News
Op-Ed: Why federal jurisdiction over Redwood City’s salt ponds matters
By Gail Raabe. Published in the Palo Alto Daily News
It's been more than six months since Cargill and developer DMB withdrew the initial Redwood City Saltworks development proposal and shifted their attention to federal permitting agencies. The companies have asked the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine whether they have regulatory jurisdiction over the salt ponds. Even though there is no sign yet of a new Saltworks plan, the public's interest and concern surrounding this development continue to grow.
How else do you explain the packed house at a recent community meeting sponsored by Redwood City Neighbors United, where more than 90 people came to the downtown library to learn about "jurisdictional determinations" and the finer points of the Clean Water Act?
An evening with Calvin Fong, the former regulatory division chief for the San Francisco district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was time well spent for residents who now realize there is a lot at stake for Redwood City with this pending decision on federal jurisdiction.
There were several key "take away" messages that all residents of Redwood City and others concerned about developing the salt ponds should know:
1) The Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act protect against inappropriate fill and mismanagement of waterways, wetlands and other "waters of the United States," ensuring that any fill of San Francisco Bay is avoided or mitigated. The Army Corps and EPA enforce these federal laws.
2) If the agencies determine they do have jurisdiction, the National Environmental Policy Act is triggered, requiring the Army Corps to complete an analysis of the impacts of development and seek public comment. As an agency that is charged with protecting public resources, the Army Corps would conduct an objective analysis of all project alternatives and require either avoidance or mitigation of environmental impacts. Without federal jurisdiction, environmental review and analysis of a revised Saltworks development plan would be limited to only the California Environmental Quality Act, and the process would be under the direction of Redwood City.
3) There is clear precedent for San Francisco Bay salt ponds falling under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps and EPA. Cargill's former salt ponds near Napa are similar to ours in Redwood City and the Army Corps required permits for the restoration work that is currently underway there. The Army Corps also asserted jurisdiction over the Redwood City salt pond site where Westpoint Marina was recently constructed.
While we wait for the final decision on jurisdiction, there is growing concern that Cargill and DMB are asking the federal agencies to reverse long-standing regulatory policies for their benefit. If it is appropriate to have federal oversight of restoration projects in salt ponds, isn't it even more important for the Army Corps to have permitting authority over permanent development that could forever alter our Bay? Local residents expect that EPA and Army Corps actions related to Redwood City's salt ponds will be consistent with the regulatory oversight they have provided in other parts of the Bay.
Redwood City Neighbors United will continue to keep the community informed as this important process moves forward. Visit rcnu.org to sign up to receive Saltworks updates and information on future educational events.
Gail Raabe is on the Steering Committee of the local advocacy group Redwood City Neighbors United: Responsible Growth -- Not Saltworks.
Bay Area Couple Fights to Stop Cargill, Save the Bay
By Adam Swart, Redwood City Patch
As Bay Area natives, Gail Raabe and Matt Leddy both grew up hiking, bird watching and appreciating the beauty of the bay.
Though they met in graduate school at San Francisco State University, they didn’t start dating until they ran into each other years later when they were both working as scientists at the California Academy of Sciences.
They both took an interest in environmental activism in 1982 after Mobil Oil announced plans to develop Bair Island, located in the bay near Whipple Avenue. The project was approved by the City Council of Redwood City, but for Raabe and Leddy, these plans represented a major concern both for recreation opportunities and wildlife.
As a result, they put a citizens referendum on the ballot and successfully campaigned to overturn the previous city council approval of Mobil’s plans.
As newcomers to activism, Raabe and Leddy were encouraged by their early success.
“To succeed in your first effort is inspirational,” says Raabe.
Now, the couple has a new project: fighting back against Cargill’s plans to develop as many as 1,436 acres of salt marshes.
Cargill’s original plans to develop an area south of Redwood Shores included plans for 30,000 new residents, according to Raabe, who stresses that her opposition to the project is about more than solely saving wildlife.
“This is a quality of life issue,” she said. “There are traffic impacts and water safety issues.”
In addition, tidal marshes provide a means to filter pollutants and sequester carbon, she added.
Raabe cites a 1999 report about the baylands eco-system stating that 100,000 acres of tidal marshes are needed for a healthy bay, while currently there are only 40,000 such acres.
Cargill has since withdrawn the original plan; however, Raabe expressed concern that a new plan may include small concessions for public relations purposes while still making a similar move to destroy the marsh space.
Given the high unemployment rate of 8.5 percent in the Bay Area, Raabe understands that many may see her opposition to Cargill’s development as being ‘anti-jobs’.
“When you look at the economic picture, it’s not a question of do we develop or do we not develop, rather, it’s a question of where we develop,” she said, insisting that she supports development elsewhere, such as in downtown areas with accessible public transportation.
In addition, Raabe points out that the eco-system of the Bay Area is a major draw for workers.
“I think the beautiful scenery and recreation opportunities are a big reason why we live here,” she says.
Despite the couple’s past successes, Raabe stressed the need for more community members to get involved in ‘Save the Bay’ efforts.
“This is definitely a ‘David versus Goliath’ battle,” said Raabe.
“It’s going to take the sustained support of the entire community.”
Redwood City Saltworks developer seeks to avoid federal environmental rules
By Bonnie Eslinger, Palo Alto Daily News
In a move that could allow it to elude some environmental regulations, DMB Pacific Ventures on Wednesday asked two federal agencies to declare whether they have any say over what happens to the Cargill salt flats in Redwood City it wants to develop.
DMB, which early last month withdrew its polarizing Saltworks project and indicated it will later submit a scaled-back proposal, said it wants the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to determine that the vast majority of the 1,400 acres of salt flats are not "waters of the United States" subject to their authority.
If that's the case, DMB's development wouldn't have to adhere to the federal Clean Water Act or the Rivers and Harbors Act, both of which tightly restrict what kind of developments can occur on bayfront property.
"We need some clarity from the federal regulatory agencies as we move forward and we actually think that's important enough we're going to approach them before we bring and unveil our revised proposal to the city," DMB Senior Vice President David Smith said.
Three years ago, DMB submitted an application to Redwood City proposing to build as many as 12,000 homes, several office buildings, shops and schools on one half of Cargill's property and provide parks, open space and restored tidal marshes on the other half. The proposal has drawn fierce opposition from environmental groups, area politicians and others who contend the property should be restored to its original state as wetlands.
Without being specific, Smith said the company is working on a revised proposal in response to public feedback that calls for half of the original development acreage and additional wetlands restoration. But that plan won't be released until the company settles the matter of jurisdiction, which could take at least several months, he said.
If the Army Corps and EPA rule that they do have jurisdiction over the Cargill site, that in itself would not necessarily kill the Saltworks project but could make the developer jump through a plethora of costly and time-consuming hoops.
Smith told The Daily News he wouldn't rule out legal action if the agencies conclude they do have jurisdiction.
...
Merry Goodenough, district counsel for the Army Corps of Engineers, said there is legal precedence for determining the agency has jurisdiction over salt ponds, particularly under the Rivers and Harbors Act, if it could be shown that with improvements, tidal waters could be restored to "navigable waters."
Despite what the Army Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency determine, the Saltworks plan would still have to be approved by more than a dozen other agencies, departments and boards for approval, as well as Redwood City.
Saltworks takes a new turn
By Kristen Peters, Palo Alto Daily Post
The company that earlier this month withdrew its proposal to develop 12,000 homes on the Redwood City salt ponds yesterday said it is looking at a scaled-back project involving less acreage.
But before DMB Associates, the company Cargill Corp. hired to develop its ponds, unveils its new proposal, it intends to ask two federal agencies whether or not they have jurisdiction over the property bordering Seaport Boulevard, east of Highway 101.
DMB senior vice president David Smith said he is hoping that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency declares that the salt ponds aren’t considered federal bodies of water, and therefore not subject to the Rivers and Harbors Act or the Clean Water Act.
...
According to Smith, the new development proposal will involve building on less than half the 1,433-acre site and leave the rest of the wetlands for restoration.
Specifically, Smith said that DMB plans to restrict development to a parcel bordering Seaport Boulevard, which has been designated by Redwood City’s General Plan as an urban reserve.
“We’re laying some outer parameters,” Smith said. “We want to hold ourselves to this area of historic disturbance and leave the rest of it for restoration.”
And although Smith described the urban reserve area as a location that Redwood City has pinned for “its future growth,” Senior Planner Blake Lyon wasn’t so sure.
“Urban Reserve specifically has an ambiguous language attached to it and different people have read it and interpreted it differently,” he said. “It basically identifies that this area is being held for future consideration.”
Under the City’s General Plan, the urban reserve areas “present an unusual issue” and “each have reasons why they haven’t been designated with specific land uses.”
In the case of the salt ponds, the plan says that “of particular concern is whether the area is considered ‘wetlands’ by the federal or state agencies, which would severely limit any future development.”
“What you have is this land use designation that says these two different things,” Lyon said. “There’s a debate about whether or not the city intended for that to be developed.”
Lyon said that the land is currently zoned to be “tidal plains.” “If they wanted to develop anything they would have to amend the general plan, amend the zoning designation, do an environmental analysis, present a specific plan and likely come up with a development agreement,” Lyon said.
Redwood City Neighbors United, a group opposed to the development project, said the city should focus on upholding the city’s General Plan.
“DMB and Cargill should respect the community’s vision and stop wasting time and resources entertaining a project that is both unnecessary and inappropriate,” the group said in a statement.
DMB wasn’t sure when it would file the scaled back plan for the city, but said that a response from the federal agencies could take months.
State ethics agency to investigate conflict of interest allegations against Councilmember Foust
By Bonnie Eslinger, Palo Alto Daily News
The state's political watchdog agency has confirmed it will investigate two conflict-of-interest complaints against Redwood City Council Member Rosanne Foust for asking her council colleagues to place an advisory measure on the ballot to gauge voters' interest in pursuing the now-stalled Saltworks project.
The complaints, filed separately by two Redwood City residents, both note that Foust was warned by the California Fair Political Practices Commission in 2010 to refrain from using her position as a council member to influence any action on the project, which has been endorsed by the San Mateo County Economic Development Association that she heads.
State law "prohibits a public official from making, participating in making, or in any way attempting to use her official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official knows, or has reason to know, that she has a financial interest," Gary Winuk, the commission's enforcement division chief, wrote to Foust in July 2010. His letter said Foust had violated state conflict-of-interest laws by voting on May 24 of that year to proceed with an environmental review of the Saltworks project. She received a warning instead of a fine because the interim city attorney had advised her the vote would not violate the ethics law, according to the letter.
Marianna Raymond, who has lived in Redwood City for 18 years, filed one of the complaints and received a response on May 10 saying the matter would be investigated.
...
Foust said "in no way" does she believe her comments at the end of an April 9 meeting violated the state's conflict of interest law.
"I said I was speaking as an individual," Foust said. "I didn't see that I did anything wrong."
After noting she was speaking as a private citizen, Foust talked for nine minutes at that meeting about why the council should consider putting a measure on the ballot that gives a description of the Saltworks project and asks voters whether they believe the council should keep it alive.
Developer DMB originally proposed to build as many as 12,000 homes, office buildings, schools, play fields and restored wetlands on 1,400 acres of Cargill's salt flats south of Seaport Boulevard. But it withdrew the application earlier this month and said it would submit a new, scaled-back proposal based on public feedback at a later date.
