.

Developer Promises More ‘Confined’ Development

Opposition groups don’t want any future development on the Saltworks site, while others pushed for an advisory vote to gauge public opinion.

Many residents were dissatisfied with the developer’s plan to build a more contained development than the original proposal and asked the city council Monday night to deny any future application.

On Thursday, the developer of the proposed Cargill Saltworks project withdrew its current application before the city council could vote on . Many opponents saw this as a “victory” and thanked the council and for its recommendation.   

Developer DMB Pacific Ventures’ Vice President John Bruno described the new application that would contain approximately half the development acreage of the original application.

“Our revision will be a significant departure confined to a smaller foot print while preserving or augmenting public benefits such as affordable housing, new parks and hiking trails, and opportunity for environmental protection and restoration,” said DMB Pacific Ventures Vice President John Bruno.

In the formal letter to the city withdrawing the application, he added that the development would be contained within the portion of 542 acres designated “Urban Reserve” under the city’s General Plan, or blueprint.

However, members of opposition groups were still vehemently against any future development.

“This is an unmitigated environmental disaster,” said resident Carolyn Cheney. “Don’t lead them on that a revised proposal will be acceptable to us, it will never be acceptable to many people. Just say no.”

Nancy Arbuckle, a member of Redwood City Neighbors United, the project, addressed the council’s rationale that the project had been incredibly divisive in the community.

She added, “As residents learn of what the impacts would be, we are united in our opposition: the opposition between us and DMB/Cargill on one side. And we will tell DMB/Cargill in every way we know how that we don’t want this.”

Resident Alice Kaufman of the environmental organization, Committee for Green Foothills, explained, “This site has to first be transformed to dry land for people to work or live on it. Plus we don’t have to put buildings everywhere we can. There can be redevelopment of existing parcels to meet the Association of Bay Area Governments’ projected housing needs.”

Stephen Knight, the political director of Save the Bay, suggested adding “denial of application” to the number of options for the land.

However, Councilmember Barbara Pierce said she wouldn’t commit to any such denial.

“I’m not going to out of hand dismiss anything because the owners have the right to their land,” she said.

Other residents suggested an advisory vote to truly understand if the public wants no development at all.

“Rather than dealing with cameras, buttons, signs and accusing the council of malfeasance, we should ask if development should be prohibited altogether on the facility,” said resident Lou Covey.

However, Councilmember Jeff Ira said he would not be in favor of an advisory vote.

“I couldn’t answer ‘do I want any development?’ because I’d answer ‘it depends,’” Councilmember Jeff Ira said.

Resident Foster Kinney had the same “wait and see” attitude stating that he would like to see the project’s full environmental impact report before forming an opinion on the project.

 

What to Do While Waiting

In the meantime, have been circling asking the public’s opinions about a potential development on the Saltworks project, Councilmember Ian Bain noted. He cautioned that a question about a potential tax for restoration has not been a discussion amongst the council or staff.

“I also want to make sure that options aren’t either development or restoration,” Bain said. “We can also leave the land just as it is. This doesn’t mean that restoration can’t take place in the future.”

He also suggested adding and labeling the Saltworks area in the General Plan to “provide some clarity for the developer on where to go from here.” The General Plan initially didn’t include this area for land designation over concerns that this area would “hijack the rest of the plan,” Bain added.

Councilmember John Seybert added, “I hope [this project] stays in the rear view mirror, along with childish attacks.”

Councilmember Jeff Ira explained that the city could now focus all its energy on current projects.

“There are so many fun things going on, with projects in Escrow, some that will be in Escrow,” he said. “There are so many things we’re looking forward to fulfilling.”

 

Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | | Blog for us

Lou Covey, The Local Motive May 08, 2012 at 02:12 PM
I note that if all the residential development under consideration for downtown, none of it includes affordable housing. Just luxury apartments and hotels.
Eggbert May 08, 2012 at 04:15 PM
Unless there's a Redwood City suburb named "Escrow", the word is not capitalized.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive May 08, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Eggie, maybe you should go into journalism since you seem to believe that you can write 2000 words of absolutely perfect prose at 6 a.m. after a three-hour council meeting and a 10-hour day previous.
Ralph Garcia May 08, 2012 at 05:01 PM
It's funny how people want affortable housing for people that have jobs that don't pay enough because people are unwilling to pay for products or services so the workers could be paid more.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive May 08, 2012 at 05:52 PM
That's grossly over simplified. There are many people that want affordable housing that frequent establishments who pay workers a decent wage. The problem with the issue discussed is that too many people want a simple sound bite to describe a position. One group of people MUST be evil, for their group to be good. One opinion must be right and it must be theirs in order to justify their actions. Listening to all the possibilities and being willing to give in one area in order to gain in another is not acceptable. One doesn't have to listen to a a position to judge another's motive.
Karen Gernand May 08, 2012 at 09:05 PM
How can housing built on salt ponds be affordable? Won't the site preparation costs be exorbitant? And passed on to the consumer? Does the city or state require low-income housing for this (or any other) development? Finally, does anyone know exactly what constitutes low-income housing? If defined by the cost to purchase or rent, what would that cost need to be in order for a property to be considered low-income property?

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