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.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle

on Jun 4, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


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

Mademoiselle Colette opens second location in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 5,173 views

I AM THE GOD OF HELL FIRE AND I BRING YOU
By Laura Stec | 16 comments | 1,233 views

Couples: Initiators and Implementors
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 660 views

Are We Really Up To This?
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 468 views

Don't be a ghost
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 436 views