News

Saturday: Comment sought on Cargill project

Two "scoping sessions" -- set for Nov. 6 and Nov. 30 -- will provide visitors an opportunity for a close-up view of a proposal to build a community for up to 25,0000 people in Redwood City, where there are now only salt ponds and a salt-processing operation.

Visitors may comment in writing and talk about what's on display, said Redwood City spokesman Malcolm Smith. Opportunities for traditional public comment will come later, Mr. Smith said.

During a scoping session, the public is asked to identify areas of environmental impact to be included in an environmental impact study.

On Saturday, Nov. 6, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., an "informational scoping" meeting will focus on land use and housing. It will be held at the Veterans Memorial Senior Center, 1455 Madison Ave. in Redwood City

On Tuesday, Nov. 30, from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m., a scoping meeting will focus on water supply, wastewater and flooding. It will be held at the Sandpiper Community Center, 797 Redwood Shores Parkway in Redwood City.

Click here for details.

The development -- proposed by Minneapolis-based Cargill Salt and Arizona-based developer DMB -- would be built on land and salt flats east of U.S. 101, immediately south of Seaport Boulevard.

In addition to up to 12,000 homes, some 1 million square feet of commercial space would be built, plus parks and schools. Some wetlands would be restored.

Comments

Posted by Davena Gentry, a resident of another community
on Nov 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm

It's good that Redwood City is claiming to have an open and transparent review of the proposed Saltworks development however this headline is very misleading because the public will NOT be able to comment at these two meetings.
"Due to the more informal "open house" nature of these workshops, oral comments will not be accepted at the Open House meetings. Instead, community members have the opportunity to submit written scoping comments to be considered by the City in preparing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)." from Malcolm Smith Public Communications Manager City of Redwood City,

So go to learn more, get informed and be prepared to write letters!


Posted by David Boyce, Almanac staff writer
on Nov 5, 2010 at 5:10 pm

David Boyce is a registered user.

Thank you for your clarification, Ms. Gentry.

Malcolm Smith said in an interview a few minutes ago that the scoping sessions do not lend themselves to having people stand at a microphone and make oral comments for the record. These sessions are more like workshops in which visitors can wander around and discuss the proposal -- and make written comments on comment cards.

Opportunities for traditional public comment will come later, he said.


Posted by Richard Vaughan, a resident of another community
on Nov 23, 2010 at 1:53 pm

I am completely disappointed with the Redwood City leadership for letting this process get even this far. In my mind, building on the Bay is a non-starter. When the idea of percentages first came out, I was anticipating 80%-20% with 80% being restoration and 20% being play fields and parks. None of this completely insane mini-city stuff. What happened to Smart Growth? The issues are enormous: loss of wetlands habitat, inadequate water supply, lack of established transit hubs, the need to build dikes - the list goes on and on. Every neighboring community has lined up against this project. I would like to ask every person running for city council to state your position. No one did it last year. Are you for it or against it? If you are against it, how strong is your spine? Are you willing to work with the community to communicate effectively and get out the vote or sit back and have Cargill's hacks send out hit pieces on you. Like I said, "disappointed" is the gentlest term I can use.....


Posted by Jan, a resident of Menlo Park: University Heights
on Nov 26, 2010 at 11:14 pm

With the forecasts for rising ocean levels, it seems ludicrous to build where the first impacts of rising ocean levels will be felt. But who cares about that when there's money to be made today?


Posted by Bob, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Nov 28, 2010 at 12:11 am

"A "scoping session" -- set for Tuesday, Nov. 30 -- will provide visitors a close-up view of a proposal to build a community for up to 25,0000 people in Redwood City..."
Just a wee typo there Almanac - though even 25,000 new residents is 25,000 too many.

Thanks. Corrected.


Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 28, 2010 at 8:44 am

Absolutely nobody wants this except for our so-called representatives and the developers who will profit from it. Therefore, it is inevitable.


Posted by sdaf, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Nov 28, 2010 at 1:25 pm

build it, i wish menlo park has this kind of thing instead of being stuck in the 1950's


Posted by Anon, a resident of another community
on Nov 29, 2010 at 11:46 am

I believe the latest numbers show the projected population for the development to be 32,000 people.

At least - that's what it says in the Notice of Preparation. Page 68:

"Using City/County Population and Housing Estimates, which assumes an average household size of 2.67 people in Redwood City as of the year 2010, the Project would result in an increase in population of approximately 32,040 people. For comparative purposes, this population increase represents an approximately 30 percent increase over the current 2010 Redwood City population..."


Posted by Long time resident, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Nov 29, 2010 at 3:10 pm

This is an urban infill project near jobs and transportation. It is not the type of sprawl we have seen over the years with commuters coming to their jobs on the peninsula from places like Tracy. That makes the Cargill Project very green.

The cities in our area have a tremendous jobs/housing imbalance (more jobs than housing). This project could solve much of that problem. We also need the playing fields.

Considering that the current 'wetlands' are really dead salt ponds, the benefits of this project are obvious except to those that already have their comfortable homes near their jobs and don't want others in the neighborhood.


Posted by Anti-Cargill, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Nov 29, 2010 at 3:49 pm

This is just another example of the development-friendly Redwood City City Council having meetings that are required by the law, taking input from their concerned constituents, and then blindly going ahead and doing what they were going to do anyway. Will they ever learn? Will they ever listen? Perhaps being on the losing end of another lawsuit will teach them that they are out of step with what their city needs, with what their citizens want. Being forced by the courts to pay more legal bills defending their actions is getting expensive for these pro-Cargill elected officials!


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 29, 2010 at 6:14 pm

This is an "in-fill" project?!!!! Give me a break. In fill projects are typically no more than 10 units going into a plot that allows higher density. This project is NOTHING of the kind. This is a small city we're talking about here and if you don't think it will have HUGE impacts, you're nuts.


Posted by weapons of mass construction, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 30, 2010 at 12:09 am

"Long time resident"-How can you pretend that filling in the bay to create space to attract more over population makes "the Cargill project really very green"? Were you thinking of the color of money that attorneys will make when this project melts into sludge during the big earthquake that is overdue? The playing field space that you require will have to compete with with the very large green cemetery lawn planted over the drowned victims of this ill conceived boondog. This is as nutty as the HSR that dose not stop anywhere and dead ends in SF.
Now a small village of houseboats? Maybe


Posted by Curmudgeon, a resident of another community
on Dec 30, 2010 at 12:10 pm

At a time when thousands of people are *still* commuting into local jobs from as far away as Stockton, spewing who knows how much car exhaust and wasting precious natural resources (most notably Time, the most precious and finite resource any of us have) the myopia of a good many "environmentalists" is stupefying.

To say nothing of how many critters were displaced by development out in the remote San Joaquin Valley, rather than here in an already urbanized area.

In short, fill in the swamps, let another Foster City bloom, and give your children (and by extension your granchildren) a chance to live near you, rather than many miles away.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

David's Tea: now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 6 comments | 2,724 views

On Tour at Selective Schools: Chapman, La Verne, Redlands, Whittier
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,527 views

Universal Language
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 1,520 views

Anglo Menlo Park
By Paul Bendix | 0 comments | 524 views

Council election, and then some.
By Stuart Soffer | 1 comment | 293 views