Brisbane
Overview
4756
$
137583
28
Housing Element is In Compliance
Housing Element is Out of Compliance
Good Progress
Making Slow Progress
Housing Targets
2022
-
2030
State Statutes
Builder’s Remedy
SB 423
Conditions in
San Mateo County
How does
Brisbane
compare to its neighboring cities?
Join the Fun!
San Mateo County
's Volunteers
Upcoming Opportunities
Stop by Drinks & Agendas
Watchdog Reports
Brisbane
's Reports
The rezoning will be accomplished by adoption of the Baylands Specific Plan. The City is preparing a Draft EIR for the project which we anticipate publishing in late 2024/early 2025.
San Carlos has also adopted objective standards and worked on the permit process. So they have:
- Completed rezoning
- Completed object design standards
- Improved the permit process
- Has approved some significant multi-unit projects
- Has transferred ownership of property from a defunct developer to San Mateo County in prep for for future housing
Which is pretty good for a town that wants to retain its charm and character.
Brisbane got certified. Developer had leverage with HCD and did not quite use it. Advise developers to lobby cities and HCD on housing elements!
County grand jury has recently found that ADU-heavy housing-element strategies are bad. TBD whether the grand jury finding will matter to HCD.
Three general policy changes were discussed:
- Rezoning: previous draft relied on rezoning primarily in the North Fair Oaks to meet the county's RHNA affordable quota. Housing advocates provided public comment urging the board to expand rezoning to also include higher opportunity neigborhoods. Supervisor started the conversation in firm support for this effort, and Pine and Corzo backed him up. Mueller suggested the Board not weigh in on the issues and essentially let the planning department work it out, which was met with criticism
- Tenant protections: Corzo and Pine have been working on a tenant protection ordinance to strengthen just cause standards and explore options of a rental registry, etc. Advocates called on the county to incorporate these updates into the housing element. The county attorney provided clarification to the board that the housing element would have supremacy over an ordinance, and any future ordinance would need to comply with the element. The board generally agreed that since the ordinance is already in the works, there was no need to further slow down the element drafting process by incorporating tenant protections
Housing for special needs: Board discussed a number of options that would strengthen the element's language regarding supportive/accessible housing. One such revision they seemed in favor of regarding lowering minimum parking requirements for housing for disabled individuals. The board agreed that that policy "made sense."
The Board ultimately pushed final decisions on these measures to the next meeting. The Board also discussed how the supervisors intended to allocate their Measure K money, but I didn't stick around for that.
It was a general public study session where feedback was provided to support more affordable housing in our city in support of state laws
William Gibson - presented on (reduced) constraints, concerns from community re housing, HE goals, # of pipeline projects and ADUS. Commissioner comments. Inappropriate parcels should be identified directly to him.
Comments by Green Foothills, community members, including advocate for senior housing and advocates against sprawl. Commenters focused on the numbers being high and incorrect assumptions (e.g. ADUs = housing and all vacant SFH lots will be built out).
Commission voted to submit as-is to the Board of Supervisors (did not respond to any of the public comments).