.

Letter: Approve the Revised Saltworks Plan

San Mateo County business owner Tammie Pereira believes the Saltworks plan should have been approved.

To the Editor:  

We’ve waited six years to get a plan approved for the Saltworks and start building homes and parks we very much need. Now we have to wait even longer for to be done to placate people who don’t seem to “get” our problems.  

The revised plan won’t solve as many of those problems as the original plan. But it will go a long way toward getting us , and beefing up transit, building trails and restoring wetlands.  

The only thing that would be better than having the revised plan?

Having it approved – quickly and without another six years of outside interference.  

Thank you, 

Tammie Pereira

Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for our daily newsletter | Blog for us

Claire Felong May 10, 2012 at 02:44 PM
" But it will go a long way toward getting us the housing we need, and beefing up transit, building trails and restoring wetlands. " intones the author. The plan may have gotten us some upscale housing in the short term but the Saltworks plan totally failed in terms of transit mitigation and was highly questionable as to net long-term environmental impacts on flooding and carbon sink decreases. All the lovely transit ideals depended on our tax dollars to fund pedestrian overpasses and upgraded traffic circulation. DMB completely ignored the Woodside/101 traffic mess by saying their residents would clog up the Marsh & Whipple intersections, instead. A mini-city of 12-30 K would enter downtown across the inadequate Maple St bridge. SamTrans already has inadequate coverage of most city areas yet DMB presumed they would rise to the occasion with sufficient routes and schedules? DMB would not build the schools or fund them, they simply set aside land already designated as wetlands by both the state and US Govt. Redwood City already has 3 mixed-use projects in the pipeline on El Camino & downtown which you should be seeing very soon.
Reality Check May 10, 2012 at 05:27 PM
The problems Ms. Pereira cites are not going to be "solved" by any one project anyway ... and unless you're someone with a vested interest (financial or otherwise) interest in it, the so-called "Saltworks" proposal to fill the Bay is widely (and wisely!) not viewed as the best way to address any of them anyway. And speaking of housing, Ms. Pereira doesn't say what she thinks is wrong with the nearly 1,000 far more sustainable in-fill housing units already in Redwood City's pipeline today. Clearly there is no need to fill & pave our bays, oceans and increasingly-important remaining never-built upon natural open spaces around the periphery of our cities when there are seemingly endless infill and redevelopment housing project opportunities within them.
Karen May 11, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Another point that hasn't been discussed and should be of interest to Ms. Pereira and other business owners is what was said by Peter Calthorpe, the urban planner who designed the Salt Pond development for DMB. At a SPUR meeting, he said that after the 30-year development period has been completed, there would be NO NEED for anyone to leave the development for any reason [except their jobs?]. Therefore, the Redwood City downtown businesses would suffer, as the 30,000 to 32,000 Salt Pond residents would not go downtown, and people trying to enter downtown from 101 would not be able to exit through the increased traffic that will be be astronomically worse than it is already. If I were a business person, I would much prefer the development in accord with the well-thought, approved plan for a vital downtown in Redwood City, as expressed by the majority of the residents.

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 »