During an oddly quiet meeting of the Brisbane City Council, the five-person board managed to intentionally (though slyly) reject housing for roughly 6,000 people on the Brisbane Baylands.
Along with a number of other housing advocates, I have been following the Brisbane Baylands proposal for years. The 684-acre site sitting directly south of San Francisco is prime for housing due to the currently operating Caltrain Station that sits in the middle of 4,400 proposed homes. So how exactly did the City Council’s outrageous actions go basically unnoticed? The answer is creative and effective (if you want to stop housing): order economic studies WAY below optimal efficiency for the land.
The Baylands project has been covered by a number of publications since then-Mayor Lentz declared that future employees of Brisbane can live in San Francisco. SFHAC member Universal Paragon Corporation has proposed a mixed-use development for the land which would feature 4,400 new homes. Originally the Council was not open to this proposal. However, Brisbane quickly became the poster child for the Bay Area’s housing shortage. “Let’s bring the jobs, forget the housing”. Their position was so illogical that rumors (perhaps more than that) of legislation from Sacramento was ready to remove all local control and the state was going to approve the mixed-use proposal after extensive environmental cleanup and analysis.
The City Council got the message loud and clear at the meeting on the 16th of January. Regardless of the local control desired by some council members and residents, it was clear the state was coming with a stick. “If we fight the state, can we win?” One council member asked. “I don’t like this. I ran on local control, but I don’t know what to do,” another commented. One by one, the council members labored about the decision they don’t want, but ultimately may have, to make. Approve housing on the Baylands or the state will. Then, an idea was proposed.
The Brisbane City Council requested staff to complete a jobs/housing economic feasibility analysis for a range of proposals between 500 homes and 2,200 homes. Effectively, they cut the proposal in half without a blink of an eye. Those 2,200 lost homes (the difference between the max studied and the proposal) will have a significant negative impact on the Bay Area’s affordability crisis. At the same time, the City of Brisbane can accurately say that they are studying the economic impact and are now considering housing on the Baylands. BUT, this is the exact type of action that has gotten the Bay Areas into this problem. 6,000 people will be looking elsewhere for a place to live if this action continues to go unnoticed.
The silver lining in all of this is the fact that 1) the state is continuing to pay more attention to what happens on a local level. If jurisdictions aren’t team players in regional urban planning, there should be consequences. 2) While we’re disappointed in the Council’s decision to downsize the proposal, the realization that housing is a strong possibility was not something I’d seen at previous meetings.
We don’t know how this story will end but one thing is for certain. Momentum from San Francisco to Sacramento is shifting in the direction of the pro-housing movement. This proposal will be best if the City of Brisbane plays a positive role in the planning and development. But if they choose not to, the state is ready to use a hammer.
Corey Smith is a community organizer for the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition.
Join us to celebrate the Beacon's first anniversary! There'll be food, drink, and great political gossip. RSVP to the Beacon Birthday Bash today!
