high density commercial areas is in red, and the mid density commercial areas are in blue. UNDER BOTH OPTIONS, HOSPITALITY WOULD NO LONGER BE PERMITTED IN LOW-DENSITY COMMERCIAL AREAS. SO TONIGHT STAFF IS SEEKING INPUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH DIRECTION ON WHETHER HOSPITALITY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL AREAS ONLY OR ALSO BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE MID-DENSITY COMMERCIAL AREAS.

so with that i'm going to hand it over to matt to go over the next item for clarification thank you great thank you bev i am matt going with farron piers and i will be stepping you through some clarifications about the bay shore mobility plan So, 1st, just focusing on the project features that interface with the Bayshore Mobility Plan. The Bayland specific plan includes 2 new traffic signals at Main Street and Campus Parkway on Bayshore. And 3 new right to turn in and out intersections, um, at local or green streets, um, South of Geneva Avenue. There's a few more north of Geneva Avenue, but the base or mobility plan only reached to Geneva Avenue. Um, I'll note that the new signal at main street replaces the existing signal and industrial way. So within the EIR, the mitigation measures TRA 3F, 3I, and 3N all reference improvements that are needed to Bayshore to ensure safety and avoid hazardous conditions. And so that includes things like ensuring safe turning movements in and out of those local and green streets, which will have much slower traffic speeds than what is currently on Bayshore today because those are going to be local street, local serving streets with slow speeds. And then we also have the safe routes of school access across Main Street that would cross at that new signalized intersection connecting the Bayshore Heights neighborhood of Daly City and the elementary school there to the Brisbane, the Baylands residential district, roundhouse district, and the new middle school. And in general, all these features are captured within the MMRP and mitigation measures separately. But the general thing that would make these effective is that reducing the speed limits from 35 miles an hour to 35 or 30 miles an hour through corridor treatments would reduce those hazards to less than significant conditions with the addition of other features as well. So let me step you through some of the challenges. Next slide. Some of the challenges to reducing speeds and implementing, you know, reducing those hazardous conditions include just the long spacing of signals. You could see on the lower section there between Guadalupe Canyon Parkway and the new signal at Campus Parkway would be over 2,000 feet. And with that downhill section, it speeds, it's easy for vehicles to pick up speeds there. And then there's also the long intersection spacing between Main Street and Geneva Avenue on the northern side, where you would have those right turning vehicles at those three local streets. And further, the street today is quite wide. And so any design features that would reduce hazards would need to address the fact that it's currently a wide 80 foot cross section that pedestrians would need to cross. Next slide. So the Bayshore Mobility Plan includes a long list of design features and corridor treatments that were included into one package, but also the mobility plan describes how these different features could improve safety and address the conditions raised both in the EIR as well as in the general plan. And that includes features like the road diet that we've discussed, as well as addition of Class 1 multi-use pathway along the entire segment, removing design features like channelized right turns that can lead to high speeds interfacing with pedestrians, other things like speed feedback, warning signs, doing traffic signal coordination. It also included a range of emergency access and transit access measures to ensure that those services are not impeded by what other features are implemented here. So next slide. So I just wanted to emphasize that the road diet is just one of many features corridor treatments that are included within the Bayshore Mobility Plan. And so the, you know, certainly the city could decide to move forward other features that are specifically called out in the EIR to address safety. Next slide. Just some considerations about the different options that the Bayshore Mobility Plan could include. So with a road diet was included because it's the most effective corridor wide speed reduction measure. When you have signals, it shortens the pedestrian crossings and reduces multi-lane conflict risks. Um, without a road diet, um, there's several, there's a variety of different options from the, the package of the mobility plan, including. Uh, roundabouts are very effective at slowing vehicles through intersection design, but they may still need other intersection treatments between those intersections. Um, signals as they are, um, the addition of new signals as the project is proposing does increase the signal density and allow signal timing. but less effective than roundabouts. But other once again, other treatments are required from that package. And then particularly at intersections like Main Street, you know, multistage crossings with medians, that's the type of thing that was was included as well. And those would need to be used to reduce the exposure for pedestrians crossing. Next slide. So really the next steps, both the with road diet and without road diet conditions have been evaluated with respect to the traffic conditions within the EIR. The with road diet would directly address the mitigation measures TRA 3F, 3I, and 3N, as well as fulfill program C.1.B of the general plan to shift a portion of regional through traffic from Bayshore to other routes. without the road diet also evaluated in the in the EIR would need the package of Bayshore mobility plan corridor treatments that are included as you know, within the mitigation specifically called out within the mitigation measures themselves at a minimum. Um, and would be unlikely to fulfill that program seat at 1 dot B, just because, uh, regional traffic would be continuing to use Bayshore. But that is a separate issue as. From the general plan, um, and separate from the specific plan. So, with that, I'll hand it back to planning. So.

Great, thank you. I WILL CONCLUDE OUR PRESENTATION TONIGHT. SO THE LAST THING WE WANTED TO JUST HIGHLIGHT AGAIN WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF BEFORE THE COMMISSION TONIGHT. SO AS I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM KNOWS, THE PROJECT OVERALL CONSISTS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND SEVERAL RELATED ACTIONS THAT REQUIRE COMMISSION REVIEW, ALL OF WHICH WERE EVALUATED IN THE EIR. SO AGAIN, THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW IS THE PLANNING AND ZONING RELATED ACTIONS. Um, of the project components as well as a future development agreement. So, staff's recommendation, which was presented in the June 25th report was that the commission recommend to council that the final environmental impact report be certified for the balance specific plan and the project overall. And that the project entitlements be approved those include the general plan land use element and circulation element amendments to ensure consistency between the specific plan and general plan adopting the staff recommended specific plan dated May. Uh, 2026, including any. Clarifications as may be directed by the commission through this process, um, amendments to title 17 zoning of the Brisbane municipal code to implement the specific plan. Um, and finally approval of the base vulnerability plan with, or without clarifications that the commission may ultimately direct as part of the deliberations for this process. So that'll end our presentation. We are happy to take any questions on all of this material from the commission.

Thank you very much. I want to sort of give the roadmap for the rest of the meeting. What I'd like to do next is to have the commissioners present any questions they have to the staff and the consultants regarding their presentation tonight. Then we'll have some more public comments. We have some slips here. I think a couple more got handed in. Also, one more presentation by the applicant. And then after all that, then we'll have some more roundtable from the commissioners as to any more questions we may have of staff or consultants for them to think about and come back probably at our next workshop or regular meeting to keep this flow of questions and information and education going. So step one of that is to ask my fellow commissioners if they have any questions of staff regarding the presentation we had tonight. Commissioner Lau?

Maybe just a couple of questions. Let's start with the, I was wondering, what's the current frequency of sampling? My question was the current frequency of sampling. And after the project is completed, What would the frequency be and if who's accountable? You know, at that time, if there's been changes, you know, in any of the levels that are measured. That's a 1 question. I mean, we can just start with that 1.

Thank you chair. Do we still have John with? YES. JOHN, ARE YOU ABLE TO ANSWER THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION?

IF I'VE GOT A COUPLE MORE SECONDS TO FINISH PULLING UP THE DOCUMENTS.

ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. AND, AGAIN, JOHN MONTGOMERY BROWN IS WITH THE CITIES CONSULTANTS EKI WHO PROVIDE PEER REVIEW REGARDING THE REMEDIATION OF THE SITE REVIEWED BY REGULATORY AGENCIES.

okay um so the i believe that samples were collected pretty close to once for one sample for every 150 square feet it was the the sites ou2 and ousm were sort of gridded up um and i do have let's see let's open up the wrong one Oh. So let's see, can I share my screen now? So this shows you an example of what the sampling density looked like here within OU2. The black diamonds are historical sampling locations that were collected prior to the data gap work. And all these other grid locations are locations where samples were collected for metals, for SVOCs, PCBs, organic chlorine pesticides, and other things like that. And then groundwater sampling locations are also sort of shown. here as well. So this shows you all of the groundwater sampling locations that were collected across the site.

My other questions were also like, what's the frequency of the sampling? When was the last time it was sampled? And after or during the development, what was that frequency? And after the development, Who's responsible for still ongoing monitoring and the frequency and any actions needed if there's a change in levels?

Okay, so the chemicals of concern here are generally non-volatile. They don't really move anywhere. And so this sampling here was conducted in 2019 and 2020. There really have been no additional activities. There's been no industrial activities at these locations that would result or potentially add contaminants to the site and stuff like that. And so really, There has not been additional significant additional characterization that's been done since this period here. There have been a couple of small sampling events, but the contamination, this is sort of what it's like. Now what's being proposed with the development plan is that they will end up covering up all of this soil with import material from the Baylands Soil Processing Center that was sampled extensively, and that will be brought over to basically cap this soil to make it so that it is not accessible when future residents and commercial properties are developed on this parcel of land. Moving forwards, there will be land use restrictions and institutional controls that are adopted or that the regulatory agencies will require. And these institutional controls and things like that will involve routine inspections of the cap to make sure that it's not being, that they have a five foot clean soil cap So they'll have routine inspections to make sure that the cap isn't being degraded through erosion or that other entities that maybe want to redevelop the parcel redevelop a portion of the site or might need to excavate to repair a water line. Well, those water lines are going to be installed within clean corridors, areas that the developer has dug out deeper and they've installed these utilities within clean corridors. And so future work within those corridors will not pose a risk to the workers working in them. There are a few areas in the site where they have volatile organic compounds that are present in some soil or groundwater. One of the areas is sort of right in this zone here. I'm not sure if you can see my mouse moving there. And what they're going to do is after the site has been redeveloped, after the site has been surcharged, then the project developer is going to go back and collect a bunch of soil vapor samples all throughout the site where they're planning on locating future buildings. to evaluate whether or not any of these volatile organic compounds are present beneath this uh beneath the building the planned footprints of the buildings and if there are then the developer and its consultants will develop what are called vapor intrusion mitigation measures that will be installed within the building and if those are installed basically then the regulatory agencies will have requirements in terms of how frequently these are monitored, indoor air sampling that might be conducted and things like that. Does that answer your question?

Yes. Let's say there was some elevated levels within the housing areas and If there was some action taken by the tenants, you know the time who's responsible, you know for that if The developer I imagine What actions are you envisioning by the tenants?

I'm sorry.

Well, I mean if there was some For some reason, you know with whatever construction or after a while they found some elevated, you know organic volatile Elements and they did that vapor Okay, containment. If tenants that were residing in that area, you know, had brought up any issues, you know, who's, you know, liable or responsible for any, you know, for managing their concerns?

Yeah, so each, each parcel of land is, you know, as part of these land use controls that they will have, each system that might be developed or each property that is over an area where they have environment, volatile organic compounds, there will be requirements in terms of what happens if that building, you know, they need to do some renovations. They had to dig through the floor. There are requirements that will be outlined in a risk management plan that will detail how they need to make repairs to the structures in order to prevent vapor intrusion. And then there will be subsequent follow up testing that's required. Any sort of redevelopment that are within these parcels is also, you know, They need to notify the regulatory agencies in advance. They will need to notify the regulatory agencies in advance of this work. And so the agencies will also have oversight and be able to provide input and things like that regarding the testing that may be required.

All right. I mean, well, he's on. I don't know if other commissioners had any questions for him.

Well, I'm sure we'll kind of build on each other's questions. I thought the presentation was extremely helpful in general. It reassures me in the first place of the thoroughness of the analysis that has been performed. And maybe my it's more in the nature of observations, because I think when we deliberate, we'll probably flesh out these things a lot more. Maybe it's more notes for myself to do a little more homework. One of the questions was with respect to remediations, how the public will be kept up to date and will someone with accountability to the public have power to intervene if there are problems. I understand that a lot of this will be monitored and reported to regulators and a lot of it will be done by agencies. But some of the questions we received from the public had more to do with how maybe the cities sort of you know being accountable to the public what their role will be but one thing I did find reassuring was that the city of course has the power to suspend approval permits and can impede the development if you see a problem and I think that's that addresses a lot of the public's concern so I thought that was um very good like I said I have to think about that a little bit more but I thought it was very helpful presentation um the other one that caught my eye was the um the greenhouse gas emissions. I think we received some very substantive comments from the Sierra Club and from Anthony Walker about that. And I have to think about that a little bit more. Because I do think, you know, the risk was, it was basically said to be unavoidable. And I kind of can follow the logic, even to the point where the state itself is saying, it is not the purpose of the goals they said to impose undue burdens for example, net zero target requirements, et cetera, to the extent that it would actually frustrate projects like this, sort of in a way, because it's just too ambitious. But I wonder, though, and I have to think about this more, if every project regionally is approved with that basis, it sort of becomes aspirational. I just wonder what the difference is between that and just throwing up your hands and saying, look, there's going to be greenhouse gas emissions. So I can sort of follow the logic, but I think I would like to, and we should do a little more homework about that. I think there were some pretty good sort of pragmatic middle-of-the-way proposals to put a little bit more accountability on that, because I do think that the, you know, and all the discussions about the Baylands development, One thing that was very clear was the public's concern with climate change. And if we take it seriously, if we really take it seriously, I think we should probably be a little bit more ambitious. And if we can, instead of saying, you know, This plan is consistent with the state's own sort of aspirational goals that really I don't quite see how to connect the dots and say why it's going to help us meet our 2030 and 2045 goals. So again, I don't have a specific question there, but I want to understand it better and see if we can do potentially a little bit more without frustrating the whole plan.

Anybody want to respond to that?

Was it more of a hypothetical?

No, it's a hypothetical. Your presentation was extremely helpful on this account. I just want to make sure I think about it again and sort of interrogate it in my own mind in light of the comments you received as well. Because basically, it has been removed, the mitigation measures have been removed. And if that's how we move forward, I just want to make sure I'm COMPLETELY OKAY WITH THAT AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD.

THAT MAKES SENSE. JUST ONE CLARIFICATION IS THAT THE ONLY PORTION OF THE MITIGATION MEASURE THAT WAS FULLY REMOVED WAS THE FULL NET ZERO KIND OF carbon offset purchasing program. All of the other mitigation measures that had been previously identified either remain in the EIR or incorporated throughout the specific plan. So there are still significant steps and requirements that go above and beyond a typical project or your business as usual project to help make sure that we are moving forward in a way that's consistent with the state's 2030 and 2045 long-term climate goals. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear, that it's not that all of the mitigation measures were removed or that there are no steps being taken. It was just that one final piece about the offset program that was taken out.

Yeah, and I understand that that offset program would make it prohibitive potentially, which... That's one reason to remove it. One thing I would be curious about, maybe this is a specific question because we'll deliberate more in the future. Are there similar sort of projects, even nationwide, that have had more specific measures? Like is this the most ambitious projects of its kind that you can think of? Are there other projects that have tried harder? Because I think we'd like to try hard.

get on frustrating it again yeah we can we can think about that there certainly are some specific projects where there's examples even of doing a full emission neutral offset program they're typically smaller projects so that the administrative burden and the cost of complying with those are less severe. You also see those implemented in connection with voluntary programs that are done in exchange for CEQA streamlining and other benefits. So for example, when the Chase Center in San Francisco was developed, it took advantage of the a state streamlining program under CEQA and did commit to a full carbon neutrality or GHG net zero policy. So there are examples, but not at scale in a project like this and then not that have been imposed without those other kind of offsetting benefits that induce people to voluntarily then take those additional steps. towards those types of programs. So we can think about that a little bit further and see if there's other examples.

Okay. And then one last thing, and then you can carry on, is are there ways, I think you made it clear that greenhouse gas emissions are a regional and global issue. Are there ways to, on a continuing basis, measure the emissions impact of a project like this in real terms? Like, for example, vehicle miles traveled, that was something that was brought up one of the communications it's like well that's kind of assuming that you're using an internal combustion engine but let's we might actually get ahead of schedule if for example everyone drives an electric car um are there ways to specifically acknowledging that it's a regional thing that as time goes on like have an update you know actually we're sort of ahead of schedule or in terms of like the specific project impacts is or can they be even be assessed

yeah so that that's a good question too and that that speaks to i think a helpful insight as you're looking at the way a lot of these um projection models work is that the near-term performance often looks worse than what you're able to achieve and you alluded to too as you see shift from internal combustion engine vehicles to um battery-driven electric vehicles, we see vehicle miles traveled and GHG emissions become less correlated at that point. And likewise, construction emissions tend to improve. We have clean diesel. There's more electric-powered construction equipment that comes online every year and starts to become more feasible and more achievable. So a lot of the projections that we see in the short term that are based on current technology end up overstating some of the impacts and the benefits that we get as technology improves and becomes cleaner over time.

MR.

Okay. Thank you. MR.

Yes, um, I'd like to follow up on what commissioner allows it about, um, monitoring of hazards. And just and just the idea of, you know. This is such a big project and we all acknowledge there's a lot of dangers on that land. So. Why not try a little harder to, you know. Keep everybody safe, keep the community safe, keep the people who will be living and working the balance safe. So. I understand that the state is responsible for monitoring, but I was thinking that maybe as an extra layer of protection, the city can hire someone and conduct its own independent monitoring just as an extra layer of safety and perhaps peace of mind. At the last meeting, one of the commentators brought up an example of Midway Village, which is a large housing complex out of Daly City. And that was cleared for development. And it was only after people started living there that they developed serious health issues, cancers and whatnot. And that had been determined safe for development. So I'd like for us to think about implementing, like I said, an extra layer of protection for the city itself, perhaps through a fund by the developer that we could, you know, hire our own independent fund. entity to do additional testing, perhaps annually, just to supplement what the state is doing. And then whatever results we get, I think both the Sierra Club and OSEC brought up we should also Keep the public informed. I mean. Both of those tests from the state and from our own independent tests, I think should be put up on our, the city's website under the balance. So people can look up. You know what the reporting is if anything arose that required adaptive actions. SO JUST ON THAT, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF AND PERHAPS THE DEVELOPER IN TERMS OF PUTTING A FUNDS FOR THAT, IF THEY HAVE ANY POSITIONS, ANY OBJECTIONS OR WHATNOT.

And for that, actually, we might want to defer. I know that we are going to hear from the applicant later in the public hearing, and I'm sure that they will speak to their approach to hazard mitigation, and maybe they can speak to your question as well. And then if not, we'll come back to it after that.

Okay. And I have a handful more questions, but I'll ask one and then, you know, I think everybody, you know, we can come back to me. But just to follow up on what you were saying about Measure JJ and energy neutrality and how the definition of that could be subject to interpretation. So I just wanted to address that and I DON'T THINK, I MEAN, IT WAS DEFINITELY NOT MY IMPRESSION WHEN JJ WAS PASSED AND DISCUSSING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND I WAS ON THE BAYLAND SUBCOMMITTEE. I THINK THE UNDERSTANDING WAS THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ENERGY NEUTRAL. I MEAN, I HEARD A LOT OF WORDS LIKE NET ZERO DEVELOPMENT BEING THROWN AROUND. SO I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED AT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TODAY. SO I GUESS IN FOLLOW-UP TO THAT, LET'S JUST SAY that that is the expectation of the community and the commission or the council that the development be energy neutral within the meaning that I think we all expected. What would the developers say to the suggestion from OSEC that we got that the FEIR and the conditions of approval should require additional local energy resources to make up for that shortfall.

Sure. Well, I guess you said again something that's a little bit different. You said net zero development. But I think that, again, the performance that we're looking at is net zero with respect to the carbon emissions and the energy consumption from the project. So especially the way that the term was used in 2018, I think the more common understanding was that that would be promoting energy efficiency and net zero in terms of energy consumed from non-renewable resources, which the project does achieve. It's true, it does not achieve a perfect balance in the ability to generate on site all of the energy that it would consume but it wouldn't consume fossil fuel energy so it's still again seems like it fits more that that net zero development and energy efficient intent though obviously you were you were part of the commission i mean you have you have your own thoughts about that i i don't um I can't tell you exactly what was in your head, but I think it is still a reasonable interpretation of what that term were to mean. And we can let the applicant speak to their view, but it seems like based on the performance, there's not... I'm not sure how feasible, for example, OSEC's suggestion would be, even if there were to be a condition of approval, it's not clear that that could feasibly be implemented.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Wojciech. JUST A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS. I GUESS HELP ME UNDERSTAND SORT OF THE PROCESS OF CAPTING AND THE TESTING IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, SAY THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED, DOES ALL THE LAND NEED TO BE CAPTED THERE OR WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE LAND WOULD GET CAPTED AND THEN HOW THAT TESTING GOES ON OVER THE COURSE AS SOON AS IT'S CAPTED AND TESTED AND THEN AGAIN AFTER BUILDING BEGINS, SORT OF CAN YOU TALK ME THROUGH THAT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT?

YEAH, JOHN, ARE YOU ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT?

I can try. So the testing has already been done within the Baylands Soil Processing Center. The stockpiles that are there, as I mentioned earlier, they've collected over 4,000 small increments of that material. It's all been surveyed and stuff. And so they know where the soil is that is suitable for use as the cap. They will basically There are a few areas close to Bayshore Avenue where they need to do a little bit of excavation. and then they will relocate that material on site. And all of it then will be covered first by a general fill material followed by sort of the cap, the clean soil cap. And between this general fill material that will be used to raise the grade of the future site, there's going to be a geotextile layer, a demarcation layer that will alert people whether or not they are digging into the clean soil cap or not. For areas where they have buildings, where there are future buildings, there isn't a requirement there for them to have that five foot layer of clean soil because they are going to need to have engineered subgrade and piles and other things like that to support the foundations and the structures. Same thing goes with hardscape areas. And so really in any of those areas, Yeah, you can look at the surface of the hardscape areas to inspect them. The buildings themselves will have their foundations. There's there's cracks in that that can be or they those can be inspected for cracks and such. So I think there there is no. There is not any planned additional testing for that clean soil material. It's sort of over on the Bayland soil processing. Nothing's happening to it and stuff. Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I think so. Thanks. And actually on that five-foot note then, so I guess the buildings would go below that five-foot threshold into sort of the contaminated area, or would that be sort of on top of?

So the buildings may end up excavating out some of the material, but the plans I think right now for – I'll have to review that for the most part. But basically, the five-foot cap is for non-hardscape covered areas. And basically, because the buildings will have these hardscape caps, asphalt or concrete, that are hard to break through and such, they don't have any... They don't necessarily have to have the clean soil underneath them.

Got it. Thank you. And then I guess maybe moving on to a different topic, the one around sort of the high density versus mid density hospitality allotments. So I guess just in terms of how much housing or how much hospitality would that be? Can I get a sense of like, yeah, units that would be impacted by that decision and how much space we're talking about?

Yeah, is Bev Choi on with ESO? Thanks, Bev.

Thank you, Director. So in terms of the development program, that cap for hospitality is up to 500,000 square feet. And so that is the limit within for the hospitality use. And so obviously, if you build up to that cap, that would take away from either, you know, the commercial areas, from the commercial areas, period, because hospitality would the question is whether it can be allowed within the high density commercial areas. And the ask is if it can also be within the mid density commercial areas. So the impacts would not be too residential. Yeah, so that question does not change the development maximum for hospitality use within the project.

Thank you. That's all for now.

Do you have more?

I just had a follow-up question regarding the development and the possible volatile organic materials. So if you're telling me that they're not going to test or put a cap landfill over certain areas where there could be building buildings, is it not reasonable to assume if they're drilling you know, caissons and drilling, you know, deep into the ground that you're gonna disrupt, you know, the soil and the bedrock and that could potentially, you know, change the nature or the levels of whatever potential contaminants are in that area. And they're not going to test for that? Or do they just assume that if I put some cement over that, that cap is going to be okay, and then I don't have to test for it anymore?

John, do you want to take that? Thanks.

After they've redeveloped the site, built it up to its existing grades, then they are going to surcharge the various building development pads with, well, yeah, they're gonna surcharge them to compact the materials and push them down. During that process, some of the organic, or some of the vapors that might be in the subsurface in the void spaces and that may move around and stuff like that. That's a process that's going to take the surcharging process. It will take between, I think, over six to 12 months for each area. It could be longer than that. And during this period of time, then basically the soil vapor can percolate through the subsurface and when they remove that that's when they're going to do the the initial testing really to see and you know so if there are any any contaminants that are in groundwater or in the soil vapor they'll have had over you know a year pretty much to equilibrate within the subsurface so that they can be detected two rounds of sampling are proposed um for the this the soil vapor sampling in two different seasons. So you have six months, approximately six months apart. they'll go back and they'll retest these areas to see whether or not there are any contaminants of potential concern, volatile contaminants of potential concern in that area there. And if there aren't any at that point, it's unlikely that, there's no reason to believe that drilling or installing your foundations or other things like that are going to change anything over there. Again, these, all of these buildings that we're talking about, the residential developments, the commercial developments, those are not on the former landfill side.

So what buildings would be built on potentially contaminated areas? And the testing is that gonna be made available to the city, obviously, I imagine it would be, and also to the public for our own knowledge, and there won't be any, since they're assuming that after a year, with nobody moving around on that foundation or something like that, that everything's still okay, so there's no further testing even after that?

The regulatory agencies may require additional sampling beyond that timeframe. But there has been, you know, a lot of, you know, there's a lot of data with respect to groundwater conditions and soil conditions and that have been collected thus far. And there are only a few areas where there is a known groundwater plume that's coming in from the site to the north of OUSM, the Schlage OU. So there's groundwater that's coming in there. There will be, after the reconstruction of the remedy, there will be the reinstallation of groundwater monitoring wells, and those will continue to be sampled over time, probably on a semiannual basis. to monitor contamination from the Schlage OU site to see if things are increasing or decreasing and to, you know, continue to look for that. Those are, you know, by knowing where that groundwater plume is, they know, they basically will see where the building, you know, they can look at where the buildings are being developed, which buildings are being developed there and, you know, It may be that the agencies will require continued soil vapor sampling outside of those buildings. We don't know what exactly will be required, but there could be additional monitoring. And if these systems, if they did find when they did the initial sampling that there was that there were soil vapor concentrations that may be of concern. As I mentioned, they would develop things like a VI mitigation system that would have routine monitoring that was associated with it, annual reports, and so on.

Are you able to tell us what proposed construction is over those more at-risk sites?

I believe the construction that's over the more at-risk areas are generally the commercial developments and the high-density commercial stuff.

Check out the playgrounds too.

Thank you.

Anymore?

Yes, I have on a different topic, but did you want to comment first? Go ahead. I want to move on to conservation easements and to protecting open space. So we had a comment submitted by the Sierra Club concerning that, and they were concerned that what was currently in the EIR doesn't adequately protect open space in perpetuity. So they suggested perhaps putting in a conservation easement. TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND IT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH PROJECT APPROVALS AND OTHER BINDING IMPLEMENTATION DOCS. SO I WANTED TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. IS THAT SOMETHING THE DEVELOPER, IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT?

THAT'S AGAIN A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER SO THEY CAN SPEAK TO THAT WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR COMMENTS.

OKAY.

I'll go. My colleagues have done a lot of my questions, but I'll back clean up here. On changing topic again to the mobility plan, do we have traffic folks here to answer questions about that?

Matt Goyne, are you here with?

Yes, he is. Great. Thank you. As you know, there's an issue about whether or not the Commission or the community favors reducing, adopting the road diet, if you will, reducing Bayshore from four to two. Assuming for the, and this may be a mathematical question, you need time to go and look at it and come back next time, and that would be perfectly fine to get a good, solid answer. There are included in the mobility plan some plans to improve the sidewalks, the edges, to multi-use pathways and things that are safer and provide better bicycle access, better pedestrian access, and so on. Assuming that the plan remained at four lanes and not two, would there be sufficient right of way to accomplish significant improvement of multi-use pathways?

So I can answer that in one part, and then the other part will require additional digging. But the first part is, so on the Baylands frontage portion of Bayshore, so from Geneva Avenue down to Campus Parkway, they would be required to put a sidewalk facility there and upgrade the bike facility to a class four separated facility. So that's their responsibility as a part of, that's in the specific plan. For anything else off-site, there's no proposal to do that. And yeah, we would have to look into the right-of-way. I know it is very constrained, such as going up over the hill to Guadalupe Canyon Parkway. Without doing a road diet, that would be pretty challenging. But that's not to say it couldn't be done. happy to come back in next time to answer that.

MR. That would be helpful. Thank you very much. I think you guys covered a lot of my other stuff. With regard to the hospitality issue and option one versus option two, can you clarify for me sort of process-wise when you would expect input from the Commission and how?

Like during deliberations, that's something you can talk about and provide your oral direction. And then ultimately, if you make a motion to recommend moving forward with a specific plan, you could incorporate that into your motion. FOR EXAMPLE, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SPECIFIC PLAN WITH THE CLARIFICATIONS THAT WERE HIGHLIGHTED BY STAFF AND ALLOWING THE HOSPITALITY USES IN BOTH COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS OR WHATEVER, WHEREVER YOUR DELIBERATIONS WOULD LEAD. YOU COULD MAKE THAT PART OF YOUR MOTION.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE I WAS GOING TO ASK GOT COVERED EXCEPT FOR MY QUESTIONS FOR THE at the end of the evening.

One more? Yeah, some other questions regarding some concerns with the mobility aspect of this. And by adding four or five new stops, whether it be traffic lights or stop signs, and reduction of the lanes on Bayshore, IN ADDITION, WITH THE HOSPITALITY, WITH HOSPITALITY, WILL THAT ALSO AFFECT TRAFFIC? THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE RIDGE AND ALL THAT AREA, YOU'RE BASICALLY GOING TO BE PUSHING ALL THOSE RESIDENTS TO ACCESS THE FREEWAY BY GOING SOUTH INSTEAD OF GOING NORTH NOW. central Brisbane is going to be quite impacted with this traffic. And many residents have also brought up, you know, the question of like, if there was an emergency, you know, living in, in central Brisbane, there's really only a few entryways or exits. And if it's, you know, only two lanes and there's a fire on the hill, um, what kind of, um, You know, that's kind of a danger, evacuation, you know, risk. So definitely have some of those concerns and wondering if you might, you know, other thought processes on, you know, on any of that traffic, those traffic concerns when they were developing this plan.

Sure, yeah, I think the, the 1st, thank you commissioner. The 1st, part of that question is related to the traffic generated by the Bay land specific plan. Is that is that correct? What no matter what? Yeah. So, so that's. The hospitality is capped at 500,000 square feet. It just depends on where it is within the site. And so the total kind of traffic generated by the hospitality section. That is accounted for within the analysis. the EIR analysis.

Does that make sense? That question, but also that with that traffic there that once again that will probably, you know, kind of force a lot of Brisbane residents to drive south, you know, instead of going north on Bayshore.

Well, yeah, I mean, I think that the, the major challenge that Brisbane. Faces is it being a regional through traffic and so. As I presented in the 1 of the earlier meetings. You know, 60 to 80% of traffic today is on on Bayshore. Is that regional traffic? And, you know, while. Baylands plus Brisbane won't, you know, it's a lot smaller than the regional contribution and how traffic is supposed to, is expected to grow in the future as Candlestick and other developments like in the region grow out, grow further. So keep in mind that whatever Brisbane does, the future forecasts are that Bayshore is going to see a lot more traffic. Now, Baylands doesn't add you know, the amount of traffic to Bayland actual to Bayshore is not that significant compared to the regional traffic. And so that's something to consider, as you're thinking about, you know, what would actually happen, well, you know, traffic will grow is expected to grow, and development will occur within the Baylands. And you'll see most of the changes will happen based on what's happening regionally versus what's happening locally. And then with respect to emergency access, there's what the mobility plan includes is a lot of features such as using intelligent traffic signals to be able to have flush cycles, for example, in the case of emergencies, having kind of using, basically it's using the right-of-way as best as possible. So there's breaks in the medians in case ever an ambulance or a fire truck needs to pass vehicles that are stuck. There's also queue jumps and stuff. So using kind of modern planning practices on how do we use for that 1% or less of time when an emergency is happening, how do you use the roadway in an efficient manner so that emergency service providers like police and fire can help kind of evacuate people effectively? So that that could be baked into whatever kind of future cross section that you do use on on.

I like to just follow up quickly on on what you just said. About traffic traffic will continue to grow on base shores. So if that's the case, then why are we reducing the number of lanes?

Yeah, and so that really goes back to the general plan amendment from the prior Bayland specific plan, just recognizing that the only thing Brisbane can control is to make it Bayshore less of a regional through route. And the most effective way to do that is to make it operate less like kind of a high speed through way through the city and make it operate more as a A slower speed route that allows, you know, residents to move around, but people who are zooming through off of 101 are less. Inclined to do that and with the, the. Along with the, the partnership of building out the rest of the network, the seer point Parkway extension, the Geneva Avenue extension. So all those pieces that allow people to get more directly to and from the freeway rather than, um, using. Uh, they sure. So the question was, could you, back in 10 years ago, was can you widen Bayshore to accommodate all this growth? And that of course induces more regional traffic to travel through Brisbane. So the question became, how do you reduce regional traffic? And that's one of the goals built within the Bayshore Mobility Plan.

But as we discussed earlier, there was also that other option of actually adding other traffic lights to shorten those long spans on Bayshore to reduce the high speed instead of reducing the lanes. So that was another option. That is an option.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner. Yeah. And that's the other option that I just presented today of of. You know, if the commission decides not to recommend the road diet component, there's a lot of many other components that are included within the base for mobility plan. such as the additional signals, such as protected intersection facilities to protect, make crossing distances for people walking and biking shorter, the potential for a multi-use path. So they're using signal timing to slow vehicles through the city. All those are included within the Bayshore Mobility Plan and could be kind of reflect what a future vision for the city would look like, even if the road diet did not move forward.

One more quick question on a different matter. So I'm not sure if this is probably another question for the developer to answer, but so we received a June 25th letter from Mountain Watch regarding their Mission Blue nursery. And they ask that their nursery be kept in its current location because they say that moving it would not be ideal. And to keep it where it is, they'd be able to incorporate well with the community fields, which would include things like the picnic area, the games, the playground, and whatnot. So if we were to agree with them and make that recommendation, is there any position from staff or the developers on that?

THAT IS A QUESTION YOU CAN ASK THE DEVELOPER. FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, I THINK WE COULD ADDRESS THAT POSSIBILITY. I DON'T KNOW, TERI, IF WE WANT TO ADDRESS LATER. WE CAN COME BACK WITH MORE RESPONSE TO THAT FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE. THANKS.

All right, I think we've concluded our questions. Again, the Commission will have more questions at the end of the public comments that staff will probably take away and then come back with more comments the next time. So moving on, if you haven't turned your slip in to staff yet, please do so if you want to address the Commission, and they'll bring them up and add them to my stack. I'll go through the stack in the order that I got them. The first slip I have is for Denna Dilworth. And I remind you folks to please try to limit yourself to two minutes. And if you have addressed this before, we listened, we heard you. Please confine your remarks as best as possible to new material or new issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners and all others who have spoken before me. There are some matters to correct before the public record. Tantex's characterization of the BB CAG was incorrect. It is not our responsibility to inform the public. It is the lead agency's responsibility. BBCAG has not met in two years. I recently learned of the Water Board's approved remediation plans through public records search. BBCAG was not informed. Since it is a matter of public record, please inform the public of the contents of these remediations. Please clarify the cleanup phasing. I believe the city attorney may have misrepresented the nature of the landfill and of the cleanup. I object to including the lagoon as part of the open space total. The lagoon is Waters of the State public trust lands and has a different designation in our general plan for that reason. To redraw the map and call it Baylands and then cheat us out of public open space for recreation or other purposes is wrong. Attachment 9 lists the property owners, but does not include the state lands commission. Please explain why. I still object to a number of things. The 270 foot building height, any offsite mitigations, biotech and mixed-use housing with the flexibility and market will bear language, and battery storage along the rail lines. And thank you, Pamela, for asking about an independent panel, because I want to know where are G. Fred Lee's recommendations of an independent panel to review the cleanups? Where is the study that confirms whether any of this is necessary, safe, or feasible? Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Nancy Laxamana, please.

I want to thank the committee, the Planning Commission, for these meetings. I want to thank you for your time, for your questions. I've learned a lot. Six years ago, I was part of the 4JJ committee. I walked this town three times over six weeks, spent pretty much my time doing that, and it was approved. But we certainly haven't streamlined this project like Chase or whoever. It's been 20 years. I grew up in Visitation Valley. I looked down over Schlage Lock myself, personally. My bedroom was that window, looking out at it. And so I've experienced this whole property this entire time. And it's time. It's time because there are federal agencies, state agencies. I did attend two or three CAG meeting. And I do know that that state agency does notify the people because I did get emails from it. So it is really time. I do appreciate what the developer has suggested as possibly some amendments. I think the parking situation is way overstated for the commercial. I do believe there should be flexibility with the housing people in getting more parking. And I'm very, very clear that the timeline of meeting the requirements of health and safety continue before any additional work is stated, is allowed. I think of it as a one team relay team. If it doesn't work because of some health issues, they will stop. We have that protection. So please move forward with this. It's been way too long. In the first block of Brisbane Central, we now only have two businesses. Last year at this time, we probably had three or four more. This project will jumpstart and get us back to where we should be as a commercial town. It's so disappointing to go in front of Brisbane and see the empty B of A building and a central Brisbane that does not have commercial. It's going to help the whole town. please get moving on it and I really appreciate your time and your efforts as well as city staff. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Joe Maraspini.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Joe Marispedi. I serve as a field representative for the North Coast States Carpenters Union Local 217. I'm honored to speak before you today on behalf of the 59,000 members we represent across Northern California, Oregon, and Washington. Let me share a little bit about myself. A journey of growth and success, all made possible by the support of the Carpenters Union. As I look back, I can't help but be proud of the power of collective solidarity of the Carpenters' Union. It began with my apprenticeship, a moment in my life where the Carpenters' Union opened doors and opportunities. Through training, mentorship, and hands-on experience, I earned my skills and found my place in a trade I'm proud of. Developing friendships and skills along the way, also being a single father for many years and helping put food on the table in a time where it was needed the most, and helped my kids follow their dreams. After school, one of them pursued a career in the military giving back to our country. As this project moves forward, it presents opportunities to create a lot of good jobs. We would ask the developer to hire a responsible general contractor who provides area standard wages, healthcare, and apprenticeship. Responsible development means partnering with contractors who treat workers fairly and uphold community standards for wages and working conditions. This is a multi-generation project. Workers could spend their whole careers here. So I urge this planning commission to take action to ensure the carpenters are not left behind and that all workers on this project are treated with dignity and fairness as they deserve. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, Storrs Hohen, please.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU ALL ARE DOING. THIS IS A REALLY COMPLEX PROJECT AND YOU ALL ARE paying good attention to it. I had a few comments. In the 2026 specific plan phasing section says solar is going to happen in phase one. But in June 11, in response to a question from Doug Gooding, someone said that it won't happen until 2037. after closure of the dump, and so I would like to see some clarification of that. Maybe 2037 is phase one. Then I'm also concerned, again, echoing your concerns about the responsibility related to toxicity, in particular if an earthquake happens. that damages the cap, damages the foundations of these buildings. I think we have a clear answer as to who's responsible for demanding the testing, that it is the state regulatory agencies, but who's responsible for fixing it. And then, again, coming back to the noise from pile driving, in the specific plan, there's hope that there are these mitigation measures that'll make it quieter, not as loud as the normal impact pile driving. And I would still like to see two scenarios, an optimistic scenario that these new mitigation measures work and a scenario where, no, we have to do traditional pile driving. Just to say, how much pile driving are we going to see? How many days per year? Thank you. Thank you.

Next up is Emily Wagner.

Good evening, commissioners, chair, vice chair. My name is Emily. I spoke last time, so I won't do so much of an introduction, but I am with Union Local 467, HVACR technician. I don't have much to add on to what I stated last time. I'm primarily here to represent union members like myself, but I'm also here as a longstanding resident of the city of Brisbane. And as I say longstanding, you might be wondering what my age is. I am only 26, but I have lived here for just about all those 26 years. And I do understand that this project has been under consideration for about 20 years, so I don't have as much history with it as many of you have. But what I do know is that if the Baylands project moves forward, the benefits will consist of opportunities for careers, housing, and community expansion. I would also like to acknowledge and thank those that have placed both human and environmental safety as our highest priority because safety is key. And even on the job site, you know, safety is always the highest priority. We want people to get home safely. And I think that's awesome that everybody's paying a lot of attention to that. So I thank you for your time and have a great rest of your night.

Through the chair, we do have a number of hands online as well.

Okay. We're about halfway through. Why don't we pause and do some online folks then?

We're gonna start in the order that I saw the hands go up. We're gonna start with Prem Lal. You may address the Commission.

Prem, go ahead.

Yeah, hi. Good evening. This is Prem Lal. Good evening, Commissioners. What I would like to say essentially is that I reviewed the Bayshore Mobility Plan online at the BrisbaneCA.gov document center. So I looked over that PDF and I'd just like to voice my opposition to the plan to reduce the number of lanes of traffic from two lanes in each direction to only one lane in each direction on Bayshore Boulevard in Brisbane. I think the developers of the Baylands would prefer to redirect traffic coming from Geneva Avenue away from central Brisbane on and around visitation avenue valley driver elsewhere and towards the Baylands. This redirection of traffic to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the businesses in central Brisbane. nor will limiting access to this main thoroughfare make sense in the case of emergencies such as wildfires or flooding. So I just request that you reject a plan to reduce traffic on Bayshore Boulevard from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction. Thank you.

Thank you. The next on line, please.

Yes, Jennifer Chang. You may address the Commission.

Great, thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jennifer Chang. I'm speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club. I wanted to highlight one concern from our joint letter that some of you have mentioned tonight, and that is how will the city know if and when this project needs a course correction and how it will respond? The city is being asked to approve a large multi-decade development plan on a contaminated shoreline site, as you've already discussed, in a place that's vulnerable to a lot of major changes over time. The plan's environmental protections depend on assumptions about future agency oversight, about changing groundwater levels and sea level rise, and the long-term performance of cleanup systems, landfill controls, and infrastructure. The EIR relies on that framework to manage these risks over time and those assumptions may well prove correct, but if they don't, the city needs a clear way to respond. If groundwater rise is faster than expected, if contaminants move in unexpected ways, if cleanup systems or landfill controls do not work as expected. The city needs a process to evaluate those conditions and require stronger protections before future phases move forward information alone is not enough. So our ask is pretty specific, please recommend an additional mitigation measure or binding condition that creates an explicit adaptive response process and included in the mitigation and monitoring report program that process should include public reporting. performance standards, decision triggers for city review, and a defined path for requiring additional mitigation or changes to future approvals when monitoring shows that conditions are changing or that protections are not performing as expected. This isn't about duplicating or second guessing regulatory agency oversight. It's about making sure that the city of Brisbane has the tools and predictable opportunities to use them to protect the public health, the environment, and the community as future conditions evolve. Thank you very much, and I'd like to echo others' gratitude for your thoughtful consideration and questions of all these issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else online?

Yes, we'll go with Chris. You may address the commission.

Thank you, Commissioners, and thank you for your really measured consideration of this huge project. My name is Chris McIntosh. I'm commenting on behalf of the San Mateo County Bird Alliance. And if you can't hear me, please interrupt me. We appreciate that the EIR supports Brisbane's dark sky ordinance, and we're even more appreciative that Brisbane adopted such an ordinance. We urge that plans include tighter requirements for the spillover light into wildlife habitat, including open space areas within the development, because this spillover light has a direct and negative impact, particularly on birds and mammals. I'd like to see that added to the report. definitions also the eir doesn't address raptor perches if perching places are built where raptors such as cooper's hawks red-shouldered red-tailed hawks as well as great horned owls may perch then those birds are likely to increase in numbers and to prey on the smaller songbirds And then in result, you'd have a reduction and an imbalance in the species living and nesting in the development and in the surrounding areas, which is, you know, pretty sensitive. So we request that perch deterrents be included within, say, 100 feet of a sensitive habitat and within 300 feet of shoreline. And these would be things put on streetlights, parapoles, roof edges, high points, balconies. anywhere a raptor might say, hey, they built this nice perch for me. Please do not plant trees within 100 feet of the shoreline and beyond that use native trees. Trees with rounded canopies don't succeed as a vantage point for hawks as well as those pointy conifer-like ones. And finally, we'd like to have the glass and the windows have bird safe treatments up to 100 foot high in potential collision zones. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So we have Gita Dev. You may address the commission.

Thank you, Commissioners. I echo other people's appreciation of the work that you're doing. I am Geeta Dev on behalf of the Sierra Club Land Use Committee. We have followed this specific plan through its many iterations over the past decades. This proposal presents a huge and complex addition to Brisbane and numerous legitimate concerns have been raised and even the EIR consultants conclusions as we see today are not always definitive and are subject to revision. And therefore, with all due respect, since few city councils or planning commissions are required To deal with a project of this magnitude, we join the many voices suggesting an independent peer review of the EIR's business conclusions. One major concern is the significant jobs housing imbalance and the greenhouse gas concerns that have been raised. The plan proposes approximately 7 million square feet of commercial development, generating an estimated 25,000 to 28,000 workers coming here every day. While only adding about 2000 households. So, regardless of regional assumptions. The city itself can and should we feel agree with council member who spoke today address this imbalance. Considering possibly an alternative with less job generating commercial and industrial development. And the last concern that I'd like to raise is that the specific plan currently allows biosafety level three laboratories by right because biosafety level three research labs are present a substantially greater public health and safety concerns than typical research labs, they should be required to go through a conditional use permit. This is, we feel, absolutely imperative. Thank you very much for all that your work on this complex project.

Thank you.

We have Eileen McLaughlin.

Yes, hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah, I am. I mean, I'm with citizens committee to complete the refuge. Um, I was, uh. You know, something that I wanted to emphasize. Tonight was the conservation agent, so I was really happy to hear, uh, you know, commissioner say son. bring that up and for further discussion. We are delighted to see that Brisbane is trying to put forth this vision of open space along its shoreline and are 100% behind its succeeding. So we bring this up because we know how important it is to protect those lands because they get eaten away in bits and pieces. Unless you're using a conservation easement, if you try to use a covenant of some kind or, you know, that is a, something that can be changed anytime. It's not permanent. It just doesn't work. You need that long-term protection. And in this case, besides the open space, and as the city has identified with sea level rise coming, what we have is protecting those lands so that they serve as a buffer during sea level rise, and that habitat that is built helps make that an even more valuable resource in that. So we are hope that the city can look at a way of putting it into the specific plan. Putting it into the specific plan makes it an upfront planning standard. California Fish and Wildlife also recommended conservation easements but they said it's a mitigation and mitigation is what you call back end. And you may as well put your vision in in the specific plan. and apply it when those permits are coming in from the developer. So I appreciate your taking the time to look at our letter and consider that particular item. Thank you.

Thank you.

We do have six more. Would you like to switch back to in person?

Yeah, let me come back. I think I noted that Ms. Johnson briefly stepped out, so we'll skip her for the moment and go to Linda Salmon, please.

Well, I think if you read the 1994 general plan, you know how I feel about this development since I was in your position back then. I got kicked out of Brisbane by the Bank of America because I was a, what do you call it, a detriment to development, so they could pass Measure JJ. Well, I was gone. I'm back. I've tried to stay out of politics, but it's not working. My sister sent a note about the traffic diet. Well, that's a big issue. Back when we had a chance to have the light rail connected to Brisbane, everybody objected to losing the two lanes and two lanes, which we would have had in the middle of the corridor, transportation to San Francisco and to South City, public transportation. And you all talk about EVs and electric vehicles being non-toxic. I did a little bit of research and Musk's dark energy plant is all based on natural gas. That's a fossil fuel, what do you know? This is crap, this electrification stuff. They are basically taking driving away from us, period. It's not gonna be happening. So we do have to have public transportation. In the meantime, as long as we still have cars, we're gonna have to have four lanes of traffic, two in each direction coming through Brisbane, through the Bay Shore. When we don't have cars anymore, we'd better have the light rail. So just think about it, what we're doing. As far as the entire project goes, it's a mess. The reason I wrote the FARs as I did in 1994 is because about the only thing that could happen there HONG KONG LANE CRAWFORD TYPE TOWER WHERE SLAGE LOCK IS WHICH YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HIT BEDROCK IF YOU COULD PROBABLY NOT AND THAT'S ABOUT IT AND I HAVE A LOT MORE TO TELL YOU AND MAYBE WE'LL TALK LATER BUT AS FAR AS THIS GOES NO DIET THANK YOU MS. JOHNSON

I WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS AND ISSUES BEING PRESSED BY THE COMMISSIONERS THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. A LOT OF HARD WORK YOU'RE DOING. There are so many things from what was said today that I would like to say more about. But here's what I've prepared. In previous comments, I wrote of the absolute necessity of including the how of mitigation measures. That is a method through which the mitigation goal will be accomplished. There can be no mitigation without it. The method must be provided as soon as possible in the development process. If it is not described, then it cannot be analyzed nor understood. preventing the people charged with applying it from doing so. They will need to estimate and provide the funding, determine the feasibility of the measure, allocate the time, resources, and personnel to carry out the mitigation. Relevant standards need to be provided for each mitigation measure to assure its integrity for that particular purpose. In addition to the methodology of all the mitigation measures, a second necessary piece of information is the timing of the availability of the mitigation. The scheduling and phasing of all aspects of the project and the scheduling of the construction must be assigned ranges of time. so that the mitigation can be accomplished at the moment it is needed. The preparation must not be left to some later date when it is not possible to apply it. This will require careful and closely monitored coordination among those companies and agencies in any related work. It means extensive planning of this coordination must be done and presented to the City and its auditing entity referred to in my comments dated June 25th. The implementation of this coordination could save time and money for everyone. The availability of funding to create and construct developmental conditions and the mitigation and monitoring facilities required by the Baylands specific plan and by other governmental entities with jurisdiction must be verified and must be backed up by insurance or bond. It must meet the criteria of the owner developers funding obligation providing the infrastructure. The nature and availability of financing for this project must be included in the specific plan in its final EIR. The development agreement can be changed by either party to it whenever they choose to change it. It is so it's no guarantee that it will be followed. The city of Brisbane needs to be indemnified against the risk involved in the possibility of future leaks from the unlined Brisbane landfill and the structures being placed on it. The city also requires bonding or indemnification from the following associated higher than normal risk. The battery facility and its closed loop water system, the large commercial backup generators, the water recycling facility, the bioscience labs that are located there, level one and two, any high capacity, I just used a trillion calculations for second or greater, data processing facilities, advanced manufacturing facilities, public exposure to the underground contamination on the site that is caused by the construction of the specific plant on the site. The following comments, were made by the Sierra Club Loma Prieta and Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, Green Foothills, and San Mateo Bird Alliance. They have been referred to this evening, and I believe that they deserve to be carefully reviewed by you, and so I'm not going to read them because I know you have them. I agree with the following statements. Level three and level four bioscience labs, which are expected to be, reasonably expected to be, more than 50% of the bioscience facilities as well, of the commercial tenants. So that science labs levels three and four should be banned from the Bayshore because of all the risks that are associated with them. At the public hearing of June 25th, there was a discussion of the possibility of having a peer review of the Brisbane Baylands FEIR. I think it is an excellent idea. This is a complex project on contaminated land that is on the shoreline of the bay.

Point of order through the chair is how are we doing on the time?

I'm sorry?

We're well over the two minutes. If you can please try to wrap up, please.

I beg your pardon?

We're well over the two minutes, so please try to wrap up.

Well, I was going to just suggest a committee that would be appointed by the city to peer review, and then I'll let you read the rest of it, unless you would allow me any extra time.

We have your letter. Pardon me? We have your correspondence as well. We've read it. You have the what we've had your we have your correspondence and okay. Well.

Thank you very much, and I appreciate all of the opportunities to speak Thank you.

I assure you we do read the correspondence we receive Thank you Thank you for your time some more online, then please All right, we're gonna go to Susan D. You may address the Commission

Thank you. This is Susan Desjardins. I'm the chair of the Sierra Club's Loma Prieta Chapters Bay Alive campaign. We're disappointed on the revised greenhouse gas emission analysis presented in the final EIR, but I do appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the concerns expressed here tonight on the issue. We're concerned that the revised analytical framework sets a precedent that weakens CEQA's role in promoting transparency, accountability, and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. The Baylands project will be built over multiple decades during a period of technological change and increasing climate urgency. It is important that this in light of this, it's important that the specific plan advances Brisbane's climate goals through clear, enforceable and durable. Project commitments, therefore, we urge the planning commission and the city council to strengthen the specific plan by requiring. Periodic review and updating of development and construction standards for future phases of the project. Such a policy should direct the city to evaluate advances in low and zero emission construction equipment, building technologies, energy systems, and transportation strategies. Implementation of such a policy would ensure that feasible measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are implemented in a timely fashion. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Yes, we have Naomi G. You may address the commission.

Yes.

Sorry, Naomi. That was my fault. Wrong button. You may address the commission.

Okay, I get to do it over. Hi, my name is Naomi Goodman. I'm a volunteer with the Sierra Club and an environmental scientist with a background in human health risk assessment and hazardous waste site remediation. I appreciate the details provided by EKI on monitoring and mitigation for volatile chemicals in contaminated areas. However, those details are not contained in either the EIR or the specific plan. I am still concerned that those documents have failed to address risks to future residents from volatile toxic and carcinogenic solvents in groundwater beneath the proposed housing area. coming from the Schlage lock site north of the project area. It's true that the Schlage OU is under cleanup orders from the DTSC, but the remediation is not under the control of the developers, and the EIR should not assume its success. The EIR's conclusion that target groundwater cleanup levels will be reached within the timeframe for housing construction is unwarranted. Recent monitoring found high levels of chlorinated solvents after decades of groundwater treatment. It will likely require further decades of remediation. Toxic vapors from contaminated groundwater can enter buildings through soils and via sewer conduits or other buried utilities. The specific plan should include a policy requiring all developers within the Schlage OU boundaries to conduct soil gas monitoring, estimate vapor intrusion into buildings, perform a health risk assessment, and propose engineering solutions or other mitigations if necessary. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Ali S. You may address the Commission.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ali Saferman. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition as well as the Bay Area Council. In our draft EIR comment letter, we raised serious concerns about the proposed requirement that the Baylands purchase greenhouse gas offset credits. That mitigation measure was unprecedented, inappropriate, and fundamentally at odds with state climate and housing policy. We appreciate that the city amended the analysis and the final EIR to better align with those policies. That correction matters not just for this project, but for transit oriented housing projects across California. The Baylands would build housing in an existing urbanized area near transit with a development program designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. The draft EIR acknowledged this point. The project would reduce VMT across the Bay Area while the no project alternative would result in higher regional VMT and fuel consumption and therefore higher greenhouse emissions. That's why agencies like CARB and the Bay Area Air District encourage infill transit oriented development. It's also why projects like the Baylands can qualify for programs such as affordable housing and sustainable communities, which is funded through cap and trade proceeds. And yet the draft EIR plan to require a project that could benefit GHG offset proceeds to also purchase GHG offset credits. This makes no sense and it would have jeopardized urgently needed housing. Thank you for correcting this issue. For Spain's housing element depends on the balance to meet its housing obligations. Therefore, the city must approve a plan that actually makes new homes possible. We urge the Planning Commission to recommend certification of the final EIR and adoption of a Bayland-specific plan so this project can finally move forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Let's return to the room for a minute to Tom Alley regarding Bayshore Mobility.

CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY ON YOUR HANDS AND WE APPRECIATE YOU TAKING IT SERIOUSLY. AND MY ONLY COMMENT IS A SHORT ONE ON THE BAYSHORE MOBILITY. I THINK IT'S A MISTAKE THAT SO-CALLED DIET, I DON'T THINK THE LANE SHOULD BE REDUCED from four to two, especially if there's an event south of us and we need to evacuate. So I think it creates a bottleneck that would not be very useful. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Going back to the virtual world.

All right, we have Jordan G.

Yes, good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jordan Grimes. I'm speaking on behalf of Green Belt Alliance. We are an environmental organization that has for nearly 70 years now championed conservation and sustainable land use policy. We strongly support the Baylands project and have since the mid 2000s. Hard to believe that we are still coming to these meetings, predominantly because it will turn a contaminated brownfield site into a vibrant community where people can live close to jobs, close to schools and transit, protecting open space and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled region-wide in the process. Despite any claims to the contrary, doing so would be an unmitigated environmental benefit to San Mateo County and to the Bay Area at large, full stop. We want to align our comments with others in regards to the proposed mitigation that would require the purchase of those offset credits for 1.5 million metric tons of CO2. Frankly, this metric is being misapplied. This is a standard that is not just overburdensome, but it is not meant to be applied to infill housing projects. In fact, to our knowledge, it has only ever been used to mitigate suburban sprawl, to mitigate greenfield developments, as it should be, not applicable to infill housing near transit. Brisbane itself has never imposed it, including on the 2018 Baylands proposal. So we've made these comments before and in letters, but we urge the Commission uh as others have to recommend certification of the final eir um to frankly stop stalling after 20 plus years and adopt a feasible version of the bayland specific plan thank you so much for your time this evening thank you okay coming back in-house to uh cynthia gomez please

Good evening, Commissioners. Cynthia Gomez representing the approximately 5,000 members of Unite Here Local 2, the hospitality workers union who live in the communities surrounding the project. To recap, as currently proposed, the Baylands project would cause harm to our members to residents of Brisbane and residents of the entire region. This specific plan should not be approved until it's significantly revised to address serious problems with jobs housing imbalance, toxicity of the site, impact on greenhouse gas emissions. I want to go into a little bit this jobs housing imbalance bit. 19,000 jobs, 2,200 housing units.

Is that right?

There we go, 1,900 jobs, 20,000 jobs, 2,200 housing units, and the amount of commercial space could create a demand for more than 5,400 units of affordable housing if it follows the pattern found in studies in other cities. In response to these concerns by groups like the Sierra Club, the final EIR argues there's nothing to worry about. The 2,200 proposed units would allow Brisbane to meet its RHNA goals, And the 19,000 jobs fit within the projections from plan Bay area. This ignores the fact that if every jurisdiction continues to approve massive imbalances between commercial and residential development, the balanced growth and vision by plan Bay area 2050 cannot possibly come to pass. Measure JJ, again, requires soil remediation for ground-level residential use. But one bit, a 2010 report by G. Fred Lee and Associates raised concerns about the plan, and at that time noted that the plan was, in 2010, calling for a cap of 7 to 10 feet of clean soil. The current plan calls for only 5 feet. Very curious. The draft EIR had included these mitigation measures that the developer would have to pay for that were supposed to offset the impact of the Baylands Project greenhouse gas emissions. Those mitigations need to be put back. Again, the kind of jobs housing imbalance that we are talking about in turn has the potential to cause displacement, which in turn has the potential to force people out to far-flung areas which in turn impacts greenhouse gas emissions. So to recap, you should not approve the project in its current form because it would cause harm to our members, to the residents of Brisbane, to residents of the entire region. We have further thoughts in the letter that has been submitted to the commission and also to the letter from Shoot, Mahali and Associates regarding the environmental questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Online, please. All right, Jeremy L., you may address the commission.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your thoughtful discussion tonight. This is Jeremy Levine, policy manager for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County. You know, we like like I think everyone in this room have followed this project for a long time, more than 20 years now. And in that time, the city of Brisbane has made a lot of progress thinking about how it's going to meet its housing needs. And one of the ways that the city has progressed is by including this project in its housing element, by voting on Measure JJ and having the voters of the city writ large approve this project moving forward. Transit-oriented development is one of the most important ways that cities can meet their housing needs, that cities can promote sustainable transportation, that cities can help reduce traffic and reduce VMT. And this project right now is a way to improve the area around the Bayshore Caltrain Station. to change it from a station where you get off at a recycling plant to a station where you can get off at a vibrant, thriving neighborhood that will have businesses, that will have new schools, that will have new homes. I think in the future, Brisbane will look back and there will be a beautiful neighborhood in this area that reflects a lot of the community's values. There will be open space, there will be new housing, The two things that I can say that we've already expressed to the city before is that right now this EIR includes some constraints on building heights in certain areas and on design standards. And for a 20-year project, The city will really promote the best kind of development by providing flexibility. So we hope that you'll think about how this specific plan can provide the kind of flexibility that leads to a project reflecting the full values of Brisbane and what the community has voted for. So thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you. In the room, do we have David Kalb?

Thank you. My name is David Kolb. I've lived in Brisbane since 1990. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary effort put forth by the City of Brisbane and all of those involved in the advancement of the Brisbane Baylands development. I'm in support of this project. My main concern is that the development as proposed will create a secluded destination rather than a district with amenities that are a connected part of the existing fabric and diagram of the city. Section 6.1 of the specific plan states the purpose is to leverage the site's proximity to nearby destinations like downtown Brisbane. As proposed, the plan does not accomplish this. The same section also states the transportation network is to provide a balanced and connected network that serves and enhances the needs of the residents. The Sierra Point exit and Lagoon Way are Brisbane's primary connection to U.S. 101 and the Bay Area. It is the front door. Yet little effort has been made to solve for the existing issues of this confusing and circuitous entrance to our city. Perhaps there is too much of an effort made to hang on to the existing Tunnel Avenue bridge A better connection for this development to achieve the goals set out in section 6 may require a retrofit or abandonment of the existing bridge. To create a more direct connection to the project that aligns with visitation Avenue and the access and view corridor to San Bruno mountain. I hope that the city will make the effort to require more direct connection. and also that the development will create an impressive sense of arrival to the city of Brisbane. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else online?

Yes, we have two more online, and I have two more slips for you as well. Christina F., you may address the commission.

Thank you. Yes, I'm a resident of Brisbane, and listening earlier, I heard one of the commissioners twice ask Who was liable regarding issues with contamination? I'm paraphrasing here and did not get a straight answer. I would suggest to ask if there are any scenarios where the city of Brisbane could be held responsible for any aspect of this development and what that level of risk could be and what those remediations might be. I think we should treat that argument in the same way. Dimension of Midway Village leads me to ask a question. If BDI is so confident about its remediation efforts, will they commit not to have waivers in any contracts or leases with those who will be living or working to protect them from responsibility for this? On the subject of the mobility plan, it still does not clarify, even today with the clarification, it doesn't clarify how non-local traffic can be managed. simply reducing the number of lanes. And I happen to be in support of reducing the number of lanes, but only when it makes sense and it's really possible to do. This mobility plan doesn't, for example, it implies that it will facilitate traffic between Geneva and 101, but it still remains vague. By the way, traffic lights do not reduce speeds, they encourage speeds. And I submit eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard during morning the morning commute as an example of this. I want to ask the question, who is BDI? What have they successfully developed in terms of a project even half of the size or a quarter of the size? The condition of Tunnel Road does not speak well to their sense of responsibility. It's my understanding that they have other property in the city of Brisbane and there are plans for that and nothing has been done for years. I don't have a great deal of confidence that this developer really intends to do this. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Travis C., you may address the commission.

Hello, thank you for this time. My name is Travis Clark and I'm a Brisbane resident for almost 10 years and an economist. I lived in Brisbane for many years as a renter and in 2024, I became a homeowner. I wanted to lend my full support to begin construction of the Baylands project as soon as possible. My first ever vote in Brisbane was in favor of Measure JJ and I am committed to seeing this project develop as I ever have been. The Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, and while Brisbane cannot solve this alone, we must do our part to increase the supply of housing. This project is essential to bringing new housing supply to the Bay Area and will be a boon to tax revenue and economic activity to Brisbane. It also has the added benefit of beautifying an area that has remained vacant and drab for decades. As an economist, it is my professional opinion that this project will be a major economic benefit to the city. The added economic activity from new businesses and tax revenue from both businesses and residences is one of the easiest unlocks to allow this city to thrive and improve public services. Additionally, an influx of new housing supply has been shown to increase housing affordability for both renters and prospective homeowners, and countless high quality peer reviewed economic studies in areas seriously lacking in supply. This is an important step in making Brisbane more affordable. I know some have concerns that this plan contains too much commercial and not enough housing. And I actually share that concern. I wish the amount of housing was double and the commercial footprint was less expansive. I also lament that the plan will no longer include a high school. So the kids in Brisbane can go to Brisbane public schools, K through 12. However, After nearly 10 years after measure JJ without any construction activity, the idea that we would continue to delay the project that was passed by residents is simply untenable. The citizens of Brisbane made their voices very clear that they were in favor of this project at the time for nitpicking has long since passed. That is why I urge the city council to pass the EIR and do whatever is necessary to speed up the process of starting construction on this project. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have three more from the House. First up, Ron Burks, please.

I'm a 26 year resident of Brisbane. First thing I want to ask you is not to forward a notice to approve anything at this point, because from what I heard tonight and have learned here, there's still a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. Secondly, I'd like to ask you how much money the city of Brisbane has spent out of the taxpayers pockets since filling the dump and doing this project started? Any of you know? You don't know how much you spent of our money? Okay. Next issue is earthquakes. Would you please tell me when the next one is going to occur? I don't think any of you know. When it does, would you please tell me how strong it's going to be?

I don't think any of you know.

If it occurs after this development and it rips apart the cap that's been put over these toxic items, who's going to pay to put it back together? Do you know that? Do you know that? Whatever your name is This is the opportunity for the public to address the Commission we're not doing I'm addressing the issue I'd like you to find out specifically what the citizens of Brisbane will have to pay out of their pocket if that occurs How much of that cost will the current citizens have to pay now if there's private land acquired and owned by private landowners that are responsible for their exposure then that's an issue but streets sidewalks other things that are part of the city would i believe come out of my pocket I don't know for sure if this is appropriate, but the gentleman that explained how to deal with the traffic issues, reducing the lanes from two to four, et cetera, I guess the only question I have is, does he own a car? And the last thing, Mr. Lau, I don't know you, but I really appreciate the questions you asked, because I think you ask questions that can care.

have a concern about the citizens of brisbane thank you for listening to me thank you um christian bustos i'm christian bustos executive director of lyrical opposition and this is figo navarro creative director We're a part of an arts organization that's existed for over a decade and has been in downtown Brisbane for over five years. We're located at 132 Visitation Avenue across from the Brisbane Library at the previous physical business location of the Baylands Development Incorporated and SunQuest properties. Vigo and I are speaking on behalf of our organization as arts administrators and artists within the organization. We're still learning about this project and will continue to do so and we've learned a lot tonight. We recognize that this project raises important environmental and public safety questions and we appreciate the work that has gone into evaluating and addressing those issues. The Baylands reached out to us in 2024 and asked us how they can support us and the artists in our community. They have supported us with a community space for our mission-free, family-friendly arts immersion exhibition events, film screenings, open mics. concert showcases and fundraisers. In addition, Baylands has sponsored each one of our events at their Baylands Community Space, which was used to pay artists, creators, and sustain the arts ecosystem in San Francisco and San Mateo County. With our organization being located around the Baylands in both Visitation Valley, South San Francisco, and downtown Brisbane, The Baylands' openness to support us in contributing their space and finances to our arts programming and paying artists in our community to continue making a living meant a lot. Speaking from our organization's perspective with our experience with Baylands, we want to share why we believe that community spaces this project creates has real value. The Baylands is an opportunity to create new spaces, audiences, and partnerships for local artists while incorporating public art, new public plazas, community spaces, and restored historic buildings. The project would provide new venues for art shows, performances, markets, workshops, and cultural events. We've already seen this done successfully at the former Schlage Lock Building. Since the Baylands team renovated the building, Lyrical Opposition has hosted arts exhibits, open mics, music performances in the new community space. More residents, visitors, and public activity in Brisbane would help all artists and within our community to reach audiences sell and showcase work teach classes and participate in community programming we've experienced firsthand how investment in community spaces can create opportunities for artists youth families and local organizations if this project moves forward we hope to see those spaces and those kinds of plays and those kinds of palettes We hope if this project moves forward, we hope those kinds of spaces continue to be part of its future. Thank you.

Thank you. And lastly, Janet Naito.

Good evening, I'm gonna apologize first for my voice. It's a little hoarse today. Allergies are killing me. My name is Janet Naito. I am with the Center for Creative Land Recycling. We are the United States' oldest non-profit dedicated to the beneficial reuse of underutilized or contaminated properties. We promote sustainable community-led and responsible reuse of these properties. Before joining CCLR five years ago, I worked for the Department of Toxic Substances Control, retiring in 2019 as the branch chief of the site cleanup program. So I'd love to talk to you more about Midway Village, but that's not why we're here tonight. I was involved in that project. I worked for DTSC for 32 years. So it wasn't my first project, but I was involved since like the early 1990s, I think. I'm here to say that we've seen a lot of projects built on contaminated property. I don't know, we are here tonight because we are the Brownfields technical assistance provider to DTSC's equitable community revitalization grant program. DTSC provided a grant to help fund the, part of the assessment of this site. So, We feel that this is a good opportunity and a great project to really revitalize this community. When I worked for DTSC, I also worked with the BBCAG. Not directly, my staff worked for them. So we were involved with that for at least 15 years. We sent staff to every meeting. We heard your comments. I think they really helped us design and design our requirements for the projects better. So we want to stress the importance of community-led redevelopment and input. So thank you to everybody who participated in that. I'm really sad to hear that it hasn't met for two years because that was a great group and I really appreciated all the feedback y'all gave. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're going to hear for a brief presentation from the applicant.

Good evening, Commissioner Chair Gooding and Honorable Commissioners. My name again is Stephanie Schakowsky. I'm with the Baylands Development Inc. I want to touch briefly on the remediation. Again, Brisbane has already overseen a landfill development conversion at scale at Sierra Point. Under the same regulatory agencies, the Water Board and San Mateo County Environmental Health and DTSC, same agencies that will oversee the Baylands cleanup. The Baylands is obviously more ambitious in scope, but we are not charting, and I want to emphasize this, we are not charting new territory here with the Baylands cleanup and redevelopment. The regulatory tools that DTSC and the Water Board and the county's Department of Environmental Health are well established and the approach is proven. Out at Sierra Point, there is an association called the Sierra Point Environmental Management Association. It's made up of all of the landowners out at Sierra Point. They meet on a quarterly basis. They pay annual dues that pay for the bond to keep the landfill, to keep the landfill. They pay all the environmental consultants and they pay the bonds for the landowners. for the environmental oversight. We expect and we anticipate, in fact we know, that will be the same tool and the same management tool and the same associations that will be set up for the Baylands. So to the question of the commissioners who pays for this environmental clean, the ongoing environmental review and operations and maintenance and review of the caps, that is generally done by associations of the property owners that pay into a fund, and they also bond for the cleanup and pay for the environmental consultants who do the regular quarterly monitoring that is reported and reviewed by the agencies. All of that information is made public on the agency's website, and I believe also SPEMA, I'm sorry, we call it SPEMA, the Sierra Point Environmental Management Association, also has those documents that are available for the public. So that's basically how that works at Sierra Point, a site that the city should be familiar with, and we anticipate the same program at the Baylands as the Baylands gets developed out. I do wanna mention a couple of issues that were raised last week about the financial feasibility of the project and how do we know the project is gonna be successful and not leave the city bankrupt and half-built or half-unbuilt. Again, I want to use case studies for projects that have been done successfully that are sister projects to and very close to the Brisbane Baylands. And one is the Mission Bay. Mission Bay itself was once a collection of old rail yards and vacant industrial property, just like the Baylands. Today, it is one of the nation's premier life science districts, home to thousands of residents, major employers, billions of dollars in private investment. The transformation began in the late 90s into a complete neighborhood. And by mid-development, the assessed value of the Mission Bay had increased 340% over its initial undeveloped or pre-developed baseline from land that was essentially worthless To one of the most valuable neighborhoods in San Francisco City of Emeryville 25 years ago Emeryville was a two square mile City known for its abandoned paint manufacturers junkyards contaminated soil and its inability to fund the city's basic services The city made a long-term commitment to cleaning up the industrial sites and replacing them with a new mixed-use community today It's home to over 4,000 new homes, Pixar Studios, a major Amtrak hub, retail, and thousands of biotech jobs. And it is one of the most financially stable small cities in the East Bay. And then lastly, and I think one that's more closely hits home is, again, Sierra Point. In 1975, Sierra Point was 132-acre closed landfill area. generating zero property tax revenue. The city of Brisbane approved the development. The developer donated 20 acres for the marina in exchange for development rights. The land was capped, remediated, Class A offices, hotels, biotech facilities followed, and Brisbane has been able to maintain its parks, its marina, and its municipal government largely because 45 years ago, the city said yes to redeveloping that closed landfill. THERE'S EVERY REASON TO EXPECT THAT THE BAYLANDS TO PERFORM FINANCIALLY BETTER THAN SIERRA POINT. AND WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS COMMISSION TO DO FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS FOR BRISBANE WHAT THE CITY DID IN 1979 WHEN IT APPROVED THE SIERRA POINT DEVELOPMENT. IN SHORT, THE DECISION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT again represents two decades of community outreach, design and planning, environmental studies, intense negotiations, and a voter initiative in 2018. The plan was carefully shaped by years of public input and hard work. We're asking for your recommendation tonight. And at this point in time, I'm happy to address some of the questions I heard that for the developer. I wrote them down, unless you, okay. Let me start on energy neutrality. We are committed to 100%, in fact, we are 100% renewable energy. We are generating about 55% onsite, and that is the maximum amount we can manufacture on-site, and that's a 55-acre solar facility. It's solar on all of the buildings, all the parking canopies, and battery backup. We think by the time we actually get in the ground, because the solar panels are becoming more efficient, that number may increase, but we physically cannot get to 100% renewable on-site. However, we are committed to joining PCE and having everybody who works and lives at the Baylands PARTICIPATE IN THE POTENTIAL CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM, THEREFORE MAKING EVERY MOLECLE WE USE OF ENERGY ON THE BAYLANDS 100% RENEWABLE. AND WE THINK WE NEED THE ENERGY NEUTRALITY COMMITMENT THROUGH THE AGGRESSIVE PROGRAM WE HAVE. On the Mission Blue nursery relocation, we're happy to discuss that. We have not seen the plans for that. The permanent easements, there are things on the specific plan. The wetland restoration program will, of course, be in perpetuity. The other pieces of the open space, we can discuss those at a future meeting. Just to be clear, the lagoon is not included in the 25% of the open space that were required. It's not part of that calculation. The city and the community input on the cleanups moving forward, that's a good question. Again, like I said, we expect these associations and homeowners associations and commercial associations to create their own Oversight committees that will oversee the consultants who are doing the regular monitoring and posting bonds to make sure that in an instance where there's an earthquake or there is a break in the cap that there's funds and there's bonding for that. And that's a very typical financial tool for these types of sites. I THINK FOR THE COMMUNITY INPUT, WE WOULD EMPHASIZE AGAIN THAT THE BBCAG'S ROLE IN MOVING FORWARD BECOMES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THAT THE CLEANUP, YOU KNOW, THE CLEANUP AND THE CONSTRUCTION WILL INEVITABLY RAISE NEW QUESTIONS AND THAT THE BBCAG CAN PROVIDE, ALREADY PROVIDES AN ESTABLISHED FORUM for addressing those concerns. Continuing their regular meetings would promote transparency, maintain public confidence, and we think help resolve concerns early. The city could provide kind of basic administrative support to the CAG moving forward, which currently does not occur. such as just arranging the meeting spaces, distributing the notices, coordinating with DTSC and the BBCAG members to ensure that the group and all citizens who are interested remain active and accessible. I think that the BBCAG is a practical investment in transparency that will help keep the community informed while supporting a cleanup and a development process that protects public health, safeguards the environment, and builds lasting public trust. And I think I hit all the questions, but maybe I missed a few. So happy to take more questions.

Yes, in terms of my question regarding the city doing its own independent monitoring and perhaps a fund set up by the developers, just because, I mean, it's not that I don't trust the state regulators, I just think sometimes things fall through the cracks. And given that this is such a big project, it's not something that we want to look back and say we should have done more. We want to be extra safe. SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER NOW, MAYBE LATER, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT DEVELOPER WOULD CONSIDER?

I THINK WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU ON THAT. OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD PUBLIC, THE SAFETY OF THE NEW RESIDENTS OF THE BRISBANE IS OF HIGHEST IMPORTANCE TO US. the current vehicle of the BBCAG is an excellent vehicle for that kind of oversight. But we're happy to come back with more information on that. Okay, thank you. Sure.

Anybody else? Okay, thank you very much.

Well, that was easy. Thank you.

All right. What you now, before we conclude, is to have each commissioner, if you have any questions or requests of staff and consultants, for them to come back at our next session with well-thought-out responses, this will be the time to ask them.

Maybe on the point of clarification on the BSL level three and four sort of what's allowed and that I know that's come up a couple times, maybe if we could have some follow up on that and sort of what the guidelines currently are and what sort of plans.

To the chair, I could try to answer that now if you're interested. Okay, so what the allowable uses table calls for in chapter 3 regarding life sciences is for any bio safety level, exceeding level 3 to go through a conditional use process. And with the city council being the final approving body on those permits. And I do just want to point out that currently the Sierra Point commercial district allows up to BSL safety level three as a permitted use. So that's consistent with how the city currently regulates those uses. Does that help? Do you need more? Okay, thanks.

I had one for the mobility plan. We've had a lot of comments about that. One thing I was curious about was the how the That mobility plan, our mobility plan, integrates with the regional plan. Some comments were made about that, but I am sort of curious. Brisbane by itself can decide, oh, we should have a diet on Bayshore. But I would like to have a bit more of a description of how this mobility plan fits into the anticipated sort of Bay Area-wide, what's going to happen out at... candlestick, for example. I'm sure those plans have to talk to each other. And one thing I actually notice is, you know, one of the comments that's made in the plan is it's designed to increase or to allow bicycle access to amenities, you know, within a two to three mile radius, I think was the word. So we have a drive in the other lane. As soon as you leave and you're on Bayshore, well, we have no jurisdiction over Bayshore, and I wouldn't want to ride my bike there, not necessarily, as you're going towards... So there's just a problem in general with how, and that's not a comment really on the specific plan here. I acknowledge that. But the connectivity to other amenities really depends on so much inter-jurisdictional work. And I would just like some comments on that. Basically, more specifically, how our local plan fits into the regional projections over the next 30, 40 years.

That sounds like something to think about and come back with.

Yeah, is it okay if I ask a clarifying question? Are you speaking, uh, Christian on in terms of, like, you know. Trip generation, or, you know, like, the kind of environmental analysis of, or, you know, analysis of trips and how that relates to. Implementation of the currently proposed, or, like, the actual design. itself, like how a two-lane potential basin would actually connect to jurisdictions to the north and jurisdictions to the south.

Exactly, how those destinations, how those communities are projected to evolve, how that's going to affect traffic flow. And I'm sure there's people who are paid to think about that, that 101 doesn't get overly congested. And how does it all fit together in a way?

OK, thanks.

Go ahead. One question. If the commission here didn't agree on a portion, a segment of the report, what's the process on that? For the mobility plan in particular? Any part, yes. Let's say, for example, the mobility plan.

Yeah, so as you get to your, the answer is going to be similar to what we shared with making other changes to the specific plan. As you get to your deliberations, if there's a majority of the commission that wants to make a recommendation for modifications, we'd say approve a portion of the plan, approve the plan with certain changes, like for example, some of the alternative connectivity strategies and not the road diet in the mobility plan. you could incorporate that into your motion and provide that direction to staff to share that recommendation that the plan move forward with specific modifications or recommendations that the commission desires to see. And so then that would be what gets presented to the city council.

I had a couple of things to, for you folks to take home and come back with a, the measured response, I guess. One is about, well, let me finish up the mobility plan. I think I asked the gentleman about traffic to come back with some more detail about what the right-of-way size does or how it impacts the ability to improve the edges of the sides of Bayshore other than Baylands frontage. So that would be helpful. That's it for mobility. The other was, let me find where I am here. The OSEC comments included a lot of discussion about being able to track over the long term greenhouse gas performance, if you will, how the project is impacting greenhouse gases over the long haul, and whether some sort of long-term tracking would be smart and feasible, and if so, what it would look like, I think would be of interest to me anyway. I think their report goes on to talk about what kind of periodic reporting would be feasible. Same question, really. Next, heard some comments from one of the CR Club folks. We got a lot of time here tonight. If you had them all up. But one of them spoke about the impact or the effect of the Schlage remediation on the rest of the area and the project and whether or not So my question is whether or not the progress or lack of Schlage in getting into compliance would impact the developer, the BDI's ability to proceed with its development. I know generally speaking that BDI can't proceed until its land has been remedied, but how does the Schlage plume and all that sort of downhill effect, if you will, kind of literally, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT BDI'S ABILITY TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT AND ARE THERE ANY NUANCES TO THAT? WOULD BE NICE TO HEAR NEXT TIME AROUND. LASTLY, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD I THINK ABOUT THESE POTENTIAL ASSOCIATIONS THAT WOULD BE CREATED IN THE WAKE OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO review, I guess, the state or the performance of the remediation actions is how I interpreted the funds. Whether I've got that right or not, a little bit more information as to whether that is something that is actually, is it baked into the plan or is it anticipated as part of negotiations regarding the development agreement or where else would it come up? And that's all I have.

Through the chair, are you referring to the organization's applicant referenced in their comments to you?

Yes. Any other?

One question. Because I kind of asked this before. What's the city's risk if there was some toxic exposure at a later time from the project?

As we discussed earlier, the city really doesn't face risk on the private property. There were some connections. If there were land that were ultimately deeded to the city that the city took over, that does change the analysis somewhat. I think we would want to be very careful about making sure that there were appropriate indemnifications and insurance provisions so that there's not inappropriate risk exposure for any LANDS THAT ULTIMATELY BECAME PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY. BUT FOR ALL OF THE PRIVATE LAND, THEN THE CITY IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THAT.

NEW SPEAKER I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

NEW SPEAKER FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, ERIC, IS IT TYPICAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF TO INCLUDE IDENTIFICATION PROVISIONS TO THAT EFFECT?

Yes, that is definitely what I would say is a market standard provision. It will be negotiated exactly the terms and how that is triggered, but there certainly will be indemnification provisions in the development agreement. Thank you.

Yeah, on that point, I read a little bit about the financing. And one, despite all that, one concern that I... was able to get out of that is let's say all the financing mechanisms that are set up, let's say they fail for some reason. Is it possible that despite the fact that we might not be legally liable as far as we can tell right now, we would still be viewed as the last resort in the sense because they're Brisbane citizens. Let's say the financing mechanisms and all the you know, the accountability mechanisms fail would be just de facto the last resort. You know, I just wonder how that would work out.

I have a follow-up question on liability. So the owners and the developers would share, I think, the majority or a great deal of any liability. But would the city not face potential exposure if we were deemed to somehow be negligent or reckless in our oversight?

Well, again, the oversight responsibility falls with the different regulatory bodies that we've mentioned. The city is not the responsible agency for performing that oversight. You're right that there are exceptions to design liability if the city approves potential unsafe design without following proper procedures, but The fact that an accident happens isn't what creates liability. As long as you follow proper procedures, rely on experts, there's a lot of protection from liability for cities for taking that sort of project approval actions.

Thank you.

Okay, I think that's all our questions. Next, about process, Director Ayers, you and I had a discussion about what would be the best next time to meet, and we discussed whether July 9th would be a feasible time with enough resources to be able to address questions. Do you have more information about that?

We do have some information. Depending on what the questions coming out of tonight were for staff to follow up on, I think, have to do with how quickly we can turn around responses. Um, so the July 9 meeting is available. Obviously the turnaround for that would be. Fairly aggressive, um, so I may defer to my overall team if we feel we need a little more time to respond and may recommend a later date for continuance.

Yes, it's up to the the chair as well, but if we do, I know there were some of the some of the questions for staff we can compile, but I do think there were some questions that involved the developer wanting to look at some of the responses and bring back some more information for some of your questions and that coordination and back and forth might take a little bit more time. So I don't know if we want to. Um? Yeah, if we could look at the July 9th, we could look out to your next regularly scheduled meeting on July 23rd. If you think then having that extra time to develop a more robust response will then put you in a good position to have your deliberations and make recommendations after that, that's up to you. But how much more robust deliberation time you think you'll need after we do the report back as well.

Any other thoughts? I have an opinion, but I'll take some advice.

Yeah, since you seem to be struggling with it a little bit, Doug, I think I'd lean towards the 23rd. I think it's also maybe consistent with the idea that People might need a little bit more time to digest it, including myself. I mean, I think we just. I think I'd like to a little more time to think about, like, substantive, specific things that we can address, because I assume it's likely that we'll potentially wind up approving with some conditions or something like that. But I would like to make sure that we do a really thorough job of that and really take into account any other correspondence that we may get before then. So my vote is for the 23rd.

Okay. So make a motion to continue this hearing to July 23rd, our regular meeting?

I will second.

TO THE CHAIR, DO YOU WISH TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED? ARE YOU AT THIS POINT, AFTER WE HAVE OUR BRINGBACK, READY TO GO ON TO DELIBERATIONS? YOU COULD ALWAYS OBVIOUSLY REOPEN THE HEARING IF YOU WANT. BUT JUST FOR YOU TO CONSIDER BEFORE YOU TAKE YOUR ACTION.

NEW SPEAKER I AM RELUCTANT TO to stifle public comment until, I don't know when that gets exhausted, that's a perhaps theoretical question, but your responses to our questions may prompt some public comments that I would be hesitant to rule out.

Yeah, I agree. So I think we continue to the July 23rd hearing and keep the hearing open.

I would encourage my fellow commissioners to spend the time between now and then to come up with kind of their real deliberations to be able to reach decisions as efficiently as possible. We can take as much time as the time allotted, but I think we need to self-allot sooner than later. All right. Let's vote on the motion. All in favor?

Second. Is there a second?

I second it. Okay. Oh, yes, sorry. Yes, okay. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Motion passes with five ayes. We are now adjourned. This meeting will reconvene. We'll have our next meeting on July 23rd. Thank you all very much for your comments. We appreciate your time.