Brisbane officials put off Baylands decision

Mayor Lori Liu declared at the meeting’s start that a decision would not be made in favor of waiting for state lawmakers to consider a variety of unidentified initiatives standing to affect the Baylands proposal.

The decision did not dissuade an impassioned debate between those viewing the project as a vehicle for improving the region’s inequitable distribution of jobs to homes and Brisbane residents seeking to preserve the status quo.

“I think we should continue to keep the character of Brisbane,” said resident Carolyn Parker, supporting the ongoing effort to fend off the encroachment of development.

“We are a little town. We are unique. There is no other place like Brisbane until we get far away from here,” she said, suggesting the small city’s defining charm would be lost by approving the 4,000 new homes and 7 million square feet of commercial space proposed by Universal Paragon Corporation.

Such an argument, and similar ones expressed by other residents, did not resonate with housing advocates though.

“Use that site for the highest and best use — and that is a lot of homes,” said Matt Regan, of the public policy advocacy organization the Bay Area Council, while sporting a green sticker also worn by many others in the audience simply declaring “build housing.”

The 660-acre site spanning the city’s northern slice of waterfront property abutting the west side of Highway 101 and the San Mateo County-San Francisco border has long been in the crosshairs of development advocates.

Citing the proximity to public transit through the city’s Caltrain station as well as the region’s wealth of lucrative employment opportunities, project supporters claim the property is a prime location for building new homes. Opponents disagree, suggesting the former industrial land is unfit and unsafe for residential development. Some residents fortified their resistance by saying that Brisbane should not be on the hook for offsetting the region’s jobs and housing imbalance.

“We did not create the housing crisis in the Bay Area and we should not be the solution to the entire Bay Area’s housing crisis,” said resident Karen Cunningham, while suggesting growth proponents take their fight up with San Francisco officials and others she believes should be held accountable for the housing affordability issues.

Meanwhile, representatives from the office state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, and Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, spoke at the meeting encouraging Brisbane officials to consider the merits of the project as a means of contributing to a regional problem.

“It is the right thing to do for this and future generations,” said Joan Dentler, a spokeswoman for Hill’s office.

Following a session of summer meetings designed to closely examine the project’s variety of economic and environmental impacts, councilmembers had set aside August as the month to work toward a decision. Some officials had suggested ultimately councilmembers may only pass an advisory resolution before putting the issue on a ballot measure to be ultimately decided by voters.

Under the council’s most recent decision though, the timeline for the project is no longer clear. Officials suggested the issue will likely not return before the end of the month, and further discussions could be swayed by decisions in Sacramento.

“We are waiting for new legislation to be analyzed before the council discusses or deliberates any land use plan,” said Liu.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105