WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY CITY COUNCIL
(5/19/23-6/1/23)
Roland Lebrun (5/25/23) Revised Baylands Specific Plan Notice of EIR Preparation Clara Johnson (5/26/23) Comments on Revised Notice of Preparation of EIR for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan
Dana Dillworth (5/26/23) Public Comment Baylands Specific Plan Dana Dillworth (6/1/23) 25 Park Place
From: Roland Lebrun <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 1:21 AM
To: Baylands <[email protected]>
Cc: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Revised Baylands Specific Plan Notice of EIR Preparation Dear Mr. Swiecki,
Further to my January 24, 2014 and March 2020 comments (below and attached), please refer to the attached Bayshore multimodal study
(https://default.sfplanning.org/Citywide/bayshore_multimodal/Bayshore_MultiModal_FAQ.pdf ) and consider addressing the lack of "Seamless, accessible connections to reliable transit" as currently proposed in Section 6.2.5 IMPROVE ACCESS TO TRANSIT of the DEIR (https://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/baylands/page/24259/202302 _draftbaylands-sp_ch06-circulation.pdf) by integrating MUNI, Caltrain and Geneva BRT as follows:
1. Extend and relocate the existing Bayshore Caltrain station further south so that it intersects with the Geneva extension
2. Extend MUNI LRT over Geneva Avenue and add an additional stop at the intersection of Geneva Avenue and the Caltrain tracks
Thank you
Roland Lebrun
sf-planning.org/Bayshore 1
BAYSHORE MULTI-MODAL FACILITY STUDY
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this study?
The Bayshore Multi-Modal Facility Study is analyzing alternative locations, conceptual designs, and implementation plans for a multi-modal facility in the Bayshore area. It is based on consultant analysis, public agency input and community feedback. It is designed to improve transportation access for Visitacion Valley, Candlestick Point, Hunters Point Shipyard, Executive Park, and the bi-county area.
What is a multi-modal facility?
Multi-modal facilities link transportation services and infrastructure within a single location or area, providing better access and transit connections for people using a variety of transportation modes.
Multi-modal facilities can be anything from a special plaza or street design to a multi-modal station.
What are multi-modal facility “elements?”
Any feature that supports multi-modal connectivity or transit access. They include informational kiosks, shared platforms, transit-priority streets or pedestrian/bike paths, and curb areas designated for transit access. Specific wayfinding, pedestrian-scale lights, design, and signage are other types of elements.
What does this have to do with Geneva-Harney Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)? The Geneva-Harney BRT project is analyzing bus rapid transit service between Hunters Point Shipyard and Balboa Park/City College. High frequency, high quality service will be combined with the existing Muni 28 Rapid line to provide a “one seat” ride connecting major growth in Southeast San Francisco, Bayshore Caltrain & Balboa Park Stations, college campuses and major retail. This Study contributes to better connections between this BRT service and Muni (T-Third and local bus routes), Caltrain, SamTrans, express buses, shuttles and other modes in the area. While the precise BRT route will be determined through analysis and community input, it is expected to use Bayshore Boulevard between Geneva Avenue and Tunnel Avenue, immediately adjacent to the multi-modal facility study area.
What does this have to do with the Schlage Lock development? Schlage Lock prioritizes multi-modal access, but it does not prescribe specific designs for a multi-modal facility. This Study is the first step towards a facility design that works within Schlage’s street network.
Schlage’s street improvement plan and the Phase 1 application, focusing on the north of the site, is currently under review. This Study’s Concept Alternatives 1 & 2 are consistent with the currently proposed street plan. Concept Alternatives 3 & 4 provide additional benefits, but would require additional coordination with future phases of Schlage. The Multi-modal Study will not delay Phase 1.
What does this have to do with the Brisbane Baylands?
This study is not intended to influence the land use within the Brisbane Baylands site. The City of San Francisco is expecting over 17,000 units to be added in southeast San Francisco in the next 10-15 years.
A multi-modal facility and service improvements like the Geneva-Harney BRT are essential to better serve this growth and current residents and employees of SF. The study is being coordinated with staff from the City of Brisbane, San Mateo County, Caltrain and the MTC.
Recognizing that proposed land uses on the Brisbane Baylands site have not been finalized, Phase I of this Study included four (4) land use options to account for a range of possible outcomes. Each option is based on land use alternatives shown in the 2015 Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
Within San Francisco, however, the scale of most major projects in the bi-county area is already known. sf-planning.org/Bayshore 2
Will this move the Bayshore Caltrain Station?
The project does not require moving the Caltrain platforms at the Bayshore Station. However, the project does not prevent future shifts in the platform or locating multi-modal elements elsewhere.
What will this project do for transit service?
Multi-modal facilities make transit services more user-friendly, accessible, and efficient. This project does not guarantee changes in transit service, however some stops may be moved or shuttles rerouted to improve transfers. The Bayshore multi-modal facility and transit-oriented urban design are two factors that could be considered in determining the frequency of Caltrain service at Bayshore. Today’s hourly Caltrain peak service would be insufficient to support expected growth near the station.
When will this multi-modal facility be in operation?
This has yet to be determined and will be further explored in the implementation task of this study, to be completed by Winter 2017.
Why is this study happening now?
Development in the bi-county area, including the Schlage Lock site, Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard are proceeding such that a multi-modal facility is beneficial sooner than projected. With this Study, public agencies can begin coordinating access, developing designs, and applying for funding.
How will the facility be funded?
While potential sources exist, a funding strategy is yet to be determined. It will be further explored in the implementation task of this study and completed by Winter 2017.
What are the next steps in the study?
The consultants will refine the four concept alternatives and evaluate them based on public comments.
In Winter 2017, they will publish the refined concepts, evaluation and implementation strategy for a multi-modal facility. City staff will present the Study’s findings at the Planning Commission. City staff can also present findings to other Citizen Advisory Committees or neighborhood groups upon request.
What are some examples of Multi-modal Facility Examples in the Bay Area? See the following pages for examples.
sf-planning.org/Bayshore 3
The following multi-modal facility examples are not representative of concepts for the Bayshore area.
But certain elements of any of them will be incorporated into Bayshore Multi-modal Facility concepts.
WALNUT CREEK: PLEASANT HILL BART STATION SAN FRANCISCO: PRESIDIO TRANSIT CENTER Multi-level, Off-Street, Public Activities Shuttles, Information and Retail SAN FRANCISCO: 4TH & KING CALTRAIN STATION MOUNTAIN VIEW: TRANSIT CENTER Train terminal, bike parking and repair, local and
regional buses, shuttles, taxi stands, wayfinding
and information
Off-street shuttle stop and passenger loading,
transit, bike parking, shelter, retail, shared
platform for Caltrain and light rail
ALAMEDA: MAIN STREET FERRY TERMINAL SAN FRANCISCO: TEMPORARY TRANSBAY Ferry service, on-street bus stop, bicycle parking,
passenger loading, multi-use trail, real-time info
Local and regional off-street bus facility with large
shelters, on-street bus stops, real time information
sf-planning.org/Bayshore 4
The following are additional multi-modal facility examples from around the country. Some but not all elements of these facilities can also be incorporated into Bayshore Multi-modal Facility concepts.
BELLEVUE, WA: TRANSIT CENTER SHIRLINGTON, VA: BUS STATION Converted street into bus facility, public plaza Off-street bus facility for regional and local buses WASHINGTON, DC: RHODE ISLAND AVE STN. LONG BEACH, CA: 1ST ST TRANSIT MALL Multi-level, multi-modal station with transitoriented development and multi-use paths On-street light rail & bus mall, public art, shelters,
lighting and trees, transit-oriented development
1945
2002
2003
2005
2005
2009
2010
2012
2016
2019
Roland Lebrun
[email protected]
Brisbane Baylands Draft EIR
January 19 2014
Dear Mr. Swiecki,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Brisbane Baylands Draft EIR.
While it is generally accepted that 200 MPH high speed trains will not appear in the Peninsula for at least another 20 years, plans for land use adjacent to the rail corridor should consider future higher speeds in the Peninsula with an eventual objective to connect San Jose to San Francisco in 30 minutes or less.
It is in this context that the DEIR should consider a new rail alignment capable of supporting speeds in excess of 100 MPH along the proposed future 5 th Street.
5 th Street
The relocation of the tracks and the Bayshore station to the 5th Street alignment would also significantly enhance transfers between Caltrain and the proposed Muni T-Third light rail station on 5th Street.
The relocated Bayshore station would have two additional tracks to facilitate crossplatform transfers between Baby Bullets (5-minute non-stop to Transbay) and locals stopping at Oakdale, 22nd Street, Mission Bay and the Transbay Terminal. The additional station and turnaround tracks would support a capacity of 12 trains/hour between Brisbane and Transbay, 10-20 years ahead of the rest of the Peninsula (Policy 6-12).
The impacts caused by the higher speeds of express trains should be mitigated by creating embankments on both sides of the tracks thereby giving the impression that the proposed Geneva Avenue extension is at grade while the platforms and the tracks are in a trench.
The proposed new alignment would have the following additional advantages:
- Faster, safer and more cost-effective construction of the relocated Bayshore station, including connections to MUNI light rail and Geneva Avenue BRT. - No construction impacts on Caltrain service.
- Foundation for a future 5-minute connection to San Francisco International (Transbay to SFO in 10 minutes, including a one-minute stop in Brisbane).
Mainline
Local (100+ MPH)
Transbay
Service
Non-stop to
Transbay
Platform lengths.
Please refer to "Platform Dimensions" on page 13 of Chapter 3 of the Caltrain Engineering Standards: http://www.caltrain.com/assets/_engineering/engineeringstandards-2/criteria/CHAPTER3.pdf : "The standard platform length shall be 700 feet to accommodate a six (6) car train consist. Platform design shall consider or not preclude a possible expansion of platform length to 1000 feet”
The DEIR should consider this 1,000-foot requirement because it would enable a Bayshore Caltrain station entrance at Beatty Avenue which is within walking distance of the Schlage Lock development. The DEIR should also consider extending the platforms south of Geneva Avenue to match Transbay’s 1,330-feet platform lengths for two reasons: support for double-length Caltrain consists capable of transporting 2,000 passengers to/from special events in downtown San Francisco and/or Brisbane and the ability to disembark and turn around full-length HSR trains in case of an emergency between Brisbane and the Transbay terminal.
- Relocation of the mainline would also facilitate the repurposing of the existing tracks between Ice House Hill and the Kinder Morgan Energy Tank Farm into a siding yard and a location for the future railroad Museum while maintaining an opportunity for a linear park and trail connection between the siding yard and the Tank Farm. The siding yard could provide off-peak storage for up to 8 Caltrain consists as well as the ability to turnaround additional train service (up to 6 additional trains/hour between Bayshore and Transbay) over and above the proposed maximum six Caltrains/hour by 2019.
Thank you for considering these enhancements to this exciting project.
Sincerely,
Roland Lebrun
Turnaround
Siding
Trail
Railroad
Museum
Park/
Open
space
Trail
5/25/23
Clara Johnson
BBCAG
159 Lake St.
Brisbane, CA 94005
[email protected]
John Swiecki
Community Development Director
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
[email protected]
RE: Comments on Revised Notice of Preparation of EIR for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan City of Brisbane
Dear Director Swiecki
The BBCAG believes there are numerous shortcomings in the scope of the Revised Notice of Preparation of the EIR for the Baylands Specific Plan. We ask you to add the following items to those currently being considered.
There are 22 and 24 story buildings in this plan. The height of these buildings is entirely out of character with the entire City of Brisbane and the Bayshore Neighborhood of Daly City and the Visitacion Valley Neighborhood of San Francisco. The buildings create a 240 foot plus massive wall between Bayshore Blvd. and the S. F. Bay. It destroys views of the Bay. It violates the policy of the General Plan. There will be significant shadowing of surrounding buildings and exterior spaces. The turbulent wind patterns in this area will be impacted by them. These buildings are being built as close as possible on this property to the dormant earthquake faults the lie below Candlestick Cove. They should require a more stringent structural standard since an earthquake of 7.5 or greater on the San Andreas fault would probably end their dormant state. A failure of these high rises could close Hwy 101 and shower the surrounding development with debris. It could impact the operation of Recology and disrupt garbage collection and processing for over a million people. These buildings will be considered a hazard to the aircraft flying to/from the San Francisco Airport hourly and be a potential hazard to the Oakland Airport flights that overfly this area daily. There should not be high rise buildings on the Baylands. The height limits should not exceed 150 Ft. High Rise buildings design normally feature lot of glass on the exterior. Storms this last Winter provided a glimpse of the climate 2 change coming that will result in higher wind speeds and the breakage of more windows in high rises like these. The results will be higher maintenance costs over the life of the buildings and a danger to the public. The sea level rise expected grows every year and the 83 inches mentioned in the NOP is likely to be outdated by the time the Specific Plan is expected to be adopted. Will the proximity of these high rises to Hwy 101 interfere with efforts to raise the Highway or replace it with a bridge to protect north south access for the S.F. Peninsula from sea level rise? That is a possibility. A Local Windsurfer previously raised objections to building high rises in this northern Baylands location. The Open Space connects at several points but it doesn't appear to be 25% open space. It confuses open space with open areas. There isn't enough in one contiguous area to provide relief from the urban concrete and asphalt harsh heat producing environment. It also does not connect with offsite open space that would allow animals to connect with San Bruno Mtn. Mountain State and County Park or McLaren Park. The General Plan called for this kind of connection. Open Space is supposed to provide relief and comfort for the people in the project. this configuration doesn't do that. Using names like, “Baylands Preserve” and “Adaptation Buffer for Sea Level Rise”, does not mean that these small areas in any way provide what those titles imply. The lack of reference to Open Areas in the NOP is surprising given that the General Plan contains many references to them. It is all the exterior area not occupied by buildings but providing access between them without an appreciable change in the environment that would allow for a relief from the density and height and bulk of the built environment. Most if not all of the Plazas you mentioned are open areas.
The Roundhouse Park appears not to have a Roundhouse preserved in it. If the Roundhouse is to be preserved, then there would be a building there thereby reducing any Open Space. The Baylands Preserve is not big enough to preserve any animal. It is located on the Landfill in the area where hydrocarbons were detected. It highly impacted by water perhaps tidal water just under the current ground surface. The Adaptation Buffer for Sea Level for Sea Level Rise is an absurdly small area for this title. This lack of healing open space creates a high stress environment and violates the General Plan. The Open Space adjacent to Hwy 101 and the extension of Sierra Point Pkwy. is insufficiently wide to mitigate the tremendous noise and toxic air emisssions from thousands and thousands of cars, trucks and buses on the ten lane freeway.
It could not be a place of peaceful enjoyment because of the above mentioned emissions and the vibrations that would be felt from the vehicles plus the vibration of CalTrain near Tunnel Ave. It requires more space and sound walls made of some transparent material that blocs the noise but not the light and view in order offer respite. The linear open space toward the west side is too narrow to qualify as open space. It is open areas between lanes of traffic. The whole scheme of open space is like an amenity for the building s rather than a benefit for the people who live, work and visit the development. The playing fields must be carefully evaluated for toxic contamination from the former Brisbane sewer plant and from the Brisbane Fire Station since there had to have been large amount of PFAS chemicals used there. Children should not be exposed to toxic
3 contaminants while playing sports for years. The lack of open space on the Baylands will create a high stress environment that will not encourage people locate there. Land covered with solar panels is not open space.
The planned battery facility and electrical substation have the possibility of creating more toxic contamination and a safety problem since they are placed close together. If one catches fire then the other one is highly likely to be damaged. There hasn't been any info on the electromagnetic fields created by these facilities and what injury it might cause to occupants.
The route of the newly acquired water supply's path to the site is described but its environmental impact is not and it should be. It requires a newly built tunnel. I’m sure there are environmental impacts from its construction
There have been interruptions in the traffic flow on Bayshore Blvd caused by telecommunications and other utilities that are too numerous to mention. There does not appear to be a plan to improve this traffic slowing problem of 40 years despite the obvious degradation in traffic flow that this project will bring. This is a stress issue and a circulation issue. The dry utility vaults on Bayshore and along roads in the Baylands should be constructed so that many different utility companies can quickly add lines within the vault and minimize traffic flow problems.
The strong possibility that this development will cause flooding in adjacent communities and adjacent areas Like Little Hollywood, the Recology site, Sierra Point Lumber, Kinder Morgan and the Machine Equipment Company is strong give the amount of soil that will be moved to portions of the Baylands raising those areas above the sites mentioned. What mitigations will be installed to lessen the possibility of flooding? It is irresponsible to allow a huge development to be built without strong specific assurances that this flooding can be avoided.
This Specific Plan calls for the construction of a Middle School on the Baylands. The conditions on the Baylands including: toxic contamination. soil likely to liquify in an earthquake, a 10 lane freeway with high noise and air pollution, a landfill site, a rail line and a regional petroleum distribution facility close by, are not what is considered appropriate for a school site by the Guidelines for School Siting of the CA Dept of Education. It is not an appropriate site. Would you want to your kids to spend 5 or 6 hours a day, 5 days a week in this harsh environment with inadequate open space?
The DTSC has land use restrictions that prevent parking below ground level and restriction that prevents residential use at ground level as well as some uses involving children for the Baylands OUSM The soil is only partially remediated. Contamination does remain in the soil. The plan
4 calls for parking below ground in some high rise buildings. There is discussion of active ground floor businesses and it isn’t clear if that includes uses involving children such as childcare. Why are these uses being considered when DTSC does intend to allow them? A lack of bike lanes separated from trucks and cars creates a high risk environment for bicyclists. There should be bike lanes that are separated from motor vehicles. This is a health and safety issue.
The relocation of fire Station 81 places it in a low area on Valley Drive. It is not as low as the current site. Since it is being moved, why would you put it in a site that in the distant past was a place where water ponded especially in light of Sea Level Rise. This an environmental issue The need for coordination and cooperation with all relevant agencies, including the financial costs of a lack of coordination should be considered absolutely essential for this project. The City of Brisbane should require written proof of the coordination plans and agreements among the parties and the developers before construction begins.
The issue of the unresolved geometrics proposed for Geneva Avenue/Bayshore Blvd/Bridge over CALTrain could be a disaster. This problem was noted in the first EIR. It needs to be solved before construction begins. It appears that the construction plan for the bridge violates the laws of physics and the configuration of the land at this location. You cannot leave this issue unresolved.
Air Quality, Noise Pollution mitigations must be clearly understood and rigorously enforced for all the years of construction and beyond. What is the methodology and entity that assures this will happen?
Biological Resources have been undervalued on the Baylands and this is an opportunity to correct that. Anything plant or animal that lives on the Baylands is in grave danger of being eliminated. An ecosystem is a web of life and this project with its 22 feet of soil transported around heights placed at elevated and then shaped compacted will only leave micro-organism intact. The construction will result in some level of contamination on all the wetlands, the inadequate open spaces. It is necessary to have an aggressive well researched plan of action to save anything.
Hydrology and Water Quality deserve an exceptionally careful review and perhaps could be peer reviewed. The sewage system on Sierra Point stinks today near the former Dakin Bldg. because inadequate gravity fall and force main pressure. It seems possible or even likely that the same problem will occur here. How will it be prevented? 5 Adding 19,000 workers and 4,000 to 6,000 will overwhelm all the governmental services provided by the City, School District and the County. A review of the shortfall must be rigorously analyzed and realistically addressed. More detail is required to see how this will be efficiently and effectively accomplished.
The contamination and landfill wastes that underlie the Baylands needs to be monitored, reported on and if additional remediation is required, then it must be overseen. This task requires an entity that has funding, is staffed by experts and is managed professionally. There should be a safety and hazard district, a Mello-Roos District to perform these duties and maybe other duties, overseeing other safety and hazardous issues. There should be air quality monitoring on site to monitor the air pollution from the Kinder Morgan Facility since there will be 25,000 people in close proximity.
The Brisbane Lagoon does not Belong to UPS or its subsidiaries. It should be evaluated, restored and maintained to fulfill its ideal role as a part of the Bay. It has been treated as an afterthought to be exploited. It should be given to the City for its protection.
Our BBCAG responsibility relates to human health and environmental quality and I believe that all the issues mentioned above fall into those categories.
Thank You for the opportunity to comment on the Revised Notice of Preparation of the EIR on the Revised Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan.
Sincerely
Clara A. Johnson
Brisbane Baylands Community Advisory Group
Vice-Chair, Acting Chair
From: Earthhelp <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 3:23 PM
To: Swiecki, John <[email protected]>; Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment Baylands Specific Plan
Hi Ingrid and John,
Happy Holiday weekend.
Attached are comments on the NOP. Please enter into the Public Record and make available to council, OPCR, Planning Commissioners, and Open Space Committee members. Thank you.
TO: The City of Brisbane
FROM: Dana Dillworth
RE: NOP Baylands Specific Plan
May 24, 2023
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on a Revised NOP for The Baylands Specific Plan.
As presented, this seems to be another concept map and framework document. This is not in compliance with Brisbane’s Amended General Plan nor State CEQA clean-up goals, and would require a General Plan Amendment. Studies on electro-magnetic radiation fields around substations, underground lines and their synergistic effects with known Baylands toxic chemicals that will remain in place, need to be conducted before this can be approved.
Measure JJ (GP-1-18) requires a specific plan to have details, particularly full descriptions of all environmental considerations, the timing and approvals of the cleanups and closures, a reliable water supply, and the economics as “transportation-related and other infrastructure, facilities, and site amenities (e.g. parks, open space preservation, habitat enhancement) shall be provided at the developer’s cost.”1
The adopted Land Use Diagram in GP-1-18 only allows Heavy Commercial use (HC) above the proposed Geneva Extension in the Beatty SubArea. Table 5 as amended only allows Heavy Commercial use in the Beatty Subarea. These newly proposed Heavy Commercial designations are the antithesis of what we were promised about housing, which was to remove heavy industrial uses in favor of creating a livable community. Otherwise you need to do an adequate review of your policies for environmental racism, your policies which will place lowincome and disabled people’s housing along a high speed rail corridor whose potential spill or derailment hazards include a regional petroleum tank facility and utility-scale lithium battery storage. Alone or combined, this plan may be catastrophic.
Adequate safety studies about rail accidents, particularly recently, should render a no project recommendation, or relocation of the proposed battery and substation facility, and/or a reduction in residential units to have fewer 24/7 potential victims of derailment and harm from low-electromagnetic-frequency radiation.
The recent loss/disappearance of 60,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate from a rail car, possible leak, possible theft… makes planning near rail lines require more scrutiny. BDI keeps adding more dense uses without recognizing this is greater than what the community approved. I do not remember 270 foot tall buildings in the 2015 plan on the lower rail yard and ask if higher buildings make Kinder Morgan’s toxic burner need a remodel? I also don’t think that it reflects “cohesion and character of the [Brisbane] community.” Perhaps we reduce commercial allowances? What will this look like from the Northeast Ridge after the fill elevation? The FEIR from the Baylands Concept Plan by Metis Environmental Group, dated May 2015 has three volumes of recommendations from the previous submissions on the prior approved concept plan. Please go through each response and determine whether and how these mitigations and needed studies have been addressed. Additionally new information is available about sea-level rise since 2015 and cities and waste dischargers are asked to respond to the issue.
First glance, some issues may be addressed, but a lack of studies from incorporating the Northeast Bayshore subarea into Baylands PD may put people, city workers, sensitive receptors, and the environment at risk. The areas north and south of the current fire station are City of Brisbane Fact Sheet on Measure JJ 1
some of our last freshwater wetlands with wild, native Pacific Chorus Tree Frog populations and possible Red-legged Frog and SF Garter Snake habitat. An area earmarked as “Community Fields” may be too toxic for that use from the former rail activities and GVMID Sanitary Sewer uses. It hasn’t been tested, but there were raw sewage and heavy metal spills in the area and whatever leaks from Machinery Equipment yard. You have not described what tests you have done to ensure a safe environment for Public use.
Properly designed, this flood zone area (from Crocker Park/Lagoon to the PG&E marsh at Main) could contain detention ponds coming through a restored daylighted Guadalupe Creek on the south side and a restored Visitation Creek on the north side of Ice House Hill (commercial area.) The habitat significance of this area is under recognized, but, historically, it is the area kids go to for tadpole captures for school projects, for generations. A full Mountain-to-the-Bay Creek Restoration Plan should be considered and studied as it is the basis of the Wetlands River Park concept in our Open Space Plan… The time is now.
Lands designated as Open Space need to be safeguarded from California’s newly enacted housing laws. These Open Space zones may be forced into housing use without any environmental review. The Baylands Park and future streets will be re-located heavy metal toxic zones per the remediation plans. You need to clarify that these wetlands and future street areas are unstudied, former industrial toxic waste zones. A new land use “Remediation Zone” (RZ) could be considered. What are our safeguards to prevent housing on never-tested ground from being spot-zoned, like our Park and Ride lots?
The fire station’s proposed relocation site is on former marsh lands. Crocker Park is showing up as vulnerable to sea-level rise. You need to inform us what plans we have for these areas.
As a waste discharger, the informed Public needs to know. There is no mention of a sea-level rise adaptive strategy for Uno-Cal (Brisbane’s corporation Yard). A provision like “all construction begins 20 feet MSL”, or “sump systems must be installed,” or even whether Bayshore Blvd needs to be raised and what impacts placing the fire station even 500 feet way from Bayshore creates to additional response and idle times. While Valley Drive is convenient, I think the impacts may be too great, and an alternative site on higher land should be considered, like at Bayshore and Guadalupe: 150 North Hill or the Tech Park.
The developer is asking for 400 more residential units and additional acres of heavy industrial use without any reduction of other development impacts. An explanation of why the additional risks (emf exposure, accidents) and impacts is warranted for the additional construction and carbon footprint it will cause. More residents, more danger is not more desirable.
CEQA requires discussion of reasonably foreseeable projects in the plan area and this document suspiciously omits discussion of High Speed Rail. I wondered why I had not seen the Baylands Specific Plan NOP in early 2020 (during State-wide Covid lockdown) and found that BBCAG was engaged with comments on the DEIR for the High Speed Rail SF to SJ Project Station.2 As a State-required Citizen Advisory group, BBCAG had not been informed of the NOP for The Baylands Specific Plan nor considered stakeholders to the following City-run workshops.
Suspiciously, the lands which you are defining as Open Space and utility scale infrastructure were earmarked by High Speed Rail. I am not certain if this is in the Public’s interest to ignore regional transit goals nor whether a battery utility should be located in such a vulnerable, flood prone area, please review.
Public Comments submitted to HSR 2
What are the assurances to future generations that this newly designated Open Space will indeed remain for the purpose of habitat and storm event buffer? Which citizens will vote to permanently change the entry to town to a Heavy Commercial designation and have the chance that Recology would relocate there or some other unwanted heavy “commercial” industrial use be proposed? If anything, Solar Power, renewable energy generation should only be considered a conditional or interim use.
The Open Space we proposed was not intended to be the most toxic lands out there, but much in this plan are. The fuel leak east of Kinder Morgan and former dump's methane gas wells are called “Baylands Preserve.” More correctly, it should be designated a “Remediation Zone.” Usually preserves are of high biotic value, it seems unlikely in this location. I will love to see the studies and plan that shows what species and signs of improvement/performance you expect. Your generic plan is insufficient.
If you are introducing a Paul Stamet’s style mycological remediation to the Kinder Morgan fuel spills, then I am ALL for it. But it’s not here in the plan. Preserve is a false description of this area. It has specific parameters to be met from a Fish and Wildlife perspective. We would love to see their input. In the prior plan this area was a raised berm, and should be in this one. It should remain a protective shield from a potential Kinder Morgan accident.
Figure 2: Baylands Specific Plan Areas (Project Site) map in the Revised NOP does not appear in the Specific Plan, but is similar to 0.2 Existing conditions with details. What are the rules for the Kinder Morgan, Golden State Lumber, Public facilities, and Recology islands? Could they conceivably plan for 6.5 million sq ft. commercial and .5 million sq. ft. hotel too? Will their impacts and plans be add to this concept plan? Are they PD too? Golden State Lumber and Kinder Morgan have toxic gas burners on them. They are Public hazards and nuisances. These are part of the current conditions which needs to be mapped and acknowledged in the existing conditions and background information areas. The Public’s right to know these dangers are beneficial in the siting of future fire stations and other Public uses. Their absence is alarming.
There are new training and lithium battery fire suppression protocols. Are these going to be “tried out” in the proposed old fire station training grounds? Is that why there are damaged cars presently out there? Cars whose fluids are leaking into the Guadalupe Creek? The current training use needs to be fully identified, properly assessed, and potentially relocated along with the gun range and corporation yard. Doesn’t the community get the opportunity for an open Public facility re-use discussion? What about a temporary homeless shelter since we recently redid the roof?
I ask that you look at each map for incorrect information. Such as, “Bio-tech Industry” (2x) and “Industrial Uses” on Figure 2 RNOP. This is not accurate. They are a Technology Park and a Public Facility.
This document needs the same thorough public review as the prior plan. Not the 30 day slamdunk. Each and every community group needs time for input and hearings. While this is much closer to what the environmental community wants, the devil is in the details.
We proposed solar/renewable energy generation in lieu of housing, not plus housing. By spreading housing over a larger plane, you have created a more dense commercial environment, very unlike Brisbane, unlike anything in the peninsula. The proposed minor arterial street structure is disconnected from Central Brisbane and seems insufficient to move around the tens of thousands of new people you anticipate.
An all electric transportation system must be defined and planned and not left to “when available” or ”if feasible” statements. Curious how ADA and elder-aging organizations will look at your street articulation, and how planters and stairs become barriers in figures 3.53-3.55.
How are ADA compliance considerations being handled? Were are the street-level elevators? All I see are tripping hazards and stampedes of people fleeing from earthquake-damaged buildings. I see dead people.
I continue to object to our Publicly-owned, Public Trust State Lands Commission lands (Lagoon Park) being included in the Open Space totals for this Development Plan. The 25% Open Space should be integrated into the whole plan. It should be above and beyond areas waiting to be remediated or that the Public already owns. Open space for parks/recreation should appear integrated into each area/subarea/campus greater than the figures proposed in this plan. Our General Plan had a recreation/per capita figure that exceeded normal standards.
Is that benchmark being maintained? If these 2,200 units magically become 4,400 units by virtue of ADU’s and then more, how will we have viable recreation opportunities in 27 story buildings?
In your Appendices “Amenities Area” is a new use but not defined in your use classifications or glossary. How is it different than other Public/Private uses? I do not agree that your definitions supersede our city’s or State definitions. Please refer to our General Plan for the proper definitions so there is consistency with OUR General Plan, not the other way around.
You have artfully gained a re-use of our Historic Roundhouse. Its preservation doesn’t seem to be a priority in this plan. If you continue to use Public funds which is contrary to the conditions of GP-1-18 ((section 08) Public Facilities Financing,) then there should be discussion of dedicating the Public Asset back to the community for a cultural, educational institution with Rail History aficionado and community non-profit directors. No BDI-loaded boards.
Since Universal Parasite reneged on the community center at Schlage’s historical building, the need for a Community Oversite board (per recommendations of G.Fred Lee) should be recommended and considered. We are yet to learn how sea-level rise will impact your earlier concept plan and not ready for City Hall to work out the details. Tell us more about the water supply.
Any and all weak language should be reviewed.
Respectfully,
Dana Dillworth
To: California High Speed Rail Authority
From: Dana Dillworth
September 9, 2020
RE: DEIR San Francisco to San Jose Project Section
I am a resident of Brisbane, having reviewed records in the Schlage Lock to Kinder Morgan, Bayshore Childcare/Midway Village to San Francisco’s unregulated dump and toxic issues since the state endangerment orders of the 1980’s. Initially we were part of a network of Bay Area residents affected by toxic contaminants in our soil, water, and air, both at home and work. I’m the founder of Brisbane Baylands Community Advisory Group where we have viewed and commented on remediation efforts from fuel spills at Kinder Morgan Tank Farm and three or four phases of TCE cleanup on the SF Schlage Lock site. I think it is interesting that no member of our group was considered in your stakeholder meetings. My recommendation is the no-project alternative (back to the drawing tables) or a modified “A.” It was March 2006 Mr. Lenny Siegel of Center for Public Environmental Oversight (www.cpeo.org) and I reported active Bunker C oil leaks on the former rail yard which required the interim drainage measure. I also reported the negative tide leachate seeps along Visitation Creek and the lagoon to the Regional Water Board which resulted in the interim hydrostatic leachate pumping program. In both cases, in spite of numerous biological assays, no consultant had been present to observe these special conditions.
There are a few matters that I would like to draw your attention to which seem to be ignored or unknown to the consultants. I will speak about the groundwater and Brisbane’s Open Space Plan.
The hydrological dynamics of this 600+ acre mounds of rubble, shipyard and medical wastes, and chemical dumps from 1906 to present, called the Baylands, has demonstrated that anyone who interrupts the underground water flow to the Bay, has problems with slumping if it is pumped and mounding if it’s contained. How and where you anchor your building in this fluid waste heap is important. My recommendation is for placing the LMF on solid ground, no fill, no toxic fill in particular.
The concern for placing your 100+ acre operation, needing an industrial designation, means that parts of the Baylands will not be cleaned up to a standard that protects public or environmental health. We would hate for future HSR employees to have illnesses associated with a solvent UST sump in their basement, (below slab,) like the workers of Pacific Litho or miscarriages due to VOC contact and inhalation of that “mysterious odor at low tide” or at night.
You must be aware that the Baylands fill matrix is high in chlorine, representing Bay saltwater intrusion. Metals used in supports will decay. Wells at Kinder Morgan show tidal influence (compare the tide charts to the study) and areas of the Baylands are known to flood, or exceed groundwater height. During future harsh storm events, you don’t want your employees trapped because they can’t get to their cars or wonder what they are breathing because some sump pump didn’t operate.
Are there NO other places from Morgan Hill to downtown San Francisco that are solid land, not fill subject to liquefaction, to place the maintenance yard? Maybe smaller train storage areas all along the peninsula corridor and multiple smaller maintenance sheds along the way? Why is Brisbane getting the full brunt of this operation?
I concur with many of the environmental reasons to not take down Ice House Hill, thus rejecting Alternative “B.” It speaks of people that only look at the map as square inches, not beloved features and an environmental opportunity to connect the mountain habitat to the bay. I don’t think you understand the importance of Ice House Hill in protecting citizens from a potential blast if there were to be an accident at the tank farm. In addition to noise and vibration concerns by other residents, Ice House Hill buffers westerly winds. Hurricane-force winds are known to ignite fuel tank farms (Galveston, Texas.) It is best to leave this natural feature in place or include the cost of moving the tank farm in your summary. The tank farm and LMF are not compatible uses.
Have you looked at what impact removal of the hill would have on the integrity of Bayshore Boulevard? The west side of the tunnel going into Crocker Park shows Bayshore to be fractured and crumbling. Along with changing the entry to our town and relocation of our fire station you are STEALING our Open Space— what other community is being asked to accept such impacts?
I cannot imagine Kinder Morgan wanting faster-moving metal-to-metal sparks near their operations, nor the greater chance of derailment because of increased speeds. They would also not like the potential for accidents during demolition of the hill. Does it make any difference to HSR that Kinder Morgan only has one retardant foam pumper truck it shares between their Brisbane and San Jose operations? Alternative “B” is not a good idea.
Which brings up my “modified Alternative “A” idea… Straighten out the rails at Sierra Point, (whose entrance needs to be made legal anyway), hug 101 on the east side of the Lagoon and place the LMF in the Beatty, Heavy Industrial Subarea, in the north east area. Both Recology and HSR would have to modify their plans, but taking the rails out to 101 would reduce the vibration and noise FOR THE ENTIRE TOWN OF BRISBANE the full length of the lagoon. The un-used rail on the west side of the lagoon could become a Public walkway or a more natural shore. We already experience amplified noise due to our bowl-like shape. Moving the rails east could be a “win-win” because Recology plans cogeneration facilities too. They may either share or reduce the number of garbage burners needed rather than add to an already unacceptable level (overriding considerations) of density in a polluted environment. With all the soil out there, we have the chance of creating berms to shield from noise and light-pollution.
Some mitigations can happen in the final design.
Do the consultants know where the current toxic waste burners are on the Baylands? Does that knowledge effect their sighting choice? I cannot imagine working in the “B” location.
When Kinder Morgan’s excess gas burner flares (usually at night) what a sight! Workers will be dazzled and wonder whether the soot encrusting their cars has anything to do with their job.
You might be liable for the vehicle finishes as the airport did for the postal workers whose cars got covered with excess dumped jet fuel.
There’s a burner on the north end of the Baylands for the accumulated toxic gases coming off the old dump. The dump’s interim methane system needs to be upgraded, so the solution to combine all three “problems” (rail, waste, and closure of the dump) can come in one package.
The soils on the Beatty end have had more years to off-gas and become compacted from use.
Anything further south, you have concerns for radioactive materials (never fully studied) and younger fill needing more time to off-gas, greater settling issues.
Ask Universal Paragon for the methane charts that Barbara Ebel showed in one council meeting. They showed the concentrations of methane coming off the landfill internally as well as the perimeter. While the snake-oil salesmen will tell you to pick any place for your LMF, as long as it’s not housing or commercially designated… please do your research, as the “safe” spots are few and not interchangeable.
In closing, I ask that you review Brisbane’s Open Space Plan. You claim to have looked at regional plans, but not local plans. Please understand that as a community we want the cleanup mitigations to serve wildlife too, to make up for past environmental omissions. We have a program that allows greater than 1:1 mitigations, particularly for wetlands. We have the concept of a Wetlands River Park that maintains a connection of the tidally influenced wetlands WEST of Bayshore (at Main) and the watershed of Visitacion Valley to the Bay. Citizens have observed migratory fish at the Roundhouse, so know restoration of this connection will bring species we didn’t know are part of our environment. The community chosen wetlands concept would daylight the “wooden” channel creek and widen, open up several detention ponds as it moves through the grade. It is our “Mountain-to-the-Bay” habitat corridor.
No matter where you place your facilities, we would request that you maintain or improve that habitat corridor with animal over- and/or under-crossings and not a fully fenced-in barrier or underground drainage system. Our community dream is to have a Rail museum as well, to PRESERVE the Roundhouse and connect with other educational opportunities associated with the Baylands, (remediation kiosks.). If you partner with us on the rail museum effort, we might not complain so loudly. The two don’t have to be physically connected.
As an educator I could imagine the Baylands being a field trip for all ages. Tour Recology, be humbled about our wastefulness and travel to an energy producing zone (please include solar in your design,) and then visit the rail museum, the native plant nursery, lunch at the lagoon playground, etc.
If you want to locate in Brisbane, please be respectful. Contribute to the restoration of OUR National Trust asset, the Roundhouse (you have the State cred to make it happen.) Tread lightly… as some times things look good on paper—- but are disasters in reality. You have presented us with the latter.
We deserve better and hope you further reduce the impacts that you so cavalierly list. We would like to know where you live so we can share some ear-splitting squeally- wheely noise and bring a soil compactor to create vibrations in your neighborhood. If it were your neighborhood, you’d design and think differently… like rubber bumpers, or sails to break up sound, something.
From a Public Trust perspective, the Bay was filled for transportation uses, for the connection of communities’ commerce. A train/transporation system is still a legitimate, highly responsive use on our filled former Bay. The place where the conflict begins is the landowner/State’s adding housing to the mix which was never this land’s purpose and short-sighted in my opinion. When the land was available in the 1980’s, you should have grabbed it. Regardless, the cleanup is the responsibility of Universal Paragon and should not factor into your choices.
Amazing how responsibilities get shifted when the Public isn’t present in your stakeholder meetings. We warned the city that the new housing use will increase cost to HSR. Don’t let that happen, place HSR where the industrial use is allowed…. The “Swing-wide Modified “A” alternative.
Thank you, if you need any additional information or clarifications, you may contact me at 415-468-8587.
B
2 ?i l L.
This image is of the Baylands in 1995 when it supported vast populations of wildlife and migratory birds and were the rare and endangered Unarmored Three-spine Stickleback fish were found. Universal Paragon has dozed and altered the land continuously to remove the wetland features. Rail Yards are known to harbor a lot of wildlife in the fringes, Brisbane Baylands was no exception. You can also review the arial maps of the 1982 floods. Because you are proposing to remove our open space, you should consider the Wetlands River Park as a mitigation measure. I hereby incorporate by reference the 1994 Brisbane General Plan, the Brisbane Open Space Plan, and citizens’ comments on the Baylands (minus Kinder Morgan) DEIR.
From: Earthhelp <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 2:14 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>; Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]> Subject: 25 Park Place
Dear Ingrid,
Please place in the public record and make available to council members.
Thank you,
Dana
TO: Brisbane City Council
FROM: Dana Dillworth
RE: Financing The Remodel 25 Park Place
June 1, 2023
I object to the Public Fund debt you are about to approve.
I am amazed at how many times we have refinanced our library and community center being told we will save money. I do not think the scale of the proposed remodel plan is fiscally responsible and if you do a cost over time analysis of the project, without interest, it will be $140,000+ a year for a superficial remodel of existing office space.
There are a number of considerations you need to make before engaging in further Public Debt. One in particular, if the Public is to approve of $5,500,000 in debt, shouldn’t housing be a component? Aren’t you in the Park Overlay Zone and haven’t you just received word that this area is subject to sea-level rise and liquefaction? Are these among the upgrades you have in mind? Where are the maps and drawings for which these people bid their projects, the plans? It seems you could construct entirely new with this amount of money.
I also object to these funds being co-mingled in the General Fund. This is clearly a dedicated fund. I would like to know why the Brisbane Housing Authority is not more protective of their assets/funds. Could you please explain how this action, as stated, is in the Brisbane Housing Authority’s Interest, the Public’s Interest? I am not willing to bet my community assets on the “future processing of the Baylands.” I remember the last recall was for a city council that had bigger plans for their City Hall than was warranted.
Will this remodel be simultaneous with a remodel of the fire station and police department? Are you seeking higher, safer ground? With no additional information, your recommendation tonight should be a simple “NO”, not right now.