The lawsuit originated from the authority’s environmental assessment of its high-speed rail plan, specifically the 121-acre maintenance facility it had intended to build and operate in the area. The facility is meant to be an equipment storage facility and will also contain a sewage system and electrical substation.
The city countered that the HSRA’s environmental impact report for the facility, which is a California Environmental Quality Act requirement, failed to fully account for its multiyear effort to restore and develop the site, saying it “precommitted” to setting the site in Brisbane prior to environmental analyst, a CEQA violation.
The maintenance facility site would also require “excavation of over 2 million cubic yards of municipal waste from the former Brisbane landfill, of which 200,000 cubic yards would be hazardous and require transport to a Class I landfill located in Kern County,” the lawsuit complaint alleged.
The issue is particularly important for the city, given its stated plans to build 1,800 to 2,200 residential homes, more than 6 million square feet of commercial space, 500,000 square feet of hotel space, as well as extensive open space for public use.
According to the complaint, the detrimental environmental impacts from building the maintenance facility were not considered when finalizing its EIR in 2022, despite the fact that the city published its own development plans for the area five months before the HSRA drafted its first EIR in 2020.
The development plans are a key part of the city’s strategy to achieve its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or state-mandated housing targets. The area’s sweeping redevelopment plans were approved by voters, with proponents stating it was not only a key economic driver but would provide much-needed housing. Those opposed to Measure JJ argued the area was unsuitable and hazardous for residents, given the property’s long history as a landfill and rail yard.
The suit, filed in September 2022, has culminated in a settlement agreement as of Sept. 5, with the HSRA agreeing to reduce the maintenance facility’s footprint by more than 50 acres and the city reevaluating its Baylands Specific Plan EIR, which is the blueprint of its development efforts.
The two entities will be “working together to bring the city sorely needed resources to support environmental and safety improvements at the Baylands,” former City Manager Clay Holstine said in a statement.
HSRA Board Member Jim Ghielmetti said in the recent press release that he was looking forward to regular collaboration, recognizing “we both have a duty to protect the health and welfare of the current and future residents of the Brisbane Baylands.”
The city plans to release an EIR on the Baylands project in the next few months.
Note to readers: Measure JJ was passed in 2018, which amended the General Plan to allow for development on the Brisbane Baylands.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.