From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2026 3:28 PM
To: Mackin, Coleen <[email protected]>; Davis, Madison <[email protected]>; Lentz, Cliff <[email protected]>; Frank Kern <[email protected]>; O'Connell, Terry <[email protected]>; Gooding, Douglas (Brisbane) <[email protected]>; Funke, Roel <[email protected]>; Sayasane, Pamala (Brisbane) <[email protected]>; Lau, Alex <pc[email protected]>; Dariusz Wodziak <[email protected]> Cc: Dennis, Jeremy <[email protected]>; Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]> Subject: Oral Communications and Public Comments
Dear Brisbane City Council and Planning Commission -
As a member of the public, I do appreciate and respect the opportunity to make public comment and I believed that the Council and/or Commissions respected and appreciated hearing from the public, as well.
Most public comment can be made within a 3-minute limit, but not all. However, 2 minutes is really not adequate for making meaningfully cohesive comments on serious subjects.
But what is really distracting and distressing to a speaker who comes before the council and/or commission to speak, is the giant circle on the screen behind the dais counting down the seconds of your life.
The giant countdown timer is very intimidating, especially for folks who have never spoken before the Council/ Commission, but also for those who are veterans at addressing the Council/Commissions. If you review the recordings of the meetings, you will see for yourself how the giant circle countdown negatively effects the speaker and impacts the content of their communication.
While this might be standard practice now for several public meetings around the county, this is Brisbane. If you are truly interested in public comment and participation, as the City has so often stated, I would sincerely recommend going back to a 3-minute comment period and getting rid of the giant timer on the giant screen behind the dais. The green, yellow, red lights on the podium were a much kinder and more civilized solution.
Thank you for your service to the people of Brisbane.
Regards, Michele Salmon
Brisbane Resident
•
"' �· • ;lf! •
. . . ' . ;' .- '.�//lf:
c;
. . . . : . . . DEAR CITY COUNCIL"\ ' '•:.· risks that will affeffBaylands residents and the • ·\ • .. ,,· • •
•'
.
· \; •. ·•;·• . . - :. :.:..� The proposed Bayl�nq��rt new middle school, development is:
·11•t•i=iGI
The proposed Baylands development would
include 2200 housing units and 7 million ft2 of·
commercial development, including high-rises
up to 270 feet and up to 800 hotel rooms. That
would more than double the size of Brisbane.
TOO TOXIC
)( In some areas of the Baylands, the native soil
will be so contaminated that people will be
prohibited from growing fruit or vegetables
for human consumption.
)( The project is projected to raise excess cancer
risks, even after mitigation. The Environmental
Impact Report admits that diesel particular
matter emissions would result in excess cancer
TOO EXPENSIVE
The project will bring 19,000 workers to Brisbane,
all competing for the same 2,200 housing units.
There is no sign of any plans to provide sufficient
affordable housing for low-income workers. This
isn't a solution to the housing affordability crisis:
it will make the crisis far worse.
This may be the way to maximize the developer's
profits, but it's not right for the residents of
Brisbane, or the people who will come to work here.
Please send the developer back to the drawing
board to come back with a proposal that is safe,
affordable, and reasonable.
Signed, 1
.•l
I--� Ur 5E f;/ /:JL/(.,t !(
Cc: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>; Dennis, Jeremy <[email protected]> Subject: Expanded Halloween Closure Support
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for your continued dedication to our community. It takes an enormous effort from the City staff, residents, and volunteers to make our city thrive.
Thank you for starting the Halloween street closure last year to allow for a safe, vibrant and memorable community event. Many residents and visitors hope this can become an annual tradition in Brisbane. I've even heard some families felt "left out" as they live on the West side of Visitacion.
I know that community safety is a top priority for all of you. I believe that continuing the closure for the Halloween event as we did last year or enhancing it this year, continues the focus on safety. The proposed street closure increases my anxiety for trick or treating as I know it does for others. San Bruno is a thoroughfare in town. I know you are aware of the amount of traffic up and down San Bruno Avenue. Having San Bruno closed will likely encourage people to not cross San Bruno and stay in the pie as designated on the proposed street closure.
I strongly encourage you to at a minimum maintain the street closures from last year. I understand there may be concerns about police force availability. I recognize we have a small police force and I hope you will think outside of the box. Some ideas for thinking outside of the box:
* Have the police chief and police commander set up a table and pass out stickers or candy or something fun.
* Encourage non scheduled police officers to pick up over time to come to the event. * Encourage more trained resident volunteers.
* Hire outside security as crossing guards.
My hope is that with the additional time for planning, the City can be creative with staffing and operational solutions that make the event even better. I believe the investment is worth it. I love the staff's suggestions of better barricades and trash receptacles for the street closures. I think that plus some well trained resident volunteers we can have a very safe and enjoyable night.
I sincerely appreciate the Police Department's contributions last year and hope they will make the same contributions this year. I also appreciate the City Manager and his team for all of the logistical work and planning that went into the night as well as the Public Works department's efforts to set up and tear down the barricades.
This event brings neighbors together and I want more of that feeling in our town. We should know who we live next to. This event is perfect to give people an excuse to get out of their homes and spend some time with their neighbors.
Thank you for considering keeping the Halloween Streets closed for the holiday and making this year's event even better.
Sincerely,
Emily Wirowek
Case 26-10989-CTG Doc 80 Filed 07/01/26 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTMCT OF DELAWARE
In re:
SANGAMO THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
Debtor.'
) Chapter 11
)
) Case No. 26-10989 (CTG)
)
)
) 341 Meedng: July 28, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. (ET)
NOTICE OF ZOOM-BASED SECTION 341 MEETING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the meeting of creditors pursuant to 1 1 U. S.C. §§ 341 and 343 (the "Section 341 meeting") in this case, scheduled for JULY 28 2026 AT 1:00 P.M. T will be held via Zoom. Parties wishing to participate in the Section 341 meeting should log in via Zoom in advance of the meeting per the below instmctions. Please note that joining by web browser may not be supported, and advance download of the Zoom application may be necessary to fully participate.
If you are receiving this notice, you have been identified as a party who may be a creditor, i.e. someone who may be owed money by the Debtor(s). Creditors will receive subsequent notice regarding any deadline for submitting a claun for monies owed, as well as the procedures for doing so. YOUR REMOTE PARTICIPATION m THE SECTION 341 MEETING IS NOT REQUIRED, IS
COMPLETELY OPTIONAL, AND FAILURE TO ATTEND WILL NOT AFFECT YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO FILE A CLAIM LATER. The purpose of the Section 341 meeting is to provide creditors and parties in interest an opportunity to examine the Debtor's/Debtors' fmancial affairs. It is not the purpose of the Section 341 meeting to address the specific circumstances of each creditor.
PLEASE FOLLOW the instmctions below to ensure a smooth and efficient Zoom-based Section 341 meeting. Log into the Zoom-based meeting using the following information:
Goto
hit s:/Aisdo-iist -"ov. zoom ov. com/",''160()0791008? wd='UBSE1WPTkceYtY5 EJeAaBVal half. )&omn=1655266225 Enter Meeting ID 160 0079 1008 and Passcode 3059184726 OR call 1-669-254-5252 For additional meeting informadon and best practices, go to ht s://www.'ustice. ov/ust/chllmoc . Join the meeting from a quiet area where there is as little background noise as possible. . The Trial Attorney fi-om the Office of the U.S. Tmstee may mute/unmute your microphone during the course of the meeting.
. Put your microphone on mute and do not speak until the U.S. Tmstee counsel asks you to identify yourself, or indicates you may pose questions. You will still be able to listen even when your microphone is muted.
. Unmute your microphone when speaking.
. When speaking, identify yourself.
. Once the meeting of creditors is finished, please log out of the meeting. . If you become disconnected before the meeting is finished, please log back m. . The Section 341 meeting will be recorded (audio only) by the U.S. Tmstee. Any other recordings ANDREW R. VARA
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, REGIONS 3 AND 9
Dated: July 1, 2026
' The last four digits of the debtor's federal tax identification number are 9556. The debtor's principal office is located at 501 Canal Boulevard, Suite A100, Richmond, CA 94084.
Information to identify the case:
Debtors San amo Thera eutics Inc.
Name
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (State)
Lead Case Number: 26-10989 CTG
EIN: 68-0359556
Date case filed for chapter 11 06/23/2026
MM/DD/YYYY
Official Form 309F1 For Cor orations or Partnershi s
Notice of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case 10/20
For the debtors listed above, cases have been filed under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. An order for relief has been entered.
This notice has important information about the case for creditors and debtors, including information about the meeting of creditors and deadlines. Read both pages carefully.
The filing of the cases imposed an automatic stay against most collection activities. This means that creditors generally may not take action to collect debts from the debtors or the debtors' property. For example, while the stay is in effect, creditors cannot sue, assert a deficiency, repossess property, or otherwise try to collect from the debtors. Creditors cannot demand repayment from the debtors by mail, phone, or otherwise. Creditors who violate the stay can be required to pay actual and punitive damages and attorney's fees.
Confirmation of a chapter 11 plan may result in a discharge of debt. A creditor who wants to have a particular debt excepted from discharge may be required to file a complaint in the bankmptcy clerk's office within the deadline specified in this notice. (See line 11 below for more information.) To protect your rights, consult an attorney. All documents filed in the cases may be inspected at the bankruptcy clerk's office at the address listed below or through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records at https://pacer. uscourts. aov).
The staff of the bankru t cleik's office cannot ivele al advice.
Do not file this notice with any proof of claim or other filing in the case,
1. Debtors' full name(s)
(List of Jointly Administered Debtors)
Name of Debtors
San amo Thera utics. Inc.
2. All other names used in the
lasts ears
3. Address
Other Names Used
in the last 8 rs
the Debtors
N/A
See below chart
EIN
68-0359556
C se Numbers
26-10989 CTG
N/A
Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc.
501 Canal Blvd.
Suite A100
Richmond, CA 94804
Docket No. 87
Filed: 7/2/26
Official Form 309F1 (For Corporations or Partnerships) Notice of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case page 1 Debtor San amo Thera eutics Inc.
Name
Case number (if known) 26-10989 CTG
4. Debtors' attorneys
Name and address
5. Bankruptcy clerk's office
Documents in this case may be
filed at this address.
You may inspect all records
filed in this case at this office
or online at
htt s:// acer. uscourts, ov
6. Meeting of creditors
The Debtors' representative must |
attend the meeting to 'be
questioned under oath.
Creditors may attend, but are not
required to do so.
COOLEY LLP
Robert L. Eisenbach III
Cooley LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Email: reisenbach@cooley. com
-and -
COOLEY LLP
Cullen D. Speckhart
Lauren A. Reichardt
Miriam Peguero Medrano
Cooley LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 479-6000
Email: [email protected]
lreichardt@cooley. com
mpegueromedrano@cooley. com
- and -
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
Daniel J. DeFranceschi
Amanda R. Steele
Brendan J. Schlauch
Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
One Rodney Square
920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 651-7700
Fax: (302) 651-7701
Email: defranceschi@rlf. com
steete@rlf. com
schlauch@rlf. com
Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware
824 Market St. N., 3rd Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
July 28, 2026 at 1 :00 p. m. (ET)
The meeting may be continued or
adjourned to a later date. If so, the date
will be on the court docket.
Debtors' Claims and Noticing Agent (for Court
Documents and Case Information Inquiries):
Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC dba Verita Global
US/Canada Toll-Free Number:
(888) 249-2797
International Toll Number:
+1 (310)751-2608
Casewebsite: - -
https://www. veritaglobal. net/sangamotherapeutics
Creditor Inquiries:
https://www. veritaglobal. net/SangamoTherapeutics/inquiry ! Hours: Monday to Friday-8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p. m.
(Prevailing Eastern Time)
Tele hone: (302)252-2900
Location:
The meeting of creditors is scheduled to be held
remotely via Zoom. Please use the following
instructions to join the meeting:
GotoZoom.us/join
Enter Meeting ID: 160 0079 1008
Enter Passcode:3059184726
OR
Call: 1 (669) 254-5252
Official Form 309F1 (For Corporations or Partnerships) Notice of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case page 2 Debtor ggn amo Thera eutics Inc.
Name
7. Proof of claim deadline
Case number (if known) 26-10989 CTG
Deadline for filin roof of claim:
Not et set. If a deadline is set the court will send ou another notice.
8. Exception to discharge
deadline
The bankruptcy clerk's office
must receive a complaint and
any required filing fee by the
following deadline.
9. Creditors with a foreign
address
10. Filing a Chapter 11
bankruptcy case
11. Discharge of debts
A proof of claim is a signed statement describing a creditor's claim. A proof of claim form may be obtained at www. uscourts. ov or any bankruptcy clerk's office.
Your claim will be allowed in the amount scheduled unless:
your claim is designated as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated; you file a proof of claim in a different amount; or
you receive another notice.
If your claim is not scheduled or if your claim is designated as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated, you must file a proof of claim or you might not be paid on your claim and you might be unable to vote on a plan.
You may file a proof of claim even if your claim is scheduled.
You may review the schedules at the bankruptcy clerk's office or online at httDs://Dacer.uscourts.gov.
Secured creditors retain rights in their collateral regardless of whether they file a proof of claim. Filing a proof of claim submits a creditor to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, with consequences a lawyer can explain For example, a secured creditor who files a proof of claim may surrender important nonmonetary rights, including the right to a jury trial.
If § 523(c) applies to your claim and you seek to have it excepted from discharge, you must start a judicial proceeding by filing a complaint by the deadline stated below Deadline for filing the complaint: September 28, 2026
If you are a creditor receiving notice mailed to a foreign address, you may file a motion asking the court to extend the deadlines in this notice. Consult an attorney familiar with United States bankruptcy law if you have any questions about your rights in this case.
Chapter 11 allows debtors to reorganize or liquidate according to a plan. A plan is not effective unless the court confirms it. You may receive a copy of the plan and a disclosure statement telling you about the plan, and you may have the opportunity to vote on the plan. You will receive notice of the date of the confirmation hearing, and you may object to confirmation of the plan and attend the confirmation hearing. Unless a trustee is serving, the debtors will remain in possession of the property and may continue to operate their business.
Confirmation of a chapter 1 1 plan may result in a discharge of debts, which may include all or part of your debt. See 11 U. S.C. § 1141(d). A discharge means that creditors may never try to collect the debt from the debtors except as provided in the plan. If you want to have a particular debt.owed to you excepted from the discharge and § 523(c) applies to your claim, you must start a judicial proceeding by filing a complaint and paying the filing fee in the bankruptcy clerk's office by the deadline.
Official Form 309F1 (For Corporations or Partnerships) Notice of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case page3 From: Mea Christie <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2026 5:00 AM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>; Davis, Madison AT gmail <[email protected]>; Clifford Lentz <[email protected]> Subject: Halloween Closures
Hello,
I am writing regarding the upcoming Halloween Street Closures on October 31. I live on Monterey Street (between Alvarado and San Bruno) with my husband and two children, ages 3 and 5.
Under the current plan, San Bruno Ave and the blocks between Alvarado and San Bruno remain open. Last year, blocking San Bruno made a world of difference for safety and gave local parents peace of mind. To keep the event safe for our neighborhood's many young children, I urge the council to expand the footprint.
I suggest closing the following streets:
• Alvarado (Mariposa to San Bruno)
• San Bruno (Alvarado to Mariposa)
• Klamath (San Bruno to Visitation)
• Mendocino (Alvarado to Visitation)
• Monterey Street (Alvarado to Visitation)
• Mariposa (Alvarado to Visitation)
At a minimum, keeping San Bruno blocked at Mendocino and Monterey is absolutely vital. Thank you for prioritizing the safety of our neighborhood families.
Sincerely,
Mea Christie
From: Matt Sewell <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2026 3:49 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Badlands, also can I fix your website Hi,
I'm a resident here in Brisbane living on Visitacion Ave and I wanted to write in and express my unwavering support for the proposed Badlands project. I'm absolutely for any further housing and commercial real estate construction in the town. It could help revitalize the plaza at the bottom of town and prevent more restaurants from going out of business on Visitacion which would be beneficial to me and all residents. I recently got a note on my door from United Here Local 2 on my door about wanting to stop the project and I couldn't disagree with their assessment more. Please keep fighting for the development to help the average Brisbanian and know the loud minority does not represent us all.
I also want to offer my help to fix your website. I'm a software engineer with experience in framework the town website is built on and I noticed lots of errors and issues when I was attempting to find the contact information and send this email. I'd be happy to get into specifics (e.g. directory page broken) and help fix the issues, just let me know! Thanks,
Matt Sewell
From: Steffi Paepcke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 2:48 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>; Dennis, Jeremy <[email protected]>
Subject: More Halloween Street Closure, please!
Dear Brisbane City Council Members,
Thank you for continuing last year's Halloween street closure pilot — the energy and positive atmosphere that night made Halloween feel truly special, and it really felt like Brisbane came together as a community. We rarely have street closures in Brisbane, and Halloween is a rare event that gets neighbors interacting with each other far more than usual — it's a worthwhile investment in community building. We live in the street closure zone (319 Monterey) and felt that the street closure was well worth it, despite not having access to our car!
I was disappointed to see this year's proposed closure significantly reduced to just the interior portions of Mariposa, Monterey, Mendocino, and Klamath Streets (6:00–8:00 PM). I respectfully ask the Council to build on last year's success rather than scale it back, specifically by:
• Restoring or expanding the closure footprint to match last year's pilot, distributing foot traffic more evenly and letting more neighbors participate. • Including neighbors on both sides of San Bruno and Visitacion Avenues, many of whom invested heavily in decorations and treats last year. • Extending closure hours to roughly 5:30–8:30 PM. With Halloween on a Saturday, commuter traffic will be lighter, and a 6:00 PM start feels late for younger kids — with a 4-year-old, an earlier start would make the evening much more workable.
Last year, the lively atmosphere lasted well beyond two hours, and it would be a shame to cut it unnecessarily short this year.
I recognize last year's event required significant City and Police resources, and I'm grateful for that effort. With more lead time, I hope the City can find ways to support an even larger, safer celebration this year.
Thank you for your consideration,
Steffi Paepcke
319 Monterey St.
From: Sarah Mills <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 4:25 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Cc: Lentz, Cliff <[email protected]>; Mackin, Coleen <[email protected]>; Davis, Madison <[email protected]>; Kern.Frank <[email protected]>; O'Connell, Terry <[email protected]>; Dennis, Jeremy <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: Support for Enhanced Halloween Street Closures 2026 Hi Ingrid -
Please is a public comment I'd like to submit for consideration during Thursday's City Council discussion regarding the proposed 2026 Halloween Street Closure plan.
Thanks!
Sarah
______________________
Dear Brisbane City Council Members,
Thank you for your continued commitment to making Brisbane such a wonderful place to live. I appreciate the tremendous effort that City staff, the Police Department, Public Works, volunteers, and residents invested in last year's Halloween street closure pilot. It created a safe, vibrant, and memorable community event that many families hope becomes an annual Brisbane tradition.
I appreciate that the City is continuing the program this year. However, I was disappointed to see the proposed street closure significantly reduced to only the interior portions of Mariposa, Monterey, Mendocino, and Klamath Streets between San Bruno Avenue and Visitacion Avenue from 6:00–8:00 PM.
I respectfully ask the Council to consider building on last year's success rather than scaling it back.
Specifically, I encourage the Council to consider the following:
• Restore a street closure footprint similar to last year's pilot (or expand it if feasible) to continue the momentum, distribute pedestrian traffic more evenly, and allow more neighbors to participate.
• Prioritize safety on San Bruno Avenue. For many families with young children, crossing San Bruno Avenue and Visitacion Avenue is the most stressful part of the evening because they are the busiest streets in the area. If closing San Bruno Avenue again isn't feasible, please consider staffed crossings using police officers, crossing guards, trained volunteers, or another appropriate combination. • Include the neighborhoods on both sides of San Bruno and Visitacion. Many of these homes invested significant time and resources last year with elaborate decorations, haunted houses, and treat giveaways. Excluding them from the closure would leave out many of the residents who helped make last year's event such a success.
• Consider extending the closure hours to approximately 5:30–8:30 PM. Since Halloween falls on a Saturday this year, there will be less commuter traffic than on a weekday. An earlier start would better accommodate families with younger children and help spread foot traffic over a longer period.
• Explore a voluntary community candy donation program. Last year, some participating households shared that the increased foot traffic also increased the cost of providing candy. A voluntary donation drive at the Library or another public location could be a simple way for the broader community to support participating homes while encouraging even more community involvement. • Address pedestrian safety when reopening streets. Rather than shortening the event, consider announcing the reopening approximately 30 minutes in advance and delaying the removal of barricades for 15–20 minutes, if needed, until foot traffic has substantially cleared.
I also want to acknowledge that last year's pilot required a significant commitment of City resources, particularly from the Police Department. I sincerely appreciate those efforts and understand the logistical challenges involved. My hope is that, with additional planning time, the City can explore creative staffing and operational solutions that make a larger, safer event possible.
Last year's pilot demonstrated that Brisbane can create a Halloween celebration that is both safe and community-building. It wasn't simply about closing streets, it brought neighbors together, encouraged participation throughout the neighborhood, and created an event that reflected the unique character of our town.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and for your continued dedication to our community. I hope you'll consider building on the success of last year's pilot and making this year's Halloween celebration even better.
Sincerly,
Sarah Mills (resident of 118 Mariposa St. and mom to a 5 year old kiddo) --
Sarah Mills
Phone: 774-766-8942 Email: [email protected]
Website: www.2roamingrascals.com
From: dale wilhelm <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 4:24 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Subject: Halloween street closures
Hi,
I would like to express my support for maintaining the Halloween street closures that were in place during last year's pilot program.
I, personally, do not benefit from this closure but feel that it embraces the sense of community most of us have here in Brisbane - caring for one another and safety for all.
To limit the closures to the inner streets renders the concept meaningless. You can't get from one street to the other without going on Visitation or San Bruno, and those streets are perhaps the most dangerous.
The event last year was well advertised, many times, and well in advance, including notices put in mailboxes. Exceptions were to be made for emergencies. I assume it will be the same this year. Surely people are able to arrange their lives to accommodate two hours, once a year.
Thank you, Dale Wilhelm
Note: I live within the boundaries of the affected area, and did last year also.
From: Atapattu.Rohendra <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 3:19 PM
To: sustainabilityfellow <[email protected]>; Brown, Mollie <[email protected]>; Etherton, Adrienne <[email protected]> Subject: Resignation from OSEC
Dear Members of OSEC,
It is with regret that I write to inform you of my need to relinquish my position on the City of Brisbane OSEC, effective July 9, 2026.
Going forward, I anticipate needing to spend extended periods away from Brisbane to travel regularly to Los Angeles in order to support my aging parents. As a result, I will be unable to reliably attend meetings and fulfill my responsibilities to the standard the committee deserves. This presents an additional challenge in my ability to allocate adequate time to support the research, document reviews and sub-committee participation as an active member.
It has been a privilege to serve on OSEC and to contribute to the important work of protecting and enhancing our community's outdoor spaces. I am grateful for the opportunity and for the dedication of my fellow committee members.
Thank you for your understanding.
Rohendra Atapattu
From: Spitz, Jeremy M <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2026 1:40 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>; Dennis, Jeremy <[email protected]>
Cc: Ayres, Julia <[email protected]>; Bozorginia.Maziar <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PG&E Power Asset Acquisition project - CEQA Update Dear Mayor Mackin, Councilmembers, and City Manager Dennis, I am reaching out to provide an update on San Francisco’s efforts to acquire PG&E’s electric grid within the City.
The final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been published by the San Francisco Planning Department. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to evaluate environmental impacts prior to approving projects, and the City’s Planning Department conducted this analysis for the purchase of PG&E’s assets serving San Francisco. You can find the final EIR report by visiting the San Francisco Planning Department’s webpage. You can search for report code 2023-005370ENV.
The San Francisco Planning Commission Hearing on the final EIR will take place on Thursday, July 9th, at City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400, at 12 p.m. The agenda will be posted online at least three days before the hearing.
Additionally, on April 20, the City set a $3.4 billion valuation for acquiring PG&E’s electric assets in updated testimony at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). After five years before the CPUC, PG&E has still not gone on the record with its opinion on the value of these assets. The CPUC has directed them to do that in October.
Please let us know if you have any questions about these updates. We’d be happy to schedule a follow-up meeting to address any questions or concerns that you may have.
Thanks,
Jeremy Spitz
Acting Director, Policy and Government Affairs
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Pronouns: he, him, his
sfpuc.org
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 2:50 PM
To: [email protected]; Council Members <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment- Baylands Final EIR June 30, 2026 - jobs:housing imbalance Dear Brisbane City Council,
I appreciate Brisbane’s careful study of the Baylands development. However, I’m bitterly disappointed that the plan does not meaningfully respond to the housing shortage, as was urged by so many residents and organizations.
The proposed Baylands 6.5 million square feet of commercial space, will accommodate over 15,000 new jobs. But the plan includes housing units for only 2,200 of those new workers. Where are those extra 12,800 workers supposed to live? Don’t look to nearby SSF, San Bruno or Millbrae; those cities are already behind in their own housing goals, as news articles remind us daily.
15,000 new jobs: 22,00 new housing units. Can you see where this leads? Tech park by tech park, city by city, the bay area has incrementally flooded the region with workers, but no housing, creating a generation of workers who have no chance of living even near the city where they work. And we all pay the cost with soul-killing commutes, hopeless freeway congestion, and toxic greenhouse smog. Look in the mirror city officials; it’s your own absurdly disingenuous General Plans that have created the housing shortage. Every Bay Area city’s Housing Element pretends to address the jobs:housing imbalance. We then then turn the page to the city Zoning Map to find commercial upzoning designed to enable thousands of new jobs, far outstripping even the most ambitious housing goals. Jobs:Housing is a two-sided ratio; if you increase jobs faster than housing, you will never balance this ratio.
How much longer will cities ignore and deny the mathematical fact of the jobs:housing formula? The public had hoped that Brisbane would set the model for balanced jobs:housing planning. Sadly, this is a missed opportunity that will condemn the next generation of workers to more of the same unrealized dreams of home ownership.
Kristin Mercer
Peninsula Resident
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 9:38 AM
To: Ayres, Julia <[email protected]>
Cc: Dennis, Jeremy <[email protected]>
Subject: Testimony from Baylands EIR Scoping Meeting Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 7:00am - 9:00pm
Julia - Please have this distributed to the Planning Commission and to the Brisbane City Council. Thank you for all of your hard work and dedication. Michele Dear Planning Commission -
While these comments were made 15 years ago, so much of it is still quite relevant today - particularly the sentiment about the inherent dangers of this project. Please do your best to protect the safety and well-being of the current and future residents and workers of Brisbane, as well as the financial health and well-being of our City of Brisbane.
Thank you for your service.
Best, Michele Salmon
Brisbane Resident
From: Au-Young.Janice <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 11:06 PM
To: Complete Streets Safety Committee
<[email protected]>
Cc: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Commercial Truck Information
To CSSC and City of Brisbane City Council members
I'm sending a link to my slide deck about Commercial Truck Operations for consideration as an agenda item at an upcoming CSSC meeting. The CSSC 2026 Work Plan will Evaluate commercial truck circulation patterns and identify opportunities to improve freight mobility and safety.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17FQGTaI2_026JRwzd141KTkE9kedn61s/view?usp=drive_li nk
Janice Au-Young
Complete Streets Safety Committee
Web: www.brisbaneca.gov/CSSC
Email: [email protected]
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
CITY OF BRISBANE
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
BRISBANE BAYLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JANUARY 4, 2011
EXCERPT:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
2 I N D E X
Page
Excerpt: Item IV: Public Comments 3
Public Comments
LINDA SALMON, Brisbane resident 3
ANJA MILLER, Committee for Renewable Energy in the
Baylands 7
KEN McINTIRE, San Bruno Mountain Watch 7
MICHELE SALMON, Brisbane resident 8
DANA DILLWORTH, Brisbane resident 13
TOM HEINZ, Brisbane resident 21
DANNY YEUNG, Daly City resident 22
CAROLYN PARKER, Brisbane resident 24
ROBERT HOWARD, Brisbane resident 26
MICHELE SALMON, Brisbane resident 28
End of excerpt 34
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
3 1 E X C E R P T
2 --o0o—
3 MS. L. SALMON: Good evening. First of all, I was once 4 again dismayed when I saw the new UPC-Tuntex proposal -- is this 5 on? Yeah? Okay -- for 4400-plus houses -- yeah, for 44-plus, 6 you know, how they’re trying to slip it in at the last minute and 7 say, “Okay, now the agency said they only have one month during 8 Christmas to respond.” That’s not going to fly.
9 First of all, housing is not -- I’ll put my glasses on, 10 I guess -- housing -- housing is not an acceptable use of any 11 land located in the Brisbane Baylands and is specifically 12 disallowed by the current General Plan voted upon by the citizens 13 of Brisbane. And we are not going to even consider any proposal 14 of 4,434 housing units on extremely sensitive marshland habitat, 15 which is not only contaminated, another Love Canal in the making, 16 but is land that will liquefy in any sizeable quake, and is 17 further subject to floods and rising sea levels. Therefore, we 18 cannot consider such an option in any form. Even the possibility 19 of such an option cannot be entertained for the EIR purposes lest 20 UPC and Tuntex folks get the wrong idea and think that we might 21 someday, under some condition, allow this, which we won’t. 22 If the current City Council cannot support the will of 23 the people and stand up for our rights in the face of UPC and 24 Tuntex, then we will need to get a new City Council government 25 that does honor the will of its people.
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
4 1 We know why the applicant is claiming that such housing 2 is necessary to make any of their schemes viable. They need it 3 in order to saddle us with the bondage of reclamation and 4 redevelopment monies from the state to finance the infrastructure 5 because they cannot afford to do so on their own. The answer to 6 that is simply no. We will not be bamboozled by such schemes. 7 We learned our lesson on the Waldo-Kerwin-Myers Sierra Point 8 boondoggle. No more.
9 Further, there is no alternative project without a
10 Geneva Avenue exchange freeway running through the Baylands. 11 Note that Brisbane will not tolerate the additional noise and 12 pollution that will be shown by a proper EIR to be caused by such 13 a freeway. At the time the 101 extension was shoved down our 14 throats, we were not a city and had very little to say about it, 15 but now we do. And we will not carry the burden of San 16 Francisco’s San Jose Avenue and Alemany-280 exchange traffic to 17 be routed onto the 101 via this new proposed Geneva Avenue 18 freeway extension. We all know perfectly well that to open that 19 door would be opening the door to widening the 101 freeway as 20 well as Bayshore Boulevard, which would only mean losing more of 21 our bay and our mountain.
22 And, of course, when we do get around to doing the EIR 23 and we actually have a plan -- we’ll come back to that to begin 24 with -- we need to talk about the viewshed. The applicant’s 25 activities have already cost us the San Francisco skyline. When
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
5 1 you stand on Lagoon Road, you can no longer see the San Francisco 2 skyline. It’s all about saving the bay and its marshes. We have 3 native plants and animals that need contiguous habitat. 4 We have an incredible potential for the loss of our
5 night sky for all of us, people, animals, and plants here in 6 Brisbane, not to mention the containment of any parked vehicles, 7 not only for the viewshed, but for their oil and other pollutants 8 that would add to the combined plume.
9 However, most importantly, once again, even though we 10 now have more detailed ideas on land use from the applicant on 11 what they want to do with this land, specifically, to make more 12 San Francisco in our front yard, however, we still do not have an 13 actual specific plan, which must include actual proposed 14 buildings, architectural drawings, elevations, et cetera. We, 15 the people of Brisbane, are not so foolish as to give this 16 applicant carte blanche to build roads so they can put up 17 whatever kind of structures they like without a real review to 18 know if such will be acceptable to us.
19 I can tell you right now they are very much mistaken if 20 they think they’re going to build more of those butt-ugly square 21 townhouses they’re proposing to build in Visitacion Valley. So 22 the whole idea of setting out the EIR is totally and completely 23 premature from a legal standpoint.
24 Just because some people want to call this new
25 executive summary of the project description a specific plan and
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
6 1 consider it under some newfangled program of the EIR does not 2 make it so.
3 We will not be hoodwinked by this posturing of the
4 emperor’s new clothes. This does not work for the City of 5 Brisbane. The General Plan -- the General Plan that is in 6 existence right now very, very specifically says that a real 7 specific plan must be laid out for approval. We -- in its 8 entirety. We are not going to approve this in piecemeal. 9 The reason the FAR’s are the way they are, when I sat 10 on the Planning Commission and we finished that General Plan in 11 1994 or whenever that was, okay, is because we want real 12 architecture, real buildings, on a large scale so we don’t have a 13 bunch of little roads and a bunch of little automobiles. It’s 14 only transit-oriented. We’re not talking this new urbanism junk 15 of building another city in our front yard. That is not the use 16 that we’re looking at and we’re looking for. And we have done 17 our best to communicate this with the project people, the 18 applicant, UPC and Tuntex, and they are not listening. 19 We went ahead with these people for the proposed
20 alternatives. This is really not our proposed alternative. This 21 whole thing is a sham. I totally object to this process, to 22 having to come down here once more and say, “Okay, for the EIR we 23 have to do this and this and this,” when we still don’t have a 24 real specific plan. And the General Plan is very specific about 25 that.
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
7 1 Thank you.
2 (Applause)
3 MODERATOR: Can you just make sure -- clarify your name 4 when you begin speaking?
5 MS. MILLER: Anja Miller, speaking for the Committee
6 for Renewable Energy in the Baylands.
7 AUDIENCE MEMBER: And she’s speaking tonight for the
8 whole group.
9 MS. MILLER: Can you hear me now? Okay.
10 Anyway, we have been verbally assured that the
11 renewable energy alternative that we’ve prepared and has wide 12 support in the community would be considered equally with the 13 developer’s plan and the so-called community preferred 14 alternative. But it doesn’t appear so from the NOP, and I think, 15 again, that the EIR consultants confirmed that it would be just a 16 supplemental paragraph or two compared to the main plan. 17 So we have a letter we’d like to submit. I have six
18 points, and I’d like to read it for the record in response this 19 whole thing.
20 (Ms. Miller reads January 3, 2011 letter from
21 CREBL to Mr. John Swiecki into the record.)
22 (Applause)
23 MODERATOR: Ken?
24 MR. McINTIRE: Ken McIntire, San Bruno Mountain Watch. 25 I think I’ll just read my questions and comments into the record.
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
8 1 MR. McINTIRE: So I have a couple -- one general
2 question, one that you already answered.
3 (Mr. McIntire reads document from San Bruno
4 Mountain Watch titled “Scoping Comments for the
5 Brisbane Baylands EIR” into the record.)
6 MR. McINTIRE: Thank you.
7 (Applause)
8 MODERATOR: Michele Salmon.
9 MS. M. SALMON: Michele Salmon, Brisbane resident.
10 First of all, I’d like to say something about the
11 community alternative plan. I attended at least one of those 12 planning sessions, and I was very put off by the process because 13 it was extremely contrived. It left no room for people to 14 express what they really wanted out there. There were a certain 15 amount of elements that you had to place in the plan, et cetera. 16 And every time you call it the community-approved plan, it makes 17 me feel a little bit sick because, really, I don’t know anybody 18 in the community who actually approved that plan and embraced it. 19 So I personally embrace the alternative energy plan. 20 I am concerned about the program EIR versus a specific 21 project EIR, and I will continue to be concerned about that. And 22 I expressed that concern during this entire process. 23 Also, I am concerned about the elimination of the
24 agricultural and mineral parts not being included in the EIR. 25 And I know it sounds ridiculous, but that is an agricultural
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
9 1 asset because it is an area that receives a lot of sun. It is 2 possible to grow food there using, you know, above-ground 3 containers like earth boxes, and also it could be an area where 4 we could grow algae for biofuels. So I do think that that does 5 need to be looked at and should not be eliminated just because. 6 And there was also talk about mining the minerals from the 7 landfill that was deposited there.
8 And then one of the things that I’d like also is a
9 definition of open space versus natural space when you’re doing 10 the EIR process. I have great concern that you consider a plaza 11 that’s paved over as open space. I don’t consider that open 12 space. I consider that uncovered, developed space. And there’s 13 quite a difference between developed space that doesn’t have a 14 roof and open space. In my heart, that’s very different. 15 One of the really grave concerns I have and I’m not
16 sure how you’re going to address is actual build-out process. I 17 have lived here all my life and have gone through various build18 out processes. Just a few -- short while ago, the citizens of 19 Brisbane were subjected to the pile-driving when they replaced 20 the bridge over the railroad tracks. It was quite intolerable 21 for many people. The sound and the vibrations are amplified in 22 the natural bowl shape of Brisbane, and you can actually, you 23 know, feel it. And I remember very clearly when they built the 24 Kinder-Morgan tank farm. And we put up with that pile-driving 25 for six months or more. It was horrible. It was awful. It was
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
10 1 horrendous. Your teacup would bounce on the table when they were 2 pile-driving.
3 And I -- that is just a small sampling of what not only 4 the people of Brisbane and the surrounding areas will be 5 subjected to during the build-out phase of this project, but also 6 all of the animals and sea life and fish and mammals that are in 7 the area, including birds and eggs and everything like that. And 8 that really, really needs to be addressed. There was a report 9 recently that came to light where, you know, sonic vibrations 10 really affected sea life. And there’s a fragile comeback of 11 birds in the lagoon. It’s a rare migratory area. And the actual 12 building process of building out the Baylands really needs to be 13 taken into account.
14 They are going to be penetrating landfill that’s toxic 15 in order to pile-drive. You are going to be creating incredible 16 sound and vibratory -- I don’t know what you call it. It’s going 17 to be really loud and really shaky when you pile-drive the hell 18 out of that place in order to put piers down, enough to support 19 the structures that all of these plans are talking about. That 20 really needs to be taken into account.
21 All of the pollution, all of the traffic, all of the 22 construction, what is the impact of that on the environment, not 23 just the people, but the animals and the plants and the birds and 24 the sea life? Those vibrations from pile-driving can transfer 25 across miles and miles. We saw how vibrations can travel through
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
11 1 the earth with the Loma Prieta earthquake. Who would have ever 2 imagined that it could bring down a piece of the Bay Bridge when 3 it was, you know, fifty miles away?
4 And so, those are really big concerns of mine. I’d
5 like not just what it’s going to be like when it’s done and how 6 much traffic there’s going to be and how many houses and how much 7 electricity it’s going to use. I’m sure you have plenty of pat 8 answers for all of that, because this is -- you know, development 9 happens all over the world. But what’s the true impact of 10 actually building the development the way that it’s planned right 11 now? That is significant. It will have -- just the building 12 process will have an incredibly major effect on this area, an 13 untold impact. And I don’t see that addressed in any of these, 14 in any of these scoping documents or anything. And so, that’s 15 something that is a real concern to me.
16 Even if you go out and look at the Kinder-Morgan tank 17 farm, you can see where they did pile-driving. You can see the 18 subsidence of the -- on the surface level from that time till 19 now. And, yeah, it was a long time ago and yeah I’m getting old. 20 And, you know, I probably won’t be around, you know, fifty or a 21 hundred years from now to see what it looks like now. 22 But what about the dirt that they have to bring in
23 after the fact to bring it up so that everything’s level and you 24 don’t have a six-foot drop-off from the building? I mean, look 25 at the City maintenance building. I mean, that building should
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
12 1 be condemned. It’s -- it’s eight feet above the surface level 2 now. There was eight feet of subsidence, just in, you know, 3 what? Thirty years? How long has the Kinder-Morgan tank farm 4 been there? Thirty, thirty-five years?
5 And then also, I’d really like to see in the plan some 6 flexibility for the future, because we’re looking at it in a kind 7 of static view of where we’re at right now. And you said it 8 yourself about that, that’s why we’re doing a program EIR, to -- 9 because the build-out’s going to take thirty years or fifty years 10 or ten years, or however long it’s going to take. But if we 11 don’t have flexibility in the environmental impact review, 12 constant flexibility to address constant changes of things that 13 are happening right now that we don’t even know about -- I mean, 14 just in the last four years, people are starting to acknowledge 15 that global warming is not fantasy, that sea level rise is not 16 fantasy. It wasn’t something that the Democrats invented, you 17 know, to support Al Gore; it’s a reality. I learned about it in 18 college, you know, a really long time ago.
19 And so, these are things that are concerning for me
20 when I look at this environmental path, review, scoping. And 21 they really do need to be addressed. And this is cutting-edge 22 stuff because this is the largest brown earth development, 23 probably in the western world, and maybe even in the whole world. 24 We have an opportunity here to do something remarkable 25 and something horrible. So we really need to make a choice of
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
13 1 what it’s going to be. And a lot of that hinges on how it’s 2 going to affect the current environment and the future 3 environment.
4 You know, when they were filling it with garbage, I
5 never would have believed that I would be standing here this many 6 years later saying, “Wait a second; you want to put houses there? 7 Do you know what’s in there?” You know, and -- and so, it is 8 really a scary thing, you know. And it’s not something I’m quite 9 -- oh, you want comments in ten days? You want comments in 10 thirty days? I’m sorry, but this is a lifelong process that 11 we’re looking at. And so, don’t -- I don’t want us to take it 12 lightly and not address the things that weren’t really addressed. 13 Thank you.
14 (Applause)
15 MODERATOR: Dana Dillworth.
16 MS. DILLWORTH: Dana Dillworth, resident of Brisbane. 17 My -- I have comments that I submitted to the City
18 questioning whether the 30-day notice was adequate, requesting an 19 extension for submission of documents and proper circulation of 20 this notice. I’m not going to read all the material, but I did 21 want to say that this represents a different plan. This is a new 22 plan. This is not the plan that we had presented to us in 2006, 23 so we have new information, new uses, new numbers of people that 24 just mean more people at risk, more exposure to toxins, and more 25 false claims about sustainability.
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
14 1 So, really, if you wanted to know, “Should you review 2 this document?,” the answer is no, because it has not a chance in 3 hell to be an acceptable plan for the City. And in CEQA, that’s 4 clearly one of the things. Public acceptance is clearly one of 5 the things that you need to address. And so, one could cut it to 6 the chase right now and say this is unacceptable, it’s not legal 7 because it doesn’t represent the will of the people, we voted on 8 it.
9 Stop wasting our time. I have been involved with this 10 for 21 years, since 1991, when under a negative declaration -- 11 when you say “negative declaration,” they were going to rezone 12 the dump for housing. So do not look in our face with any 13 sincerity to tell us that future mitigated negative declarations 14 or future negative declarations will be legitimate ways to move 15 forward.
16 About the community preferred alternative, it is yet to 17 be decided as to whether it’s a preferable alternative. And I 18 don’t want you to get me wrong, because there are some absolutely 19 wonderful things, but they’re overshadowed by the impacts that 20 are adjacent to their uses, such as the toxic waste burner from 21 the dump, the toxic waste burner from Kinder-Morgan, and any 22 other toxic waste burners that might be required as a mitigation 23 measure. You have not looked into that issue.
24 And so, the -- how can any of these plans be preferred, 25 when you haven’t looked at the toxic waste burner right here and
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
15 1 the toxic waste burner right there? How in the world are you 2 going to pack people in those areas, to live and breathe on a 3 daily basis?
4 So, one of the things that I haven’t finished about the 5 community preferred alternative is that we never, ever, ever, 6 ever were legitimately asked about square footage for those uses. 7 They were slipped into a page that we didn’t receive in the mail. 8 It was like Page 4, but we received Pages 1 through 3. So it 9 needs to be maintained on the record that the square footage of 10 the so-called community preferred plan has never been -- we’ve 11 never had an opportunity to say whether we prefer it or not. 12 It’s all happening behind the -- behind closed doors. 13 When it was last presented to the public, it was
14 roughly at about 7.5 million square feet. Today it’s 8.3. If we 15 don’t say, “Stop!” -- why didn’t we say “stop” at 2.57 million 16 square feet? Why didn’t we say “stop” at 7.2 million? Why 17 haven’t we said “stop” at 11., whatever? It -- it’s like -- it’s 18 not the square footage; it’s the exposure, the number of people 19 that you will bring to this dump and expose to the toxins. 20 That’s the question, not “Is housing okay?” It’s not okay. 21 And so, one of the things that I was going to say is, 22 when we were going through the workshops, the community 23 workshops, we got all energized by James Wines and said, “Oh, 24 wonderful! There are some alternatives out there.” We got -- I 25 went to one of the Universal Paragon-sponsored things down at the
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
16 1 Brisbane Village, and there was a consultant who talked about 2 public planning from the watershed point of view. And I walked 3 to him and I said, “You just shot Universal Paragon in the foot.” 4 And he said, “I’m not being asked as a consultant for their 5 planning; I was just being asked to tell you about planning, good 6 planning practices.”
7 And so, his object of being a good planner is to start 8 looking at the watershed. Even if it’s all covered over, look at 9 your watershed because your watershed will tell you just exactly 10 what uses go where. You avoid the riparian areas. And if that 11 were the case, the community preferred alternative would open up 12 Sunnydale, because we know the community wants to daylight the 13 creek at Sunnydale. This would be open, Geneva would be open. 14 We would be finding other ways, making new lagoons, if we were to 15 think positively about the environmental community.
16 Environmental community, I repeat.
17 Some of the things in this plan -- I’ll tell you what 18 we do not prefer, but they continue to be carried forward. We do 19 not prefer the continued industrial uses. In 1991 when they were 20 going to rezone the dump for housing, they declared it was to get 21 rid of the industrial use. And yet, industrial use keeps showing 22 up again and again. That is not a preferred alternative to the 23 residents of Brisbane.
24 We do not prefer a water treatment plant that could
25 impact our local flora and fauna. So I personally, I’m the one
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
17 1 who’s been shouting, “Arcata, Arcata, Arcata,” but what it looks 2 like to me, you’re going to take this and you’re going to dump 3 wastewater treatment into our watershed. And, no, you don’t get 4 to do that. You need to keep your water treatment separate from 5 the environment, because we all know what overflows are all 6 about.
7 The other thing, one thing we do not prefer is a plan 8 that ignores the watershed migratory bird populations, because 9 the plans that have been submitted have improper planting, 10 plants, and materials, and it bisects open space by roads and 11 soccer fields. We do not prefer putting grids. We do not prefer 12 lots of roads. And somehow, that has not gotten through and has 13 not been articulated.
14 So, what we do prefer -- oh, also, we will not -- I
15 personally, who’ve been involved in this for 21 years, will not 16 sit back for another 21 years waiting for contamination 17 remediation. I have sat in meetings for years where they say, 18 “Oh, Dana, control yourself because we have a willing developer.” 19 Well, twenty fricking years later, this willing developer is 20 willing to put a little asterisk into your program that says, “We 21 may not accomplish any of this because it’s subject to market 22 conditions.”
23 It’s my understanding that the -- that they -- in fact, 24 I brought it to the Water Board’s attention -- they have active 25 -- still have active leaks. Universal Paragon could be charged
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
18 1 $5,000 a day. That’s $1,825,000 a year. And for the 22 years 2 that I’ve waited for them to clean up, that will be $40 million 3 that could have been collected in fees for the clean-up. But, 4 no, we sit back and go, “Oh, let’s try to figure out what we can 5 do. Let’s figure out how we can make this manageable.” 6 Manageable is clean up the fricking stuff, period.
7 So, we do not prefer to sit back and wait. We do
8 prefer to have the developer take full responsibility for the 9 health impacts to the lagoon and to our watershed, and to develop 10 a plan looking at positive environmental contributions rather 11 than offering the most toxic land for open space and then include 12 the little asterisk that says -- I can give the exact words, but 13 -- “Acreages and other proposed land uses may decrease as a 14 result.” So guessing -- does that mean our open space is the 15 first land use that’s going to decrease in order to do anything 16 else out there? No fricking way! Our open space should be open 17 space, not open area. Stop playing the game with the definition, 18 because some of us are getting quite ready to stop being -- 19 MS. DILLWORTH: Okay. Anyway, I am tired of giving
20 leeway to somebody who just doesn’t get it.
21 Almost ten years ago, I made public records requests at 22 the Water Board. I found out decisions were being made that even 23 the citizens of Brisbane did not know were being made. And 24 that’s why I petitioned the state to set up the community 25 advisory group, because we were not being informed. And we are
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
19 1 still being treated like donkey doo, that we are not being 2 informed of the truth of issues.
3 And so, in closing, I had wanted to say -- oh, also, we 4 need to acknowledge that there’s a deadly mold problem out on the 5 Baylands, that the fire station is not usable because of a deadly 6 mold, that the Unocal building is not usable because of a deadly 7 mold, that a lot of the buildings along Industrial Way probably 8 are not usable because of the deadly mold. And part of that 9 comes from the fact that the water below the Baylands is 10 saturated with water. It receives impacts from the sea, from the 11 Bay, and everybody looks the other way. But that’s the reason I 12 say they need to look at the records of Kinder-Morgan, because 13 they looked at the water flow and they concurred that the wells 14 at Kinder-Morgan are receiving tidal action. So everyone else 15 out on the Baylands is receiving tidal action. But we just 16 pretend like it’s nice, solid land.
17 And so, these are some things that haven’t had a
18 consulting firm that would say, “Start all over; you need to look 19 at the environment; you needed to look at the impacts first, and 20 then you can choose what uses we will do,” rather than the other 21 way around, where we sat through program after program after 22 program. “What do you want? What do you want?” “Oh, I want 23 this, I want that.” And we never said what is safe.
24 And so, I personally think this all should be thrown 25 back to wherever you throw garbage -- you can leave it on the
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
20 1 dump -- and start all over again, be sincere in your effort, or 2 you have a group of citizens that are just getting angry as heck. 3 And we aren’t -- it’s been 21 years for me, thirty or forty for 4 some other people in this room.
5 MS. DILLWORTH: We’re sick and tired of it. We want to 6 see some change. I’m sick and tired of you calling this a 7 specific plan, but there’s no specific plan available. 8 MS. DILLWORTH: Stop the games, stop the bullshit, and 9 clean the fricking place up!
10 Thank you.
11 MODERATOR: Mr. Heinz?
12 MR. HEINZ: Tom Heinz, 22-year resident.
13 I understand your desire to confuse us by mixing things 14 like apples and oranges. Please use all square footage or all 15 acres, or use both, but half your numbers are in acres and half 16 are in square footage. You know, I just can’t do that mental 17 calculation in my head any more.
18 A program-level EIR opens the doors that would not be 19 opened if using project-level. It is one project.
20 If the original NOP is so old and there are so many new 21 changes, then why not just start over?
22 The applicant says they cannot do this project without 23 housing. When this project started -- I’m not sure of the exact 24 date, but Dana mentioned ’91 -- I told the applicant then that 25 they bought a lemon, and that they should cut their losses and
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
21 1 back out now. And here we are, ten years later, and we’re still 2 confused, there’s still no progress. Whatever you’ve been 3 promised by City Hall cannot be kept. We control City Hall. 4 Finally, this document that we have tonight looks like 5 it was just coming out of somebody’s head and no real thought was 6 put into it. It calls -- it says -- it says the -- the north7 south direction is bisected by the railroad, the north-south 8 direction bisected by the railroad. No, it doesn’t go that way. 9 It’s the east-west direction bisected by the railroad. 10 Thank you.
11 MODERATOR: Is there anyone else who would like to
12 comment who didn’t fill out a green card? Or is that all? 13 Danny.
14 MR. YEUNG: I’m Danny Yeung. I’m a resident of Daly
15 City, actually in the Bayshore neighborhood, which is adjacent to 16 the project site. I’m talking because I saw that there were no 17 comments submitted by Daly City in 2006, and I’m not even sure if 18 they are submitting any comments this year for the project. So 19 I’m going to try to represent my neighborhood here, just talking 20 about the program EIR.
21 I’d like to -- I’d like the EIR to include discussion 22 or analysis about the increase in traffic along Geneva Avenue. I 23 think that the Bayshore neighborhood and the neighborhoods, for 24 example, and -- oh, and then also the potential change in level 25 of service and upgrades necessary along Geneva Avenue, and, for
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
22 1 example, like the Geneva-Bayshore interchange, and also future 2 truck traffic along or exiting the proposed Geneva interchange at 3 Geneva and 101, where -- because there might be a lot of truck 4 traffic going into -- going off that interchange, passing Geneva 5 Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard from -- directly to that proposed 6 -- that -- what’s this area called, the industrial area along 7 Valley Drive, I think? Since most of the traffic now comes from 8 -- I think it was the Bayshore exit off-ramp. So there would be 9 an increase of new truck -- heavy truck traffic along that 10 intersection there.
11 And then, let’s see, for public services, I’d like the 12 EIR to include a discussion on the increase of calls in the 13 community from the Bayshore area, specifically North County Fire, 14 or the Fire Station Number 93, the increase in its service levels 15 -- were affecting service levels, and -- because the fire can 16 pass through our neighborhood to get -- to service the new 17 proposed development.
18 For the noise and vibration section, noise impacts in 19 the Bayshore neighborhood, I looked at the noise study taken by 20 the noise modeling and samples of the Bayshore area, the Cow 21 Palace area, and any effects caused by the new development, 22 including construction, along with the pile-driving that Michele 23 mentioned earlier during construction, and the potential of that 24 going off San Bruno Avenue. And as Michele mentioned earlier, 25 the ground-borne vibration is the technical term for it, I
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
23 1 believe. For the land use and planning element, the 2 entertainment variant studied for an alternative should include 3 an impact on the Cow Palace and local business that could be 4 affected because of a -- it could draw away business from the Cow 5 Palace and local businesses and could result in those businesses 6 shuttering, which is a physical impact on the environment. 7 And then, also, the effect on Daly City’s existing land 8 use plans for the area, the Bayshore area, and for the Geneva 9 corridor plans.
10 And then, for the hazardous materials, I’d like the no11 impact alternative to include analysis of the potential for 12 release of hazardous materials if nothing is done on the project 13 site, possibly during earthquake over a long-term period. 14 Those are my comments for the EIR.
15 MODERATOR: Thank you very much, sir.
16 Anyone else like to comment?
17 MS. PARKER: My name is Carolyn Parker. I would like
18 to see an overview map of all the approved future housing and 19 other building that’s going to be around the Baylands that’s not 20 currently being built so that we have a general idea of what else 21 is going to be out there on the Baylands. I feel that I can’t 22 see the Baylands just by itself; I need to know what else has 23 been approved. And I -- I haven’t seen anything like that. And 24 I think that should be considered in the EIR, because there’s 25 water -- my understanding, I don’t know for sure, but my
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
24 1 understanding is that there’s approval of 12,000 additional 2 housing around the Baylands. So, I’d like to see a lot more 3 about what the traffic conditions will be, where the water’s 4 going to be coming from, what else has been approved for the 5 electrical grid. I just feel that we’re looking at the Baylands 6 in an -- just by itself, and I don’t think it should be by 7 itself. It needs to be included because there’s an awful lot of 8 growth that’s going to be occurring in that area, and really 9 adjacent to the Baylands.
10 And I think that’s not holistic. It’s sort of like
11 we’re looking at, you know, at an arm -- you know, the Baylands 12 is the arm, but you know what? We have to look at everything. 13 Thank you.
14 MODERATOR: Anyone else who would like to speak? More 15 speakers?
16 MR. HOWARD: Personally, I think --
17 MODERATOR: Robert, would you start with your name?
18 MR. HOWARD: Robert Howard, Brisbane resident.
19 Personally, I think the Geneva Avenue extension is a 20 really bad idea. It’s going to totally distort traffic patterns 21 in the region, and I mean all the way across Geneva Avenue down 22 to Mission and beyond -- and it may end up with people, you know, 23 end up -- going to be more cars on the 101. The 101 is now 24 filled to capacity as it is. And it will just lead to gridlock. 25 It’s a terrible idea. It really needs somebody who can analyze
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
25 1 the situation who really understands traffic management, traffic 2 flow, and will treat it as a regional concept, not as just a 3 little area with respect to here but for the whole region. 4 The other thing is the high-speed rail authority is
5 planning on putting more tracks in there for high-speed rail. 6 They’re also planning on paying for the electrification of 7 Caltrain as part of the deal. It may not happen immediately, but 8 it will happen sometime in the future. So that will alter the 9 usable amount of land.
10 My understanding of their EIR is being done in the next 11 few months, and it’s supposed to be approved this year or the 12 beginning of next year that’s the Caltrain project for this area. 13 And this is one of the things we’re trying to decide 14 on. And the question is what effect that will have out there. 15 So, in some ways, some of the plans are premature with the high16 speed rail authority and Caltrain plan because they have power of 17 eminent domain given to them by the state. And it seems like -- 18 almost like a rush to get through the -- down here to up-zone 19 this, which is not really a good idea. Those of you think you 20 know something about organizations, they can end up doing 21 something with this piece of land.
22 Another big concern is water, as Carolyn talked about. 23 Where is the water going to come from? Where is sewage going to 24 come from -- and where does the sewage go to be cleaned? 25 You know, do -- also, there’s -- as Dana probably could
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
26 1 tell you in more detail, there are a number of migratory bird 2 species that are covered -- it’s my understanding they’re covered 3 by the migratory bird treaty -- that over-winter in parts -- in 4 the seasonal wetlands out on the Baylands. Those haven’t been 5 taken account of. Those can’t be moved. It’s my understanding 6 the migratory bird treaty, that the international treaty, it’s 7 enforced by a number of different agencies, both governmental and 8 nongovernmental. And one of those agencies that is non9 governmental is actually going to sue quite vigorously when they 10 hear about migratory birds’ habitats being disturbed. And it’s - 11 - this treaty, you know, if it’s one -- it’s organizations that 12 you supported. So, anyways, so there are a lot of problems out 13 there that need dealing with.
14 Thank you.
15 MODERATOR: Thank you.
16 MR. HOWARD: And you mentioned some of the others too. 17 People have already talked about them.
18 Thank you.
19 MODERATOR: Okay. Just -- I want to see if there’s
20 anyone else who hasn’t spoken who wants to speak. Be sure to 21 state your name.
22 MS. M. SALMON: Michele Salmon, round two.
23 One of the things that I think is really important to 24 remember, I know a lot of times when we do an environmental 25 impact review, you look at studies from other areas and apply
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
27 1 that data to our area and different sets of things that happen. 2 I’ve seen this numerous times. But I do think it’s very 3 important that we look at our unique area and the unique 4 circumstances here.
5 In the past, we’ve had studies about, you know, diesel 6 fumes and air pollution and noise levels, and they’ve used, you 7 know, air pollution studies from the airport instead of here in 8 Brisbane, and they’ve used noise level things from other places. 9 But Brisbane has some very unique geographical considerations, 10 such as the bowl shape. I can remember being at home on a Sunday 11 night and my husband saying, “Wow! The 23 Club is really 12 rocking. Maybe we should go down there and see what’s going on.” 13 It turned out to be a concert of Metallica at Candlestick, and 14 they sounded like they were playing on our porch. All right. 15 And that -- that’s the nature of Brisbane.
16 We have -- we live on a rare mountain of endangered
17 species. And so, I think that as you do your work, it is really, 18 really important that you look at our circumstances here, that 19 you do original research for what’s going on here, in our place, 20 and not just apply those studies that happened in, you know, some 21 other place, like they did with the Northeast Ridge, where, “Oh, 22 well, they’re just a butterfly; all butterflies are alike.” 23 Well, no, not all butterflies are alike. Not all fish are alike. 24 Not all plants are alike. Not all geographical circumstances are 25 alike.
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
28 1 And you can just imagine, here’s a little nest out on 2 the Baylands with two little eggs next to each other, getting 3 ready to hatch, and all of a sudden the pile-driver goes (bangs) 4 and the eggs hit each other and break, you know. I mean, that’s 5 something that’s a reality in this circumstance, in our 6 circumstance here. We have little endangered species. 7 I mean, this is -- I guess you get the point, is that 8 we really need to look at our circumstances here and this dotted 9 line that’s around on all of these maps for the project area, I’m 10 sorry, but we live in an integrated world. We don’t live in 11 isolation any more. This is not a little pocket out on an island 12 in the middle of the South Pacific. We are an integrated, 13 heavily populated area with some very fragile environment that’s 14 still existing, like the mountain and the bay. And so, you 15 cannot just look at this project in isolation.
16 Dana brought up some really good points about that, you 17 know. Danny brought up points, Tom -- everybody brought up 18 points. You have to look at it -- Carolyn, -- you have to look 19 at is as an integrated part of the fabric of the Bay Area, and 20 not just, “Here’s our little project, and we want our dollar out 21 of it,” you know, “And screw the rest of the world.” You need to 22 look at our circumstances here and look at it not just locally, 23 but regionally and globally. And do original studies, and don’t 24 just think you can apply a set of data from somewhere else to the 25 circumstances here, because that really doesn’t work in our town.
GOLDEN STATE REPORTING
(831) 663-8851
29 1 Thank you. And remember that “EIR” stands for
2 “environmental impact review,” what really is happening to the 3 environment. I get so sick of people saying “EIR,” “EIR,” and 4 never stopping to think about what it really is, an environmental 5 impact, total environmental impact.
6 Thank you.
7 (End of excerpt)
8 --o0o--
From: Marc Joffe <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 4:40 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: November Transit Tax Measure
Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit
Sponsored by Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
transitaccountability.com • [email protected] • P.O. Box 27, Martinez, CA 94553 • (925) 289-6900
June 25, 2026
City Council
General Contact
Brisbane
Dear Brisbane City Council,
We understand that city councils and boards of supervisors throughout the region are being approached by transit agency representatives offering to “educate” elected officials about the regional transportation sales tax that will appear on the November ballot. The clear intention of this outreach is to secure endorsements before the campaign is fully underway.
The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit urges you to remain neutral. The problems with Traditional Transit in the Bay Area are massive and longstanding, and will not be remedied with this tax, as presently written. We suggest “Fixes Before Funding” and we will be laying out that case over the course of the summer. Thus, we respectfully ask that you withhold any endorsement until both sides of this issue have been presented, and you have had the opportunity to weigh them. If you are being asked to hear a presentation by the supporters of this tax, we ask to be invited to present at the same meeting why it should not be entertained.
The June primary results should give every elected official pause. Across the Bay Area, voters demonstrated severe tax fatigue, rejecting new tax and bond measures at the ballot box in the face of a high and rapidly escalating cost of living. Placing another regional sales tax before voters in November runs directly against that clearly expressed sentiment.
It is also worth noting that this measure reached the ballot as a citizens’ initiative rather than as a measure referred by the agencies themselves. That makes it questionable for publicly funded transit agencies to be devoting staff time and public resources to advocating for its passage.
Thank you for your service and for your consideration of this request. We would welcome the chance to share our analysis with you and your staff as it develops.
Sincerely,
Tom Rubin. Alameda County Taxpayers Association
Marc Joffe, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Gina Tse-Louise, San Francisco Taxpayers Association
Mark Hinkle, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association (Santa Clara County resident) Gregg Dieguez, SHIFT Bay Area (San Mateo County resident) From: WAlker, Anthony <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June 2026 19:00:42
To: Baylands <[email protected]>
Cc: Etherton, Adrienne <[email protected]>
Subject: OSEC Comments on the Baylands Final EIR and Specific Plan Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission,
On behalf of the Open Space and Ecology Committee, please find attached OSEC's formal comments on the Baylands Final Environmental Impact Report and the May 2026 Specific Plan, for the Commission's consideration.
OSEC regards the Baylands as a fundamentally compelling project with the potential to be a landmark sustainable development. Our comments are offered in that spirit. At a high level, OSEC's principal recommendations are:
• That the Commission not advance the Final EIR and Specific Plan to the City Council until all documents have had a chance to be thoroughly reviewed by the public and the concerns in our comments addressed, and that a qualified CEQA peer review be conducted.
• That long-term greenhouse gas tracking, reporting, and accountability mechanisms be restored — the project's projected emissions remain regardless of how they are classified, and removing the developer's obligation to track or address them shifts that long-term financial cost to the City and the public. • That the project's energy-neutrality commitment under Measure JJ be treated as the binding design requirement voters adopted, with any shortfall matched by new, local energy resources that benefit the Brisbane community.
These and a number of additional matters are detailed in the attached document. OSEC appreciates the Commission's time and careful consideration.
Respectfully,
Anthony Walker
Chair, Open Space & Ecology Committee
Web: www.brisbaneca.org/OSEC
Email: [email protected]
From: Erin Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 8:33 PM
To: Robbins, Jeremiah <[email protected]>; Baylands <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Becker's comments (Part 1)
Hello,
I have attached the rest of my comments ahead of the Planners Meeting about the Baylands tomorrow.
I'm on work travel and cannot attend the meeting, so I'd appreciate it if you can send it to the Planners, OSEC and City Council in advance.
Much appreciated,
Erin
Date: June 24, 2026
To: Brisbane Planning Commission
From: Dr. Erin Becker
Subject: Comments on the Baylands project and the FEIR – Part 2 Hello Planners,
Thank you for considering public comments on this important issue. A few days ago, I submitted a separate set of comments and concerns that pertained to the FEIR and the overall Baylands project. This letter includes a few comments that are related to the Bayland Specific Plan.
1. Lack of compliance with Brisbane’s Dark Skies Ordinance The inability of the Developer to state they will comply with Brisbane’s Dark Skies Ordinance (DSO) in the BSP is very concerning. Instead, they created their own Design Standards (Ch 3 Section
3.3.1), which are different than ours. I did not perform a thorough comparison (because I was racing to meet the deadline for the June 25th meeting to submit this comment), but a cursory read identified two MAJOR concerns, which are the lack of curfew and the permission to have tree-uplighting. Both of these go against the spirit and the letter of the DSO. Further, because the Baylands zoning district didn’t exist when we wrote the DSO, there is wiggle room for the amount of lighting per property (see Table 15.88.050 of the DSO). Interesting, the Developer did see fit to require the Existing Use Areas (Section 3.5) as well as the Bay Trail (Section 5.3.5.2.2) to comply with the City’s Dark Skies Ordinance however it doesn’t appear that the developer is holding themselves to those standards in any other portions of the Baylands.
I HIGHLY recommend that the Planners require the BSP to comply with the DSO, and that the new Zoning district be held to the same lighting-level allowance as downtown Brisbane, which is a maximum of 1.75 lumens per square foot of developed area (reference DSO 15.88.050 - Lighting levels by zoning district).
2. Questionable compliance with Invasives Regulation and prioritization of native plantings There is uncertainty regarding the Developer’s intention to prioritize planting of native species versus invasives, which points to the rushed nature of this document. Section 4.8.1 #5 states that use of native species as a “design standard” to reduce irrigation is a design standard, which is a great start. However, native species are not mentioned in the Design Standards Chapter Section
3.3.2, which consistently states “landscaped with ornamental or stormwater planting” nor in the Landscaping Water Conservation Section 3.3.3. The Baylands needs to comply with the Invasives Regulation and also be consistent regarding their marketing pitch of prioritization of native species.
Interesting, the Developer did see fit to require the Existing Use Areas to the objective of “Use of plants that are not invasive” and “use of water conserving plants”, however it doesn’t appear that the developer is holding themselves to those standards. There is a vague statement that says they will prioritize natives in landscaped areas (which they state is in compliance with the Prescriptive Compliance Option of Brisbane’s code 15.70.050.A.1) but that code is about water conservation for landscaped areas (only) rather than invasives management. Further, the BSP does NOT mention the Invasives Regulation which is part of the Brisbane’s Fire Prevention code 15.44.120.
They need to be held to the same rules as the rest of the City to protect our local environment.
3. Allowable Uses in Table 3.4.1 need reassessment
Table 3.4.1 describes various allowable uses by land type in the Baylands. Because items with a “P” or “PG” are considered Permitted, they deserve serious consideration now. a) The first item of concern is Day Care. Pollution causes long term effects in children, and the brownfield cleanup hazards will be ‘mitigated’ but we cannot be 100% sure that they will be removed. The City needs to have some say over the locations of Day Care facilities.
Therefore, I recommend changing the Day Care “P” designations to “C” for now, so we have an opportunity to consider all aspects of the facility location. Further, if Day Care is allowed, I recommend it be above the ground floor.
b) Why are communications facilities “P” permitted in the Sustainability Infrastructure areas? In Appendix A this is defined as “radio, television, or recording studios, switching centers, and cable television transmitting stations”. I think “C” is more appropriate than “P”.
Further, Section 3.4 refers the reader to Appendix A for definitions related to this table. This is another inconsistency in the BSP, that hints to its rushed nature. The definitions are related to the past revision of the BSP. There is no reason they need to define transmission towers, because they were removed from the list. Further, Light Manufacture and Maker Space’s share a definition. And Personal and Repair Services fall under two definitions. If these are the guiding documents for this project, they need to be better before we approve them.
Finally, we should explicitly call out that data centers (by any name) are not included in the allowable uses for this project in any of the districts.
4. Curious calculation of Open Space
Measure JJ requires 25% Open Space Lands for the Baylands project. While the current BSP calculation exceeds this, there are a few items of concern regarding its calculation of Open Space.
a. Per Section 2.5.2 the Roundhouse will have an open-air theater, café, railroad museum, and other community uses. While these seem to fit better under the definition of Amenities areas, there are no amenities per Table 2.5.1. b. Section 3.3.2 provides project-wide building standards for the various land use categories. What’s not clear is whether “The Open Area Per Unit” requirement in Section 3.2 (specifically S.3.2.2.5; S.3.2.3.5; S.3.2.4.5; S.3.2.4.5; S.3.2.6.5; S.3.2.7.12; S.3.2.8.12; S.3.2.9.12; and S.3.2.10.13) is counted as part of the Open Space calculation. I hope not, because those sections list acceptable areas including individual unit balconies, stoops and patios, as well as amenities areas such as swimming pools, fountains, planters, and benches. Most of these are private and therefore do not meet the definition of open space.
Conclusion
For a project of this magnitude and impact to our community, Brisbane deserves a better set of foundational documents that describe the Baylands vision and plan. We deserve a Specific Plan that consistently defines the project standards throughout the entire document. Given the inconsistencies and issues described above, I would not be surprised to learn that the chapters in the BSP had separate authors. Please do not approve an inconsistent document but instead send it back to the Developer for a consistency check and clarification of issues raised by the community.
Again, I appreciate your consideration of public comments. The Baylands is likely going to be the biggest project in Brisbane’s past or future. Our careful review will be required at every step. This will be a lot of work for all of us, and especially for your team. I appreciate your attention to detail.
Regards,
Erin
From: Ali Sapirman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 5:07 PM
To: Planning Commissioners <[email protected]>; Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Cc: Louis Mirante <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Brisbane Baylands EIR
Dear Commissioners and staff,
Please see the attached letter on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and Bay Area Council.
--
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: [email protected] To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".
June 25, 2026
Brisbane Planning Commission
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
RE: Support for Brisbane Baylands Final EIR Certification and Specific Plan Adoption To the Honorable Brisbane Planning Commission:
We write on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition (HAC) and the Bay Area Council in support of the Brisbane Baylands project. HAC is a statewide pro-housing nonprofit representing developers, architects, attorneys, labor, and allied industries that advocates for more housing at all levels of affordability. The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored public policy advocacy organization representing the Bay Area’s largest employers, with a long-standing commitment to addressing the region’s housing shortage and improving housing affordability for working families.
The Baylands project represents one of the most significant transit-oriented housing opportunities in the Bay Area. It is one of the largest developable parcels near high-quality transit in San Mateo County, and its successful build-out is essential to the region’s housing and climate goals. The project would deliver thousands of homes, including substantial affordable housing, adjacent to high-quality transit.
Brisbane’s Housing Element Obligations
Brisbane’s 6th Cycle Housing Element depends almost entirely on the Baylands project to satisfy its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City’s RHNA obligation requires planning for thousands of new homes across all income levels, and the Baylands site accounts for the overwhelming majority of that capacity. Without a feasible, adoptable Specific Plan, Brisbane cannot meet its state-mandated housing obligations.
When HCD originally found Brisbane’s Housing Element to be in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law, that finding was expressly predicated on the City’s commitment to implement Program 2.A.2, adopting the Baylands Specific Plan and completing the required rezoning. The City established milestone deadlines for this work: publishing the Draft EIR by October 2023, completing public review and hearings for the Final EIR and Specific Plan by December 2024, and adopting the Specific Plan by January 31, 2026. Brisbane missed every one of these milestones.
HCD issued a corrective action letter on April 16, 2026, establishing May 18, 2026 as the final deadline to complete the rezoning. The City missed that deadline as well. As a result, Brisbane is now at risk of losing its substantial compliance status entirely, which would expose the City to Builder’s Remedy applications and render it ineligible for state housing funding programs tied to Housing Element compliance.
The Planning Commission has a critical role to play in remedying this situation. Recommending certification of the Final EIR and adoption of a workable Specific Plan is the most direct path available to restoring Brisbane’s compliance standing and demonstrating to HCD and the state that the City is meeting its obligations in good faith. Continued delay is not a neutral choice: it compounds the City’s legal exposure and further erodes the state’s confidence in Brisbane’s commitment to housing production.
Concerns with the Final EIR and Specific Plan
We appreciate the City’s efforts to improve the Final EIR, particularly the removal of the proposed carbon offset requirement (GHG-1). Requiring a project like the Baylands to purchase carbon offset credits would have contradicted state policy that prioritizes achieving greenhouse gas reductions through urban infill development. We applaud Brisbane’s efforts to better align the GHG analysis with local and state goals related to housing, climate change, and transit-oriented development.
However, we remain concerned that several provisions in the 2026 Final EIR and Specific Plan could unnecessarily constrain housing production and undermine the project’s long-term viability. Specifically:
• Arbitrary limits on the number of tower buildings and restrictions on building heights across the site would reduce overall housing capacity and impede the development of new homes.
• Overly prescriptive building standards reduce the flexibility necessary for a project that will take decades to build out. The Specific Plan must be able to adapt to changing market conditions, financing environments, and community needs while continuing to deliver housing and community benefits.
The City chose to move forward with a redundant EIR, duplicating work completed in the certified 2018 Brisbane Baylands Program EIR, setting the process back several years. That decision has already cost the project and the City’s housing compliance standing significantly.
The Commission should not allow the document that results from that delay to impose additional constraints that make the project harder to finance and build.
We urge the Planning Commission to act swiftly and recommend certification of the Final EIR and adoption of a Baylands Specific Plan that is feasible, flexible, and capable of delivering the thousands of homes this region urgently needs. After more than twenty years of planning, Brisbane must move forward. The Baylands represents a generational opportunity to create a vibrant, inclusive, and climate-friendly community that benefits both residents and the broader Bay Area.
Sincerely,
Ali Sapirman
Advocacy & Policy Manager
Housing Action Coalition
Louis Mirante
SVP of Public Policy
Bay Area Council
From: Angie Barbary <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 5:21 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>
Cc: Angie Barbary <[email protected]>
Subject: Sangamo - WARN Act Notice
Kindest Regards,
Angie Barbary (she/her/ally)
Senior Director, Human Resources
Well Being Notice: Receiving this email outside of normal working hours? Integrating work and life responsibilities is unique for everyone.
I have sent this email at a time that works for me. Please respond at a time that works for you.
[email protected]
+1 510.307.7269 direct
+1 341-766-1585 cell
501 Canal Blvd, Richmond, CA 94804
+1 510.970.6000 sangamo.com
Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. 501 Canal Blvd., Suite A, Richmond, CA 94804 | 510.970.6000 | sangamo.com Via Email ([email protected])
June 22, 2026
Madison Davis
Mayor Pro Tempore
Brisbane City Hall
50 Park Place
Brisbane, Ca 94005
Re: Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. California WARN Act and Federal WARN Act Notice To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1400, et seq. (the “California WARN Act”) and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. section 2101, et seq. (the “federal WARN Act”), this notice is to inform you that Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sangamo”) plans to initiate actions that may be deemed a “termination” under the California WARN Act and a “plant closing” under the federal WARN Act.
The Company plans to terminate the employment of 47 employees assigned to its location at 501 Canal Blvd, Richmond, CA 94804 (the “Richmond Location”) and 4 employees assigned to its location at 7000 Marina Blvd, Brisbane, CA 94005 (the “Brisbane Location”) in connection with the commencement of a plant closure of the Company.
This action is expected to occur on Monday, June 22, 2026. This action will be permanent. Bumping rights do not exist. For the benefit of all company stakeholders, including patients, stockholders, creditors and employees, Sangamo has been actively seeking capital or business transactions at the time that 60-day notice would have been required. Reasonably and in good faith, Sangamo believed that giving the required notice would have precluded Sangamo from obtaining the needed capital or business transactions.
The job titles of positions to be affected and the number of affected employees in each job classification assigned to each location are as follows:
Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. 501 Canal Blvd., Suite A, Richmond, CA 94804 | 510.970.6000 | sangamo.com Richmond Location
Associate Director, Accounting 1
Associate Director, BBAS Development Sciences 1
Associate Director, Bioinformatics 1
Associate Director, Contract Management & Operations 1
Associate Director, Lab Operations 1
Associate Director, Nonclinical Safety Evaluation 1
Associate Director, Program Leadership 1
Associate Director, SEC Reporting/Technical Accounting 1 Director, Accounting/Assistant Corporate Controller 1
Director, Bioinformatics 1
Director, Clinical Operations 1
Director, Drug Safety 1
Director, Nonclinical Operations 1
Director, Nonclinical Project Management 1
Executive Assistant 2
Executive Assistant to CEO 1
Facilities Instrumentation Technician 1
Facilities Technician 1
Head of Global Corporate Communications & Investor Relations 1 Head of Research & Technology 1
Human Resources Specialist 1
Laboratory Services Technician 1
Principal Research Associate 1
Research Associate III 1
Scientist I 1
Scientist III 2
Scientist III, Genomic Medicine Specificity 1
Senior Accountant, SEC Reporting & SOX Compliance 1
Senior Clinical Trial Manager 1
Senior Director, Alliance Management & Patient Advocacy 1 Senior Director, Clinical Operations 1
Senior Director, Gene Regulation 1
Senior Director, Human Resources 1
Senior GL Accountant 1
Senior Human Resources Business Analyst 1
Senior Lab Manager, Cell Culture 1
Senior Manager, Data Management 1
Senior Manager, IT Operations 1
Senior Manager, Production 1
Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. 501 Canal Blvd., Suite A, Richmond, CA 94804 | 510.970.6000 | sangamo.com Senior Research Associate 2
Senior Scientist 2
Senior Specialist, Systems Administration 1
Vice President, Associate General Counsel 1
Brisbane Location
Manager, Asset Management 1
Scientist II, Vector Method Development 1
Senior Accounts Payable Specialist 1
Senior Manager, Maintenance Operations 1
The affected employees do not have union representation and bumping rights do not exist.
Sangamo does not plan to coordinate services through the local workforce development board or any other entity. Sangamo’s employees have been informed as follows: “If you are employed at our location in Richmond, you may contact the Richmond Workforce Development Board at (510) 307- 8029 or by sending an email to Emmanuel Njome: [email protected]. If you are employed at our location in Brisbane, you may contact NOVA Workforce Services at (408) 730-7249 or by sending an email to Rhonda Pryor at [email protected]. Local Workforce Development Boards and their partners help laid off workers find new jobs. Visit an America's Job Center of California location near you. You can get help with your resume, practice interviewing, search for jobs, and more.
You can also learn about training programs to help start a new career.” Sangamo's employees have also been informed: “You may be eligible for CalFresh food assistance benefits. CalFresh is California's food assistance program that helps eligible individuals and families purchase nutritious food. For more information, call the CalFresh benefits helpline at 1-877-847-3663 or visit www.BenefitsCal.com or https://cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/calfresh.” For further information, please contact Scott Willoughby, Chief Legal Officer, at [email protected] or at (415) 606-9145.
Sincerely,
Scott Willoughby
Chief Legal Officer
Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc.
From: hibari <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 2:30 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>; Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>; Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CLAIM FORM- LARK CRATTY, 230 Tulare Street, Brisbane, CA Thank you.
Based on the facts and documentation submitted, I believe the denial of my claim was unfair and respectfully request that the matter be reconsidered.
Towing my car without notification or documentation from the City or Police Department, coupled with the lack of proper signage, was an egregious and disproportionate action.
This decision had significant financial implications and caused unnecessary hardship and stress. As a recent member of the Brisbane community, this is especially disheartening.
This is a great introduction to local politics, policymaking processes, and is encouraging me to be more civically engaged.
Thank you,
Lark Cratty
Attn: Ms. Ingrid Padilla and City of Brisbane Representatives May 1, 2026
Dear Ms. Padilla and City of Brisbane Representatives,
I am writing to formally request a review and full reimbursement regarding the towing of my vehicle on the night of April 23–24, 2026, in my residential neighborhood at 230 Tulare Street, Brisbane, CA.
I recently moved to Brisbane on February 1, 2026. Having lived in San Francisco, Pacifica, Oakland, San Leandro, and Santa Cruz, I have never encountered a situation of this nature or severity.
On April 23, 2026, between approximately 11:30 pm and 12:00 am, a report was made to the police alleging that my vehicle was parked illegally. Officer Malone responded and knocked on both my door and a neighboring residence; however, I was already asleep and did not wake.
No parking citation or warning was issued. Instead, my vehicle was towed.
At approximately 3:00 am on April 24, 2026, I went outside to use my car in order to drive a friend to the airport and discovered that my vehicle was no longer where I had parked it.
This created an extremely stressful and urgent situation. I had received no prior notification, and the only reason I became aware that law enforcement had been involved was due to a message from my neighbor indicating that police had come to their door asking about the vehicle. Otherwise, I would have no idea where my car was. This was also concerning for my neighbor to receive a knock on the door from the police at this hour.
After making alternative arrangements for my friend’s transportation, I went to the Brisbane Police Department at approximately 4:00 am. Officer Malone was helpful and explained that, under Brisbane regulations, I was required to pay a $65 fee to obtain a police release form in order to retrieve my vehicle from the tow yard. I was also informed by the tow yard that I would incur an additional $195 fee if I did not wait until 8:00 am to retrieve my vehicle.
As a result, I incurred additional transportation costs, including multiple Lyft rides, and ultimately paid $543 to recover my vehicle.
There was no clearly visible signage indicating any parking restriction in the area where my vehicle was parked. I walked more than 50 feet in both directions along the street and did not observe any posted signs. Additionally, the curb was not painted red or otherwise marked to indicate a no-parking zone.
Furthermore, the vehicle was not parked in a manner that created any immediate safety hazard or obstruction. It was not parked in front of a fire hydrant, handicap space, it was not blocking a driveway, not obstructing traffic flow, not impeding emergency access, and not located in an intersection or otherwise hazardous position. The vehicle was parked in a standard residential street location without any apparent risk to public safety.
There were also no temporary signs, construction notices, street sweeping indicators, or time-restricted parking notices posted in the vicinity. There were no cones, barricades, or other visual cues suggesting that parking was prohibited. At no point was there any clear, proximate, or visible indication that parking at this location was restricted.
Given the lack of signage or markings, there was no reasonable opportunity for compliance. I received no warning or citation that would have allowed me an opportunity to remedy the issue. The regulation Officer Malone was following, to tow the vehicle without issuing a citation, warning, or providing any form of notice, particularly in a residential area and during late-night hours, removed any opportunity for voluntary compliance and imposed a significant financial and logistical burden. Towing is a severe enforcement measure, typically reserved for clear hazards, repeated violations, or situations where a vehicle poses a risk to safety or access. None of those conditions were present in this case.
The absence of visible signage, curb markings, any immediate safety concern, or prior warning or citation, I had no reasonable way of knowing that my vehicle was in violation.
Under these circumstances, towing was excessive, punitive, and disproportionate. I have never previously had my vehicle towed and comply with parking regulations. As a lawabiding resident, discovering at approximately 3:30 am that my car was missing, was both alarming and distressing. I was left uncertain as to whether my vehicle had been towed, stolen, or otherwise taken, which significantly heightened the stress and urgency of the situation. This situation caused considerable stress, disruption, and financial burden.
I respectfully request full reimbursement of all fees associated with the towing and retrieval of my vehicle.
I would like to note that Officer Malone was professional, kind, and helpful when I arrived at the police department, and I appreciate his assistance in explaining the Brisbane regulations he was following. His professionalism was reassuring and left a positive impression.
At the same time, the overall circumstances surrounding this incident were deeply unsettling. The involvement of law enforcement in a residential neighborhood late at night, followed by my need to go to the police department at approximately 4:00 am to locate my vehicle, was distressing. As a single, woman, and a person of color, this experience felt particularly intimidating. What began as a minor parking concern escalated into a law enforcement matter, making the overall response feel disproportionate to the situation.
There was no apparent need for this level of escalation, and situations like this can be frightening and overwhelming for individuals. It is important to recognize that not everyone experiences law enforcement interactions in the same way, and for some individuals, such encounters may not feel inherently safe or reassuring.
I appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to your response. Please let me know if any additional information or documentation is required. I would also welcome the opportunity to present my case to the appropriate Brisbane board or body, as I would not want another member of the community to experience a similar situation.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Lark Cratty
Total Refund Requested: 568 USD
From: Erin Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2026 4:53 PM
To: Baylands <[email protected]>
Subject: Becker's comments (Part 1)
Hello,
I have attached my comments for the FEIR and the overall Baylands Project (Part 1). Please share the attachment with the Planning Commission, OSEC and City Council. I hope to submit comments on the BSP (Part 2) later this week.
Unrelated to the Bayland's project, I would appreciate more consideration of the public's workload when scheduling the City reviews of two critical documents, especially given the extensive page count of the FEIR. It would have been better to schedule one meeting for each document, or schedule different topics for each meeting, so we knew in advance how to divide up the workload. Everyone expects this to take more than one meeting, but I'm afraid that if I don't submit comments on both documents by Thursday, the Planning Commission won't have my input on whichever document or topics they focus on. I have only finished reviewing the FEIR. The BSP will take longer because of the amount of red-lining from the previous draft and the change in how the pages are numbered. But I've got to scramble to submit something by Thursday, while also working full time. Thanks for your consideration of this in the future.
Regards,
Erin Becker
Date: June 20, 2026
To: Brisbane Planning Commission
From: Dr. Erin Becker
Subject: Comments on the Baylands project and the FEIR
Thank you for considering public comments on this important issue. Some of the comments and concerns documented here pertain to the FEIR and others are in regards to the overall Baylands project. I hope to submit a subsequent letter addressing the new revision of the Baylands Specific Plan. In this letter I recommend five actions that the Planning Commission can make to help protect the City of Brisbane, its current residents and its future Baylands residents.
1. Require inclusion of the landfill’s closure conditions as part of Cumulative Impacts in the FEIR
2. Contract an independent peer review the FEIR to protect the City from liability and to ensure the heath and safety of Brisbane’s current and future residents and its unique habitat
3. Address concerns in the project phasing to protect Brisbane’s interests given the market uncertainty
4. Seriously consider FEIR Alternate #7: Reduced Density / Reduced Maximum Building Height as the recommendation put forth for approval by City Council
5. Ask the City to reconsider the Bayshore Mobility Plan
1. Consider the Landfill in the Cumulative Impacts assessment of the FEIR I understand that the Landfill Closure is not part of the FEIR because it is approved by nonBrisbane entities, but it does not make sense that the closure conditions are not part of the Cumulative Impacts in Chapter 7 of the FEIR. The pollution is not being removed, it is being covered by a >4’ low-permeability cap with no cap underneath. Chapter 2 of the FEIR describes the landfill cap as a 2’ foundation layer of soil (possibly contaminated from existing on-site fill), then a 1’ layer of clean compacted soil (to “prevent percolation of water”), then another >1’ of soil for planting the erosion-control vegetation. The landfill cap is referred to as a low-permeability layer, which means that vapors can penetrate through the landfill cap groundwater can slowly percolate through the cap. Further, pollution can move around under the cap during hydrological events, such as sea level rise and floods. The following bullets are examples of why the FEIR should consider the landfill with the cumulative impacts in Chapter 7 of the FEIR.
● Chapter 2 of the FEIR states the Landfill Cover Maintenance Plan requires periodic vegetation maintenance to ensure that no species will violate the root depth limit. As described in Chapter 2, the periodic maintenance plan includes the following items. The landfill cap needs to be monitored periodically for leaks and other problems, especially due to potential shifting anticipated with time, which could be further exacerbated by years of nearby pile driving (though this is not considered an ‘upset condition’ in the FEIR). The landfill cap also has to be inspected for any vegetation that might violate the root depth limit. Finally, the leachate collection system (which is planned to be converted from horizontal to vertical pipes) must be monitored for sufficiency. Who is responsible for completing this periodic maintenance? Which government body is responsible for oversight that the periodic maintenance is occurring? Further, the FEIR states that the maintenance must continue a minimum of 30 years, but that it’s expected for ONLY one year because the landfill closed in 1967. Only performing these inspections for one year after landfill cap installation is not acceptable for the safety of our community. Periodic maintenance is important for ensuring the safety of future Brisbane residents and workers and the FEIR saying that this could be shortened to only one year adds to the serious concern of this cumulative impact. ● The 2024 Sea Level Rise automatically treats open space as low risk, but fails to consider the cumulative impact of the open space being on top of a brownfield site.
The “reformed” brownfield site should be treated as a high-risk scenario. Further, the entire landfill area should be treated as a high-risk scenario, given that there is NO cap under the landfill and the proposed cap is only “low-permeable and the “groundwater… contains pollutants at concentrations above regulatory action levels as the result of the former rail yard and the former Brisbane Landfill.” [ref. Ch 4.14]. ● Ch 4.15 states that seismic settling will be 2-3 inches and areas close to the historic shoreline could have settlement up to 4.5 inches. The unknown nature and packed density of the fill in the landfill will exacerbate seismic settling effects, so the Baylands should plan for greater than 4.5 inches of settling for the former landfill area. However, this is not included in the cumulative impacts (Chapter 7). ● In addition to the potential for pollution to permeate the landfill cap (from above and below), there is concern about radioactive soils from the landfill being used throughout the site. There is a local story about a shipment of dirt from Hunter’s Point that had limited records and potential radioactivity. Further, the site operated as the landfill for San Francisco when controls of radioactive material were far looser than they are today.
Therefore, it’s safe to assume that some of the fill is a radiation risk, but this is not mentioned in the FEIR. These soils will be transported to the future residential area as part of the site grading. Any soil transported to the residential area needs to be tested in order to calm the concerns of current and future residents. Whether the rumor is true or not, the only way to be sure is to test the soil. However this comment was brushed aside in the DEIR edits because the landfill has been tested. On an area that large, a random sampling could easily miss two truckloads of contaminated soil, but if they are transported to an area under a home (or even worse, a daycare), the City will be liable for ignoring this. Therefore I advocate that the City preemptively assert its approval authority over soil testing requirements (per GP-1-18), require some sort of radiation detection that isn’t based on random sampling and do so now during the approval process of the FEIR and BSP. Radiation detection equipment exists for mounting on haul trucks, which would minimize the resident’s concerns and City’s liability without impacting the timing of the development project.
● There are two places in the FEIR where the landfill closure is counted as part of the analysis. That both of them are in the favor of the Development makes me wary of this FEIR. First, Ch 4.14 states that the acreage of the Landfill does not have to be counted in the Bayland’s loss of pervious surface for groundwater recharge because the landfill closure is under a different plan (Title 27). Second, in Ch 8 the No Project-No Build Alternative impacts are predicted to be higher due to the landfill not being capped.
Throughout the FEIR, the landfill closure impacts have been ignored, with the justification that it will be done under Title 27. It’s disingenuous to include them when convenient to the Development, but not in the cumulative impacts that affect the health and safest of the City and its current and future residents.
2. Advocacy for Peer Review of FEIR
I advocate for a Peer Review of this FEIR to limit the City’s future liability. This FEIR is exemplary of a rushed document: it was written at a higher level than other CEQA FEIRs and glosses over or ignores many features unique to Brisbane. I’m not implying that our Consultants are not capable, but that they may have missed something in the short timeline of this process. Further, the current version of the Baylands Specific Plan was released at the same time as the FEIR, so it’s possible the two documents aren’t in alignment anymore. This could impact the health and safety of Brisbane’s current residents, the future Baylands residents and workers, and the local habitat. This will likely be the single project in Brisbane’s existence, past and present, which speaks to the need to have a thoughtful and comprehensive review.
Rushing the preparation and review period of such a serious document could lead to errors or omissions, which could lead to lawsuits and increase the City’s liability. The landfill section above provided numerous examples of how the diverse hazards associated with the Baylands site need to be considered in a cumulative fashion. The following bullets provide further examples. I’d also like to clarify that I’m not suggesting a halt to the review of the current FEIR by the Planning Commission or the public, but instead making a case that the City Council deserves to a thorough analysis prior to approving the project. ● Noise: During the Sierra Point build-out, the City of Brisbane was inundated with the constant thump of pile driving. The FEIR says that the bowl-like geography of the town was considered in the analysis. As we learned during the Sierra Point construction, sound bounces off the mountain and impacts the existing resident’s quality of life. While the sound isn’t especially loud, it’s jarring and especially frustrating for the people who work from home. NOI-1 says pile driving could increase daytime noise by up to 43 dBA.
However, it is assumed that this number is for one pile driver location, while multiples are possible. Further, the FEIR should include the duration of this increased noise impact in years/months, given that the use of multiple pile drivers is a mitigation technique.
● Water: The FEIR states that CalWater operates five groundwater production wells on the unadjudicated Westside Basin to supply SSF. Per Google: “An unadjudicated water basin is a groundwater or surface water basin where the legal rights to the water have not been formally determined by a court. In simpler terms, it means there's no official, legally binding decision on who owns the water rights within that basin and how much water each person or entity is allowed to extract or use. In these basins, there's no such court-defined allocation. Water users within the basin may have claims to the water, but these claims haven't been legally established or prioritized by a court decree.” While that might seem far-fetched, the Cumulative Impacts chapter (#7) states that in a single drought year there will be 40% less water supply than demand. What happens to the Baylands residents and businesses if CalWater were to lose their claim to this water? Further, the cumulative impacts of inadequate water supply cannot be ignored. While the numbers are reasonable in a normal water year, the CalWater supply is ~40% too low in a single dry year if the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented (which is a best-case scenario). California droughts can last six or seven years. The dry year statistics are dire and a reason for Brisbane Planning Commission should recommend that City Council seriously consider the lower residential alternative in Ch 8 for the security of future Baylands residents, as described later in this letter (#4 below). ● Habitat: BIO-1 requires the total number of individual special-species plants shall be verified at the end of the five-year period. This is insufficient. The number needs to be maintained EVERY year, because these are host species to other critical insects and animals. A one-year drop in the host species can decimate a population of the wildlife that rely on them for food, shelter and reproduction. Beyond the special-species plants, Icehouse Hill provides critical habitat for endangered and special species to the area, but the FEIR says plantings will focus on “non-irrigated, non-invasive vegetation” rather than natives. The native host-plants cannot be substituted by drought-tolerant species.
Additionally, BIO-2 discusses the impacts of the wetland loss during the construction period as well as the human encroachment after construction. However, it does not discuss the impacts of construction-related pollution, which seems like an oversight. ● Dust: MM AQ-1f in the DEIR proposed a conveyor system to move the soil from the eastern part of the site to the western areas for grading, but that option was downplayed in the FEIR. The conveyor would have been a great reduction to soil, dust and air pollution. As described in the fourth paragraph in Chapter 3 of the DEIR, the trucks will take up to 640 round-trips daily over the existing bridge on Tunnel Road for almost 3 years ! This will impact traffic and cause a lot of dust. Why get our hopes up if the conveyor is infeasible? The FEIR should have shared this a a potential mitigation measure so that we can start advocating now for its approval. Since Geneva will be extended over Caltrain, there has to be a process to get the conveyor approved.
3. Phasing is critical because of financial uncertainty Chapter 7 says “Specific Plan development represents 10.7 percent of the 20,629 cumulative units and 22.6 percent of the cumulative 28,722,643 square feet (s.f.) of commercial/office space” of the projects considered, which are shown on the maps as being located between Bayview (in SF), Daly City and San Bruno (near SFO). Additionally, the 2200 residential units of the Baylands are part of 17,042 residential units anticipated within 2.5 miles of the Baylands in Daly City and lower SF areas. Chapter 7 also states that “Baylands and cumulative development would generate more demand for retail space than such projects propose to provide.” The entire supply/demand balance is going to shift for the housing, retail and commercial sectors, and also have major impacts for critical services such as water and power, for access to parks, and for transportation/emergency egress. If the Baylands is only 10.7% of the increased residential and 22.6% of the increased commercial in the nearby area, the financial uncertainty of the Baylands project make the phasing of the project critical for minimizing impacts to Brisbane’s interests. Planning for this much development that doesn’t materialize could bankrupt the City, put its current and future residents at risk and damage the local ecosystem. I have two phasing recommendations.
● The FEIR concisely states that parts of the Baylands Development would not move forward until market conditions favor more development. The City needs to have authority to force the Baylands to execute on some of the promised improvements in a timely fashion (such as capping the landfill, finishing the Icehouse Hill park, finishing the wetlands renovation at Visitacion Creek and along the edge of the lagoon). This upset in the environment could be especially detrimental to local species populations if there is a loss of habitat or impact to migration corridors for longer than expected. While the Developer deserves flexibility with respect timing the construction under adverse market conditions, this should not impact the open space areas that are critical to species survival and migration. Further, some stipulations apply for Visitation Creek and the Lagoon area, but not for Icehouse Hill, which is specifically recognized as critical in Brisbane’s General Plan.
● The final row of the table in Ch 3 states that solar fields should be completed by the end of Phase 1. The completion of Phase 1 is ambiguous and also gives the city no leverage in ensuring it happens. I propose that its completion is tied to issuance of an occupancy permit, similar to the items in the Infrastructure and Amenities section of that table.
4. Alternatives
I ask the Planning Commission to seriously consider Alternative #7: Reduced Density, Lower Building Height. It is the environmentally preferred alternative. It meets the project objectives while reducing four of the significant impacts (AQ-1, NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-3), as well as the now-deleted GHG-1 impact. In Chapter 8, the threat of State-mandated increases in residential zoning tied to the 2031 Housing Element looms over the reduced residential density alternatives (#5, #6 and #7). But it’s disingenuous for a few reasons. First, the minimum value of 1800 units from Measure JJ is already 13% (212 units) above what the state mandated in the 2023-2031 planning cycle (1588 units). Second, there are other locations in Brisbane where housing is being added or discussed. Third, the Baylands is going to take 20 years to build, so if we come to a point in 5 years (2031) where we need to increase the zoning allowance, there is still time to do so.
5. Bayshore Mobility
It’s heartening to see the public outcry about the Bayshore Mobility Plan, which appears in the FEIR (though interestingly it is not the BSP). I recommend that the City reassess the Bayshore Mobility Plan for two reasons. First, it is not consistent with GP-1-18. The ‘road diet’ proposal to reduce Bayshore Blvd to one lane in each direction will significantly impact the emergency evacuation for existing residents of Brisbane and Visitacion Valley, and possibly also for the new Baylands residents. This is counter to Brisbane Policy C.46 on emergency evacuation.
Second, while the road diet will reduce the “desirability of the corridor for regional through traffic”, it is naïve to ignore the proximity to Highway 101. When there is a standstill, the regional streets will be used as a bypass, regardless of how many lanes are available. Dropping to one lane in each direction will greatly impact the mobility of Brisbane residents.
Conclusion
This will likely be the biggest project in Brisbane’s existence, past and present. Rushing will lead to mistakes that put the City and it’s residents in jeopardy. I appreciate your time and dedication in thorough review of this project and in consideration of my recommendations:
1. Require inclusion of the landfill’s closure conditions as part of Cumulative Impacts in the FEIR
2. Contract an independent peer review the FEIR to protect the City from liability and to ensure the heath and safety of Brisbane’s current and future residents and its unique habitat
3. Address concerns in the project phasing to protect Brisbane’s interests given the market uncertainty
4. Seriously consider FEIR Alternate #7: Reduced Density / Reduced Maximum Building Height as the recommendation put forth for approval by City Council
5. Ask the City to reconsider the Bayshore Mobility Plan Again, I appreciate the opportunity to provide public comment. I wish I had time to write up my review of this important FEIR prior to OSECs deadline before our meeting last week.
Regards,
Erin