Padilla, In rid
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
James Lloyd <[email protected]>
Thursday, April 2, 2026 3:13 PM
Council Members
Dennis, Jeremy; McMorrow, Thomas; Ayres, Julia; Padilla, Ingrid; Padilla, Ingrid public comment re item I for tonight's Council meeting
Brisbane - NCRO-2 moratorium - SB 330 letter. pdf
Dear Brisbane City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund ("CatHDF") and Californians for Homeownership submit the attached public comment regarding the proposed Urgency Ordinance for a Moratorium on New Residential Development ("Ordinance") in the NCRO-2 District, calendared as agenda item I for tonight's Council meeting.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
iamesOcalhdf.org
CatHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - htt s://calhdf. r nate/
CALIFORNIANS FOR
(-IOMEOWNERSHIP
Apr 2, 2026
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
By email: Co n ilMembers brisbane r ;
Cc: idennisobrisbaneca.ora: tmcmorro^w(p)manatt. com: Jayres(g>brisbaneca.org; cit lerk brisbaneca.or ; i adilla brisbaneca.or
Re: Proposed residential moratorium in the NCRO-2 zoning district Dear Brisbane City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund ("CalHDF") and Californians for Homeownership submit this letter to inform the City that the proposed Urgency Ordinance for a Moratorium on New Residential Development ("Ordinance") in the NCRO-2 District violates state and federal law, including SB 330 (GOV. Code, § 66300), the Housing Element Law, and the U. S.
Constitution.
The Moratorium Will Violate SB 330
The Ordinance would impose a moratorium on residential development in the NCRO-2 zoning district.
However, SB 330 prohibits such a moratorium without approval from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(l) prohibits the City from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would have the effect of (emphasis added):
(B) (i) Imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development, including mbced-use development, within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the affected county or city, other than to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium or for projects specifically identified as existing restricted affordable housing.
2201 Broadway. PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf. org
(ii) The affected county or affected city, as applicable, shall not enforce a zoning ordinance imposing a moratorium or other similar restriction on or limitation of housing development until it has submitted the ordinance to, and received approval from, the department. The department shall approve a zoning ordinance submitted to it pursuant to this subparagraph only if it determines that the zoning ordinance satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph. If the department denies approval of a zoning ordinance imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development as inconsistent with this subparagraph, that ordinance shall be deemed void.
Additionally, as you can see in Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(l)(B)(i), the City must make findings that the moratorium would "specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons ... " The prospect of new housing is not a threat to health and safety in the NCRO-2 zoning district, and the City cannot credibly argue otherwise.
Section 66300 also prohibits affected local governments from establishing a provision that"[l]imits the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing... " (Subd. (b)(l)(D)(i). ) The proposed moratorium would clearly violate this prohibition by limiting residential use in the affected zone.
A Proposed Rezoning or Objective Design Standards May Violate SB 330 The City has indicated that it broadly objects to new residential use in the NCRO-2 zoning district as it wishes to preserve existing commercial uses. The staff report cites the lack of density standards as a concern.
However, the City should be aware that SB 330 prohibits restricting residential development below what was allowed in 2018. Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(l):
(A) Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed under the land use designation and zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B). For purposes of this subparagraph, "less intensive use" includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing.
If the City imposes residential density limits or any other residential restrictions below what was allowed in 2018, then it will be violating SB 330.
2o/4
The Moratorium Will Violate the Housing Element Law
First, contrary to what is stated in the proposed ordinance, the City's Housing Element Site Inventory does indeed have sites in the NCRO-2 zoning district.
The Housing Element site inventory contains the following sites located in the NCRO-2 zoning district:
APN 007-222-020 - 9 units
APN 007-222-030 - 0 units [sic]
APN 007-272-030 - 2 units
APN 007-283-080 - 4 units
APN 007-281-090 - 3 units
APN 007-221-190 - 2 units
Prohibiting development, even on a temporary basis, on Housing Element sites runs contrary to the intent and plain language of the Housing Element Law. Government Code section 65863, subdivision (a) (emphasis added):
Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure that its housing element inventory described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 or its housing element program to make sites available pursuant to paragraph (l) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583, including sites rezoned pursuant to Section 65584.09, can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584, and any remaining unaccommodated portion of the regional housing need from the prior planning period, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c). At no time, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), shall a city, county, or city and county by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action permit or cause its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households.
The City also failed to analyze the Construction Rate Program in the Housing Element of its General Plan - an omission that risks violating the Housing Element Law (GOV. Code § i 65580 et seq. ). The Housing Element Law requires the City's housing element to analyze governmental constraints on the creation of new housing. (GOV. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5),) The Moratorium Will Violate the U.S. Constitution
Additionally, this section of code constitutes a temporary taking of private property and violates the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The harms of this code section to housing development are numerous. By delaying construction for months, interest rates 3 o/4
and construction material costs can increase, making projects uneconomical. And, of course, the aggregate effect is to prevent new housing from coming online while the state has more than 170,000 homeless residents. In Storage v. Cnty. ofAlameda (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 161, the California Court of Appeal found that Alameda County's moratorium on self-storage facility construction violated the three factor test established by the Supreme Court Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York Q't/(l978) 438 U. S. 104, 115-116, and thus constituted a temporary taking.
...
Consistent with its Housing Element commitments and with state law, the City must abandon this ordinance as it violates both state and federal law and needlessly impairs housing production when the Bay Area is in the midst of a major housing shortage.
Sincerely,
~?
Matthew Gelfand
Californians for
Homeownership
Dylan Casey
CalHDF
4o/4
From: Madison Davis <madison.v.davis mail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 12:26 PM
To: Dennis, Jeremy <'dennis i. brisbane. ca. us>; Padilla, Ingrid <i adilla ci. brisbane. ca. us>
Subject: Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Madison Davis - Contact Form This came to just me but should also probably get sent to the council.
Begin forwarded message:
From: norepLy@)civicplus.com
Date: April 2, 2026 at 11:57:23 AM PDT
To: madisondavis ci. brisbane. ca. us
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Madison Davis - Contact Form Reply-To: noreply@)civicplus. com
Madison Davis - Contact Form
Your Name
Your Email
Subject
Message
emma
emmamakela ahoo. com
Sudden closure of Park and Rec preschool program
Dear Madison,
I am writing to express my deep frustration and
disappointment regarding the sudden cancellation of
the Parks and Recreation preschool summer camp
and preschool program.
This decision, made without warning, has had a
significant and negative impact on families in the
Brisbane community. The Recreation preschool
program was one of the only affordable early
education options available to many families, and it's
loss is deeply felt. With such short notice, parents are now Left scrambling to find alternative preschool
arrangements, which are often far more expensive or
already at capacity.
This situation places an unnecessary burden on
working families and disrupts the stability and
continuity that young children depend on. It is
especially concerning that a program so vital to the
community could be eliminated without prior
communication or a transition plan.
I urge you to please look into the matter. Clear
communication and a Dlan to address this gap in
affordable preschool options in Brisbane is urgently
needed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look
forward to your response.
Emma Makela
Email not displaying correctly? View it in our browser
From: Sarah Mills <sarah. .mills mait.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 9:19 AM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <ipadiLLa(a)brisbaneca. org>
Cc: Bozorginia. Maziar<mbozor 'nia brisbaneca. or >; Santoyo, Tomas <tsanto ci. brisbane. ca. us>; Emily Wirowek <chremw mail. com>; Lentz, Cliff (gmail) <cliffordlentz mail. com>; Davis, Madison AT gmail <madison. v. davis mail. com>; Aloft, Jessica <".aloft mail.com>
Subject: Support for Visitacion Avenue Improvements and Pedestrian Safety Enhancements
Dear Members of the Brisbane City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Visitacion Avenue Improvements put forward by the Complete Streets Safety Committee. I encourage you to fully accept and approve the recommendations, particularly the inclusion of raised crosswalks, curb extensions, and the conversion of the former teen center site into a parking lot.
These improvements represent thoughtful, practical steps toward making our streets safer and more accessible for all residents. As a local resident and parent of a young child, I deeply value the walkability of our community. Being able to walk through our town is one of its greatest strengths - but I also find myself feeling anxious each time we cross streets like Visitacion Avenue and San Bruno Avenue due to the current Lack of sufficient pedestrian safety measures.
For this reason, I would also ask the Council to consider extending the raised crosswalks and curb extensions to San Bruno Avenue. It is another heavily trafficked corridor where enhanced safety features would make a meaningful difference for families, children, and all pedestrians navigating the area.
I would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the Complete Streets Safety Committee, as well as the Director of Public Works and his team, for the care, diligence, and thoughtfulness they have brought to these recommendations. It is clear that a great deal of effort has gone into developing solutions that prioritize safety, accessibility, and community well-being.
Thankyou foryour leadership and for considering these important improvements. I strongly urge you to move forward with their approval and implementation.
Sincerely,
Sarah Mills
118 MariposaSt
Sarah Milts
Phone: 774-766-8942 Email: sarah. . mills ail. com
Website: www. 2roamin rascals. com
From: Kirn Follien <folLien. !<Em ene. com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 10:27 PM
To: PadiLLa, Ingrid <ipadilLa(abrisbaneca. org>
Subject: Regarding the BCC Mtg Agenda New Business Item K. CSSC Recommendations for Visitacion Avenue
Dear Mayor Makin and members of the City Council,
I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposal to remove public parking spaces and designate them for TNC delivery and pick up drivers. Public parking should not be privatized for the benefit of any business.
To address the double parking I have frequently witnessed, I suggest targeted enforcement by BPD. Is it not feasible for an officer to monitor Visitacion on a few weekdays from 12- 2pm?
I also question whether we have a parking problem. A definition doesn't seem to be provided. Lots of survey respondents expressed parking difficulties, but what's their definition? Is parking a problem if one needs to park two or three blocks away? i have rarely had difficulty finding parking on Visitacion, and in those rare cases I have found parking on a side street or along San Francisco Street along the park. I don't consider walking a few blocks unreasonable. I have also frequently witnessed double parking when available spaces exist.
Best Regards,
Kirn Follien, Brisbane Resident
From: CLaudia Wornum <claudiawornum comcast. net>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 2:18 PM
To: Council Members <CouncilMembers risbaneca.or >
Subject: Do not endanger critical wildlife on San Bruno mountain I'm a resident of Alameda County but I'm very concerned about the destruction of native habitat in the Bay Area.
Below are the bullet points provided by concerned activists.
This sounds Like a very poorly thought thru land grab.
Please allow the people to decide not private interests that threaten open space with no accountability!
My name is [Your Name], and I am a resident of Brisbane. I am writingto you today as a steward of San Bruno Mountain to express my concern about the development of a "Quarry Innovation Center" in the Guadalupe Quarry. Along with destroying special status species habitat, the development will increase noise and vehicular pollution in the surrounding area both during and after its construction. This is the Wrong project in the Wrong place.
I urge you to work with your colleagues on the Brisbane City Council to request a new Environmental Impact Report for the Guadalupe Quarry. 24/7 Light, sound and air pollution will contribute to decreased quality of life and health of Local communities.
The primary issues I am concerned with are:
Lack of Accountability
. Impact on nearby school(s) is not addressed in the new project description . Residents do not have full disclosure of how the site will be used. o Orchard Partners describes these possible uses: Data Center, Light Fabrication, Manufacturing, Assembling, Processing, Ancillary WarehouseStorage
. The amount of noise produced during and after the project would require an exception to established limits (Chapter 8. 28, Noise Control Brisbane Municipal Code).
. Funding for habitat conservation provided to San Mateo County is not required to be used for San Bruno Mountain.
Environmental Harm
. Annexation of conserved habitat from San Mateo County to the City of Brisbane will result in a net loss of conserved habitat.
. The conservation area will not be protected since amendments to the Habitat Conservation Plan will enable bulldozing of endangered species areas around the quarry with no accountability.
. Project description states: "The fabrication facility may be operational between 5- 10, 7 days a week, depending on the final occupant."
. Storm drainage will go to the bay. They have no answers for what pollutants will be released into the bay.
. The project description states: "Approximately 491 trees would be removed from the Project Area. The proposed landscape plan includes replacement of 202 trees." o This is a loss of nearly 300 trees. Mature trees and the habitat they provide cannot be replaced!
. The project would require development of 153 acres to build a road through priority 1 habitat described in San Mateo County's Habitat Management Plan.
Despite the promise for open space protection and management, there are no levers of accountability for whoever rents the facilities. The council is being asked to approve this project without the full disclosure of how the site is going to be used.
Our community needs our elected leaders to collaborate with community members and environmental organizations to make data driven decisions to ensure we are protecting local biodiversity to ensure a healthy future for all of our residents. On behalf of concerned community members, thankyou for taking the time to read this letter. Your consideration is appreciated
Sincerely,
ClaudiaWornum
Alameda County, CA
From: Olivia Kureshi <oliviakureshi mail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 6:18 AM
To: Council Members <CouncilMembers brisbaneca.or >
Subject: Proposed Development on San Bruno Mountain
March 30, 2026
Brisbane City Council
Brisbane City Hall
50 Park Place Brisbane A 94005
Council members,
My name is Olivia Kureshi, and I am a resident of Visitacion Valley San Francisco. I am writing to you today as a steward of San Bruno Mountain to express my concern about the development of a "Quarry Innovation Center" in the Guadalupe Quarry. Along with destroying special status species habitat, the development will increase noise and vehicular pollution in the surrounding area both during and after its construction. This is the Wrong project in the Wrong place.
I urge you to work with your colleagues on the Brisbane City Council to request a new Environmental Impact Report for the Guadalupe Quarry. 24/7 Light, sound and air pollution will contribute to decreased quality of life and health of local communities.
The primary issues I am concerned with are:
Lack of Accountabilit
. Impact on nearby school(s) is not addressed in the new project description . Residents do not have full disclosure of how the site will be used. o Orchard Partners describes these possible uses: Data Center, Light Fabrication, Manufacturing, Assembling, Processing, Ancillary WarehouseStorage
. The amount of noise produced during and afterthe project would require an exception to established limits (Chapter 8. 28, Noise Control Brisbane Municipal Code).
. Funding for habitat conservation provided to San Mateo County is not required to be used for San Bruno Mountain.
Environmental hlarm
. Annexation of conserved habitat from San Mateo County to the City of Brisbane will result in a net loss of conserved habitat.
. The conservation area will not be protected since amendments to the Habitat Conservation Plan will enable bulldozing of endangered species areas around the quarry with no accountability.
. Project description states: "The fabrication facility may be operational between 5- 10, 7 days a week, depending on the final occupant."
. Storm drainage will go to the bay. They have no answers for what pollutants will be released into the bay.
. The project description states: "Approximately 491 trees would be removed from the Project Area. The proposed Landscape plan includes replacement of 202 trees." o This is a toss of nearly 300 trees. Mature trees and the habitat they provide cannot be replaced!
. The project would require development of 153 acres to build a road through priority 1 habitat described in San Mateo County's Habitat Management Plan.
Despite the promise for open space protection and management, there are no levers of accountability for whoever rents the facilities. The council is being asked to approve this project without the full disclosure of how the site is going to be used.
Our community needs our elected leaders to collaborate with community members and environmental organizations to make data driven decisions to ensure we are protecting local biodiversity to ensure a healthy future for all of our residents. On behalf of concerned community members, thank you for taking the time to read this Letter. Your consideration is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Olivia Kureshi
Resident of San Francisco
From: Kiki <christinaeleon mail.com>
Date: April 2, 2026 at 10:31:23 AM PDT
To: Madison Davis <madison. v. davis il. com>
Cc: Brianna Hall <briannamh8Ll90 rnaiL.com>, Madeline Johnson <madelinerosaLie" hnson mail.com>
Subject: Re: {MOB} Join me at the Park for a City Council Office Hour Good morning Madison,
My name is Kiki and I would Love to have you please pass along this email to City Council.
Thank you so much for your email this morning and for your time in this matter.
Dear City Council,
Good morning. My name is Christina ( Kiki) I have 2 daughters that currently attend Brisbane school district. Prior to this, my daughters had attended 3 preschools in town ( the BES learning center preschool, Silverspot and the Rec preschool.) Of the three preschools, the Rec preschool was the place that had most sense a community feeling. It was also extremely affordable and that is the main reason I am emailing. l am concerned that in shutting down our local Rec preschool, we are also shutting down Affordable preK education in Brisbane. I am concerned the Rec department has lost forgotten what "affordable education" truly means and what shutting down the PreK will do for families in financial need.
In my experience, it was truly amazing to be at the Rec preschool because my family could afford it without the pressure of feeling like we would be in financial stress. ( My family could not afford the Montessori preK in town or Silverspot because even with "financial aide" it was still not financially accessible for us at all. Silverspot dramatically raised their prices after Covid. And to be honest, there is so much shame around PreK and who can afford it, it was a blessing to have Rec as our option.) The beauty with Rec PreK that an admired the most is that about 100% of the preschoolers also Lived in town. The sense of community was tremendous at the rec preschool. Every child received excellent care and education because the staff had been part of the preschools for many years. The staff deeply loved working at that preschool because of its core values of affordable education for all and inclusion. The staff spoke Spanish to the parents/ students when needed and truly wanted all children to receive equal access education to prepare them for kindergarten.
I hope city council can seek more information on if this closure is truly beneficialforthe community. I hope city council can seek information on why Rec would not first consider alternative solutions before a closure was decided. I hope Rec can find an alternative solution instead of a drastic closure that will leave parents in town without an affordable PreK for years to come.
(It sounds like the Rec department did not do any data collecting from Brisbane parents so hopefully that can happen as well.)
We attended Silverspot before Covid and it was very inexpensive. Unfortunately, after Covid, management changed and Silverspot stopped being affordable (which was also very sad.)
I do have knowledge that the City owns the property of Silverspot and I have met with the city and asked them why our own Park and Rec PreK can't also utilize that space/share the space. I had a meeting with Noreen Leek about Rec Prek sharing the space with Silverspot so that Brisbane locals had more options. Maybe this can be an alternative solution instead?
Thank you Madison for your email this morning as well, it really shows how much you care.
I have CCd my friends, Brianna and Maddy, on this email since we alt have been wanting to email City Council.
Thank you Madison and City Council.
Best,
Kiki
( Dani 1st grade and Tati 6th grade)