This resolution is spot on.

Paving over the Cargill Salt ponds in Redwood City for this massive proposed project just north of Menlo Park is one of the greatest threats facing the Bay.

The project would take a wetlands site of over 1,433 acres fill it with not only 12,000 housing units with 25,000 residents, but also commercial and office development.

It is immediately to the south of and would jeopardize operations of the only deep water port in the Bay Area -- the Port of Redwood City, which opposes the project. This port like all ports is a major emitter of diesel pollution, a potent and regulated carcinogen.

Also this site sits in a tidal plain only 1 - 2 feet above sea level. BCDC has concluded that this area will be inundated by sea level rise due to climate change in the coming decades, even if we all take prompt strong action to reduce CO2 emissions. (However the Bay Area would be hugely increasing CO2 emissions by building a mini-City like this far away from the transit corridor -- this of the auto emissions!)

These are among the reasons the Chronicle's editorials have strongly opposed this development as an unacceptable site for housing. Right now it is zones as a tidal plain and it should stay that way.

The bay moderates our local climate and provides vital habitat to 500 species of wildlife. Retired salt ponds are not the place for housing -- they are a golden opportunity to restore healthy wetlands that scientists say the Bay's wildlife desperately needs.

Redwood City has won awards for its downtown redevelopment, creating walkable communities close to CalTrain and shopping. They should not be tempted away from that wise "infill development" path by Cargill's reckless plan. Destroying undeveloped open space that makes the Bay Area so livable is not the way to go. The Bay, including these salt ponds belong to all of us, not just Redwood City.

The era of filling the San Francisco Bay is over; this project should be pronounced dead on arrival and the entire Bay Area should tell Cargill and their Scotsdale Arizona developer DMB that this huge project doesn't belong in our Bay.

ABSOLUTELY! The REDWOOD CITY salt flats project has the potential of having significant impact on the San Francisco Bay. And we should all pay attention and be concerned.

But if I were a member of the REDWOOD CITY City Council, what questions are likely to be in my mind:

Do Council Members Cohen and Fergusson have no respect for the ability of me and my fellow REDWOOD CITY Council Members to complete a fair and reasoned hearing in our venue that they feel they need to use their positions on their city council to bully me?

Should I now bring resolutions to the Redwood City Council about my personal opinions and concerns regarding developments in Menlo Park? El Camino traffic in Redwood city may be affected by the Cadillac dealership development. The Bohanon project is close to Redwood City and could affect traffic on Marsh Road.

What the heck! Maybe Fremont doesn't like the potential impact of the Bohanon project. It's close to the Baylands, so the logic of Cohen / Fergusson that "anything that affects the Bay", would certainly encourage them to jump in.

Where does it stop? Should Menlo Park City Council spend agenda time discussing the project to move the Palo Alto mulch pile to a new location next to the San Francisco Bay?

It would seem to me we should all be concerned about the San Francisco Bay, but the proper venue for participating in this development project is the REDWOOD CITY Council, and as private citizens.

Let's show some respect for the democratic process. Let's expect our elected officials to focus on the long agenda of items that needs their attention in Menlo Park.

And for Mr. or Ms. "Yes"..... You should definitely participate in the Redwood City process. You have listed some important metrics. If they haven't already been recited, they would be useful in the discussion. And it would provide an opportunity for you to list you name so we can all appreciate your input.

Mr. Moritz is right about one thing, and that indeed is Redwood City should be interested in the bloated Bohannon project being proposed in the M2. It is so out of place in Menlo Park, it should have been discarded long ago, but this council seems to be headed in the other direction.

The Cargill project should definitely be denied by all the Cities along the peninsula. The Redwood City council seems to welcome everything, and our council is absolutely correct in considering a strong position against this project.

Now it will indeed be interesting to see if Cohen and Fergusson and the rest of the Menlo Park council will vote to stop the Bohannon project, or are they going to be two faced and say, we can go ahead with Bohannon, but no no Redwood City, Cargill should not move forward.

The bay is the bay. If this project goes forward, we will have witnessed an environmental crime as egregious as the approval for Foster City and Redwood Shores. We are not living in the '50s and we should have learned by now of the importance of the bay. This is not a jurisdictional issue. It is a regional problem that requires the input of all cities in the Bay Area. Ironically, Redwood City has been on the cutting edge insofar as placing new housing in the downtown areas. For the Redwood City Council to make changes to their General Plan for the sole purpose of greasing the skids for Cargill and DMB smells of corruption. Why the change of heart?

Is the Bohannon project actually planned to be constructed on a salt pond off Marsh Road? Are these 2 developments comparable?

Fergusson and Cohen make valid points, to be sure.

But there is tremendous growth pressure on the area, for very good reasons (e.g., the booming technology industry). I don't think it is right to simply disallow growth. If wish to keep growth out of our wetlands (and I hope we do) then we should look for ways to accommodate it within our existing communities. I think that the Menlo Park City Council is indeed in a position to do that.

Unlike the Cargill project at 1 - 2 feet above sea level, the Bohannon project is at 5 feet above sea level and is NOT on a wetlands.

Cities that are impacted by a project in an adjoining jurisdiction, especially one that impacts key intersections or actualy may come onto another City's lands, are expressly part of the approval process. As I understand the Cargill proposal, Redwood City would be the lead agency for review under the California Environmental Quality Act. But Menlo Park would, I belive, be a responsible agency that would also be involved in making official review and comment, and suggesting conditions of approval.

It is perfectly reasonable for the leaders of other affected Cities to have positions on such a huge project.

The point is not to disallow growth but to channel it into transit corridors as infill development seeking to reduce impacts from auto trips as much as possible, not despoil bay wetlands far from transit. Have we learned NOTHING?

Edward P. Moritz. Board Member. West Bay Sanitary District



From: Elizabeth Lasensky
Date: Mon Feb 04 2008 - 09:02:29 PST

Dear City Council Members,

Please find attached a resolution that was passed by the West Bay Sanitary District which owns 20 acres at the tip of Bayfront Park. The ponds at their park facility are used as temporary storage of waste water during periods of heavy rain.

The Cargill salt ponds, which are adjacent to our park and the sanitary facility, are currently zoned as "tidal plane." The Sanitary District has passed this resolution opposing rezoning of the salt ponds to allow for commercial and residential development of the Cargill salt ponds in Redwood City.

As the West Bay Sanitary District resolution states, the development of the salt ponds could potentially impact Menlo Park, Bayfront Park and the health of our residents and our bay.

I ask you to please respond to this resolution.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lasensky

I wonder if contributions to the union would change their minds.

Hi All,

I live just off Marsh Rd, in the Redwood City neighborhood of Friendly Acres. I commute every day to Encinal, Oak Knoll and Hillview School where I teach music. As most of you know, when schools are opening or letting out, the local roads are completely clogged. Middlefield is a disaster and Valparaiso is crazy around Menlo and Sacred Heart.
I fear that the 11,000+ projected car trips coming in & out of the Bohannon Gateway project will exacerbate an already crowded commute. Marsh Rd will be stop and go from 7:30-8:30 every day.
Looking at the studies for the project, there is nothing in the plan with regards to mitigating traffic. So far, the studies have identified only where there will be potential problems, but offered no solutions.
I truly hope that there will be an attempt to incorporate a shuttle bus from the CalTrain station, perhaps consider a future station using the proposed Dumbarton line (yeah, yeah, it's not happening now - but this project isn't supposed to be finished for 20 years - who knows what things will be like then....) and lastly, consider incorporating easements that might be used for a future light rail system (if we could ever bring the Santa Clara system up to us).

Call me crazy but if the Gateway project AND the Cargill project go through, we are in for a whole lotta gridlock. So much avoiding the "LA"-zation of the Bay Area.

BTW, for anyone who is following the upcoming Redwood City election - have you noticed that none of the flyers state whether they are for or against the Cargill project? Very Interesting.....

The Redwood City Port has expressed concern for a massive development being considered near an active industrial port. When residential developments are allowed to be built near sites where ships dock, goods are unloaded and freight trains transport goods, it doesn't take long before the residents are disillusioned, begin to complain about noise, air pollution and health problems. The area where Cargill wants to be built has been considered to be zoned as tidal plain and open space for good reason.
Please read this letter from the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.


Salt pond development a real threat to Redwood City's Port

By Mike Jacob

Posted: 09/11/2009

Redwood City is one of a handful of California cities blessed with a seaport — one that is a vital component of the Bay Area's regional and international economy. However, a massive housing development proposed for the salt ponds adjacent to the Port of Redwood City poses a direct threat to the port's operations and its long-term viability.
Locating homes and schools next to the port's heavy-duty industrial activities is simply bad planning; not just because it threatens the operations of one of our regional ports, but also because of the impacts on the future residents and schoolchildren of the city. The homes, schools and recreational facilities needed for 25,000 residents proposed for the salt ponds across Seaport Boulevard from the port are simply not compatible with bulk cargo operations.

In its 2008 Strategic Assessment, the Port of Redwood City envisioned the greatest threat to the port of "encroaching residential, recreational, and commercial office waterfront space" because "adjacent homeowners and commercial office tenants would complain about the port's tenants' noise, lights, and dust."

The Port's assessments are not hyperbole.

We know from development near other West Coast ports that encroachment by new, inconsistent uses raises costs, restricts cargo operations and threatens marine terminal operations:

• Nuisance lawsuits have been filed by neighboring residents against the Port of Los Angeles in an attempt to stop maritime operations at marine facilities that have been operated in the same locations for over a century.
• At the Port of Seattle, residential encroachment threatens marine terminal operations and mobility by making it nearly impossible to complete necessary supporting road and infrastructure improvements.

• In San Diego, a development scheme touted as "compatible" with port operations threatened to bring that port's 10th Avenue bulk operations terminal to its knees. After a court battle, voters rejected a developer's initiative and rejected incompatible uses.

What's similar about all of these cases is the resultant slowing of economic development to a crawl. The introduction of incompatible uses ultimately costs ports and their local economies millions of dollars of lost revenues, thousands of lost jobs and, ironically, fewer sources of funds for environmental remediation projects.

What's at risk for the city and our regional economy? Port area businesses provide approximately 600 jobs, and generate $4.5 million annual revenue to state and local municipalities, including $1.4 million directly to Redwood City. But it's not just tax revenues and jobs at stake. As the only port operating in the South Bay,Redwood City is a crucial bulk cargo point of entry for the entire Bay Area and Northern California.

If new housing constrains Redwood City's port operations, more cargo will ultimately have to be shipped through the Ports of Stockton and Sacramento, with higher social and environmental costs. For each ship that no longer calls at Redwood City, hundreds of trucks will have to carry the contents hundred of additional miles, causing more traffic congestion, diesel truck exhaust and greenhouse gas emissions.

Simply put, residential development near port operations does not make sense for the port, for its customers or for the quality of life of futureRedwood Cityresidents.

There are only a few select places in California with the deep water access and appropriate landside facilities necessary to support a successful port operation.Redwood City is one of those places, and has been since the 1850s. We all know that once a port is gone, it's gone for good. That cannot be allowed to happen inRedwood City, or we will have lost a key piece of our regional economy and our state's deepwater maritime access — forever.



Mike Jacob is the vice president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association is a maritime trade association representing ocean carriers and marine terminal operators on the West Coast, and doing business at all of California's public ports. PMSA has offices in Long Beach, San Francisco and Seattle.