News

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Saltworks general manager resigns

By Steve Penna Special to the San Mateo Daily Journal

John Bruno, the senior vice president and general manager of DMB Associates, Inc., has resigned to take a new position as president of San Jose Construction.

Bruno was responsible for leading the development efforts of DMB Redwood City Saltworks. The Saltworks is a joint venture formed between Cargill Inc. and DMB Associates Inc. to determine the future use of the 1,433-acre Saltworks property in Redwood City.

On May 7, the Redwood City Council agreed by default to shelve the Saltworks development plan stalled for three years without a project description necessary to complete the application and finish environmental reviews of the controversial proposal.

The council did not take any vote, however, as it was a moot point coming after developer DMB Redwood City Saltworks announcement the previous Thursday to formally withdraw its 50-50 balanced plan while working on a scaled-back option.

...

DMB Associates is one of the largest private landowners in California with seven projects that total more than 100,000 acres.

read more >>

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Developer Promises More ‘Confined’ Development

By Stacie Chan, Redwood City Patch

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 a recommendation to deny it. Many opponents saw this as a “victory” and thanked the council and the ad hoc committee 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, a group formed to oppose 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, polls via phone 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.”

read more >>

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Even after Redwood City Saltworks project is withdrawn, furor continues

By Bonnie Eslinger, Palo Alto Daily News

Even though developer DMB Pacific Ventures formally withdrew its controversial Saltworks application last week, about two dozen people showed up at the Redwood City City Council meeting Monday night to give their two cents' worth about the project, and then some.

"We are united in our opposition to the Saltworks project no matter how it is ultimately configured," said Nancy Arbuckle, a member of Redwood City Neighbors United, which has drawn the battle lines against any development of the former Cargill salt flats east of Highway 101, just south of Seaport Boulevard.

Council Member Jeff Ira said dropping the Saltworks application for now while awaiting a revised version to be submitted hopefully will "put an end to some of the divisiveness" and allow more focus on "the great things that are happening in Redwood City."

Arbuckle said the divide was not between residents, but against DMB.

The council was scheduled to consider rejecting DMB's application, but that became moot when John Bruno, the company's senior vice president, submitted a letter to the city Friday indicating the development would be significantly scaled back and primarily centered on the side of the 1,436-acre Cargill site that runs parallel to Seaport Boulevard and has been used more than 100 years for salt harvesting and other industrial activities.

The proposal DMB submitted three years ago would have encompassed almost the entire property. The so-called "50/50" plan envisioned as many as 12,000 homes, offices, shops and schools on half the site, and parks, recreation areas and restored tidal marshes on the other half. DMB withdrew a project description of that proposal in November, saying it intended to make revisions based in part on public feedback.

"Our revised plan for the Saltworks will be focused on a much more limited footprint restricted to the area of greatest historic disturbance," Bruno's May 4 letter said. "Accordingly, we anticipate that the revised proposed development footprint will be approximately half the acreage of that proposed in the May 2009 50/50 Plan submittal."

...


Most of the speakers who addressed the council said they oppose the project in any form.

Stephen Knight of Oakland-based Save the Bay urged the council to tell DMB to forget about returning with another proposal. "That will only reignite community outrage," he warned.

Resident Lou Covey was among a handful of speakers who said the city should be open to an alternative proposal and advocated for an advisory vote -- not on whether the Saltworks project should be considered, but to see whether residents are willing to allow anything on the Cargill site.
"Should development be prohibited altogether on the Saltworks property?" Covey suggested the question should be.

Council Member Ian Bain said now that the project has been dropped, the city should have a community discussion about what "they'd like to see on that site." When the city drafted its general plan a few years ago, the Cargill property was excluded because it otherwise would have "hijacked" the planning process, he said.

Noting that Cargill owns the baylands property, Council Member Barbara Pierce said the city couldn't "take away value from the property owner."

read more >>

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Saltworks plans off the table

May 08, 2012 by Michelle Durand Daily Journal Staff

The Redwood City Council last night agreed by default to shelve the Saltworks development plan stalled for three years without a project description necessary to complete the application and finish environmental reviews of the controversial proposal.

The council did not take any vote, however, as it was a moot point coming after developer DMB Redwood City Saltworks announcement last Thursday to formally withdraw its 50-50 balanced plan while working on a scaled-back option.

Regardless, both the council and nearly two dozen members of the public took the opportunity to voice opinions on the proposal and future of the 1,436-acre site of salt ponds which preservationists want restored to tidal wetlands and that the developer, formerly known as DMB Associates, still plans to convert partially into housing.

The packed house was informed early by Mayor Alicia Aguirre than no action would be taken and cautioned them to remain respectful. One female speaker did get a spontaneous chiding by Councilman Jeff Ira when she yelled “its time to oust Foust” — a reference to Councilwoman Rosanne Foust’s position as president of the pro-Cargill development San Mateo County Economic Development Association — and two police officers walked her from the podium.

Several of the speakers urged the council to take steps to prevent the developer from taking another stab at a project no matter how it is configured, ticking off reasons including wetlands health, traffic congestion and incompatible land use.

“We strongly urge you to add denial of application to the list of options to consider in the future,” said Gail Raabe, speaking for Redwood City Neighbors United which vocally opposed the original plan.

Save the Bay, the environmental nonprofit that has led the public fight against the plan, echoed the sentiment. “Redwood City and the region hope this will be a permanent end to inappropriate development at this site,” said political director Stephen Knight.

Knight said the group’s preference is that DMB donate the land for restoration like that done on Bair Island.

However, resident Lou Covey did ask for an advisory vote, not on a specific plan but if development should be prohibited all together on the land.

“I think that will finally answer the major question of what the people really want,” Covey said.

The original proposal known as the 50-50 Balanced Plan called for reserving 50 percent of the land as permanent open space, public recreation and tidal marsh restoration and develop the remaining half into housing, schools, parks and retail and transit facilities. Up to 12,000 homes would have been built under this plan.

However, DMB never followed with a specific project description on which the environmental review could be complete and last November said it planned to revise and resubmit its proposal. 

Without a plan or any idea of when might be coming, Foust last month suggested seeking an advisory vote from the public on what the city should do. Aguirre appointed councilmembers Barbara Pierce and Ira to look at the city’s options and Thursday released a report indicating that they would ask the council to ditch both the vote idea and the proposal outright.

Last night, Ira explained he and Pierce felt it “important to put an end to a lot of the divisiveness that was created around this project.”

Hours after the council recommendation was released last week, DMB made its own announcement that it was withdrawing the proposal formally although it planned to return with a revised, scaled-back plan.

John Bruno, senior vice president and general manager for DMB Redwood City Saltworks, reiterated that position last night. Bruno said DMB has “begun working diligently on a fully revised proposal” which he promised would be “a significant departure” on a much smaller scale while including affordable housing, parks and hiking trails.

The new plan is intended to fit within the general plan’s area designated urban reserve and are set aside for future city expansion. DMB believes a scaled-back version of its plan would fall within these areas.

Formally denying the proposal frees the city from time-consuming and costly functions like responding to constant public inquiries, polls, petitions and numerous other efforts for and against the controversial development idea, according to city officials.

With Saltworks out of the way, too, city officials hope they — and the public — can focus on other big-ticket projects in the pipeline like the Stanford in Redwood City campus, the development of Depot Circle and the ongoing renovation of downtown.

“We don’t want those things to be a distraction for people not to want to be highly involved and motivated,” Ira said. “We just really wanted to take control as a city.”

read more >>

Friday, May 4, 2012

Developer Plans for New Saltworks Project after Committee Recommends Denial

By Stacie Chan, Redwood City Patch

After three years of controversy surrounding the proposed Saltworks development project, the city council’s ad hoc Saltworks committee is recommending that the council deny the current application of an up to 12,000-house development on the 1,436 Saltworks flats at its Monday, May 7 meeting. But this doesn’t bar the developer, DMB Pacific Ventures, from submitting a revised application in the future after it formally withdrew its currently application today.

The ad hoc committee explained that this was the logical step because the developers had instructed the city back in November 2011 to halt any work on the current project. The developer said in a statement that it would begin a revised and scaled-back plan according to community feedback.

“[The developers] have rejected it, we’ve rejected, let’s start over,” said ad hoc committee member and Councilmember Jeff Ira. “It’s not that big of a deal because we haven’t even drafted the EIR [environmental impact report] for the project.”

The committee also recommends not proceeding with an advisory vote, as proposed by Councilmember Rosanne Foust at the April 9 meeting, on the current application as it doesn’t have a complete description.

City Manager Bob Bell added that rather than devoting more time to the project, which has been incredibly divisive amongst the community, the city could start anew if and when the developer submits a new application.

“It was such a controversial project yet we didn’t even know what it was anymore,” Bell said. “Now we can put this to bed and decide once there is a new application, if any.”

...

As the landowner, Cargill, Inc., still has the right to submit an application to develop on its own property.

However, the group, Redwood City Neighbors United, formed specifically to oppose development on the Saltworks site, said in a statement that it hopes Cargill and developer DMB “will respect the community’s wishes and will refrain from submitting any additional development proposals for the site.”

Ira said that the council would evaluate the application in full and make any decisions, from an advisory vote to public opinion polling, depending on what the developer submits.

“So it’s out with the old, —maybe, maybe not— in with the new,” Ira said. “And I’m predicting it’s not going to be a tweaking of the application, but a major revamping.”

Bell said the denial of the project would allow the city to focus on other significant projects like the Stanford project and the potential development of the Inner Harbor area, a discussion scheduled for June.

“There’s so much going on in downtown that now we can say ‘alright, these are our priorities and we’re going to devote our time to them,’” Bell said.

Redwood City Neighbors United said that it “applauds the city council’s ad hoc committee” so the city can stay “focused on implementing our Downtown Precise Plan and award-winning General Plan which meets our housing needs, revitalizes our downtown, and protects our environment.”

read more >>

Page 7 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›