Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regional Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brisbane leaders push back after supervisors urge monitoring of Baylands development;Mayor calls annexation language 'bullying'
Summary
San Francisco supervisors and Brisbane city leaders traded strongly worded statements Oct. 4 after the board discussed a resolution urging close monitoring of the Brisbane Baylands draft environmental impact report and urging inclusion of workforce housing in any Baylands land‑use plan.
A resolution introduced and discussed Oct. 4 urged San Francisco agencies to closely monitor the proposed Brisbane Baylands development and encouraged Brisbane to adopt a land‑use plan that includes workforce housing. The item prompted a defensive response from Brisbane’s mayor and city manager, who described a line in the resolution about annexation as “bullying” and asked the board to remove the language.
Supervisor Katy Tang (and Supervisor Kim, who had been working with Brisbane leadership) discussed the item on the floor and Supervisor Kim said she would refer the matter to the Land Use Committee for further review and a hearing. Brisbane Mayor Cliff Lantz, City Manager Clay Holstein and the Brisbane City Council sent a letter to the board and city staff, and Lantz and Holstein spoke to the board at the Oct. 4 meeting. The letter urged the board to withdraw a proposed paragraph that the Brisbane officials characterized as seeking veto or annexation power over another city’s planning process; they described it as an inappropriate intrusion on Brisbane’s land‑use process.
Board response and next steps: Supervisors discussed concerns about regional coordination on a 684‑acre site and the need to ensure sustainable outcomes, but several supervisors said the resolution was not meant to “conquer” neighboring jurisdictions and that San Francisco–Brisbane coordination should be constructive. Supervisor Kim said she would refer the matter to the Land Use Committee (which handles planning and zoning matters) and bring the Brisbane interaction into a formal committee hearing so supervisors could evaluate the EIR, municipal impacts and housing options in a structured public forum.
Why it matters: The Baylands project is a large, brownfield redevelopment opportunity adjacent to Highway 101. A quarrel between neighboring governments over appropriate land uses, housing and environmental remediation raises the stakes because the site’s scale and remediation needs require regional coordination. Brisbane leaders argued the city has long pursued sustainability awards and is following CEQA and EIR processes; San Francisco supervisors said they want to ensure the region addresses housing and transportation implications.
Status: Supervisor Kim referred the item to committee for a formal hearing. Brisbane officials requested removal of annexation language; the board will consider the resolution through committee procedures.
