20260917 CC Written Correspondence — Brisbane City Council, September 17, 2026

From: Fernandez.Christina <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 10:35 AM
Cc: Dennis, Jeremy <[email protected]>
Subject: Impact Fee Supplemental Information
Good morning,
We wanted to provide supplemental documents regarding Impact Fees to aide in your reading of the staff report. Some of you may have received these documents during your 1/1's with Jeremy.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you!
Christina
CHRISTINA FERNANDEZ | She/Her
Assistant City Manager, City Manager’s Office
Cell: (628) 224-7574 | Email: [email protected] City Hall Public Walk-in Hours: M – Th: 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM, F: 8:30 AM – 12:30 PM
Impact Fee Comparative Matrix Summary
Purpose: This summary outlines how the City’s recommended development impact fees compare to both nexus study maximums and average fees charged by peer jurisdictions.

Parks & Recreation Impact Fees
• Residential fees are set below average; non-residential fees range between average and above average based on economic development priorities. • Office and Life Science/R&D categories reflect higher fee preferences.

Public Facilities Impact Fees
• Residential fees remain below average. Commercial, industrial, warehouse, and hotel fees are set at average levels.
• Office and Life Science/R&D categories use higher rates reflecting strategic direction.

Transportation Impact Fees
• Fees vary by district—Baylands, Sierra Point, and West Brisbane—based on infrastructure demands. Residential fees are below average across districts. • Office and Life Science/R&D fees often use nexus maximum rates yet remain regionally competitive.

Key Takeaways: The recommended fee schedule aligns with nexus requirements, maintains regional competitiveness, and reflects Council’s priorities such as higher fees in Office and Life Science sectors. The structure maintains proportionality and supports longterm capital planning.

ONE-PAGE BRIEF: Development Impact Fees – Summary
Purpose
The City is proposing updated Development Impact Fees to ensure new development pays its fair share for public facilities, parks and recreation, transportation infrastructure, and related capital improvements. The fees are supported by legally required nexus studies and comply with the Mitigation Fee Act.

Why Now?
Several factors prompted the update:
• State law changes (Mitigation Fee Act and recent court decisions) requiring stronger nexus and proportionality.
• Need to maintain service levels as the City grows.
• Completion of extensive nexus studies and comparative benchmarking with nearby cities.
• Council direction given in 2023–2026 to develop fee options that reflect development impacts while remaining competitive.

What the Fees Cover
Impact fees would fund capital improvements (not operations) for:
• Library, Fire, Police, and General Government facilities • Park land, park improvements, recreation facilities, open space, and trails • Transportation facilities across the Baylands, Sierra Point, and West Brisbane districts Each fee is based on quantifiable impacts from development and proportional allocation of capital costs.

Key Findings of Nexus Studies
• Parks & Recreation: Tiered residential fees based on unit size; proportional fees for commercial, office, life science, industrial, warehouse, and hotel uses. Fees maintain parks and recreation service levels.
• Public Facilities: Fees reflect the cost of expanding public safety, library, and general government facilities attributable to new development. Residential fees are tiered by unit size.
• Transportation: Fees based on trip generation rates and allocated by district to fund multimodal improvements. District-specific fee schedules reflect local transportation impacts.

Fee Setting Approach
• Benchmarking compared Brisbane’s maximum justified fees with six nearby jurisdictions. • Most fees are set at or below average, except Office and Life Science/R&D, where Council expressed preference for setting fees above average. • Fees comply with legal limits and policy direction while avoiding existing deficiencies. • ADUs under 750 sq ft remain exempt per State law.

Administrative Requirements
If adopted, the City must:
• Publish the final fee schedule, nexus studies, and capital improvement plans. • Establish separate fee accounts and report annually on fee collections and expenditures. • Update all nexus studies every eight years (AB 602).
• Apply collection timing rules based on residential vs. non-residential development.

Next Steps
Staff recommends:
• First reading of the ordinance amending the Municipal Code. • Adoption of the resolution establishing development impact fees and supporting nexus studies/CIPs.
• Implementation of financial systems and staff training following the 60-day effective period.

Fiscal Impact
Fee revenue will depend entirely on the volume and type of future development projects approved.
1 Parks &
Recreation
Impact Fee
Residential
Uses:

Cost/Unit Council
Preference
Explanation Non-Residential
Uses:

Cost/KSF Council
Preference
Explanation
<800 Sq. Ft.

Unit
$7,944 avg Maximum
rate per
nexus
study; still
well below
average rate
when
compared
to
comparative
cities (Avg
Cost
$10,259)
Commercial $8,103 Avg Maximum rate per
nexus study; still
well below average
rate of comparative
cities ($10,327)
800-1,200 Sq.

Ft. Unit
$10,259 low Average
cost per unit
when
compared
with
comparative
cities (Avg
$16,688)
Office $8,182 High Maximum rate per
nexus study; still
well below average
rate of comparative
cities
1,200-2,100
Sq. Ft. Unit
$15,688 low Below
average
cost with
comparative
cities;
Life
Science/R&D
$7,229 High Maximum rate per
nexus study; still
well below average
rate of comparative
cities
2 below
maximum
allowed
(average is
$16,888)
>2,100 Sq. Ft.

Unit
$15,688 low Below
Average
cost with
comparative
cities;
below
maximum
allowed
(average is
$16,688)
Industrial $5,084 Avg Maximum rate per
nexus study; still
well below average
rate of comparative
cities
Warehouse $2,542 Avg Maximum rate per
nexus study; still
well below average
rate of comparative
cities
Cost/Room
Hotel $932.27/room Avg Maximum rate per
nexus study -
4,687; average of
$932.27 per hotel
room per comp
study
3 Public
Facilities
Impact Fee
Residential
Uses:

Cost/Unit Non-Residential
Uses:

Cost/KSF
<800 Sq. Ft.

Unit
7,819 avg Maximum rate
per nexus study;
still well below
average rate
when compared
to comparative
cities
Commercial $11,409 Avg $20,149
max per
nexus
study; Avg
fee of
comparative
cities is
$11,049
800-1,200 Sq.

Ft. Unit
13,052 low Maximum rate
per nexus study;
still well below
average rate
when compared
to comparative
cities
Office $5,602 High Max fee per
nexus study
1,200-2,100 Sq.

Ft. Unit
$14,279 low $18,525 is max
per nexus study,
but average is
$15,279
Life Science/R&D $6,223 High Max fee per
nexus study
4 >2,100 Sq. Ft.

Unit
$14,279 low $23,999 is max
per nexus study,
but average is
$15,279
Industrial $5,011 Avg $6,264 max
in nexus
study;
calculated
to average
fee of
$5,011 in
comp study
Warehouse $2,840 Avg $2,840 max
in nexus
study; Max
fee is still
well below
average
Cost/Room
Hotel $807.07 Avg Max per
study is
$7,614 per
room;
average fee
per room is
$807.07 per
comp study
5 Transportation Impact Fee
Land Use Category Fee/Unit Councilmember
Preference
Explanation
Baylands
Residential $2,399.14/du Low-Avg Average cost per unit in comp study is $4,067/unit. This maximum per nexus
study. Max but well below comp
average.

Office $4.39/SF Avg-High Avg is $10.28/SF; Maximum per nexus but still well below comp average.

Retail $12.66/SF Low-Avg Comp average is $12.66/SF; however, max is $43.05/SF.

Hotel $2,487.37/room Avg Max is $3,433.56/room; however, comp average is $2,487.37/room
Sierra Point
Office $9.89/SF Avg-High Maximum per nexus study. Close to comp average - $10.28/SF
Hotel $2,487.37/room Avg Maximum per nexus study is
$6,842.59/room; Comp average is
$2,487.37/room
Life Science/R&D $9.89/SF Avg-High Maximum per nexus study; comp average is $10.05/SF
West Brisbane
Residential $4,046/du Low-Avg Average for Single Family home impact fee in comp study. Maximum per nexus
study is $6,386.89/du.
6 Warehouse/Quarry $2.75/SF Avg $2.75/SF is the maximum per the nexus study; comp average is $4.97/SF. This is
for “industrial”.

From: Yvonne Lee Healy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 1:16 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Subject: comment on data centers
Hello,
I am unable to attend the 9/17/26 City Council meeting and am writing to express support for a complete ban on data centers in Brisbane.

Thank you,
Yvonne Healy
126 Mendocino St.

Brisbane
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 11:17 AM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Subject: Data Center Ban
Dear City Clerk,
We have lived in Brisbane since 1981 and have seen many attempts to change the nature of our city in the name of money. Data centers is another one of these attempts. We do not support building any data centers in Brisbane as a result of their resource needs (water, electricity) as well as the unknown environmental impacts. Please advise the City Council that we support a ban on all data centers in Brisbane.

Thank you.

Nancy and Tyler Coon
From: Michael Goldman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 10:01 AM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Cc: Rachel Curtis-Robles <[email protected]>; Dennis, Jeremy <[email protected]>; Michael A Goldman <[email protected]> Subject: Written report for SMCMVCD
Hi, Ingrid!
I'm attaching a report I prepared for the Council. It is NOT necessary for anyone to read this before tonight's presentation.

Looking forward to seeing you!
Mike
Michael A. Goldman, Ph.D.

Trustee, City of Brisbane
San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District
1351 Rollins Rd. | Burlingame, CA 94010
Office: (650) 344-8592 | Fax: (650) 344-3843
[email protected] | smcmvcd.org

San Mateo County Mosquito & Vector Control District
Board Summary – May 13, June 10, and September 9, 2026
Prepared by: Michael A. Goldman, Trustee (Brisbane)
17 September 2026
Board Membership & Governance
Across the three meetings, the Board welcomed two new trustees whose backgrounds strengthen the District’s scientific and financial expertise. On May 13, Dr. Robert Luo of Portola Valley was sworn in, bringing experience in pathology, biotech, public health, and mosquito-borne disease. He has, however, moved from Portola Valley and will be replaced.

On September 9, Allan Martin of Atherton joined the Board, noted for his extensive training in economics, mathematics, and finance. He has managed finance for a variety of nonprofit institutions, and has already advised us before the start of his term.

Governance discussions throughout the period emphasized professional development and security readiness. The District has continued to achieve recognition for its financial transparency.

Finance, Budget, and Capital Project
Financial stewardship remained a central theme. The District continued progress on the Carolan Avenue Improvements Project, awarding the construction contract to Beals Martin for $7,156,643, accompanied by a 10% contingency. The Board relied on professional architectural and engineering input to support findings under Government Code section 830.6, as reflected in the May packet.

By September, the Board agreed to finance half of the capital project, taking advantage of favorable interest and investment rates. Emergency reserves remain intact, and working capital is strengthened. The decision is in keeping with decisions that other districts have made. It shifts some of the costs to future residents who will see the benefits of the construction project, and the anticipated net cost after considering the difference between loan cost and interest on funds that will be held in reserve as a result of the decision is small.

The District’s financial position as of March 31, 2026, showed a total fund balance of $12.2 million, with $5.56 million in the County Treasury and $5.77 million in CalCLASS.

Health insurance uncertainties, resulting from the issues with the insurer last year, were monitored throughout the spring and summer. By September, expectations are that there will be no additional costs. Health insurance is now with CalPERS.

Operations & Laboratory
The most significant operational development was the identification of Aedes aegypti in Redwood City’s Friendly Acres neighborhood. Laboratory staff confirmed the species through DNA analysis. Field teams inspected 400 properties, achieving 90% coverage, and collected just over ten adult mosquitoes across two nights—an encouragingly low number given the species’ invasive potential. The response required 450 staff hours over 50 days, underscoring the District’s rapid mobilization. A new detection in North Fair Oaks (unincorporated San Mateo County) followed in the last two weeks. We expect to see more as climate change continues.

According to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and other public health sources, Aedes aegypti can transmit
• Dengue virus – four related viruses causing dengue fever, with possible severe complications.
• Chikungunya virus – causes fever and joint pain.
• Zika virus – can cause mild illness and is a concern for pregnant women due to fetal risks.
• Yellow fever virus – rare in the U.S., but can cause severe liver disease.

Only dengue virus has been transmitted by mosquitoes in California, and this has occurred very rarely.

The District is monitoring the situation closely but there is no cause for alarm.

Seasonal operations began earlier than usual due to warm weather, and catch basin treatments continued as the District’s primary defense against West Nile virus. The Operations team also promoted its “drone academy” at a national conference, reflecting ongoing innovation in field surveillance.

Tick surveillance tapered during the summer months, though staff shared new literature on climate-driven shifts in animal ranges. Outreach materials included memorable demonstrations—such as the “poppy seed muffin with five ticks mixed in”—to illustrate the difficulty of detecting tick presence.

Research, Technology & Innovation
The District continued monitoring the Google Wolbachia mosquito program in South San Francisco. Production occurs locally, but releases are planned for other regions such as Hawaii to protect endangered bird species. The Wolbachia strategy—introducing males whose incompatible infection prevents egg hatch—has shown promise in reducing dengue transmission. Staff noted that no animals rely exclusively on mosquitoes for food, and therefore “we don’t expect a food web collapse.”
The District continues to collaborate on several projects with academic institutions, including supporting research initiatives at Stanford University and UC-Santa Barbara.

IT Director Matt Nienhuis also briefed the Board on ongoing security training, including preparedness for emerging AI-related threats. On the technology front, the Board received updates on cybersecurity following a significant incident in Foster City earlier in the year.

Trustees and staff have performed well in phishing simulations. The District relies on a database to track preventive treatments and constituent requests throughout the County, and the company that is currently supplying that database will cease to do so. The District is one of many using the software, and another company has agreed to support the software at the same cost for the next year, during which a decision will be made on continuing or moving to new software. The withdrawal of the previous company’s support includes an agreement to share the source code.

Regulatory & Legislative
Staff briefed the Board on proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act, which may allow greater consideration of economic and public-interest factors. These changes could improve access for mosquito control activities in sensitive habitats.

The District continues to monitor an accounting dispute between the State and the County.

Communications & Outreach
Communications staff remained active across schools, community groups, and professional associations. The District held a June 27 Open House, even as facilities remained compact due to construction staging. Brisbane residents Michael Goldman and Sally Pasion, and Caroline Cheung, Assistant to the City Manager, were among those in attendance.

The transition to the new smcmosquito.ca.gov domain is underway, with the previous address maintained as an alias. Trustees also noted recurring issues with delivery of the California Special District magazine.

Additional Items
The Board will discuss the need for earthquake insurance at an upcoming meeting.

From: C. John Skeer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 8:28 AM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Subject:

Dear Ingrid,
Just a quick note note advising you that neither myself - C. John Skeer, or my partner - David L. Bise, are in favor of allowing the AI centers Citywide and would like them banned.

Sincerely,
John-----
281 Humboldt Rd.

Brisbane, CA 9005
From: Lou <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 10:57 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Subject: Data centers
Please relay my request that the city government ban data centers.

Linda Seekins
649 Sierra Point rd
Sent from my iPad
From: Rami Eseifan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 6:22 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Subject: BAN ALL DATA CENTERS
Hello,
My name is Rami Eseifan. I have besn a resident of Brisbane for over 36 years and i am now raising a family in Brisbane. We do not want data centers. Please protect our water and our future.

BAN ALL DATA CENTERS
Sincerely
Rami Eseifan
From: Leilah Ismar <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 6:18 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Subject: BAN ALL DATA CENTERS
Hello,
My name is Leilah Eseifan-Abdennabi. I have been a resident of Brisbane for 6 years now.

My husband and his family have lived in Brisbane for over 36 years. I vote to ban all data centers. I am making this choice not just for myself but for future generations, including my son, who just turned three. I am not sure why this needs to be discussed? Who even wants data centers?

BAN ALL DATA CENTERS
Sincerely,
Leilah Eseifan-Abdennabi
From: Sanaa Eseifan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 6:13 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Subject: Data centers
I do not want data centers in Brisbane. “Ban Data Centers, my family and I do not want any data centers in Brisbane”
I am a resident of brisbane for the last 40 years. I live on Humboldt rd and my name is Sanaa Eseifan
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 6:00 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Subject: Attn city council re Data centers please ban
Dear city clerk,
I cannot attend the meeting tomorrow personally as I work in the evenings.

There is much debate surrounding AI, technology advancements that require data centers plus of course data centers itself.

I have been a resident of Altamar for 25+ years. I watched the ground break and saw my new home built week after week from the foundation up…
Especially during the still air and or hot days, I am aware and affected by the diesel fumes, light pollution and noise from valley… the worst end of living here. The best of course, is the beauty of our mountains and wildlife plus our communities.

Data centers are known for polluting our air; with them in our community, you are asking me to endure not just current conditions but more. I cannot afford to sell and buy somewhere else I am a senior so my options are limited. Bottomline, we in Brisbane especially north ridge live in a bowl so to speak. Nothing moves when there’s no wind.

Our electric bills are high, very high. We are going to be asked to pay even more with data centers/power needs they require which affects our fees.

I am asking our elected officials to work together to ban them from Brisbane.

Thank you.

WHAT I WANT TO SAY
Your name:

Jean-Philippe Legault
Your email:
[email protected]
Your town:

La Honda
──────────────────────────────────────────────

WHO RECEIVES THIS EMAIL
To — Asm. Diane Papan (California State Assembly); Carl Guardino (California Transportation Commission); Noelia Corzo (MTC / San Mateo County); Sergio Lopez (Valley Transportation Authority); Melissa White (California State Senate); Manny Leon (California State Senate); Assembly Transportation Committee (California State Assembly); Farra Bracht (California State Assembly); Ray Mueller (San Mateo County); Lisa Gauthier (San Mateo County); David J. Canepa (San Mateo County); SMC Board of Supervisors — public comment (San Mateo County); Woodside Circulation Committee (Town of Woodside); Woodside Trails Committee (Town of Woodside); Pam Antil (Town of Woodside); Brian Dombkowski (Town of Woodside); Paul Goeld (Town of Woodside); Jenn Wall (Town of Woodside); Richard “Dick” Brown (Town of Woodside); Hassan Aburish (Town of Woodside); Woodside Town Council — public comment (Town of Woodside); Sen. Josh Becker (California State Senate); Asm. Marc Berman (California State Assembly); Rep.

Kevin Mullin (U.S. House); Rep. Jimmy Panetta (U.S. House); Ana María Ruiz (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District); Zoe Kersteen-Tucker (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District); Susanna Chan (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District); Stefan Jaskulak (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District); Brittany Wheatman (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District); Jane Mark (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District); Jason Lin, PE (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District); Midpen Board of Directors (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District); Craig Taylor (Town of Portola Valley); Judith Hasko (Town of Portola Valley); Rebecca Flynn (Town of Portola Valley); Mary Hufty (Town of Portola Valley); Darcy Smith (Town of Portola Valley); Margaret Abe-Koga (Santa Clara County); Monica Martinez (Santa Cruz County) Cc — Tanisha Taylor (California Transportation Commission); Paul Golaszewski (California Transportation Commission); Laurie Waters (California Transportation Commission); Timothy Sobelman (California Transportation Commission); Peter Skinner (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Pat Burt (Metropolitan Transportation Commission); Matt Mahan (Metropolitan Transportation Commission); Sue Noack (Metropolitan Transportation Commission); Stephanie Moulton-Peters (Metropolitan Transportation Commission); Michael Salazar (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Stacy Jimenez (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Helen Wolter (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Martha Barragan (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Elmer Martínez Saballos (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Debbie Ruddock (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Cecilia Taylor (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Elizabeth Lewis (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Peter Stevenson (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Sophie Cole (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Adam Rak (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Lisa Diaz Nash (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Eddie Flores (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Sue Beckmeyer (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Thomas Walsh (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Coleen Mackin (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Juslyn C. Manalo (C/CAG of San Mateo County); SMCTA Board of Directors (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Julia Mates (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Mark Nagales (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Carlos Romero (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Anders Fung (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Rico E. Medina (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); SMCTA Community Advisory Committee (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Patrick Gilster (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Sue-Ellen Atkinson, AICP (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Audrey Shiramizu (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Unincorporated SMC Bike & Ped Advisory Cttee (San Mateo County Public Works); VTA Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Valley Transportation Authority); Saratoga Traffic Safety Cttee & PEBTAC (City of Saratoga); SCCRTC Bicycle Advisory Committee (Santa Cruz County RTC); Portola Valley Bicycle, Pedestrian & Traffic Safety Committee (Town of Portola Valley); Stephanie Dougherty (California Office of Traffic Safety); Kaki Cheung (C/CAG of San Mateo County); Theresa Romell (Metropolitan Transportation Commission); Harsimran Bains (Caltrans HQ — Road Safety Programs); Marcella Rensi (Santa Clara VTA — 2016 Measure B); April Chan (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Board / Authority (San Mateo County Transportation Authority); Sarah Christensen (Santa Cruz Co. Regional Transportation Commission); Leah Budu (Caltrans District 4); Susan Lindsay (Caltrans HQ — Office of Sustainability); Pedro Quintana (Caltrans District 4); Tory Newman (San Mateo County); Ashton Harris (Caltrans District 5); Dina El-Tawansy (Caltrans (California DOT)); Duper Tong (Caltrans (California DOT)); Shaila Chowdhury (Caltrans (California DOT)); Doanh Nguyen (Caltrans District 4); Sergio Ruiz (Caltrans District 4); Lester Lee (Caltrans District 4); Raj Oberoi (Caltrans District 4); Aung Maung (Caltrans District 4); Amjad Naseer, PE (Caltrans District 4); Ramon Ochoa (Caltrans District 4); William Stevens III (Caltrans District 4); Rommel Pardo (Caltrans District 4); Toks Omishakin (CalSTA); Scott Eades (Caltrans District 5); CHP — Redwood City Area (California Highway Patrol); San Mateo County Sheriff (San Mateo County Sheriff's Office); Capt. Grant Boles (California Highway Patrol · Coastal Division); Santa Cruz County Sheriff (Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office); the campaign inbox The whole corridor coalition is copied on purpose: it keeps every request transparent and lets everyone see the effort building.

This message was composed on the Safe Corridor Initiative site — the crash data, the interactive map, and every proposed fix are there:
https://safecorridorinitiative.com
Nothing was sent automatically; the sender wrote and sent this themselves. --
Jean-Philippe Legault
Software Developer
Ford Motors
From: C Florkowski <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2026 9:07 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Cc: Bozorginia.Maziar <[email protected]>
Subject: Regarding Item H on the Consent Calendar for September 17th City Council Meeting
To the Brisbane City Council,
I am surprised to find item H. Authorize Approval of San Mateo County Smart Corridor Ownership, Operation, and Maintenance Agreement on the consent calendar. It seems to me information that would be useful in determining acceptance of this agreement is missing.

For example, the draft agreement twice references an "Exhibit A", yet the page labeled "Exhibit A" is blank.

The presence of a 'major traffic incident' is a key distinction as to which jurisdiction - C/CAG or the City of Brisbane - controls the ITS at a given moment. What is the definition of a 'major traffic incident' and how do we understand the hand-off of control in either direction?
A few questions:

In the Recitals on page 1 of the draft document, the City of South San Francisco is notably missing from the list of other project stakeholders. Do we know why? Is the agreement C/CAG proposes with Brisbane, also being pursued with the other listed municipalities and does it include a similar division of responsibilities? (I have done a bit of searching, though not comprehensively, which is why I ask.)
Do we have an estimate of the operational costs of using the ITS resources, especially the CCTV cameras? Are there implied liabilities? (If any lawsuits should arise as a result of the operation of ITS within Brisbane city limits, what is our liability?) Are the images recorded and stored? Are there expenses (and liabilities) associated with this? Does the insurance requirement have any fiscal impact? What are the estimated maintenance costs? (See Section IV Maintenance) Is there any provision for solar+battery upgrade to reduce/eliminate the electrical expenses and reduce likelihood of impacts from outages? Do we have any safeguards to ensure that the strategies employed by the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) do not favor the use of Bayshore to relieve congestion on 101? This fact sheet for the Smart Corridor Northern Cities Expansion Project... https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024-9-18-San-Mateo-County-SmartCorridor-Northern-Cities.pdf ...promises "tools for cities to manage traffic on local streets during recurring and nonrecurring conditions". Can C/CAG provide a presentation of these tools? It would be helpful to better understand what we are getting ourselves into with this agreement.

Thank you,
~Chris Florkowski

From: Anne Seeman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 5:42 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NOP for the Quarry Innovation Project
Dear Brisbane Council Members,
I have been following the plans for development of the quarry site on San Bruno Mountain and am worried about the impacts it would have on surrounding communities and on the natural environment of the mountain itself and the flora and fauna which inhabit it. I live in Visitacion Valley, a San Francisco neighborhood that has often been left off the city map in the SF Chronicle and is located in the same watershed, which includes part of Daly City as well as Brisbane. My neighbors and I have a stake in what happens on San Bruno Mountain, and I love hiking there. Kevin Mullin is also our Congressional Representative.

Regarding the Recirculated DEIR, I would like to see detailed plans for water use and pipelines. I would like to know more about the proposed well. Would water be monitored for toxins? Where will sewage go? What kind of energy use is expected? What will the impacts of the proposed electrical substation be on the natural habitat and what will be destroyed – and how will the the State and County Park be affected? Can we assure that all funding from this project earmarked for habitat conservation be used only on San Bruno Mountain? I'm aware of the history creating the park and the habitat conservation plan.

Apparently this plan doesn't go far enough in conserving the habitat of endangered species because bulldozing of sensitive areas would be allowed. 153 acres would be developed for a road. Where would the dedicated open spaces in the plan be located, who would own them and how would they be monitored? Since the site would be operational 5-7 days a week, what kind of traffic would be allowed, at what hours? How would light and noise and vehicular pollution, including from delivery trucks, affect the surrounding area? There should be full environmental impact reports on any potential tenants.

A data center is particularly concerning because AI data centers demand heavy use of power and water, and nearby residents often see higher bills and a poorer quality of life as a result. We are a drought-prone region and are not an appropriate site for a data center. San Bruno Mountain itself is unique in its biodiversity and must be protected. Some states have wisely placed moratoriums on new data center construction. AI is not well-regulated at the moment and the energy use, increasing job losses, and the danger of unforeseen consequences do not benefit us. I am not against all AI but much of it seems to be in the hands of people whose greed will trump the greater good, and also in the hands of cashstrapped cities and towns who may be desperate for funds. None of this bodes well for current and future generations.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I look forward to learning more about plans for the site.

Sincerely,
Anne Seeman
523 Campbell Ave.

San Francisco. CA 94134
From: Steve Kerekes <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 10:13 AM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Cars stored on the public streets
Good morning council members
I noticed that we hired two additional police officers. And I was wondering if it would be possible to have the city council instruct the police department to enforce the over limit parking laws in here in Brisbane. There's at least a dozen cars that have not moved in five years that I've noticed and I'm sure that's not the only ones. Myself and many other residence have given up calling in complaints to the PD because all the people do is move the car 10 feet and leave it there until we call again. An example of this would be the black Ford sedan parked in front of the old Brisbane Hardware and the El Camino car parked on San Francisco in front of the post office. Both have been there for over a month, I think somewhere along the way perhaps during the pandemic the police were instructed not to enforce the regulation. I personally find it frustrating when I invite people over to my home and they can't find parking yet. I have cars on my block that never move.

Would a petition among the residents be of any value?
Since 72 hours parking limit law is a California law. Would there be any value in contacting the San Mateo County sheriff or the CHP to enforce it?
Over the years, I've been told that the police department would be hard pressed to identify a car that have been parked over a week. I've always found that argument laughable because these cars are covered in leaves and cobwebs and flat tires.

I know for a number of years the council has been debating to implement a permit process, but without an enforcement is really just a useless discussion. I assume that there are police who drive around our neighborhoods and I'm sure but with their keen observation skills they see what I see.

Thank you for your time and your good work…. Would be nice Jesse Kerekes
From: Cooper Jamieson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 6:51 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Quarry innovation project concerns
Sept. 7, 2026
Brisbane City Council
Brisbane City Hall
50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA 94005
Council members,
My name is Cooper, and I am a resident of Brisbane. I am writing to you today as a steward of San Bruno Mountain to express my concern about the development of a “Quarry Innovation Project” in the Guadalupe Quarry. Along with destroying special status species habitat, the development will increase noise and vehicular pollution in the surrounding area both during and after its construction. This is the Wrong project in the Wrong place.

The primary issues I am concerned with are:

Lack of Accountability
• Impact on nearby school(s) is not addressed in the new project description • Residents do not have full disclosure of how the site will be used. ◦Orchard Partners describes these possible uses: Data Center, Light Fabrication, Manufacturing, Assembling, Processing, Ancillary
WarehouseStorage
• The amount of noise produced during and after the project would require an exception to established limits (Chapter 8.28, Noise Control Brisbane Municipal Code). • Funding for habitat conservation provided to San Mateo County is not required to be used for San Bruno Mountain.

Environmental Harm
• Annexation of conserved habitat from San Mateo County to the City of Brisbane will result in a net loss of conserved habitat.
• The conservation area will not be protected since amendments to the Habitat Conservation Plan will enable bulldozing of endangered species areas around the quarry with no accountability.
• Project description states: “The fabrication facility may be operational between 5-10, 7 days a week, depending on the final occupant.”
• Storm drainage will go to the bay. They have no answers for what pollutants will be released into the bay.
• The project description states: “Approximately 491 trees would be removed from the Project Area. The proposed landscape plan includes replacement of 202 trees.” ◦This is a loss of nearly 300 trees. Mature trees and the habitat they provide cannot be replaced!
• The project would require development of 153 acres to build a road through priority 1 and 2 habitats described in San Mateo County’s Habitat Management Plan.

Despite the promise for open space protection and management, there are no levers of accountability for whoever rents the facilities. The council is being asked to approve this project without the full disclosure of how the site is going to be used. Our community needs our elected leaders to collaborate with community members and environmental organizations to make data driven decisions to ensure we are protecting local biodiversity to ensure a healthy future for all of our residents. On behalf of concerned community members, thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Your consideration is appreciated.

Sincerely,
Cooper Jamieson
Resident of Brisbane, San Mateo County
From: kenny yu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 4:30 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Grave concerns about “Quarry Innovation Project” in the Guadalupe Quarry.

September 7, 2026
Brisbane City Council
Brisbane City Hall
50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA 94005
Council members,
My name is Kenny Yu, and I am a resident of Brisbane. I am writing to you today as a steward of San Bruno Mountain to express my concern about the development of a “Quarry Innovation Project” in the Guadalupe Quarry. Along with destroying special status species habitat, the development will increase noise and vehicular pollution in the surrounding area both during and after its construction. This is the Wrong project in the Wrong place.

The primary issues I am concerned with are:

Sincerely,
Kenny Yu
Resident of Brisbane in the county of San Mateo
From: Joan Alley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 3:06 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Quarry Innovation Project
Dear Brisbane City Council Members,
My name is Joan Alley, and I am a Brisbane resident writing to express my strong concerns regarding the proposed "Quarry Innovation Project" in the Guadalupe Quarry. Beyond destroying critical habitat for special-status species, this development will significantly increase noise and vehicular pollution both during and after construction.

I urge the City Council to request a new Environmental Impact Report for the Guadalupe Quarry, as the ongoing light, noise, and air pollution will negatively affect the health and quality of life of our local community.

My primary concerns include:

Lack of Accountability
- School & Community Impact: The updated project description fails to address impacts on nearby schools and does not fully disclose how the site will ultimately be used. - Zoning & Noise Exemptions: Orchard Partners lists potential uses such as data centers, manufacturing, and warehousing. The projected noise levels would require an exception to Chapter 8.28 (Noise Control) of the Brisbane Municipal Code. - Misallocated Funding: Conservation funds provided to San Mateo County are not strictly required to be used for San Bruno Mountain.

Environmental Harm
- Habitat Loss: Annexing conserved habitat from San Mateo County to the City of Brisbane will result in a net loss of protected land. Amendments to the Habitat Conservation Plan would allow key endangered species areas around the quarry to be developed.

Furthermore, building a road through Priority 1 habitat would impact 153 acres. - Pollution & Operations: Proposed fabrication facilities may operate up to seven days a week. Additionally, storm drainage will run directly into the bay without clear measures to mitigate pollutant runoff.
- Deforestation: The project proposes removing approximately 491 trees while replacing only 202, resulting in a net loss of nearly 300 mature trees and vital habitat.

The Council is being asked to approve this project without full transparency or mechanisms to hold future tenants accountable. I request that our elected leaders work alongside community members and environmental organizations to make data-driven decisions that protect our local biodiversity.

Thank you for your time, leadership, and consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,
Joan Alley
Resident of San Mateo County
From: Lori Eanes laptop <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 8:48 PM
To: Robinson, Ralph <[email protected]>; Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Quarry Innovation Center Project EIR
Dear Mr Robinson,
I’m writing you to voice my opposition to the proposed Quarry Development plan.

A development of this magnitude does not belong in the heart of San Bruno Mountain State Park. There are three endangered butterflies and numerous rare and endangered plants, some found no where else on earth right next to the proposed 895,000 square foot building.

It will cause irreparable harm to environment. Construction alone will take a minimum of 3 years and they will be working constantly. It will be noisy and dusty; there is planned blasting. Huge trucks will be working at all hours. The plan for an Amenity/Utility area will destroy a rare wetlands. There will cut down many trees- I believe I read 200.

After the site is finished there will be way more traffic than that area can handle bringing more pollution and noise. The parking lot alone holds 1769 spaces and 40 trailer stalls. The increased number of cars will cause huge changes to formerly little used road. The huge warehouse will use more water than the community of Brisbane has, resulting in much higher water bills for the community and higher electric bills as well. The light and noise from this project will change the nature of the surrounding park. There has been nothing to ensure future landscaping of this area will not introduce exotic plants right next to a park where invasives would further damage a protected habitat.

The planned PG&E substation is 49.9 megawatts. It is way more power than needed for light fabrication. How do you know for certain who the tenants the Quarry Developers have in mind? It could be a data center and that would cause a huge scandal and community outrage, and be very detrimental to the surrounding park. The developers want a carte blanche and there is nothing to prevent them from doing whatever they want once the deal is sealed.

The vast majority of residents in Brisbane are against this large development in the very heart of San Bruno Mountain State Park and right next the an Ecological Reserve home to 3 endangered butterflies and numerous rare and endangered plants. I urge you to listen to your community and turn down this proposal.

There should be no industrial development in an area surrounded by parkland on 3 sides. It will cause irreparable damage to a fragile ecosystem found no where else. The only way to go forward is to find a buyer willing to preserve and heal the site and return it to the mountain. There are many wealthy, environmentally motivated people in Northern California, there are grants and tax write-offs.

Do the right thing and find the right solution. This is not it.

Thank you for your consideration.

Lori Eanes
www.lorieanes.com
415.335.2197
1 Padilla, Ingrid
From: Beth Grossman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 4:44 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid
Subject: Please forward to City Council: Ban on Data Centers requested Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to ask the City Council to prohibit the development of data centers in our city.

Data centers can have significant impacts on electricity and water use, infrastructure, noise, traffic, and the character of our community. Before allowing this type of development, our city should have clear ordinances in place to determine whether, where, and under what conditions data centers may be appropriate.

If a permanent ban is not possible at this time, I urge the Council to enact a moratorium on data center development. This would give our city and Council the necessary time to study the potential impacts and put appropriate protections and ordinances in place before any projects are approved.

Please take this opportunity to plan carefully and protect the long-term interests of our community.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Beth Grossman

Brisbane City CouncilSeptember 17, 2026

Brisbane City Council
September 17, 2026