Brisbane Baylands development

The San Francisco Bay shoreline was just east of Bayshore Highway (which is now Bayshore Boulevard); debris from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fill taken from the construction of the Bayshore Cutoff, which opened in 1907, were used to fill a portion of the Bay west of the railroad tracks and east of Bayshore Highway, creating a classification yard for Southern Pacific.{{cite web |url=http://sanfranciscotrains.org/bayshore-roundhouse.html |title=Bayshore Roundhouse: Part One |author= |website=San Francisco Trains |access-date=17 April 2017}}

San Francisco's municipal landfill was in operation from 1932 to 1967, filling in the portion of Brisbane Lagoon east of the tracks and west of U.S. 101. U.S. 101 runs along the current shoreline.{{cite web |url=http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=San_Francisco%27s_Trash |title=San Francisco's Trash |author=Carlsson, Chris |website=FoundSF |access-date=17 April 2017}}

The Brisbane Baylands site is owned by Universal Paragon Corporation (UPC).{{cite news |first=J.K. |last=Dineen|title=4,500 homes proposed for Brisbane's Baylands|url=http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2010/05/24/daily42.html |date= May 27, 2010|access-date= May 27, 2010 |newspaper=San Francisco Business Times}} The site is being planned for significant regional transportation improvements as analyzed in the Bi-County Transportation Study,{{cite report |url=http://www.sfcta.org/transportation-planning-and-studies/current-research-and-other-projectsstudies/bi-county-transportation-study |title=Bi-County Transportation Study |date=March 2013 |publisher=San Francisco County Transportation Authority |access-date=23 July 2018}} including a multi-modal transit station at the {{cals|Bayshore}} station, connecting Caltrain, an extended Muni Metro T Third Street train, the planned Geneva-Harney bus rapid transit, and multiple bus routes operated by Muni and SamTrans.{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bayshore-Station-envisioned-as-vibrant-transit-hub-3451733.php |title=Bayshore Station envisioned as vibrant transit hub |author=Wildermuth, John |date=28 April 2014 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=23 July 2018}} Geneva Avenue, which currently dead-ends onto Bayshore Boulevard, would be extended across the width of the Baylands and connected to Harney Way.

The earliest plan, later designated the Developer-Sponsored Plan (DSP), was submitted by UPC in 2005 and updated significantly in 2011. Contemporaneously, the City of Brisbane began developing an alternative in 2009 with input from residents, designated the Community Proposed Plan (CPP). The group called the Committee for Renewable Energy in the Baylands (CREBL) advanced another alternative in 2006, designated the Renewable Energy Alternative (REA).{{cite web |url=http://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/1%20CREBLPresentationSlides.pdf |title=Alternative Energy Plan for the Baylands |author=Committee for Renewal {{sic}} Energy in the Baylands |publisher=City of Brisbane |access-date=23 July 2018}}

All plans call for environmental remediation of the brownfield land to clean up chemicals left in the soil from its use as a railyard and municipal dump.

;Notes

{{notelist|25em}}

{{OSM Location map

|coord={{Coord|37.696|-122.3985}}

|float=right

|zoom=14

|width=300 |height=670

|scalemark=20

|shape1=n-square

|shape-color1=#f00

|shape-outline1=#fff

|mark-size1=20

|mark-coord1 ={{Coord|37.692219|-122.399927}}

|mark-title1 =Kinder Morgan tank farm (not included in development)

|mark-coord2 ={{Coord|37.701519|-122.406528}} |shape-color2 =#00f

|mark-title2 =Bayshore Roundhouse

|mark-coord3 ={{Coord|37.708119|-122.399068}} |shape-color3 =#080

|mark-title3 =Recology San Francisco Transfer Station

|mark-coord4 ={{Coord|37.707612|-122.401740}}

|mark-title4 ={{cals|Bayshore}} 25px |shape4=n-circle |shape-color4=#E31837

|mark-coord5 ={{coord|37.709477|-122.404914}}

|mark-title5 =Sunnydale 15px |shape5=n-circle |shape-color5=#D21245

|mark-coord6 ={{coord|37.712382|-122.401968}}

|mark-title6 =Arleta 15px |shape6=n-circle |shape-color6=#D21245

|fullscreen-option=1

|caption=Brisbane Baylands key locations

|auto-caption=1

}}

UPC's land use proposal, one of several introduced to Brisbane's city council, calls for the development of an entertainment district that could include an arena, concert theater and cineplex, {{convert|12500000|sqft|m2}} of R&D, 1.5 million of office, {{convert|64000|ft|m}} of civic space, {{convert|287000|sqft|m2}} of retail, 4,434 housing units, a high school, transit/roadway improvements, 25-acre solar farm and nearly 200 acres of open space.{{cite news|first=Emily|last=Fancher|title=Baylands debate centers on housing, sustainability |url=http://www.brisbanebaylands.com/pdf/09.08.29%20-%20Baylands%20Plan%20for%20Sustainability%20Requires%20Housing.pdf |date=August 28, 2009 |newspaper=San Francisco Business Times |access-date=August 28, 2009 |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708094500/http://www.brisbanebaylands.com/pdf/09.08.29%20-%20Baylands%20Plan%20for%20Sustainability%20Requires%20Housing.pdf |archive-date=July 8, 2011 }} Housing would be limited to the land previously used as the railyard.

The Brisbane Planning Commission submitted an alternative plan in 2009 to the City Council. The primary difference in land use was the lack of any new housing units.{{cite web |url=http://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/July%2020%202009%20Council%20Baylands%20Alternatives.pdf |title=Baylands Community Alternative |date=20 July 2009 |publisher=City of Brisbane, California |access-date=23 July 2018}}{{cite web |url=http://brisbaneca.org/baylands-planning-commission-hearings |title=Baylands Planning Commission Hearings |publisher=City of Brisbane, California |access-date=23 July 2018}}

UPC originally submitted a draft plan to the City in 2005. The Schlage Lock factory site just north of the old railyard, within the city limits of San Francisco, was transferred to UPC in 2008 as part of a settlement with the previous owner, Ingersoll-Rand. At the time, the historic Schlage office building was planned to be converted into a community center, and 1,250 housing units would be added to the combined parcel.{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Old-Schlage-Lock-factory-in-S-F-finally-sold-3209939.php |title=Old Schlage Lock factory in S.F. finally sold |author=Temple, James |date=13 June 2008 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=23 July 2018}}

In 2010, UPC revised the plan and submitted an updated Baylands Specific Plan{{cite web |url=http://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/uploads/NOP_Proj_Description.pdf |title=Executive Summary |date=October 2010 |publisher=City of Brisbane, California }}{{dead link|date=July 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} and Appendix.{{cite web |url=http://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/uploads/NOP_Proj_Description_Appendix.pdf |title=Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Appendix |date=October 2010 |publisher=City of Brisbane, California |access-date=23 July 2018}}

In Feb 2011, UPC submitted the draft Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan and associated Infrastructure Master Plan.{{cite web |url=http://brisbaneca.org/specific-plan-and-infrastructure-plan |title=Specific Plan and Infrastructure Plan |publisher=City of Brisbane, California |access-date=23 July 2018}} The project is projected to create 15,000 – 20,000 permanent jobs and would be built over a 30-year schedule.

The Baylands is the subject of an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for and released by the City of Brisbane on June 11, 2013.{{cite report |url=http://www.brisbaneca.org/baylands-draft-eir |title=Baylands Draft EIR |author=ESA Associates |date=June 2013 |publisher=City of Brisbane, California |access-date=23 July 2018}} The DEIR analyzes four concept plans: the Developer-Sponsored Plan (DSP), DSP with an entertainment variant (DSP-V), the Community Proposed Plan (CPP), and a CPP with a Recology expansion (CPP-V).{{cite report |url=http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/3_prj-description.pdf |title=Brisbane Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report |chapter=3. Project Description |date=June 2013 |publisher=City of Brisbane, California |access-date=23 July 2018}} One of the major findings of the EIR is that "Brisbane currently is a 'jobs rich' city [with] more than four times as many jobs as employed residents [...] the ratio between jobs and employed residents in Brisbane is not balanced [and] such an imbalance between jobs and housing typically contributes to higher homes prices due to demand outstripping supply, increased traffic congestion in the area, increase air and noise pollution, and longer commute times for workers".{{cite report |url=http://www.ci.brisbane.ca.us/sites/default/files/4k_population-housing.pdf |title=Brisbane Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report |chapter=4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures; 4K. Population and Housing |date=June 2013 |publisher=City of Brisbane, California |access-date=23 July 2018}}{{rp|4.K-8}} The EIR found that by providing housing adjacent to the proposed office and transit improvements, car trips and the associated greenhouse gases would be significantly reduced under the DSP concepts; since the CPP concepts only provided new jobs without housing, greenhouse gas emissions would rise.{{cite report |url=http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/4f_greenhouse-gas.pdf |title=Brisbane Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report |chapter=4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures; 4F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions |date=June 2013 |publisher=City of Brisbane, California |access-date=23 July 2018}}{{rp|4.F-19}}{{cite report |url=http://www.ci.brisbane.ca.us/sites/default/files/4n_transportation.pdf |title=Brisbane Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report |chapter=4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures; 4N. Traffic and Circulation |date=June 2013 |publisher=City of Brisbane, California |access-date=23 July 2018}}

In addition to the two Concept Plans proposed by UPC (DSP and DSP-V), the EIR analyzes the two Community Proposed Plans which the Brisbane City Council approved for study in July 2009,{{cite news|first=Emily|last=Fancher|title=UPC pushes Baylands plan|url=http://www.brisbanebaylands.com/pdf/SFBizTimes_UPC%20revises%20Baylands%20plan_more%20housing082710.pdf|date=August 27, 2010 |newspaper=San Francisco Business Times |access-date=August 27, 2010 |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708094516/http://www.brisbanebaylands.com/pdf/SFBizTimes_UPC%20revises%20Baylands%20plan_more%20housing082710.pdf|archive-date=July 8, 2011 }} as well as a fifth, the Renewable Energy Alternative (REA) plan{{cite web |url=http://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/CREBLscopingletter12.pdf |title=Baylands NOP |author=Committee for Renewable Energy in the Baylands |date=5 November 2012 |publisher=City of Brisbane |access-date=23 July 2018}} put forth by Citizens for Renewable Energy on the Bay Lands (CREBL), which included land for a solar energy farm.

Civic leaders hoping to host the 2024 Summer Olympics in San Francisco made a proposal in 2014 which included the construction of a temporary stadium for $350 million at the Brisbane Baylands to host opening and closing ceremonies.{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Bay-Area-s-Olympic-dreams-focused-on-landfill-5905433.php |title=Bay Area's Olympic dreams focused on landfill near Candlestick |author=Nevius, C.W. |date=20 November 2014 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=23 July 2018}}{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-puts-in-chips-for-2024-Olympics-5905458.php |title=San Francisco puts in chips for 2024 Olympics |author=Coté, John |date=20 November 2014 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=26 July 2018}} The Brisbane stadium was proposed as an alternative to a never-built new stadium for the Raiders in Oakland.{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/4-U-S-cities-in-Redwood-City-to-make-case-to-5961037.php |title=USOC to bid on 2024 Olympics; S.F. in the running |author=Coté, John |date=16 December 2014 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=26 July 2018}}{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Inside-S-F-s-bid-for-2024-Olympic-Summer-Games-5967054.php |title=Inside S.F.'s bid for 2024 Olympic Summer Games |author=Coté, John |date=19 December 2014 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=26 July 2018}}

In 2016, the Brisbane Planning Commission recommended dropping both DSP alternatives.{{cite news |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/04/san-francisco-supervisors-bully-brisbane-with-annexation-threat/ |title=San Francisco supervisors 'bully' Brisbane with annexation threat |author=Kinney, Aaron |date=4 October 2016 |newspaper=San Jose Mercury News |access-date=23 July 2018}}{{cite news |url=https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/10/04/san-francisco-proposes-annexing-brisbane-to-accomodate-more-housing/ |title=Tensions Rise As San Francisco Proposes To Annex Brisbane, Build Homes |date=4 October 2016 |work=CBS affiliate KPIX 5 |access-date=23 July 2018}} Later, in September 2016, the Brisbane City Council indicated it preferred the CPP concept, which included a sustainability statement that "[t]here will be ample housing in the new developments planned across the border in San Francisco for those working in the Baylands who wish to live nearby", which drew criticism from officials in San Francisco and San Mateo County. However, the vote to endorse a specific concept was tabled and moved to 2017.{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Brisbane-postpones-vote-on-mega-development-9517143.php |title=Brisbane postpones vote on mega development |author=Nevius, C.W. |date=30 September 2016 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=23 July 2018}} In response, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors deliberated a resolution in October 2016 which, as originally written, directed San Francisco to investigate the feasibility of annexing Brisbane if housing was dropped from the Brisbane Baylands proposal.

Current residents and city leaders of Brisbane were resistant to the DSP concepts, believing that adding so many units of housing to the city would ruin its small-town character. The population of Brisbane in 2017 was estimated at 4,600. State politicians and organizations from outside Brisbane continued to express support for new housing, hoping to alleviate the local housing crisis.{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/In-Brisbane-a-battle-between-small-town-and-11740981.php |title=In Brisbane, a battle between small-town and housing advocates |author=Johnson, Lizzie |date=8 August 2017 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=23 July 2018}}{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/City-Under-Pressure-From-Advocates-Legislators-11740774.php |title=City Under Pressure From Advocates, Legislators To Approve Large Housing Project |agency=Bay City News Service |date=August 7, 2017 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=7 November 2019}}

The Brisbane City Council certified the EIR in July 2018, selecting a modified version of DSP with a reduced 2,200 homes, and moved the approval of the Brisbane Baylands to the November 2018 general election.{{cite news |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/20/brisbane-baylands-project-city-takes-big-step-toward-doubling-its-housing-stock/ |title=Proposal to double Brisbane's housing stock lands on ballot |author=Kendall, Marisa |date=20 July 2018 |newspaper=San Jose Mercury News |access-date=23 July 2018}}{{cite web |url=http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/MeasureJJ_FAQs_Final.pdf |title=Measure JJ Frequently Asked Questions |publisher=City of Brisbane |access-date=16 November 2018}} At the time, Brisbane Mayor Clarke Conway stated "It was always my hope we'd never put housing out there", a view echoed by several residents. On the other side, supporters of the development hoped the added residences would keep rents affordable.{{cite news |url=https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/24/17607340/baylands-housing-vote-city-council-general-plan |title=Baylands housing could take ten years |author=Brinklow, Adam |date=July 24, 2018 |work=Curbed San Francisco |access-date=7 November 2019}}

Measure JJ passed, amending the Brisbane General Plan to allow 1,800 to 2,200 residences and up to 7 million square feet of commercial development on the Brisbane Baylands.{{cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Brisbane,_California,_Measure_JJ,_Baylands_Commercial_and_Residential_Property_Development_(November_2018) |title=Brisbane, California, Measure JJ, Baylands Commercial and Residential Property Development |date=November 2018 |website=Ballotpedia |access-date=16 November 2018}} With the passage of Measure JJ, UPC can now submit a final development plan for city review.{{cite news |url=https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/brisbane-baylands-housing-project-narrowly-approved-by-voters/ |title=Brisbane Baylands housing project narrowly approved by voters |agency=Bay City News |author=McMenamin, Dan |date=November 7, 2018 |newspaper=San Francisco Examiner |access-date=7 November 2019}} Although the General Plan has been amended according to Measure JJ, actual construction for Brisbane Baylands buildings could start as late as 2028,{{cite news |url=https://sf.curbed.com/2018/12/12/18137559/brisbane-housing-election-measure-jj-landslide |title=Brisbane housing plan wins in landslide |author=Brinklow, Adam |date=December 12, 2018 |work=Curbed San Francisco |access-date=7 November 2019}} as more than four years would be required to develop and implement a required soil remediation plan before any basic infrastructure could be added.

{{Reflist|30em}}

• [http://www.bdisf.com]
• {{cite web |url=http://brisbaneca.org/baylands-information |title=Baylands Information |author= |date=2017 |publisher=City of Brisbane |access-date=17 April 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170418082531/http://brisbaneca.org/baylands-information |archive-date=18 April 2017 |url-status=dead }}
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20110708094525/http://www.brisbanebaylands.com/home.html Universal Paragon Corporation's Brisbane Baylands project page]
• [http://www.universalparagoncorp.com/ Universal Paragon Corporation home page]

{{San Francisco Bay watershed}}

Category:Planned communities in the United States

Category:Redeveloped ports and waterfronts in the United States