Brisbane Baylands development

The Brisbane Baylands is a 660-acre (270 ha) parcel of land in Brisbane, just south of the San Francisco border.[1] There have been several proposals to develop the site, which was previously used as a railyard and a municipal landfill; historical uses have led to contaminated soil, polluted stormwater runoff, and potential buried toxic waste. None of the present proposals have been approved by Brisbane's city council.

Brisbane Baylands
Project
DeveloperUniversal Paragon Corporation
Websitebrisbanebaylands.com
Location
Brisbane Baylands development
Coordinates: 37.707°N 122.404°W / 37.707; -122.404
LocationBrisbane, California
Brisbane Baylands
Brisbane Baylands (San Francisco)

The approximately triangular site is oriented primarily north–south and is bounded by Bayshore Boulevard to the west, the Bayshore Freeway to the east, and the San Francisco–San Mateo County line to the north; it includes Brisbane Lagoon as the southernmost extent, although no development is planned for the lagoon. The primary road through the site is Tunnel Avenue, running north–south. Commuter rail service is provided by Caltrain through the middle of the site, parallel to Tunnel and U.S. 101; the Muni Metro T Third line provides light rail service to San Francisco from the northwest border of the site.

Historical uses

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.[2]

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.[3]

Brisbane Baylands concept plans

The Brisbane Baylands site is owned by Universal Paragon Corporation (UPC).[1][4] The site is being planned for significant regional transportation improvements as analyzed in the Bi-County Transportation Study,[5] including a multi-modal transit station at the 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.[6] 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[1] and updated significantly in 2011.[7] Contemporaneously, the City of Brisbane began developing an alternative in 2009 with input from residents, designated the Community Proposed Plan (CPP).[8] The group called the Committee for Renewable Energy in the Baylands (CREBL) advanced another alternative in 2006, designated the Renewable Energy Alternative (REA).[9][10]

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.[11]

Summary of Concept Plans[11][12][13][14]
  Developer-Sponsored Plan Developer-Sponsored Plan, Entertainment Variant Community Proposed Plan Community Proposed Plan, Recology Expansion Variant Renewable Energy Alternative
(DSP) (DSP-V) (CPP) (CPP-V) (REA)
Area[lower-alpha 1]Overall 684 acres (277 ha)
excludes 44.2-acre (17.9 ha) Recology site[lower-alpha 2] includes 44.2-acre (17.9 ha) Recology site[lower-alpha 2][lower-alpha 3]
Renewable energy generation[lower-alpha 4] 25 acres (10 ha) unspecified 141 acres (57 ha)
New residences 4,434 none
5,150,400 sq ft (478,490 m2) total —
New developments Total area[lower-alpha 5] 12,238,800 sq ft (1,137,020 m2) 12,191,900 sq ft (1,132,660 m2) 8,145,100 sq ft (756,700 m2) 8,215,100 sq ft (763,210 m2) 1,982,200 sq ft (184,150 m2)
Hotels & Conference 261,100 sq ft (24,260 m2)
(369 rooms)		 586,800 sq ft (54,520 m2)
(719 rooms)		 1,392,300 sq ft (129,350 m2)
(1990 rooms)		 1,056,100 sq ft (98,110 m2)
(1500 rooms)		 —
Mixed[lower-alpha 6] 566,300 sq ft (52,610 m2) 283,400 sq ft (26,330 m2) 2,209,500 sq ft (205,270 m2) 173,800 sq ft (16,150 m2)
R&D only 3,328,300 sq ft (309,210 m2) 2,599,200 sq ft (241,470 m2) 2,007,000 sq ft (186,500 m2) 1,672,200 sq ft (155,350 m2) 654,900 sq ft (60,840 m2)
Office[lower-alpha 7] 2,762,000 sq ft (256,600 m2)[lower-alpha 8] 2,363,100 sq ft (219,540 m2)[lower-alpha 8] 992,700 sq ft (92,220 m2) —
Entertainment[lower-alpha 9] 28,200 sq ft (2,620 m2) 1,066,500 sq ft (99,080 m2)[lower-alpha 10] 1,074,500 sq ft (99,820 m2) [lower-alpha 11]
Industrial 142,500 sq ft (13,240 m2) 469,100 sq ft (43,580 m2) 1,220,100 sq ft (113,350 m2) 1,153,500 sq ft (107,160 m2)
Open space 169.7 acres (68.7 ha) 330 acres (130 ha)
Lagoon area 135.6 acres (54.9 ha)
Annual estimates[16][17] Revenue $16,720,000 $18,090,000 $17,550,000 $15,970,000 not analyzed
Expenditures $14,550,000 $14,580,000 $7,840,000 $7,600,000
Notes
  1. Area within city limits of Brisbane only
  2. Recology site extends partly into San Francisco
  3. Under CPP-V, Recology site would expand to 65.5 acres (26.5 ha)
  4. Includes area specifically set aside for renewable energy generation; does not include rooftop solar.[15]
  5. Includes new structures, residences, and streets/infrastructure
  6. Retail, mixed commercial, office, and research and development uses
  7. Includes institutional uses
  8. Includes 110,800 sq ft (10,290 m2) school
  9. Includes civic and cultural uses
  10. Compared to DSP, would include entertainment options including all of:
    • 17,000-20,000 seat sports arena
    • 5,500 seat concert theater
    • multi-screen cinema
    • conference/ exhibition space
    • additional hotel rooms
    instead of retail & office spaces in northeast portion
  11. Not specified
Brisbane Baylands key locations
1
Kinder Morgan tank farm (not included in development)
2
Bayshore Roundhouse
3
Recology San Francisco Transfer Station
4
Bayshore 
5
Sunnydale 
6
Arleta 

Developer-Sponsored Plan (DSP)

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, 12,500,000 square feet (1,160,000 m2) of R&D, 1.5 million of office, 64,000 feet (20,000 m) of civic space, 287,000 square feet (26,700 m2) of retail, 4,434 housing units, a high school, transit/roadway improvements, 25-acre solar farm and nearly 200 acres of open space.[18] Housing would be limited to the land previously used as the railyard.

Community Proposed Plan (CPP)

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.[8][19]

Project timeline

Draft plans

UPC originally submitted a draft plan to the City in 2005.[1] 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.[20]

In 2010, UPC revised the plan and submitted an updated Baylands Specific Plan[21] and Appendix.[4][22]

In Feb 2011, UPC submitted the draft Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan and associated Infrastructure Master Plan.[7] The project is projected to create 15,000 – 20,000 permanent jobs and would be built over a 30-year schedule.

Environmental Impact Reports

The Baylands is the subject of an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for and released by the City of Brisbane on June 11, 2013.[12] 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).[11] 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".[23]: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.[24]:4.F-19[25]

In addition to the two Concept Plans proposed by UPC (DSP and DSP-V), the EIR analyzes the two Community Proposed Plans[8] which the Brisbane City Council approved for study in July 2009,[12][26] as well as a fifth, the Renewable Energy Alternative (REA) plan[9] put forth by Citizens for Renewable Energy on the Bay Lands (CREBL), which included land for a solar energy farm.[13]

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.[27][28] The Brisbane stadium was proposed as an alternative to a never-built new stadium for the Raiders in Oakland.[29][30]

Potential annexation

In 2016, the Brisbane Planning Commission recommended dropping both DSP alternatives.[31][32] 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.[33] 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.[31][32]

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.[34][35]

2018 election

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.[36][37] 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.[38]

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.[39] With the passage of Measure JJ, UPC can now submit a final development plan for city review.[40] Although the General Plan has been amended according to Measure JJ, actual construction for Brisbane Baylands buildings could start as late as 2028,[41] as more than four years would be required to develop and implement a required soil remediation plan before any basic infrastructure could be added.[38]

References
  1. Torassa, Ulysses (October 28, 2004). "Lofty plans for former landfill". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved October 28, 2004.
  2. "Bayshore Roundhouse: Part One". San Francisco Trains. Retrieved 17 April 2017.
  3. Carlsson, Chris. "San Francisco's Trash". FoundSF. Retrieved 17 April 2017.
  4. Dineen, J.K. (May 27, 2010). "4,500 homes proposed for Brisbane's Baylands". San Francisco Business Times. Retrieved May 27, 2010.
  5. Bi-County Transportation Study (Report). San Francisco County Transportation Authority. March 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  6. Wildermuth, John (28 April 2014). "Bayshore Station envisioned as vibrant transit hub". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  7. "Specific Plan and Infrastructure Plan". City of Brisbane, California. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  8. "Baylands Community Alternative" (PDF). City of Brisbane, California. 20 July 2009. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  9. Committee for Renewable Energy in the Baylands (5 November 2012). "Baylands NOP" (PDF). City of Brisbane. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  10. Committee for Renewal [sic] Energy in the Baylands. "Alternative Energy Plan for the Baylands" (PDF). City of Brisbane. Retrieved 23 July 2018.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. "3. Project Description". Brisbane Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDF) (Report). City of Brisbane, California. June 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  12. ESA Associates (June 2013). Baylands Draft EIR (Report). City of Brisbane, California. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  13. "EIR Alternatives". City of Brisbane, California. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  14. "Proposed development for Brisbane Baylands Project site buildable area" (PDF). City of Brisbane. 2012. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  15. Salasovich, James; Geiger, Jesse; Healey, Victoria; Mosey, Gail (April 2013). Feasibility Study of Economics and Performance of Solar Photovoltaics at the Brisbane Baylands Brownfield Site in Brisbane, California (PDF) (Report). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  16. Dillon, Liam (2017-07-28). "A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 sorely needed homes. Here's why it won't happen". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2017-09-01. Retrieved 2018-06-16.
  17. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (March 2016). "Preliminary Assessment of Fiscal Impacts: Brisbane Baylands" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-08-22. Retrieved 2018-06-16.
  18. Fancher, Emily (August 28, 2009). "Baylands debate centers on housing, sustainability" (PDF). San Francisco Business Times. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 8, 2011. Retrieved August 28, 2009.
  19. "Baylands Planning Commission Hearings". City of Brisbane, California. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  20. Temple, James (13 June 2008). "Old Schlage Lock factory in S.F. finally sold". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  21. "Executive Summary" (PDF). City of Brisbane, California. October 2010.
  22. "Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Appendix" (PDF). City of Brisbane, California. October 2010. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  23. "4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures; 4K. Population and Housing". Brisbane Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDF) (Report). City of Brisbane, California. June 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  24. "4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures; 4F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Brisbane Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDF) (Report). City of Brisbane, California. June 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  25. "4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures; 4N. Traffic and Circulation". Brisbane Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDF) (Report). City of Brisbane, California. June 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  26. Fancher, Emily (August 27, 2010). "UPC pushes Baylands plan" (PDF). San Francisco Business Times. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 8, 2011. Retrieved August 27, 2010.
  27. Nevius, C.W. (20 November 2014). "Bay Area's Olympic dreams focused on landfill near Candlestick". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  28. Coté, John (20 November 2014). "San Francisco puts in chips for 2024 Olympics". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 26 July 2018.
  29. Coté, John (16 December 2014). "USOC to bid on 2024 Olympics; S.F. in the running". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 26 July 2018.
  30. Coté, John (19 December 2014). "Inside S.F.'s bid for 2024 Olympic Summer Games". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 26 July 2018.
  31. Kinney, Aaron (4 October 2016). "San Francisco supervisors 'bully' Brisbane with annexation threat". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  32. "Tensions Rise As San Francisco Proposes To Annex Brisbane, Build Homes". CBS affiliate KPIX 5. 4 October 2016. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  33. Nevius, C.W. (30 September 2016). "Brisbane postpones vote on mega development". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  34. Johnson, Lizzie (8 August 2017). "In Brisbane, a battle between small-town and housing advocates". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  35. "City Under Pressure From Advocates, Legislators To Approve Large Housing Project". San Francisco Chronicle. Bay City News Service. August 7, 2017. Retrieved 7 November 2019.
  36. Kendall, Marisa (20 July 2018). "Proposal to double Brisbane's housing stock lands on ballot". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  37. "Measure JJ Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). City of Brisbane. Retrieved 16 November 2018.
  38. Brinklow, Adam (July 24, 2018). "Baylands housing could take ten years". Curbed San Francisco. Retrieved 7 November 2019.
  39. "Brisbane, California, Measure JJ, Baylands Commercial and Residential Property Development". Ballotpedia. November 2018. Retrieved 16 November 2018.
  40. McMenamin, Dan (November 7, 2018). "Brisbane Baylands housing project narrowly approved by voters". San Francisco Examiner. Bay City News. Retrieved 7 November 2019.
  41. Brinklow, Adam (December 12, 2018). "Brisbane housing plan wins in landslide". Curbed San Francisco. Retrieved 7 November 2019.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.