-1-
City of Brisbane
City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Monday, September 14, 2026 at 5:30 PM ● Hybrid Meeting ● 50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA The public may observe/participate in City Council meetings using remote public comment options or by attending in person. The City Council may take action on any item listed in the agenda.
To Address the Council
In Person:
Location: Community Meeting Room 50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA 94005 To address the City Council on any item – whether on the posted agenda or not – please fill out a Request to Speak Form located in the Community Meeting Room Lobby and submit it to the City Clerk, preferably before the start of the meeting. Speakers are not required to submit their name or address.
Remote Participation:
Members of the public may observe/participate in the City Council meeting by logging into the Zoom Webinar listed below. City Council meetings may also be viewed live and/or on-demand via the City’s YouTube Channel, youtube.com/brisbaneca, or on Comcast Ch. 27. Archived videos may be replayed on the City’s website, brisbaneca.org/meetings. Please be advised that if there are technological difficulties, the meeting will nevertheless continue if remote participation is available.
The agenda materials may be viewed online at brisbaneca.gov at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting, and at least 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting.
Remote Public Comments:
Remote meeting participants may address the City Council via Zoom Webinar. Aside from commenting personally while in the Zoom Webinar, you can also use the call in number. The public comments received will be noted for the record during Oral Communications 1 and 2 or during an agenda item. We encourage you to email comments in advance of the meeting to [email protected]. That email address, however, will not be monitored during the meeting and emails received during the meeting will not be responded to or brought to the attention of the City Council during the meeting.
Join Zoom Webinar: zoom.us (please use the latest version: zoom.us/download) brisbaneca.gov/cc-zoom
Webinar ID: 991 9362 8666
Call In Number: 1 (669) 900-9128
Note: Callers dial *9 to “raise hand” and dial *6 to mute/unmute.
Special Assistance:
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (415) 508- 2113.
Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
September 14, 2026 -2- 5:30 PM
Writings that Are Received After the Agenda Has Been Posted Any writings that are received after the agenda has been posted but before 4pm of the day of the meeting will be available for public inspection at the front lobby in City Hall and on the internet (brisbaneca.gov/meetings).
Any writings that are received after 4pm of the day of the meeting will be distributed to the Council and made available for public inspection at the front lobby and on the internet the day after the meeting (brisbaneca.gov/meetings).
Call to Order – Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
A. Remote Attendance Under the Just Cause Provisions of the Brown Act Adoption of Agenda
Public Hearing
B. Consideration of proposed Baylands Specific Plan and related actions, including amendments to the Brisbane General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements, amendments to Title Section 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code to establish zoning regulations, adoption of the Bayshore Mobility Plan, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Adjournment
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 1 of 11
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 14, 2026
From: Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
Subject: Baylands Subarea; Environmental Review 2021-ER-1, Specific Plan 2021-SP-1, Zoning Amendment 2021-RZ-3, General Plan Amendment 2021-GPA-2; Proposed Baylands Specific Plan including 2,200 residential units; 6.5 million square feet of commercial, office, retail, conference, life science, and office campus uses; 500,000 square feet of hotel use (approximately 800 rooms); a grade 6–8 middle school; 157 acres of open space/open area, parks, and trails; water, recycled water, sewer, drainage, electrical, and other utilities improvements on approximately 680.1 acres generally situated easterly of Bayshore Boulevard and west of Highway 101; Related actions include amending the Brisbane General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements, Amending Title Section 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code to establish zoning regulations, and adopting the Bayshore Mobility Plan. A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Baylands Development Inc., applicant; Sunquest Properties, majority owner; see Attachment 3 for a complete list of owners.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan has been prepared in accordance with Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15090 and that the Council approve the project entitlements, which include:
• Amend the General Plan Land Use Element in accordance with Government Code sections 65350 to 65362.
• Amend the General Plan Circulation Element in accordance with Government Code sections 65350 to 65362.
• Adopt the Staff-Recommended Baylands Specific Plan, dated May 2026, with clarifying edits, in accordance with Government Code sections 65450 and 65850 as a zoning ordinance. • Amend Title 17, Zoning, of the Brisbane Municipal Code (BMC) to implement the Baylands Specific Plan for Modified Alternative 1, in accordance with Government Code sections 65800 to 65912.
• Approve the Bayshore Mobility Plan, which will enhance mobility of Brisbane residents along the corridor within the City of Brisbane, consistent with the Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element.
Introduction
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 2 of 11
As one of Brisbane’s largest and most prominent potential development sites, the Baylands has raised significant questions related to environmental conditions, safety, land use, and the overall impact on the community. To analyze and balance these issues, the City has undertaken comprehensive planning effort for the subarea over the past two decades involving public workshops and planning charettes, community surveys, Planning Commission and City Council hearings regarding General Plan amendments and associated environmental review, and a successful ballot measure (Measure JJ) authorizing Bayland development subject to specified conditions, including the preparation and adoption of a Specific Plan to guide development throughout the subarea.
Tonight is the first City Council public hearing regarding the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and related approvals. The Council will consider the project materials through a structured series of hearings organized around Measure JJ requirements and the major components of the Baylands Specific Plan and FEIR. This approach allows both the Council and the public to review the material in manageable segments while tracking how the project is consistent with Measure JJ’s various requirements.
Tonight's topics include discussions of:
• Measure JJ and the General Plan requirements that govern the Baylands Specific Plan; • The Specific Plan’s sustainability program and designing for ongoing energy neutrality(Measure JJ Topic 3.G); and
• Air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts and associated mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
Background
The applicant, Baylands Development Inc. (BDI), submitted a revised Specific Plan in 2025, which was analyzed in the 2025 Draft EIR (published April 3, 2025; 151-day public comment period concluding September 2, 2025). Following the close of the comment period, City staff and its environmental and planning consultants (Environmental Science Associates, or ESA; Fehr & Peers; and others) prepared the 2026 Staff-Recommended Specific Plan () and the Final EIR (), both published May 14, 2026. The Draft EIR’s analysis and mitigation measures were prepared in response to the 2025 Specific Plan; the Final EIR analyzes the 2026 Specific Plan recommended for approval as “Modified Alternative 1.” The Final EIR’s analysis demonstrates that the 2026 Staff-Recommended Specific Plan would not have new or more severe environmental effects than the 2025 Specific Plan analyzed in the Draft EIR, and many of the 2026 Specific Plan’s features result in superior environmental outcomes compared with the Draft EIR.
Following City Council approval, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in the Final EIR would apply to the Specific Plan in its final form.
The 2026 Staff-Recommended Specific Plan and Final EIR are described and discussed in detail in the June 25, 2026 Planning Commission staff report ().
The Planning Commission's review of the project proceeded as follows (full detail and attachments for each Commission meeting are included in Attachment 4-9):
• May 28, 2026 — Workshop 1 of 2: Specific Plan overview, chapter-by-chapter summary, and key changes recommended by staff to the applicant's 2025 plan. • June 11, 2026 — Workshop 2 of 2: FEIR overview, CEQA process, and the Bayshore Mobility Plan (BMP).
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 3 of 11
• June 25, 2026 — Public hearing opened; staff presentation, public testimony; Commission requested follow-up information on five topics, including the relationship between the 2025/2026 plan revisions and the FEIR, remediation, City liability, GHG analysis, and Measure JJ sustainability/energy-neutrality consistency.
• June 30, 2026 — Continued hearing; staff responses to the five topics above; hearing continued. • July 23, 2026 — Continued hearing; additional staff responses (BMP integration, net-zero project examples, Schlage Lock site remediation comparison, site environmental management associations); staff-recommended clarifications to Specific Plan Chapter 3 (density/intensity averaging, hospitality use table) and Chapter 9 (remediation-related permitting); public hearing closed; Commission deliberated and adopted Planning Commission Resolution PC-01-26 () recommending City Council approval of the Bayshore Mobility Plan with two modifications (limiting BMP improvements to those needed to implement Mitigation Measures TRA-2a, 3f, 3i, and 3n, and excluding the four-to-two lane “road diet” pending further engineering study), continuing final deliberations.
• August 13, 2026 — Continued deliberations on mobility/neighborhood design, sustainability and energy, remediation monitoring and City liability, and land use/municipal code alignment (biosafety level thresholds, Dark Sky Ordinance); Commission finalized its recommendation to the City Council on the Specific Plan, General Plan and zoning amendments, and FEIR certification as reflected in Planning Commission Resolution 2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2 ().
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the Specific Plan, subject to further recommended revisions and additions. The Planning Commission’s recommendation to Council encompasses the following modifications to the Specific Plan and policy issues for further Council consideration:
• Remediation: All reporting submitted to regulatory agencies should be concurrently submitted to the City for the City to make available to the public. Regulatory reports should be current at time of permit issuance, inspection, and occupancy; if not, City will withhold or permits or cease processing. Post-occupancy, regulatory reports must remain current and submitted concurrently to the City to make available for public inspection. If not, the matter would be addressed by the City through various oversight mechanisms including discretionary permit revocation (if applicable), or code enforcement.
• Energy: An audit mechanism monitoring the project’s energy use and generation over build out, that has built in consequences should targets not be reached, should be implemented. • Lab Uses: Chapter 3 land use regulations should be amended to require Conditional Use Permit approval for laboratory uses classified as BSL-3 and above. • Circulation: Council should consider restricting use and/or design of Class I facilities specifically to avoid collisions between pedestrians and cyclists with e-bikes and e-scooters. Council should consider upgrading the Baylands-Central Brisbane shuttle schedule to serve during the afternoon and later in the evening.
• Mission Blue Nursery: Recommend Council allow nursery to remain in its current location unless or until a feasible option can be provided.
• Open Space: Conservation easements beyond what the Plan presently envisions should be required for all open space areas, per the Sierra Club's June 10 letter. • Implementation: Council should implement staff’s recommended edits presented in the 7/23 agenda report to clarify the anticipated remediation process and relationship to city permitting.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 4 of 11
• Hospitality Zoning and Building Types: Council should implement staff’s recommended edits to Chapter 3 presented in the 7/23 agenda report to clarify that hospitality uses and building types are permitted in the medium density commercial district. • Residential Density and Commercial Intensity: Council should implement staff’s recommended edits to Chapter 3 presented in the 7/23 agenda report to clarify that minimum residential density and commercial intensity standards are applied on an average basis by land use designation and are not evaluated on a block-by-block basis.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation on the Bayshore Mobility Plan is that the Council adopt the Bayshore Mobility Plan elements that implement mitigation measures in the Final EIR, excluding all other elements including a road diet on Bayshore Boulevard. The Commission recommended further study of the feasibility for a continuous pedestrian/bike facility or sidewalk without a road diet.
Discussion
Overview of Measure JJ and General Plan Requirements
Measure JJ (General Plan Amendment GPA‑1‑18), approved by 55% of Brisbane voters in November 2018, established the land use framework for the Baylands subarea: a Planned Development designation allowing a range of 1,800–2,220 housing units (limited to the northwest portion of the site), up to 6.5 million square feet of commercial uses, and an additional 500,000 square feet of hotel space. Measure JJ also set out standards to be incorporated into the Specific Plan and an associated development agreement for the Baylands subarea. As described in detail in the June 25, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Report () and Chapter 1, Table 1.4.1 of the Specific Plan, those requirements include, among others:
1 • Approved remediation and landfill-closure plans in compliance with Title 27 (Measure JJ Topics 3.A,
3.C, 3.F, 3.K —anticipated to be discussed October 6);
• Enforceable cleanup schedules and phasing tied to remediation milestones (Measure JJ Topics
3.A/3.D/3.K — anticipated to be discussed October 6);
• Proof of a reliable water supply prior to site development (Measure JJ Topic 3.B — anticipated to be discussed October 6);
• Revenue-positive development for the City at all stages of buildout (Measure JJ Topics 3.D/3.E — anticipated to be discussed October 15);
• Preservation and enhancement of key habitat areas and open space (Measure JJ Topic 3.H — anticipated to be discussed September 29);
• Protection and adaptive reuse of the historic Roundhouse (Measure JJ Topic 3.I — anticipated to be discussed September 29);
• Resilience to sea level rise (Measure JJ Topic 3.J — anticipated to be discussed September 29); • A transportation and transit program addressing mobility within and around the site (Measure JJ Topic 3.D — anticipated to be discussed September 29); and • A sustainability framework for new development consistent with the City's 2015 Sustainability Framework for the Brisbane Baylands, with development designed to be “energy neutral on an ongoing basis” (Measure JJ Topic 3.G — discussed below). 1 Specific Plan, Table 1.4.1, "General Plan Baylands Provisions Compliance" (pp. 1-10 to 1-14).
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 5 of 11
To approve the project, the Council will need to find that the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, including Measure JJ’s policies. A truncated summary of staff’s analysis of Measure JJ/General Plan consistency is provided in . The June 25, 2026, Planning Commission agenda report () sets out staff's analysis provided to the Planning Commission regarding consistency in greater detail, organized by Specific Plan chapter; staff will not repeat that chapter-by-chapter analysis here except as it relates to the topics below.
Energy Use and Sustainability Framework Consistency (Measure JJ Topic 3.G) Measure JJ provision 3.G (General Plan Policy BL.1(G)) states: “The required specific plan for the Baylands shall include a sustainability program for new development consistent with the principles of the Sustainability Framework for the Brisbane Baylands, Final Report accepted by the City Council on November 5, 2015. The Baylands development shall be designed so as to be energy neutral on an ongoing basis.2”
Specific Plan Chapter 4 (Sustainability) is intended to satisfy this requirement. Its policies and standards are built around the City's Sustainability Framework for the Baylands, which itself is based on the One Planet Living program's ten guiding principles: Zero Carbon Buildings, Zero Waste, Sustainable Transport, Local and Sustainable Materials, Local and Sustainable Food, Sustainable Water, Open Space and Habitat, Culture and Heritage, Economic Vitality with Equity and Ecology, and Recreation, Health, Safety and Happiness. Specific Plan Table 4.2.1, Summary of One Planet Principles for The Baylands (Chapter 4, pages 4-2 through 4-5), sets out staff's analysis of the Specific Plan’s consistency with each principle; the key commitments under each are summarized below.3
• Zero-Carbon Buildings — development under the Specific Plan is projected to generate a minimum of 85,000 megawatt hours (MWh) per year of on-site solar generation (rooftops, parking areas, and a 55-acre solar farm), which would be supported by 30 megawatts (MW) of distributed on-site battery storage and augmented with the use of WestLight Energy's 100% renewable electricity to the maximum extent allowed by law, and new development is required to be all-electric residential and commercial buildings with no new natural gas service; • Zero Waste — 90% diversion of non-hazardous construction/demolition waste from landfills (per City ordinance), 100% recycling/salvage of inert excavation and land-clearing material, and a zerowaste program (with Recology San Francisco) targeting 90% diversion of ongoing non-hazardous waste;
• Sustainable Transport — a transit-served, pedestrian-oriented mix of uses; electric vehicle (EV) charging, shuttle systems, and secure bike parking; and shared workspaces to reduce off-site travel demand;
• Local and Sustainable Materials and Food — material standards for embodied carbon and lowemitting products; a farmers' market/food truck space, an urban farm or community garden, and coordination with the City's Economic Vitality Director and Chamber of Commerce to attract a grocery/supermarket use;
• Sustainable Water — a Water Recycling Facility and “purple pipe” recycled water system; flood and sea-level-rise protection through 2100 per Measure JJ Topic 3.J (General Plan Policy BL.1(J)) and FEIR Mitigation Measures MM HWQ-3a/3b; stormwater detention to prevent any net increase in 2 General Plan Policy BL.1(G); Specific Plan, Table 1.4.1 (pp. 1-10 to 1-14) and Chapter 7, § 7.2.5. 3 Specific Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4.2.1, "Summary of One Planet Principles for The Baylands" (pp. 4-2 to 4-5).
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 6 of 11
peak flows; and wetland restoration providing natural runoff treatment (more details anticipated at the October 6, 2026, meeting regarding water infrastructure); • Open Space and Habitat — 148.4 acres (27.9% of land area) of open space, exceeding the General Plan's 25% requirement, plus restoration of Visitacion Creek, the lagoon's north shore, and Icehouse Hill butterfly habitat (Measure JJ Topic 3.H – September 29, 2026, meeting); • Culture and Heritage — rehabilitation of the historic Roundhouse for community use, a Baylands Public Art Program, and a new library within the Specific Plan area (Measure JJ Topic 3.I – September 29, 2026, meeting); and
• Economic Vitality and Recreation/Health/Safety/Happiness – addressed throughout the Land Use, Circulation, and Open Space chapters (September 29, 2026, meeting).
Other key features of the energy and green building program • At least 85,000 MWh/year of renewable electricity generated within the Baylands; the Final EIR models approximately 92,445 MWh/year at full buildout;
4 • At least 30 MW of distributed battery storage; the Specific Plan also permits additional battery storage, including a potential centralized utility-scale battery storage facility or facilities up to 500 MW in capacity to serve as a regional grid resource;;
• All-electric new buildings (no natural gas service) and compliance with CALGreen Tier 1 requirements for insulation, energy and water conservation, cool roofs, solar panels, net metering, EV charging, HVAC, and window/lighting standards, updated to reflect that EV-ready infrastructure formerly under CALGreen Tier 1 (2022) is now mandatory under the 2025 code; • Compliance with the most current applicable CALGreen Tier 2 EV-charging requirements, or more stringent City requirements, as required by Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1k; 5 • Green building certification: LEED Gold Building Design + Construction (BD+C) for commercial buildings and GreenPoint Rated checklists for residential buildings, each in effect at the time of a development application, secured and paid for by the developer; and • A 90% non-hazardous waste diversion program under the Zero Waste principle, added by staff in the 2026 Staff-Recommended Specific Plan to strengthen alignment with the One Planet principles.
At the June 30, 2026, Commission hearing, the Planning Commission requested that staff specifically address whether the project complies with Measure JJ’s requirement that development be “energy neutral on an ongoing basis.” Staff responded that it is staff’s conclusion that the Specific Plan meets this requirement, based on the fact that 100 percent of projected building energy demand at buildout would be supplied by renewable sources – at least 85,000 MWh/year generated on-site, with any remaining demand met through 100 percent renewable electricity purchased from WestLight Energy.
This approach can be found to fulfill the Sustainability Framework’s zero-carbon-buildings objective through renewable generation rather than relying on offsets or carbon credits. The EIR’s energy analysis (Impacts EN-1 and EN-2)6concludes that the combination of onsite renewable generation, battery storage, all electric buildings, the transit oriented site design, and the Transportation Demand Management program would avoid wasteful or inefficient energy consumption and would not conflict with applicable regional or local energy plans, including Plan Bay Area 2050 and the City’s Climate Action 4 FEIR, Volume 2, § 4.11 (Energy Resources), pp. 4.11-1 to 4.11-43. 5 FEIR, Volume 5, Chapter 15, pp. 15-54 to 15-62.
6 FEIR, Volume 2, § 4.11 (Energy Resources), pp. 4.11-1 to 4.11-43.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 7 of 11
Plan. Together, this analysis can support the conclusion that the 2026 Staff Recommended Specific Plan is consistent with the Sustainability Framework's principles and Measure JJ's policy that development be designed to be energy-neutral on an ongoing basis.
Planning Commission Recommendation- Energy Auditing and Enforcement At its August 13, 2026, meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the value of verifying, over time, that the Baylands' actual energy performance matches the design-stage commitments described above.
The Commission recommended that the City Council consider developing metrics for auditing actual annual post-occupancy energy use, on-site renewable energy generation, and battery performance at the Baylands – potentially through a periodic performance audit or public reporting requirement – so the City and public can track real-world performance against the projections anticipated by today’s analysis as the project builds out over its approximately 20-year horizon. 7 Collecting full-site energy-use and solar-production data for the Baylands would be complex and challenging. Utility privacy rules limits access to detailed consumption information, and utility data does not capture solar generation produced and consumed onsite. Obtaining complete data would require coordinated participation from multiple building owners and tenants, continuous upkeep of data‑collection systems, and reliance on information sources that may remain incomplete or inconsistent. As a result, any reporting framework would likely provide only a partial picture of overall energy performance.
Several potential data‑collection approaches exist, each with notable limitations:
• A developer-managed consent system, requiring individual authorization from owners and tenants for both utility and solar‑inverter data. Authorizations expire periodically, and participation would likely be uneven.
• Use of aggregated utility data obtained through an authorized partnership, supplemented with modeled solar-production estimates; modeled values cannot fully reflect real-world operating conditions.
Brisbane Building Efficiency Program (BBEP) reporting required under Chapter 15.77 of the BMC, which provides annual energy and water data – including separated energy use and solar production – for buildings over 10,000 square feet. This would allow for partial aggregation for Baylands buildings covered by the program. However, the BBEP excludes smaller and residential buildings and requires staff involvement, which may become more challenging as the number of covered buildings increases.
The difficulty of obtaining complete, building‑level energy data also affects enforceability. Privacy rules, fragmented ownership, and limits on City authority over post‑occupancy behavior constrain the City’s ability to enforce requirements tied to real‑world operational outcomes rather than prescriptive design standards.
For example, the City’s BBEP – described above – achieves a roughly 95% compliance rate because it requires annual reporting and verification of prescriptive reductions in greenhouse‑gas emissions, energy use, and water consumption, with enforcement through notices of violation and citations under 7 August 13, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum ().
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 8 of 11
the BMC. These requirements regulate reporting and compliance with defined standards, not a building’s actual day‑to‑day energy performance.
In contrast, enforcing operational performance – such as requiring buildings to meet specific real‑world energy‑use targets or ensuring on‑site solar and battery systems achieve a projected performance – would face other practical barriers. The City has limited authority to influence occupant behavior or the functioning of privately owned energy systems. As a result, the most effective enforceability tools remain prescriptive, design‑stage requirements applied during permitting. Staff has not identified any changes to the Specific Plan in response to this recommendation.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality
The EIR identifies one significant and unavoidable air quality impact: Impact AQ-1 (Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants for which the Bay Area Air Basin is in Nonattainment), which remains significant at both the project and cumulative level even after all feasible mitigation. Mitigation measures address off-road construction emissions sources (fugitive dust best management practices, cleaner off-road equipment, low-VOC coatings), on-road construction emissions sources including emissions associated with soilmovement activities (best available control technology for relocating excavated soil from east to west across the site, cleaner on-road trucks), and operational sources (cleaner emergency generators, lowVOC coatings and consumer products, electric landscaping equipment, EV charging beyond code requirements, and controls for truck idling and loading docks). Impact AQ-2, addressing localized exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and associated health risks to sensitive receptors, is reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation.8 Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1c’s cleaner off-road construction-equipment requirements reduced cancer risk below the applicable significance threshold, with other Impact AQ-1 mitigation measures providing additional reductions. Additionally, the 2022 California Energy Code requirement that all residential and school buildings provide mechanical ventilation equivalent to MERV-13 filtration further reduces exposure to TACs.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Final EIR evaluates the significance of the project’s GHG emissions under two specific thresholds identified in the EIR: GHG-2, addressing effects on regional GHG emissions, and GHG-3, addressing consistency with applicable GHG-reduction plans, policies, performance standards, and regulations. The EIR concludes that GHG-2 is less than significant and GHG-3 is less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures (specifically MM LUP-2 "Consistency with General Plan Policy C.41 and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (Resolution No. 4530)" and MM AQ-1k “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure").
Note that the Draft EIR included additional mitigation measures that were modified in connection with the preparation of the 2026 Staff Recommended Specific Plan. Because the project would result in a regional reduction in vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, the draft mitigation measure calling for mandatory offsets was removed from the Final EIR. Other design commitments identified in the Draft EIR that contribute to GHG emission reductions (such as low-GWP refrigerants; preferred parking for alternative-fueled/rideshare vehicles; zero-emission or 100% renewable fuel shuttle service; 8 FEIR, Volume 2, § 4.9 (Air Quality), pp. 4.9-1 to 4.9-56.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 9 of 11
and 100% renewable fuel wastewater reclamation facility operation) are incorporated into the Specific Plan's Sustainability Framework in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan, which further contributes to the project’s environmental performance. The Final EIR concludes that project GHG emissions would not be significant and unavoidable:
• Impact GHG-2 (regional GHG emissions) – less than significant. The Baylands' 2,200 dwelling units,
6.5 million square feet of commercial use, and 500,000 square feet of hotel use are already accounted for in Plan Bay Area 2050's regional growth projections; because the project's transitoriented location and design would reduce regional mobile-source GHG emissions relative to that same growth occurring elsewhere in the region, Impact GHG-2 is less than significant without mitigation;9and
• Impact GHG-3 (consistency with climate plans, policies, and standards) – less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Final EIR found the project consistent with most Bay Area Air District 2022 CEQA threshold elements (no natural gas service; not wasteful/inefficient per Impact EN-1; and, per the Transportation analysis, per-capita VMT for Baylands residents and employees more than 35% below the nine-county regional average) and with CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan actions. However, as originally proposed, the project would not have met CALGreen Tier 2 voluntary EV charging standards (proposing EV infrastructure at 6,924 of the Plan's maximum 11,000 parking spaces) and would have been inconsistent with MTC's Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (Resolution No. 4530) — both of which the Final EIR treated as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM LUP-2 (the same minimum-density/FAR standard scheduled for discussion at the September 29, 2026, meeting – 25 du/acre and FAR 2.0 within onehalf mile of the Bayshore Caltrain Station, plus reduced parking ratios for lower-density housing types) resolves the MTC policy inconsistency, and Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1k (requiring compliance with current CALGreen Tier 2 EV charging standards) resolves the EV charging shortfall; together they bring Impact GHG-3 to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.10 Fiscal Impact
Measure JJ requires that Baylands development be revenue positive to the City on an annual basis where all City costs (e.g., annual operating costs, maintenance and replacement of equipment, facilities, infrastructure, cultural resource and habitat protection and management etc.) are exceeded by Project generated revenues to the City (e.g., to the City’s General Fund, enterprise funds, special funds, etc.) during all phases of development and upon final buildout (provision 3.E). The applicant has prepared a fiscal impact analysis for the project. This analysis is undergoing peer review by the City’s consultant Keyser Marston Associates. The fiscal impact analysis and results of the peer review by Keyser Marston will be attached to a future staff report for the public and Council’s consideration, currently anticipated to be addressed at the Council’s October 15, 2026, meeting.
Environmental Impact
A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #2006022136) has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIR includes the Draft EIR (DEIR), revisions to the DEIR, comments received on the DEIR, a list of commenters, the City’s responses to significant environmental points raised during the DEIR comment period, and any other information 9 FEIR, Volume 5, Chapter 15, pp. 15-51 to 15-53.
10 FEIR, Volume 5, Chapter 15, pp. 15-54 to 15-62 (Mitigation Measures MM LUP-2 and MM AQ-1k).
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 10 of 11 added by the City. Should the Council act to certify the Final EIR, it will need to make Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations, as well as adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, consistent with CEQA statutory requirements.
Attachments
1. 2026 Staff Recommended Specific Plan (link)
2. 2026 Final EIR (link)
3. Staff-Recommended Baylands Specific Plan General Plan/Measure JJ Consistency
4. June 25, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Report (includes full project background, chronology, and Planning Commission recommendation) (link)
5. August 13, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum (link)
6. July 23, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum (link)
7. June 30, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum (link)
8. June 11, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum and workshop presentation (FEIR overview) a. Memorandum (link)
b. Workshop Presentation (link)
9. May 28, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum and workshop presentation (Specific Plan overview)
a. Memorandum (link)
b. Workshop Presentation (link)
10. Planning Commission Resolution 2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2 (recommending the City Council (1) Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, (2) Approve the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan, (3) Amend Title 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code, and (4) Amend the Brisbane General Plan’s Land Use and Circulation Elements)
11. Planning Commission Resolution PC-01-26 (recommending the City Council adopt the Bayshore Mobility Plan, with modifications) pursuant to General Plan Circulation Element Policy C.1 and Program C.1.B)
12. Redline copies of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments a. Map Amendments
i. GP Circulation Element - Proposed Figure C-3 (Draft) (link) ii. GP Circulation Element - Proposed Figure C-4 (Draft) (link) iii. GP Land Use Map - Proposed Baylands Specific Plan Land Use (Draft) (link) iv. Zoning Map - Proposed Baylands Specific Plan Zoning District (Draft) (link) b. Text Amendments
v. BMC Title 17 Zoning - Redline (link)
vi. General Plan Chapter 5 Land Use - Redline (link)
vii. General Plan Chapter 6 Circulation - Redline (link)
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1 Page 11 of 11
13. Additional net-zero/carbon-neutral project comparison materials (referenced in July 23, 2026, memorandum, Attachment 4) (link)
14. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 28 to August 13, 2026 (Adopted and Draft)
15. Notice of Public Hearing: Planning Commission – June 25, 2026 (link)
16. Notice of Public Hearing: City Council – September 4, 2026 ___________________________________ ________________________________ Julia Ayres, Community Development Director Jeremy Dennis, City Manager JuliaAyres
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment 1: 2026 Staff Recommended Specific Plan
2026 Staff Recommended Specific Plan
https://www.brisbaneca.gov/775/2026-Baylands-Specific-Plan 1
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 2: 2026 Final EIR
2026 Final EIR
https://www.brisbaneca.gov/774/2026-Final-EIR
1
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 3
Staff-Recommended Baylands Specific Plan General Plan/Measure JJ Consistency (EXTRACTED AND ANNOTATED FROM TABLE ERROR! NO TEXT OF SPECIFIED STYLE IN DOCUMENT..1 OF THE BAYLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN) General Plan Baylands Provisions
(MEASURE JJ)
Compliance Summary in the BSP Where to find in the BSP, EIR, or Other Documents
Policy BL1. Development within The Baylands
Subarea shall be subject to the City’s approval of
a single specific plan for the entirety of The
Baylands Subarea and a development agreement
that is consistent with General Plan policies,
incorporates all applicable EIR mitigation
measures, and is consistent with the following
standards:
This single Specific Plan has been prepared
for the entirety of the Baylands Subarea and
those portions of the Beatty Subarea that are
also owned by Sunquest and managed by
BDI. A Development Agreement will be
required pursuant to General Plan Policy GP1-18 and will be considered in connection with implementation of the Specific Plan.
Chapter 01, Introduction, through
Chapter 09, Implementation
A. The single Specific Plan and development
agreement subject to City review and
approval referenced above shall include:
i) Detailed plans for Title 27 compliant
closure of the landfill and Remedial
Action Plans for OU-1 and OU-2 that have
been approved by all appropriate
regulatory agencies, which include, but
shall not be limited to, CalRecycle, the San
Mateo County Environmental Health
Department, the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) have been
completed and were approved for OU-1
(hereafter referenced as OU-SM) and OU-2
by the appropriate regulatory agencies. The
lead environmental oversight agency for OUSM is the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the lead for
OU-2 is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay
RWQCB). Remedial Design Implementation
Plans (RDIPs) are currently being prepared
for review and approval by the DTSC and San
Francisco Bay RWQCB. The RDIPs will reflect
updated remediation schedules consistent
with current agency requirements. The
Landfill Closure Plan prepared in compliance
Chapter 01, Introduction; Chapter 09,
Implementation; Remedial Action Plans
(RAPS-SM & OU-2); Landfill Closure Plan
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Auto
Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Auto
Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Auto
Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Auto
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 3
General Plan Baylands Provisions
(MEASURE JJ)
Compliance Summary in the BSP Where to find in the BSP, EIR, or Other Documents
with Title 27 was submitted to the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB, CalRecycle, and San
Mateo County Environmental Health and has
been approved. The Landfill Closure Plan for
the landfill protects human health and the
environment through the required
implementation of specific grading and
remediation activities. Anticipated
remediation and closure sequencing is
provided in Chapter 09, Implementation.
ii) A specific schedule establishing the time
frames by which (i) the landfill must be
closed in full compliance with Title 27 and
(ii) the remediation of OU-1 and OU-2
must be completed
Tentative schedules for completing
remediation of OU-SM and OU-2 are
presented in the approved RAPs. The
projected completion date for site
remediation is mid-2027. These schedules
will be updated in the RDIP documents and
detailed schedules for the implementation of
each remediation element will be provided in
those documents. A schedule for completion
of the landfill closure was provided in the
Landfill Closure Plan, which indicated that
the schedule for completing the landfill
closure is within 10 years of its approval.
These schedules are incorporated into
Chapter 09, Implementation.
Chapter 09, Implementation, Section 9.3,
Specific Plan Implementation; Remedial
Action Plans (RAPS-SM & OU-2); Landfill
Closure Plan
iii) Specific means by which the City may
enforce the applicant’s adherence to the
schedule for closure and remediation and
specific consequences, e.g., monetary
penalties, suspension of building permits,
The Specific Plan and approved RAPs identify
regulatory orders, which include financial
assurance requirements and mechanisms
that the lead environmental oversight
agencies (i.e., DTSC and San Francisco Bay
Chapter 09, Implementation, Section 9.3,
Specific Plan Implementation; Remedial
Action Plans (RAPS-SM & OU-2)
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 3
General Plan Baylands Provisions
(MEASURE JJ)
Compliance Summary in the BSP Where to find in the BSP, EIR, or Other Documents
etc., that the City may impose on the
applicant for failing to adhere to the
schedule
RWQCB) will use as legally binding
mechanisms to compel the applicant’s
adherence to closure and remediation scopes
and schedules. The Development Agreement
with the City will include City compliance
enforcement provisions to ensure timely
completion of remediation requirements.
The Development Agreement also includes
the requirement that remediation be
completed prior to initiating construction
activities.
B. A reliable water supply approved by the City
of Brisbane to support proposed uses within
The Baylands shall be secured prior to site
development.
California Water Service Company (Cal
Water) is identified as the intended water
service provider for The Baylands, Sierra
Point, and Beatty areas, consistent with the
Water Supply Assessment approved by Cal
Water. Formal provision of water service
remains subject to applicable regulatory
approvals, service territory actions,
infrastructure planning, and project-level
water supply verification. Water to The
Baylands is anticipated to be provided by
existing turnouts from the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) regional
water system; no new turnouts or other
infrastructure are needed or proposed to
deliver potable water to The Baylands.
Chapter 07, Infrastructure, Section 7.5.3,
The Baylands Supply
C. All residential development shall be designed
and remediated to accommodate ground
level residential uses and ground level
The RAPs for OU-SM and OU-2, approved by
the DTSC and San Francisco Bay RWQCB,
provide for these at-grade conditions and
Remedial Action Plans (RAPS-SM & OU-2);
Chapter 03, Development and Design
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 3
General Plan Baylands Provisions
(MEASURE JJ)
Compliance Summary in the BSP Where to find in the BSP, EIR, or Other Documents
residential-supportive uses such as daycare,
parks, schools, playgrounds, and medical
facilities.
uses. (Note: Residential land use is prohibited
within the landfill footprint.) The open space
plan organized a central open space serving
the Bayshore and Roundhouse districts and
adjacent development areas along Geneva
Avenue. The approved RAPs require that
OU-SM and OU-2 be remediated to a level
that is safe for at-grade amenities including
residences, playgrounds, and park space.
Standards, Section 3.2, Building Type
Standards
D. Each increment of development shall be
provided with appropriate transportation
related and other infrastructure, facilities,
and site amenities as determined by the City.
Such transportation related and other
infrastructure, facilities, and site amenities
(e.g., parks, open space preservation, habitat
enhancement) shall be provided at the
developer’s cost.
The Specific Plan accounts for all land use,
circulation, and infrastructure demands of
the new community and ensures that all of
these components and their needs are
properly assessed, mitigated, and provided
for in a timely manner. The identified
infrastructure requirements are based upon
the land use program and urban design
standards. The actual provision and phasing
of infrastructure will occur through Public
Improvements Plans to be submitted as part
of development proposals. This approach
ensures that the impacts on City
infrastructure systems—sewer, drainage, and
circulation—that are produced by the
buildout of The Baylands will be largely
mitigated on the site.
Chapter 00, Vision and Executive Summary,
Section 0.5, Community Design Structure;
Chapter 02, Land Use Program and
Planning Districts, Section 2.3, Land Use
Program; Chapter 05, Conservation and
Open Space, Section 5.3.4, Open Space
Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement;
Chapter 06, Circulation, Section 6.2,
Planning Context; Chapter 08, Public
Facilities Financing; Chapter 09
Implementation, Section 9.3, Specific Plan
Implementation; Infrastructure Report
E. The Baylands development shall be revenue
positive to the City on an annual basis where
all City costs (e.g., annual operating costs,
maintenance and replacement of equipment,
Chapter 08, Public Facilities Financing,
requires implementation of this
requirement in relation to both financing of
Chapter 08, Public Facilities Financing
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 3
General Plan Baylands Provisions
(MEASURE JJ)
Compliance Summary in the BSP Where to find in the BSP, EIR, or Other Documents
facilities, infrastructure, cultural resource and
habitat protection and management etc.) are
exceeded by Project generated revenues to
the City (e.g., to the City’s General Fund,
enterprise funds, special funds, etc.) during all
phases of development and upon final
buildout.
infrastructure construction and ongoing City
costs and revenues for The Baylands.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 3
F. Sufficient assurances for the satisfactory
ongoing performance of site remediation and
site development (e.g., site monitoring,
performance bonds, environmental
insurance) shall be provided as determined by
the City.
The OU-SM and OU-2 RAPs and Landfill
Closure Plan approvals include performance
and schedule milestones that will be
monitored and enforced by the DTSC and
San Francisco Bay RWQCB, with input from
the City. The process will also include public
notice, review, and comment opportunities
at major remediation project milestones. The
remediation project and landfill closure will
not be deemed complete until a final public
review and comment period is held by the
DTSC and San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Once
the remedy is completed, the landfill is
closed, and the project goes into long-term
operation, maintenance, and monitoring
mode, the DTSC and San Francisco Bay
RWQCB will require the applicant to enter
into an Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Agreement for OU-SM and OU-2 and postclosure waste discharge requirements for the landfill, which will require that the applicant
post financial assurances to implement the
O&M Plans. The O&M Plans, which will be
approved as part of the RDIPs and Landfill
Closure Plan, will specify monitoring,
inspection, and reporting requirements as
well as protocol to maintain the remedy
components (e.g., landfill final cover,
leachate management system, landfill gas
collection and control system, etc.). The City
is among the reviewing agencies for the
RDIPs, Landfill Closure Plan, and O&M
Agreement approvals.
Remedial Action Plans (RAPS-SM & OU-2);
Landfill Closure Plan
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 3
General Plan Baylands Provisions
(MEASURE JJ)
Compliance Summary in the BSP Where to find in the BSP, EIR, or Other Documents
G. The required specific plan for The Baylands
shall include a sustainability program for new
development consistent with the principles
of the Sustainability Framework for the
Brisbane Baylands, Final Report accepted by
the City Council on November 5, 2015. The
Baylands development shall be designed so as
to be energy neutral on an ongoing basis.
Chapter 04, Sustainability Framework,
provides a sustainability program consistent
with each of the 10 principles of the
Sustainability Framework for the Brisbane
Baylands.
The Specific Plan provides on-site electricity
generation, including solar-powered
infrastructure systems totaling
59.8 megawatts (MW) of capacity and a
minimum of 85,000 megawatt-hours (MWh)
of annual generation. The Baylands would be
100% powered by renewable electricity, the
majority of which would be generated on the
site. In addition, 30 MW of battery-based
stationary energy storage systems would be
installed as part of site-specific development
projects, along with a proposed 250 MW
front-of-the-meter, utility-scale battery
storage facility.
Chapter 04, Sustainability Framework (all
sections), Section 4.2, Brisbane General
Plan and The Sustainability Framework for
The Baylands, covers Zero-Carbon Buildings
H. Key habitat areas, including Icehouse Hill and
Brisbane Lagoon and adjacent habitat as
identified in the 2001 City Open Space Master
Plan shall be preserved, enhanced, and
protected.
Icehouse Hill and Lagoon Habitat will be
preserved, enhanced, and protected, which
includes conservation, revegetation, invasive
species management, fencing, signage, the
creation of Visitacion Creek wetland and
upland buffers, and measures to reduce
negative impacts such as stormwater and
erosion control. Preservation, enhancement,
and protection are also described throughout
Chapter 05, Conservation and Open Space.
Chapter 05, Conservation and Open Space,
Section 5.3.3, Biotic/Habitat Zones,
Section 5.3.4, Open Space Protection,
Restoration, and Enhancement,
Section 5.3.5.4, Ecological Greenspaces.
Refer also to the Wetland Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (Final EIR [2026] Mitigation
Measure MM BIO-2d), Butterfly Protection
Plan (Final EIR [2026] Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1c), Marsh Protection Plan and
Adaptive Management Plan
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 3
General Plan Baylands Provisions
(MEASURE JJ)
Compliance Summary in the BSP Where to find in the BSP, EIR, or Other Documents
I. The historic Roundhouse shall be protected
and preserved. The required specific plan shall
ensure rehabilitation of the Roundhouse for
adaptive reuse at the developer’s cost.
The Specific Plan includes the preservation
and rehabilitation of the historic
Roundhouse building.
Chapter 03, Development and Design
Standards, Section 2.5.1, Bayshore District;
Chapter 05, Conservation and Open Space,
Section 5.3.5.3, Community Greens
J. Development shall be designed to protect
uses from the 100-year flood, including 100
years of projected sea level rise as
determined based on regulatory standards or
guidelines in effect at the time of Project
construction, with the reference to guidelines
and sea level rise projections approved by the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer based
on context specific considerations of risk
tolerance and adaptive capacity.
As described in Chapter 07, Infrastructure,
the project will protect uses from the 100-
year flood, including end of century (2100)
sea level rise estimates as defined by the
State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance,
2024 Update published by the Ocean
Protection Council and California Natural
Resources Agency, and determined based on
regulatory standards or guidelines in effect at
the time of project construction, with
reference to guidelines and sea level rise
projections approved by the Director of
Public Works/City Engineer based on
context-specific considerations of risk
tolerance and adaptive capacity. Chapter 07,
Section 7.3.6, The Baylands Grading
Sequence, establishes the grading criteria for
the development parcels, historical
structures, open space areas, wetlands, and
proposed on-site streets to maintain
minimum protection against end of century
(2100) sea level rise as described in
Section 7.3.5, Flood Risk and Sea Level Rise.
Chapter 07, Infrastructure, Sections 7.3.4,
Site Remediation, 7.3.5, Flood Risk and Sea
Level Rise, and 7.3.6, The Baylands Grading
Sequence
K. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit to
export soil or move soil from the existing
landfill area for incorporation in a remediation
Most soil will be reused on the site in OU-SM
and OU-2 as described in the RAPs. A soil
plan (including testing specifications) for soil
Remedial Action Plans (RAPS-SM & OU-2)
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 3
General Plan Baylands Provisions
(MEASURE JJ)
Compliance Summary in the BSP Where to find in the BSP, EIR, or Other Documents
or grading plan, the soil shall be tested in a
manner approved by the City.
to be relocated from the landfill area and
placed in OU-SM and OU-2 is included in the
forthcoming RDIPs for OU-SM and OU-2.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 4
Attachment 4: June 25, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Report June 25, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Report
https://brisbaneca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6871/files/agenda/10406 1
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 5
Attachment 5: August 13, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum August 13, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum
https://brisbaneca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6959/files 1
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 6
Attachment 6: July 23, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum July 23, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum
https://brisbaneca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6872/files 1
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 7
Attachment 7: June 30, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum June 30, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum
https://brisbaneca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6915/overview 1
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 8
Attachment 8: June 11, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum and Workshop Presentation (FEIR Overview)
a. Memorandum
https://brisbaneca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6858/files/agenda/9383 b. Workshop Presentation
https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3173/Environmental-Review-Overview---Public-Workshop-2- Presentation
1
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 9
Attachment 9: May 28, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum and Workshop Presentation (Specific Plan Overview)
a. Memorandum
https://brisbaneca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6870/files/agenda/9360 b. Workshop Presentation
https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3137/Specific-Plan-Overview---Public-Workshop-1-Presentation 1
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021- GPA-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE,
CALIFORNIA, FOR THE BRISBANE BAYLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL (1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, (2) APPROVING THE BRISBANE BAYLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN, (3) AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE BRISBANE MUNICIPAL CODE, and (4) AMENDING THE BRISBANE GENERAL PLAN’S LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
ELEMENTS
WHEREAS, The Baylands Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 684.3 acres within the City of Brisbane in northeast San Mateo County, of which 449 acres is owned by Sunquest Properties, Inc. and managed by Baylands Development, Inc. (collectively, “BDI”); and
WHEREAS, in 2005, BDI submitted a specific plan to the City proposing development of approximately 449 acres of the Baylands; and
WHEREAS, in 2011, BDI submitted a revised specific plan that proposed 4,434 residential units, approximately seven million square feet of commercial development, and approximately 169.7 acres of open space; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2011 Specific Plan was made available for public review from June 11, 2013, to January 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2018, the Brisbane City Council certified the Brisbane Baylands Final Program EIR in accordance with the provisions of CEQA for implementation of General Plan Amendment GP-1-18; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2018, the Brisbane City Council adopted Resolution 2018-62 approving General Plan Amendment GP-1-18 to amend various provisions of the General Plan related to the Brisbane Baylands General Plan Subarea to allow for a range of 1800-2200 dwelling units and up to 6.5 million square feet of new commercial development, and 500,000 square feet of hotel development, subject to City approval of a specific plan consistent with policies established in GP-1-18; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP-1-18 was approved by City of Brisbane voters as Measure JJ in the November 6, 2018, Brisbane elections; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2020, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment GP-1-19 to implement GP-1-18 and Measure JJ, and the City Council certified an Addendum to the Brisbane Baylands Final Program EIR pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15164; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2020, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR, opening a 60-day response period.
ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
2 WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City of Brisbane held a public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR on March 4, 2020, to provide an opportunity for members of the public and public agencies to provide input on the scope and content of the environmental information and analysis to be included in the EIR for the proposed Baylands Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, in January 2023, the applicant submitted a revised Specific Plan to supersede the 2011 Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2023, the City distributed an updated NOP for the EIR, and provided a 30-day response period starting on April 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, a second scoping meeting for the Draft EIR was held on May 9, 2023, and the updated NOP response period ended on May 25, 2023; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2025, the City of Brisbane published a revised draft Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan concurrently with the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Project (“Draft EIR”); and WHEREAS, also on April 3, 2025, the City of Brisbane released a Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR, notifying the public and agencies of a 151- day public review period that ran from April 3, 2025, to September 2, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability also discussed the availability of the Draft EIR Appendices, which included a copy of the draft Specific Plan (Draft EIR Appendix A); and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2026, the City published the Staff-Recommended Baylands Specific Plan, which contained various revisions to the 2025 Baylands Specific Plan and was analyzed in Chapter 6 of the Baylands Final EIR as Modified Alternative 1; and WHEREAS, to implement the Specific Plan for Modified Alternative 1, City staff proposes concurrently amending Title 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code, and amending the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Brisbane General Plan; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, and June 11, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted public workshops to provide an overview of the Final EIR and the Baylands Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR and the Baylands Specific Plan, at which time any person interested in the matter was given the opportunity to be heard, and continued the public hearing to June 30, 2026, and again to July 23, 2026, on which date the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and commenced its deliberations; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2026, and again on August 13, 2026, following close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated on the Baylands Specific Plan, the associated Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Title 17 zoning amendments, and the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements; the Bayshore ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
3 Mobility Plan; and considered public testimony and Commission discussion regarding these topics; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was posted and mailed to property owners of the subject properties and within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject properties and all interested parties requesting notice, per Brisbane Municipal Code Section
17.54.020, prior to the Planning Commission hearing; and WHEREAS, prior to consideration of General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning amendments, the Planning Commission is required to make a written recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendments pursuant to Government Code Sections 65354 and 65855; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65855 and Brisbane Municipal Code section 17.54.010, adoption of the Baylands Specific Plan is consistent with and implements Measure JJ and General Plan Amendments GPA‑1‑18 and GP-1-19, and is consistent with the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element’s goal to facilitate and support the production of housing. The associated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan are consistent with the Baylands Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the findings set forth herein, the Planning Commission of the City of Brisbane, at its meeting of August 13, 2026, resolves as follows:
Section 1.
A. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
B. The Planning Commission has reviewed considered the following, including but not limited to, the Specific Plan circulated with the Draft EIR (Draft EIR, Appendix A), the StaffRecommended Specific Plan, the Draft and Final EIR, the alternatives analyzed in Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and any revisions to these plans set forth in the Final EIR or proposed during public hearing.
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Brisbane recommends the following actions be taken by the City Council of the City of Brisbane:
1. Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan, incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA; that the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and that the Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis; in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15090; and
2. Adopt the 2026 Staff-Recommended Baylands Specific Plan, dated May 2026, incorporated by reference as Exhibit B, in accordance with Government Code sections 65450 as a specific plan, and in accordance with Government Code section ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
4 65850 as a zoning ordinance, each of which independently supports adoption of the specific plan, subject to the following modifications recommended by the Planning Commission:
a. Remediation: All reporting submitted to regulatory agencies shall be concurrently submitted to the City for the City to make available to the public. Regulatory reports shall be current at the time of permit issuance, inspection, and occupancy; if not current, the City shall withhold permits or cease processing. Following occupancy, regulatory reports shall remain current and shall continue to be submitted concurrently to the City for public inspection; if not, the matter shall be addressed by the City through available oversight mechanisms, including discretionary permit revocation (if applicable) or code enforcement. b. Energy: An audit mechanism monitoring the project's energy use and generation over the course of build-out, with built-in consequences should targets not be reached, shall be implemented.
c. Lab Uses: Chapter 3 land use regulations shall be amended to require Conditional Use Permit approval for laboratory uses classified as Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) and above.
d. Circulation: The City Council shall consider restricting the use and/or design of Class I bicycle facilities to avoid collisions between pedestrians and cyclists using e-bikes and e-scooters, and shall consider upgrading the Baylands-Central Brisbane shuttle schedule to provide service during the afternoon and later in the evening.
e. Mission Blue Nursery: The City Council shall allow the Mission Blue Nursery to remain in its current location unless and until a feasible relocation option is identified.
f. Open Space: Conservation easements beyond those presently contemplated by the Specific Plan shall be required for all open space areas, consistent with the Sierra Club's June 10, 2026, letter.
g. Implementation: The City Council shall implement staff's recommended edits presented in the July 23, 2026 agenda report to clarify the anticipated remediation process and its relationship to City permitting. h. Hospitality Zoning and Building Types: The City Council shall implement staff's recommended edits to Chapter 3 presented in the July 23, 2026 agenda report to clarify that hospitality uses and building types are permitted in the mediumdensity commercial district. i. Residential Density and Commercial Intensity: The City Council shall implement staff's recommended edits to Chapter 3 presented in the July 23, 2026, agenda report to clarify that minimum residential density and commercial intensity ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
5 standards are applied on an average basis by land use designation and are not evaluated on a block-by-block basis.
3. Amend Title 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code per the draft Ordinance included in Exhibit C to implement the 2026 Staff-Recommended Baylands Specific Plan, in accordance with Government Code sections 65800 to 65912; and
4. Exhibit D, in accordance with Government Code sections 65350 to 65362; and
5. Exhibit E, in accordance with Government Code sections 65350 to 65362.
ADOPTED this 13th day of August 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: FUNKE, GOODING, LAU, SAYASANE, WODZIAK
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DOUGLAS GOODING, Chair
ATTEST: ________________________________________________ JULIA AYRES, Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
EXHIBIT A
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan
Incorporated by reference
Available online at: https://www.brisbaneca.gov/774/2026- Final-EIR
ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
EXHIBIT B
2026 Staff Recommended Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan
published May 14, 2026
Incorporated by reference
Available online at: https://www.brisbaneca.gov/775/2026- Baylands-Specific-Plan
ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
EXHIBIT C
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
1 draft
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE
AMENDING BMC CHAPTERS 17.04, 17.13, 17.20, 17.32, AND 17.41 TO
AMEND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE BAYLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN
The City Council of the City of Brisbane hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 17.04.010 – Establishment of districts in Chapter 17.04 – Establishment of Zoning Districts of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
The districts into which the city is divided are hereby established and designated as follows:
A. R-TUO Residential two unit overlay district.
B. R-1 Residential district.
C. R-2 Residential district.
D. R-3 Residential district.
E. R-MHP: Residential mobile home park district.
F. R-BA: Brisbane acres residential district.
G. C-1: Commercial mixed use district.
H. NCRO: Central Brisbane commercial district.
I. HC: Beatty heavy commercial district.
J. SCRO-1: Southwest Bayshore commercial district.
K. SP-CRO: Sierra Point commercial district.
L. TC-1: Crocker Park trade commercial district.
M. BSP Baylands Specific Plan
N. TC-2: Southeast Bayshore trade commercial district.
O. C/P-U Northwest Bayshore Commercial/Public Utilities District P. MLB: Marsh Lagoon Bayfront district.
Q. O-S: Open space district.
R. PAOZ: Parkside overlay district.
S. P-D: Planned development district.
ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
2 SECTION 2: Section 17.13.035 – Expressly prohibited uses in Chapter 17.13 – C-1 Commercial Mixed-Use District of the Municipal Code is deleted in its entirety and reserved for future use.
SECTION 3: Section 17.13.040 – Development regulations in Chapter 17.13 – C-1 Commercial Mixed-Use District of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
A. No building, structure or land shall be used and no building or structure shall be erected, enlarged, or structurally altered, except for the uses established in Section
17.13.030.
(Subsection B, no change)
SECTION 4: Chapter 17.20 – M-1 Manufacturing District of the Municipal Code is deleted in its entirety and replaced to read as follows:
Chapter 17.20 - BAYLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT
17.20.010 - Purpose.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the Baylands Specific Plan (BSP) District and provide for coordinated planning and design principles for the properties within this district. The BSP District implements the Baylands Specific Plan, the purpose of which is to allow for development consistent with General Plan Amendment GP-1-
18. 17.20.020 - Applicability.
A. The regulations contained in this chapter are intended to implement the Baylands Specific Plan adopted by the City Council on _______, 2026 and shall apply to the areas within the BSP District mapped on the official zoning map.
17.20.030 - Relationship to Other Plans.
A. In the event of inconsistencies or conflict between the Baylands Specific Plan and this title or any other provision of the Brisbane Municipal Code, the provisions of the Baylands Specific Plan take precedence, control, and govern in the BSP district.
Any activities regulated by the Brisbane Municipal Code, but not addressed in the specific plan or this Chapter, shall be regulated by the Brisbane Municipal Code.
Unless otherwise established in the Baylands Specific Plan, all definitions and land use terms shall be interpreted consistent with the Brisbane Municipal Code.
17.20.040 - Allowable Land Uses and Development and Design Standards.
A. Refer to the Baylands Specific Plan for information regarding allowable land uses and development and design standards.
ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
3 17.20.050 - Implementation and Administration.
A. Refer to Chapter 9: Implementation of the Baylands Specific Plan for information regarding implementation and administration.
SECTION 5: Section 17.32.050 – Fences, hedges and walls in Chapter 17.32 – General Use Regulations of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
(Subsections A through B.2, no change)
3. Metal rail-and-picket fences and black or dark green vinyl-coated chain-link fences not exceeding eight (8) feet in height may be constructed in the C-1 and TC-1 districts.
(Subsections B.4 through B.6, no change)
SECTION 6: Chapter 17.41 – Interim Uses in the Baylands Subarea of the Municipal Code is deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 7: The Zoning Map of the City of Brisbane is amended per the attached Exhibit A, as follows:
The parcels of land within the General Plan’s Baylands subarea, as amended by 2021-GPA-2, shall be designated on the Zoning Map of the City of Brisbane as BSP Baylands Specific Plan District.
SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Brisbane hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 9: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption.
* * *
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane held on the ________ day of ____________________, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
4 ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: _____________________________
Mayor Coleen Mackin
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 10
TC-2
TC-1
SP-CRO
SCRO-1
R-MHP
R-BA
R-3
R-2
R-1
PD
PAOZ-2 PAOZ-1
O-S
NCRO-2
NCRO-1
MLB
M-1
HC
C/P-U
C-1
R-TUO
3URSRVHG%63
',675,&7
3URSRVHG%63
',675,&7
&XUUHQW=RQLQJ'LVWULFWV
& &RPPHUFLDO0L[HG8VH'LVWULFW
&38 &RPPHUFLDO3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV'LVWULFW
+& +HDY\&RPPHUFLDO'LVWULFW
0 0DQXIDFWXULQJ'LVWULFW
0/% 0DUVK/DJRRQ%D\IURQW'LVWULFW
1&52 %ULVEDQH9LOODJH1HLJKERUKRRG&RPPHUFLDO'LVWULFW 1&52 'RZQWRZQ%ULVEDQH1HLJKERUKRRG&RPPHUFLDO'LVWULFW 26 2SHQ6SDFH'LVWULFW
3$2= 3DUNVLGH2YHUOD\'LVWULFW&OXVWHUHG+RXVLQJ
3$2= 3DUNVLGH2YHUOD\'LVWULFW0XOWL)DPLO\+RXVLQJ 3' 3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW'LVWULFW
5 5HVLGHQWLDO'LVWULFW
5 5HVLGHQWLDO'LVWULFW
5 5HVLGHQWLDO'LVWULFW
5%$ %ULVEDQH$FUHV5HVLGHQWLDO'LVWULFW
50+3 5HVLGHQWLDO0RELOH+RPH3DUN'LVWULFW
5782 5HVLGHQWLDO7ZR8QLW2YHUOD\'LVWULFW
6&52 6RXWKZHVW%D\VKRUH&RPPHUFLDO'LVWULFW
63&52 6LHUUD3RLQW&RPPHUFLDO'LVWULFW
7& &URFNHU3DUN7UDGH&RPPHUFLDO'LVWULFW
7& 6RXWKHDVW%D\VKRUH&RPPHUFLDO'LVWULFW
3URSRVHG%D\ODQGV6SHFLILF3ODQ'LVWULFW
%63 %D\ODQGV6SHFLILF3ODQ'LVWULW
WRUHSODFH&XUUHQW=RQLQJ'LVWULFWV
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, Vantor, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community %D\ODQGV6SHFLILF3ODQ=RQLQJ'LVWULFW
3URSRVHGXSGDWHWRFXUUHQW=RQLQJ'LVWULFWV
AFT R R-2 DPAOZ-2RAPAOZ-1AFT3URSRVHG%63
',6 &7
EXHIBITA
ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
EXHIBIT D
Brisbane General Plan Land Use Element Amendments
ATTACHMENT 10
Includes Updates Adopted by City Council in October 2017, November 2017, January 2018, and January 2020 Resolutions 2017-50, 2017-51, 2018-01, 2018-62, and 2020-01
CHAPTER V
LAND USE
GOALS:
The City of Brisbane will...
Preserve the Mountain for its own sake and
as the symbol of the unique character and
identity of the City;
Incorporate and reflect the natural
environment as an integral part of land use;
Celebrate diversity as essential to the physical
character of the City;
Incorporate a mix of land uses to best serve
its citizens; and
Design infrastructure and public facilities to
be efficient, cost-effective and to contribute to
the cohesion and character of the
DRAFT
community.
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-1
LAND USE
Chapter Index
Page
V.1 History of Land Use and Subdivision ........................................................................... V-2 Land Use History .......................................................................................................V-3 History of Subdivision Patterns.................................................................................V-4 V.2 The General Plan Land Use Map and Land Use Designations .....................................V-7 The General Plan Land Use Map ..............................................................................V-7 Land Use Designations..............................................................................................V-7 V.3 Density and Intensity Standards ....................................................................................V-12 Population Density.....................................................................................................V-13 Building Intensity.......................................................................................................V-13 V.4 Land Use Policies ..........................................................................................................V-17 General Principles .....................................................................................................V-17 Bay and Mountain Setting .........................................................................................V-18 Nature and Character of Development .....................................................................V-19 Open Areas.................................................................................................................V-21 Streets ........................................................................................................................V-24 Subdivision Pattern ...................................................................................................V-25 DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-2
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-2
CHAPTER V
LAND USE
Question: In your opinion, what is the most important
problem that Brisbane residents will have to face and try to solve over the next ten years?
Respondents: "Development of lands currently vacant, to make certain they contribute and not
diminish the quality of life."
"Managing growth to keep our
independence."
"The Mountain. Save it."
General Plan Issues Questionnaire (GP-5)
Citizens who know and love the City will often explain that to understand Brisbane it is necessary to read the oral histories. A look to the past makes it clear that the City was incorporated as a defense against development that would have destroyed San Bruno Mountain and the quality of life of the community that had become established there. The passion for selfdetermination remains one of the most essential values of this community. This Land Use chapter begins with a look at the history of land use and subdivision patterns in the planning area.
This update of the General Plan provides an opportunity to reaffirm that Brisbane will control its destiny. If development is to occur, this community will set the standards. And the basis for these standards are the land uses and policies in the General Plan.
A General Plan usually includes an illustration of the general location of land uses on a map.
Figures LU-1 and LU-2 constitute the Land Use Map for the Brisbane General Plan. These land uses are categorized into land use designations, and this chapter includes a narrative description of each land use designation shown on the Land Use Map. Table 1 within this chapter describes the density and intensity of future planned land uses. The chapter closes with land use policies and programs, which describe how these land use designations are to be implemented. The policies in this section for the most part apply on a city-wide basis. Land use policies and programs specific to each of the subareas are found in Chapter XII.
V.1 HISTORY OF LAND USE AND SUBDIVISION
Land uses in Brisbane are well-established in many subareas of the City. In others, remainders of prior uses provide either opportunities or constraints to contemporary uses of the land. Land subdivision patterns in Brisbane have varied from one subarea to the next, depending on land DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-3
use, topography, property ownership, and zoning regulations affecting lot sizes. The following is a brief chronological history of land use in the City, followed by an overview of the City's subdivision patterns.
Land Use History
Although the earliest recorded land use in the area that is now the City of Brisbane was ranching, archaeological remains indicate that this land was once a home to the Costanoan Tribe of Native Americans. The Guadalupe Valley, within which Central Brisbane, Crocker Park and the Northeast Ridge are now located, was part of the 1838 Mexican land grant known as Rancho Canada de Guadalupe la Visitacion y Rodeo Viego. Charles Crocker purchased most of this land grant in 1884 and called it Visitacion Ranch. In 1895, a section of the ranch was leased as a quarry, which operates to this day.
In the early 1900s, a small amount of urban development could be found in the area of Bayshore Boulevard and Geneva Avenue, in what is now the vicinity of the Northwest Bayshore subarea.
The 7-Mile House, a bar and grill established in 1853 and still operating today, served travelers along Bayshore Boulevard, which was one of the main thoroughfares connecting San Francisco with points south. A gas manufacturing plant, which evolved into what is now the Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Martin Service Center and Substation, operated from 1905 to 1916 in the area of Bayshore and Geneva, now a part of Daly City. Across Bayshore Boulevard on what is now known as the Baylands subarea, the Southern Pacific Railroad maintenance and switching yard was built atop rubble from the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake that was used to fill a portion of the Bay. The use of the yard began to decline in the 1960s and was mostly idle when Southern Pacific sold the yard and surrounding land and structures in 1989 to Universal Paragon Corporation. The land had featured a number of substantial industrial structures only a few of which remain, including the Roundhouse, one of the few of its kind still standing and which is designated a historic resource on the National Register of Historic Places.
Residential development in what is now Brisbane also began to appear early in the century. The area of the Guadalupe Valley that is now Central Brisbane experienced a small amount of residential construction between 1908 and 1929. The most notable of the early residences in what was then known as the "City of Visitacion" is the Allemand Hotel, currently an apartment building at the corner of San Bruno Avenue and Mariposa Street. In 1929 the name of the settlement was changed to Brisbane. In the 1930s, during the Depression, the residential area boomed due to its affordability, with a commercial core developing along Visitacion Avenue.
This residential area has continued to grow to the present and, to a limited degree, has extended into the lowest lying portions of the largely vacant Brisbane Acres.
The 1930s also saw an intensification of garbage dumping into the Bay in the portion of the Baylands subarea east of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks. Starting from the north, dumping continued southward until it was finally stopped in the 1960s at the edge of what is now the Brisbane Lagoon. The Recology complex of refuse transport and recycling facilities, located in the Beatty Subarea at the Brisbane-San Francisco border, is an active successor to this past use.
Since the 1940s, a variety of uses has developed atop the oldest part of the landfill, including lumber yards and warehouse buildings.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-4
Although Bayshore Boulevard was a major thoroughfare connecting San Francisco with points south until Highway 101 was constructed in 1954, only limited development occurred along its frontages. In the 1940s, a small amount of residential development occurred along the west side of southern Bayshore Boulevard in the subarea now known as Southwest Bayshore. In the decades that followed, some commercial uses, such as retail, service and warehousing, intermixed with the residential uses, including a mobile home park.
The 1960s saw a flurry of industrial development, which continued into the early 1980s. In 1959, construction of Crocker Park began on the grazing lands of the floor of the Guadalupe Valley and adjacent wetlands, just north of Central Brisbane; the final phase of construction in Crocker Park was completed in the early 1980s, and Crocker Park was annexed to the City in 1983. In the 1960s, VWR Scientific first occupied a large office/warehouse building on the east side of southern Bayshore Boulevard; a second office/warehouse complex was added in the Southeast Bayshore subarea in 1981. First subdivided in 1969, the Brisbane Industrial Park, consisting mostly of metal buildings for warehouse, office and manufacturing uses, was constructed along Industrial Way in what is now the westerly edge of the Baylands subarea. The late 1960s also saw the development on the Baylands of the Southern Pacific Pipelines Brisbane Terminal, located on the leveled portion of Visitacion Point, with a privately constructed extension of Tunnel Avenue including an overcrossing connecting to Bayshore Boulevard.
Commonly referred to as the "Tank Farm," the facility and adjacent buildings provide fuel distribution services for the Peninsula and San Francisco International Airport.
Office and commercial development increased in the 1980s. Construction of the Brisbane Village shopping center began in 1979 at the entrance to Central Brisbane. This single structure shopping center contains approximately 20 storefronts and office spaces occupied mostly by retail businesses and professional offices. East of Highway 101 at Sierra Point, several buildings of the Sierra Point Office Park and the Brisbane Marina were constructed during the 1980s on a peninsula of engineered landfill that was closed in 1972.
In 1989, a multi-phased residential project, including open space for conserved habitat, was approved for the Northeast Ridge of San Bruno Mountain. The project includes 499 residential units and was completed in phases from the late 1990’s through 2015. In 1989, the Wildlife Conservation Board, a division of the State Department of Fish and Game, purchased Owl and Buckeye Canyons as an ecological reserve. They remain essentially in their natural state.
Brisbane citizens, staff and local environmental organizations worked with the Trust for Public Land to accomplish this acquisition, which added to the permanent open space established by the creation of San Bruno Mountain State and County Regional Park in the late 1970s.
History of Subdivision Patterns
The following describes the history of the subdivision of land in Brisbane by subarea.
Following adoption of the General Plan, zoning and subdivision regulations will be reviewed to determine if amendments should be made to conform to General Plan policy.
Sierra Point. The Sierra Point subarea was master planned and subdivided between 1981 and 1987, which resulted in the current configuration of typically 5 to 10 acre parcels. This pattern is consistent with the 1 acre minimum parcel size requirement which has been in effect since 1984.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-5
Southeast Bayshore. The Southeast Bayshore subarea was subdivided in 1979 into two parcels, one 4 acres in size and the other 11 acres. This is consistent with the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size requirement in effect since at least 1969.
Southwest Bayshore. The steep hillsides of the Southwest Bayshore subarea were first sold off as typically 11,900 sq. ft. unrecorded lots in the 1930s. Each of the original lots fronted on what was then known as the Bayshore Highway, hence their name, the "Highway Lots." Subsequent lot subdivisions reduced some of these lots to areas as small as approximately 3,000 sq. ft.
Regulations, which date back at least to 1969, established a 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size in the subarea.
Brisbane Acres. The Brisbane Acres subarea originated as an unrecorded subdivision in the 1930s. As the name implies, unrecorded lots were typically an acre in size. Subsequent land transfers by deed description resulted in individual ownerships, some with areas of less than 5,000 sq. ft. In 1980, regulations were adopted that set a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. Parcel maps have been recorded for some of the previously unrecorded lots to allow for development.
These are in the lower Brisbane Acres areas, close to public infrastructure.
Central Brisbane. In 1908, the American Realty Company subdivided the area that is now Central Brisbane into small residential lots. These lots were typically 25 feet wide and 100 feet deep, but in many instances lot dimensions were adjusted to fit the subarea's bowl-like terrain.
Many of the lots were subsequently developed in pairs, some as three or more lots combined, and a few as one and a half lots. The current regulations requiring 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for residential districts and 2,500 sq. ft. minimum for non-residential date back at least as far as the City's original Zoning Ordinance, adopted in 1969.
Parkside Area. The Parkside Area is an approximately 25-acre area located between Crocker Industrial Park and Central Brisbane subareas. The Parkside Area is comprised of 11 properties developed with neighborhood commercial, retail, and office, public facilities and parks, and trade commercial uses. Vital community assets in the Parkside Area include the City’s two primary entrances via Valley Drive and Old County Road, as well as the Brisbane Village Shopping Center, Community Park, Brisbane Skate Park, and public basketball courts. The Parkside Area was established by the Parkside at Brisbane Village Precise Plan, the culmination of two-year community visioning and planning process from 2015-2017 to implement the City’s 2015-2022 Housing Element, which designated sites within the Parkside Area subarea for potential residential development.
Crocker Park. Most of the Crocker Park subarea was subdivided in three phases of the Park's development, recorded in 1959, 1965 and 1968. The subdivision of North Hill Drive followed in 1980. Subsequent parcel splits and mergers have resulted in lots ranging in size from 0.56 to
13.23 acres. Current regulations require a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size.
Northeast Ridge. The Northeast Ridge remained unsubdivided until it was recorded as a single parcel in 1975. The vesting tentative subdivision map for the planned development approved in 1989, as subsequently modified, divided the subarea into single-family residential lots (an average of 7,400 sq. ft. each), clusters of condominiums and townhouses (totaling approximately 39 acres), and large tracts of open space.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-6
Northwest Bayshore. The existing irregular pattern of large parcels in the Northwest Bayshore subarea can be traced back to subdivision maps recorded as early as 1915. The subarea is built out with the PG&E Martin substation and 7 Mile House properties.
Guadalupe Hills. The Guadalupe Hills subarea was part of the Northwest Bayshore subarea until 2018, at which time it was designated as a separate General Plan subarea to reflect its different character, as vacant sites, separate from the PG&E substation to the north. It shares the same early subdivision history with Northwest Bayshore.
Baylands. The Baylands subarea is largely unsubdivided, a vestige of the once extensive holdings of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. Major portions of these holdings located in Brisbane are now owned by Universal Paragon Corporation. The Brisbane Industrial Park portion of the Baylands was established via subdivision in 1969. Lot sizes ranged from
0.23 to 5.663 acres, although subsequent consolidations of ownership have increased the average building site size. The Industrial Park is now under the ownership of UPC and is slated for redevelopment as part of the larger Baylands specific plan. There are parcels in other ownerships scattered throughout the subarea, ranging from approximately 5,000 sq. ft. to 230,000 sq. ft. in size.
Beatty. The Beatty subarea is a haphazard collection of parcels, reflecting a varied history of ownerships. Parcel sizes are generally from 0.176 to 7.043 acres. Most of the properties within this subarea are under the ownership of Recology.
Owl and Buckeye Canons. The Owl and Buckeye Canyons subarea consists of four parcels of land sold by the owners of the Quarry to the California Department of Fish and Game in 1989.
Quarry. The Quarry subarea is divided into four parcels ranging in size from approximately 1.5 to 135 acres.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-7
V.2 THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS The General Plan Land Use Map
The land use map for the General Plan (Figures LU-1 and LU-2) illustrates the general location of the land use designations given to both public and private properties within the General Plan planning area. For purposes of clarity, the map has been divided into the 14 subareas described earlier in this text. The land use designations used in the map are described below.
Land Use Designations
The descriptions of the General Plan land use designations that follow are broadly drafted, as befits the intent of a General Plan. Specificity of land use by district is the province of the City's Zoning Ordinance. After adoption of a General Plan, the zoning map and zoning district regulations are analyzed to determine whether changes are necessary to conform to the adopted General Plan land use designations and policies.
Commercial/Retail/Office Designations
Neighborhood Commercial/Retail/Office (NCRO) designates a subarea devoted to a range of local retail and service uses, including shops, restaurants, medical, professional and administrative offices and other uses of the same general character. Public and semipublic facilities may be located under this designation. Residential uses may be permitted conditionally in implementing zoning districts. Portions of Central Brisbane and Parkside Area subareas are designated NCRO in the General Plan.
Subregional/Commercial/Retail/Office(SCRO) designates a subarea devoted to subregional retail uses, personal services, restaurants and offices. Public and semi-public facilities and educational institutions may be located under this designation. Commercial recreation, residential uses, warehouse and distribution facilities, research and development, and light industrial uses may be permitted conditionally in implementing zoning districts. The Guadalupe Hills and Southwest Bayshore subareas are designated SCRO. The Guadalupe Hills also has a Planned Development designation, that includes a Specific Plan requirement.
Sierra Point Commercial/Retail/Office (SPCRO) represents a subarea devoted to commercial enterprises, encompassing a wide range of uses, as outlined in the Development Agreement for Sierra Point. Such uses may include, but not be limited to, retail uses, personal services, medical, professional and administrative offices, corporate headquarters, hotels, conference centers and cultural facilities, commercial recreation, restaurants, and other uses of a commercial character. Public and semi-public facilities and educational institutions may be located under this designation.
Heavy Commercial (HC) provides for bulk sales, offices, meeting halls, vehicle storage and equipment maintenance. It also allows outside storage of vehicles and equipment. No materials storage, other than that associated with bulk sales and no processing of materials are permitted. Subareas designated Heavy Commercial are required to have an adopted specific plan to guide development in the area. The Beatty subarea is designated HC in the General Plan.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-8
Marsh
.
Crocker Park
-Ballpark
•Lipman Middle School
• Bayshore Blvd Fire Station
- CommunityPark
\/Valkwav
-Park and Ride Loi
• Fisherman's Park
-Plug Preserve
9-IJ\t:;llkway
10 • Skalepark & Basketball Courts
Center
W!lkWay
Firth Park
Fishlt"QPier
17 -Linear Park
:
.'
JI
16 '
Bris6ane Acres
L ..........._ .....
I
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75
Figure LU - 1 Land Use Diagram
Residential
Brisbane Acres Residential (0-2 OU/Acre} R
Central Brisbane Residential (2.5-14 DU/Acre) R
Central Brisbane Residential (15-30 DU!Acre} R
Mixed Use
D Neighborhood Commercial/Retail/Office NC/R/O
EJ] Parkside Residential - Trade Commercial (20-28 DU/Acre)' PR - TC SubregionalCommercial/Retail/Office S C/R/O
other
Commercial Public Utilities CPU
D Public Facilities and Parks PFP
Open Space OS
Marsh/Lagoon/Bayfront M/L/8
Commercial
Sierra Point Commercial/Retail/Office SP C/R/O
D Trade Commercial TC
Heavy Commercial HC
Planned Development
Quarry Planned Development - Trade Commercial PD -TC
D Guadalupe Hills Planned Development - Subregional Commercial/Retail/Office PD-S CIR/O D Baylands Planned Development - NonResidential PD - NR Baylands Planned Development - Residential Permitted PD - RP Northeast Ridge Planned Development - Residential.. NER - PD - R (Landmark: 5 DU/Acre, Viewpoint: 10 DU/Acre, Altamar: 15 DU/Acre) Parkside residential density is by Precise Plan, as an overlay district within Crocker Park.
Northeast Ridge residential density is as established in the Planned Development Permit DU/Acre = Dwelling Units per Acre
[::JBrisbane City Limits
� Sphere of Influence Outside Brisbane City Limit
Replace with new Land Use Map
DRAFT
,r- •• City,!'"' _ - - - - - - - - - - - •
. ,-..... i
: "'"' •'
/Guaa upe\
i:=:: J:lllla
ID V.llly 0,
f!
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-9
Figure LU - 2: Detail Central Brisbane
Residential
Brisbane Actes Residential (0-2 DU/Acta) R
- Central Brisbane Residential (2.5-14 DU/Acre) R
- Central Brisbane Residential (15-30 DU/Aa-e) R
Mixed Use
LJ Neighborhood Commercial/Retail/Office N CJR/O
S Parkside Residential - Trade Commercial (20-28 DU/Acret PR - TC Commercial
LJ Trade Commercial TC
Planned Development
LJ Baylands Planned Development - NonResidential PD - NR Public Facilities and Parks
2 - Lipman Middle School
3 - Bayshore Blvd Fire Station
4 - Community Park
5- Walkway
6 - Park and Ride Lot
8 - Plug Preserve
9 - Walkway
10 - Skatepark & Basketball Courts
11 - Library
12 - Community Center
13 - Walkway
14 - Brisbane Elementary School
15 - Firth Park
Other
LJ Public Facilities and Parks PFP
- Open Space OS
LJ Marsh/Lagoon/Bayfront MIUB
(::J Brisbane City Limits
� Sphere of Influence Outside Brisbane City Limit
250 500 1,000 t,500
••c::::::::i••c::::::::i:::::i:::::i:::::i:::::i••••••Feet S1tplamber 9, 2019
.f..
16 DRAFT
Brisbane Acres
--,
TC
1112 /
+
€antral Brisbane
R
PFP
~
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-10
Marsh/Lagoon/Bayfront (M/L/B) are aquatic areas designated by type.
The following subareas contain designated aquatic areas:
Northwest Bayshore: Marsh
Baylands: Lagoon, Bayfront
Beatty: Bayfront
Sierra Point: Bayfront
Open Space (OS) designates properties that have been purchased, given or offered for dedication to a public agency for open space use or conservation purposes and are essentially unimproved by urban structures. The following subareas contain open space designations:
Central Brisbane: Costanos and Firth Canyons
Northeast Ridge: Conserved Habitat
Owl and Buckeye Canyons: Ecological Preserve
Quarry: Conserved Habitat
Southwest Bayshore: Remainder of the Bayshore Boulevard right-of-way Planned Development (PD ) designates subareas that are primarily vacant and that present unique development constraints. Subareas designated PD may be combined with other land use designations and/or site specific uses may be included in this Plan to guide the development of implementing zoning district regulations. Subareas designated PD require a specific plan and environmental impact report prior to any development of the property. A minimum of 25% of the surface land of any subarea designated Planned Development shall be in open space and/or open area.
There are three subareas designated PD:
Guadalupe Hills: Planned Development-Subregional Commercial/Retail/Office This subarea was established in 2018. See the SCRO designation for more information regarding future land uses in this area.
Baylands: Planned Development
The July 2018 amendment to the General Plan approved by the voters via passage of Measure JJ in November 2018 (Case GP-1-18) modified the General Plan by defining permitted uses and development intensities for the Baylands as noted below.
The Baylands subarea provides for a transit-oriented variety of residential, employment- and revenue-generating uses; natural resource management; and public and semi-public facilities. A range of 1,800-2,200 dwelling units (the upper range of which shall not exceed all units permitted under the State density bonus or other law providing for affordable housing), up to 6.5 million square feet of new commercial development, with an additional 500,000 square feet of hotel development is permitted. Non-residential development shall be distributed both to the west and to the east of the rail line. Residential uses shall be permitted only in the northwest quadrant of the site bounded by Bayshore Boulevard on the west, the City and County of San Francisco on the north, the Caltrain rail line on the east, and the line of Main Street (extended) DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-11
on the south as shown on the General Plan Land Use Diagram. Additional standards for the future development of the Baylands and roundhouse rehabilitation are described further in the Baylands subarea section of the General Plan.
Quarry: Planned Development - Trade Commercial
The following mix of uses would be considered under the Planned Development-Trade Commercial designation for the Quarry subarea:
Open Space
Long-term Health Care Facilities
Educational Facilities
Commercial Recreation
Trade Commercial
Research and Development
Single-family housing is not included due to safety and environmental sensitivities. The need to further examine the environmental characteristics of this subarea prior to the establishment of trade commercial uses is set forth in the following policy:
Policy LU.1 Require the highest level of environmental analysis of the Quarry subarea to disclose the characteristics of the land and its suitability to accommodate new uses.
Public Facilities and Parks (PFP) are outdoor spaces and buildings owned or leased by public agencies, including City parks, police and fire stations, schools and libraries. This designation does not include infrastructure.
The following subareas contain Public Facilities and Parks:
Sierra Point: Marina, Fishing Pier, Linear Park
Central Brisbane: Brisbane Elementary School and grounds, Lipman Intermediate School and grounds, Firth Park, San Bruno Avenue Fire Station Site, Community Center, Library and Park, Bicentennial and other Walkways, Plug Preserve Parkside: Community Park, skate park, basketball courts Northeast Ridge: School/ Park Site
Baylands: Bayshore Boulevard Fire Station, Park and Ride Lot, Fisherman's Park Residential (R) includes single- and multi-family areas and planned residential developments.
The subareas designated residential and the range of residential densities in the General Plan are:
Brisbane Acres: 0 - 2 units per acre
Central Brisbane: 2 1/2 - 14 units per acre and
15 - 30 units per acre
Northeast Ridge: 6.23 units per acre
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-12
As discussed throughout this section there are several other subareas not formally designated residential which allow for residential uses. The Baylands subarea allows for a range of 1,800- 2,200 residential units in the northwesterly corner of the subarea. The Parkside Residential and Trade Commercial (PRTC) subarea allows for a minimum of 228 residential units. Residential uses are also permitted in subareas designated NCRO and SCRO.
Commercial/Public Utilities (C/P-U) represents a mix of commercial and public utility uses. It includes uses such as utility substation facilities and associated warehouse, maintenance and office uses as well as private commercial uses.
Trade Commercial (TC) represents a mix of commercial uses including warehouses, distribution facilities, offices, retail uses, restaurants, commercial recreation, personal services, as well as light industrial, research and development, and uses of a similar character. Public and semipublic facilities and educational institutions may be located under this designation. Repair and maintenance services, such as auto body repair shops, may be conditionally permitted in the implementing zoning districts. In such districts, certain individual or groups of uses may predominate, thus distinguishing the districts one from the other. In the General Plan, Crocker Park and Southeast Bayshore are designated TC. Also see Parkside Residential and Trade Commercial designations.
Parkside Residential and Trade Commercial (PRTC) includes single-family and multi-family residential developments and trade commercial uses, as allowed under the Trade Commercial land use designation. For the Parkside Area subarea, the densities applied will result in a minimum of 228 dwelling units. Residential development in the Parkside Area is subject to compliance with the development standards and design guidelines established by the Parkside at Brisbane Village Precise Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2017.
The range of residential density for the Parkside Residential and Trade Commercial designation is 20-28 units per acre.
V.3 DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS
The Government Code requires that a General Plan include an indication of density and intensity of use for the land use designations in the Plan. The language of the Code reads:
GC 65302(a): The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan.
These standards represent overall policy objectives that are implemented through the zoning district regulations. General Plan standards represent broad ranges, whereas zoning regulations establish specific development standards, such as height limits, setbacks, coverage and site area, that must fall within the General Plan range. After adoption of a General Plan, the zoning districts are reviewed and amended, as necessary, to bring them into consistency and best reflect the policy direction of the Plan.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-13
Population Density
The populations that can be expected in an area on a predictable, daily basis for the land use designations in this Plan are represented in Table 1. For the residential designations in the General Plan, population is given in terms of number of residents and for nonresidential designations, by number of employees. The residential density is based on the number of housing units per acre and the average household size identified in the 1990 Census.(1) For nonresidential land use designations, the number of employees per 1,000 square feet of floor area is used. These numbers represent common standards employed for economic analysis.(2) Because the General Plan land use designations contain a range of uses, employee population density is expressed in ranges.
Building Intensity
The range of building intensity for the various residential land use designations in the General Plan is listed in Table 1. The intensity is expressed in terms of units per acre.
Building intensity for non-residential designations is expressed in a floor area ratio (FAR) formula. The formula relates the square footage within a building to the acreage upon which it sits. A floor area ratio is a very general indicator which must be further defined in zoning district regulations before any development can occur.
The Baylands, Quarry and Guadalupe Hills Subareas are designated Planned Development because these subareas require extensive site investigation and planning before the most beneficial development patterns can be determined. The policies in Chapter XII require, for each of these subareas, a specific plan and environmental impact report before any development can occur. Until these studies are completed and new information evaluated that can be used to refine the FAR standards, the FARs given in Table 1 represent standards that are comparable to those of subareas with similar uses and environmental constraints.
Specific plans for the Baylands shall distinguish between the areas north and south of the Bayshore Basin drainage channel as shown in Table 1 and further described below:
Policy LU.2: Development south of the Bayshore Basin drainage channel shall maintain a low profile, permitting low or mid-rise buildings, not to exceed six stories in height, in order to preserve the existing views of San Francisco and San Francisco Bay as seen from Central Brisbane, and to maximize the amount of landscape and open space or open area in this portion of the subarea.
It should be noted that the intent of the FARs density/intensity given for the Baylands in Table 1 is to accommodate diversity in the height and intensity of structures in order to encourage interesting, flexible and variable development. In no event shall the FARs shown in Table 1 be interpreted as permitting the maximum intensities to be established throughout the subarea. The City will expect specific plans to emphasize intensities well below those figures. See Program BL.4.b for further direction addressing the design of buildings and building groups in the Baylands.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-14
TABLE 1
GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND DENSITY/INTENSITY BY SUBAREA
SUBAREA LAND USE DESIGNATION POPULATION DENSITY
NUMBER OF UNITS/
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA
RATIO
MINIMUM OPEN SPACE/
OPEN AREA
l. Sierra Point Sierra Point
Commercial/Retail/Office
1.66 - 3.22 E/1,000
1.65 per hotel room
4.8 FAR Development Agreement
0 0 100%
2. Southeast Bayshore Trade Commercial 1.23 - 3.22 E/1,000 2.0 FAR Per Zoning Requirements
3. Southwest Bayshore Subregional
Commercial/Retail/Office 1.66 - 3.22 E/1,000 2.8 FAR Per Zoning Requirements Open Space 0 0 0
4. Brisbane Acres Residential 0 - 4.48 ppa 0 - 2 units/acre 40% per HCP + per Zoning Requirements
5. Central Brisbane Residential 5.6 - 31.36 ppa 2 1/2 - 14 units/acre Per Zoning Requirements
33.6 - 67.2 ppa 15 - 30 units/acre Per Zoning Requirements Neighborhood Commercial/
Retail/Office 1.66 - 3.22 E/1,000 2.4 FAR Per Zoning Requirements Open Space 0 0 100%
6472033.1
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-15
TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND DENSITY/INTENSITY BY SUBAREA
6. Parkside Area
Parkside Residential and Trade
Commercial, Trade Commercial,
Neighborhood
Commercial/Retail/Office,
Public Facilities and Parks
44.8 – 62.72 ppa
1.23 – 3.22 E/1,000
20 - 28 units/acre
2.0- 2.4 FAR Per Zoning Requirements
7. Owl and Buckeye Canyons Open Space 0 0 100%
8. Quarry Planned Development -
Trade Commercial 1.23 - 3.22 E/1,000 2.0 FAR 25% minimum Open Space 0 0 100%
9. Crocker Park Trade Commercial 1.23 - 3.22 E/1,000 2.0 FAR Per Zoning Requirements
10. Guadalupe Hills
Planned Development -
SubregionalCommercial
Retail / Office
1.66 - 3.22 E/1,000 2.8 FAR Per Specific Plan ,25% minimum Marsh 0 0 100%
Open Space 0 0 100%
11. Northeast Ridge Residential 11.2 – 33.6 ppa 5 - 15 units/acre* Per Development Plans Open Space 0 0 100%
12. NorthwestBayshore Commercial/Public Utilities 1.66 - 3.22 E/1,000 2.8 FAR Per Zoning Requirements DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-16
TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND DENSITY/INTENSITY BY SUBAREA
13. Baylands Planned Development- 4,032-4,928 residents
1.23 - 3.22 E/1,000
1,800-2,200 dwelling units
Increase of up to 6.5 million square
feet of non-residential building area
with an additional 500,000 square
feet of hotel development
south of channel** 0-2.4
FARnorth of channel** 0-4.8 FAR,
per Specific Plan. See Baylands
Specific Plan for further details.
25% minimum
Bayfront 0 0 100%
Lagoon 0 0 100%
14. Beatty Heavy Commercial 0 - 1.23 E/1,000 0 - 1.0 FAR Per Specific Plan Bayfront 0 0 100%
ppa = persons per gross acre
E/1,000 = employees per 1,000 s.f. of building floor area * 125 single family, and 160 townhouses approved and built. ** See Policy LU.2.
*** Minimum open space/open area in Crocker Park is per zoning requirements, except the Technology Park north of Guadalupe Canyon Parkway is also part of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and future site modifications are to be evaluated for consistency with the HCP.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-17
V.4 LAND USE POLICIES
Question: What do you like most about living in Brisbane:
Respondent: "I like the "touch of country in the City"
atmosphere. I like the naturalness of the canyons in which we live--seeing the beauty of the Mountain at all
hours...The quietness of Brisbane, its peace, are beautiful.
The community is close, vital and neighborly. Care and
concern about the type of development, building codes and quality of life is important ... Let's uphold a strong
standard, high quality of life."
General Plan Issues Questionnaire (GP-5)
The combination of land uses, topography, natural features, subdivision patterns, streets, buildings, landscape, open areas and open spaces makes up Brisbane's physical character. The following pages contain policies and programs pertaining to both the mix of land uses and the physical character of the community. Policies are grouped under six headings: General Principles, Bay and Mountain Setting, Nature and Character of Development, Open Space and Open Areas, Streets, and Subdivision Patterns.
General Principles
Policy LU.3 Establish a mix of land uses that best serves the needs of the community.
Program LU.3.a: When evaluating land uses, consider whether a use would result in adverse impacts on existing and proposed land uses nearby, and whether those impacts can be mitigated.
Policy LU.4 Integrate physical, social, environmental and financial elements of the community for the benefit of current and future residents.
Policy LU.5 Establish a mix of uses with a diversified economic base to maintain and increase tax revenues and contribute to the City's ability to provide services.
Policy LU.6 Adopt development standards which protect and enhance the quality of life in Brisbane.
Program LU.6a: When drafting development standards, consider preserving a sense of openness in the design of structures and sites and the access to sky and sunlight for both new construction and renovation projects.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-18
Policy LU.7 Enhance communications and information sharing with adjacent jurisdictions at early stages of project development in order to address issues of mutual concern.
Bay and Mountain Setting
Policy LU.8 Acknowledge the mountain setting and the proximity to the Bay as central factors in forming the physical character of the City.
Program LU.8.a: In making land use decisions, consider the proximity of open space on San Bruno Mountain and public views of and access to the Bay as issues to be addressed.
Policy LU.9 Preserve the ridgelines and hilltops in their open state.
Program LU.9.a: Prohibit land use changes that would result in development that would break the natural ridgeline.
Program LU.9.b: Adopt hillside development standards that protect against ridgeline development through regulation of the siting of structures, location of access, landscape requirements and other pertinent factors.
Policy LU.10 Respect the topography of the Mountain in design and construction.
Program LU.10.a: In conjunction with land use development applications, encourage options that minimize grading and transformation of the landform and fit comfortably with the topography.
Policy LU.11 In the context of respecting private property rights, make every effort to preserve and enhance public views of the Mountain and the Bay.
Program LU.11.a: Identify and map vistas and view corridors of community-wide value to be preserved and enhanced.
Program LU.11.b: Consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to provide for site plan review to assure that identified vistas and public view corridors remain accessible for public enjoyment. The review should evaluate building placement, height and bulk.
Program LU.11.c: In reevaluating the tree protection ordinance and landscaping requirements, consider the trade-off between desirability of foliage versus the DRAFT
preservation of views and access to sunlight.
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-19
Nature and Character of Development
The diversity of structures in Brisbane is central to the existing physical character of the City. It is a reflection of a City that developed lot by lot, of many different hands building to meet individual needs over the years. It is in the nature of cities that structures are built, changed, demolished and rebuilt as the years go by, and that demographic changes, economic factors, safety standards and personal preference affect the size, scale and appearance of development, as well as building codes and zoning standards.
The following policies emphasize Brisbane's desire to retain and continue to encourage diversity and individual expression as changes occur in the built environment, while encouraging quality construction and the upgrading and on-going maintenance of existing structures.
Policy LU.12 Retain diversity of development and individual expression in residential and commercial development, especially in Central Brisbane.
Program LU.12.a: Review the R and C-2 District regulations to ascertain if amendments would help preserve the diversity of existing development.
Program LU.12.b: Consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit issuance of a building permit for a single family dwelling on a lot of record when the design is essentially the same as that on any immediately adjacent lot.
Policy LU.13 Respect Brisbane's vernacular architectural heritage.
Policy LU.14 Provide clear performance standards in the Municipal Code for the physical character of all land use developments on private property.
Program LU.14.a: Consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which contain clear and defined standards to protect creativity and diversity in design while addressing issues of height, scale, mass and articulation.
Program LU.14.b: Review existing height limits in existing land use districts to determine whether current regulations result in structures appropriate in height and scale to the physical character of the City.
Program LU.14.c: Review the residential parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance to determine their effect on the height, mass and scale of structures and grading implications and whether amendments to the Code should be considered.
Program LU.14.d Establish height limits for new zoning districts, taking into consideration the geology and topography of the area, as well as impacts to adjacent uses.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-20
Program LU.14e: Establish clear and defined performance standards in the Zoning Ordinance for buildings and signs visible from the hillsides of Central Brisbane. Standards should address light and glare, the treatment of roofs and the screening of mechanical equipment.
Program LU.14.f: Consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to establish standards for protecting the character of the existing residential Central Brisbane subarea, including attention to scale, juxtapositions, views, natural topography and ecological protection.
Program LU.14.g: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit tall smokestacks and industrial towers.
Program LU.14.h: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require that large parking lots be broken up by landscaped areas and parkway strips.
Policy LU.15 Encourage the maintenance and upgrading of structures and sites that have played important roles in the City's history.
Program LU.15.a: Provide courtesy inspections of historic structures and sites to advise owners of needed corrections and repairs.
Program LU.15.b: Provide information to owners of historic structures regarding State tax incentives for rehabilitation.
Program LU.15.c: Seek official designation of historical structures and sites and pursue all means of ensuring their permanent preservation.
Policy LU.16 Encourage the maintenance and upgrading of residential and nonresidential structures to improve safety and appearance.
Program LU.16.a: Prevent blight and deterioration by providing public information and enforcing health and safety codes.
Program LU.16.b: Seek funding sources, such as low-interest loans and grants for rehabilitation of existing structures, and encourage property owners to take advantage of such programs.
The physical character of the community is an essential part of the "glue" that holds the community together. Knowing neighbors and merchants, meeting residents as a part of daily business, and attending community events at regular locations all contribute to the sense of community and all are directly affected by the arrangement of the physical environment.
Policy LU.17 Encourage interaction and involvement among neighbors on a day-today basis and foster a sense of security in the community through the design and location of private development and public improvements.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-21
Program LU.17.a: Establish the Central Brisbane subarea as the "town center" and the hub of civic activities.
Program LU.17.b: As outer areas develop, assure connections and compatibility with the existing community.
Policy LU.18 Locate and design commercial recreational facilities and services so as to encourage use by a broad spectrum of Brisbane residents and businesses.
Program LU.18.a: Consider access for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians in conjunction with the siting of commercial services and recreational facilities.
Program LU.18.b: Require all commercial services and public facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with State and Federal regulations.
Policy LU.19 Provide centrally located public facilities for public services and community events so as to maximize use by Brisbane residents and businesses.
Program LU.19.a: As a part of the City's Capital Improvement Planning, consider the need for and appropriate location of public facilities, such as a City Hall, Community Center, Recreation Center and Police Station.
Program LU.19.b: Improve the Old County Road site as a central gathering point for community events.
Program LU.19.c: Continue to maintain and upgrade the Community Center.
Program LU.19.d: In coordination with the School District, continue shared community use of District facilities
Program LU.19.e: Determine the best civic use for the Old Fire Station site on San Bruno Avenue.
Open Areas
The developed community consists of a pattern of built structures and open areas. Open areas are defined below:
Open areas are parcels of land or portions thereof, primarily in private ownership, that serve to soften the impacts of urban development and otherwise provide primarily green areas and a feeling of "openness" to the development pattern. Open areas include, but are not limited to, setbacks and easements that are landscaped or characterized by native vegetation, gardens and landscaped vegetation. Open areas might also include golf courses, private parks and recreation areas within private developments. An open area may consist of a combination of hardscape and DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-22
landscape, typical of plazas, sculpture gardens and gathering places. Streets, sidewalks, parking lots and similar improvements, although not covered by structures, do not qualify as open areas.
The policies in this section address only these open areas. (For the definition of Open Space see page 111 and for policies on Open Space and Aquatic Areas, refer to Chapter VII.) Table 2 provides examples of the various types of open areas that could be provided in accordance with General Plan policy. To the extent that the development pattern is governed by code requirements that establish parameters for design and placement of improvements, the provision of open areas stems directly from City regulations. Most requirements for open areas will be formulated as part of the zoning regulations. It should be noted that in this chapter, the policy for subareas designated Planned Development establishes a minimum of 25% of the surface land, not including aquatic areas, to be preserved as either open space or open areas.
The following policies and programs speak to the provision of open areas in Brisbane's development pattern and the intent to preserve a sense of openness and avoid the feeling of increasing density.
Policy LU.20 The establishment of open areas within private developments shall be utilized as a means of preserving unique environmental features on the site or avoiding the appearance of excessive bulk or concentration of structures.
Policy LU.21 Preserve open areas with biological value and/or significant topographic characteristics at the perimeter of the City that maintain Brisbane as separate and distinct from nearby communities.
Policy LU.22 Retain sufficient open areas between structures to meet safety requirements, protect privacy and provide opportunities for landscaping.
Program LU.22.a: Review the setback, lot coverage and landscape requirements in the Zoning Ordinance to assure adequate open areas in the development pattern.
Program LU.22.b: Adopt new zoning regulations, as necessary, with specific qualifying requirements for open areas and square footage and for percentage minimum standards for all development districts.
Program LU.22.c: In all multi-structure development proposals, consider the DRAFT
pattern of open areas as an integral part of the development concept.
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-23
TABLE 2
Typical Open Areas
beach open natural areas
berry farms outdoor employee break area
bird sanctuary parcourse
bocci ball courts parkway strips
botanical gardens parks
community garden petting zoos
firebreaks picnic grounds
fish ponds playgrounds
gardens playing fields
golf course plazas
grassy amphitheaters sculpture gardens
horse corrals and open arenas tea gardens
horseshoe courts topiary
landscaped areas outside the setbacks tot lots
landscaped creeks and streams tree farms
landscaped paths, trails unimproved steep slopes
landscaped patios wading pools
landscaped setbacks water elements
landscaped swimming pools water fountains
large landscaped medians wetland areas
native plant exhibition areas wildlife areas
nursery yard
Policy LU.23 Retain sufficient distances between development and designated open space and natural areas to enhance and respect the amenity and value of the resource.
Program LU.23.a: Establish minimum setback requirements from the Brisbane Lagoon, Levinson Marsh, and other designated aquatic areas consistent with good planning and conservation practices in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game.
Policy LU.24 Combine the benefits of open areas with the establishment of safety buffers and conservation areas.
Program LU.24.a: Consider a setback requirement to achieve separation from areas of wildland fire hazard.
Program LU.24.b: Consider hillside development standards that retain steep slopes as open areas.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-24
Policy LU.25 Respect the historic pattern of open areas in Central Brisbane and retain this character in conjunction with the rehabilitation of existing structures when consistent with good planning and safety practices.
Program LU.25.a: Review the Zoning Ordinance for opportunities to retain certain parking and setback nonconformities that contribute to the historic pattern of open areas in Central Brisbane.
Program LU.25.b: Review the parking and setback requirements in the Zoning Ordinance to ascertain how the requirements affect the pattern of open areas and whether amendments to the Code could provide more open areas and landscape along the street right-of-way.
Program LU.25.c: Underground utilities in conjunction with all new development.
Program LU.25.d: If economically feasible, underground utilities in conjunction with street reconstruction.
Policy LU.26 Keep open areas and opportunities for landscaping along arterial and collector streets by establishing setbacks from the right-of-way.
Program LU.26.a: Examine district regulations to ascertain whether amendments to the Code are necessary to provide adequate setbacks to establish open areas along the right-of-way.
Streets
Streets serve to bridge the various parts of the community. They are important both in their function and in their physical expression. In Brisbane, residential streets have a unique character based on their relationship to the topography and their historical development. Likewise, some streets serving non-residential areas still reflect their origins as early highways and haul roads.
In cities, with the passage of years, streets require repair and reconstruction as well as modification to meet current safety standards. As vacant lands develop, new streets may be constructed. The following policies address the desired physical character of both new and existing streets in Brisbane (see the chapters on Transportation and Circulation, and Community Health and Safety for additional policies on streets):
Policy LU.27 In conjunction with safety improvements to existing streets, retain the historic character of the City to the greatest extent feasible.
Program LU.27.a: If safety standards are met, retain and enhance unique features such as rock escarpments, retaining walls, "gateways" (such as the entry to Crocker Park) and historic, aged trees.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-25
Policy LU.28 Design new streets to be attractive and comfortable for pedestrians and bicyclists, and to safely accommodate vehicular traffic. Street configuration, landscape and signage should all be considered as they contribute to community character.
Program LU.28.a: Require landscaping along all major arterial streets.
Program LU.28.b: Construct landscaped medians where appropriate in arterial streets.
Program LU.28.c: Use drought resistant, water-conserving non-invasive plant materials that reflect local character.
Program LU.28.d: Continue to implement a street tree planting and management program and improve it as appropriate.
Program LU.28.e: Improve the program for street and directional signs Program LU.28.f: Prohibit new commercial billboard sites and seek to remove those currently in place.
Program LU.28.g: Provide standards in the Municipal Code to assure that abutting properties have adequate separation from travelways and protection from noise and other traffic impacts
Program LU.28.h: Consider funding methods, such as landscape assessment districts, to install and maintain improvements within rights-of-way.
Program LU.28.i: Work with appropriate State and County agencies, private organizations, service clubs and property owners to maintain an attractive appearance of major thoroughfares
Program LU.28.j: Encourage environmental groups, local service clubs, individuals and local businesses to "adopt a street" to support litter removal and encourage volunteer beautification projects along streets and remaining rightsof-way Program LU.28.k: Discourage wind channelization when approving new streets.
Subdivision Pattern
Policy LU.29 Establish subdivision standards that acknowledge the constraints of topography and the ability to serve parcels with infrastructure to City standards.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-26
Program LU.29.a: Develop a list with supporting documentation of these constraints, including fiscal, geophysical, ecological, etc.
Policy LU.30 On an ongoing basis, bring unrecorded subdivisions into compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and City standards.
Program LU.30.a: Require that unrecorded lots be surveyed and a parcel map recorded before permitting new improvements to be constructed or existing improvements intensified on the property.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
V-27
FOOTNOTES
1. See Housing Element and background reports GP-2 and GP-3 for further detail.
2. See background report EC-2 for more information on employee density factors.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
C/P-U PD - RP
HC
NER - PD - R
PD - S C/R/O
TC
PR-TC
M/L/B
PD - NR
R
N C/R/O
R
PD - TC
R
OS
SP C/R/O
S C/R/O
PFP
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, Vantor, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 3URSRVHG/DQG8VH'HVLJQDWLRQ5HYLVLRQV
7R DFFRPPRGD WH WKH %D\ODQGV 6SHFL ILF 3ODQ
&XUUHQW/DQG8VH'HVLJQDWLRQV
3'15 %D\ODQGV3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW1RQ5HVLGHQWLDO
3'53 %D\ODQGV3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW5HVLGHQWLDO3HUPLWWHG 5 %ULVEDQH$FUHV
5 &HQWUDO%ULVEDQH
5 &HQWUDO%ULVEDQH%
&38 &RPPHUFLDO3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV
3'6&52 *XDGDOXSH+LOOV3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW
+& +HDY\&RPPHUFLDO
0/% 0DUVK/DJRRQ%D\IURQW
1&52 1HLJKERUKRRG&RPPHUFLDO5HWDLO2IILFH
1(53'5 1RUWKHDVW5LGJH3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW5HVLGHQWLDO 26 2SHQ6SDFH
357& 3DUNVLGH5HVLGHQWLDO
3)3 3XEOLF)DFLOLWLHVDQG3DUNV
3'7& 4XDUU\3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW
63&52 6LHUUD3RLQW&RPPHUFLDO5HWDLO2IILFH
6&52 6XEUHJLRQDO&RPPHUFLDO5HWDLO2IILFH
7& 7UDGH&RPPHUFLDO
3URSRVHG5HYLVLRQV
%D\ODQGV6SHFLILF3ODQ
%63
$UHD
3URSRVHGFKDQJHWR/DQG8VH'HVLJQDWLRQ
3' 15
'HVLJQDWLRQ WR UHSODFH
+&
'HVLJQDWLRQ
XSWRQRUWKERXQGDU\RI%D\ODQGV6SHFLILF3ODQ$UHD
RAFT
PR-TC R
EXHIBIT D Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
EXHIBIT E
Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element Amendments
Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
Includes Updates Adopted by City Council September 2015 and January 2020 Resolutions 2015-38 and 2020-01
CHAPTER VI
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
GOALS:
The City of Brisbane will be a place…
Where there is an established rational relationship between land use and circulation in place to guide the City into the future; Where all users of the transportation network can travel safely and comfortably throughout Brisbane;
Where Complete Streets are integrated into the transportation network to provide for a balanced, connected, safe and
convenient multi-modal network;
Where reliable public transit services are promoted and expanded, creating viable transportation alternatives to the automobile;
Where parking needs have been reasonably balanced to
encourage walkable neighborhoods, economic vitality, safety and convenience; and
Where the transportation network serves the needs of residents as well as commercial and industrial businesses.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-2
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-1
CIRCULATION
Chapter Index
Page
VI.1 Description of Circulation System .................................................................................VI-3 Streets and Highways.................................................................................................... VI-3 Transit Systems ............................................................................................................ VI-10 VI.2 Traffic Flow, Convenience and Access ........................................................................ VI-1011 Roadway Performance ................................................................................................. VI-1012 North-South and East-West Corridors ......................................................................... VI-12 14 Street Standards ............................................................................................................ VI-1315 VI.3 Traffic Safety ................................................................................................................ VI-1416 Local Residential Streets .............................................................................................. VI-1416 Arterial Streets ............................................................................................................. VI-1416 Truck Routes ................................................................................................................ VI-1517 Improvements Funding ................................................................................................ VI-1517 VI.4 Complete Streets ........................................................................................................... VI-1517 Complete Streets Applicability and Design Standards ............................................ VI-15 17 Bicycles and Pedestrians ............................................................................................ VI-1719 Transit .......................................................................................................................... VI-2022 VI.5 Transportation Management ......................................................................................... VI-2123 VI.6 Parking .......................................................................................................................... VI-2123 VI.7 Circulation and Land Use ............................................................................................. VI-2224 VI.8 Green Streets ................................................................................................................. VI-2426 VI.9 Alternative Transportation Modes ................................................................................ VI-2527 VI.10 San Francisco
DRAFT -San Mateo Bi-County Transportation Study......................................... VI-2628 EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-2
CHAPTER VI
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
This circulation element addresses how the City of Brisbane will maintain, enhance and expand its circulation system to best meet the needs of its residents, business community, and visitors travelling to, from or through Brisbane.
Key considerations in Brisbane’s circulation system planning are to recognize the land use context within the various areas of the City and the existing geographic or physical constraints in those areas, while at the same time recognizing opportunities for improvements and potential connections within the larger regional circulation network that will best serve the community. These considerations are reflected in Brisbane’s circulation element goals, as detailed on the previous page, as well as through the policies and programs that follow.
In working to enhance both the local function of the circulation network and its regional connections, Brisbane will continue in its collaborative efforts with other local and regional agencies and will continue to seek various regional, state, and federal funding resources for projects which are of local and regional concern.
Brisbane’s goals are consistent with the state and regional goals which are expressed through the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG’s), “Plan Bay Area” and the intent of the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358, Leno), codified in Sections 65040.2 and 65302 of the Government Code.
This element is organized as follows:
VI.1 Description of Circulation System
o Streets and Highways
o Transit Systems
VI.2 Traffic Flow, Convenience and Access
o Roadway Performance
o North-South and East-West Corridors
o Street Standards
VI.3 Traffic Safety
o Local Residential Streets
o Arterial Streets
o Truck Routes
o Street Signage
o Improvements Funding
VI.4 Complete Streets
o Complete Streets Applicability and Design Standards
o Bicycles and Pedestrians
o Transit
VI.5 Transportation Management
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-3
VI.6 Parking
VI.7 Circulation and Land Use
VI.8 Green Streets
VI.9 Alternative Transportation Modes
VI.10 San Francisco-San Mateo Bi-County Transportation Study Certain aspects of this element address broad policy issues while others are more detailed implementation programs. Given the technical nature of transportation issues, engineering analysis and judgment are integral to the implementation of the element. Where policies or programs refer to a City action, they may include tasks or decisions involving City Council and potentially multiple City departments, and/or professional engineering work under the responsible charge of the City Engineer. This is determined on a case-by-case basis, by the City, consistent with state law regulating the work to be done by qualified, licensed engineering professionals.
Figures C.1 and C.2 show the circulation system within the planning area, including the major thoroughfares as well as the local street network. Figure C.3 illustrates changes to the circulation system in the planning area.
VI.1 DESCRIPTION OF CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Streets and Highways
The San Francisco Bay and San Bruno Mountain are the major determinants of the geographic layout of the street and highway system serving the planning area, with Highway 101 and Bayshore Boulevard serving as the main transportation corridors to, through and within the City. The following provides a brief outline of the major streets and highways. Streets or highways are assigned a functional classification, based on a hierarchy of the function and vehicular travel movement capacity.
1. Regional Routes: Regional Routes are roadways and highways that cross county boundaries and/or carry large volumes of through traffic to and from locations outside of Brisbane that does not have a destination within the City other than the Bayshore Caltrain station. The need to distinguish mobility issues and policies along Regional Routes from issues and policies facing other roadways within the City is demonstrated by:
• Increased vehicular congestion that will occur within Brisbane along these routes due to the large amount of development being approved in cities to the north and south of Brisbane;
• Adoption of SB 743, which calls for balancing the need for infill residential, commercial, employment-generating, and mixed use development in proximity to transit and the need for reducing greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions with the need for addressing vehicular traffic congestion;
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-4
DRAFT
Freeway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Local
Private
()
~ Feet
0 500 1,000 2,000
Figure C-1
Existing Street Classification
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-5
DRAFT
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Local
Private
()
~ Feet
0 180 360 720
Figure C-2
Existing Street Classification
Central Brisbane Area
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-6
Replace with new Figure C-3
DRAFT
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Local
Private
Regional Arterial
()
~ Feet
0 500 1,000 2,000
Figure C-3
Proposed
Circulation Improvements
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-7
Replace with new Figure C-4
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-8
• SB 743 CEQA Guidelines, approved in December 2018 that eliminate traffic congestion as a significant impact under CEQA;
• The US 101 freeway is owned, operated, and maintained by the State of California.
Changes to the freeway and its interchanges are subject to review and approval by Caltrans. In practice, physical modifications to the freeway and its interchanges are more influencdedinfluenced by regional traffic patterns and regional organizations such as MTC and C/CAG than by local needs; and
• Limited capacity for widening of the 101 freeway and Bayshore Boulevard to accommodate vehicular traffic generated outside of the City, along with the limited ability of the City of Brisbane to make meaningful freeway improvements.
Two types of Regional Routes occur within Brisbane:
a. Freeways: Freeways are limited access, high-speed travel-ways, which are included in the state and federal highway systems. They carry regional through traffic, and access is provided at interchanges, generally at intervals of one mile or greater. Brisbane has one freeway, U.S. Highway 101, along its eastern edge.
b. Regional Arterials: Regional Arterials are major streets, such as Bayshore Boulevard and the Geneva Avenue extension that serve regional functions and carry large volumes of traffic generated from outside of Brisbane that does not have a destination within the City.
2. Principal and minor arterials: Arterials are major streets that primarily serve through traffic and on a limited basis they may provide access to abutting properties. They are generally designed with 4 to 6 lanes and major intersections are usually signalized. Brisbane has both principal and minor arterials, with the minor arterials in Brisbane being only two lanes, except for the eastern portion of Valley Drive, which is four lanes.
3. Major and Minor collectors: Collector streets connect arterial streets and local streets with reduced traffic volumes and generally narrower roadways than the arterials. They generally have two travel lanes, parking lanes, sidewalks, and street trees or planting strips.
4. Local: Local streets provide access to individual abutting properties as their primary function.
Local streets have no more than two travel lanes.
4.5. Green Shared Street: Green Shared Streets provide direct access to residential areas. They prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists, while accommodating bidirectional vehicular movements within one shared, mixed travel lane. Design elements include a curbless cross-section, street furnishings, and traffic calming measures.
The street classifications within Brisbane are generally described as follows:
Regional Routes
U.S. Highway 101- Freeway: The U.S. 101 freeway traverses the eastern edge of Brisbane and is the main corridor serving north-south traffic along the San Francisco Peninsula between the Santa Clara DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-9
Valley and San Jose to the south and San Francisco to the north. Highway 101 on- and off-ramps within Brisbane are currently limited to those at Beatty Avenue and the north and south ends of Sierra Point Parkway.
Bayshore Boulevard: Bayshore Boulevard is a decommissioned State Highway and is now a City owned and maintained arterial roadway. Bayshore Boulevard serves as the City’s primary north-south transportation route, connecting Brisbane to San Francisco, Daly City, and South San Francisco. Together with its connecting minor arterial streets, Bayshore Boulevard also provides linkages to and from Highway 101. As a result, Bayshore Boulevard’s performance affects all traffic access and circulation through the City.
Bayshore Boulevard functions primarily as a regional roadway through the City of Brisbane. Peak hour congestion along Highway 101 causes traffic to be diverted from the freeway onto Bayshore Boulevard through the City of Brisbane as motorists attempt to avoid congested freeway traffic. Depending on the time of day and location, regional through traffic makes up 60 to 80 percent of traffic on Bayshore Boulevard. On a daily basis, only 10 to 15 percent of all trips on Bayshore Boulevard are generated from Brisbane’s residential neighborhoods and 15 to 20 percent are generated by Brisbane’s employment centers. The majority of traffic on Bayshore Boulevard within Brisbane is between San Francisco and cities to the south, with a smaller amount (approximately 15 percent of all trips) traveling between Daly City and the cities to the south.
A principal challenge for the City is maintaining vehicular mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses along Bayshore Boulevard. As large-scale developments occur in cities to the north and south of Brisbane, regional through traffic and congestion on Bayshore Boulevard is projected to increase. It is also important that Bayshore Boulevard provide safe access and egress for sites located along its frontage while maintaining its ability to move vehicles through the City. Another issue is providing for safe and comfortable access for bicyclists and pedestrians. In 2008 and 2011, bikeways were completed on both sides of Bayshore Boulevard, in part with funding obtained by the City through the California Transportation Development Act. These bikeways include 6 foot wide striped bike shoulders and rumble strips, which have enhanced their function within the regional bikeway network and have helped address bicycle access and safety.
Questions for the future remain regarding the function and design of Bayshore Boulevard and how it to best address the way this roadway is being used by regional through traffic, while meeting the mobility needs of the local community.
Along with approval of the Baylands Specific Plan, the City adopted the Bayshore Mobility Plan, a vision for the future of Bayshore Boulevard. It includes the following goals:
• Enhance connectivity for residents and land uses abutting Bayshore Boulevard; • Increase connectivity between the Baylands and the City of Brisbane for people traveling along and crossing Bayshore Boulevard;
• Reduce the prominence of regional through-traffic along Bayshore Boulevard by implementing a road diet;
• Redesign Bayshore Boulevard as a multi-modal corridor to increase the level of comfort and safety for all roadway users including automobiles, emergency response vehicles, transit vehicles, trucks, bicycles, and pedestrians in accordance with General Plan Policy C.1 to “provide for comfortable and safe travel within the community to shopping, employment, and recreation, as well as to transit” and the recommendations of the 2022 Complete Streets Safety Assessment; and
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-10
• Improve the look of the corridor, providing opportunities for landscaping, gateway features, wayfinding, and other features that increase the prominence of the roadway as a route local route for Baylands residents rather than a regional cut-through route.
Geneva Avenue: Geneva Avenue is currently an east-west arterial within the jurisdiction of Daly City with its current eastern terminus at Bayshore Boulevard, providing a link between Brisbane and Daly City. Upon development of the Baylands, an extension of Geneva Avenue will be constructed through the Baylands. The Geneva Avenue extension will serve as the primary east-west connection through the Baylands and as an important connection to Highway 101 for traffic generated within both Brisbane and Daly City. A new interchange for Geneva Avenue at Highway 101 would be constructed to replace the current Highway 101 on- and off-ramp interchange at Alana Way and Harney Way with a new more efficient interchange configuration known as the Candlestick Interchange.
Principal Arterials
Guadalupe Canyon Parkway: Guadalupe Canyon Parkway is an east-west principal arterial with its eastern terminus at Bayshore Boulevard, providing links to Daly City.
Alana Way & Harney Way: Short segments of Alana Way and Harney Way are within Brisbane and serve as principal arterials connecting to Highway 101 from Beatty Ave. in Brisbane and Harney Way at Candlestick Point.
Minor Arterials
Visitacion and San Bruno Avenues connect with Old County Road in Central Brisbane and all three streets serve as minor arterials for this area. Old County Road becomes Tunnel Avenue as it crosses over Bayshore Boulevard, and connects with Beatty Avenue and Lagoon Way. Lagoon Way then connects with Sierra Point Parkway. All of these are classified as minor arterials. Similarly, Valley Drive (eastern portion), North Hill Drive and the eastern portion of Mission Blue Drive serve as minor arterials in the Crocker Park and Northeast Ridge subareas.
Tunnel Avenue provides an alternative to Bayshore Boulevard, while Sierra Point Parkway provides access/egress for the Sierra Point subarea. The Tunnel Avenue railroad overpass was replaced in 2007 to meet current seismic safety standards, to improve the geometry of the crossing, and to provide bike and pedestrian lanes. These improvements have added significantly to the viability of Tunnel Avenue as an alternative to Bayshore Boulevard. The remaining portions of Tunnel Avenue and its connecting streets will also be further improved upon development of the Baylands.
Lagoon Way serves as the east-west connection between Central Brisbane and access to southbound Highway 101, via Tunnel Avenue. Beatty Avenue likewise serves as a connection to and from the northeast corner of the City, from Tunnel Avenue to access to north and southbound Highway 101.
The challenge facing Brisbane for minor arterial streets is to evaluate these on a case-by-case basis relative to the goals, policies and programs, to define how they can be modified to enhance and provide alternative modes of transportation and to secure funding sources to implement improvements that are DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-11
determined to be a priority by the City.
Major Collector Streets
Major collector streets include Humboldt Road, Glen Parkway, a portion of Monterey Street and a portion of Visitacion Avenue, which connect several local streets within the residential area of Central Brisbane.
The western portions of both Valley Drive in Crocker Park and Mission Blue Drive in the Northeast Ridge are also classified as major collectors, as is Monarch Drive and the eastern portion of West Hill Drive, which connect Crocker Park and the Northeast Ridge subareas. Within the northern portion of the Baylands Specific Plan, Main Street, East Campus Road, Campus Parkway, and Sunnydale Avenue are east-west collectors, and Baylands Boulevard is a north-south collector.
The challenges for the major collector streets are, as stated above for the minor arterials, to define how they can be modified to enhance and provide alternative modes of transportation and to secure funding sources to implement improvements.
Local Streets
Local streets serve most of the residential areas of Central Brisbane, and the Northeast Ridge, and the Baylands Specific Plansubarea. While the Northeast Ridge and Baylands Specific Plan is are a more recent developments and the streets were are or will be built to meet modern standards, Central Brisbane’s existing development pattern poses significant challenges in providing separation between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, due to existing street widths and steep topography. These challenges increase from the lower Central Brisbane streets to the very steep and narrow upper streets. While separate travel lanes are limited along those streets, the roadway geometry necessitates low vehicle speeds on these shared roadways, thus mitigating some of the need for wider roadway sections.
Green Shared Streets:
The Green shared street classification is a street classification unique to The Baylands subarea. Green shared streets are curbless, streets located in residential areas that prioritize pedestrians and bicycles and are designed for slow speeds and shared use with automobiles. Examples would include residential streets within the Roundhouse and Bayshore districts of the Baylands Specific Plan.
TRANSIT SYSTEMS
Brisbane is served by the following transit systems connecting to regional destinations:
• San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans)
• Caltrain
• Local shuttle service
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-12
Currently in Brisbane, SamTrans runs bus routes along Bayshore Boulevard seven days a week, and the Bayshore Caltrain station is located at the northern border of the City. Both the bus line and train lines generally run north-south. Transfers to reach other destinations off these north-south lines generally involve long wait times and often there are disconnects between the different modes of transportation.
For example, the Bayshore Caltrain station is approximately 1-½ miles from Central Brisbane, and the SamTrans bus line serving Central Brisbane currently does not connect to the Caltrain station. The stops between SamTrans and Caltrain at the north end of Brisbane are approximately ½-mile walking distance apart. Improvement of these connections and development of a multi-modal station at the northern end of Brisbane are proposed to be implemented as part of the Baylands development.
San Francisco’s Muni Metro Light Rail System extends to Bayshore Boulevard and Sunnydale Avenue near the northern border of Brisbane. Connectivity to a multi-modal transit facility is anticipated under the Baylands development.
Private and public commuter shuttles provide service to and from Brisbane’s commercial areas of Sierra Point and Crocker Park and along Old County Road and San Bruno Avenue to regional transit connections and to the Daly City Bayshore neighborhood. A new, fare-free shuttle system will be provided to integrate new development within the Baylands as set forth in the Baylands Specific Plan into existing routes that connect Brisbane with regional transit networks. Service within the western side of the Baylands will terminate at the Bayshore Caltrain station and Downtown Brisbane and service on the eastern side will integrate the Campus East District, including Lagoon Park, and terminate on the east side of the Bayshore Caltrain station and Downtown Brisbane. While these shuttle services pick up some of the slack in the local transit system, significant improvements are needed on a regional basis to begin to meet the goals outlined in “Transportation 2030” and Brisbane’s own General Plan. Shuttle scheduling information may be found on the websites www.commute.org and/or www.samtrans.org VI. 2 TRAFFIC FLOW, CONVENIENCE AND ACCESS
Roadway Performance
Historically, vehicular traffic congestion and roadway performance standards such as level of service (LOS) have been used in three different ways.
1. For roadway and freeway planning as part of a City’s General Plan or a regional transportation plan to determine the number of lanes needed along roadways or freeways to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes consistent with the applicable LOS standard.
2. For roadway or freeway improvements undertaken by a public agency to determine when a roadway or freeway needs to be widened or when additional turn lanes or through lanes are needed at an intersection to meet the applicable LOS standard.
3. To analyze in a CEQA document how the traffic generated by a proposed development project would cause or increase congestion. At intersections where a proposed project would cause LOS standards to be exceeded, mitigation measures in the form of adding capacity at intersection(s), widening roadway(s), or providing signalization would then be required to mitigate the traffic impacts of the development project and thereby maintain applicable LOS standards.
Thus, the use of level of service standards has aimed at expanding the capacity of roadway and highway DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-13
systems to accommodate projected increasing volumes of vehicular traffic.
In recent years, however, climate change has become a matter of critical concern as greenhouse gas (GHG) levels in the atmosphere have increased dramatically due to human activity with the transportation sector (including private automobiles) being one of the largest producers of GHG emissions. In California, targets for GHG emission reductions have been established and substantial regulatory efforts are underway to ensure that these reduction targets are met. Reducing the amount of automobile travel throughout the state is one of the major strategies being put forth to reduce GHG emissions.
Policy C.1 Design the City’s roadway system to emphasize mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses, accommodate bicycle and pedestrian in addition to vehicular movement, and provide for comfortable and safe travel within the community to shopping, employment, and recreation, as well as to transit and the Highway 101 freeway.
Program C.1.a Consult with Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Transportation Authority, C/CAG, and others to develop and fund programs including physical improvements, enhanced use of transit, and transportation demand management, to maximize the ability of the 101 freeway to accommodate regional through traffic.
Program C.1.b Develop design plans for Bayshore Boulevard, the Geneva Avenue extension, and interchanges along the 101 freeway that address the effects of regional through traffic within Brisbane and enhances mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses through a combination of roadway and intersection, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facility improvements that would not cause a substantial increase in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) on Bayshore Boulevard or other routes through the City. As part of this design plan, evaluate (1) whether changes in design speeds along Bayshore Boulevard could improve mobility within the City; (2) the feasibility of shifting a portion of regional through traffic from Bayshore Boulevard onto other routes, such as Sierra Point Parkway by extending that roadway north to the 101 freeway interchange at Beatty Avenue, and (3) appropriate routing of trucks to and from the Crocker Park area.
Program C.1.c Prepare, adopt, and implement a mobility improvement fee program to fund the multi-modal improvements called for in the design plan for Bayshore Boulevard and interchanges along the 101 freeway.
Program C.1.d Rather than undertake multiple traffic impact analyses to evaluate individual intersections along Bayshore Boulevard, Geneva Avenue, and at intersections along the 101 freeway, require new development projects that would generate 50 or more peak hour trips at any intersection along Bayshore Boulevard, Geneva Avenue, or at intersections along the 101 freeway to comply with the design plan developed pursuant to Program C.1.c and either provide physical improvements consistent with the plan or pay established traffic impact fees as directed by the Public Works Director .
Policy C.2 The level of service objective for principal and minor arterial streets within the City is LOS "D."
Program C.2a Require development projects that would generate 50 or more peak hour trips at an arterial street intersection to prepare a traffic impact analysis.
Program C.2.b In lieu of requiring individual development projects to prepare traffic impact analyses to evaluate intersections and require mitigation measures for impacts at DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-14
intersections along principal and minor arterials streets, consider developing a program of impact fees to fund multi-modal improvements and reduce automobile traffic generation in coordination with the San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan, as applicable.
Policy C.3 Design turning movements and traffic signal timing at intersections so as to avoid the queueing of vehicles at intersection from backing up and adversely affecting operations at another intersection. Design turning movements and traffic signal timing at freeway interchanges cause queueing of vehicles from the intersection onto the freeway mainline.
North-South and East-West Corridors
Policy C.4 Plan for an additional east-west corridor to redirect non-destination traffic away from Bayshore Boulevard and to provide more direct access to Highway 101.
Program C.4.a Pursue an extension of Geneva Avenue, connecting with the Candlestick Highway 101 Interchange that provides for bus rapid transit and connection to the Bayshore Caltrain station.
Program C.4.b Consult with Caltrans in the design of the Candlestick Highway 101 Interchange to assure the best connection with the Geneva Avenue Extension.
Program C.4.c Require that all east-west corridor rail crossings are grade-separated (i.e., not at-grade) to the extent permitted by law.
Policy C.5 Continue to upgrade north-south arterial and collector streets while providing the appropriate level of service.
Program C.5.a Require the upgrade of Tunnel Avenue to current codes and safety standards.
Policy C.6 Investigate and pursue alternative means of access to and egress from Sierra Point and investigate additional emergency access alternatives.
Policy C.7 Investigate and pursue traffic calming features for Visitacion Avenue, Old County Road and San Bruno Avenue to provide for greater pedestrian comfort and safety at street crossings.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-15
Street Standards
Policy C.8 Implement established City street standards to provide for adequate traffic flow and safe vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian movement along both existing and new streets.
Program C.8.a Consult with Caltrans in regard to street standards when a City street is a connector or ramp to a State route.
Policy C.9 For local residential streets in Central Brisbane, continue to require a minimum unobstructed street width of 20 feet, as required by the Uniform Fire Code.
Program C.9.a Permit exceptions that meet the required findings set forth in the Municipal Code.
Policy C.10 The City Engineer shall consider the following factors during plan review as they apply to residential, residential hillside, and commercial streets:
• grade
• topography
• average lot frontage size
• number of lots and potential intensity of development • maximum block length
• maximum length of cul-de-sac streets
• length of street in relation to number of units served • turnarounds
• parking
• secondary access
Program C.10.a Continue to implement street development standards that establish requirements for right-of -way dedication, street width, length, turnarounds, and access to parcels.
Program C.10.b Continue to implement street engineering design and construction standards that establish requirements for horizontal alignment and vertical alignment, pavement and pavement crown, concrete curb, and structural section design.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-16
Program C.10.c Continue to implement standards for sidewalks, bikeways, signalization, striping, and street lighting.
Policy C.11 Require designs for hillside streets to reflect the topography and to minimize grading and large retaining walls.
Program C.11.a Consider incorporation of small scale parking bays, rolled curbs, and other means of including parking and providing safe clearance on hillside streets.
VI. 3 TRAFFIC SAFETY
Local Residential Streets
Policy C.12 Maintain and improve local residential streets to accommodate safe access for emergency vehicles and evacuation routes for residents.
Policy C.13 As a part of the budget and capital improvement planning process, consider opportunities to incorporate safety standards and/or widen hillside streets to current city adopted standards.
Policy C.14 Develop a prioritized program for improvements to existing substandard City streets to include such things as street widening, turnarounds and the feasibility of secondary emergency access, and improving on-street parking.
Program C.14.a Investigate the feasibility of undergrounding utilities to mitigate potential traffic hazards, such as downed lines in a fire.
Program C.14.b Consider opportunities and funding to enhance safety on steep streets.
Policy C.15 Post and actively enforce the 25-mile per hour (mph) maximum speed limit in Central Brisbane and 15 mph on identified street segments near the schools, and investigate creating speed limit zones lower than 25 mph in other areas of Central Brisbane where appropriate.
Policy C.16 Promote a public awareness campaign regarding speed limits.
Arterial Streets
Policy C.17 Maintain traffic flow and continue to improve arterial streets to accommodate vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian movement.
DRAFT
------------
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-17
Program C.17.a Limit and control the number and location of driveways into arterial streets as needed to maintain mobility within the City. Encourage adjacent properties to develop common access. See also Program C.22.2 in Complete Streets section.
Program C.17.b Use landscaped medians and islands to direct and channel traffic, where needed to provide for mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses, as well as to provide safe separation and visual respite.
Truck Routes
Policy C.18 Maintain truck routes to avoid impacts on residential areas.
Program C.18.a. In conjunction with design planning for Bayshore Boulevard and the Geneva Avenue extension, undertake a review of appropriate truck routes within Brisbane, including truck routes to serve Crocker Park.
Street Signage
Policy C.19 Provide adequate signage on all streets including street names on at least one corner of every intersection and advance warning signs for major entries.
Improvements Funding
Policy C.20 Identify and pursue funding sources to implement circulation improvements.
Program C.20.a Encourage creation of assessment districts where appropriate, for needed circulation improvements.
Program C.20.b Utilize gas tax, sales tax and other funding sources to implement circulation improvements.
VI.4 COMPLETE STREETS
The state legislature passed The California Complete Streets Act in 2008, which requires that jurisdictions plan for “Complete Streets” to address the needs of all users.
Brisbane’s roadway infrastructure has largely already been built, with the notable exception of the Baylands, which will require the preparation and approval of a specific planfor which general infrastructure design standards are outlined in the Baylands Specific Plan. This Complete Streets section focuses on completing existing streets to meet the needs of bicycles, pedestrians, and transit users. New streets will also be required to be consistent with the element and provide for Complete Streets, as appropriate to the context.
Complete Streets Applicability and Design Standards
Policy C.21 The City shall provide for the development of Complete Streets consistent with Government Code Sections 65040.2 and 65302 and subsequent applicable Complete Streets legislation) to meet the needs of all users of “streets, roads and highways”.
Such users include bicyclists, children, youth, families, persons with disabilities, DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-18
motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, seniors, and first responders.
Policy C.22 Integrate Complete Streets infrastructure and design features, such as sidewalks, bikeways and transit stops, into street design and construction to create safe and inviting environments for people to walk, bicycle and use public transportation.
Program C.22.a Review and where needed, update the City’s engineering design standards to implement Complete Streets infrastructure elements.
Program C.22.b Incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure elements into new streets, street retrofits and certain maintenance projects to encourage multiple modes of travel, as appropriate to the context and determined reasonable and practicable by the City.
Depending on the context, these elements may include:
• Infrastructure that promotes a safe means of travel for all users along the public rightof-way, such as sidewalks, shared use of paths, bicycle lanes, and paved shoulders; • Infrastructure that facilitates safe pedestrian crossings of the right of way, such as accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, and signals to meet the needs of children, people with disabilities and the elderly;
• Street design features that promote safe and comfortable travel by pedestrians, bicyclists and users of public transportation, such as traffic calming features and physical buffers between vehicular traffic and other users; • Inclusion of amenities that improve the comfort and addresses the safety needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, such as, but not limited to, signs, pavement markings, pedestrian-scale lighting, benches, seat walls, bike lockers and racks; • Improvements to public transit and multi-modal connections, to enhance City-wide transit access and connections to regional destinations; • Minimizing vehicular ingress and egress points on major arterials and consolidating private driveway entries to enhance bicycle, pedestrian and automobile safety along these arterials;
• Inclusion of street trees and other landscaping features, to enhance the appearance of the streetscape and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle use. Landscaping should use San Bruno Mountain native plants where feasible. In any case, plants should be noninvasive and drought resistant. (See also the Green Streets section of this element.) • Balance on-street parking as appropriate to the context, to promote the Complete Streets Act goals and encourage economic vitality. (See also the Parking section of this element.)
Program C.22.c Where possible, work with MTC to secure regional funding for Complete Streets projects.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-19
Policy C.23 Seek to retrofit existing roadways to create Complete Streets.
Program C.23.a Identify roadways where retrofits may reasonably be accomplished in balance with existing and planned land uses, giving priority to arterial and collector streets and to projects that would provide greater connectivity between key areas of the City, such as, but not limited to, between the Northeast Ridge, Sierra Point and Central Brisbane.
Program C.23.b Identify roadways where Complete Streets retrofits may provide for enhanced place-making and contribute to the City’s vitality.
Program C.23.c Seek regional, state, and/or federal funding sources to retrofit roadways to create Complete Streets.
Policy C.24 For new multifamily, mixed use or commercial development projects subject to discretionary review that would affect the public right-of-way, incorporate and implement Complete Streets elements at each stage of the development process as determined reasonable and practicable by the City.
Program C.24.a As part of the design review permit process, require documentation of how the routine accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians will be satisfied.
Program C.24.b As part of the project design review process, ensure that the project objectives and purpose are consistent with current MTC directives on Complete Streets and Routine Accommodation.
Bicycles and Pedestrians
Bicycle and pedestrian travel have become increasingly popular in recent years in the San Francisco Bay Area, where the weather is mild, and where there has been an increased accommodation of these modes into circulation networks throughout the region. These are typically modes used for recreation, school trips, and short- to moderate-distance commute trips. Since they are non-polluting, require relatively low cost facilities, and contribute to individual health, they are increasingly becoming valuable alternatives to automobiles and are critical components in the circulation network in contributing to sustainability. They are also critical modes for incorporation in the circulation network in providing a sense of place, especially within city centers.
Given the ties of pedestrian and bicycle access to land use, Brisbane’s General Plan includes the policies and programs that follow in this section as well as companion policies and programs within the land use and subareas elements.
Brisbane is currently in the process of creating a bicycle and pedestrian master plan that would enhance its existing network of bikeways and walkways and where possible provide greater connectivity, or improve existing bikeways and walkways that are tied to the regional network.
Regional Connections
Policy C.25 Provide input to the City and County of San Francisco and San Mateo County in regional planning efforts to enhance and expand the regional bicycle and pedestrian networks, including, where appropriate, amendments to regional bicycle and pedestrian plans.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-20
Policy C.26 Continue to connect Brisbane’s bikeway and pedestrian system to the County and regional networks.
Program C.26.a Continue to apply for Transportation Development Act (TDA), successors to TDA, and other funding sources.
Safe Routes to School
Policy C.27 Work with the County Congestion Management Agency, C/CAG, and local schools to develop priorities and implement Safe Routes to School projects consistent with state and federal legislation.
Program C.27.a Continue to identify improvement projects and seek funding for Safe Routes to School infrastructure improvements.
Program C.27.b Continue non infrastructure-related activities that encourage walking and bicycling to school, through outreach on the City’s website, informational articles in the local City news publications, communications through community leaders, partnering with non-profit entities, promoting walk and bike to school days, and supporting partnerships with the schools to provide education directly to students and parents on the benefits of walking and bicycling to school.
Program C.27.c Develop and promote a traffic safety education program for the schools.
Program C.27.d Continue to provide a crossing guard program.
Bicycles
Policy C.28 Maximize bicycle access to all areas of the City, as practicable.
Program C.28.a Identify areas of the City where bikeways may be constructed, as both recreational and transportation amenities, with the aim of connecting all areas of the City with a network of bikeways.
Program C.28.b Design and install bikeways to meet best current engineering practices.
Policy C.29 Provide for the safety of bicyclists by dedicating bikeways where practicable, by installing appropriate signing and striping, and by maintaining the pavement.
Program C.29.a Install as many bikeways as can safely be accommodated and are economically feasible.
Policy C.30 Require new development and redevelopment to plan for and construct bikeways and/or bicycle parking facilities, as determined reasonable and practicable by the City.
Policy C.31 All new arterial streets and any existing arterials that are improved should provide for bicycle transportation.
Program C.31.a As a part of the budget and Capital Improvement Program development, seek opportunities to upgrade existing bikeways and to install new bikeways.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-21
Policy C.32 Provide or require bicycle parking facilities at major destination points.
Program C.32.a Include bicycle lockers in park-and-ride facilities.
Program C.32.b Encourage business and employment centers to provide bicycle-parking facilities for their employees.
Program C.32.c Design and install bicycle-parking facilities to meet best current engineering practices.
Policy C.33 Provide public information on bicycle transportation.
Program C.33.a Promote bicycle use through a public information program, at special events, and through City publications.
Program C.33.b Establish an educational program on safe bicycle use.
Program C.33.c Make bicycle network maps available.
Pedestrians
Policy C.34 Maximize safe pedestrian facilities and access to all areas of the City, as reasonable and feasible.
Program C.34.a Identify sidewalks, walkways, and trails throughout the City to improve with pedestrian amenities as funds are made available; and continue to apply for new grant funding.
Program C.34.b Consider opportunities to enhance and expand pedestrian access between Central Brisbane, the Caltrain station, Sierra Point Marina and other regional destinations and transit connections.
Program C.34.b As part of the budget and Capital Improvement Program preparation, seek funding to upgrade and expand the system of pedestrian sidewalks, walkways and trails, especially in conjunction with street improvement projects.
Program C.34.c For newly designed and constructed sidewalks, disallow automobile parking thereon; and for existing sidewalks adjacent to rolled or vertical curbs, encourage residents to park such that sidewalks are kept clear for pedestrians in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) width standards.
Program C.34.d Where practicable and where funds are available, establish and improve mid-block and block-end, public right-of-way pedestrian paths, in order to provide direct off-street pedestrian access between the upper and lower parts of Central Brisbane.
Policy C.35 Require pedestrian amenities with new development and expansion of existing uses, as appropriate.
Program C.35.a Adopt standard requirements for sidewalk improvements along property frontages, taking into consideration constraints imposed by topography, and where DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-22
sidewalks are not appropriate, consider in-lieu fees for new development for funding pedestrian amenities elsewhere in the City.
Policy C.35.b Consider accepting sidewalk improvements beyond the frontage of a development site as a means to help mitigate traffic and parking impacts.
Transit
Brisbane has limited transit service, provided by regional agencies. This includes San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), Caltrain, and local shuttle service.
Given the high cost to construct new, fixed, mass transit systems such as BART, Caltrain and even light rail, there is an emphasis in this element on seeking to develop improved facilities and connections and improving the service network on the peninsula, with greater Brisbane service. However, the Baylands site includes the Bayshore Caltrain station and the opportunity exists to expand this facility into a multimodal transit hub along the proposed extension of Geneva Avenue. This could potentially accommodate connections for Caltrain, SF Muni light rail, SamTrans, Bus Rapid Transit and various shuttles.
Transit is a regional issue and Brisbane fully supports and is involved with the regional agencies to promote and enhance transit, as reflected in the policies and programs below.
Policy C.36 Seek opportunities to install and improve transit facilities, establish multi-modal connections and increase the service network.
Program C.36.a Continue active participation in the implementation of the San Mateo County-wide Transportation Plan to improve circulation systems, to develop alternatives to automobile dependence and to make transportation-sensitive land use decisions.
Program C.36.b Request more frequent scheduling of Caltrain stops at the Bayshore station as warranted by demand.
Program C.36.c Support, improve, and expand transit to serve the business and residential communities and provide connections to major transportation hubs.
Program C.36.d Cooperate with San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), and other appropriate agencies, to establish bus rapid transit (BRT) systems where practicable.
Program C.36.e Cooperate with and provide input to transit agencies to provide increased bus scheduling to a greater network of destinations (especially to regional destinations, such as work, shopping, entertainment centers and medical facilities).
Program C.36.f Cooperate with and provide input to transit agencies to provide more comprehensive transfer connections with other bus routes outside of Brisbane and with other transit systems, such as Caltrain and BART.
Program C.36.g Work with SamTrans to install improvements at existing bus stops and designated routes.
Program C.36.h Provide information to citizens on the availability of transit.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-23
Program C.36.i Require new development that are subject to the City’s transportation demand measures (TDM) ordinance to also incorporate measures that facilitate Complete Streets compliance measures, such as transit stops, shuttle stops, and bicycle facilities.
Policy C.37 Plan for park-and-ride facilities at the Caltrain Station and other major transit stops.
VI.5 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
Transportation management includes both transportation systems management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM). TSM is an approach to congestion mitigation that seeks to identify improvements to enhance the capacity of existing systems through operational measures. TDM includes strategies and measures that influence travel behaviors to improve the use of transportation system resources and the mobility and access for users. The underlying aim is to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips by offering more and better choices. This is especially effective for large employers to provide such things as shuttle and carpooling services to employees, offering incentives for employees to take transit, and incorporating physical infrastructure features, such as bike storage and shower and locker facilities, in the construction of new buildings or improvements to existing buildings.
Policy C.38 Continue participation in the efforts of subregional and regional transportation agencies to manage transportation systems.
Program C.38.a Continue active participation in the Congestion Management Program.
Program C.38.b Continue active participation in the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance Joint Powers Authority (Commute.org), as a means to cooperatively encourage residents and employees to reduce demand on transportation infrastructure.
Program C.38.c Provide information to citizens, employers, and employees on the alternatives to the single-occupant commute vehicle and the benefits of using the alternatives.
Program C.38.d Provide local incentives for participation in Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs and continue to implement same.
Program C.38.e Require Transportation System Management and Transportation Demand Management measures to help mitigate the traffic and parking impacts of development projects.
VI.6 PARKING
The availability of parking in Brisbane varies by the area and time of day. Drivers seeking to park in some areas of Central Brisbane may experience difficulties due to narrow roads where street parking is limited by the width of the street, relatively high density of development, and in certain cases a high level of automobile ownership, or lack of available on-site parking. On the other hand, some of the commercial areas may be considered to have an over-abundance of parking, especially during off-peak times.
Accordingly, the policies in the section are aimed at achieving the appropriate balance of parking, given the uses and the locations.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-24
Included in this section is the continuation of minimum parking standards for new development throughout Brisbane, but also the establishment of maximum parking standards. This is intended to minimize paving to address stormwater runoff concerns, heat island effects, glare, and aesthetic concerns.
Policy C.39 Maintain as much on-street parking in residential Brisbane as can be accommodated safely.
Program C.39.a Periodically review residential parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, to maintain parking availability in Brisbane’s residential districts and to ensure consistency with the latest adopted Housing Element.
Program C.39.b Seek means to encourage residents to use their garages for vehicles rather than other purposes.
Policy C.40 Improve public parking opportunities in the Central Brisbane business district and other commercial areas, as appropriate.
Program C.40.a Consider opportunities to add public parking to underserved areas and investigate establishing a public parking lot or lots.
Program C.40.b Pursue, as feasible and needed, a downtown parking assessment district.
Policy C.41 Maintain an appropriate amount of off-street parking in commercial areas.
Program C.41.a Review the parking regulations for office, commercial and industrial uses and consider setting minimum and maximum parking standards where transit alternatives are readily available.
Policy C.42 Consider opportunities to add public parking to underserved areas and to provide parking/staging areas at public trailheads.
Policy C.43 Consider updates to the Brisbane Municipal Code to require parking lot solar canopies for energy generation and/or parking lot shade trees to reduce heat island effects on commercial development projects.
VI.7 CIRCULATION AND LAND USE
State law recognizes that circulation and land use are closely related and requires that these two components of a City’s General Plan be correlated. Through coordinated transportation and land use planning, the City will provide mobility Brisbane residents and businesses, including roadway capacity enhancements to accommodate traffic generated by planned future development within the City. Because the correlation of land use and transportation planning required by State law also encompasses considerations of energy efficiency and the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, the City’s Circulation Element policies are also intended to support efficient land use patterns that facilitate convenient access to regional transit facilities as well as bicycle and pedestrian connectivity through the City.
The land use and circulation policies in this General Plan also focus on ways to reduce the negative effects of automobile traffic at the local level on the City's residents and businesses. In essence, the policies are aimed at:
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-25
• Providing for a mix of jobs, housing and commercial services in the City to reduce the number of trips Brisbane residents are required to make outside the community to obtain essential services. • Providing for opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to reach all areas of the City and thus reduce dependence on the automobile for local trips.
• Generating a mix of uses to support transit facilities. • Accommodating uses with differing peak hour trips, to minimize impacts on existing and new streets and highways.
• Linking the development capacity of vacant lands to potential for provision of local transportation and circulation, the provision of transit facilities and participation in transportation systems management programs.
• Assuring adequate and safe access to properties.
The following policies address the relationship between land use and circulation:
Policy C.44 Consider potential effects on mobility and emergency evacuation in making land use decisions.
Policy C.45 For vacant subareas without existing infrastructure, require circulation plans and multi-modal transportation analyses to be submitted as a part of any development application.
Policy C.46 Consider transit use and facilities as well as Transportation Demand Management Programs in making land use decisions.
Policy C.47 Ensure legal access to properties in making land use decisions.
Program C.47a In reviewing building permit, subdivision and other development applications, distinguish whether the subject property has access from public streets, private streets, or easements. Obtain from applicants, evidence of a legal right of access to their properties. Require that such access meet applicable standards.
Policy C.48 In conjunction with new development and expansion of existing uses, require that new streets and any existing private streets serving the property be improved to City standards and offered for dedication as public streets.
Program C.48.a Continue to accept offers to dedicate existing private roadways as public streets, where they meet City standards.
Program C.48b Where appropriate, require exactions or impact fees for new development and improvements to property to improve substandard streets to minimum safety standards.
Program C.48.c Investigate requiring secondary access for long cul-de-sac streets.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-26
Program C.48.d Investigate requiring mid-block turnarounds on all streets with cul-desacs longer than 500 feet.
Program C.48.e Investigate requiring that substandard intersections be improved, in conjunction with new development, to provide adequate turning radius.
Program C.48.f Consider an impact fee program to fund acquisition of additional rights-ofway, widening of existing streets to provide additional on-street parking and construction of other safety improvements.
Program C.48.g Continue to require parking and safety improvements in conjunction with new residential development and major additions or remodels that meet defined thresholds.
Program C.48.h Encourage the formation of assessment districts where appropriate, for needed circulation improvements.
Policy C.49 Monitor land use decisions under consideration by adjacent jurisdictions and their potential effect on Brisbane's streets. Comment through the public process and request mitigations as appropriate.
Policy C.50 Monitor regional developments and their effects on Highway 101, interchanges along the freeway, and Bayshore Boulevard to evaluate vehicular congestion from through traffic caused by developments approved by cities to the north and south of Brisbane.
Comment through the public process and request appropriate improvements to be provided within Brisbane from those developments.
VI.8 GREEN STREETS
Green Streets refers to the inclusion of landscape elements into the street right-of-way to help reduce storm water runoff by both interception and infiltration of rainwater and biological treatment of storm water by those landscape elements. The intended results are to help ease the burden, or flow volume, on storm water systems and to provide for improved water quality for that water that does enter the storm water systems. The specific landscape elements may take a variety of forms including, but not limited to, bio-treatment planters, rain gardens, street trees and other plantings.
Since the intent is to address stormwater quality, Green Streets elements may also be used in demonstrating compliance with the State Water Board provisions for low impact development (LID) and “Green Infrastructure”, subject to specific state provisions and design criteria where applicable. Low impact development is aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology by minimizing impervious cover, then bio-treating and infiltrating stormwater close to its source.
Green Streets are also a means to enhance the pedestrian experience of streetscapes and may be used in conjunction with “road diets”, to reduce existing, excessively wide roadways to provide for traffic calming and overall safer roadways. Given that, depending on the context, Green Streets may be a component of Complete Streets, in that these landscape features enhance the pedestrian and bicycle experience and thereby encourage all modes of travel.
Finally, Green Streets provide other ecological benefits, such as reduced heat island effects, improved air quality and wildlife islands or corridors.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-27
The following policies and programs address Green Streets and are intended to integrate Green Streets principles and designs into the roadway network when possible:
Policy C.51 Incorporate Green Streets best practices, as appropriate to the context, for new streets and street retrofits, to enhance the pedestrian and bicyclist experience, to promote low impact development (LID) consistent with state water board initiatives to reduce the impacts of development on storm water resources and to enhance the natural environment. (See also the Complete Streets section) Program C.51.a Continue to evaluate and update the approved plant species list and standards for streetscape plantings.
Program C.51.b Consider where Green Streets retrofits may be incorporated into capital improvement projects and seek funding sources for Green Streets projects.
Policy C.52 For new multifamily, mixed use or commercial development projects subject to discretionary review, as part of the design review permit process, incorporate Green Streets, as determined reasonable and practicable by the City.
Policy C.53 In the design and approval of a specific Green Street, the following factors will be considered, as may be applicable:
• Context and design intent for the area or site;
• Site and environmental constraints such as soil type, sun and wind exposure, presence of utilities, view sight lines and view corridors; • On-going water needs and drought tolerance;
• Diversity of plantings to reduce the potential for mass die-offs due to pests or disease which may impact specific species;
• Adequate soil volume and location of the species within a storm water treatment unit, where applicable.
VI.9 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES
Alternative transportation modes in this section refer to alternatives to fossil-fuel vehicles which have not already been addressed in the Complete Streets section, under the traditional categories of public transit, biking and walking. Use of alternative transportation modes has a historical precedent in Brisbane with such things as rail-spur lines for goods movement and the more recent City-sponsored car sharing service.
The programs in this section address continuation of the historic technology of rail lines for goods movement as well as incorporation of more recent and emerging technologies and sharing-based services into Brisbane’s circulation network.
Policy 54 Maintain existing and incorporate new alternative transportation modes and infrastructure into the circulation network as reasonable and practicable.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-28
Program 54.a Consider revisions to the Brisbane Municipal Code to require vehicle charging stations for development projects.
Program 54.b Encourage the use of electric, fuel cell and other clean energy vehicles and provide charging stations at public facilities and encourage installation of charging stations at existing private sites, as reasonable and feasible.
Program 54.c Seek grant funding opportunities and other funding sources to install publicly accessible vehicle charging stations and other infrastructure to support and enhance alternative means of transportation.
Program 54.d Encourage the maintenance of existing rail-spur lines to continue their use in transporting goods. (See also policies and programs under the Transit section for public transportation)
Program 54.e Monitor and consider new technological advances such as driverless shuttles and how sharing based transportation (car and bike sharing) can be accommodated in the City’s circulation system.
VI.10 SAN FRANCISCO-SAN MATEO BI-COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY The Bi-County Transportation Study was undertaken by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, along with the City of Brisbane, City/County of San Francisco, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), and others to assess the transportation improvements needed to support development of approximately 15,000 new housing units and over 14 million square feet of new employment uses proposed within the southeastern corner of San Francisco and the northeastern corner of San Mateo County. The study includes a listing of transportation projects along the San Francisco/San Mateo county line and a funding strategy.
The final report for the Bi-County Study, which was prepared in 2013, recommended the following transportation improvements:
• US 101 Candlestick Interchange Re-Configuration
• Geneva Avenue Extension from Bayshore Boulevard to the US 101 freeway • Harney-Geneva Bus Rapid Transit Line
• T-Third Light Rail Extension (Segment “S”)
• Bayshore Station Re-Configuration
• Bicycle-Pedestrian Connections
• Area-Wide Traffic Calming Program
In 2019, theThe City of Brisbane began is working with the other agencies involved in the Bi-County Transportation Study to update the land use and development assumptions used in the 2013 study and DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
VI-29
review the report’s recommendations to determine whether any revisions to the list of transportation improvements might be appropriate.
REFERENCES
1. See also, Brisbane Traffic Management and Capacity Study Update. Wilbur Smith Assoc., April 1993.
2. See Chapter X, Community Health and Safety, for more information on circulation-related safety and utility issues.
3. See Brisbane Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report, Chapter 4.N, State Clearinghouse #2006022136, ESA, June 2013.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT E Resolution
2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021-GPA-2
ATTACHMENT 10
C a l Tr a i n
SAN FRANCISCO
SIE
RRA
POINT
SAN
TA
CLA
RA
GLEN
PARK
MISS
OI N
BLU
E
SANBE NITO
VENTURA
CH ECKER
SPOT
SOLANO
SILVE
RSPOT
ALLEY
ALVAR ADO
SAN
BENITO
MAIN
OLD
COUNTY
VISITACION
S A NBRUNO
MARIPOSA
TANAGER
ALVARADO
PARK
TRINITY
ROC KWREN
BAYSHORE
SIERR
POI
A
NT
SAN
MATEO
INYO
KLAMATH
ELFIN
MAIN
LILY
HARNEY
HARNEY
ANNIS
SIERRA POINT
BUTTERWE
E
D
SIERRAPOINT
MONTEREY
H UMBO
LDT
VALLEY
QUARRY
GUADALUPE CANYON
ALA
NA
ELDERBERRY
THOMAS
MISSION
BLUE
NORTH HILL
MONTEREY
ANNIS
JOY
CYPRESS
PARK
LAKE
MARIN
KI NGS
KLAMATH
TU
LAR E
MARGAR E T
TANK
HUCKLEBERRY
SOUTH HILL
WEST HILL
WEST
HILL
SHORELINE
BEATR ICE
MCLAIN
MARGARE
T
PAUL
GOLDENASTER
CA LLIPPE
MONARCH
TR IN
I
YT
MISSION BLUE
BEATTY
Quarry
HAROLD
GENEVA
MARINA
VALLEY
VAN WATERS
& RODGERS
SI
E R RA
PO INT
MENDOCINO
F OX
S PA RROW
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Vantor
\
0 500
1,0001,5002,000
Feet
Figure C-3
Proposed
Circulation Improvements
City Limits
Freeway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Local
Private
Road Classifications
05/13/2026
Baylands Specific Plan (BSP) Area
See Figure C-4 for street
classifications within the
Baylands Subarea
DRAFT EXHIBIT E ATTACHMENT 10
\
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Feet
Figure C-4
Street Classifications within
the Baylands Subarea
05/13/2026
DRAFT EXHIBIT E ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution PC-01-26
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-01-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BRISBANE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL TO
ADOPT THE BAYSHORE MOBILITY PLAN, AS MODIFIED, PURSUANT TO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICY C.1 AND PROGRAM C.1.B
WHEREAS, The Baylands Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 684.3 acres within the City of Brisbane in northeast San Mateo County, approximately 449 acres of which is owned by Sunquest Properties, Inc. and managed by Baylands Development, Inc. (collectively, “BDI”); and
WHEREAS, in 2005, BDI submitted a specific plan to the City proposing development of approximately 449 acres of the Baylands; and
WHEREAS, in 2011, BDI submitted a revised specific plan that proposed 4,434 residential units, approximately seven million square feet of commercial development, and approximately 169.7 acres of open space; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2011 Specific Plan was made available for public review from June 11, 2013, to January 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2018, the Brisbane City Council certified the Brisbane Baylands Final Program EIR in accordance with the provisions of CEQA for implementation of General Plan Amendment GP-1-18; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2018, the Brisbane City Council adopted Resolution 2018-62, approving General Plan Amendment GP-1-18 to amend various provisions of the General Plan related to the Brisbane Baylands General Plan Subarea to allow for a range of 1800–2200 dwelling units and up to 6.5 million square feet of new commercial development, and 500,000 square feet of hotel development, subject to City approval of a specific plan consistent with policies established in GP-1-18; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP-1-18 was approved by City of Brisbane voters as Measure JJ in the November 6, 2018, Brisbane elections; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2020, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment GP-1-19 to implement GP-1-18 and Measure JJ, and the City Council certified an Addendum to the Brisbane Baylands Final Program EIR pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15164; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP-1-19 states that the City’s roadway system is to be designed “to emphasize mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses, accommodate bicycle and pedestrian in addition to vehicular movement, and provide for comfortable and safe travel within the community to shopping, employment, and recreation, as well as to transit and the Highway 101 freeway.”
ATTACHMENT 11
Resolution PC-01-26
WHEREAS, General Plan Program C.1.b calls for a plan to reconfigure Bayshore Boulevard that addresses the “effects of regional through traffic within Brisbane and enhances mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses through a combination of roadway and intersection, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facility improvements that would not cause a substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on Bayshore Boulevard or other routes through the City”; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2020, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR for a project including a revised Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan from the project applicant, which necessarily included preparing a Bayshore Mobility Plan to implement General Plan Program C.1.b, opening a 60-day response period; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City of Brisbane held a public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR on March 4, 2020, to provide an opportunity for members of the public and public agencies to provide input on the scope and content of the environmental information and analysis to be included in the EIR for the proposed Baylands Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, in January 2023, the applicant submitted a revised Specific Plan to supersede the 2011 Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2023, the City distributed an updated NOP for the EIR, and provided a 30-day response period starting on April 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, a second scoping meeting for the Draft EIR was held on May 9, 2023, and the updated NOP response period ended on May 25, 2023; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2025, the City of Brisbane published a revised draft Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2025, the City of Brisbane published the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Project (“Draft EIR”), which included the Bayshore Mobility Plan in its project description in Section 3.3.4 – Bayshore Mobility Plan; and WHEREAS, also on April 3, 2025, the City of Brisbane released a Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR, notifying the public and agencies of a 151- day public review period that ran from April 3, 2025, to September 2, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability also discussed the availability of the Draft EIR Appendices, which included a copy of the draft Bayshore Mobility Plan (Appendix F to Draft EIR Appendix F.1); and
WHEREAS, the Bayshore Mobility Plan was prepared to meet the directives of General Plan Amendment GP-1-19 and General Plan Circulation Element Policy C.1 and Program C.1.b.
More specifically, General Plan Policy C.1 calls for the City’s roadway system to be designed “to emphasize mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses, accommodate bicycle and pedestrian in addition to vehicular movement, and provide for comfortable and safe travel within the community to shopping, employment, and recreation, as well as to transit and the Highway ATTACHMENT 11
Resolution PC-01-26
101 freeway.” To implement this policy, General Plan Program C.1.b calls for development of plans for Bayshore Boulevard “that address the effects of regional through traffic within Brisbane and enhances mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses through a combination of roadway and intersection, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facility improvements that would not cause a substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on Bayshore Boulevard or other routes through the City;” and
WHEREAS, the Bayshore Mobility Plan builds on the 2022 Brisbane Bayshore Complete Streets Safety Assessment prepared by the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at University of California, Berkeley in collaboration with Fehr & Peers and City staff, which was presented to the City Council on October 19, 2023 and presented to the Complete Streets Safety Committee of the City of Brisbane on February 7, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Bayshore Mobility Plan expands upon the 2022 Brisbane Bayshore Complete Streets Safety Assessment’s recommendations north from Old County Road to Geneva Avenue to enhance mobility for Brisbane residents by enhancing connectivity for residents and land uses abutting Bayshore Boulevard, reducing the prominence of regional through traffic along Bayshore Boulevard, redesigning Bayshore Boulevard as a multi-modal corridor, increasing connectivity between the Baylands and the existing City of Brisbane, and improving the look of the corridor; and
WHEREAS, from Geneva Avenue south to San Bruno Avenue, the Bayshore Mobility Plan would reduce the number of travel lanes from four (two in each direction) to two (one in each direction), reduce the posted speed limit from 45 miles per hour (mph) to 35 mph, widen sidewalks and add a multi-use Class I path on the west side of the corridor, provide protected intersections at locations with vulnerable roadway users (such as school children at Bayshore and Main Street traveling to the proposed middle school within the Baylands), and improve access control to local streets within the Baylands; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2026, the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2006022136) was published and made available on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, and June 11, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted public workshops to provide an overview of the Final EIR, the Baylands Specific Plan, and the Bayshore Mobility Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2026, June 30, 2026, and July 23, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR, Baylands Specific Plan, and Bayshore Mobility Plan, at which time any person interested in the matter was given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2026, following close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated on the Bayshore Mobility Plan and considered public testimony and Commission discussion regarding the topic; and
ATTACHMENT 11
Resolution PC-01-26
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was posted and mailed to property owners of the subject properties and within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject properties and all interested parties requesting notice, per Brisbane Municipal Code Section
17.54.020 prior to the Planning Commission hearings; and WHEREAS, the Bayshore Mobility Plan is consistent with the Brisbane General Plan, as analyzed under Impact TRA-2: Facilitate Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Travel Modes, in Final EIR Section 4-8 Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the findings set forth herein, the Planning Commission of the City of Brisbane, at its meeting of July 23, 2026, resolves as follows:
Section 1.
A. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
B. The Planning Commission of the City of Brisbane recommends the following action be taken by the City Council of the City of Brisbane:
1. Adopt the Bayshore Mobility Plan, provided in Appendix F to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan published May 2026, incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, in accordance with Government Code section 65359, subject to the following modifications:
a. Implementation of the Bayshore Mobility Plan shall be limited to those improvements that mitigate impacts associated with the Baylands Specific Plan project as presented in the project EIR; and
b. The elements of the Bayshore Mobility Plan that would reduce the number of travel lanes on Bayshore Boulevard from four lanes (two in each direction) to two lanes (one in each direction) between Geneva Avenue and San Bruno Avenue shall not be adopted.
2. Direct staff to further study the feasibility of a continuous Class I multi-use path or comparable sidewalk improvement along the portion of Bayshore Boulevard outside the Baylands Specific Plan boundary, and to return to the City Council with the results of that study.
ADOPTED this 23rd day of July 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: GOODING, LAU, SAYASANE, WODZIAK
NOES: FUNKE
ABSENT: None
DOUGLAS GOODING, Chair
ATTACHMENT 11
Resolution PC-01-26
ATTEST: ________________________________________________ JULIA AYRES, Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 11
Resolution PC-01-26
EXHIBIT A
Bayshore Mobility Plan
Incorporated by reference
Available online at: https://www.brisbaneca.gov/787/MajorDocuments ATTACHMENT 11
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 12.a
Attachment 12.a: Redline copies of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Map Amendments)
i. GP Circulation Element - Proposed Figure C-3 (Draft) https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3037/GP-Circulation-Element---Proposed-Figure-C-3-Draft ii. GP Circulation Element - Proposed Figure C-4 (Draft) https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3036/GP-Circulation-Element---Proposed-Figure-C-4-Draft iii. GP Land Use Map - Proposed Baylands Specific Plan Land Use (Draft) https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3039/GP-Land-Use-Map---Proposed-Baylands-Specific-Plan-LandUse-Draft iv. Zoning Map - Proposed Baylands Specific Plan Zoning District (Draft) https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3038/Zoning-Map---Proposed-Baylands-Specific-Plan-ZoningDistrict-Draft 1
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 12.b
Attachment 12.b: Redline copies of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Text Amendments)
i. BMC Title 17 Zoning - Redline
https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3043/BMC-Title-17-Zoning---Redline ii. General Plan Chapter 5 Land Use - Redline
https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3040/GP-Chapter-5-Land-Use---Redline iii. General Plan Chapter 6 Circulation - Redline
https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3041/GP-Chapter-6-Circulation---Redline 1
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 13
Attachment 13: Additional Net-Zero/Carbon-Neutral Project Comparison Materials Additional net-zero/carbon-neutral project comparison materials (referenced in July 23, 2026 memorandum, Attachment 4)
https://brisbaneca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6872/files/attachment/2331 1
BRISBANE PLANNING COMMISSION
Action Minutes of May 28, 2026
Hybrid Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Gooding called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Gooding, Lau, and Wodziak
Absent: Commissioners Funke and Sayasane
Staff Present: Community Development Director Ayres, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Bozorginia, City Attorney Phillips, Senior Planner Robbins, and Associate Planner Whitney
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Wodziak and seconded by Commissioner Lau to adopt the agenda. Motion approved 3-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of draft meeting minutes of May 14, 2026
A motion was made by Commissioner Wodziak and seconded by Commissioner Lau to adopt the consent calendar. Motion approved 3-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
OLD BUSINESS
There were none.
NEW BUSINESS
There were none.
WORKSHOP
B. Baylands Specific Plan
Director Ayres reviewed the workshop objectives and introduced the City's team, including consultants, who are responsible for the review of the Baylands Specific Plan and related materials, defined key terminology, and provided a brief project history.
The in-person consultant team consisted of: Woody Hanson of SiteLab, Jeff Caton of ESA, Matt Brennan of ESA, Matt Goyne of Fehr & Peers, Ashutosh Singhal of SiteLab, and Terri Avila of Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2026
ESA. The remote consultant team included Bev Choi of ESA and other ESA team members available as needed for questions.
The presentation was organized into four segments comparing the 2025 developer-submitted Specific Plan to the 2026 staff-recommended Specific Plan, chapter by chapter, covering background and Measure JJ program parameters (1,800–2,200 residential units and up to 7 million square feet of commercial development); land use, density, and building/tower standards (Chapters 1–3); sustainability, open space, sea-level rise, and circulation, including proposed changes to the Geneva Avenue bridge and the Bayshore Boulevard road diet (Chapters 4–6); and infrastructure, financing, and implementation and phasing (Chapters 7–9), concluding with next steps including the EIR workshop on June 11 and the first public hearing on June 25. The consultant team answered Commission questions on topics including items outside the Commission's review, such as the Cal Water agreement; density and floor area ratio flexibility; tower allotments, heights, and story counts; sea-level rise projections and methodology, including differences from the 2025 plan's projections; the Geneva Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard circulation changes; green shared streets; and parking allocations, particularly in the Ice House Hill district.
Staff answered questions from the Commission regarding the staff-recommended minimum average floor area ratio for commercial development, maximum number of dwelling units in relation to the building height, commercial on ground floors in relation to the Caltrain station, and project phasing and related remediation.
Chair Gooding opened up the workshop to public comment.
Nancy Lacsamana — Opposed narrowing Bayshore Boulevard and the amount of commercial parking proposed; requested a gym for younger residents.
Darren Clark, Carpenters Local 217 — Supported the project for its economic benefits and commitment to area-standard wages, apprenticeships, and healthcare for trades workers.
Cynthia Gomez, Unite Here Local 2 — Opposed the project as proposed, citing a jobs-housing imbalance, site toxicity, and greenhouse gas emissions; urged reduced commercial development and increased affordable housing.
Clara Johnson — Raised concerns about site toxicity, groundwater rise, and the size of the commercial component; requested closed captioning and additional public outreach.
Janice Au-Yeung — Requested advance copies of presentation slides for future meetings and asked why the Water Supply Agreement is outside the Commission's purview.
Michele Salmon (remote) — Opposed narrowing Bayshore Boulevard, echoed Clara Johnson's concerns, and asked that the EIR and Specific Plan be aligned.
ITEMS INITIATED BY STAFF
There were none.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2026
ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
C. Chairperson Gooding adjourned to the next regular meeting of June 11, 2026, with an early starting time of 6:30 p.m., at approximately 9:53 p.m.
Attest:
_______________________________________
Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
NOTE: A full video record of this meeting can be found on the City’s YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/BrisbaneCA, on the City’s website at http://www.brisbaneca.org/meetings, or on DVD (by request only) at City Hall.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
BRISBANE PLANNING COMMISSION
Action Minutes of June 11, 2026
Hybrid Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Gooding called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Gooding, Lau, and Sayasane
Absent: Commissioners Funke and Wodziak
Staff Present: Community Development Director Ayres, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Bozorginia, Senior Planner Robbins, and Associate Planner Whitney
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Sayasane and seconded by Commissioner Lau to adopt the agenda. Motion approved 3-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were none.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A joint letter was received from the Sierra Club Bay Alive Loma Prieta Chapter, the San Francisco Bay Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, Green Foothills, and the San Mateo County Bird Alliance regarding the Baylands Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report.
OLD BUSINESS
There were none.
NEW BUSINESS
There were none.
WORKSHOP
A. Baylands Specific Plan; Environmental Review and Public Hearing Process Director Ayres reviewed the workshop objectives and introduced the City's team, including the consultants responsible for the review of the Baylands Specific Plan and related materials, defined key terminology, and provided a brief project history, including an outline of what has changed between the developer's 2025 submittal and the 2026 staff-recommended version of the plan, a guide on how to read and understand the plan, and next steps following the workshop.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 2026
The in-person consultant team consisted of: Terri Avila of ESA, Brian Schuster of ESA, Todd Gordon of ESA, Michael Burns of ESA, Matt Goyne of Fehr & Peers, Brian Boxer of ESA, and City Attorney Eric Phillips. The remote consultant team consisted of Susan Yogi of ESA, Kathy Cleveland of ESA, Ashleigh Sims of ESA, Brian Pattman of ESA, Matt Brennan of ESA, Erik Calloway of ESA, Jeff Caton of ESA, Bev Choi of ESA, Woody Hanson of SiteLab, and Ashutosh Singhal of SiteLab.
The consultant team answered Commission questions on the timeline from the Planning Commission to the City Council and related deadlines; continued monitoring of landfill caps and which entity would be responsible; the timing of the solar field's installation later in development and its self-sufficiency; the Sierra Club's comment on the potential hazard of the Schlage groundwater plume; and the risk to Brisbane's water supply if Cal Water is affected by the Bay Delta Plan. The Commission also raised concerns regarding potential increased traffic and accidents from the proposed Bayshore Boulevard lane reduction, and the concept of shared streets among vehicles, e-bikes, e-scooters, pedestrians, and people with mobility issues, including additional traffic signals and speed cameras along Bayshore Boulevard.
Staff answered Commission questions regarding Brisbane's water supply versus Cal Water's supply to the Baylands, and how changes to the Development Agreement would affect the Specific Plan.
Chair Gooding opened public comment.
Clara Johnson — Opposed the Bayshore Boulevard lane reduction as a safety and emergencyevacuation risk and raised concerns about incomplete chemical and health-risk monitoring information.
Unidentified speaker — Raised concerns about sewer infrastructure capacity, the need for ongoing vapor monitoring in residential and commercial units, overnight construction noise, anticipated commute-time increases, and reliability of the power grid substation.
Frank Cohen — Opposed the reduction in required public art funding under the Specific Plan compared to the City's standard requirement.
Cynthia Gomez, Unite Here Local 2 — Opposed the project as proposed, citing a substantial jobs-housing/below-market-rate housing shortfall and the removal of greenhouse gas mitigation measures and the energy-neutrality commitment from the Final EIR.
Unidentified speaker — Agreed with Commissioner Sayasane's concerns over the road diet on Bayshore Boulevard, citing similar outcomes from lane reductions in San Francisco.
Michele Salmon (remote) — Opposed taking action on project entitlements before adequate study and the Bayshore Mobility Plan’s road diet.
Commissioner Lau asked staff what is the process if construction activities breached the landfill cap, and when and for how long will testing occur.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 2026
Director Ayres confirmed that staff's recommended Specific Plan retains the City's public art funding requirement as it applies under the ordinance today, rather than the reduced requirement proposed in the 2025 version of the plan.
Chairperson Gooding announced he would be unable to attend the regularly scheduled meeting on June 25, but would be available for any special meetings that may be scheduled.
ITEMS INITIATED BY STAFF
Director Ayres announced that the June 18th City Council meeting will include a hearing on the Open Space Element that the Commission reviewed in May.
ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
B. Chairperson Gooding adjourned to the next regular meeting of June 25, 2026, at approximately 8:55 p.m.
Attest:
_______________________________________
Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
NOTE: A full video record of this meeting can be found on the City’s YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/BrisbaneCA, on the City’s website at http://www.brisbaneca.org/meetings, or on DVD (by request only) at City Hall.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
BRISBANE PLANNING COMMISSION
Action Minutes of June 25, 2026
Hybrid Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairperson Funke called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Funke, Sayasane, and Wodziak
Absent: Commissioners Gooding and Lau
Staff Present: Community Development Director Ayres, Senior Planner Robbins, and City Attorney Phillips
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Sayasane and seconded by Commissioner Wodziak to adopt the agenda. Motion approved 3-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were none.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Acting Chair Funke acknowledged written correspondence received for Item A from the following senders:
- Kevin Fryer, on behalf of 18 additional residents
- Diane Glazman, City of Brisbane Public Arts Advisory Committee (PAAC) - Erin Becker
- Larisa Ocanada, San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) - Michelle Bouchard, Caltrain
- Ali Sapirman, Housing Action Coalition
- Anthony Walker, City of Brisbane Open Space and Ecology Committee (OSEC) - Anthony Walker (individual)
- Ariel Cherbowsky, San Bruno Mountain Watch
- Ellison Folk, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, on behalf of Unite Here Local 2 - Clara Johnson
OLD BUSINESS
There were none.
NEW BUSINESS
There were none.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2026
PUBLIC HEARING
A. PUBLIC HEARING: Baylands Subarea; Environmental Review 2021-ER-1, Specific Plan 2021-SP-1, Zoning Amendment 2021-RZ-3, General Plan Amendment 2021-GPA-2; Proposed Baylands Specific Plan including 2,200 residential units; 6.5 million square feet of commercial, office, retail, conference, life science, and office campus uses; 500,000 square feet of hotel use (approximately 800 rooms); a grade 6–8 middle school; 157 acres of open space/open area, parks, and trails; water, recycled water, sewer, drainage, electrical, and other utilities improvements on approximately 680.1 acres generally situated easterly of Bayshore Boulevard and west of Highway 101; related actions include amending the Brisbane General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements, amending Title 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code to establish zoning regulations, and adopting the Bayshore Mobility Plan. A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Baylands Development Inc., applicant; Sunquest Properties, majority owner; various owners.
Staff presented an overview of the requested entitlements, the Final EIR, site remediation and regulatory oversight, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, concluding with staff's recommended actions: that the Commission recommend the City Council (1) certify the Final EIR; (2) adopt the 2026 staff-recommended Specific Plan; (3) approve related amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and Title 17 zoning; and (4) approve the Bayshore Mobility Plan, which would reduce Bayshore Boulevard from four lanes to two lanes south of Geneva Avenue.
The Commission asked staff about the expected timeline for landfill methane levels to fall below regulatory action levels, and the procedural relationship between the Bayshore Mobility Plan and the other recommended entitlements. Staff confirmed that Commission approval of the Mobility Plan is not required to advance the Specific Plan, but that EIR certification must occur before any other approvals, and that General Plan and zoning consistency must be established before the Specific Plan can be adopted.
Following staff's presentation and Commission questions, Acting Chair Funke opened the public hearing and invited the applicant, Stephanie Shakofsky of Baylands Development Inc. (BDI), to address the Commission. BDI's presentation noted that a middle school is not necessarily required and would ultimately depend on school district demand; requested greater flexibility in the 2026 staff-recommended Specific Plan's maximum parking ratio; raised a concern that the 2026 plan's phasing requirements are overly restrictive; and reiterated the applicant's continued opposition to the proposed high-speed rail light maintenance facility.
Following the applicant's presentation, Acting Chair Funke opened the hearing to public comment.
Storrs Hoen — Raised concerns about pile-driving construction noise and mitigation, requested regular post-construction testing of buildings, and asked that the Public Art ordinance not be superseded by the Specific Plan.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2026
Michele Salmon — Opposed the Bayshore Mobility Plan and raised safety concerns about potential contamination.
Anthony Walker, Open Space and Ecology Committee (OSEC) — Urged the Commission not to advance the project to Council until public concerns are addressed and an independent CEQA peer review is conducted; requested long-term greenhouse gas tracking and enforcement of the project's energy-neutrality commitment.
Larisa Ocañada, San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) — Supported the project and urged FEIR certification and Specific Plan adoption.
Davin Chan, San Bruno Mountain Watch — Requested that the Mission Blue Nursery remain in its current location rather than relocate to Ice House Hill.
Jeremy Levine, Housing Leadership Council — Supported the project and urged flexibility in the plan and zoning to accommodate evolving construction technologies.
Denise Gregory — Opposed the project as proposed, stating it would worsen the regional jobshousing imbalance and citing the FEIR's removal of greenhouse gas mitigation measures required under Measure JJ; asked whether sea-level rise impacts have been adequately considered.
Cynthia Gomez, Unite Here Local 2 — Opposed the project in its current form, citing a worsened housing crisis, contaminated soil remediation left in place under a cap, and removal of the energy-neutrality component required by Measure JJ.
Scott Beale, Plumbers, Pipefitters & HVAC Mechanics of San Mateo County — Supported the project on behalf of trades workers seeking local construction opportunities.
Brisbane resident, Local 467 Plumbers — Supported the project, citing benefits to workers, schools, and career opportunities for Brisbane residents.
Emily, Brisbane resident and HVACR apprentice — Supported the project as an opportunity for local apprentices to build careers and remain in the community.
Ignacio, Center for Creative Land Recycling (CCLR) — Supported the project, noting no known landfill cap breaches at other comparable closed developments such as Emeryville.
Eileen McLaughlin, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge — Referenced her comment letter submitted before the June 11 workshop and asked about the comment process.
Christina F. — Requested that the Bayshore Mobility Plan be excluded from the Commission's recommendation to Council; supported the road-diet concept generally but raised concerns about other components of the plan, and the developer's financial capacity to complete the project.
Ali Sapirman, Housing Action Coalition — Supported FEIR certification and Specific Plan adoption, citing the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations and the risk of Builder's Remedy exposure if the plan is not adopted.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2026
Mary Rogers, OSEC — Raised concern about whether the environmental analysis accurately reflects the Specific Plan as presented to the Commission.
Andy Yu, Local 104 — Supported the project, citing local construction jobs and economic benefit to the community.
Bart Pantoja, San Mateo County Building and Construction Trades Council — Supported the project, citing BDI's commitment to using local trades.
Tom Traeger, Local 104 — Supported the project, citing the value of union careers with good wages, healthcare, and pensions for keeping families in San Mateo County.
Jake Hilltack, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 apprentice — Supported the project as a local-hire opportunity for apprentices.
Clara Johnson — Opposed the project as proposed, urging adoption of the Environmentally Superior Alternative, more detailed and enforceable mitigation measures, and an independent auditing entity with authority to stop work for noncompliance.
Michele Salmon — Reiterated concerns about site safety and potential forever chemicals, radioactive waste, and contamination at the former Stauffer Chemical and Lazzari Fuel sites.
Following public comment, the Commission discussed whether to close or continue the public hearing. City Attorney Phillips advised that if continued, the hearing should remain open to allow further public comment at the next meeting, and noted that CEQA's peer-review requirements apply only when a lead agency did not prepare its own EIR, which is not the case here, as the FEIR was prepared by the City's contracted consultants and reviewed by in-house and outside legal counsel.
Chair Funke asked that consultants address in greater depth at the next hearing community concerns regarding toxins and long-term safety, whether the FEIR adequately evaluates the project as proposed, consistency of the energy-neutrality commitment, the rationale for reduced greenhouse gas impact findings, and the City's long-term financial risk. Commissioner Sayasane recommended continuing the hearing to June 30 so the full Commission would be present and would have time to review the comments received.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sayasane and seconded by Commissioner Wodziak to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, June 30, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. Motion approved 3-0.
ITEMS INITIATED BY STAFF
Director Ayres announced that the Open Space Element item was continued to the July 16th City Council meeting.
ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION
There were none.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2026
ADJOURNMENT
B. Acting Chairperson Funke adjourned to a special meeting of June 30, 2026, at a special start time of 6:30 p.m., at approximately 9:32 p.m.
Attest:
_______________________________________
Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
NOTE: A full video record of this meeting can be found on the City’s YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/BrisbaneCA, on the City’s website at http://www.brisbaneca.org/meetings, or on DVD (by request only) at City Hall.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
BRISBANE PLANNING COMMISSION
Action Minutes of June 30, 2026
Special Hybrid Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Gooding called the meeting to order at approximately 6:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Gooding, Lau, Sayasane, Wodziak, and Funke
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Ayres, Senior Planner Robbins, and City Attorney Phillips
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Funke and seconded by Commissioner Sayasane to adopt the agenda. Motion approved 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none; as a special meeting, oral communications were not on the agenda.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Gooding acknowledged written correspondence received since the June 25 meeting from the following senders:
- Clara Johnson, regarding Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements related to the EIR
- David Calb, regarding physical connections of the project to Brisbane - Sierra Club (resubmission of its June 10 letter)
- Michele Salmon (submission of an excerpt from a 2011 scoping meeting) - Travis Clark, in support of the project
- Michele Salmon, opposing the Bayshore Mobility Plan
- Dana Dillworth, regarding the EIR and the Specific Plan
PUBLIC HEARING
A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Baylands Subarea; Environmental Review 2021-ER-1, Specific Plan 2021-SP-1, Zoning Amendment 2021-RZ-3, General Plan Amendment 2021-GPA-2 (continued from June 25, 2026)
Director Ayres recapped the June 25 hearing, at which the Commission heard staff's and the applicant's presentations, opened the public hearing and took public comment, directed staff to Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
June 30, 2026
return with information on five topics, and continued the public hearing with the public hearing remaining open.
Staff and the consultant team Environmental Science Associates (ESA) and presented follow-up on the five requested topics: (1) the recommended Specific Plan is analyzed in the FEIR as Modified Alternative 1, with the same or fewer impacts than previously disclosed, and project evolution alone does not require recirculation absent new or more severe impacts; (2) site remediation follows a sequential, agency-approved process from scoping through implementation; (3) the City bears little direct liability, as the site is privately held and the Development Agreement will include enforcement and indemnification provisions; (4) GHG impacts are evaluated regionally and cumulatively per CARB guidance, and a draft offset-credit mitigation measure was removed as inconsistent with state climate policy, though other GHG measures remain; and (5) staff finds the project consistent with Measure JJ's energy-neutrality requirement, interpreted as carbon-neutral development supported by all-electric buildings, onsite solar, battery storage, and clean-choice grid power. Staff also clarified that density/intensity standards apply by land use designation rather than block by block, and flagged an internal inconsistency on where hospitality uses are permitted, presenting two options: limit to highdensity commercial areas only, or also allow mid-density commercial areas.
Following staff's presentation and Commission questions, the Commission took comments from the following members of the public:
Dana Dillworth — Raised concerns about the inactivity of the Brisbane/Baylands community advisory group (BBCAG), requested public disclosure of approved remediation plans and cleanup phasing, and objected to counting the lagoon within the project's open space totals.
Nancy Lacsamana — Supported moving the project forward, citing the 20-year timeline and the economic need for commercial activity in central Brisbane.
Joe Marisini, Carpenters Union Local 217 — Supported the project on behalf of union members.
Storrs Hoen — Requested clarification on the phasing timeline for the solar field, responsible for repairing landfill caps damaged, and estimates noise-mitigation scenarios related to pile-driving.
Emily Wagner, HVACR technician, Local 467 — Supported the project, citing career and housing opportunities for young Brisbane residents and appreciation for the project team's safety focus.
Prem L. (remote) — Opposed the Bayshore Mobility Plan's lane reduction, citing impacts to central Brisbane businesses and emergency access.
Jennifer Chang Hetterly, Sierra Club (remote) — Requested a binding adaptive-management mitigation measure with public reporting and defined triggers requiring additional mitigation if monitoring shows changing site conditions.
Chris McIntosh, San Mateo County Bird Alliance (remote) — Requested stronger limits on light spillover into habitat areas, raptor perch deterrents near sensitive habitat and the shoreline, and bird-safe glass treatments on buildings.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
June 30, 2026
Gita Dev, Sierra Club Land Use Committee (remote) — Requested an independent peer review of the FEIR, raised concerns about the jobs-housing imbalance, and asked that biosafety level 3 laboratories require a conditional use permit.
Eileen McLaughlin, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (remote) — Urged that shoreline open space be protected through a permanent conservation easement rather than a covenant.
Linda Salmon — Opposed the Bayshore Mobility Plan's proposed lane reduction.
Clara Johnson — Raised concerns regarding the need for detailed mitigation-measure methodology and timing, requested financial assurance, bonding, and indemnification covering landfill and hazardous-facility risks, and asked that biosafety level 3 and 4 laboratories be banned from the Baylands, and requested that an independent peer-review committee be appointed.
Susan DesJardin, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Bay Alive Campaign (remote) — Expressed disappointment with the revised greenhouse gas analysis and requested periodic review and updating of construction and energy standards for future project phases.
Naomi Goodman, Sierra Club volunteer and environmental scientist (remote) — Raised concerns that the FEIR understates the timeline and risk associated with groundwater contamination at the adjacent Schlage Lock site in San Francisco.
Ali Sapirman, Housing Action Coalition and Bay Area Council (remote) — Supported the project, welcomed removal of the greenhouse gas offset-credit requirement as appropriate for transit-oriented infill housing, and urged FEIR certification and Specific Plan adoption.
Tom Elliard — Opposed the Bayshore Boulevard lane reduction, citing evacuation and bottleneck concerns.
Jordan Grimes, Greenbelt Alliance (remote) — Supported the project, agreed that the greenhouse gas offset-credit requirement was misapplied to infill housing, and urged FEIR certification and plan adoption.
Cynthia Gomez, Unite Here Local 2 — Opposed the project as proposed, citing the jobs-housing imbalance, a reduced remediation soil cap depth compared to earlier recommendations, and requested restoration of greenhouse gas mitigation measures removed from the FEIR.
Jeremy Levine, Housing Leadership Council — Supported the project, urging flexibility in height and design standards to accommodate a multi-decade build-out.
David Cobb — Supported the project generally, but raised concern that the plan's circulation design does not adequately connect the development to central Brisbane via the Sierra Point/Lagoon Way entrance.
Christina F. — Raised concerns about unclear liability for contamination, the applicant's development track record, and a lack of clarity in the Bayshore Mobility Plan's traffic-routing assumptions.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
June 30, 2026
Travis Clark — Supported the project overall, but noted the plan should have more housing and less commercial development.
Ron Burks — Opposed approving the project at this time, questioning the City's financial exposure and the resilience of landfill caps in a seismic event.
Christian Bustos and Fego Navarro, Lyrical Opposition — Spoke favorably of the applicant's past support for local arts programming and expressed hope that similar community-space commitments would continue if the project proceeds.
Janet Nito, Center for Creative Land Recycling — Supported the project generally, drawing on her prior experience with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the site's community advisory group.
Following public comment, the applicant, Stephanie Shakofsky of Baylands Development Inc. (BDI), addressed remediation funding and long-term monitoring, citing the existing Sierra Point Environmental Management Association as a model for future property-owner-funded oversight; addressed the project's financial feasibility by citing Mission Bay, Emeryville, and Sierra Point as comparable, successfully redeveloped contaminated sites; and reaffirmed BDI's energyneutrality commitment through on-site solar generation, battery storage, and enrollment in Peninsula Clean Energy for any remaining demand.
The Commission asked staff about regulation of biosafety level 3 and 4 laboratory uses (permitted above BSL-3 only through a conditional use process, consistent with the City's current treatment of the Sierra Point commercial district); how the Bayshore Mobility Plan (BMP) coordinates with regional and interjurisdictional transportation planning, including bicycle connectivity beyond Brisbane's boundaries and future Candlestick-area development; and the process by which the Commission could recommend approval of the Specific Plan or Mobility Plan with modifications. Staff confirmed that any such direction could be incorporated into the Commission's eventual motion. The Commission then directed staff to provide additional information on: how the BMP integrates with regional transportation plans and the feasibility of constructing right-of-way improvements proposed within the BMP without implementing a road diet; projects in California with carbon neutral/net-zero obligations; remediation requirements of the Schlage Lock site in San Francisco and whether it impacts on development and remediation of the Brisbane Baylands; and the role of anticipated propertyowner associations in overseeing long-term remediation performance.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sayasane and seconded by Commissioner Funke to continue the public hearing to Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 7:30 p.m. Motion approved 5-0.
ITEMS INITIATED BY STAFF
There were none.
ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
June 30, 2026
B. Chairperson Gooding adjourned the meeting to the regular meeting of July 23, 2026, at approximately 9:44 p.m.
Attest:
_______________________________________
Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
NOTE: A full video record of this meeting can be found on the City’s YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/BrisbaneCA, on the City’s website at http://www.brisbaneca.org/meetings, or on DVD (by request only) at City Hall.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
DRAFT
BRISBANE PLANNING COMMISSION
Action Minutes of July 23, 2026
Regular Hybrid Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Gooding called the meeting to order at approximately 7:50 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Funke, Gooding, Lau, Sayasane, and Wodziak
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Ayres, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Yip, City Attorney Phillips, and Senior Planner Robbins
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Funke and seconded by Commissioner Wodziak to adopt the agenda. Motion approved 5-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of draft meeting minutes of May 28, 2026
B. Approval of draft meeting minutes of June 11, 2026
C. Approval of draft meeting minutes of June 25, 2026
A motion was made by Commissioner Wodziak and seconded by Commissioner Funke to adopt the consent calendar. Motion approved 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Gooding acknowledged written correspondence received since the June 30, 2026, special meeting from the following senders:
- Anthony Walker, regarding greenhouse gases
- Bayshore Sanitary District, regarding compliance and agreement between the proposed plan and their protocols
- Kim Follien, in support of the Specific Plan
- Clara Johnson, regarding numerous items in the EIR
- Baylands Development Inc. (BDI), in response to questions from the last meeting (resubmission of its July 17 letter also included in the agenda report) DRAFT Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
DRAFT
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2026
- Christina Florkowski, regarding the Geneva Avenue extension
PUBLIC HEARING
A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Baylands Subarea; Environmental Review 2021-ER-1, Specific Plan 2021-SP-1, Zoning Amendment 2021-RZ-3, General Plan Amendment 2021-GPA-2 (continued from June 30, 2026); Proposed Baylands Specific Plan including 2,200 residential units; 6.5 million square feet of commercial, office, retail, conference, life science, and office campus uses; 500,000 square feet of hotel use (approximately 800 rooms); a grade 6–8 middle school; 157 acres of open space/open area, parks, and trails; water, recycled water, sewer, drainage, electrical, and other utilities improvements on approximately 680.1 acres generally situated easterly of Bayshore Boulevard and west of Highway 101; related actions include amending the Brisbane General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements, amending Title 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code to establish zoning regulations, and adopting the Bayshore Mobility Plan. A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Baylands Development Inc., applicant; Sunquest Properties, majority owner.
The in-person consultant team consisted of: Terri Avila of ESA (with additional ESA specialists in air quality, energy, GHG, noise, cultural resources, hazards, and water), Matt Goyne of Fehr & Peers, SiteLab (urban design), and Michelle King of EKI. The remote consultant team included John Montgomery Brown of EKI and additional ESA land use and planning staff.
Staff recapped the five topics addressed in response to the Commission's direction from June 30, 2026, and presented follow-up information on four additional topics raised by the Commission:
(1) the Bayshore Mobility Plan's (BMP) relationship to regional transportation plans and the feasibility of right-of-way improvements without a road diet – regional and state plans do not require Bayshore Boulevard to remain four lanes, though a continuous Class I bike path while retaining four lanes would require additional engineering study in constrained segments; (2) examples of California projects with required or voluntary net-zero greenhouse gas commitments – none of the cited projects' circumstances apply to the Baylands; (3) remediation requirements related to the Schlage Lock groundwater plume – development will be required to prevent vaporintrusion exposure to chlorinated volatile organic compounds through a site-specific risk assessment or vapor-intrusion mitigation, per the approved remedial action plan; and (4) the role of site-specific environmental management associations (SEMAs) in overseeing large contaminated sites – modeled on the Sierra Point Environmental Management Association (SPEMA), a mandatory property-owner association created by Regional Water Board order in 1999.
Staff also presented recommended clarifications to the Specific Plan: Chapter 3 clarifications on how minimum density and intensity are averaged across the plan area, including the Caltrain station area; a modification to permit hospitality uses in both high-density and mid-density commercial designations; and Chapter 9 clarifications on how the state-regulated remediation DRAFT Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
DRAFT
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2026
and monitoring process relates to city permitting and development review. Staff reaffirmed its recommendation that the Commission recommend the City Council certify the Final EIR, adopt the 2026 staff-recommended Specific Plan with the stated clarifications, approve related General Plan and Title 17 zoning amendments, and approve the Bayshore Mobility Plan.
The Commission's questions to staff, the applicant, and consultants covered: how a SEMA-type association would be governed, funded, and enforced, including quarterly groundwater monitoring, quarterly and five-year regulatory inspections, environmental insurance, and land use covenants running with the land; the feasibility of a Class I sidewalk or path along Bayshore Boulevard outside the project frontage without reducing travel lanes; whether a road-diet configuration could be reversed for emergency access; whether the Specific Plan requires any ongoing greenhouse gas tracking following removal of the net-zero mitigation measure from the Final EIR; whether the future battery storage field could be made a binding or enforceable commitment (staff indicated this is better addressed through the Development Agreement, which the Commission will also review); further detail on the proposed Chapter 9 remediationmonitoring and reporting clarifications; and a summary of Modified Alternative 1, which reduces the number and height of towers near the Caltrain right-of-way, shifts density to lower- and medium-density designations further east, and accommodates the high-speed rail light maintenance facility (LMF). The applicant confirmed it does not yet have a position on Sierra Club's request for a conservation easement or San Bruno Mountain Watch's request that the Mission Blue Nursery remain at its current location, noting design and community-outreach work is ongoing.
Following staff's presentation and Commission questions, the Commission took comments from the following members of the public:
Ali Sapirman, Housing Action Coalition and Bay Area Council — Urged the Commission to act, noting the State's recent revocation of Brisbane's housing element compliance finding and the resulting exposure to Builder's Remedy, loss of funding, and litigation risk; urged recommending approval of the Specific Plan and Final EIR.
Darren Clark, Carpenters Local 217 — Supported the project, urging a responsible general contractor committed to area-standard wages, apprenticeships, and healthcare.
Arturo Sainz, Laborers Local 261 — Supported the project, citing the training and safety qualifications of union laborers to safely perform remediation and construction work.
Erin Becker — Asked that the Commission recommend updating the City's Dark Skies Ordinance to include the Baylands zoning district, and urged consideration of Alternative 7 (reduced density and height) rather than committing to the full 2,200 units.
Storrs Hoen — Requested that drilled-shaft and rectangular-barrette pile-installation methods be included as options to reduce construction noise, and requested a continuous, low-friction bicycle route through the project connecting San Francisco to Sierra Point/Oyster Point.
DRAFT Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
DRAFT
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2026
Melissa Foley, San Francisco Estuary Institute (remote) — Supported the project's native-plant and wildlife-safe design commitments, calling the plan's landscape-scale approach to habitat connectivity commendable.
Jordan Grimes, Greenbelt Alliance (remote) — Supported the project, welcomed removal of the greenhouse gas offset-credit mitigation measure as appropriate for transit-oriented infill housing, and urged the Commission to advance the plan without pursuing Alternative 7.
Eileen McLaughlin, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (remote) — Requested that a conservation easement, which runs with the land, be used to permanently protect restored habitat, whether in the Specific Plan or the Development Agreement.
Linda Salmon — Opposed siting single-family homes on landfill caps, citing seismic and sealevel-rise risk; suggested rental housing over commercial uses as an alternative, and renewed a suggestion for light-rail connection through Brisbane to South San Francisco in place of the road diet.
Anthony Walker, (speaking as an individual) — Raised concerns that the plan relies on community-choice (clean) energy procurement without first pursuing an intermediate step of additional community-scale renewable generation within Brisbane, as called for in the City's sustainability framework.
Nicole Westrom — Asked the Commission to consider stakeholders without a voice in the process, including the land's original inhabitants and future residents, and to continue seeking broad, accessible public participation.
Michele Salmon — Raised concerns about the adequacy of long-term testing given the site's undocumented, unlined landfill history, distinguished the site from the more thoroughly closed and monitored Sierra Point landfill, and opposed the Bayshore Mobility Plan.
Cynthia Gomez, Unite Here Local 2 — Reiterated opposition to the project's jobs-housing imbalance, noting no state law requires the City to accept 6.5 million square feet of commercial development.
Elana S — Opposed the Bayshore Mobility Plan's lane reduction, citing anticipated diversion of Tunnel Avenue traffic during construction, and requested robust enforcement of nighttime noise limits during pile driving.
Christina F. — Raised concerns about the scale and pace of the proposed transformation relative to the size of Brisbane, and asked that the project be considered incrementally rather than as a single, unified approval.
Following public comment, the applicant, represented by Stephanie Shakofsky of Baylands Development Inc., invited the project's engineer of record Jay Merani of Geosyntec to review the remediation implementation approach, including removal of identified soil contamination, import of approved clean fill, installation of a demarcation layer and clean soil cap, and procedures for maintaining the cap during future utility work, sampling, or foundation installation.
DRAFT Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
DRAFT
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2026
After the presentation from the applicant, a motion was made by Commissioner Sayasane and seconded by Commissioner Wodziak to close the public hearing. Motion approved 5-0.
The Commission then began deliberations, starting with the Bayshore Mobility Plan. Individual commissioners expressed a range of views: several commissioners opposed the road diet's lane reduction, citing concerns about traffic diversion and a desire to explore alternative trafficcalming and multimodal safety measures instead; one commissioner expressed openness to the complete-streets concept underlying the road diet while acknowledging the need for further study.
A motion was made by Chairperson Gooding and seconded by Commissioner Sayasane to adopt Resolution PC-01-26, recommending that the City Council adopt the Bayshore Mobility Plan, modified to retain only those elements directly benefiting the Baylands project's circulation, eliminate the road-diet lane-reduction elements, and direct further study of the feasibility of a continuous Class I path or comparable sidewalk improvement along the remainder of Bayshore Boulevard. Motion approved 4-1 (Funke voting “no”).
The Commission then began preliminary discussion of the remaining General Plan and Title 17 zoning amendments Given the significance of topics remaining and the lateness of the meeting, the Commission agreed to continue its deliberations at another meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Funke and seconded by Commissioner Sayasane to continue the meeting to August 13, 2026, with a special start time of 6:30 p.m. Motion approved 5-0.
ITEMS INITIATED BY STAFF
There were none.
ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
B. Chairperson Gooding adjourned the meeting to the regular meeting of August 13, 2026, at a special start time of 6:30 p.m., at approximately 10:35 p.m.
Attest:
_______________________________________
Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
NOTE: A full video record of this meeting can be found on the City's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/BrisbaneCA, on the City's website at http://www.brisbaneca.org/meetings, or on DVD (by request only) at City Hall.
DRAFT Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
DRAFT
BRISBANE PLANNING COMMISSION
Action Minutes of August 13, 2026
Special Hybrid Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Gooding called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Funke, Gooding, Lau, Sayasane, and Wodziak
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Ayres, Director of Public Works Bozorginia, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Yip, City Attorney Phillips, and Associate Planner Whitney
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Funke and seconded by Commissioner Wodziak to adopt the agenda. Motion approved 5-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of draft meeting minutes of June 30, 2026
A motion was made by Commissioner Wodziak and seconded by Commissioner Funke to adopt the consent calendar. Motion approved 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Gooding acknowledged the following written correspondence received since the July 23, 2026 meeting:
- Michele Salmon, regarding the Bayshore Mobility Plan
- Melissa Foley, regarding ecological planning and design guidance
OLD BUSINESS
A. CONTINUED: Baylands Subarea; Environmental Review 2021-ER-1, Specific Plan 2021-SP-1, Zoning Amendment 2021-RZ-3, General Plan Amendment 2021-GPA-2 (public hearing closed July 23, 2026; Commission deliberations continued); Proposed Baylands Specific Plan including 2,200 residential units; 6.5 million square feet of commercial, office, retail, conference, life science, and office campus uses; 500,000 square feet of hotel use (approximately 800 rooms); a grade 6–8 DRAFT Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
middle school; 157 acres of open space/open area, parks, and trails; water, recycled water, sewer, drainage, electrical, and other utilities improvements on approximately 680.1 acres generally situated easterly of Bayshore Boulevard and west of Highway 101; related actions include amending the Brisbane General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements, amending Title 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code to establish zoning regulations, and adopting the Bayshore Mobility Plan. A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Baylands Development Inc., applicant; Sunquest Properties, majority owner; see Attachment 9 for a complete list of owners.
The in-person consultant team consisted of: Brian Boxer of ESA and Michael Burns of ESA. The remote consultant team consisted of: John Montgomery Brown of EKI, Terri Avila of ESA, Susan Yogi of ESA, Brian Schuster of ESA, Chris Dugan of ESA, Brian Pittman of ESA, Ashleigh Sims of ESA, Kathy Cleveland of ESA, Matt Brennan of ESA, Todd Gordon of ESA, Beverly Choi of ESA, Erik Calloway of ESA, John Holmes of Fehr & Peers, Ashutosh Singhal of SiteLab, and Woody Hanson of SiteLab.
Director Ayres recapped the July 23, 2026 meeting. Staff then summarized the topics identified by the Commission to guide deliberations:
1. Connectivity between the Baylands, Central Brisbane, and Sierra Point, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and downtown shuttle options.
2. Inclusion of amenity and active ground-floor uses serving residential districts.
3. Consistency with Measure JJ's sustainability framework and energy-neutrality requirement, including reliance on off-site renewable energy procurement to close any remaining gap beyond on-site generation.
4. Post-development monitoring of the closed landfill and remediated operating units, including anticipated inspection and testing frequencies pending final regulatory approval.
5. Specific use considerations, including the biosafety-level threshold for by-right versus conditionally permitted laboratory uses (by-right up to BSL-3, conditional use permit above that level, consistent with Sierra Point) and whether cross-referencing the City's Dark Skies Ordinance is necessary given that the Specific Plan's lighting standards are at least as stringent.
Commission discussion and questions covered clarification that off-site renewable energy procurement (through PG&E or a community energy provider) would supplement on-site generation to maintain carbon neutrality, with a smaller anticipated gap than originally projected; whether a future battery storage field should be a binding requirement; and confirmation that the City's Dark Skies Ordinance applies citywide regardless of zoning, and that the Specific Plan's lighting standards meet or exceed its requirements. The Commission also discussed the Sierra Club's June 10, 2026 letter requesting expanded conservation easements and San Bruno Mountain Watch's request that the Mission Blue Nursery remain at its current location.
DRAFT Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Following discussion, the Chair proposed, and the Commission reached consensus on, a framework motion to adopt the staff-recommended Baylands Specific Plan dated May 2026, including the clarifications and cleanup edits presented on July 23, 2026, along with the related General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element amendments and Title 17 zoning amendments, and to recommend the following items for City Council consideration:
• Remediation: Require that all reporting submitted to regulatory agencies be concurrently submitted to the City for the City to make available to the public. Require that regulatory reports be current at time of permit issuance, inspection, and occupancy; if not, the City will withhold permits or cease processing. Post-occupancy, require that regulatory reports remain current and be submitted concurrently to the City to make available for public inspection; if not, direct that the City address the matter through various oversight mechanisms, including discretionary permit revocation (if applicable), or code enforcement.
• Energy: Require implementation of an audit mechanism monitoring the project's energy use and generation over build out, with built-in consequences should targets not be reached.
• Lab Uses: Require that Chapter 3 land use regulations be amended to require Conditional Use Permit approval for laboratory uses classified as BSL-3 and above. • Circulation: Direct Council to consider restricting use and/or design of Class I bicycle facilities specifically to avoid collisions between pedestrians and cyclists with e-bikes and e-scooters, and to consider upgrading the Baylands-Central Brisbane shuttle schedule to serve during the afternoon and later in the evening. • Mission Blue Nursery: Recommend that Council allow the nursery to remain in its current location unless or until a feasible option can be provided. • Open Space: Require conservation easements beyond what the Plan presently envisions for all open space areas, per the Sierra Club's June 10 letter. • Implementation: Direct Council to implement staff's recommended edits presented in the 7/23 agenda report to clarify the anticipated remediation process and relationship to city permitting.
• Hospitality Zoning and Building Types: Direct Council to implement staff's recommended edits to Chapter 3 presented in the 7/23 agenda report to clarify that hospitality uses and building types are permitted in the medium density commercial district.
• Residential Density and Commercial Intensity: Direct Council to implement staff's recommended edits to Chapter 3 presented in the 7/23 agenda report to clarify that minimum residential density and commercial intensity standards are applied on an average basis by land use designation and are not evaluated on a block-by-block basis.
A motion was made by Chairperson Gooding and seconded by Commissioner Funke to adopt the Staff-Recommended Specific Plan (May 2026), including the staff-suggested July 23, 2026 edits, via adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-ER-1/2021-SP-1/2021-RZ-3/2021- GPA-2, modified to incorporate the Commission's recommendations. The motion was approved 5-0.
DRAFT Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
The Chair noted that the Bayshore Mobility Plan recommendation was acted on separately via adoption of Resolution PC-01-26 at the July 23, 2026 meeting, and that community-benefits topics raised during discussion will be considered separately as part of the forthcoming Development Agreement, which will be reviewed by the Commission before proceeding to the City Council.
ITEMS INITIATED BY STAFF
There were none.
ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
B. Chairperson Gooding adjourned the meeting to the regular meeting of August 27, 2026, at approximately 8:51 p.m.
Attest:
_______________________________________
Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
NOTE: A full video record of this meeting can be found on the City's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/BrisbaneCA, on the City's website at http://www.brisbaneca.org/meetings, or on DVD (by request only) at City Hall.
DRAFT Baylands Specific Plan and EIR- Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 14
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR - Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 15
Attachment 15: Notice of Public Hearing: Planning Commission - June 25, 2026 Notice of Public Hearing: Planning Commission - June 25, 2026 https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2984/6-25-26---Environmental-Review-2021-ER-2-Specific-Plan-2021-SP1-Zoning-Amend-2021-RZ-3--GP-Amend-2021-GPA-1-for-the-Baylands 1
Printed on 50% recycled paper Providing for Today, Preparing for Tomorrow City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005-1310
415-508-2120
415-467-4989 Fax
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF
THE BRISBANE BAYLANDS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS,
BAYLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDMENTS TO BRISBANE MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 17, ZONING, BAYSHORE MOBILITY PLAN, AND THE RELATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2006022136)
Notice is hereby given that a hybrid public hearing will be held by the City of Brisbane City Council on Monday, September 14, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., allowing public participation in-person at Brisbane City Hall, 50 Park Place, Brisbane, AND virtually via Zoom at brisbaneca.gov/cc-zoom, and broadcast on local Comcast channel 27 and the City’s YouTube channel, to consider the Baylands General Plan Amendments; Baylands Specific Plan; Amendments to Brisbane Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning; Bayshore Mobility Plan; and the related Final Environmental Impact Report.
Project Approval and Actions
The City Council will consider approving the proposed project, an alternative, or a variation thereof including modified conditions and mitigation measures. As part of this approval, the City Council is proposing to take the following actions:
1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) and adopt the Water Supply Assessment, Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
2. Approve the project entitlements, which include:
• Amending the General Plan Land Use Element to realign the northern boundary of the Baylands Subarea to correspond to the boundary of the Baylands Specific Plan. • Amending the General Plan Circulation Element to:
o Realign Lagoon Road to directly access the southbound US 101 freeway ramps at Sierra Point Parkway.
o Extend Sierra Point Parkway from its current terminus at the southbound US 101 freeway ramps north to Geneva Avenue.
o Add proposed Baylands roadways to the General Plan circulation map. o Designate the Geneva Avenue extension through the Baylands as a Regional Arterial. o Add a new roadway type for “green local streets.”
• Adopting the Baylands Specific Plan, which includes:
o Land use designations and development standards for 2,200 residential units clustered in the northwestern portion of the site in proximity to the Bayshore Caltrain station; 6.5 million square feet of commercial, office, retail, conference, life science, and office campus uses; 500,000 square feet of hotel use (approximately 800 rooms); a grade 6–8 middle school; and open space/open area, parks, and trails;
o Policies related to sustainability, utilities, and infrastructure improvements; and o Implementation measures.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 16
Printed on 50% recycled paper Providing for Today, Preparing for Tomorrow • Amending Title 17, Zoning, of the Brisbane Municipal Code to:
o Change the zoning designations of land within the Baylands Specific Plan area from Commercial Mixed-Use (C-1), Marsh Lagoon Bayfront (MLB), Manufacturing (M-1) to Baylands Specific Plan (BSP); and
o Establish the land use regulations and development standards set forth in the Specific Plan as the regulatory authority governing future development within the Specific Plan area; o Delete Chapter 17.41, Interim Uses In The Baylands Subarea; and o Amend the City’s Zoning Map to reflect the Baylands Specific Plan zone changes. • Approve the Bayshore Mobility Plan, which calls for enhancing the mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses by reducing the number of travel lanes along Bayshore Boulevard from four lanes (two in each direction) to two lanes (one in each direction) south of Geneva Avenue, along with providing a median, turn pockets, and a multi-use pathway and bicycle facilities along the corridor within the City of Brisbane.
The actions described above were considered by the Brisbane Planning Commission on June 25, June 30, July 14, July 23, and August 13, 2026, which meetings were duly noticed in compliance with the California Government Code. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the 2026 Staff Recommended Baylands Specific Plan with the following modifications:
1. Remediation: All reporting submitted to regulatory agencies should be concurrently submitted to the City for the City to make available to the public. Regulatory reports should be current at time of permit issuance, inspection, and occupancy; if not, City will withhold permits or cease processing. Post-occupancy, regulatory reports must remain current and submitted concurrently to the City to make available for public inspection. If not, the matter would be addressed by the City through various oversight mechanisms including discretionary permit revocation (if applicable), or code enforcement.
2. Energy: An audit mechanism monitoring the project’s energy use and generation over build out, that has built in consequences should targets not be reached, should be implemented.
3. Lab Uses: Chapter 3 land use regulations should be amended to require Conditional Use Permit approval for laboratory uses classified as BSL-3 and above.
4. Circulation: Council should consider restricting use and/or design of Class I bicycle facilities specifically to avoid collisions between pedestrians and cyclists with e-bikes and e-scooters. Council should consider upgrading the Baylands-Central Brisbane shuttle schedule to serve during the afternoon and later in the evening.
5. Mission Blue Nursery: Recommend Council allow nursery to remain in its current location unless or until a feasible option can be provided.
6. Open Space: Conservation easements beyond what the Plan presently envisions should be required for all open space areas, per the Sierra Club's June 10 letter.
7. Implementation: Council should implement staff’s recommended edits presented in the 7/23 agenda report to clarify the anticipated remediation process and relationship to city permitting.
8. Hospitality Zoning and Building Types: Council should implement staff’s recommended edits to Chapter 3 presented in the 7/23 agenda report to clarify that hospitality uses and building types are permitted in the medium density commercial district.
9. Residential Density and Commercial Intensity: Council should implement staff’s recommended edits to Chapter 3 presented in the 7/23 agenda report to clarify that minimum residential density and commercial intensity standards are applied on an average basis by land use designation and are not evaluated on a blockby-block basis.
The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council adopt the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, certify the Final EIR, and adopt provisions of the Bayshore Mobility Plan specifically related to implementation of mitigation measures in the Final EIR, excluding all other provisions including the proposed “road diet” on Bayshore Boulevard. The City Council will consider these recommendations.
Baylands Specific Plan and EIR Meeting 1
ATTACHMENT 16