.

New Spinoff Company to Manage Saltworks Project

DMB representatives say the transition will be seamless.

A new company will be in charge of managing the 1,426-acre Cargill Saltworks development proposal, developer DMB Associates, Inc., announced Monday. Arizona-based DMB Associates has decided to splinter its growing Pacific Division into a new company, DMB Pacific Ventures, which will be headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area.

DMB Pacific Ventures will manage the proposed Saltworks project just as DMB Associates had done and that nothing will change in the day-to-day management, a spokesperson said.

“The process from the beginning has been very local and rightfully so,” said spokesperson Jay Reed. “This project requires much community input.”

Because the company identified Saltworks as the company’s “biggest long-term opportunity,” DMB has had an office on Seaport Boulevard throughout the application process.

“Given the scale of DMB Pacific projects, the extraordinary places in which they occur and the nature of the accords on which they are based, it is important to us that our community partners and stakeholders understand that this transition is under way,” said Mark Kehke, the DMB Associates Pacific Division chief operating officer who will accept the same position in the new company, in a statement. “But what won’t change are our commitments, our dedication to quality and the people responsible for them.”

Though DMB Associates has had several projects in California for the past two decades, the company said it saw several more market opportunities in California. With California’s emphasis on future growth along transit lines and housing closer to jobs, focusing on The Golden State was an “organic move,” the spokesperson said.

This re-organization has been in the works throughout 2011.

When large corporation, DMB Associates came into town in June 2006 with its proposal to build on the Cargill Saltworks site, many residents were highly skeptical and even resistant to the company’s dedication to Redwood City.

“Do Cargill and DMB plan to stick around to make sure that what they have promised to build will actually be built?” asked Patch blogger Marisuita. “What incentive will they have to stay in Redwood City rather than move on to their next lucrative project?”

Reed pointed out that Cargill Inc., who owns the land, has been “an active player philanthropically since the late 70s.”

"And [DMB's Senior Vice President] John Bruno has been a life-long Bay Area resident," he added.

Editor's Note: The lede was altered to clarify that DMB Associates adn DMB Pacific Ventures are two separate companies, but have the same name association.

For more news about Redwood City and surrounding areas, including unincorporated San Mateo County, follow us on Twitter and "like" us on Facebook.

Gene Firpo January 25, 2012 at 06:01 AM
Hey Lou, Money buys big toys. Save the Bay, Save the Dams. Yes it's about money.
Paul Jones January 25, 2012 at 09:32 PM
OK. Cargill will turn it over to the resident of Redwood City. Free of charge. On the condition that it be restored to wetlands. Save the Bay estimates the cost of future project, not including Saltworks, at $1.4 BILLION. How much would it cost to restore the Saltworks, bearing in mind that you need to plan for sea level rise AND flood mitigation. Meaning that you have to build new levees, estimated to cost $8M per mile, and flood mitigation measures estimated to cost in the neighborhood of several millions more. So, how much Redwood City Homeowners are you willing to pay? $20/year? $40/year? And for how long?
Lou Covey, The Local Motive January 25, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Better you ask those questions, Paul. I just get snotty, superficial replies ;)
Lou Covey, The Local Motive January 25, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Wait. I did find this in the Save the Bay site. "Save The Bay commissioned this report by SCI Consulting to advise the newly-created Restoration Authority on dedicated funding streams it might pursue and administer. "SCI recommends a blended approach with a parcel tax at its center, based on the conclusion that a parcel tax can raise the most money with the greatest flexibility in uses of the funds and the least legal or political uncertainty. Two-thirds voter approval would be needed; a 2006 poll showed 83% of voters willing to pay $10 annually for wetland restoration and conservation. "The report offers three parcel tax scenarios ($4, $8 and $15 annually) and assesses the potential revenues across the Bay Area counties’ combined 1.74 million taxable parcels. Potential revenues range from $7.0 million to $39.2 million. "Even at the high end, a parcel tax would not fully close the long-term restoration funding gap. SCI recommends supplemental funding raised through a combination of future state bonds; various user, regulatory and development impact fees; and private gifts and grants." This was not for Redwood City but the nine Bay Area Counties. So imposing a Redwood City tax would not come near meeting the cost of the project.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive January 26, 2012 at 02:16 AM
Right with you on that one Karen. When would you like to get together and look at my books? I've had an open offer for anyone who questions my motives to come look at them. I've also asked Stacie to do an investigation on me.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »