News

Woodside weighs in on Cargill project

Life is unfolding as usual for the avocets, black legged stilts and brine shrimp that inhabit parts of the 1,486 acres of salt flats off Redwood City.

Unfolding onshore are talks about the proposal by Minneapolis-based Cargill Salt and an Arizona-based developer to use this land for up to 12,000 homes, 1 million square feet of commercial space, and some 800 acres as wetlands and outdoor recreational space.

The Woodside Town Council received a summary update on the project at its Oct. 26 meeting. As planned, the project could dramatically affect traffic in and around Woodside. Effects on air quality and water supply are also concerns.

Two "scoping" sessions open to public comment are planned for Nov. 6 and 30 in Redwood City. Read more.

The Woodside council plans to submit formal comments ahead of the Feb. 28, 2011, deadline.

The Woodside council also heard from the public.

Every acre of restored marshland sequesters 1,900 pounds of greenhouse gases, the equivalent of 2,300 vehicle miles, said resident Elke Muller, adding that the proposal to import fresh water from Kern County for this development is "fanciful."

Resident Becky Stirn, a self-described advocate for business and development, said she opposes this project and that Woodside should, too. "I think leadership is very important and I think Woodside is right for the leadership," she said.

Ms. Stirn said the project developers are trying to redefine the salt flats as "solar collectors" to avoid oversight by outside agencies.

David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay, which opposes the project, said the developers have called the site industrial, a nice piece of dirt and "a factory without a roof."

No one from the project management was available to comment, but the "factory" wording appears in the minutes of a November 2006 meeting of the Redwood City Planning Commission, as do references to the project as the "Redwood City Industrial Saltworks."

The matter is far from decided. "We don't have a position, favorable or unfavorable, on the merits of this project," commission spokesman Malcolm Smith told The Almanac. "We're really trying to keep this as neutral as possible."

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by J. Kiel
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Nov 6, 2010 at 9:39 am

We should not allow more development in our salt baylands. We have the opportunity now to preserve and protect this habitate for ourselves and future generations. Huge development or healthier environment & wildlife habitat? Whichever you choose will be here forever.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


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

Grab a Bowl of Heaven soon in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,917 views

Don't fund the rape culture at my alma mater
By Jessica T | 36 comments | 2,587 views

Quick Check List for UC Applications
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,996 views

Palo Alto and Bay Area Election Facts and Thoughts on the Implications
By Steve Levy | 18 comments | 1,527 views

“I live near Sunset”
By Stuart Soffer | 5 comments | 751 views