Build Up San Mateo County | Brisbane Baylands Child Care Public Comment | 1 September 11, 2026
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Brisbane
RE: Child Care in the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan
Dear Mayor Mackin, Mayor Pro Tempore Davis, Councilmembers Kern, Lentz, and O’Connell:
On behalf of Build Up San Mateo County, thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments as you prepare to consider the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan on September 14.
Build Up San Mateo County works with cities and community partners throughout San Mateo County to preserve, improve, and expand child care facilities. For the past eight years, we have worked to help communities recognize child care as essential infrastructure and consider it alongside housing, transportation, economic development, and other investments necessary for communities to thrive.
At buildout, the Baylands Specific Plan anticipates 2,200 new homes, approximately 4,905 residents, and 19,480 employees. A community of this scale presents an extraordinary opportunity to plan from the beginning for the infrastructure that future residents and workers will need—including child care.
We appreciated the Planning Commission’s recent discussion about child care and the important question commissioners raised about the distinction between allowing child care and ensuring that it is actually incorporated into the community.
Allowing child care is not the same as planning for child care.
Brisbane already has a strong foundation for doing so. The City’s General Plan recognizes the importance of child care, and General Plan Policy BL1.C specifically identifies daycare among the residential-supportive uses that Baylands residential development should be designed and remediated to accommodate. Brisbane’s Sustainability Framework also identifies a daycare facility among the minimum services and amenities envisioned within walkable, mixed-use development.
As the Specific Plan establishes the long-term vision for the Baylands, we respectfully encourage the Council to make this existing commitment to child care explicit in the Plan.
One potential approach would be to add a goal to Section 2.2 such as:
Integrate Child Care as Essential Community Infrastructure: Plan for licensed child care and early learning facilities as an integral component of the Baylands, with facilities conveniently located in relation to residential neighborhoods and employment centers and planned and phased in coordination with development and occupancy.
We also encourage the City to consider incorporating child care into other relevant portions of the Specific Plan, including its sustainability and economic vitality goals (e.g.: Table 4.2.1, Category 9, adding child care after public parks), and to include child care capacity as part of future monitoring of Baylands implementation (Section 9.3.8).
Build Up San Mateo County | Brisbane Baylands Child Care Public Comment | 2 The Specific Plan does not need to resolve every implementation question today. The Development Agreement provides an important opportunity to determine how the City’s child care goals will be achieved, including appropriate capacity, locations, timing and phasing, affordability considerations, and developer commitments.
Local examples can help inform that work. San Mateo, South San Francisco, San Carlos, and Redwood City have each used different tools to connect development with child care infrastructure needs.
Attachment A summarizes these approaches and lessons for consideration. Brisbane does not need to replicate any one model. The Specific Plan can establish the City’s intention to incorporate child care as essential community infrastructure, while subsequent analysis and the Development Agreement can determine the appropriate capacity, location, phasing, funding, affordability, and implementation mechanisms for the Baylands.
As the City moves into more detailed implementation, we encourage Brisbane to work with experienced child care planning and facilities professionals to determine an approach appropriate for the Baylands.
Build Up is happy to share relevant resources, local examples, and lessons from our work throughout San Mateo County.
Opportunities to plan an entirely new community from the ground up are extraordinarily rare. Brisbane has the opportunity to ensure that child care is considered from the outset rather than retrofitted after homes and workplaces are built. We respectfully encourage the Council to establish that commitment in the Specific Plan and carry it forward through the Development Agreement.
Thank you for your consideration and for your leadership in shaping Brisbane’s future.
Sincerely,
Christine Padilla
Director, Build Up San Mateo County
www.buildupsmc.org
Build Up San Mateo County | Brisbane Baylands Child Care Public Comment | 3
ATTACHMENT A
Local Child Care Planning & Development Models
Examples from San Mateo, South San Francisco, San Carlos, and Redwood City Purpose
These nearby examples illustrate different ways local governments and development projects have addressed child care infrastructure associated with residential and employment growth. They are offered as examples for consideration, not as recommended formulas for Brisbane.
City of San Mateo — Development Generates Child Care Need Approach: Child Care Development Impact Fee
San Mateo’s Child Care Development Fee applies to residential and commercial development. The City’s 2021 findings recognize that both residential and commercial development contribute to the need for child care facilities, and fee revenue is used to support the development of child care facilities. The City also maintains a Child Care Facilities Fund that can support capital projects to create, expand, or enhance licensed child care capacity.
Why it matters for Brisbane: San Mateo provides a local precedent for treating child care facilities as infrastructure needed to respond to both residential and economic growth.
South San Francisco — Quantifying Need and Funding Facilities Approach: Child Care Impact Fee Program
South San Francisco has maintained a citywide child care impact fee program since 2001. Its 2020 nexus analysis estimated that the City would need 2,138 additional child care spaces by 2040 to maintain existing service standards, with 1,069 of those spaces expected to be met by traditional child care facilities funded by the fee.
Why it matters for Brisbane: South San Francisco demonstrates how a city can quantify future child care need and establish a dedicated funding mechanism tied to development.
City of San Carlos — Residential + Employment Demand
Approach: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
The San Carlos Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study estimated demand using both population and employment growth: approximately six child care spaces per 100 new residents and four child care spaces per 100 new employees. The methodology recognizes that mixed-use development can generate child care need from both the people who live there and the people who work there.
Why it matters for Brisbane: San Carlos offers a nearby example of a methodology Brisbane can review when considering how to estimate Baylands-specific child care demand.
Redwood City — ELCO Yards: From Planning to an Operating Child Care Facility Approach: Developer Partnership + Child Care Facilities Expertise In 2018, Build Up San Mateo County began working with Greystar on its South Main Mixed-Use development, now ELCO Yards, to help incorporate public child care into the project and address the financial and facility barriers that can make child care difficult to operate in new development. Greystar reached out to Build Up early in the project for guidance on creating public child care with affordable spaces.
Build Up San Mateo County | Brisbane Baylands Child Care Public Comment | 4 Working with Build Up, Greystar committed to developer-funded tenant improvements, no base rent or rent escalation, a long-term lease, and a facility designed specifically for early care and education, including infant and toddler care.
The child care commitment was subsequently carried forward by IQHQ. Its 2024 operator RFP provided for an approximately 8,195-square-foot child care facility with approximately 5,600 square feet of dedicated outdoor space and capacity for up to 74 children from birth through age five. The RFP retained key elements of the original model, including owner-funded tenant improvements, a 10-year lease with $0 base rent and no escalation, scholarships and a sliding fee scale, and a requirement that 30% of available slots be subsidized. The program was also required to be open to the public rather than limited to residents or employees of the development.
Build Up also assisted with the RFP process to identify a qualified child care operator. The facility is now open and operated by Learning Links, a program of nonprofit AbilityPath.
Why it matters for Brisbane: ELCO Yards demonstrates that simply designating space for child care is not enough. Facility design, build-out costs, rent, lease terms, affordability, and operator selection can determine whether planned child care space ultimately becomes a viable operating program.
Build Up San Mateo County’s case study and a tour of the ELCO Yards child care facility are available upon request.
Takeaway for the Brisbane Baylands
Growth creates child care infrastructure needs, and those needs can be anticipated and planned for as part of development.
These local examples demonstrate different tools and stages of implementation: San Mateo connects development with child care facilities funding; South San Francisco quantifies future need and uses development impact fees to help fund capacity; San Carlos provides a methodology for considering demand generated by both new residents and employees; and Redwood City’s ELCO Yards demonstrates how developer commitments around facility design, build-out, rent, lease terms, affordability, and operator selection can help turn a child care commitment into an operating program.
Brisbane does not need to replicate any one model. The Specific Plan can establish the City’s intention to incorporate child care as essential community infrastructure, while subsequent analysis and the Development Agreement can determine the appropriate capacity, location, phasing, funding, affordability, and implementation mechanisms for the Baylands.
Sources and Local References
City of Brisbane. Measure JJ – Brisbane Baylands. Measure JJ amended Brisbane’s General Plan for the Baylands and requires preparation of a Specific Plan and Development Agreement. The City’s current Measure JJ materials identify childcare among the community uses to be accommodated in remediated residential areas and require each development phase to include necessary infrastructure, services, public facilities, and amenities as determined by the City.
URL: https://www.brisbaneca.gov/230/Measure-JJ
City of Brisbane. Sustainability Framework for the Baylands (2015; accepted by the City Council November 5, 2015). The Framework establishes sustainability principles for future Baylands development and is intended to inform the City’s ongoing Baylands decision-making.
URL: https://www.brisbaneca.gov/229/Sustainability-Framework Build Up San Mateo County | Brisbane Baylands Child Care Public Comment | 5 City of Brisbane. 2026 Baylands Specific Plan. The current staff-recommended Specific Plan, including land use, development standards, sustainability, infrastructure, public facilities financing, and implementation.
URL: https://www.brisbaneca.gov/775/2026-Baylands-Specific-Plan City of Brisbane. 2026 Final Environmental Impact Report – Baylands Specific Plan. The Final EIR incorporates the April 2025 Draft EIR and subsequent revisions and responses to comments. The City describes the project as including 2,200 dwelling units, 6.5 million square feet of commercial office development, and 500,000 square feet of hotel use.
URL: https://www.brisbaneca.gov/774/2026-Final-EIR
City of Brisbane. 2025 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Baylands Specific Plan. Source for the detailed Baylands buildout analysis, including the resident and employee projections referenced in Build Up SMC’s letter.
URL: https://www.brisbaneca.gov/237/2025-Draft-EIR
City of San Mateo. Child Care Facilities Fund. San Mateo uses development impact fees from new offices, commercial buildings, and housing to address increased need for child care spaces associated with development.
URL: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/childcarefacilitiesfund City of South San Francisco. Annual Impact Fee Report, Childcare Impact Fee Program (FY 2023–24), summarizing the City’s Childcare Impact Fee Program and 2020 Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study.
URL: https://www.ssf.net/files/assets/public/v/1/finance/documents/2023-2024- development-impact-fee-report.pdf
City of San Carlos. Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study, Revised Report (September 9, 2022). Provides a methodology for estimating child care demand associated with both residential and employment growth.
URL:
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/Document%20Center/Community/Child%20Care/02%2 0FINAL%20211028_Child%20Care.pdf
Build Up San Mateo County. South Main Mixed-Use: A Case Study (2021), documenting Build Up SMC’s work with Greystar on the child care component of the development now known as ELCO Yards.
IQHQ Elco Yard, LP. ELCO Yards Request for Proposal for Operation of a Childcare Facility (November 13, 2024).
Case study and RFP available upon request.
Learning Links / AbilityPath. Redwood City – ELCO Yards. Current program information for the operating child care facility at 200 Lathrop Street in Redwood City.
URL: https://www.learninglinks.org/locations/redwood-city/ Walker | Baylands Measure JJ Comment | 1
Anthony Walker
Brisbane, California
September 10, 2026
Brisbane City Council
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
Re: General Plan Consistency, Measure JJ Energy Neutrality, and ESA Attachment 5 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing regarding one narrow but consequential question as the Baylands Specific Plan comes before you: what does Measure JJ require when it says that Baylands development “shall be designed so as to be energy neutral on an ongoing basis”?
At the Planning Commission’s August 13 meeting, an August 7 memorandum prepared by ESA was introduced after the close of the public hearing as Attachment 5: Brisbane Baylands: Energy Neutrality Historical Record and Assessment.¹ Attachment 5 advances the interpretation that a project generating roughly half of its electricity on site and purchasing the remainder from the grid can nevertheless satisfy Measure JJ’s requirement for ongoing energy neutrality.
I respectfully believe that interpretation is inconsistent with both the voter-adopted language and the Sustainability Framework that Measure JJ expressly incorporates.
That distinction matters because Measure JJ is no longer merely a ballot measure or planning aspiration. General Plan Amendment GP-1-18 was approved by Brisbane voters in November 2018, and the City subsequently incorporated its requirements into the General Plan as Policy BL.1. California Government Code § 65454 requires a Specific Plan to be consistent with the General Plan.
Measure JJ incorporates the Sustainability Framework
Policy BL.1 G provides:
“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. Baylands development shall be designed so as to be energy neutral on an ongoing basis.” 2 The energy-neutrality requirement therefore does not stand alone. It sits alongside an express requirement that the Specific Plan’s sustainability program be consistent with the principles of a specific, named document.
The Sustainability Framework describes its energy-neutrality objective in concrete terms. Under Principle 1, its vision is that “all buildings will be energy efficient and will run completely from locally generated renewable energy.”³ Its Summary Approach states that “all energy for space conditioning, ventilation, water heating, lighting and plug loads will be generated on site,” and that “the project will be designed to produce its entire annual energy needs.”⁴ Those are descriptions of an annual relationship between energy production and energy consumption. Renewable procurement addresses the source of electricity the project imports. Energy neutrality, as the Framework describes it, asks whether the development is designed to produce the energy it consumes.
Walker | Baylands Measure JJ Comment | 2
ESA’s own technical analysis reached the same conclusion This interpretation is not being imposed on the record after the fact.
ESA’s March 2025 Energy Resources Technical Report evaluated the projected energy balance directly. At full buildout, it projected annual electricity consumption substantially exceeding on-site renewable generation. Its table expressly asked, “Is Energy Neutrality Achieved?” and answered: “No.”⁵ The report states:
“For all three scenarios including full buildout in 2042, the Specific Plan would consume more electricity than it generates on an annual basis. Therefore, the Specific Plan would not be energy neutral. … To be energy neutral, the Specific Plan would need to generate as much electricity as it uses, which is not anticipated to occur at this time.”
6 That is the same production-versus-consumption standard described in the Sustainability Framework.
Attachment 5 does not alter that projected energy balance. Instead, it offers a different interpretation of what “energy neutral” means, one under which renewable electricity procured from the grid can satisfy the requirement despite the continuing energy deficit.
That is not a minor technical clarification. Policy BL.1 G is voter-adopted General Plan language, and the Sustainability Framework is the document it expressly incorporates. If the City now believes that “energy neutral on an ongoing basis” should mean something materially different from the Framework and ESA’s earlier technical analysis, that is a consequential policy determination for the Council, not an interpretation that should become City policy by default through a consultant memorandum.
Renewable procurement is a fallback, not an alternative definition of energy neutrality The Sustainability Framework does contemplate renewable electricity procurement. It recognizes that there may be a gap between generation and consumption and provides mechanisms for addressing it. But it does so in an explicit priority order.
Its Recommended Implementation Approach establishes an “order of acceptance”:
“a. Determine capacity for waste-energy or biogas cogeneration to fill the gap of renewable energy for buildings, as well as generation site wide. b. Determine if additional off-site community scale renewable energy is feasible within Brisbane. c. Consider use of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program to purchase renewable energy if it becomes available to the City of Brisbane.” 7 CCA procurement is therefore contemplated as a residual mechanism after generation opportunities have been evaluated and truly exhausted. It is not presented as an alternative definition of energy neutrality.
The historical context reinforces that point. Peninsula Clean Energy was not yet serving customers when the Framework was accepted in 2015. The Framework referred prospectively to CCA procurement “if it becomes available to the City of Brisbane” and placed it last in its stated order.
Today, PCE is Brisbane’s default CCA provider. What was then a prospective fallback is now a readily available retail electricity product.
Walker | Baylands Measure JJ Comment | 3
That does not make procurement unimportant. It can substantially improve the source and carbon content of imported electricity. But it does not change the underlying energy balance. If the Baylands consumes more electricity than it generates, purchasing cleaner electricity for the difference does not eliminate the deficit.
That distinction goes directly to the words of Policy BL.1 G: Baylands development “shall be designed so as to be energy neutral.”
The Specific Plan’s proposed procurement mechanism makes the distinction even clearer. For electricity the Baylands does not generate, the developer is not required to construct sufficient additional generation or purchase renewable electricity on behalf of the development. Instead, the Plan requires, “to the maximum extent allowed by law,” that future utility customers enroll in Peninsula Clean Energy’s 100-percent-renewable option through provisions placed in CC&Rs and leases.
The qualification “to the maximum extent allowed by law” is significant. The Final EIR itself assumes some PCE opt-outs in its emissions analysis.⁸ Whatever the ultimate legal limits of lease or CC&R provisions, the proposed mechanism is therefore not absolute.
More fundamentally, it shifts a substantial part of the compliance mechanism from a development obligation to a future customer obligation.
A renewable-generation requirement requires the project to design, finance, and build infrastructure. A retail procurement requirement can instead be satisfied by directing future owners, tenants, or other utility customers to purchase electricity through a particular product.
The latter may produce cleaner electricity. It does not make that retail purchase a physical design feature of the development.
My own home illustrates the distinction. Our household in Brisbane is fully electric, generates roughly half of its annual electricity with rooftop solar, and purchases the remainder through PCE ECO100. I am proud of that system, but I would not describe our home as energy neutral. We still import roughly half the electricity we use.
If essentially that same arrangement at district scale satisfies Policy BL.1 G, then “designed to be energy neutral” no longer functions as a meaningful independent design standard.
General Plan consistency should be resolved directly
California courts recognize that General Plan consistency does not require perfect conformity with every policy and that local consistency determinations receive substantial deference. But that principle has limits.
In Spring Valley Lake Association v. City of Victorville, the Court of Appeal considered a General Plan policy requiring new commercial and industrial development to generate electricity on site “to the maximum extent feasible.” The court held that a project’s broader consistency with the General Plan could not overcome conflict with a policy that was “fundamental, mandatory, and clear.”⁹
I do not suggest that Spring Valley Lake resolves Brisbane’s legal question; the facts and approvals are not identical.
But the parallel deserves attention. Policy BL.1 G applies specifically to Baylands development and to its required Specific Plan. It states that the sustainability program “shall” be consistent with the principles of the Sustainability Framework and that the development “shall be designed so as to be energy neutral on an ongoing basis.” The City’s own technical analysis previously concluded that the Specific Plan “would not achieve energy neutrality.” That consistency issue should be resolved directly before the Specific Plan is adopted, rather than indirectly through a new interpretation of the underlying requirement.
Walker | Baylands Measure JJ Comment | 4
The Framework also requires separate carbon accountability There is a related issue that reinforces why energy neutrality and renewable procurement should not be collapsed into a single concept.
The Draft EIR contained mechanisms for long-term project-level greenhouse-gas accountability. In the Final EIR, the significance methodology changed and the project’s GHG impact is now classified as less than significant, even though the FEIR projects approximately 51,260 MTCO₂e in annual Baylands emissions at full buildout, equivalent to roughly 72 percent of Brisbane’s entire 2023 community GHG inventory.¹⁰ ¹¹ As a consequence of that reclassification, the associated emissions-reduction plan, offset requirements, mitigation, reporting, and periodic “true-up” mechanisms were removed.¹² The projected emissions did not disappear. The CEQA requirement to mitigate them did.
But CEQA is not the only source of Brisbane’s sustainability commitments. The Sustainability Framework itself treats energy balance and carbon accounting as distinct concepts. Its Zero Carbon Buildings implementation strategy directs the project to:
“Determine net energy and carbon budget by building or building cluster, and site wide. Identify off-site renewable energy that may be installed or purchased if there is a gap.”¹³ That structure is important. The Framework calls separately for determination of the project’s net energy and its carbon budget. It does not say that renewable electricity procurement makes those two questions interchangeable.
I do not contend that the Framework necessarily requires the City to preserve the precise GHG mitigation and “true-up” structure that appeared in the Draft EIR. But eliminating project-wide carbon budgeting and ongoing GHG reporting altogether raises a separate consistency question: what mechanism in the Specific Plan now carries forward the Framework’s express direction to determine a site-wide carbon budget? CEQA determines what environmental mitigation state law requires. It does not answer the separate question of what Brisbane’s General Plan and Sustainability Framework require of the Baylands.
What I am asking the Council to do
Before approving the Specific Plan, I respectfully ask the Council to:
• Resolve General Plan consistency directly. Determine explicitly how a Specific Plan that ESA’s own technical analysis says does not achieve energy neutrality can be found consistent with Policy BL.1 G, including an explicit Council determination regarding Attachment 5’s interpretation. • Treat energy neutrality as a net-energy design standard, not as synonymous with renewable procurement.
Energy consumption, qualifying renewable generation, grid imports, and retail renewable procurement should remain separately identified.
• Follow the Sustainability Framework’s hierarchy. Require the project to maximize feasible energy efficiency and on-site and sitewide renewable generation and demonstrate the resulting annual energy balance; then evaluate and pursue feasible additional community-scale renewable generation within Brisbane before relying on CCA procurement for any residual electricity requirement.¹⁴ • If the required net-energy balance cannot feasibly be achieved, make that determination explicitly and support it with evidence. Renewable procurement should not be treated as though it eliminates the underlying energy deficit.
• Make compliance ongoing and accountable. Require the developer or a legally responsible successor Baylands entity to fund public measurement and reporting of actual energy consumption, renewable generation, grid imports and procurement, and greenhouse-gas emissions throughout buildout and operation, Walker | Baylands Measure JJ Comment | 5
with corrective action when actual performance falls short of approved energy-neutrality plans or requirements.
I support the Baylands project and the housing it will provide. I voted for Measure JJ. My concern is precisely that the project should carry forward the full bargain Brisbane voters approved: development together with the environmental commitments that made that development acceptable to the community.
Measure JJ says what it says. The Sustainability Framework says what it says. Those requirements are now part of the Brisbane General Plan.
If Brisbane intends to give them a materially different meaning, that should not happen quietly through a late-stage reinterpretation. I hope instead that the Council will honor them and move forward with a Specific Plan that can genuinely be said to be consistent with the commitments Brisbane voters adopted.
Respectfully submitted,
Anthony Walker
Brisbane Resident
References
1. ESA, Brisbane Baylands: Energy Neutrality Historical Record and Assessment, Aug. 7, 2026 (Attachment 5). https://brisbaneca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6959/files/attachment/2344
2. City of Brisbane General Plan, Chapter XII, Policies and Programs by Subarea, XII.11 Baylands GP-1-18/Measure JJ, Policy BL.1 G, p. XII-18. See also Measure JJ, General Plan Amendment GP-1-18, Resolution No. 2018-63, Ch. V (Land Use), Sec. 3, Standard G.
3. Sustainability Framework for the Brisbane Baylands, Final Report (accepted Nov. 5, 2015), Principle 1 (Zero Carbon Buildings), p.
13. https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/699/Sustainability-Framework-PDF
4. Sustainability Framework for the Brisbane Baylands, Final Report (accepted Nov. 5, 2015), Principle 1 (Zero Carbon Buildings) Summary Approach, p. 16. (See link 3 above)
5. ESA, Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Project Energy Resources Technical Report (March 2025), 2026 FEIR Appendix I, Table 7, Net On-Site Energy Consumption Analysis, p. 4-23. https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2945/Appendix-I---EnergyResources-Technical-Report-PDF
6. ESA, Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Project Energy Resources Technical Report (March 2025), 2026 FEIR Appendix I, Table 7, Net On-Site Energy Consumption Analysis, p. 4-23. (See link 5 above)
7. Sustainability Framework, Principle 1, Recommended Implementation Approach, Item 3’s “order of acceptance”, p. 19. (See link 3 above)
8. Brisbane Baylands Final EIR, Volume 1, Table 4.3-1, Consistency of the Baylands Specific Plan with the Brisbane General Plan, Section G, p. 4.3-61. PCE opt-out rate estimated at 2.5%. https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2974/FinalEnvironmental-Impact-Report-Volume-1---Revised-Draft-EIR-Up-to-Section-46
9. Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville, Cal. Ct. App., D069442, decided June 15, 2016. https://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2016-d069442.pdf?ts=1466020846
10. Brisbane 2023 Community GHG Inventory, p. 6. https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/brisbaneca-meet319036c157384413a60f9869bd30910a/ITEM-Attachment-001-d65859935ff9424caa5ad7198100ef97.pdf
11. Brisbane Baylands Final EIR, Volume 2, p. 4.10-32, Table 4.10-5, Operational Emissions by Source at Full Specific Plan Buildout. https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2975/Final-Environmental-Impact-Report-Volume-2---Revised-Draft-EIRSections-47--414
12. Brisbane Baylands Final EIR, Volume 5, Ch. 15, particularly pp. 15-38 – 15-51. https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2978/Final-Environmental-Impact-Report-Volume-5---Response-toComments-on-the-DEIR-Chapters-14-17
13. Sustainability Framework, Principle 1, Recommended Implementation Approach, Item 3, p. 19. (See link 3 above)
14. Sustainability Framework, Principle 1, Recommended Implementation Approach, Item 2, p. 19 (See link 3 above): “Perform feasibility study and cost/benefit analysis of renewable energy potential on site. Configure buildings where possible to maximize solar energy generation. Update for each phase of design and construction.” September 10th, 2026
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
Letter in Support of the Brisbane Baylands Open Space Plan Dear Brisbane Councilmembers and Brisbane Planning Commissioners:
San Bruno Mountain Watch appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in support of the open space plan presented in the 2026 Baylands Specific Plan.
San Bruno Mountain Watch is connected to the Baylands through our Mission Blue Nursery, located at the southern end of APN# 005-162-240. Since 2009, we have treasured and tended the nursery site with boundless care, dedication, and the helping hands of countless community members. We have been a tenant at this site due to the generosity and support of the Baylands Development Company. We write in support of a project that keeps our nursery at its current site.
Our nursery operation shares the values and motivation guiding the vision for open spaces in the Baylands. The Baylands project seeks to revitalize and transform degraded areas on a vast scale—we have successfully realized this aim in our tiny corner of the Baylands, where the Mission Blue Nursery operation has repurposed and transformed an empty bay-fill lot into a unique, beloved, place-based gathering center for local communities and a horticultural engine for ecological restoration.
We hope to see this “greening” happen in other parts of the Baylands and therefore support the vision for open space as presented in the 2026 Baylands Specific Plan.
San Bruno Mountain Watch and our Mission Blue Nursery believe in the importance of using locally native plants in landscaping and ecological restoration projects that are sourced from the watersheds and regions where these projects take place.
San Bruno Mountain Watch • PO Box 53, Brisbane, CA 94005 www.mountainwatch.org • [email protected] • 415-467-6631 We are a 501(c)3 nonprofit public-benefit corporation. Our tax ID number is 94-3235791 1 We are encouraged that the Baylands Specific Plan confirms that “plantings in ecological open spaces will use only native species appropriate for reference coastal grassland, scrub, woodlands, and tidal wetlands in San Francisco Bay.” We are also encouraged to read that native plants will be used in other open space areas like “community greens, plazas, and streetscapes,” and for other purposes, including phytoremediation.
The Mission Blue Nursery, which is dedicated to growing the native flora of San Bruno Mountain, is prepared to support native plant restoration and landscaping in the Brisbane Baylands by providing plants and horticultural knowledge. We are grateful that the Baylands Development Company and the City of Brisbane support a continued home for Mission Blue Nursery within the Baylands footprint. We have met with the Baylands Development Company to explore our preference for keeping the nursery at its present location in a way that complements and is compatible with other open space and recreational uses, and we look forward to continuing these conversations.
Keeping the nursery at its current site will further the project’s open space goals. The Mission Blue Nursery can best serve the Brisbane community at its current site, where it has the most exposure to residents, necessary parking and sunlight, and established infrastructure and gardens. We believe the Mission Blue Nursery can be a critical community gathering space that furthers ecological and recreational goals.
Restoring important ecological areas, such as Icehouse Hill, the Brisbane Lagoon, and Visitacion Creek, will strengthen the health of our local environment by increasing the amount of quality habitat that surrounds and connects to San Bruno Mountain and San Francisco Bay.
We appreciate that the Baylands Specific Plan recognizes that terrestrial, aquatic, and celestial corridors for wildlife movement exist between the Baylands, the Mountain, the Bay, and other local open spaces. Furthermore, the plan thoughtfully incorporates people's movement to encourage wellness, recreation, and exploration; the extensive trail network will weave together the open spaces sustainably and enjoyably.
The Baylands Specific Plan also demonstrates a sensitivity to respecting the ecological character of important habitats; we are pleased to see, for example, that efforts will be made to improve butterfly habitat on Icehouse Hill, and that low-impact trails and areas for environmental education are included in the plan for the hill.
We respectfully ask that the Brisbane City Council approve a Baylands Specific Plan that makes this open space network possible, creates a permanent home for the Mission Blue Nursery where it can best serve the Brisbane community, and creates an inspiring model of ecological restoration and healing for our region and beyond.
2 Sincerely and On Behalf of San Bruno Mountain Watch,
3 Ariel Cherbowsky Corkidi
Executive Director
[email protected]
(415) 467-6631
44 Visitacion Avenue, Suite 206
Brisbane, CA 94005
From: Arnold Galarza <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2026 8:34 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Subject: Baylands Project Owner's List
Subject: URGENT: Clerical Error Removal Request – Baylands Project Property Owners List – Arnold Galarza
Dear Director Ayres, Community Development Staff, and City Clerk Padilla, My name is Arnold Galarza. I am writing to you ahead of tomorrow evening’s City Council meeting to formally request an immediate correction to the official Baylands Project Property Owners List.
Currently, my name appears on this database. However, it has been erroneously linked to a string of approximately 90 various parcel numbers that I have absolutely no ownership stake in.
My actual property details are as follows:
• Property Owner: Arnold Galarza
• Property Address: 3840 Bayshore Blvd, Brisbane, CA 94005 • Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 007-553-050
My parcel (APN 007-553-050) is entirely absent from the Baylands Project Property Owners List because my property sits completely outside the physical and legal boundaries of the Baylands Specific Plan area.
Because my property is not a part of this project, there is no legal justification for my name to remain attached to it. Leaving an owner’s name erroneously linked to a massive development area can cause future clouding of titles, unrequested municipal correspondence, and administrative complications.
Therefore, I am formally requesting that the Community Development Department immediately delete my name from the Baylands Project database entirely.
I will be attending tomorrow's City Council meeting at 5:30 PM to speak on this matter during public comment and will hand a physical copy of my San Mateo County parcel data to the City Clerk for the record.
Please reply to this email to confirm that you have received this inquiry and will initiate the database removal process.
Sincerely,
Arnold Galarza
Owner, 3840 Bayshore Blvd
APN: 007-553-050
[415-505-2420]
[[email protected]]
From: Kristen Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 2:15 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Child Care in Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Dear Mayor Mackin and City Council,
I strongly encourage you to proactively plan for the inclusion of child care facilities in the new community you are planning in Brisbane. Both residents and workers in the proposed new housing and nonresidential buildings will increase the demand for child care facilities and services for families of all income levels. "Allowing" child care to be located in the Baylands area is not likely, alone, to result in new facilities due to the many challenges of siting, financing, developing and operating these programs. Proactive policies, as suggested by Build Up SMC, should be included in the Specific Plan, and supportive strategies and incentives included in future documents.
As Redwood City's Child Care Coordinator for decades, I worked with Council, city staff, and community members over years to address the child care shortage in the Master Planned Community of Redwood Shores. The process was unncessarily painful and costly since there were no plans, requirements or incentives in place. Our City has been successful since then with negotiating child care in Development Agreements that have resulted in new child care centers, e.g. Stanford's Redwood City campus; Sobrato's Broadway Village mixed-use and ELCO Yards mixed-use projects.
Thank you for including this topic in your discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristen
--
Kristen Anderson, Ph.D.
Child Care Planning & Policy Consultant
Redwood City, CA