A Cargill sequel

I honestly don’t think I have seen a complete film in either series — horror flicks aren’t for me — but I have a feeling the new incarnation of a development proposal for the 1,433-acre Cargill salt pond site will be eerily like the last one — though I wonder if it might have the added component of housing advocates.

When the Cargill plans for the site died in 2012 after years of contention I had a feeling it might return if the conditions changed — after all, there is money to be made with developing 2 square miles of Bayfront land. Seems like the conditions have changed. How one specific change occurred is the most recent topic of discussion — and that is the Environmental Protection Agency determining that the site is not subject to the Clean Water Act. Without getting into the history of that decision, it boils down to the fact that the property owners — recently rebranded as “Reimagine Saltworks” are dusting themselves off and getting ready to get back to business. A series of meetings are in the works and soon enough we will all get an idea of what might be proposed.

What was proposed last time in the “50/50 Balanced Plan” was 50 percent of the land reserved as permanent open space, public recreation and tidal marsh restoration and develop the remaining half into housing, schools, parks and retail and transit facilities. Up to 12,000 homes would have been built under this plan.

It is that last sentence that should raise the eyebrows of many pro-housing advocates throughout the Peninsula. It will be interesting to see where the burgeoning movement lands on this issue since it could open up a new front in an already established battle, which until this point has been primarily between a developer and environmentalists. Depending on how it goes, it could potentially create not only a large-scale public planning battle but an existential crisis for many on the Peninsula. Groups like Save the Bay were established because of previous large-scale filling of our identifying body of water and governmental agencies such as the Bay Conservation and Development Commission were founded to keep such development in check. And yet something like 12,000 housing units might sound mighty appealing to those who believe increasing supply will help solve what is becoming one of our primary issues here on the Peninsula — the jobs/housing imbalance.

To say the site is problematic is an understatement. And how the discussion goes from here will be interesting to say the least.

A little bit of background, if you are interested. Salt production in the Bay began in the early 1900s, grew substantially throughout the early and middle part of the century, and waned in the later part of the century until mostly ceased in the early part of this century. Around that time, 16,500 acres was sold to the government for a total of $243 million — with $100 million in cash and $143 million in tax credits. This property was initially part of that deal, but wasn’t. It was seen by some as a way for Cargill to make some money while other property would be restored to the Bay. The deal, announced by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, was heralded though there was some controversy that San Francisco and Oakland international airports saw the salt pond restoration as a source of mitigation money for runway expansions into the Bay. That never came to pass. Cargill had two iterations of its development proposal with the most recent scaled-back version already described — though there was some talk about an even more scaled-back plan that was never produced. All were ardently opposed by Save the Bay, and other environmental groups. We’ve learned even more about sea level rise in the past decade so that too should be a factor — especially when Bayfront communities like San Mateo and Foster City are spending millions to ensure they are safe in the years to come.

And here we are today. When it comes to discussion about development and housing, it has yet to intersect with true environmental concerns on such a scale as with this site. I’ve often wondered if and when the pro-housing crowd may turn to the Peninsula’s broad band of environmental protections and open space preservation as a cause of our housing crunch. Or if that will remain verboten, or perhaps a battle that cannot be won.

Either way, get ready for the sequel. Would it be wrong to wish for a happy ending with this one?

Jon Mays is the editor in chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on Twitter @jonmays.