Menlo council formally opposes Cargill proposal


This is a more comprehensive version of a story previously posted here.

Menlo Park's City Council took an unambiguous, unilateral stand Feb. 9 against a proposal by agribusiness giant Cargill to develop hundreds of acres of Redwood City salt ponds.

Council members in a 4-1 vote denounced the proposal to build a mini-city that would include 8,000 to 12,000 new residential units on the edge of the Bay just north of Menlo Park, saying that it cuts against a half-century of regional planning philosophy. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission designates the land as salt ponds; the council called for "full restoration" of the land.

Councilman John Boyle, who cast the dissenting vote, said he also has major reservations about the proposal.

But he dismissed the resolution as a "public position" that carried no legal weight, and could have damaging consequences. Passing it would weaken Menlo Park's ability to negotiate with Redwood City over revisions to the proposal, he argued.

"There will be lots of opportunities to shape this project still," he said. "We ought to be very clear about our reservations and our demands, but we should engage, rather than confront."

Council majority members disagreed, saying the resolution will not preclude the city from collaborating with Redwood City, and maintaining that they did not intend to slight the neighboring city. They said they wanted to make a clear statement about their views on developing the Bay, rather than let Cargill set the parameters of that debate.

The vote echoed council members' stance on the California high-speed rail project. A majority of council members supported the city joining a lawsuit against the agency overseeing that project, while also pursuing collaboration -- a stance Mr. Boyle argued was incongruous.

Making a parallel between the two issues, Mayor Rich Cline in an interview said: "I don't want to have a discussion on the subtleties of what kinds of shovels they'll use to build it. If this is the proposal, we have to reject it. Resoundingly, we have to reject it."

Rhetoric grew lofty in a number of impassioned speeches during the period for public comment, with several residents, environmental advocates, and politicians imploring the council to take a stand, and disparaging Cargill's proposal. With the debate centering on issues of leadership and environmental justice, council members weren't inclined to take up Mr. Boyle's call to examine the text of the resolution.

"When there's an opportunity to show leadership, it's incumbent upon us to do so," said Councilman Andy Cohen. "It is not an option to shrink from the task, and to wait for a later opportunity, which may never arrive."

Steve Schmidt, the former Menlo Park council member who drafted the resolution, wrote in an e-mail following the council's vote: "Menlo Park's leadership and action on this issue is a good first step that should be a model for action by other communities that value the Bay as an irreplaceable natural resource for their residents, not a development opportunity for a multinational corporation and their Arizona cohorts."

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Rose International Market reopening soon in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 11 comments | 5,290 views

Eyes and the End of Life: Why Spend Time With the Dying?
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 1,856 views

The HSR Decision
By Steve Levy | 8 comments | 1,161 views

Couples: Mirror, Mirror on the . . . Fight?!
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 872 views

What should Menlo Park’s priorities be?
By Dana Hendrickson | 1 comment | 552 views