Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you

9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. Meeting has begun.

Good evening, everyone. The August 13th, 2026 meeting of the Brisbane Planning Commission will now come to order. Staff, may we have a roll call, please?

Yes, Commissioner Funke?

Here.

Commissioner Lau? Here. Through the chairs, your mic on. Thank you, Commissioner Siazon. Here. Commissioner Wozniak.

Here.

And Chair Gooding.

Here. All right. May we have a motion to adopt the agenda, please?

I'll make a motion.

I'll second that. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes with five ayes. Is there any item that any commissioner would like to remove from the consent calendar? Hearing none. May we have a motion, then, please, to adopt the consent calendar? I move to adopt the consent calendar.

I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Motion passes with five ayes. NEXT IS THE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS SECTION OF THE MEETING. AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. AS YOU WILL RECALL, THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MAIN ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS CLOSED AT THE LAST MEETING. SO THIS IS SIMPLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA. If anyone wants to do so, please raise your hand here. And if there are anybody from home or remotely that raises their hand, please let us know.

We have no online hands raised.

And no one here in the room. Are you raising your hand, Tom? Moving on, then, to written communications. We acknowledge receipt of two written communications, one from Michelle Salmon, dated today, regarding the Brazilian mobility plan, and one received from Melissa Foley regarding ecological planning and design guidance. And those have been received. Is that all the communication staff? Correct. Thank you. All right. Moving on to old and new business.

Excuse me. Through the chair, I think we're having technical difficulties. Can we take a quick break? Sure. Hold on.

We'll pause until you listen. Okay.

Okay, our technical difficulties have been resolved and I think we are good to proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We'll be continuing the item that's been on our agenda for the last several meetings regarding the Baylands sub area. Let me read the entire agenda item or can we simply call it the Bayland item? You could give it a short title the Bayland specific plan and associated entitlements seems appropriate to me it sounds good the Baylands specific plan and the associated entitlements and amendments of Brisbane Municipal Code and zoning ordinance Staff do you have some some reports, please?

We do just give us one month, please I AND THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSION. SO THIS EVENING WE'LL KEEP OUR PRESENTATION PRETTY BRIEF. WE'LL DO A RECAP OF LAST MEETING ON JULY 23rd. WE'LL GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE TOPICS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS IDENTIFIED AS WANTING TO FRAME DELIBERATIONS TONIGHT. AND WE'LL STOP IT AT THAT POINT AND WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION ONCE WE HAVE OUR Great. Okay. So, at the last meeting on July 23rd, the commission heard a presentation from staff and consultants on 5 specific topics that they wanted more information on and ultimately ended up closing the public hearing. And during the deliberative stage, adopted resolution PC dash 1 dash 26 regarding the base or mobility plan modified to implement only mitigation measures associated with the project. ELIMINATE ANY ROAD DIET ELEMENTS AND INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF HAVING A CONTINUOUS CLASS ONE PATH OR SIDEWALK ALONG BAYSHORE WITHOUT THE ROAD DIET ELEMENTS. FINALLY THE COMMISSION GAVE STAFF SOME DIRECTION Um, regarding key topic areas that that you all wanted to identify for framing tonight's deliberations and we'll go over them very briefly. So, the 1st, suite of topics identified by the commission addresses how the specific plan approaches infrastructure, mobility and neighborhood design. So, the 1st topic is related to connectivity. So. How the specific plan provides for connections between the Bay lands and central Brisbane and Sierra point. So, staff provided a summary of how the plan approaches those elements in attachment 3 to the report. In summary, the plan prioritizes safe, non vehicular, so pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, downtown shuttle options that connect the Bay lands with central Brisbane and Sierra point. The second topic relates to how the specific plan incorporates a variety of amenity uses to serve residential districts. So that's addressed in more detail and attachment for which provided some excerpts from the plan and describes how it what are called active ground floor uses are either permitted or allowed or required in different residential and commercial zones. Um, but basically the plan does allow active grant for uses throughout the, the districts West of the Caltrain, uh, easement. Um, generally the low density residential districts are. The most restrictive as to what uses would be permitted or conditionally permitted as those active ground floor uses. And for the next tranche of topics, these are regarding how the specific plan is consistent with the sustainability framework for the Baylands as well as measure JJ general plans requirement for the project to be energy neutral on an ongoing basis. SO THE ATTACHMENT TO THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENT 5 PROVIDED AN IN-DEPTH REVIEW OF INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED AT VARIOUS MEETINGS BUT KIND OF CONSOLIDATED ALL OF THAT REGARDING HOW THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH MEASURE JJ AS WELL AS THE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK OVERALL. SO IN SUMMARY, AS WE PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY, The plan advances zero carbon energy neutral buildings by minimizing energy demand, maximizing onsite renewable generation and using additional renewable energy to close any remaining gaps. So consistent with measure JJ and the general plan. Okay, the 3rd suite of topics was regarding post development, monitoring of the closed landfill and remediated operating units. So this is dressed in detail in attachment 6 to the staff report essentially prepares a very detailed table. That outlines the currently anticipated requirements for ongoing inspection, post construction, remediation, monitoring all per the remedial action plans that are already approved by the state regulatory agencies and other documents that are under consideration by those regulatory agencies. We do want to note that frequencies for testing have not yet been established, determined or accepted by the regulatory agencies. Still under review the tables anticipated frequencies are based on what regulatory agencies currently require and what technical experts anticipate may be required based on their experience with other sites. And upon regulatory agency approval of those documents discussing sampling and monitoring requirements, the documents will be made public just like the wraps were for review. Okay, the last topic that the Commission had identified was a little more focused discussion of specific uses that Commissioners wanted to discuss. So specifically the buy right versus conditionally permitted thresholds for lab uses related to biosafety levels. The plan proposes allowing lab uses up to biosafety level 3 by right, and a CUP required for BSL level 4 and up, which is consistent with Sierra Point's regulations for the same. And then commissioners also were interested in discussing whether updates to the dark sky ordinance were warranted to ensure that the ordinance and the plan are properly cross-referenced. Um, so we won't go too deep into detail, but of course, we do have, um, consultants available to staff to go through any questions that you might have had on the information. We attach the staff report. Um, the applicants also here, if you need any clarifying information from the applicant, um, based on information that they've presented previously. And we'll put up here again a reminder of what staff is recommending for the Commission to act upon. This is unchanged except for the last item regarding the Bayshore Mobility Plan, which was already addressed at the last meeting. So we'll end it here. Go ahead and welcome any questions from Commission.

Okay, thank you. Try to proceed with some sort of a organizational pattern here. I think the best thing to do, I think, is to begin by asking my fellow commissioners if they have any specific questions about the presentation that was just given. I anticipate that we'll be doing deliberation on probably some of the various segments of the specific plan, and we can always ask more flesh-out questions then. But if you have a question, now that you think was not addressed in the presentation that's important before you begin to deliberate, if we can sort of go down the row and see if there's any of those.

No questions.

Alex? I have a couple. The first is about the sustainability and the energy neutral issue, which is dealt with in attachment five. And some clarification, I think just factually. As I understand it, the specific plan will require in the implementation section that they comply with certain different aspects of how they create energy and how they store it and so forth. And several times in the materials and in the plan, it talks about using off-site renewable energy to fill the gap between energy produced on-site and energy that may be stored in local batteries. Can you just flesh out what that looks like, what off-site renewable energy actually is? That's currently available or anticipated to be available?

Yeah, so one of the I think significant changes that happened since the 2015 sustainability framework was adopted and even since Measure JJ was adopted is that there have been significant investment and upgrades to the ability for utility providers such as pg e to source and provide sustainable energy so at this point one of the products that is available would be an energy energy that's supplied from 100% renewable sources. So even though the projections show on the very conservative side in the EIR that there would be a gap between the amount of energy generated on site and some more refined projections that were attached in the memo that show a much smaller gap, it is still anticipated that there would be some off-site energy demand for buildings within the project. However, they would be required to purchase renewable energy from PG&E or a community energy provider so that any electricity use in buildings was carbon neutral and from a renewable source.

Okay. I think I had asked, I don't know how many meetings ago, it might have been the most recent one, but about the battery issue and I had noted that the large battery farm, I guess, for lack of a better word, in the southeastern portion of the project is not anticipated to come online, if at all, for at least 10 years or so. And I asked whether or not it was feasible to make that battery farm in some way a requirement of the plan. AND IF SO, WHAT WILL BE THE MECHANISM FOR THAT? CAN ANYBODY HELP ME WITH THAT ONE?

I THINK PART OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FIRST IS IT MIGHT BE A QUESTION WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM CAN SPEAK TO ANY POTENTIAL TIMELINE FOR THE DELIVERY OF THAT. YOU'RE CORRECT WHERE IT'S SHOWN IN THE LAND USE PLAN WOULD BE ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS PHASE TWO, BROADLY SPEAKING. There could be opportunities, probably more in the development agreement than the specific plan to talk about the connection between phasing and particular pieces of infrastructure that the city is interested in prioritizing. Though, as I said before, if the chair wishes, you could ask the applicant to speak to when that might be feasible to bring online. That might help add more nuance to the conversation as well.

Okay, we might do that, but I want to exhaust my questions to you folks before we do that. Sure. Let me frame it a little different way, and that's probably my framing issue here. Is it fair to say that at this point, the creation of that battery farm is aspirational? It's too harsh a word. It is not specifically required as part of the specific plan as are uses of batteries you know, the rooftop electricity, the renewable resources from PG&E, that those are actually a condition of getting and maintaining their permits. Not so with the battery farm as I read it. Is there any other way that we could structure things so that it would be?

Yeah, and just to refine that a little bit. So the specific plan... Um, doesn't mandate the delivery of any particular user program. You are correct that if some of the say, they build residential 1st, those residential buildings then have mandatory elements, such as on sites, solar and, uh, local batteries, but they're not. There's not a mandate in the specific plan to. do those first or deliver them within a particular time frame. And the same, I think, rubric applies to the battery in that it is a permitted use. It would be allowed to develop in conjunction with remediation and infrastructure for that area. But you're correct, it's not a mandatory use at a particular point in time.

Male Speaker 1 Do anybody else have any questions about this particular issue?

Are you trying to ask if there's a way then, since it seems to be aspirational, if we can require it? Is that what you're asking?

Yep.

Okay.

Yeah, and the specific plan doesn't require, as I said, any of the uses at a particular time. Though, as we've talked about before, as we develop the phasing plan to be included in the development agreement, IF YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE OR UTILITY DELIVERY IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER USES, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONSIDER IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTEXT.

BUT DOES NOT MEASURE JJ REQUIRE THE DEVELOPMENT TO BE ENERGY NEUTRAL BY DESIGN? SO IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN um doesn't mesh with that and that we think that we would want to recommend certain requirements just like making the battery storage farm have that be implemented earlier or whatnot you know i think that's something i think commissioner gooding the chair gooding was was suggesting that you know is a requirement that we can make or recommendation that we can make

Before you answer, let me just try to wrap it up into one question you can answer instead of a bunch of piecemeal ones. You know, Measure JJ kind of promised energy neutrality. I mean, really, that was a big selling point of it, I think, as I recall. And here we are at the nitty-gritty of creating a specific plan that makes these dreams and wishes come true. And in this document, it appears to still be, well – We'd like that for that to happen, and the developer says they would like to do that, and I keep seeing words like it would be and it would be rather than there will be. And they're real different verbs in terms of what the people will see 10, 15, 20 years from now. And I'm struggling with that, and I don't know if anybody else is as well, because that is probably one of the two or three biggest selling points of this entire project to the community and, frankly, as a beacon and a role model for other projects everywhere else around. This could be either a really good role model or a failed aspiration. And that's more soapbox than it is policy. So let me ask the question more intelligibly. What mechanisms would this commission have to recommend to the council that would increase the likelihood of a specific item, this battery park, to get built? I mean, is there some sort of permitting withholding or

anything like that that that would make sure the battery farm gets built yeah I mean so those those are mechanisms certainly you could recommend that a certain a certain amount of program be developed and then after that point it could not continue until other milestones were met including the the battery farm and then Yeah, that can be part of your recommendation.

I'm trying to bring up to my mind's eye the timetable. My imperfect memory says that the battery farm is one of the very last things to get built. And so I'm worried that there would be no more stick to be wielded once you get to the point where the battery farm is not looking like it's going to get built. And I'd love to be wrong about that, but that's my recollection of the timeline.

I would, oh, sorry, go ahead. I would just, through the chair, just reiterate what Council Phillips was saying about the applicant is here and can provide some clarifying information if that's helpful in terms of what their anticipated delivery would be. And yeah, I'll leave it at that.

Okay, well, let's do that then. Any objection to hearing from the applicant about this? Would the applicant like to address this issue?

Good evening, Honorable Commissioners, Chair Gooding, Stephanie Schakowsky representing the Baylands Development Inc. On the energy neutrality, we do have a plan, 55-acre solar farm, solar on all the houses, solar on all the parking canopies that we estimate right now given current kind of the generation of the current level of panels. that are out there, production, that's somewhere between 55 to 57% of the use that the site will need. So we're not 100, but 55 to 75, and then we will require all of our residents and commercial tenants to purchase from West Light, which does have 100%, and that is the off-site energy, off-site renewable energy that's sort of discussed in the specific plan. So the project will be 100%. Chair Gooding, you are correct in the phasing for the 55-acre farm is a little bit out there because it is on the landfill under a lot of the soil mounds that have been built up out there. And those soil mounds will come down over time, be moved to the rail yard site as the rail yard site gets developed and the landfill gets closed, then the 55-acre solar farm goes in. So that is a little bit. there however on the battery storage facility we are under contract with a battery storage operator as we speak who has permits from the state grid and they are being they are in line to store and release energy to the Martin substation. And they need to be operating by 2030. So they need to be under construction by 2028. So that is very much a live and real deal. And that's 250 megawatts of battery storage.

Where does the energy that goes into the batteries come from? Does it come from the solar farm?

We will feed it from our solar, but it will mostly be coming from the Martin substation. So right now, the California grid is dropping a lot of renewables during the day because they don't need them. And so battery storage is the only way that they can you know, make sure that they can store. So during the day, I mean, make sure they grab that energy that's being renewed during the day. That's the only time you get renewables from solar and wind is during the day. And you, so when they have excess now, there's very few, there's very, almost zero battery storage happening right now around the Martin substation. With this project, then any renewables that the grid doesn't use immediately get stored on the battery and then released at night back to the grid.

There's a little discussion of that concept that was just being discussed in attachment five to your staff report which talks about HOW THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BATTERY WOULD IMPROVE THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT WAS JUST EXPLAINED BECAUSE IT WOULD EVEN IF IT'S PULLING FROM THE GRID BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT TO PURCHASE ALL RENEWABLE ENERGY, IT WOULD BE STORING carbon-free, renewably produced energy, and then putting that back out when demand was higher and production was lower from on-site sources. So even though it wouldn't generate power itself, it would increase the efficiency and use of renewable energy throughout the area.

We can argue about semantics. I think it's generation because you're actually recycling. You're picking up energy that the grid is going to drop, on the ground because it has no use for it during the day. So the storage will actually, the battery storage will store that and then release it at night. Some people argue that's not generation, but yeah.

I'm not going to cool about that, but so now I'm confused factually. How does this, does this differ from the big battery farm that's in the specific plan to be built 10 plus years from now?

No, I think what's 10 plus years from now is the solar field, solar panel field. That's where we need to have the soil mounds come down. The battery storage facility is up further north on the landfill side. on the east side of the Baylands. But yeah, it's not, it's in a place where it can start construction soon.

That helps me a lot, thank you. Would, will, two different verbs again, but is the notion that the solar field would fill up that same battery farm that the unused Martin stuff would?

Yes, I believe that... I don't know if that's fully flushed out yet. We can certainly connect directly to that larger battery storage, but we may also have our own smaller storage facility just for the Baylands. That's still being worked out. But in terms of the large battery storage facility that is in the planning stages right now and has received its permits from the state grid, That will be hopefully up and running by 2030.

So it's really the solar farm that is the latest arrival?

Later. Yeah, exactly. It's further south on the landfill.

Thank you, that's helpful.

Okay. Oh, excuse me. I have a related question. Um, so, um, during our hearings, um, some folks and groups came up and. Spoke about, um, since the Bay lands. Fails to generate 100% of its energy on site. Some have suggested if the developer would consider, you know, providing whatever shortfall there is off site community scale, renewable energy. I'm not sure what that would look like, but elsewhere within Brisbane, maybe having car charging stations being built or things of that nature, is that something the developer would consider?

I don't think so, yeah. I mean, we're maxing out what we can, in terms of the solar farm, what we can do on our property, and then we are requiring all of our, to make up the rest of it, that they, requiring all of our tenants to purchase from the West Light, which is Brisbane's community aggregator. And that's how we get to 100% renewable for the Baylands. I think to ask for more off-site is, I don't think it's necessary. I think what we've put together is a really good plan. And I think it works. And I think we meet, I think not only the spirit, but I think we meet the letter of the law under Measure JJ.

Just to follow up on that, West Light is a local solar?

Sorry, yes. No, West Light is your community aggregator. They used to be called PCE, Peninsula Clean Energy. Are you familiar with this? It should be on your electric bill if you've chosen, if you haven't opted out, Commissioner. Yeah.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay.

As to, I want to try to ask a few other questions before we start deliberating, because it might help us to do that. One of the questions I had, I think at the previous meeting, was regarding monitoring and reporting and to get some sort of legal guidance as to whether or not the city has the power or the ability to require separate or stricter testing and monitoring than that required by DTSC and the Water Board. And I think, Eric, you are prepared to address that issue.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. couple of thoughts about about that so we did look into it following your question at the last hearing and didn't identify a specific preemption or so much regulation from those two agencies to say that they've fully occupied the field however there may be some other legal reasons that you don't wish to require ADDITIONAL TESTING BEYOND WHAT THE OVERSIGHT AGENCIES WITH SPECIFIC JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY WOULD BE REQUIRING. FIRST IS THAT IT IS A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S CORE AREA OF EXPERTISE THAT THE REGULATORY BODIES, THE WATER BOARD, DTSC, HAVE THE SPECIFIC EXPERTISE TO IDENTIFY THE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS AND THE CITY IS NOT AS WELL EQUIPPED, FRANKLY, TO COME UP WITH WHAT THOSE STANDARDS SHOULD BE. THE OTHER REASON IS THAT IF THE CITY CURRENTLY UNDER THE REGULATORY SYSTEM, THE PROPERTY OWNER, ANY PARTICULAR MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THEY'RE THE ENTITIES THAT HAVE liability for complying with those requirements and making sure that the site is safe for the permitted uses. The city, assuming it doesn't own the property or otherwise intervene, IS OUTSIDE THAT CHAIN OF LIABILITY. HOWEVER, IF THE CITY WERE TO INSERT ITSELF AND START REQUIRING ADDITIONAL TESTING, HIGHER DEGREES OF TESTING, IT COULD BE VIEWED AS MAKING REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY AND INSERT ITSELF INTO THAT CHAIN OF LIABILITY WHERE IT OTHERWISE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY. SO IT ACTUALLY IS could have the opposite of the intended effect to increase the city's exposure to risk. What other agencies have done in this situation are to have requirements where reports are provided concurrently to the oversight agencies and the city, have the city have the ability to have some concurrent in enforcement rights for example ask for certification from DTSC and the water board that their requirements were being satisfied and if not the city might have the then reserve the ability to withhold permits or modify occupancy permits and take other corrective regulatory actions based on the determinations of those oversight agencies with jurisdiction. So that might be both a more common and a more legally conservative way of approaching that type of issue, and it's something that to the extent it's not already captured in the staff recommended additions in Chapter 9 with the table and the explanation of the monitoring. That's something that the Commission could consider providing direction to add some additional concurrent reporting requirements, a repository so the information was easily publicly available, or other safeguards that the Commission felt comfortable with.

I like to follow up with that and actually that the ongoing testing and monitoring was actually a big concern of mine and actually what. Was prepared this chart and the explanation that you just gave actually alleviates. Pretty much most of my concerns, so so I do appreciate that. And, you know, it, it, um. And and I feel satisfied that it that you anticipate that there will be. Let me quote here, quarterly cap inspections, quarterly landfill gas and perimeter landfill gas monitoring, semi-annual groundwater, surface water, leachate and seep sampling, and annual settlement monitor. So that's what is the standard that has been done by these agencies, and that's what we can expect, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. And you just said that any report that is then submitted to these state agencies, we can automatically, the city can receive those as well so that the public, anybody who wants to know what's going on, they can have access to that.

Yes, definitely.

Okay. Thank you.

That last piece that, that, uh, just addressed is that is not the proviso that the city be included in the communication chain regarding ongoing testing and monitoring is not currently mandated in the specific plan. Is that correct?

I don't think it's said quite that expressly, so I think that could be part of, if you want to recommend changes to the plan for council's consideration, that could be part of your motion. This would be one of them? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Are there any other questions about the testing and monitoring before we move on?

One more question on that aspect. Earlier, I thought I heard a comment about that this is not necessarily approved yet, that this is going still through the process of approval. Is that correct? And when would we know that?

So there are various steps for the regulatory agencies in approving City Council Chambers, documents that that determine how a site will be remedied remediated so presently as a reminder, the remedial action plans have been approved by the state agencies for the two operating units. Um, and then the landfill closure plan was also approved. Um, so. There's additional design level documentation that is presently under preparation and under review by those agencies. THAT GETS ESSENTIALLY MORE DETAILED. AND I WOULD SAY IF, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE THE CITY'S CONSULTANTS, EKA, ON THE LINE. IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THEM FOR MORE INFORMATION, THE APPLICANT CAN ALSO SPEAK TO WHERE THEY'RE AT IN THE PROCESS FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF DESIGN, REMEDIAL DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION PLANS WITH THOSE AGENCIES AS WELL. SO WHATEVER YOUR PLEASURE.

And it's already part of the specific plan that construction permits and use permits are all contingent on the developer complying with whatever gets required by the agencies. Yes, that's correct. I'm trying to put it in plain English. Yes. The sort of delta that we would envision recommending to council might be that we require, as part of that same process, including the city and the communication chains and the reporting so that the public would have access to the information. That's correct. Among other reasons. Yes. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Does anybody on this panel have any questions about any issues that were not in the presentation and that we hadn't thought about addressing earlier on? Anything that you thought about more recently that we should bring up while we have all the experts here?

I guess I do have some things that occurred to me since we sent things out. I don't know how you want the deliberation to go. I can just throw out everything I've thought of.

Well, it would be nice to – if there are some issues that this panel, either the staff or the panel, could help address factually, that would be a good time. If it's something about the plan and the issues before us that we want to deliberate about, you can hold them if you want. If there's stuff that we can get help from, just understand better, this would be a great time to ask.

Well, I guess there's one maybe that fits in that category. One of the things that I was thinking about, and it's related to sustainability, is whether or not the plan is in some sense a sort of a living plan. So what I'm thinking of is, for example, as building standards increase, let's say there's an update to the LEED standards. so that, you know, whatever the standards are that we commit to now becomes sort of less ambitious over time. Is there a mechanism that we kind of audit that and make sure that we are, that the development is current, you know, like every five years or something and say, look, here's, this is what the original standards were, but we can do better now and we're going to stay in step. And I would like, I would like, if you could just address that over the course of the whole development, is there,

Mechanism to make sure that we kind of audit and make sure that we stay in step with the best available technologies and standards Yes, so I would refer the Commission to section four point two point two of the specific plan which deals with the green building certification standards and it is intended both to apply the Then current lead standards, um, at the time that a development application is submitted so that it's not, um. Stuck at a lower performing metric based on on today tech today's technology. And then there's also provisions, um, that explain, um, and give. discretion to the city to identify substitute green building standards in place of LEED or Greenpoint should those standards be discontinued in the future and a substitute rating system be required. So there are those types of provisions to allow for the standards to evolve and remain current as technology and industry standards continue to improve.

Okay, thank you very much for the reminder there. And that's like, is there a difference between allow and require there?

Could you clarify?

Well, just like, I think what I heard was that standards are allowed to be updated.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. It would require the city to apply the highest standard at the time that the application was submitted. So it allows the city to do that, but it is a requirement. It is framed as a requirement in the plan.

Okay, great. That's very clear. Thank you.

Um, I might add if I could through the chair that section 4.3 has similar requirements, um, related to whatever the most stringent standards are for building design regarding energy efficiency. Um, so we so yeah, throughout chapter 4, where. Which is the sustainability chapter this is the specific plan that was exactly the intent and staff's recommended changes. WAS TO MAKE IT MORE OF A LIVING DOCUMENT RECOGNIZING THE LONG-TERM BUILD OUT FOR THE PROJECT.

AND JUST ONE MORE ELABORATION ON THE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS FROM SECTION 4.3, AS THE BUILDING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS CHANGE, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE SAY THAT THE CURRENT PROJECTIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ENERGY NEUTRALITY ARE VERY CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THOSE PROVISIONS THAT AS THE BUILDING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS INCREASE, THEIR ENERGY LOADS WILL DECREASE AND ANY DELTA THERE WILL BECOME SMALLER OVER TIME.

Also one more. I think it's a sort of a cleanup question about understanding the the Your attachment six which summarized all the anticipated inspections and monitorings and testings And just to get down in the weeds here on the on page three of three and the second item about criminal perimeter landfill gas monitoring in the additional detail section about in the middle of it, it says anticipate quarterly monitoring of the methane, monitoring probes, et cetera, et cetera. And the word anticipate appears a handful of times in this document. Is that because the specific plans from the agencies are not yet set in stone and you're making an educated assumption of what the plans will likely require?

Yes, to say the answer shortly, yes, that is why the words anticipate are used as we address in the presentation. I'm not sure if EKI, we have John Montgomery Brown of EKI on and if he would like to add any more detail, he can address us. Thank you, John.

Hi. I don't have a whole lot of additional detail, but the future monitoring system for the landfill is still really in development. They have the plans there. Basically, they're going to take off all the existing soil. They're going to reinstall a new landfill gas extraction system, new monitoring wells, new perimeter monitoring wells, and things like that. The exact, you know, all of that stuff really has to be developed still in consultation with the regulatory agencies and approved by them. And during that process is when the specific monitoring requirements for things like quarterly or for a cap inspections and landfill gas and perimeter landfill gas monitoring will be. developed in consultation with the regulatory agencies. And, you know, initially when they're designing the system, they may choose something like the quarterly monitoring, which is what is currently being implemented per the waste the waste discharge requirements for the existing landfill, but over time, as the system, you know, in 10 or 15, 20 years, that frequency may be reduced as they've accumulated a bunch of data that demonstrate that, you know, the landfill gases are not escaping the waste prism and things like that.

Thank you. Any other questions of this gentleman?

No, none of this. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you, John.

Darius, did you have some other questions? I did, yeah. Maybe around the word anticipate also, I was thinking about the connection plan attachment number three there. I'm just curious whether, specifically the Bay Trail, it says that the Baylands project is anticipated to contribute to the fair share of completing these connections. I'm wondering if that's sort of mandated as well, or is that also where that maybe stands around the connectivity portion?

Sure, thank you. I'm not sure if we have John Holmes of Ferrum Piers available to address the Commission on that topic. John, are you on? Oh, thank you so much.

You're on mute, John.

And if we're unable to get him, we can take a shot at answering it on staff side. Hello, we can hear you. Yes.

Um, I am here as, as staff knows, I'm filling in for Matt going to usually attend these meetings. Um, and I, I think this is a topic that he'd be better suited to address. So I might.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So I. Staff would say that the word anticipated regarding how the balance would contribute to the fair share toward completing those connections refers to the fact that the city is separately studying adopting a impact fee for, um. For transportation related improvements, um, which would. You know, for any development, um, that it would apply to, uh, require a fair share payment for improvements of that kind.

So there's a separate enforcement mechanism for for that aspect of of the project.

Yeah, separate in that it would be a fee that the city's considering adopting for any project that could impact circulation improvements of that kind.

Thank you. All right. Any other questions that came up in the back of our minds in the past couple weeks?

No?

Okay.

Thank you very much, staff, and all the consultants. Appreciate it. Okay, we move on to the actual deliberation. As you know, folks, we did close a public hearing last week, so we're going to go directly from the staff presentation to the Council deliberators getting the Commission deliberations and. I think what makes the most sense is. To deliberate and share ideas on. THE SPECIFIC PLAN ITSELF AND ANY CHANGES OR RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE TO CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THAT. I THINK, AND IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING, STAFF, PLEASE CORRECT ME, BUT I THINK THE AMENDMENTS OF GENERAL PLAN AND THE CIRCULATION ELEMENTS TO COMPLY WITH GOVERNMENT CODE, ET CETERA, I THINK THEY FLOW FROM any changes to the specific plan that we suggest or recommend. I don't think that, I think we can amend, we can approve or recommend council approval of the amendment items as they will flow from any changes they make to the specific plan, I think. Does that make sense?

Yes, so if if you do decide to make a recommendation regarding the specific plan, you can also make a recommendation to, um, for council to adopt the general plan amendments and zoning changes and then, um, direct staff to make any. Um, conforming edits needed for consistency with the plan recommendations that you would you recommend that's way better put than what I did.

Thank you.

We're a good team.

All right. Um. Let's do that then. Anybody have any specific place they want to start off with a specific plan and talk about? Again, folks, what we're here to do is to make recommendations and suggestions to City Council. We don't make any policy here. Our job here is to come up with things for them to think about or suggest that they consider changing. Anybody?

Let's start off with what we were just talking about, about the testing and monitoring, and that we just add the one requirement that any of those reports of the testing, monitoring, and any further remediation that has to happen, all those reports are automatically transferred to the city and put in a repository so that the public can have easy access to it. Do we all agree with that? Yes. Do you have any more comments on that or shall we vote on that?

Perhaps that we might want to include in any recommending language that that would be with the aim of making that information as available to the public as feasible by website or access to

Yeah, I would assume, I mean, we have, you know, in the city, we have a Brisbane Bayland site, right? So it would just fall under a tab, you know, testing, monitoring, whatever, so that folks can easily click on it and access information.

So, again, another process question. I get hung up on that. Is there some way, something we could suggest as part of our recommendation that the city, pardon me, the council could use as an enforcement of that provision? That it be a condition of permitting or a condition of the development agreement or what? What would it sound like?

Yeah, so I think that you could have it be that exactly as you were just suggesting, Traditional levers are in your permitting and your inspections. So You could have it say that if That all you know reporting had to be shared and current at the time of any permit issue and so that if they hadn't been concurrently sharing their reports you would withhold permits until you were given that information and able to share it with the public. And then the same could be true at the occupancy level. So after they've built, but when they're ready to come from their certificate of occupancy, you can make sure that they're current on sharing all of their reporting and make that publicly available.

And once they've gotten their permit and once they've occupied and then they stop complying, what then?

Yeah, so there's other, you could impose it, I suppose, and then some jurisdictions will treat that like a code enforcement complaint or define it as a nuisance or an infraction. So failure to report could be something like that where there was another... you know, oversight mechanism post occupancy.

Could it be a condition of the permit so that failure to do so would be a violation of the permit and subject to revocation or some kind of proceeding?

TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE PERMITS, NOT ALL OF THE PERMITS, NOT ALL OF THE USES WOULD BE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES. SO YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE ANOTHER TOUCH POINT. IT PROBABLY IS BETTER TO HAVE THE FRAMEWORK FOR THAT EXPRESSED AT THE PLAN LEVEL. I THINK I CATCHED THE LAST PART. BETTER TO INCLUDE THAT CONCEPT AT THE PLAN LEVEL TO THE EXTENT THAT INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS THAT AREN'T CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED, YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO to impose that. So it could still be framed as a code violation. Correct. Since the plan is part of a code. Yeah, exactly. So then it would be a code enforcement obligation. Thank you. Thanks.

OK. Any other opinions about this particular issue? Do we have? I'll ask for a motion in a second, but do we have consensus about this issue? OK. And staff, here we get to the nitty gritty. My inclination, if it's feasible and sensible, is to proceed with these deliberations and make incremental motions about recommendations in the specific plan. AT THE END OF THE EVENING THEORETICALLY WE'LL HAVE SOME HEIGHT OF STACK OF THOSE. DOES THAT WORK?

I DON'T KNOW THAT THE BOARD OR THE COMMISSION, EXCUSE ME, NEEDS TO MAKE SPECIFIC MOTIONS FOR EACH OF THOSE. IF YOU HAVE CONSENSUS, THEN WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION, THE RECOMMENDATION COULD INCLUDE THOSE CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION ITEMS. SO I THINK IT'S A SIMILAR CONCEPT, BUT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A FORMAL MOTION TO CAPTURE EACH OF THE CONCEPTS.

SO WE'LL HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF THIS AS WE GO.

AGAIN, WE'LL ALL WORK ON IT TOGETHER AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVEN'T MISSED ANY BY THE END.

NEW SPEAKER PLEASE BACKSTOP ME ON THIS ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. REGARDING THE energy neutrality issue, which brings up the solar panel and the battery park issue and so forth. Any comments or ideas or opinions about how we deal with that? Since we're deliberating, so just thoughts.

MR ABRAMS- I do. I think on a slightly related Like one of the things that came up in the public comment that resonated a lot with me was the sustainability part of it. And I understand that a lot of what's in the plan is basically about making sure you're compliant. And it's a little bit aspirational. And I'm satisfied that it's all very sincere. you know, likely to be effective. But I think in response to some of the public comment, I wonder if there could be a mechanism of sort of like an audit every five years or something where an independent consultant looks at how the project is going and gives some sort of assessment of how the project is doing relative to its stated goals. and whether they're on track. Now, I don't know exactly what this would look like, but it's just sort of an audit mechanism to keep people honest and accountable to varying degrees. You could do it a couple of different ways. You could just publish a report and it has no teeth, or the city could contract someone to do an audit like that and If it looks like the development is going to fall short, there could be some sort of corrective action. So it's just a suggestion. I think it's obviously kind of an undertaking. But I think that would be one way that we could be responsive to some of the feedback we received.

So staff, is there currently in the sustainability or the energy neutrality area of the plan any such REQUIREMENT TO REPORT OR PRODUCE DATA?

I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING. THAT'S CORRECT. THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS THAT ARE EXPRESSED IN THE PLAN, BUT THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY AN AUDIT MECHANISM TO TRACK ENERGY USE OR GHG EMISSIONS INCORPORATED.

Right. From that specific standpoint, the actual emissions and usage. But the design itself, those requirements are set.

Yeah. And I completely understand. We've heard several times that you can't actually measure greenhouse gas emissions. But I think there are probably mechanisms to evaluate a development.

Yeah. And thank you for making that distinction. I didn't mean to include the emissions issue, but really more just the energy – consumptions and the sources of the energy being consumed is what we're encouraging by the sustainability framework. And I think Rule's point is maybe well taken. Any other ideas about that issue or thoughts?

Well, I mean, I am concerned that, you know, WHEN I THINK THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS FIRST ENVISIONED, IT WAS HAILED AS THE SHINY EXAMPLE OF A DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD COMPLETELY PROVIDE ITS OWN ENERGY LOCALLY ON SITE. AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S MOVED AWAY FROM THAT GOAL. I feel as though I think certain accommodations need to be made to be true to that promise, and it's in Measure JJ. It's supposed to be energy neutral by design, and the design is not energy neutral. So, you know, like I addressed with Stephanie, that, you know, some of the people who have spoken have suggested, you know, if you can't make the development on its own energy neutral, then provide the renewable energies elsewhere in Brisbane, you know.

Maybe we're getting, maybe I'm about to get semantic, but. I suspect that the response might be something along the lines of energy neutrality is not exactly identical to energy self-sufficient if they're using off-site renewables to fill the gap between what they produce on-site and what they need at certain periods of time. And that's not a totally absurd response. It's what does energy neutrality mean Is it the same as we produce every single watt of energy that we need versus buying it from the solar farm next door or the wind farm down the peninsula? I don't know. I'm just making the devil's argument, if you will. No offense. But I think that's the nuance of the issue.

I think the other nuance, I'm sorry to interrupt there, was just the idea that if you are storing renewable energy, like you're taking it from the substation and preventing it from being dumped, that's a pretty good trade-off, I think. It's not exactly like being energy self-sufficient, but to the chair's point, it definitely, at least in a regional sense, makes us more energy self-sufficient, in a sense. So I guess I'm not as hung up on the self-sufficiency part of it. And I agree it is, in some ways, a little bit semantic.

So what do any of the rest of us think about Commissioner Funke's suggestion about asking for some degree of reporting

data reporting about the extent of I Think I think if you're gonna do an audit it has to have it has to have teeth and if you're not going to attach some type of punishment penalty if certain goals are not met, then I don't see much value in it. You know, I think a lot of it's about enforcement.

Yeah, I agree. So I think the audit is, I think I left it open, like what the teeth would be. But I agree, if you're going to do it, there should be some teeth. But, you know, how big they are, I think is, that's something that would have to be discussed. So I think that would be, I know this would be in the nature of like a recommendation to the City Council. It's like, hey, you know, we think some sort of audit mechanism with some teeth would be valuable, you know. And I don't know that we can or should get more specific than that, but like I said, I think that's something we heard quite often.

MR RATHKE- I would be in favor of something like that as well. I think a big promise of J&J was the sort of energy neutrality, so I think having the audit and accountability there would be important.

MR RATHKE- Farrell? No, I agree with the accountability. But yes, there has to be some punishment or something has to occur if progress isn't being made as planned.

Does anybody have a vision of what this audit process looks like? Or do we leave that for the wisdom of the council?

Yes, to the council's wisdom.

Okay. Do we... Any other segments of the specific plan that we want to...

Yeah, I had one item that kind of still sticking with me here is the biosafety levels, that by right there would be biosafety level up to three. I understand that we want to keep it kind of consistent with Sierra Point, but that is not as residential, if you will, and so I think I have concerns around allowing outright up to BSL-3. I think I'd feel more comfortable with BSL-2 and then three by permit, but that was something that I, yeah, that seemed stuck in my mind.

Staff, maybe you can help us with some factual stuff here. I'm not in any way expert on these distinctions. Can you give us maybe some real life examples of two versus three?

In complete fairness, I would have to pull up the code. I wonder if your fellow Commissioner Lodziak may provide some basic information and then we can supplement.

Yeah, I think at the top level, BSL-3 would be anything that could be airborne and also contagious and impactful to humans and like COVID or SARS, those kinds of diseases and research on that. BSL-2 and below would be not as harmful. And so I think that's sort of the main distinction. And so I have concerns that, you know, we have residencies that are very close and approximated to where research like that is by right, sort of. I'm not sure how many BSL-3 facilities we even have in Brisbane in general. I don't, yeah, I think there aren't very many.

There aren't. Yeah, I would support that. I don't think it's burdensome to have them come before us if they want, you know, to have that kind of facility.

Can you remind us, what is currently, like, at Sierra Point, I think you'd mentioned it earlier, BSL-3 is by right, is that right?

That's right. So in the SPCRO district, a conditional use permit is not triggered until you go above BSL level three.

Are there any residential uses in that zoning space?

No, that just applies to Sierra Point, which is only zoned for non-residential use and is physically separated via the highway and...

I take it that that's your reason for making the distinction? Correct, yeah. Yeah, so the separation by space and sort of distance there would be, yeah. So your suggestion for recommendation to the board is to consider? Limiting to BSL-2 and then above would require additional permitting. So DSL?

BSL, biosafety level two would be allowed, up to two, and then three would require additional sort of review, potentially.

So the verbiage would require a conditional use permit.

Sure, so I would suggest that chapter 3 table 3.41 be amended to modify the permitted uses requirements to state that any biosafety level above level 2 requiring a CUP. So just replacing 3 with 2.

If we allude to that in our session-ending motion, you can fill in the gaps on that one.

I'm considering that an item you've reached consensus on, yes. Thank you.

All right. As to the biological issues, any other comments besides that one or thoughts? Do we have consensus on that one before so we can do a motion at the end for that?

I'm inclined to, like, agree. It seems like we're pretty much headed there. At the back of my mind, I am sort of curious, like, What sort of by right thing are, with the sort of people who build these labs, what are they used to? And will this make it like, how much more burdensome would it make? So that's at the back of my mind. I'm inclined to agree. In general, it's like, yeah, you want things to be safe. Let's make more and more stuff conditional. But I'm kind of wondering, how is this done in other places? And you could look at it more closely. But like I said, if I was going to be asked to vote on it right now, I would vote with the rest of the council, because it does seem reasonable on the face of it. Or the commission, rather.

Any other opinions or thoughts about any of the biological issues besides this one? Hearing none. We should probably at least talk about ARE THERE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN? ANY IDEAS, THOUGHTS, ISSUES, CONCERNS?

WELL, SO ONE THING I DID, I THINK THE CONNECTIVITY WITH CENTRAL Brisbane that was we heard a little bit about that too, you know, and especially we're gonna keep Bayshore we're not gonna put Bayshore on a diet You know, I think the connectivity could suffer I don't think I don't think it's pedestrian friendly I don't think people are gonna walk along Bayshore to connect and I don't know what the vision is for ensuring that connectivity and to me there's a bit of a balance between the connectivity between the Baylands and central Brisbane and I think the commercial districts in both places would benefit if it was really robust. And I was wondering about potentially things like a circulator, like the Treasure Island Loop, just something, you know, this is all in the future. So autonomous electric shuttles that just like take people there whenever they want to. I was even thinking of like potential flyovers. There really is not a burden. to hop on your bike and go from one place to the other. How about, for example, and then I'll stop. Kids want to play soccer. They're going to go from Lipman to the fields in the Baylands. Are their parents going to feel comfortable with 12, 11, 10-year-olds crossing Bayshore on their own? I think it would be great if they would and say, sure, no problem. There's a shuttle, there's a flyover, there's just something that really integrates the two.

I was thinking about that too, and they do propose a shuttle system, but it's more limited. And if what you're suggesting is to expand the hours of operation for the shuttle system, that's something we could propose.

staff do you have handy again about the time i know it's limited by weekdays and weekends and and mainly business hours correct the proposed shuttle yes fruits um i do actually have that table in front of me any of the frequency of those shuttles as well yeah we could uh i could share my screen if i was in the zoom but i'm i'm not But yeah, so table so chapter 6 table 6.5.1 lists the proposed Baylands shuttle routes. So, for phase 1, which would connect with downtown Brisbane weekday service would be 6 to 9 AM and then 4 to 6 PM with 1 hour headways. No weekend service phase 1 internal shuttle. Would operate within the development from 6 AM to 8 PM with 15 minute headways. And on weekends, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., which would be on-demand service. And then it could expand to fixed route if warranted, based on how build-out goes. Phase two on the east side would be weekday service, 6 to 9 a.m., and then 4 to 6 p.m. with one-hour headways, and then weekends, 10 to 5. AGAIN, ON DEMAND WITH THE POTENTIAL TO EXPAND A FIXED ROUTE IF WARRANTED. AND IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANYTHING TO ADD ON CHILD CONNECTIVITY, OF COURSE, THEY'RE HERE AND AVAILABLE TO CLARIFY INFORMATION.

Hi, Chair Gooding, Commissioners. I haven't had the opportunity to speak with you yet. I'm Katie Lowick-Sunday, Director of Community Relations for the Baylands. I'm glad you brought this up. Connectivity is a really important topic for us. And yes, you're correct. We do have planned shuttle routes going both within the Baylands and connecting to surrounding transit nodes as well as to central Brisbane. We also have comprehensive bike paths that are running both within the development and beyond. And there is a really interesting pathway if you did want to avoid Bayshore. I don't know if any of you are familiar with the old Bayshore tunnel. If you've been on the Crocker Amazon recreational trail right now that goes around the commercial district there. right now it's a loop and there's a little pathway that sort of veers off of it and there's an old train tunnel that was built a long time ago and that is intended to connect to a trail that will go onto our property that will go up around ice house hill and will actually connect directly to the community fields and one of the shuttle stops i don't remember off the top of my head if it's phase one or phase two is actually um in that crocker uh industrial park so you could take the shuttle over there with your bike, you could then bike or walk along that trail through the tunnel, and then the community fields is right now planned to be right there.

Super. That totally satisfies me. I'd send my kid to play soccer and go through the tunnel. Now, are you going to keep the graffiti in the tunnel?

That's a great question. It could be a public art discussion.

A different committee. Thank you very much. So we plumped that last one. Yeah.

So you don't want to make any changes to the... No, I think that I would like to keep that open.

But that seems very specific to me. But yes, I think as we... I don't know if we should or need to make a specific recommendation. But I think as much connectivity as possible. I think this physical connection that is safe under Bayshore is just great. And to me, that's the essential part. Yeah.

For me, when I was thinking about the shuttle system, I was thinking about, you know, the elderly and people who are more challenged, you know, and not, you know, as mobile. That if you had expanded hours, you know, folks can go there, grocery shopping, have dinner, come back in time. Because right now I think it ends, you know, when you're done with dinner. So you can take the shuttle there, but then you can't really take it back.

Yeah, you've got to spend the night.

Yeah, so expanded hours I think would be helpful to connect the city more and it would reduce driving.

Yeah, I agree. I'd also be in favor. It seems like right now there's not a lunchtime shuttle either, if I was hearing that correctly, the timing. It was sort of in the morning, so maybe having additional shuttles throughout that time would be great to connect to central Bisbein.

So the inclination of the commission is to suggest to the council to consider expanding the shuttle schedules? I have a question. Do we have any circulation people here tonight with us? I have a question about bike lanes, whoever that would be.

We do. We have John Holmes from Farron Piers online. As he noted, Matt Goyne is not able to attend tonight. But yes, between staff and John, we can do our best. So let us know what you'd like to talk about.

So my question, and I should have done my homework first, and I I apologize I didn't. I don't remember right now off the top of my head how much or if we have any proposed bike lane areas in the specific plan in the circulation section that are proposed to be two-way. That is one space that is divided into two opposing lanes of bicycle traffic or multimodal traffic. If we don't, then I'll stop talking about this. But if we do, then I have some questions.

SURE. I WILL, I GUESS, ASK JOHN IF HE'S ON, IF HE HAS ANY IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO THAT. OTHERWISE, I'M HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT AND WE CAN UPDATE YOU LATER IN THE MEETING. SO, JOHN, ARE YOU ABLE TO ANSWER THAT NOW OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO GET BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER'S

Yes. I believe that you'd be referring to what's classified as a class four bicycle lane, which are like cycle tracks, which I do believe are included in some portions of the specific plan.

Okay. Thank you. In that case, I'll continue my diatribe. I think the night before our last meeting or the day before in New York City on the Verrazano Bridge, they had an accident. involving one of these new hyperfast e-scooters and an e-bike. And they were going in opposite directions, and they collided, and one of the two was killed, and the other was pretty seriously injured. And I raise this point because it's also an increasing problem, as I understand it, in local law enforcement here about the use of these you know, next generation bikes and scooters that can go awfully fast. Essentially, they're motor vehicles, in my view. And I'm a little concerned about the inclusion of those kinds of bike lanes in this development. It's generally flat terrain, amenable to maxing out the speed of these devices. And I think there are serious accidents waiting to happen. MY SUGGESTION FOR THE COMMISSION, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M HERE TO SAY, WHAT YOU ALL THINK, IS TO SUGGEST TO THE COUNCIL THAT THEY CONSIDER RESTRICTING THE USE OF THAT TYPE OF LANE ON A SAFETY BASIS. BUT THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. ANYBODY ELSE?

SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING SORT OF SEPARATING THOSE OUT OR NOT HAVING THOSE IN THE PLAN?

I DON'T PRETEND TO HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO COME UP WITH THE SOLUTION, BUT I THINK IT'S potential trouble spot. I don't know if the consultants have any immediate comment or response from industry standards or control mechanisms about that. I'd be happy to hear about it. Would it be like a restriction to any motorized versus regular? That's a possibility, I guess. I think as a practical matter, that's pretty hard to do in today's world. Everybody seems to have one of these things. And frankly, I wouldn't want to keep let's say our elderly population from being able to use an e-bike, it vastly increases how long they can ride bikes to be able to have an e-bike. So that's a tough solution, I think. So any other thoughts? Yay or nay? Am I the only one that's worried about this?

No, I'm concerned as you are, but I don't know how we would... monitor that if we would impose something, a restriction like that?

Well, to clarify, what I would suggest recommending to council is to consider whether or not they want to eliminate or somehow modify the circulation, the multimodal part, the bypass, so that you don't have oncoming traffic occupying essentially one roadway. with just a dotted line down the middle, and ask the traffic folks to come up with a different way or a different place to locate bicycle or scooter traffic so that they aren't in oncoming lanes.

Yeah, I agree.

I would imagine that there's a traffic engineering solution to that already. You know what I mean? I would look to like Valencia or something and say, well, what are the rules there? I share the concern, obviously, but I don't know if it's something Brisbane specific. I imagine that there is, you know, that everyone shares the concern.

Yeah, and I don't have the map in my mind's eye to be able to parse out where I change what. I just think it's, I believe it would be worth taking a second look at it to see if there are alternatives that would reduce that potential danger. So that would be my suggestion to make to the council to ask for that or to look into that.

And maybe a point of clarification then. So this was a class four type bike path? Is that what this refers to? And are there sort of...

IF I MAY THROUGH THE CHAIR. SO THE CLASS 1 FACILITIES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GENERALLY BIDIRECTIONAL. SO THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE SHARED PATHWAYS. THE CLASS 4 IS ACTUALLY A BUFFERED BIKE LANE AND GENERALLY THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON EACH SIDE OF THE ROADWAY OR SEGMENT. SO THE CLASS 1 FACILITIES ARE GENERALLY THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE with a dividing line stripe line with with two sides i would point that we do have other existing facilities like the bay trail that are shared um so there would be you know some where those touch points would uh interact i think there's some uh some uh design that we would need to look into so we can definitely look into this um but yeah the class ones are the ones that you i think um from the from the conversation would be the ones you're concerned about thanks

You would, for example, want to feel good about letting your kids ride between the two, and if they were going to do it on Bayshore, it sure would be reassuring, to your point.

I mean, I think 20 years ago, I wouldn't be having this concern because everybody had a regular bike, and you went as fast as your little feet could pedal you. These days... You hear all, at some frequency, 14-year-old kids going to school on a vehicle that can go 25, 28 miles an hour. Yikes. If that's in one direction, if they're actually coming at each other, that's a 50-mile-an-hour contact point. So anyway, any objections to recommending that or suggesting it? Okay. I tried weeks ago to get people excited about the green shared streets, and I had no success, so I'll move on from that.

Well, I mean, you mean the green shared as in you have an opposition towards it?

I did. I've been thinking about staff and experts' response that it has worked and has been working in other places. I've become a skeptic instead of a frank opponent of it. But I don't think there's the consensus here.

I express my instinctive concern over safety because I'm, like I said in prior hearings, I'm in San Francisco a lot and I walk in areas where there's scooters and e-bikes and pets and you know parents with children and strollers and if you're going to have green shared streets where all of them can exist in that same plane that that is concerning for me i mean because it scares me to where i avoid places like that because um yeah i mean kids and even older adults will be on those scooters and they'll just zip by you, you know, and you just wince and hope that they're not going to run over a dog or a child or something. So I know we discussed that it's only for, I think, a block or two or whatnot, but it still concerns me. But, you know, it's, I don't know if anybody else shares that.

I'm definitely still a skeptic as well as you kind of pointed it, but I think if the experts were suggested it I was less concerned, but I'd be open to Hearing how you might envision this I mean, I guess the issue is whether or not we raise this as an issue to City Council or not What would they propose we're just raising an issue what's the proposal to Not allow them Not allow green streets or not allow certain vehicles on the green street or certain kinds of modes of transportation or what's the specific

I honestly, I'm not sure. That's why I'm, I should have just kept quiet about it.

Yeah, no, I understand. It's similar to the issue about the, you know, what's going along on Bayshore. I share the concern, but I also think that by the time we put a green street in the Baylands, it's like people have thought about it some more. I think, and I assume there will be some engineering solutions to it. My feeling, I'm not sure that we need to have a Brisbane-specific preventative measure that is more strict than in Seattle.

I don't see it as an engineering solution as a behavioral situation that I don't think you can really control because I mean when someone is on an e-scooter or an e-bike I don't think you control how fast they go even if it says oh this area five miles an hour or you know I don't think they're going to pay attention to that

Well, then that may be an enforcement issue. So I guess what I would imagine is by that time, there will be like, hey, you're on a green street. There's going to be kids in strollers. There's going to be pets. You cannot go faster than 5 or 10 miles an hour. And you probably, if you have an enforcement regime, you change behavior, I think. You should be able to. That's what they're for, right?

Yep. OK. I've said my piece. I can't wait to see dash cam video of a Waymo turning onto a green shared street, confronting pedestrians, scooters, and cars pulling out of driveways. It's going to be fun to watch. All right. Infrastructure section of the specific plan about... drainage and water supply and so forth. Any issues or thoughts anybody has about making any comments to the specific plan? There is, of course, the issue of the water supply. My two cents is that that's dealt with by the plan scheme in terms of requiring the source of the water to be established to their satisfaction before the project is allowed to proceed. I think that's a regional problem that probably is best handled regionally rather than with one city's plan. But that's just my two cents. Any other thoughts about that?

I thought, staff, did you not say that that is water issues are not within our jurisdiction to consider?

Measure JJ does require that a reliable water supply be approved before any site development occurs. So it's not something that is currently being considered and if and when there is a water supply agreement that is something that Council would act on rather than the Commission All right any other infrastructure issues that anybody has any concerns about Worth raising the council

Hearing none. I just want to raise this because it's been the topic of discussions both here and also in the community about data center language. And I know there is some concern about the existence and allowing of data centers here and everywhere, really. However, I think that that is – addressed by the specific plan in the following way. There are in the plan a whole selection of permitted allowable uses that are very specific and very clear and language also in the plan that no other uses will be allowed without going through an entirely separate process of use permitting, which would then be a community issue to be addressed with very public and very transparent discussion. But as the specific plan is currently worded, it does not consider a data center among the allowed uses. And I think that meanwhile, on a different screen, The city council has a subcommittee that's dealing with this particular issue about data centers. But I think because the plan is so specific about what is allowed and what's not, I don't think we need to duplicate or get in each other's way about it. Any other thoughts about that?

OK.

It was on my long list from last month. I just wanted to say it out loud. Also on my list from last week was the dark sky ordinance issue, but I've gone back over in discussion with staff offline that the specific plan does very specifically not incorporate technically, but acknowledge that the dark sky ordinance is applicable to the uses in the Baylands area. Have I stated that correctly?

Yes, you have. And further, if I could expand on that, the plan also sets out its own sitewide illumination standards and other standards that, you know, again, presently. AS WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE, DARK SKY ORDINANCE, IT DOESN'T ESTABLISH SITEWIDE ILLUMINATION STANDARDS. THEY ARE ESTABLISHED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN ALONG WITH OTHER MORE SPECIFIC STANDARDS, TOO.

THE STANDARDS IN THE PLAN ARE AT LEAST AS STRINGENT AS THOSE IN THE DARK SKY ORDINANCE. IS THAT CORRECT?

CORRECT. AND AGAIN, THERE ARE ALSO ADDITIONAL standards that don't appear in the ordinance because the ordinance didn't contemplate this specific plan.

Okay.

Thank you. So we've talked about the energy issue. We've talked about the circulation issue, we've talked about the infrastructure and water issue, and we've talked about the testing and monitoring and reporting issue. Are there any other issues that anybody wants to raise?

Yes, I brought it up at a couple of our hearings, the issue with San Bruno Mountain Watch and the location of their nursery. Is there any opposition to their request that they remain where they are and not be moved to Icehouse Hill and the THE SHOOTING RANGE THAT'S THERE. SO I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST AND I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY STAY WHERE THEY ARE AND THEY BE INCORPORATED WITH THE COMMUNITY FIELDS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, WILL BE AND THEY CAN EDUCATE FOLKS ON THE MOUNTAIN AND CONSERVATION. SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO DO AS THEY REQUEST.

On that side of the room, remind me about the rationale, if you will, or the sort of the basis for relocating it to where the plan currently envisions. Was there some specific impetus for that? Maybe that's a question for the applicant. I'm not sure.

Yes, you certainly could ask the applicant to clarify and then we can add if needed.

The reason for MOVA, as I remember it, it had to do with the fact that it would sort of compete with the fields, just making the playing fields. Competing uses is what I remember mostly. Yes. I'm not opposed. I think we should definitely, it should be given consideration. I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that the developer would potentially, in the future, five, ten years, whenever it comes to pass, say, you know, there is this other facility here and it might actually be made more attractive. I just think that the, in which case, San Bruno Mountain Watch might say, you know what? That's fine. But I don't think they should be compelled to move, is my thing. So I definitely want to respect their desire to stay. And I hope the developer will be open to that. And I think you previously indicated that you were. Like, you'd be open to discussion. But, you know.

All right. So the suggestion would be to recommend the city council that they amend the plan to maintain the nursery in its current location. What section of the plan are we in here for that?

It's in Chapter 2.

Well, I'm sure it's mentioned in multiple places, but certainly in Chapter 2, Icehouse Hill District.

So describing the uses in that district, that's in Section 2.5.3.

in that same section shows the relocation, but exactly as Vice Chair just explained that in that section 2.5.3, it explains that the nursery would be relocated to the south side of Icehouse Hill, primarily to create space for the recreational fields.

Any other thoughts and opinions about this issue?

Yeah, I just, again, it's just like I'm not sure it should be compelled to stay there. Like if the other location for some reason becomes more attractive and that's fine. I just think, yeah, it's about not compelling them to move.

So we would recommend the council to amend the plan to allow the nursery to remain there unless and until preferable location can be offered. Is that feasible language? That sounds reasonable to me. Yeah. OK. Maybe I'll be able to repeat that in a minute. I'm trying to flip through other segments of this plan that might have issues. Anybody else has any?

Yeah, I have another one. Thank you. So during our hearings, the Sierra Club and various other environmental organizations asked us to consider putting in conservation easements in a specific plan to ensure that the open space that has been provided is more protected in perpetuity. I DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN DOING THAT BECAUSE WE'RE ALL FOR, YOU KNOW, WE ALL THINK OPEN SPACE IS GOOD AND THE DEVELOPER HAS ALLOCATED, I THINK, ABOUT 25% OF THE BAYLANDS TO IT. SO WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S IMPORTANT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE HONOR THAT COMMITMENT BY ENSURING THAT IT IS PROTECTED Forever, you know, we've allocated this open space. Let's make sure it's never taken away. And, you know, the Sierra club and others seem to think that a conservation easement is the best way to ensure that protection. So I'm inclined to make. The recommendation that they're asking us to make to the city council.

I'd be in favor of that as well.

Um, the staff, is there any, any.

Regulatory or implementation issue that we're missing here that was want to make sure that there were so table eight point two point one It does identify that all the habitat preservation and wetlands areas along the creek Lagoon Park and Icehouse Hill would be subject to a conservation easement and favor of the Department of Fish and Wildlife or ANOTHER ENTITY APPROVED BY THE CITY. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING THAT TO OTHER AREAS OR MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ABOUT Um, what the, what the recommendation is beyond the conservation easement that's already called for in the plan.

Yeah, I think I think we can. Um, refer the city council and attach the June 10th, 26 letter by the Sierra club and others where they outline. Their reason and their requests, and I think it covers all open space. Anybody disagree with that without making that recommendation Any others Yes, so The Baylands Proposes to build up to 2,200 housing units and over 6.5 million square feet of commercial development and So, I think what would be helpful to have there is a daycare like a, um, we make a recommendation that the. The specific plan include a daycare. I don't. Know where you put I don't care, but 1 should be put in there because it's you're going to have a lot of workers. You're going to have a lot of families. And childcare is really tough to find these days and affordable childcare. So, if we had a, if we make a recommendation that there be a daycare and make it affordable, whether it be subsidized through some, I don't know, through a development agreement or whatnot. But I think that's something that should be considered.

I agree. It was on my list as well. I was wondering when we were going to get to the any other business or any other. That was on my list for sure. I think that child care is probably the main reason why people drive. You have to drive their kids somewhere. And I think maybe not just even as part of the commercial development part of it, but just even like setting aside. I'm not sure how that would work in the development as a whole, but like Childcare, you want people to have a place to take their kids during the day so they don't necessarily have to drive.

And if you look at Table 3.4.1, daycare uses are permitted by right in the high-density residential, mid-density residential, and low-density residential districts. And they are conditionally permitted uses in each of the commercial districts. So that is a use that is allowed throughout the specific plan area.

And is that – I wonder what the difference there is between allowed and you shall make –

A PROVISION FOR IT WELL THE THE ZONING THE THE ZONING DOES NOT FORCE ANYONE TO BUILD ANYTHING AGAIN BUT SIMILAR TO THE CONVERSATION WE WERE HAVING EARLIER THERE ARE NO MANDATES TO CONSTRUCT ANY PART OF THE PROGRAM UNDER THE SPECIFIC PLAN THE SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWS THE USES AND CREATES THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR HOW THEY WILL DEVELOP YEAH SO THE ONE THING

Sorry, is it all right if I go on? Okay. So one thing I've been thinking a little bit about, just the complexion of the place. So I actually walked around a few other developments like this, including Mission Bay. It's like, well, would I want to live here? What would it be like? And allowing by right development, I'm not sure that it gives me a lot of necessarily all the assurance I need that it has the sort of the character that I would like. Because by right means, well, maybe no one wants to build it. And, you know, everyone leaves the Baylands to take their kids to South San Francisco for daycare. So I think that the... I wonder if maybe that should be studied a little bit more, and it should not necessarily only be by right. And while we're at it, under that same sort of topic, which I think falls under the desires that are sort of encoded in JJ, is a community wellness center, something like that. I think there has been a desire for that in Brisbane. And along those same lines, I assume that's also allowed by right, if someone wanted to do that. But I think there is a demand for that. Or not a demand, a desire. And I think it would improve connectivity and make healthier people.

Yeah, and I, and I would see it as, um, you know, you can look at it as a community benefit. You know, it's something, you know, uh, the developers asking us to make these changes, you know, to zoning to whatnot and. All these things so that they can build. their project and i i don't think it's much to ask that you know they want to build all this housing and all this commercial development bring all these jobs in here well let's do something for the workers and the people who live there give them daycare affordable daycare not for free but you know affordable um you know it's it's we can't just hope that someone will build a daycare there i think we can Required it we make you know, I think the city council can require it as part of approval of the project.

Well, and I guess if you're looking at them as community benefits, the place to capture, that would be the development agreement where the city has the opportunity to negotiate for particular community benefits in connection with. You know, other other rights granted to the developer.

Yeah, and I think that's right. So thank you for putting it in those terms. And I think maybe that is something for the development agreement and that we would recommend that city council or the city... talk seriously about daycare and a wellness center.

Yeah, and that, just as a reminder, the development agreement at this point is not on your agenda tonight. It's not before you. You will have the opportunity to review and make a recommendation in connection with that piece before it moves to council as well.

So would those recommendations be made along with this or do we wait on that?

I would suggest saving that for the follow-up conversation we'll have devoted specifically to the development agreement. Thank you for that.

Any others?

Yes, I have one more. So currently, the specific plan allocates land for a potential middle school there, sixth to eighth grade. And Brisbane already has a middle school. We have an elementary school, but we're missing a high school. So the middle school would, I think, take up about five to seven acres. And if we were to consider a high school there, it would require about 11 acres. So I've lived here for about 20 years. And ever since I've lived here, what comes up now and then will always come up from folks I talk to in the community is they lament that we don't have a high school. And I feel like the Baylands is a unique opportunity to potentially have that be a reality. And, you know, I understand that whether or not a high school is built there depends upon the school board and whatnot. But. If we don't allocate the land required for a high school, which is about 11 acres, we will have foreclosed that option for any future school board to decide on. So, I think. And currently it's an issue that's ongoing with folks in Brisbane. I don't know if you're aware that there's been a petition circulating from folks for high school. I think it's up to like 200 signatures. So it's something that the community is very passionate about and I think it's something that this commission needs to consider because we need to be forward thinking. And, um, and it's not just for the folks that currently live here. I mean. You know, the people that will be living in the balance, they don't have a vote in this. They don't have a say, you know, when they move there, you know, they're. I think it would be important to them to have a high school that their children can go to right there in Brisbane, rather than sending them to a different city to go to a high school. They're paying their property taxes, but yet they're going to have to take their kids to a city that's not Brisbane. So I think we have to keep their interests in mind as well. And I don't think it harms anything to allocate The additional land for the high school, and if, you know, um. The school board or or whatever decides that 1 shall not be built, then you can use that extra space for something else. It's not like there's any, I think harm. To allocate the space now.

I guess, is there a reason to not also allocate space for a lower school then? Or would Brisbane elementary be sufficient? Because there's no lower school there as well currently planned, right? So if we have like early childcare, would you be missing sort of the elementary? I don't know if that's something else you'd consider recommending.

Yeah, we could consider that if you think more space is needed. I think for the 11 acres, there's a St. Ignatius School in San Francisco, and they have a high school but also a middle school. So it depends on how you structure the design, but I think it could accommodate that. But it's just,

The program you're talking about is my alma mater. And it's not really a middle school. It's a summer program for sort of getting kids up to speed to be able to meet the standards of regular admission by giving them a head start, if you will, into the college prep program. But there's no, to my knowledge, any separate facility that is a middle school there. But my question to this, and I think staff looked like they were about to address the issue in some way, is that the high school issue has been rattling around Brisbane government and politics DECADES. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE DATA OR THE EXPERIENCE OR EXPERTISE TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S A CRITICAL MASS TO PUT A HIGH SCHOOL IN BRISBAY. SO IF WE WANT TO SUGGEST IT OR RECOMMEND IT, MAYBE THAT'S FEASIBLE, BUT TO ALLOCATE SPACE IN THE PLAN MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO SAY FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, TEN YEARS A lot of the other build-out has occurred to say, oh, well, now we have this extra land because Bayshore District decided they couldn't put a high school there. And now the land, does it lie fallow? Does it suddenly get switched to something else? How does that really work come the day? I don't know. I'm just throwing up issues that are potentially problematic. But staff, do you have any other information to share about that?

Well, yeah, I guess to echo what you were just saying, THE EIR FIGURE 417-1 SHOWS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND THEN HAS A DISCUSSION OF THE AMOUNT OF STUDENTS THAT ARE PROJECTED TO BE GENERATED FROM BAYLANDS AT BUILD OUT DEVELOPMENT. THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 345 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS BETWEEN THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS. FAR AND AWAY THE MAJORITY OF BAYSHORE DISTRICT AND THEN 128 NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS. BUT THE CONCLUSION WAS IN DISCUSSIONS WITH BOTH OF THOSE DISTRICTS THAT NEW FACILITIES WOULDN'T BE NEEDED AT THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL BASED ON THE CURRENT ENROLLMENT, ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND THE AMOUNT OF STUDENTS GENERATED. WITH RESPECT TO THE HIGH SCHOOL As you were just saying, Chair, it is maybe a bigger issue. I'd also say in some ways it relates or it's similar to the daycare and community wellness center. If you are looking at an increased dedication of land, that comes at a cost of development potential. For the developer and I guess we would probably look at that as part of the matrix of community benefits In the in the da context if that's something that the city wants to pursue It almost seems like if we were to recommend that we'd be signing the petition and I think you know word As

The chairman said, I think it has been debated. And I agree with you. The demand is there. It's been a discussion for a long time. I think I've heard on the other side of that argument that the other high schools in the Jefferson School District, our enrollment is kind of, how are you going to impact the viability of the other high schools in the district? And there's the other bargain. But this is, I think, a very individual one. Kids go to elementary school here. We have a fantastic elementary school. We have middle school. Maybe it's time to spread their wings when they go to high school. But that, I think, is an individual choice for parents. So that doesn't take away from the fact that there are obviously people who are signing this petition who want high school in Brisbane. So I'm not – I guess I'm just not totally convinced.

Is the – You know, currently it's allocated, what, four or five acres for a middle school. Is there some, you know, to be a high school, is there some size limitation? Can that middle school be... you know, can it be changed to a high school instead of a middle school development? You know, is it written in stone that it has to be a middle school?

Yeah, there are state standards for facility sizes and then, yeah, high school, I heard Commissioner Throughout the idea of 11 acres, even that's relatively small for a high school, even in an urban area. Um, and to meet state standards and have. Facilities are probably looking at a.

Significantly larger facility, some of these private schools, you know, even in the city seem like. They're well under 4 acres. in size, you know, land-wise and even in the peninsula, so that kind of, for a high school, it just surprises me that there's, you know, a state regulation for that.

So I don't, if we were to do a straw vote on this, My one of five, my two cents is that I think this is a decision that's better left to the education experts and the school districts negotiating with the cities as to how many students they really will have, at what points in time. And I would be reluctant to presume that I have better information about it. That's just one.

I respect your thoughts on this because I remember when I moved here over 20 years ago and this project started and I was always hoping that high school would be included in the project and the plan and I was disappointed when I heard that it wasn't. my children you know were they went to school in san francisco because i was gonna they weren't gonna be bused to um you know pretty far away for them to go to high school so it would be yeah i think i think it's just i think i'm leaving the option open i think i think by not

allocating space, we've foreclosed any discussion. Because we don't know what politicians, school board people will do in the future. But if we don't allocate the space, they won't even have to consider it. I guess I want to give some considerations to the families, the parents that Really want this and unless, you know, this is something that's wholly unfeasible for the developer that they can't allocate this additional space. I want to keep the option open, you know, I mean, and like I said, I mean, the land is valuable. I mean, if if you don't build a high school, I'm sure it could be used for for something else.

Yeah, I think optionality is always good. I think I'm with Doug that you kind of, you keep the option open, but defer the decision to a process that involves the school district, you know, whatever. Are you trying to create a by-right for like a private school? Is that an option? Is that what we want? Or would you want it to be a public school? So again, I think I would just say, I don't know enough about it to say that, but keeping the option open. For any of those possibilities, I think is reasonable.

So, yeah, we can just make a simple recommendation to the city council that they consider. Um, setting aside asking the developer to set aside more land for a potential high school, not that 1 will be built, but you got to keep that option open. And because if you don't. Then it will never happen. So we, we've made that decision if we don't do this, it will just never happen because there's no other space in the city for 1 to be built.

Yeah. And what you could even imagine putting a sunset on that or something that's saying, look, if you haven't made the decision in 5 or 10 years, it's. Back open to whatever I don't know if that's a possibility there.

If you're looking at the land dedication and a sunset, those are, I would refer that back to the development agreement. That's. If you're looking for an additional set aside and contribution of land value. AND A TIME HORIZON, AGAIN, I THINK THAT FITS IN THE SAME SORT OF CATEGORY OF PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER.

AS A MATTER OF PROCESS, I THINK YOU SAID A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHERE THE SET ASIDES AND REQUIREMENTS ARE NEGOTIATED. WILL THIS COMMISSION have a chance to provide input on that before the development agreement is actually tentatively reached?

Yes. So there will be a form draft development agreement for the commission to consider, make recommendations on before it goes to council, so before the final deal terms are set.

My inclination would be to do that at that time, which appears to be procedurally sort of where it belongs.

Okay.

Is that fine? Okay. But thank you for raising the issue. It's a hot one. Any others? This is the time. This is my saying. Anything else?

Yeah, I have one more, but it's more in the form of a question. And I'm curious whether either the applicant or developer or the city, I'm curious about the idea of an anchor tenant like Mission Bay had UCSF. I heard that we were in the running for that. I'm sure you've thought about it. I'm just curious what you think about that or what the city thinks.

I think that will totally defer to the applicant team to share any thoughts that they do or don't have at this time.

As far as I understand, it was kind of a big part of the success of Mission Bay, kind of catalyzed the whole ecosystem around there. And it's not a recommendation. I'm just curious what you think, and I'm sure you've thought about it.

It's a great question, and we do get a lot of questions, a lot about the future tenants of the project, but we don't have one envisioned at this time. Really right now, we're trying to figure out what is allowed to go where, and then I think once we get a sense of that, obviously we'll go to market partners and determine who would want to be operating the space and what, if any, anchor tenant could look like. So we're not quite there yet.

Darius, any other issues? Alex, anything else? Going once, going twice? One minute. I don't have any other issues at this time either. So it may be time, I think, for the chair to entertain a motion. And I'm going to try to formulate it. Help me out where you can.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to bother you in a very important conversation. But I just wondered, it's a public hearing. And you've been talking for two hours. And I just wondered when you thought that was going to occur. MR.

Thank you for the question, ma'am. I appreciate the question. At the last meeting, the Commission heard public comments, as we had for several sessions before that, and the Commission voted as a Commission to close the public hearing at that time so that this meeting would consist. Sure. The commission voted to close the public hearing at the last meeting so that this meeting would consist entirely of the final staff presentations and then deliberations by the commission.

You have closed the public hearing then?

Yes, we did. Yes, ma'am, we did.

Can I just verify that with the city attorney? Yes, the hearing was closed.

Thank you. Thank you.

You're welcome. All right. Do you want me to try to formulate the motion, or does somebody else have it in mind? I'll second it, Doug, if you... All right. My suggested motion that someone else should initiate, but I'll suggest the framework of it, is that the commission vote or adopt the staff-recommended Baylands-specific plan dated May 2026. in accordance with Government Code Sections 65450 and 65850 as a zoning ordinance with the following suggestions and recommendations to the City Council to consider as changes or amendments to the specific plan. One would be to require as part of the monitoring and testing and sampling that the City of Brisbane be included in the communications regarding that with in mind that those data would be as transparent and available to the public as possible. Next, on the energy issue. that we would suggest or recommend that the council consider requiring some kind of audit or reporting by the project developer and subsequent owners of their performance with regard to energy production and consumption to be able to assess the degree to which it is either self-sustaining or otherwise compliant. With regard to biological issues that the council consider reducing changing the plan to provide that that BSL 2 uses would be as of right the BSL 3 uses would require further process by way of conditional use permit or otherwise was that the only biological issue I think it was on the circulation elements that the council consider Upgrading or improving the the existing plans for shuttle schedule to provide for for better connectivity At different times of day and secondly that the council consider modifying the circulation plan to reduce or eliminate situations that I believe are class one bicycle or multimodal lanes, but to prevent the situation of one non-motor vehicle roadway being used by bikes and scooters that are traveling in opposite directions. Next. This probably belongs in the land use and planning issue, that the The council consider that the nursery be allowed to remain in its current location, but allow for the possibility that if they were offered a location that is more desirable or beneficial for them, that they would have the option of being able to accept that. Next, conservation issues. that we will suggest to council that they review the Sierra Club's June 10, 2026 letter suggesting a higher degree or extent of conservation easements to better ensure the long-term health of the open space usage.

Do we want to I'm just going to ask you, can you say that again? No, no, but, um, the community benefits, I wonder, I know we decided to, um, to defer that. That's more appropriate to the, um, for the development agreement. But I wonder if that should be mentioned as part of the recommendation. THAT'S ONE. I DON'T KNOW.

MAYBE STAFF CAN ADVISE ON THAT. MY TWO SUGGESTIONS. ONE WOULD BE I THINK I HEARD THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR, BUT THE ADDITIONS AND CHANGES THAT YOU HAD WERE Additions to the resolution is the motion to adopt the resolution with the Council with the Commission's recommendation to Council with those additional changes. I just want to make sure I heard that part correctly.

Yes.

Okay. And then, um. We would there were a set of staff recommended, um. cleanup changes to the specific plan and the enhanced table. I'll get to that in a second. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that was still on your list.

I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't forgotten any issue-specific items.

Issue-specific, the only one I had was that the audit would be probably independent. You know what I mean? So the city might do that instead of the developer. But anyway, it's the idea is the audit is the important part.

And do you need to repeat about the Bayshore mobility plan?

I will separate. Okay. Well, and the. The Bayshore plan, um, you made a motion, which passed at the last hearing to make that recommendation. So that that action you've already taken. Okay. I'LL EXPLAIN THAT FOR THE PUBLIC IN A MINUTE. I GOT OFF ON A LITTLE TANGENT BEFORE I ACTUALLY ANSWERED THE VICE CHAIR'S QUESTION. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT YOUR COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMENTS NEED TO BE PART OF THIS RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER ITEM SPECIFICALLY TO CONSIDER THOSE.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL GET TO THE MAKING THE RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE OTHER PIECES OF THIS IN A MINUTE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY VOTE ON THIS MOTION FIRST AND THEN GET TO THOSE, I THINK.

SO, AGAIN, I THINK THAT IT WILL JUST BE THE WAY THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND DOING IT, YOU'D HAVE ONE MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL WITH THE ADDITIONS THAT THERE WERE CONSENSUS ON, PLUS THE STAFF RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO RECOMMEND THOSE AS WELL. BUT I THINK THAT THEN THAT CAN ALL BE DONE. IN ONE VOTE ON THAT RESOLUTION. SO THEN WE'LL HAVE THAT RECORD.

NEW SPEAKER Okay. SO THE ISSUE SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT I MENTIONED PLUS ADOPTING THE STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM THE FIRST SPECIFIC PLAN IN LATE 2025 TO THE ONE IN MAY 2026. NEW SPEAKER AND THERE WERE SO

So the specific plan, the resolution that's before you has the May 2026 specific plan along with the EIR, the general plan and the zoning amendments. We have the seven topic COMMISSION SPECIFIC ADDITIONS TO THE 2026 SPECIFIC PLAN. BUT THEN AT OUR JULY 23RD MEETING, THERE WERE SOME TEXT CLEANUP CHANGES AND THE NEW TABLE FOR CHAPTER 9 THAT STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S IN THE MAY 2026 PLAN. SO IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO RECOMMEND THAT, WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT BE PART OF YOUR MOTION AS WELL.

And that's right, this was one giant resolution.

That's correct.

One big, beautiful resolution.

Exactly.

Okay. So the motion will be to make recommendations of the seven items that I previously listed to adopt the staff recommended specific plan of May 2026. And in addition to that, the changes suggested by staff at the July 23rd, 2026 meeting. And to recognize that the adoption of resolution will include approving amending the general plan land use element and the circulation element. And Title 17, the zoning element with whatever changes would be required to reflect the seven specific items that we already listed. Yes. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? None opposed. The motion passes with five ayes. I also want to make sure that the public understands that there THE BAYSHORE MOBILITY PLAN THAT WAS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT THE JULY 23 MEETING WAS APPROVED WITH SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE COUNCIL THAT THE MOBILITY PLAN BE ADOPTED. only with regard to the steps necessary to implement the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR, I believe, correct? And that it does not include the road diet, but that the council consider pursuing the possibility or inquiring and discussing with staff and consultants the possibility of extending sidewalk and other services for Bayshore Boulevard south of the limits of the project to the extent it's feasible. We already have that resolution on the record. I'm not trying to restate it. I'm just trying to explain to the public that's why we're not really on the mobility plan tonight. We already have with those suggestions to council. Any other loose ends? All right. I believe our next scheduled meeting would be August 27th, and the commission stands adjourned until that time. Oh, I'm sorry about that.

We're really fast. I thought we had another resolution potentially about the community benefits. I think that's what I heard.

Sorry, that'll be at a future meeting when we have that development for you. You are correct that there will be another resolution, but it won't be tonight.

I sort of blew right past any items initiated by staff. Are there any?

Not this evening. Okay.

Thank you. We stand adjourned. Thank you all very, very much for all your comments, all your participation, and all your interest, and all the concern that you have demonstrated for the future of this city. We all thank you for that help, and let's all move forward. Thank you.