Baylands plan heads to vote

The decision marks the most significant step forward in more than a decade for the project proposed by Universal Paragon Corporation, as residents, officials and others have spent years deliberating over whether the site adjacent to the county’s northern border is suitable for development.

Even as they approved calling the Tuesday, Nov. 6, election, councilmembers acknowledged the critical opinions shared by many residents, inviting questions over whether the ballot initiative will ultimately be successful.

“Just because we are moving this forward to the ballot does not mean it will pass,” said Vice Mayor Madison Davis.

Under the council’s decision, voters will be asked to approve a general plan amendment and environmental report laying the groundwork for construction, as well as ballot language loosely defining the scale of allowable development. The proposed project is roughly twice the size of Brisbane, where there are currently 2,050 housing units and approximately 5.8 million square feet of commercial space.

Should the initiative pass, councilmembers will determine project specifics such as toxic soil remediation requirements, affordable housing limits, sustainability measures and other details through a subsequent development agreement and site specific plan.

Failure at the ballot box would invite more uncertainty, as officials acknowledge the mounting pressure placed on Brisbane to help build an adequate amount of housing to accommodate the regional imbalance of available jobs.

To date, the largest squeeze on Brisbane was posed last year by draft legislation from state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, aiming to push forward housing at the site. The bill was not formally introduced due to local officials’ willingness to consider the development proposal during a series of public hearings, which culminated at the most recent meeting.

While legislative attention seems to have shifted away from the Baylands in favor of granting Brisbane an opportunity to shape the project with developer negotiations and community dialogue, some remain wary that focus could return with voter denial of the initiative.

Tom McMurrow, a legislative development consultant for the city, was reticent to speculate over next steps following the project’s potential defeat in the fall. And while suggesting lawmakers may not be so swift or intense in attempting to force Brisbane’s hand on the matter as they were before, he left the door cracked for future attempted political coercion.

“I don’t think you’ll have a 2017 critical six or eight weeks,” he said, referencing the time period when a spotlight was shined brightest on housing at the Baylands. “But you will be looking at how these laws impact Brisbane.”

The laws to which he refers are those passed last year by the Legislature attempting to facilitate housing development throughout California, as well as others which are yet to be introduced.

For the part of some critical residents, they encouraged councilmembers to side firmly with their authority granted by local control rather than fold under force applied from outside Brisbane.

“I think this plan you are looking at is cutting your own throat. It’s like saying ‘we’ll cut our own throat instead of the state cutting it for us.’ I don’t agree with that at all,” said resident Tony Verreos.

Others, meanwhile, encouraged officials to move ahead with floating the ballot measure, as a means of safeguarding the community against the threat potentially posed by larger entities down the road.

“It is in the best interest of our city to approve this,” said former mayor Lori Liu.

Ultimately, her former fellow councilmembers agreed, as noted by Councilman Cliff Lentz in his justification for voting for placing the measure on the ballot.

“We are putting this forth because we think it is in the best interest of our city,” he said. “Not just now, but in the long term.”