The Building &
Construction
Trades Council
of San Mateo
County
1710 S. Amphlett Blvd.,
Suite 306 San Mateo CA,
94402
Affiliates
ㅡ
Heat & Frost Insulators
No. 16
Boilermakers Local 549
Brick Tile & Allied
Craftworkers 3
DC16 Painters & Allied
Trades Local 913, 12, 718
IBEW Local 617
Elevator Constructors No.
8 Ironworkers Local 377
LiUNA Local 261, Local
67 Operating Engineers No. 3
Plasterers & Cement
Masons 300
UA Plumbers & Pipefitters
467
Roofers No. 40
SMART 104
Sign & Display 510
UA Sprinkler Fitters 483
Teamsters No. 853
UA Local 355
29 SEPTEMBER 2026
The City of Brisbane
City Council Special Meeting
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA
Re: Baylands Specific Plan, Agenda Item B.
Dear Mayor Mackin and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of the Building & Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County, representing 20 local unions and 50 distinct trade classifications, I am writing to express our strong support for the proposed Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan, its associated General Plan and Zoning amendments, and related actions. Our council speaks for more than 13,000 highly skilled construction tradespeople who live and work in San Mateo County, including many who proudly call Brisbane home.
Following the Brisbane Planning Commission's unanimous 5-0 recommendation on August 13, 2026, to certify the Final EIR and adopt the 2026 staff-recommended Baylands Specific Plan, we urge the City Council to maintain this momentum. The Baylands project represents a transformative, generational opportunity to address regional housing needs, spur economic growth, and deliver vital infrastructure to the Peninsula.
We advocate for moving forward with the staff-recommended proposal based on several critical pillars:
● Skilled & Trained Workforce for Safe Remediation: The remediation of the Baylands site requires sophisticated environmental safeguards. Our affiliated tradespeople possess state approved apprenticeship training, hazardous-materials certifications, and a culture of strict job-site safety.
Utilizing a skilled, local workforce ensures that site clean-up and soil relocation are executed properly, protecting both the workers on-site and the long-term health of the Brisbane community.
● Local Career & Housing Opportunities: The multi-phase development will generate thousands of high-quality construction jobs across civil infrastructure, site grading, utility installation, and vertical construction.
Crucially, the plan allows local craftsmen and women to build a stable career close to home without sacrificing time with their families, while creating up to 2,200 new housing units that offer tradespeople a pathway to live in the communities they help build.
● Comprehensive Community & Infrastructure Benefits: Beyond housing and commercial development, Phase I delivers foundational public benefits, including the Bayshore Mobility Plan improvements, regional transit access, multi-use trails, dedicated park spaces, solar energy generation, and sustainable water recycling infrastructure.
The staff proposal reflects years of rigorous environmental analysis, public engagement, and thorough planning. We respectfully request that the City Council vote to approve the staff recommendations, certify the Final EIR, and advance the Baylands Specific Plan.
Sincerely,
Bart M. Pantoja
Business Manager | Secretary-Treasurer
P: 650.358.9977
[email protected]
From: Roland Lebrun <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2026 9:44 PM
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Cc: Cheung, Caroline <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Relocation of HSR HMF to Emeryville
And, finally here is the reason why it was not considered in the EIR No, Roland Lebrun's proposal to relocate the Light Maintenance Facility (LMF) / Heavy Maintenance Facility (HMF) to Oakland is not a formal alternative analyzed in the Brisbane Baylands Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
. [1, 2]
Instead, his proposal exists as part of the public comments and correspondence submitted during the environmental review process. [3, 4] Why It Is Not Formally Included
• Scope of the Project: The Brisbane Baylands Project focus is bounded strictly to the 680-acre site in San Mateo County owned by Baylands Development Inc. (BDI), slated for a Specific Plan featuring housing, commercial space, and hotels. [2, 5] • Jurisdictional & Infrastructure Limits: Lebrun’s "ultimate solution" relies on a proposed Transbay "Blended" Tunnel to route regional rail operations to the former Amtrak facility in Oakland. Because this requires a massive, unbuilt regional infrastructure project entirely outside the project boundary and the City of Brisbane's jurisdiction, it falls outside the range of feasible alternatives required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). [1, 6] While the 2026 Final EIR documents and responds to comments submitted by members of the public (including Lebrun), it does not adopt or formally evaluate his Oakland relocation proposal as a project alternative. [1, 2, 4]
If you are tracking the project's approvals, would you like more details on the current alternatives that were officially certified in the final plan, or information on how to access the City Council meeting records?
[1] https://www.caltrain.com
[2] https://www.brisbaneca.gov
[3] https://www.sfcta.org
[4] https://www.brisbaneca.gov
[5] https://www.brisbaneca.gov
[6] https://dot.ca.gov
From: Roland Lebrun <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2026 9:34 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Relocation of HSR HMF to Emeryville
Here is the communication trail with the Brisbane staff and City Council.
Are there any traces of Roland Lebrun's transbay blended tunnel alignment proposal in any Brisbane emails or Baylands environmental clearance documents? Yes, there is clear documentation
of Roland Lebrun’s Transbay "Blended" Tunnel alignment proposal within Brisbane public communications and Baylands environmental review records. [1, 2] Traces of his proposal appear across these specific contexts:
1. Brisbane City Council & Agency Communications
Roland Lebrun submitted his Transbay "Blended" Tunnel proposal—originally submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the Horizon Crossings/Plan Bay Area 2050 initiative—directly to local leadership. In formal correspondence distributed to regional transit boards and copied to the City of Brisbane Mayor and Council as well as the Baylands Development Corporation, Lebrun detailed how the project impacts the local area. Specifically, he noted that the Brisbane portion of his alignment plan required constructing rail turn-back tracks south of the Bayshore station. [1, 2]
2. Brisbane Baylands Environmental Review Documents
Lebrun actively participated in the environmental clearance process for the Brisbane Baylands development. His feedback is officially recognized in the project's environmental tracking:
• DEIR Public Comment: He formally submitted a packet labeled "Brisbane Baylands DEIR Comments.pdf" reviewing the project's specific plan and circulation elements. [1]
• Environmental Record Indexing: In the official environmental clearance documentation (such as the Baylands Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report), Roland Lebrun is explicitly listed in the introduction and response frameworks as having submitted formal comments on May 24, 2023. [3]
Would you like to examine the specific details of his track alignment recommendations for the Bayshore station area, or do you need help locating the full text of his May 2023 DEIR comment letter?
[1] https://www.sfcta.org
[2] https://www.caltrain.com
[3] https://www.brisbaneca.gov
From: Roland Lebrun <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2026 8:59 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Relocation of HSR HMF to Emeryville
I just asked Gemini the following question:
Has Roland Lebrun ever made a proposal to relocate the Brisbane HMF to Emeryville? Here is the answer
Yes, Roland Lebrun has proposed relocating the Brisbane Heavy Maintenance Facility (HMF)
, though his specific ultimate target for the facility was the former Amtrak HMF in Oakland rather than Emeryville directly. However, his broader regional rail vision tightly couples Emeryville and Oakland as the alternative anchors. [1, 2, 3] The Details of His Proposals
• The Brisbane Alternative: In a formal public correspondence packet submitted to the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), Lebrun criticized the massive 100-acre footprint planned for the Brisbane Light Maintenance Facility (LMF)/HMF. [4]
• The East Bay Relocation: He argued that the ultimate solution was to relocate the primary maintenance operations to the East Bay. He explicitly pushed to move it to the former Amtrak HMF site in Oakland, which would be made accessible via a proposed new Transbay rail tunnel. [2]
• The Emeryville Connection: While he designated Oakland for the heavy maintenance yard, Lebrun’s broader infrastructure plans frequently advocate for a unified, public-private regional rail system extending specifically from Emeryville to Gilroy. In his financial and maintenance frameworks submitted to Caltrain's Citizen Advisory Committee, he splits regional maintenance operations between Gilroy and Emeryville facilities. [1, 2, 3]
Essentially, his goal is to shrink or entirely eliminate the massive railyard planned for the Brisbane Baylands by shifting those heavy industrial maintenance needs across the bay to existing rail corridors in Oakland and Emeryville. [1, 2] Would you like to review Lebrun's technical layout maps for his proposed "Blended" Transbay Tunnel, or are you looking for details on how the city of Brisbane itself responded to the high-speed rail railyard footprint?
[1] https://www.caltrain.com
[2] https://www.caltrain.com
[3] https://www.tjpa.org
[4] https://www.caltrain.com
From: Roland Lebrun <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 29 September 2026 20:39:27
To: Padilla, Ingrid <[email protected]>
Cc: Cheung, Caroline <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Relocation of HSR HMF to Emeryville
The attached file is a follow-up to the file I just sent you. The relocated maintenance facility is on page 4
Here is a screen shot.
The Baylands start on page 7
From: Roland Lebrun <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2026 8:21 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Relocation of HSR HMF to Emeryville
Ingrid, can you please distribute this document to the Mayor and Council? https://mtc.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=3b84ebb0-422f-4005-a86fface9a582c7b.pdf Specifically, this document proposes to relocate the HSR HMF to Emeryville.
Thank You
Roland
ft/[io^{ ^n^> (o^/i^
Most people who do not ride bicycles cite the danger of automobiles and trucks. To actually encourage bicycling requires isolation of bicyclists from motor vehicles to Ae greatest extent possible. Thankfully, the empty canvas of the Baylands allows us to maximize bicyclist protections.
The Specific Plan recognizes this issue. The Specific Plan states that: The Baylands will include a network of protected bikeways that provide physical separation from moving vehicles. This type of bikeway reduces the level of stress and improves comfort for more types of bicyclists and therefore contributes to an increase in bicycle volumes and mode share. Connections are also made to the existing bike network to facilitate trips to downtown Brisbane, adjacent neighborhoods, and to increase connectivity to the Bayshore Caltrain station"
Intersections with both bicycles and motor vehicles should be avoided. Intersections are deadly to cycUsts. And Class II bike lanes are exactly what reluctant bicyclists cite for not riding on the street, as is proposed on Bayshore Blvd.
Table 6.4. 2 - Include Class II bike lanes in this table, as illustrated in Figure 6. 4. 2 Baylands Bicycle and Micromobility Netw^ork.
Tunnel Rd is the preferred bicycle commuter route between San Francisco and South San Francisco.
Approximately 1 OX more cyclists use this route than use Bayshore Blvd., a regional arterial for motor vehicles. Figure 6. 8. 3 shows how cyclists are exposed to motor vehicles on Bayshore Blvd, while pedestrians are protected. Switch the furniture zone and bicycle lane positions. Same with 6. 8. 5,
6.8. 10, and many other illustrations.
Tunnel should have a two-way Class IV path on the west side, so that cyclists are not threatened by the cross-streets on the east side. Figure 6. 3. 12 shows bike lanes next to motor vehicle lane.
Get rid of vegetated median strips to separate motor vehicle traffic, and give that width to better protecting bicyclists. This may mean forcing motor vehicle drivers to negotiate chicanes before and after center left turn pockets. Example is figure 6. 3. 14. In this case, it would be great if the trees separated the motor vehicles from cyclists. If there is concern about cyclists interaction with pedestrians, then a fence may be erected to separate these active transportation modes.
Figure 6. 8. 12, and 6. 3. 15 - Sierra Point Pkwy, Visitacion Creek and Lagoon Rd. This is great design and safer configuration that I would like to see in all other streets.
6. 3.6, 6. 3. 7 are also opportunities to move the bicycle lane to the other side of the protective trees, and so move cyclists further from the motor vehicles.
6. 3. 11 Frontage Road 6 foot buffer should be a bike lane, and if possible, include the Caltrain ROW.
The infrequent Caltrain sendee vehicles and bicycles can co-exist.
6.4. 1 - Pedestrian through zone. Text says "The minimum width is 5 feet for ADA compliance. For sidewalks 12 feet or wider, the minimum is 6 feet. " I don't understand what this means.
6. 3. 10 -Tunnel Rd cross section identifies two-way left turn lane as being 11 feet wide, the following text says the lane is 10 feet wide. Also says bike lane + buffer is 9 feet, but the text indicates 8 feet.
Are there plantings on both sides of the road? The two-way left turn may encourage higher motor vehicle speeds. Maybe make chicane and eliminate center lane where possible. And again, separate bikes from cars. 6. 3. 14 East Campus similar problems, with the addition of rolled curbs.
materials?
Let's use landscaping to protect bicyclists.
6.4. 2 mentions connection to external regional trails. I think this should be kept in mind for bicycle commuters traveling through Brisbane on Tunnel Rd, connecting to Bayshore in SF and Oyster Point in SSE
brown, legend red.
indoor, or if outside a building, protected from all the elements, including wind and rain, not just a cage.
Why are rolled curbs proposed to separate bicycles from motor vehicles? A motor vehicle is less likely to try to drive up a square curb. Unless you are encouraging automobiles to park in the bike lane.
Program C. I.e. Proposes a multimodal fee program for businesses that generate more than 50 motor vehicle trips per day. A green street monioring program is also proposed at the Baylands expense. The city should suppress this instinct to tax. Your imposition of taxes is making living here ever more expensive.
P 61 - "Due to the visual impact to public space, the use of bollards is to be kept at minimum within The Baylands. " I say don't fear the bollards. They exist to protect us from motor vehicles.
Mayor and Members of the Council:
When I served on this Council, I often felt that, when it came to the Baylands, there was a gun to our head.
There was enormous pressure to reach an agreement. There was the threat with a draft legislation, pressure for development, and very real concerns aboutwhat could happen if Brisbane did not find its own path forward.
Measu re JJ was negotiated in that atmosphere. It was accepted by those state legislators who had threatened with the draft legislation.
But whatever pressures existed then, Measure JJ became something much more important.
It became our promise to the people of Brisbane.
We asked our residents to accept housing on the Baylands. We told them what protections would accompany that development. And the voters trusted us. They approved Measure JJ.
That vote matters.
I am not here tonight to undo it. I am not asking this Council to reconsider whether there should be housing on the Baylands. The voters made that decision, and Measure JJ and its housing provisions are now the law in Brisbane.
But the rest of Measure JJ matters just as much.
The housing was not the only promise we made.
We promised that the site would be properly fully remediated and safe, especially for the housing and that no soil would be moved without testing to City's standards.
We promised a reliable water supply would be secured before development and the City would prohibit use of our limited water.
We promised enforceable schedules for landfill closure - with real consequences if those schedules were not met and financial guarantees if they delayed or stopped.
We promised energy neutral sustainable development as a beacon of what the future can be.
We promised that the development would provide a net fiscal benefit to Brisbane every year.
And we promised a Specific Plan for the entire Baylands that would put those protections into effect.
Those were not side issues. They were part of the bargain we presented to the voters.
Looking at this Plan, I do not yet see those questions answered in a way that gives me confidence that all of Measure JJ is being implemented.
Too many important matters appear to remain unresolved, deferred to later agreements, later studies, later financing plans, or later decisions. The meeting schedule you currently have seems too aggressive to adequately address these issues.
I know the pressures facingthis Council are substantial. I remember those pressures very well.
But Measure JJ should not be viewed as an obstacle that the City needs to work around Measure JJ should be the City's roadmap.
Before approving this Specific Plan, I ask you to take our questions and the public questions and answer each one clearly
If those answers are not in the Plan today, put them there before you approve it.
The voters kept their part of the bargain.
Now it is our responsibility to keep ours.
And most importantly show us our choices.
The EIR analyzes seven alternatives. Yet most of what the public has been formally presented is the plan staff recommends. There should be presentation of the 7 alternatives set forth in the EIR.
There are real choices here.
Staff recommended the EIR alterative plan that has 2,200 homes and 6.5 million sq. ft of commercial.
But the Public should be presented with all of the EIR alternatives especially number 7 with its reduced Density and Lower Maximum Building Heights.
Alterative 7 is found by the EIRto be the"Environmentally Superior Alternative." It is 400 fewer homes and 2 million less sq ft of commercial and 8 stories residential instead of 20 or 22 story residential towers.
Those are very different visions of Brisbane.
I am not standing here saying which one is right. I am saying: show all 7 El R alternatives fully to the City Council and the public.
This is about the future of Brisbane.
Then, as we move forward, we still have to keep the promises under JJ: a reliable water supply, not using our Brisbane water, final landfill closure and responsibility, adherence to our sustainability framework, phased and required infrastructure that keeps pace with development, financial protections for the City and its current and future residents, and clear accountability so Brisbane is never left holding the bag.
They are intended to make sure that when development comes, we build the Brisbane we promised our voters we would build.
I know the pressure you are under. I've felt it myself.
When we faced that pressure before, we trusted the people of Brisbane. We put Measure JJ before them, they understood the difficult choices, and together we found a way forward.
We can do that again.
Share this decision with the community. Uphold Measure JJ. Show Brisbane the choices. Trust the community to be part of the solution.
We found a way forward together once. I believe we can-and will-do it together again. /^ ^ ^