020962.0001 4928-1809-6082.1 1
To: Mayor and Members of the Brisbane City Council
From: Baylands Development, Inc.
Date: September 22, 2026
RE: Requested Land Use Changes to the 2026 Baylands Specific Plan Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
As the Council considers land uses in the 2026 Baylands Specific Plan at its next public hearing, BDI respectfully requests direction on three changes: (1) removing the 45-acre reservation for a potential High-Speed Rail light maintenance facility and restoring that area for sustainable infrastructure as originally planned; (2) allowing appropriately regulated interim uses until the land is needed for development in order to create near-term revenue streams necessary to support remediation efforts and ongoing property maintenance costs; and (3) expanding the permitted commercial uses to accommodate a broader range of businesses in light of changes in market conditions. The third request does not include data centers or large fulfillment or distribution centers.
These changes would help preserve the Baylands’ planned sustainability improvements, support the property during phased development, and provide necessary flexibility to bring businesses and jobs to Brisbane. Each request is explained below.
1. Remove the reservation for the light maintenance facility1 We recognize the work that went into the City securing an agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority to reduce its proposed light maintenance facility to 45 acres, along with coordination commitments. The question now is whether the City Council should reserve those 45 acres through the Specific Plan before the High-Speed Rail Authority has obtained the funds to acquire the property and construct the facility, when acquisition and construction is speculative and may never occur.
It’s also important to recognize that a High-Speed Rail light maintenance facility (LMF) was never contemplated as part of Measure JJ and is therefore not an issue the Brisbane community has voted on.
Not only is the LMF reservation at odds with the Brisbane voters’ desire for the Baylands Subarea, but it also has immediate consequences for the Baylands that warrant consideration before the City incorporates it into the Specific Plan. These consequences include both the costs of displacing planned infrastructure and the legal implications of reserving private land for another governmental agency’s potential acquisition. While BDI supports improved transit, we do not believe that reserving significant land for a rail maintenance facility in the heart of the Baylands provides any community benefits that justify displacing the sustainability improvements planned for this area.
The affected 45-acres of land were planned for sustainability improvements and infrastructure serving the community, in addition to open space and habitat restoration. Accommodating the LMF has already significantly reduced the planned stormwater detention area serving a substantial portion of the Baylands. That capacity must be provided elsewhere, consuming land otherwise available for revenue1 See 2026 Baylands Specific Plan Sections 3.4.1, 6.8.7.1, and 5.3.2 020962.0001 4928-1809-6082.1 2
producing development and open space and increasing costs for a project that already carries substantial infrastructure and environmental obligations.
The LMF reservation also moved the proposed water recycling facility and displaced the preferred location for the utility-scale battery storage facility. Battery storage captures and stores surplus solar and wind power during the day and releases the stored renewables in the evening when demand is high.
Battery storage is an important and integral part of the Baylands energy neutrality program. The LMF land reservation negatively impacts the Baylands sustainability facilities--all to accommodate a project that, given its current funding situation, will never be built.
The proposed restrictions would require this land to remain available for the High-Speed Rail Authority’s potential acquisition indefinitely, allowing only very limited interim uses in the meantime. The revised Specific Plan expressly prohibits stormwater detention, water recycling, utility-scale battery storage, and habitat restoration or recreational open space within the reserved LMF area. Under the current plan, even after development begins at the Baylands, Brisbane residents traveling along Tunnel Ave will continue to see mostly vacant, un-remediated land.
BDI asks the City to align the Baylands land use program with the General Plan policy established by Measure JJ and plan these 45-acres for the Baylands’ sustainability and infrastructure needs. If the HighSpeed Rail Authority eventually decides to proceed, it can acquire the property through a negotiated purchase or eminent domain process and address the resulting costs and impacts through these wellestablished procedures. City zoning should not compel BDI to provide the Authority with the practical equivalent of a cost-free acquisition option with no expiration date. The Specific Plan should not require BDI to absorb those costs and consequences in advance by relocating facilities and holding land unavailable for its planned purposes indefinitely. That approach also raises concerns about the limits of the City’s land use authority, consistency with the General Plan’s infrastructure and sustainability requirements, and potential liability for imposing an indefinite reservation for another agency’s benefit.
Requested Council direction. Direct staff to remove the LMF land reservation and associated land use restrictions, maps, and references from the Specific Plan, and allow the affected land to be used under the Sustainable Infrastructure designation.
2. Allow interim uses that support the property and make way for development2 The Baylands will be developed in phases over many decades. During that period, the property will continue to require maintenance, security, environmental monitoring, and ongoing remediation work.
Interim uses provide revenue to help meet those obligations while portions of the site await development. Prohibiting productive use of that land does not make permanent development occur sooner.
We understand the concerns related to compatibility of interim uses and permanent developed uses, as well as the concern related to interim uses blocking future development. The Specific Plan can and should address both issues directly through enforceable operating requirements and clear termination provisions.
The 2026 provisions limit new interim uses to the potential LMF site and contemplate termination of existing interim uses when their permits or leases expire. These restrictions would eliminate important sources of near-term revenue elsewhere on the property even where permanent development is not ready to begin, while the costs of maintaining and managing that land would continue. 2 See 2026 Baylands Specific Plan Sections 3.4.3 and 9.3.9 020962.0001 4928-1809-6082.1 3
BDI proposes that new interim uses be allowed only in the Roundhouse, Icehouse Hill, and Campus East Districts, reserving the Bayshore District, which is anticipated to be the first phase of development. BDI also requests that existing interim uses remain eligible to continue or renew where they meet applicable requirements and do not interfere with redevelopment. Appropriate activities would include screened outdoor storage of operable vehicles, equipment, and materials, with limited supporting structures, and other comparable uses that can readily be removed. Processing construction debris generated by Baylands demolition should also remain eligible where consistent with the approved zero-waste program.
City permits would regulate the actual operation, including truck access, hours, screening, dust control, drainage, lighting, and other measures needed to protect surrounding uses. Approval would not excuse nuisance conditions or violations of environmental requirements. The City would retain authority to enforce permit conditions.
The duration of an interim use should depend on when its location is needed for development, rather than a fixed term requiring repeated discretionary renewals. A permit would require the use to end and the affected area to be cleared when needed for authorized remediation, grading, infrastructure, or permanent construction. Leases would expressly recognize that obligation, so a tenant could not rely on a remaining lease term to hold up the work.
Termination should apply to the area needed for that work. Construction in one part of a district should not automatically end a compatible interim use elsewhere in the district. Conversely, no interim use should be allowed to block access, staging, infrastructure, or other work necessary for development beyond its own boundaries. This approach allows productive use of land while making clear that redevelopment has priority when it is ready to proceed.
Requested Council direction. Direct staff to allow new interim uses in the three identified districts and continuation or renewal of qualifying existing uses, subject to enforceable operating safeguards and termination when the affected land is needed for development, without fixed expiration dates or periodic discretionary renewals.
3. Broaden the range of permitted commercial businesses3 The Bay Area life sciences market has changed substantially since the Specific Plan was prepared. The Baylands will take years to build, and while most market forecasters predict a stabilization and eventual rebound of biotech, particularly in the South San Francisco/Brisbane market, no one can know today which businesses will need space at the Baylands. Allowing a broader range of compatible uses would give Brisbane more competitive opportunities to attract employers and fill commercial space as demand changes.
BDI respects the City’s recent efforts to regulate data center development and is not requesting permission for data centers or large fulfillment or distribution centers. Our request is to clarify and expand the existing “Light Manufacture” category to expressly accommodate advanced manufacturing with or without on-site research and development, together with its supporting activities, and to allow industrial outdoor storage and warehousing as separate permitted uses in the Low-Density Commercial land-use category.
Advanced manufacturing. The Specific Plan already permits research, development, and production of many high-technology products. However, the “Light Manufacture” definition largely repeats language in the “Life Science, Research & Development” definition, including provisions about research animals and laboratory space, and leaves uncertainty about manufacturing operations that do not conduct research on-site. BDI requests that this definition be clarified and expanded to expressly accommodate advanced 3 See 2026 Baylands Specific Plan Table 3.4.1
020962.0001 4928-1809-6082.1 4
manufacturing, whether or not the facility also conducts research and development. Examples include production and assembly of robotics, medical devices, electronic components, advanced materials, and clean-energy equipment. A business making these products should qualify even if the products were designed or developed elsewhere.
The definition should also allow research, design, engineering, prototyping, and production to occupy varying shares of a facility as the business grows and its needs change. Supporting offices, computing, storage, and shipment of products made on-site should be accommodated as part of the operation.
Industrial outdoor storage in the Low-Density Commercial land-use category. Examples could include a contractor’s screened storage area for operable equipment, vehicles, and building materials. Such activities support businesses that need practical space to keep the equipment and supplies used in their work. Screening, site maintenance, dust control, and operating requirements would be important parts of making these uses compatible with their surroundings.
Warehousing in the Low-Density Commercial land-use category. Examples could include indoor storage of furniture and fixtures or inventory for a local business. This would provide space for businesses to store goods without authorizing the large fulfillment and distribution operations excluded from our request.
The use definitions and applicable standards should make that distinction clear and address the scale of activity and associated truck traffic.
These are illustrations of the types of businesses the Plan could accommodate, not identified tenants or commitments to specific operations. Adding these categories would not increase the Specific Plan’s overall commercial development allowance or exempt a business from applicable environmental requirements, development standards, or City approvals. Industrial outdoor storage and warehousing are requested as permanent uses in the Low-Density Commercial land-use category. The regulated interim uses described above would remain temporary and separate.
Requested Council direction. Direct staff to clarify and expand the “Light Manufacture” definition to expressly include advanced manufacturing with or without on-site research and development, allow flexible combinations of research, design, engineering, prototyping, and production, and accommodate supporting activities within the same operation. Also add industrial outdoor storage and warehousing as separate permitted uses in the Low-Density Commercial land-use category.
We respectfully request Council direction on these three changes so staff can incorporate them into the Specific Plan. These changes help retain land for the Baylands’ planned sustainability improvements, keep undeveloped portions of the property maintained and productive, and allow a practical range of businesses while preserving the City’s ability to address impacts on the community. Thank you for your consideration.
^p
^-z^f-^
To the Brisbane City Council
From Former Brisbane Mayors
5 Questions to Consider
Before Voting on
THE BAYLANDS PROPOSAL
What's Changed and Why It Matters
Eightyears ago, Brisbane voters approved Measure JJ because it established a framew^ntend^ toebatancede°velopmentwith protection of the City's long-term interests. Since then. the Baylands L has evolved in significant ways. Some changes may be appropriate. Otherswarrant farther explanation and review. Before approving the largest project in Brisbane's history, many residents would like clear and satisfactory answers to the following questions.
Five Questions Before Approval
Who should be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved landfill closure and remediation plans?
Where will the permanent water supply come from?
Who should ultimately pay for the public infrastructure and services required? How will the Project produce enough revenue on an annual basis to pay for the public costs? Where is the annual development plan?
1. Who should be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved landfill closure and remediation plans?
MfiasureJJsavs: '^ clear schedule for landfill closure and site remediation to be comptefed, a^enforcemenrmecftanfemssucftasffnes, perm/tsuspens/on, erc^f e^ schedule is not maintained. " - "The developer must also provide assurances guaranteeing ongoing remediation performance and site management.'
fiirmnt Pmposal: The Baylands Specific Plan does not impose a firm, enforceable deadline for the developer to complete the final closure of the landfill. Moreover, there is no clear closure schedule with enforcement penalties presented, as required. Additionally, t'he'current proposal shifts long-term financial obligations of monitoring, maintenance, and potential future repairs for the remediations from the developer to homeowners and businesses, while in fact the developer purchased this property in 1989 and assumed all liability.
p. ,..tinn. Rpfnm Anproval: Should the Specific Plan require. the developer to complete la ndfill closure and remediation by a date certain. subjectto an enforceable schedule, and provide financial assurances for ongoing remediation performance and long-term site management? Is shifting these financial responsibilities to the homeowners and businesses a viable alternative? What happens if neither the developer nor the property owners provide sufficient ^unds to meet the costs of site management as required bythe remedia'tion plans approved by the DTSC, the RegionalWater Quality Board and the County Health Department?
2. Where will the permanent water supply come from?
Mp^. rfiJJsavs: UA reliable water supply approved by the City of Brisbane to support the proposed uses within the Baylands shall be secured prior to site development. '. nrrr^nt Proposal: Neither the Specific Plan nor the El R reference an agreement approved by the City of Brisbane for a permanent water supply for the Baylands. There is only the mention of a "non-binding letter" with Cal Water which is also dependent upon the construction of a recycled water facility and future approvals from San Francisco and the State of California. The Baylands' proposed water supply from Cat Water remains subject ^significant dry-year shortages. Furthermore, the proposed agreement will transfer Brisbane's Sierra Point customers to Cal Water with uncertain financial implications for the current system.
n, ,o.t. nn. Rpfnm Anproval: Has the City approved and secured a reliable long-term water supply agreement? If the ultimate agreement is with Cal Water, what contingency plans exist if Cal Water is not able or witting to provide sufficient water to the Project. Is the Project prohibited from starting grading without a secured water supply?
3. Who should ultimately pay for the public infrastructure and services required? MP... I irp U savs: "Each development phase must include all necessary transportation improvements, utilities, infrastructure, and amenities, as determined by the City, and be^ entirety funded by the developer. "-k "The project must be revenue-positive to the City at all times^with project-generated revenue exceeding City costs during every phase and at full build-out."
n. rmnt Proposal: The developer would initially finance and construct infrastructure but then could be reimbursed through property tax assessment bonds financed by the - Baylands homeowners and commercial businesses. In addition to the bond assessments. another tax assessment would be levied on Baytands homeowners and commercial businesses to pay for the maintenance of the Baylands public infrastructure as welt as for the public service personnel such as police, fire, public works, and recreation required by the Baylands development.
n, ,o<.tinn. Rpfnm ApDrovali Why aren't these JJ identified costs "entirety funded by the developer"? Why are only eventual property owners listed but no specific developer financial responsibilities? What are the estimated costs, if costs were assessed annually, on a typical homeowner. affordable housing unit, or business? How much could these assessments increase over time? How will City services and infrastructure costs be financed before sufficient homes and businesses have been sold that would allow^ adequate assessments to be levied? If financial assumptions prove inaccurate or financial costs too burdensome, especially to homeowners, who bears the financial risk of insufficient funds? Does the independent fiscal analysis being prepared evaluate the above questions and the cumulative impact of these obligations? Don't these financial mechanisms shift the ultimate burden from the developer to the property owners?
4. How will the Project produce enough revenue on an annual basis to pay for the public costs?
Mpasurfi JJ savs: "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, facilities, infrastructure, cultural resources and habitat protection and management, etc. ) are exceeded by project-generated revenues to the City (e. g.. to the C/ry's General Fund, enterprise funds. special funds, etc. ) during aU phases of development and upon final buildout."
^rESDmfiOflsat There is no current fiscal analysis of what project revenues would-be generated onan^nnual basis for the City or what costs the City could incu^r due ^^ ^ojel ct"The current proposal shifts the requirement that the devet°Per ens_ures,th,epr^ gener ates sufficient positive revenue to imposing a series of tax assessm^nts^Ba^nds pr operty owners. These tax assessments would be used to fund ongomec^oPe^tions ^asVublic safety and parks. Becsus^MJia^eiin^urr^^
anal'i'thevbir" rsuffiin thi thodo r rchisunnown.
Qijfistm^BefQreA^royatiWhenwiltthis independent fiscal analysis be available to the ^^TandPublicTwhat alternative approaches should be investigated if the analysis proves that the tax assessment approach is unworkable? Furthermore, 's thetax^^ assessment approach good public policy. is it fair, is it acceptable to the community, present or future?
5. Where is the annual development plan?
Measurall^ys; "Each development phase must include all necessary transportation^ ^^enST^/t/es, infrastructure, and amenWes, as determined by the City, and be entirely funded by the developer. "
n., rrpntPrnnosal:The Specific Plan has no incremental development phasing or finance Plan for what is tobe built or who pays for what and when. Without a sequen^plan with tin'ancingjt^s difficult to evaluate whether the Specific Plan and the environmental ^^ ^ mit"igatio°n measures work together as intended and is financially secured. A Specie Ran is moTe'than a picture of what will eventually exist. It is also a roadmap showing howthe community gets from today's conditions to the completed project. The timing and sequencing and financing of major infrastructure, environmental protections, and public facilities can materially affect public health, finances, and quality of life. ^estion^fomAoemvaii Where is the incremental phasing in which each increment is^ objectively defined^Where is the Master Infrastructure Plan with itsfinancmg'?where_a^e t^e'p'lanned increments that use objective, measurable milestones-such as closure of the garbage landfill or first development of 200 homes or 50,000 sq. ft. of commerclal_ development, or other clearly defined thresholds? How does each phase or increment ide'ntify the infrastructure, public facilities, environmental improvements, and public benefits that must be completed before the next phase or increments may proceed? Is there an agreement to specify what financial security, alternative funding, or other remedies t'hat will apply if a changing market or financial conditions delay or prevent completion of the required improvements as planned?
One Final Thought
Major development projects shape a communityfor generations; Once approved, many decisions become difficult or even impossible to revisit. The questions in this document are sent with respect and a spirit of cooperation. They are offered in the hope that the community and its City Council will have clear answers to these questions before making decisions that will influence Brisbane for decades to come.
FORMER MAYORS AND MAYOR PRO-TEM OF BRISBANE
TonyAttard ClarkeConway Karen Cunningham
Jeannine Hodge Clara Johnson LeePanza
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2026 5:02 AM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>
Subject: SEP 29, 2026 RE: Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Proposal Review Brisbane City Council members:
It is my understanding that the City has engaged in a lengthy review process guided by legal requirements with the end goal of arriving at a Baylands Specific Plan that can be approved in accordance with the requirements adopted by the voters in passage of Measure JJ. Some people inside and outside of Brisbane question the City's motivations and process - I don't. However I am one of many who are seriously concerned about a lack of open simple clear communications by our City Council explaining the answers to these following five questions before the issue is brought up for a vote by the Council and/or by the voters.
In my opinion - regardless of any changes made over the years to the developer's proposal, all of these Qs should have been asked and answered. There should be no generalities over any item of material concern, no escape clause, or traps that can end up devastating the taxpayers in the future.
1. When will the landfill be permanently closed? Who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved and remediation plans?
2. When will a contract be executed to assure a permanent water supply to the whole of the new development.
3. Will you allow the developer to pass all of the public infrastructure costs on to new property buyers? And how will future public services be paid for?
4. Has the developer provided any pro forma financial projections to demonstrate how the project will produce enough revenue on an annual basis to pay for the public service costs? What if their projections are wrong? What if they claim they cannot proceed with development, or any future planned phase of development? What penalties are incurred for default? What if they declare bankruptcy?
5. Is there an annual development plan showing projections for what is to be built out each year over the expected life of the construction phases? Thanks to all current and former BCC members, Planning Commission volunteers, and City staff members for their hard work and dedication to protecting the interests of Brisbane residents present and future.
Tony Verreos
122 Warbler Ln.
Brisbane
DEAR CITY COUNCIL,
The proposed Baylands
development is:
T 0 BIG
The proposed Baylands development would
include 2200 housing units and 7 million ft2 of
commercial development, including high-rises
up to 270 feet and up to 800 hotel rooms. That
would more than double the size of Brisbane.
TOO TOXIC
X In some areas of the Baylands, the native soil
will be so contaminated that people will be
prohibited from growing fruit or vegetables
for human consumption.
K The project is projected to raise excess cancer
risks, even after mitigation. The Environmental
Impact Report admits that diesel particular
matter emissions would result in excess cancer
risks that will affect Baylands residents and the
new middle school.
TOO EXPENS VE
The project will bring 19, 000 workers to Brisbane,
all competing for the same 2,200 housing units.
There is no sign of any plans to provide sufficient
affordable housing for low-income workers. This
isn't a solution to the housing affordability crisis:
it will make the crisis far worse.
This may be the way to maximize the developer's
profits, but it's not right for the residents of
Brisbane, or the people who will come to work here.
Please send the developer back to the drawing
board to come back with a proposal that is safe,
affordable, and reasonable.
Signed,
Print name
^jgnatur
:i^ ^ QL^
®.
q^A C^ fcvX ^
Cfi ns^lf'J""^' ^OSCOCA 9^0.
-~E-. ^t -BH-U'ft -~»i S26 . PR ^ L
Brisbane City Council
Brisbane City Hall
50 Park Place,
Brisbane, CA 94005
DEAR CITY COUNCIL,
The proposed^Bayland^
development is:
TOO BIG
The proposed Baylands development would
include 2200 housing units and 7 million ft2 of
commercial development, including high-rises
up to 270 feet and up to 800 hotel rooms. Tiiat
would more than double the size of Brisbane.
TOO TOXIC
)(In some areas of the Baylands, the native soil
will be so contaminated that people will be
prohibited from growing fruit or vegetables
for human consumption.
X The project is projected to raise excess cancer
risks, even after mitigation. The Environmental
Impact Report admits that diesel particular
matter emissions would result in excess cancer
risks that will affecFBaylands residents and the
new middle school.
TOO EXPENSIVE
The project will bring 19, 000 workers to Brisbane,
all competing for the same 2, 200 housing units.
There is no sign of any plans to provide sufficient
affordable housing for low-income workers. This
isn't a solution to the housing affordability crisis:
it will make the crisis far worse.
This may be the way to maximize the developer's
profits, but it's not right for the residents of
Brisbane, or the people who will come to work here.
Please send the developer back to the drawing
board to come back with a proposal that is safe,
affordable, and reasonable.
Signed, .»
Pr' tname
ignature
r ^<
' a^e^
^^&dFRANaSCO, CA 940
Brisbane, CA 94005
2 JUL 2026 PM3 L
Brisbane City Council
Brisbane City Hall
50 Park Place,
Brisbane, CA 94005
DEAR CITY COUNCIL,
The proposed Baylands
development is:
TOO BIG
The proposed Baylands development would
include 2200 housing units and 7 million n° of
commercial development, including high-rises
up to 270 feet and up to 800 hotel rooms. That
would more than double the size of Brisbane.
TOO TOXIC
X In some areas of the Baylands, the native soil
will be so contaminated that people will be
prohibited from growing fruit or vegetables
for human consumption.
X The project is projected to raise excess cancer
risks, even after mitigation. The Environmental
Impact Report admits that diesel particular
matter emissions would result in excess cancer
risks that will affect Baylands residents and the
new middle school.
TOO EXPENSIVE
The project will bring 19, 000 workers to Brisbane,
all competing for the same 2,200 housing units.
There is no sign of any plans to provide sufficient
affordable housing for low-income workers. This
isn't a solution to the housing affordability crisis:
it will make the crisis far worse.
This may be the way to maximize the developer's
profits, but it's not right for the residents of
Brisbane, or the people who will come to work here.
Please send the developer back to the drawing
board to come back with a proposal that is safe,
affordable, and reasonable.
Signed,
J^4^ U ^Cf^_
' ***^
^. OCA oi% 1f'^dtm*'
5 t. -^.1
*:»
Brisbane City Council
Brisbane City Hall
50 Park Place,
Brisbane, CA 94005
DEAR CITY COUNCIL,
The proposed Baylands
development is:
TOO BIG
The proposed Baylands development would
include 2200 housing units and 7 million ft2 of
commercial development, including high-rises
up to 270 feet and up to 800 hotel rooms. That
would more than double the size of Brisbane.
TOO TOXIC
X In some areas of the Baylands, the native soil
will be so contaminated that people wilt be
prohibited from growing fruit or vegetables
for human consumption.
X The project is projected to raise excess cancer
risks, even after mitigation. The Environmental
[mpact Report admits that diesel particular
matter emissions would result in excess cancer
risks that will affect Baylands residents and the
new middle school.
TOO EXPENSIVE
The project will bring 19,000 workers to Brisbane,
all competing for the same 2, 200 housing units.
There is no sign of any plans to provide sufficient
affordable housing for low-income workers. This
isn't a solution to the housing affordability crisis:
it will make the crisis far worse.
This may be the way to maximize the developer's
profits, but it's not right for the residents of
Brisbane, or the people who will come to work here.
Please send the developer back to the drawing
board to come back with a proposal that is safe,
affordable, and reasonable.
Signed,
he. i- <^} s -\
Print na e
Signature
®.
OJ '
OCA 940
.
t3M5 L
Brisbane City Council
Brisbane City Hall
50 Park Place,
Brisbane, CA 94005
DEAR CITY COUNCIL,
The proposed Baylands
development is:
TOO BIG
The proposed Baylands development would
include 2200 housing units and 7 million ft2 of
commercial development, including high-rises
up to 270 feet and up to 800 hotel rooms. That
would more than double the size of Brisbane.
TOO OXIC
X In some areas of the Baylands, the native soil
will be so contaminated that people will be
prohibited from growing fruit or vegetables
for human consumption.
X The project is projected to raise excess cancer
risks, even after mitigation. The Environmental
Impact Report admits thatdiesel particular :
matter emissions would result in excess cancer
risks that will affect Baylands residents and the
new middle school.
T 0 EXPENSIVE
S"'-K.
T^ project will bring 19,000 workers to Brisbane,
aiFcompeting for the same 2,200 housing units.
There is no sign of any plans to provide sufficient
affordable housing for low-income workers. This
isn't a solution to the housing affordability crisis:
it will make the crisis far worse.
This may be the way to maximize the developer's
profits, but it's not right for the residents of
Brisbane, or the people who will come to work here.
Please send the developer back to the drawing
board to come back with a proposal that is safe,
affordable, and reasonable.
Signed,
Print name
Signature
UD^/a<z
509 ALVA T
«-%"
ESCOCA 9^0
!02S; .PM4 .i- _
AiMilmni'^ ' y'li
f^f) '' . JSA3JV t"sn
Brisbane City Council
Brisbane City Hall
50 Park Place,
Brisbane, CA 94005
|, li|l^, |, i||, h, ||!|,,, ^«^^,, l!h^nU||;^»jp
D£AR CITY COUNCIL,
The proposed Baylands
development is:
TOO BIG
The proposed Baylands development would
include 2200 housing units and 7 million ft2 of
commercial development, including high-rises
up to 270 feet and up to 800 hotel rooms. That
would more than double the size of Brisbane.
TO TOXIC
X In some areas of the Baylands, the native soii
will be so contaminated that people will be
prohibited from growing fruit or vegetables
for human consumption.
X The project is projected to raise excess cancer
risks, even after mitigation. The Environmental
Impact Report admits that diesel particular
matter emissiyis would result in excess cancer
risks that will affect Baylands residents and the
new i*hiddle school.
TOO EXPENSIVE
The project will bring 19, 000 workers to Brisbane,
all competing for the same 2, 200 housing units.
There is no sign of any plans to provide sufficient
affordable^ousing for low-income workers. This
isn't a solution to the housing affordability crisis:
it will make the crisis far worse.
This may be the way to maximize the developer's
profits, but it's not right for the residents of
Brisbane, or the people who will come to work here.
Please send the developer back to the drawing
board to come back with a proposal that is safe,
affordable, and reasonable.
sig%? ^ ^///^63^
Print na
y
Signature
/."
J. '0
^/^^^^ c^-
.*laii»«a»i«:^ ;?"^ - .^^
Q^Q
rzc-zs . pi-^ -s' i- UNITfeSSTMfefe"1'
OFAMERICA
S FOREVER/USA
Brisbane City Council
Brisbane City Hall
50 Park Place,
Brisbane, CA 94005
||«j, ij,,, ^|, l^|, iH, |Ji!J, j!p, ^!^|, |, i||jj|h^l|i^