News
OP-ED: Development on the Bay: A bad idea
by Henry Ruehl, a student at Crystal Springs Uplands School. Published in the San Mateo Daily Journal.
I have noticed that the developers behind Cargill’s proposed “Saltworks” project in Redwood City prefer to talk about their plans without mentioning the San Francisco Bay itself. While I don’t work in the construction or real estate industries, I do know that the favorite slogan of Realtors is “Location, location, location.” I therefore believe that to talk about a development of this magnitude requires some coverage of the proposed location.
The San Francisco Bay salt ponds in which Cargill’s proposed new city would be built was once wetlands, and could still be turned into around 1,400 acres of wetlands. It takes no great mind to see that once 12,000 houses and other buildings are built on this location, an incredible conservation opportunity vanishes.
Even if you do not care about conservation or the environment in particular, the Cargill/DMB venture is beset by logistical and practical issues. As always in a drought-ridden state, there is first and foremost the concern of water. Quenching the thirst of a city of 32,000 via a convoluted and complex transfer of private water rights from Kern County, as DMB has proposed, is, as the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out, both unprecedented and unwise. No wonder the two key water districts that could make it happen don’t want anything to do with it.
Further, Cargilltown would be unusually vulnerable to the fabled next California earthquake. After all, it would be a city built on Bayfill (not the most stable of substances), excruciatingly close to the San Andreas Fault, next to the Bay and thus susceptible to catastrophic flooding should the elaborate dams and levees that DMB proposes break.
Then there is the inevitable prospect of rising sea levels. As Hurricane Katrina so starkly demonstrated, there is a limit to the effectiveness of man-made constraints against the water. I do not believe that anyone can approve, in good conscience, a project that could put people at unnecessary risk.
I have lived in the Bay Area all my life, and I love everything about it except the traffic. Given the fact that there are 12,000 houses being added to Redwood City, I would say there will be at least 12,000 cars added to the roads. Now, despite DMB’s claims to be fostering a “transit-oriented” community, many of the proposed transit routes through Cargilltown draw much needed public funding and attention away from our current public-transit system. At any rate, given the car-happy nature of Americans, it is likely that the denizens of this city will spend a fair amount of time in their automobiles. This will both raise greenhouse-gas emissions and traffic congestion.
RCNU Response to Mayor’s Statement Regarding Saltworks Environmental Review Process
Press Statement
March 21, 2012
Redwood City Mayor Does Not Address Community’s Concerns About Potential Cargill/DMB Influence Over Saltworks Environmental Review Process
Residents urge Redwood City to adopt sound practices similar to other local cities
Redwood City Neighbors United (RCNU) continues to be concerned about the potential for bias and conflict of interest in the Cargill/DMB Saltworks environmental review process, after the release of a statement by Redwood City Mayor Alicia Aguirre in response to RCNU’s letter to city officials and Op-Ed of last week.
“The Mayor’s statement doesn’t address the specific issue we raised in our letter – that by relying on reports written by Cargill/DMB consultants, the City’s environmental impact analysis may be inappropriately influenced,” RCNU Co-Chair Dan Ponti said. “The Mayor’s letter confirmed that ‘the City's consultants will use the information provided by DMB,’ which is precisely our concern. Studies that document current conditions on the site, characterize potential project impacts, or propose mitigations should not be in the control of the developer. While we are confident that the City will conduct a careful review and analysis of these studies, no amount of peer review can completely eliminate that potential for bias.”
In the group’s March 12 letter, RCNU asked Redwood City to adopt procedures similar to numerous other cities in the Bay Area like San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. These cities require that staff directly hire and oversee all of the consultants contributing to a development project’s environmental review.
“RCNU and the City share the same goals.” Ponti added. “We want the EIR that the City prepares for this project to be viewed by both project proponents and critics alike as both credible and fair. Common sense policies like these will ensure a truly independent review process that the community and other agencies can confidently rely upon to make an informed decision.”
2 LTEs: Saltworks study, a word to Redwood City Council
Palo Alto Daily News, March 16, 2012
Saltworks study
Dear Editor: I read with great interest the March 12 Op-Ed column by Dan Ponti and Ramona Ambrozic about the consultants hired to complete the environmental impact report for the proposed Redwood City Saltworks project. I was surprised to learn that 15 of the 17 major sections of the report are being written by consultants selected, hired and overseen by the developer, DMB. I was also surprised to learn that it is not illegal for this to occur.
It certainly does not appear to be a neutral or unbiased situation. No one can know how much DMB is influencing the process, but it seems that the Redwood City City Council would want it to be as fair and unbiased as possible. Since the study is now on hold, it would be a good time for the council to revise the process.
Karen Fine,
Redwood City
A word to Redwood City council
Dear Editor: I have sent the following communication to the Redwood City City Council. This non-representative group of officials needs to start listening to the majority of its citizens who do not support DMB's Redwood City Saltworks project, which would further fill in San Francisco Bay:
"I see that 15 of 17 sections of the Saltworks EIR are to be written by people hand-picked by DMB, and that DMB will control the content of those reports, so that the city doesn't see anything that DMB doesn't want it to see. That process will make the Saltworks project easier to approve and save DMB much money in mitigation costs. This is not the transparent and fair process the city promised its citizens, of which I am one, and a lifelong one at that.
This is not the way other cities do this or have done this. Consultants are overseen by the city and work for the city as neutral parties, and the developer pays the cost. Redwood City Neighbors United have asked the city to follow the latter, transparent and fair procedures. Now is the time for the city to make these changes and stop fronting for DMB. We are not stupid, and we will not allow our city and our Bay to be ruined for DMB's tremendous profit. We have been asking the council to represent the interests of the majority of its citizens, who have indicated clearly that they do NOT want this development to fill in their Bay, build all that housing away from transportation and downtown, squander water we don't have, and crowd our freeways even more.
It has been clear from the start of this project that the city was working with and for DMB and not us, the citizens. I would, at this point, love to be proved wrong, and I ask that you change the procedures for the EIR so that they ARE transparent and fair."
Judy Kirk,
Redwood City
Op-Ed: Redwood City shouldn’t let developer call the shots on Saltworks EIR
By Dan Ponti and Ramona Ambrozic, Redwood City residents and co-chairs of Redwood City Neighbors United
In 2009, when Cargill and development partner DMB Associates submitted their Saltworks Project proposal to develop on the Redwood City salt ponds, the city declared: "We are committed to conducting a transparent and fair process and want to engage the community in a manner that allows for open dialogue and a thorough review that will shape the proposed project and its alternatives."
City officials have made similar statements promising a fair and transparent environmental review process numerous times over the last 18 months.
To their credit, Redwood City officials have conducted an excellent public outreach program. Efforts such as the focused scoping workshops, an extended public scoping comment period, and the city's website on the Saltworks Project are all to be commended.
But what about the "transparent and fair" part of the city's commitment? We believe this means that no interested party be given the opportunity to influence the content and conclusions of the project's environmental impact study before it is completed. It also means that consultants retained to provide technical analysis on project impacts should not be placed in a position where they may feel obligated to favor one conclusion over another.
So, we are surprised and disappointed to learn that technical reports for all but two of the 17 major sections that make up the environmental impact report are being written by consultants selected, hired and directly overseen by the developer DMB.
That's right.
These consultants, who are now responsible for a significant part of the work behind the Saltworks EIR, work for Cargill/DMB, not the city.
And they submit their reports to DMB before DMB gives them to the city for review and incorporation into the environmental impact report. At minimum, this creates the appearance of a conflict of interest that will result in studies that may be perceived by the public as biased. At worst, it affords Cargill/DMB the clear opportunity to control the content and conclusions of reports before anyone, including the city, gets to see them.
Why might a developer want to control the content of an environmental impact report? It's all about money. A report influenced to minimize environmental impacts would make the project easier to approve and save the developer countless dollars in mitigation costs. Do we know if any undue influence is occurring? No -- and that's the point. We can never know. Whatever conversations go on between DMB and its consultants occur in private.
Is all of this legal? Unfortunately, yes. Cities have discretion over how they conduct their environmental reviews. But is it the right route for our city to be taking for a development as large and controversial as Saltworks? Is it consistent with the promises made to the community of a "transparent and fair" process?
Many nearby cities recognize the inherent problem with allowing developers to select and directly oversee the consultants performing work for environmental impact reports. Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco and others have put procedures in place to avoid the perception of bias in those reports.
These cities oversee the work for all of the consultants, and then the developer pays the cost. Consultants work for the city as neutral parties, generating studies and reports that can truly be viewed as independent and fair because they are placed directly in the city's hands when completed. Redwood City must do the same and take ultimate responsibility for the content and credibility of every section of the Saltworks Project environmental impact report.
Redwood City Neighbors United (RCNU) recently sent a letter to our city council urging the city to do exactly this. You can view our letter to the council at http://www.rcnu.org/assets/files/RCNU_Council_Letter_EIR.pdf.
Right now is an excellent time to make this change because DMB recently asked the city to suspend all work on the environmental impact report. When the Saltworks Project review again moves forward, the process can be put on the right track under these new transparent procedures.
Will the city make these important changes? It will if residents demand a truly independent and credible report that the city and other agencies can rely on for making an informed decision. Please join with Redwood City Neighbors United and ask the council to stop letting Cargill/DMB hire and oversee their own consultants for the city's Saltworks EIR. Comments can be sent directly to council@redwoodcity.org. Together we can help ensure the fair and transparent process that we have been promised.
Saltworks Project Remains at a Standstill
by Audrey Arthur, Redwood City Patch
Local grassroots organization Redwood City Neighbors United hosted a meeting Wednesday night with Acting Planning Manager Blake Lyon Wednesday to discuss city development and the status of the controversial Cargill Saltworks Project.
RCNU was founded six months ago on the basis that Redwood City should abandon the Saltworks Project, which includes the construction of 8,000-12,000 residential units, 1 million square feet of office space and 140,000 square feet of commercial space, and concentrate on downtown development.
“When we started this we realized very clearly that this is a marathon,” said RCNU committee member Gail Raabe. “It’s not a sprint.”
The organization has quickly gained more than 400 active supporters since its establishment. Supporters have said the proposed Saltworks Project, headed by developers DMB Pacific Ventures, would have negative affects on the environment, traffic mitigation, local economy and water supply.
“We believe the Saltworks development project is one of the biggest issues of our city,” Raabe said.
However, Lyon said that after DMB halted plans due to a largely negative response from local residents in November, city planners have no word of the project’s advancement.
“You can ask me all you want, I don’t have any information,” Lyon said. “They haven’t given us any additional information.”
Lyon, who has been active in the project for four years, said that despite the recent comments DMB developers gave to reporters of the San Francisco Chronicle, city planners hope for transparency with Redwood City residents.
“When we know, you will know shortly thereafter,” Lyon said.
According to Raabe, members of the RCNU met with two representatives of DMB at their request to discuss concerns.
“We don’t know if they’re hearing us, but again, we have their attention,” Raabe said.
...
