Wetlands

Saltworks developer apparently gaming EIR process

May 26, 2012 Leave a Comment

The Cargill salt flats (in the background) could become more wetlands like those in the foreground. We’re fighting a developer who wants to build a small city on this land in Redwood City. Photo by Jaiya Alamia.

Last November the developer DMB asked the Redwood City staff to suspend work on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its Saltworks proposal (see previous article).

The Saltworks proposal would turn 1,436 acres of eminently restorable sea-level Cargill salt ponds into a mini-city of 30,000 residents and a million square feet of office space behind three miles of new levees, in an earthquake zone, and far removed from downtown infrastructure. We had heard that DMB was revising its project to respond to approximately 900 pages of comments offered during the extended public-comment period, but we’ve been on tenterhooks, wondering just what DMB was up to.

Now we know. Some vigilant folks from Redwood City Neighbors United (RCNU) found that the City of Redwood City has allowed consultants that work directly for Cargill/DMB to write the key technical studies behind 15 out of 17 major sections of the EIR. RCNU co-chairs Dan Ponti and Ramona Ambrozic questioned the propriety of this in a letter to Mayor Aguirre and the Redwood City Council. Over 100 people wrote letters supporting RCNU’s position.

Although the practice is not illegal, RCNU suggested that, at best, there is an appearance of impropriety, as neither the city staff nor the city selected these consultants. At worst DMB will edit the reports to its own advantage before the city conducts its review. The RCNU letter urges the mayor and City Council to “change this practice and require that the City selects, hires, and directly oversees all of the consultants contributing to the EIR, and not allow the developer to intervene in that process.” Note that the developer must pay for the EIR, whoever writes it.

Mayor Aguirre’s weak response, assuring residents that this is only part of the scoping process and promising transparency later, did not mollify RCNU and the other 100 letter-writers. Responding to the mayor, RCNU wrote a strong op-ed, which appeared in several local papers and on Redwood City Patch, reiterating the importance of having the city hire and oversee the EIR consultants.

Club opposes Saltworks

The Sierra Club continues to oppose Saltworks. During the initial public review of the EIR in March 2011, Gita Dev of the Loma Prieta Chapter’s Save Our Baylands Task Force compiled our comments into a 20-page document. It both stressed the value of the wetlands and raised questions and concerns that we felt the EIR should address.

Unwilling to twiddle our thumbs during the maddening hiatus, which began last November, members of our Chapter’s Baylands Task Force, along with RCNU and other groups, have continued education and outreach efforts to inform friends and neighbors about Saltworks’ negative impacts. These education efforts include short talks about the project at all the Chapter’s film events and outings to promote appreciation for our diminishing wetlands. We are building awareness of the location and scope of the proposed project.

RCNU is working with other groups and individuals to organize educational house parties to counter DMB and Cargill’s massive and heavily funded PR campaign.

Marianna Raymond, chair of the Loma Prieta Chapter’s Baylands Committee and a member of the Chapter’s Save Our Baylands Task Force

from the Loma Prietan, newsletter of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Wetlands

North Richmond compromise coming to Commission, Council

February 9, 2012 Leave a Comment

View of coastal prairie and former baylands of the Freethy property in North Richmond, one of the ecologically valuable properties that should be protected by General Plan changes. Photo courtesy of Citizens for East Shore Parks.

Update (March 1, 2012): The item has been pulled from the March 6 agenda.

Update (Feb. 21, 2012): On Feb. 16 the Richmond Planning Commission failed to agree on a recommendation regarding the North Richmond shoreline. The decision will now go to the City Council on March 6.

The last remaining issue regarding the Richmond General Plan is what level of private development should be allowed on the North Richmond shoreline (see previous article). The City Council deadlocked on this issue in December.

The current designation is Low Intensity Business/Light Industrial. We had sought to get the area better protected with an Open Space and Recreation designation. The private owners wanted a designation that would have allowed them more development. Neither proposal could get the needed four votes from the Council.

The Richmond planning staff is now recommending keeping the current designation, with limited changes. One would improve habitat protection by banning development within 100 feet of the shoreline. The owners want some greater height allowances, a concession that we can accept. The matter goes to the Richmond Planning Commission on Thu., Feb. 16. We will support this compromise, and the owners have also indicated their support. We therefore think that the Commission can approve the staff recommendation. Once approved at the Planning Commission, we believe it will have the best chance of getting four votes at the Council.

WhatYouCanDo

Contact the Richmond Planning Commission (by Thu., Feb. 16) and the City Council at:

440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804.

For a form to send a letter electronically, go to https://secure.sierraclub.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=6473.

Urge them to retain the current zoning designation for the North Richmond shoreline, plus a ban on all development within 100 feet of the shoreline.

Norman La Force, chair, Sierra Club West Contra Costa Group

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Land Use, Wetlands

SF Supes vote to negotiate with Park Service on Sharp Park

December 12, 2011 1 Comment

Sharp Park photo credit: Matt Jalbert // www.sparklejet.com

Update (Dec. 20, 2011): on Dec. 20 Mayor Ed Lee vetoed this ordinance.

On Dec. 6 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 6 – 5 to initiate negotiations for a long-term management agreement with the National Park Service for controversial city-owned Sharp Park in Pacifica and its endangered species (see November-December Yodeler, page 6).

Unless Mayor Ed Lee vetoes the ordinance, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department will begin discussions with the Park Service toward drafting a joint-management proposal for the Supervisors to review. The ordinance would likely result in an alternative to remove the golf course and restore the original wetlands at Sharp Park, to supplement the Park Department’s existing golf-only proposals and ensure that policy-makers can pick the best alternative to address key concerns such as recreation and public access, costs, and protecting endangered species.

The golf course at 400-acre Sharp Park is plagued by crumbling infrastructure, annual flooding problems, and ongoing environmental violations. The site is home to two federally protected species, the California red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake. Conservation groups including the Sierra Club have sued the Park Department for continuing to kill and harm endangered species by pumping water from wetlands where frogs lay eggs and by mowing vegetation used by garter snakes. Three dozen San Francisco community, recreation, environmental, and social-justice groups have called for closing the golf course and creating a more sustainable public park at Sharp Park.

The approval of the ordinance is a preliminary step to an agreement with the Park Service for long-term management of Sharp Park. Any management plan would go through an environmental review, public review, and hearings, and come back to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. The ordinance allows the city to negotiate with other parties to manage the park, such as San Mateo County or Pacifica, but ensures that city decision-making considers the potential Park Service partnership as well.

The Park Service is expected to propose closing the golf course and restoring the site to coastal habitat with a trail network and other public-serving amenities. Sharp Park is within the legislative boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and adjacent to the Park Service’s Mori Point, where a successful multimillion-dollar wildlife-habitat and trail-restoration project accommodates neighbors, school groups, and families in a community-based model of park creation. Coastal restoration experts have released a scientific study and restoration proposal for Sharp Park showing that removing the golf course and restoring the natural lagoon, wetlands, and beach processes is the least-costly and only sustainable solution for the land. Restoration will provide the most public benefit and best protect endangered species, at much less expense than the Park Department’s costly plan to dredge wetlands and physically alter golf holes.

We expect to post updated information about Mayor Lee’s action on the ordinance early in the new year at www.TheYodeler.org.

Jeff Miller, conservation advocate, Center for Biological Diversity

Filed Under: Wetlands

Water districts act to protect Redwood City wetlands

September 13, 2011 Leave a Comment

Photo by Cynthia Denny

Update April 19, 2012: a recent KPFA broadcast gives more information about South Bay wetlands; it is available at http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/79421.

Two local water districts have said ‘no’ to the Saltworks development project. Their stand may save the last large chunk of privately owned restorable wetlands on San Francisco Bay.

Cargill owns 1,400 acres of former salt ponds in Redwood City (just south and east of the intersection of Woodside Road and Highway 101), where it plans to partner with DMB Associates to build Saltworks, a city of 30,000 people, 12,000 houses, and one million square feet of retail space (see May-June Yodeler, page 7).

These lands should not be developed. Even in their current unrestored state they provide winter habitat for thousands of shorebirds. The project would dump a city’s worth of additional traffic on already gridlocked roads. Due to rising sea levels, the area is expected to be under water within 40 years. But the problem that may decisively halt development is fresh water: there isn’t enough to go around.

Redwood City purchases all of its water from the San Francisco Public Utility Commission. This supply is not expandable. Even without further growth, in the event of a drought Redwood City might have to cut back current water users by as much as 27%.

Under state law, the developer of any project with more than 500 homes is required to prove adequate water supplies. The first plan of the Saltworks developers was to use groundwater from the site–but this turned out to be non-potable saltwater. In 2009 DMB purchased the rights to 8,400 acre feet of water per year from a Bakersfield farming operation, Nickel Family LLC. At current Redwood City consumption rates, this would be enough water for an additional 50,000 residents. But the water rights purchased by DMB are a claim on the State Water Project, and there’s no direct connection from that agency to Redwood City. To use the purchased water, DMB has to find a water agency with connections to both the State Water Project and the SFPUC, and persuade that agency to accept state water in exchange for allowing some of its SFPUC water to go to Saltworks. (The state water, coming from the Delta, is substantially lower in quality than the SFPUC water, which comes directly from the Sierra Nevada.) The only two agencies that could perform this swap are the Alameda County Water District, serving Fremont, Newark, and Union City; or the Santa Clara Valley Water District, serving Santa Clara County. On Aug. 22 both districts declined to participate.

“Alameda County Water District is not participating and has no intention of participating in providing a water supply for the DMB-Cargill project,” said Walt Wadlow, general manager of the District, as quoted by the Mercury-News. “Numerous environmental issues have been raised with regard to this project, and we have no interest in contributing to the ongoing controversy.”

DMB is now studying desalination and use of recycled water. It says that it won’t release its new water plan until later this year, when it submits a revised description of its whole project.

Charlotte Allen, Executive Committee, Sierra Club Southern Alameda County Group

Filed Under: Land Use, Wetlands

The importance of wetlands

April 27, 2011 Leave a Comment

Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems on earth. An immense variety of microbes, plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and mammals need wetlands for part or all of their life cycles. More than 1/3 of all threatened and endangered species live only in wetlands and nearly half use wetlands at some time in their lives.

Wetlands can also surpass forests in carbon sequestration. Some types of marshes soak up thousands of tons of CO2 per acre every year. Wetlands clean contaminated water and guard against flooding. When wetlands are developed, CO2 is released into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change. Restoring wetlands is one of the best ways of preserving the planet’s future.

Only 10% of California’s wetlands remain. Protection of the rest is critical.

Cynthia Denny

Filed Under: Wetlands

Sierra Club revitalizes state Wetlands Committee

April 27, 2011 Leave a Comment

Wetlands are among the most biologically productive of all habitats, and they are among the best lands at removing CO2 from the air. Developers, however, love them because they’re flat. Wetlands protection has therefore been a key environmental issue throughout California.

That’s why the Sierra Club’s California/Nevada Conservation Committee is revitalizing its Wetlands Committee. To cover the range of wetlands issues around the state, the committee will have three chairs, each an experienced wetlands leader.

Marcia Hanscom led the Club campaign that got the state to preserve 600 acres at the Ballona Wetlands in Los Angeles. She serves as co-director of the Ballona Institute and director of the Wetlands Defense Fund. She also served as southern California coordinator for the Campaign to Save California Wetlands in the early ’90s.
Arthur Feinstein chairs the Bay Chapter and was formerly executive director of the Golden Gate Audubon Society. A long-time member of the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge), Arthur was also on the steering committee for the Campaign to Save California Wetlands.
Cynthia Denny is wetlands chair for the Club’s Loma Prieta Chapter, and for the last four years has led the Stop Cargill Campaign in Redwood City.

The mission of the Wetlands Committee is to bring together the Club’s California chapters with national Sierra Club committees and government bodies to advocate for the protection and restoration of the state’s wetlands. In addition to major San Francisco Bay and Delta wetlands, our major concerns include the Lake Earl Wildlife Refuge in Del Norte County, Chula Vista bayfront restoration, the Ballona Wetlands restoration, and South San Diego Bay at the Port of San Diego. These valuable wetlands areas are also included in the California Coast segment of the Club’s new Resilient Habitats Campaign (see article on page 16).

The committee’s mandate also includes inland wetlands, such as vernal pools in the Central Valley, desert wetlands, and mountain wetlands. Right now we don’t have committee members working on these concerns, and we would welcome them.

To join our efforts to protect wetlands, locally and statewide, contact the committee tri-chairs at:

cindyadenny [at] yahoo [dot] com
arthurfeinstein [at] earthlink [dot] net
wetlandact [at] earthlink [dot] net

Cynthia A. Denny

Filed Under: Wetlands

Redwood City “Saltworks” would divide South Bay wetlands

March 31, 2011 1 Comment

Photo by Cynthia Denny

The proposed “Saltworks” development in Redwood City would fragment the Peninsula’s bayfront open space, cutting off the restoration efforts at Bair Island from the rest of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project.

The 1,433-acre property, east of Highway 101 and south of Seaport Boulevard, comprises former salt-crystallization ponds. Cargill Inc. and DMB Associates propose building here, over the next 25 years, 1,200 units of housing, a million square feet of commercial uses, a 63-acre sports park (i.e. sports fields), five schools, and a wastewater-treatment center. Only 440 acres is planned for wetland restoration.

The development would have numerous intrinsic problems, including the danger of flooding if seawalls were to rupture from earthquakes, problems with the proposed water sources, potential maintenance problems when water levels rise as the climate warms, and increased congestion on already gridlocked Highway 101 and Woodside Road. The plan includes a “transit loop” linking the development to the Caltrain terminal and a proposed ferry terminal, but there are no guarantees that the terminal would be built or that the cash-strapped transit agencies would operate such lines.

More broadly, San Francisco Bay has already lost 90% of its wetlands. The former Cargill salt ponds are the last large privately held piece of restorable wetlands on the Bay. Restoration of the 1,433 acres of salt ponds into healthy wetlands would contribute more to our community and our ecosystem than would houses and pavement.

Studies from the 1980s and ’90s show tens of thousands of shorebirds using the Redwood City salt ponds. Last year Matt Leddy of the Friends of Redwood City photographed hundreds of shorebirds feeding and roosting on just one of the ponds slated for development. “On one weekend, he estimated 2,700 shorebirds including willets, black-necked stilts, marbled godwits, dowitchers, dunlins, avocets and sandpipers were all using the pond,” according to Save Wetlands (Winter 2010).

Redwood City itself is significantly below state averages for open space and recreation. The Trust for Public Lands reports that nationally cities average 17 acres of parkland per 1,000 people. Redwood City has 145 acres of parkland for 80,000 people. Just to meet the average, even without 30,000 new residents, Redwood City needs 1,215 more acres–the vast majority of the bayfront lands.

The initial study for the proposal claims that it includes 804 acres of open space. Of that area, however, only 255 acres would be an actual park, 63 acres would be sports fields, and 50 acres would be “multi-use perimeter open space”, which due to its narrow configuration isolated from other habitat would be of limited habitat value, particularly for such threatened and endangered species as the clapper rail, snowy plover, and salt-marsh harvest mouse. The remaining 440 acres would be the restored wetlands mentioned above, and we don’t know how they would be managed, although they might be incorporated into the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge would be the right manager–but it should be getting the entire site.

Saltworks calls its project the “50/50 Balanced Plan”–but there’s nothing balanced about building a development on two square miles of wetlands in a city that lacks parks and on a Bay that has lost most of its original wetlands.

Cynthia Denny, chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Wetlands Committee and Stop Cargill Campaign