Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Debate over the future of salt ponds near Bayfront Park
Cargill and Redwood City start planning future uses for 1,433 acres of ponds when salt production ends

by Marion Softky

Standing on the summit of Bayfront Park — formerly the Marsh Road dump — you can see the present, past and future of San Francisco Bay.

Toward the Bay lies Greco Island, a remnant of tidal marsh that still nurtures fish and wildlife.

Toward the Dumbarton Bridge are salt ponds, which are now part of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge; they will eventually be restored to tidal marsh and managed ponds as part of a massive salt pond restoration project in the South Bay.

But toward Redwood City lies a big question mark. As Cargill winds down salt production on its 1,433 acres of salt ponds, what uses of land and water will replace salt harvesting, which has been going on there for close to 100 years?

Cargill is closing down its Redwood City salt operation because it is no longer profitable, said Jill Singleton, a consultant to Cargill.

Since the 1940s, Cargill has been shipping raw, unprocessed salt by barge and ship to the paper industry in the Pacific Northwest and to Japan. "It's a low-margin operation, and the market changed," she said.

The next year promises a contentious public debate about the future of this key bay-front property, which is in Redwood City and under its jurisdiction, but shares a bay-front border with Menlo Park.

Possibilities range from all kinds of urban development — think Foster City and Redwood Shores — to tidal marsh and open space, or some combination of uses. Different groups have vastly different visions.

Cargill is taking the initiative to try to devise a plan that will balance interests and fly politically. On June 20, it launched a "community outreach process to request public input on future plans for the land" — which is now under water.

In a letter to more than 30,000 households in Redwood City, Cargill Land Manager Paul Shepherd wrote, "We are reaching out to every resident of Redwood City and would like to invite you to participate in the process by providing us with your initial thoughts on the future uses of this industrial site."

Meanwhile, Redwood City is in the process of revising its general plan and zoning. Hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council are expected in September and October, said Principal Planner Tom Passanisi.

The site of what Cargill calls its "Redwood City Industrial Salt Works" bears a general plan designation of "Urban Preserve," Mr. Passanisi said. It is zoned "Tidal Plain" for salt harvesting and open space.

"We are looking at changing it to something else," he said. "The staff is thinking to keep it open space."

Clashing views

Cargill faces a tough challenge in devising a plan that will allow major development of the salt ponds and get past the regulators and opponents.

While Redwood City has a history of supporting development — Redwood Shores, for example — its last two major bay-front projects were overturned by voters in referendums.

Friends of Redwood City (FORWC), led by Ralph Nobles, now a San Mateo County planning commissioner, helped defeat a major development of Bair Island in 1982 and Marina Shores near Pete's Harbor in 2004. Bair Island is now being restored to tidal action as part of the federal wildlife refuge.

"I want to see (the area) returned to the wetlands it was taken from," Mr. Nobles told the Almanac. "It was part of the Bay, and until very recent times, it was tidal.

"Wetlands act as the lungs and the food source for everything that lives in the Bay."

Cargill is compiling responses to its June letter, said John Bruno of DMB Associates, a real estate company in Scottsdale, Arizona, that is conducting the outreach program for Cargill.

"I anticipate a long, involved process," Mr. Bruno said. "It will take a couple of years to wind down salt making."

Besides the letter, the outreach program will include meetings and workshops, and contact with elected officials and interest groups, Mr. Bruno said. "It is a unique opportunity to address the needs and concerns of the community."

Mr. Passanisi emphasized that the forum where decisions are made will be the public hearings held by the Redwood City Planning Commission and City Council. "That's the forum that's open to the public," he said.

Other factors

Whatever plan emerges from Redwood City will still require a permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), a state agency that controls uses of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline.

Deputy Director Steve McAdam said Cargill and Redwood City need to develop a comprehensive plan that would meet the objectives laid out in BCDC's Bay Plan. "The state's interest is in preserving water surface, turning it into wildlife habitat, and providing public access," he said.

Another factor that could affect Cargill's plans is a proposal for an extension of the Bayfront Expressway to connect Highway 84 from Marsh Road to Seaport Boulevard and Woodside Road. The extension would run across Cargill's lands.

This project is on a list that could receive funds from San Mateo County's half-cent transportation sales tax. For the moment, the extension has no active sponsor, but that could change, said Supervisor Rich Gordon, who serves both on BCDC and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, which doles out the sales tax.

"If someone requests it (the extension), funds could become available," Mr. Gordon said. "It's messy."

INFORMATION

There's a lot more information on salt and Cargill, and the Redwood City proposal on the Web. Among the sites:

• Redwood City Industrial Saltworks: rcsaltworks.com

• Cargill: cargill.com/sfbay

• South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project: southbayrestoration.org

• Friends of Redwood City: forwc.org