Community Interest - The Spectrum Magazine - Redwood City's ...

P.S. The People Speak: Letters to the Editor
Save our future greatness
Dear Editor:
I am a crossing guard at Upton and Roosevelt for Roosevelt School. On
March 4, I crossed the teachers and students of Hawes and Roosevelt schools,
grades kindergarten to fifth, marching Roosevelt to Hawes and Hawes to
Roosevelt and back to be at their desks by 8 a.m.
How do you explain to children that their schools may be closed, or worse,
and that their teachers may be fired and their classes combined? In America it
is the right of every child to go to school. Children are the hope of this nation,
to be well-educated and grow up to become the ones who will put America
back on the road to greatness. Save our schools!
Saltworks plan violates regional goals
Rita Beyer, Redwood City
Dear Editor:
The Redwood City City Council seems to believe that they have a legal
mandate to complete a full analysis of the Cargill Saltworks proposal,
including an EIR, as they would other development applications. They are
dead wrong. The California Environmental Quality Act “does not apply to
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves” (CEQA Guidelines
Sec. 15270). In other words, a public agency has the authority to reject a
proposal and forego an environmental review when a project is inconsistent
with existing land-use policies and ordinances.
Redwood City has the legal right and a clear justification to reject the
Saltworks proposal at any time because the project directly violates the
city’s existing general plan and the goals set forth by the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency to
improve sustainability of the bay. Cargill is asking Redwood City to amend
the general plan and rezone their property, and also requested that the city
abort its own general plan update process. The council agreed, thus stifling
the best approach for revising land-use decisions. An EIR is no substitute
for a city-run general plan process that fully engages public input. EIRs are
intended to inform agencies about potential environmental impacts from
proposed projects, not to justify changing land-use laws.
The Redwood City council has shown that they not only believe that
Cargill is entitled to develop the site, but that they are comfortable with
the concept of building a new city in the bay. This proposal is not like “any
other application.” That is why concerned citizens all across the Bay Area
are insisting that Redwood City reinstate its general plan update for the salt
ponds before considering any development proposals.
Furious and baffled, not impressed anymore
Daniel Ponti, Redwood City
Dear Editor:
Thank you to the 92 current and former Bay Area elected officials who
signed the letter expressing their disagreement with the massive salt ponds
development project Redwood City is reviewing.
When I moved to Redwood City 10 years ago, I was impressed with the
city’s fleet of hybrid vehicles, restoration of the historic City Hall building
and infill housing projects at Franklin and Maple streets. Now I’m furious
and baffled. The city’s own planners recently recommended that when Cargill
retired the salt ponds, some of the property be used for badly needed playing
fields and the rest incorporated into the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge.
But rather than attract business and residents to the existing downtown and
restore our precious bay lands, Redwood City is considering filling in the
salt ponds to build a competing city — at sea level, with no potable water on
site, and adding traffic to already congested freeways and roads. What made
Redwood City go so far off the environmentally sustainable track?
Mimi Campbell, Redwood City
Now behind the Cargill project
Dear Editor:
Marion McEwen (“David Lewis et al” in a letter to the editor in the March
5 edition of the Daily Journal) tells it like it is. I have listened to the ranting
and raving of the radical element of environmentalists. I have listened to the
proponents of the project. I have walked my Pomeranian hundreds of times
around Pacific Shores. I have contributed hundreds of yards of waste to the
Marsh Road dump site now known as Bedwell Bayfront Park. It is ironic that
Save The Bay chose this site for their press conference. From what I know
now, I am 100 percent behind the Cargill project.
Water is not an issue. There are copious amounts of recycled water
available to the north and south of the project. Enough, in fact, to turn
the old Marsh Road dump site into a year-round Emerald Isle with an
environmentally friendly golf course. And, some of the economic “green”
that would produce wouldn’t hurt our local economy. With a scarcity of golf
courses, golfers now travel out of the area. Cargill, do you hear me?
Why study and do any research?
Jack Hickey, Emerald Hills
Dear Editor:
If my next-door neighbor wants to turn his empty lot into a high-density
apartment complex, the impact on me would be pretty apparent. So why does
the Redwood City City Council continue to study the Cargill development?
Follow the money.
City Council to cave to outside pressure?
J. Mike Hedblom, Redwood City
Dear Editor:
I attended the Save The Bay press conference a few Thursday afternoons
ago. David Lewis and Save The Bay attempted to negate Redwood City’s
planning process a couple years ago when they put Measure W on the ballot.
The measure was an amendment to Redwood City’s charter to require a
two-thirds electorate vote on development. Redwood City voters declared
satisfaction with the existing process by defeating Measure W by a wide
margin. Now he’s at it again. This time he’s trying to pressure the Redwood
City City Council to stop the city’s democratic planning process before
the environmental impact review set to begin this summer. Lewis doesn’t
understand the City Council has not only an obligation but a responsibility to
the citizens to delve into all aspects of the proposed plan to make an educated
decision.
I tried to ask Lewis why he and the so-called “high-profile” signers of
the letter want the process stopped. Environmentalists who don’t want an
environmental review? What’s up with that? I never got an answer to my
question, since Save The Bay’s public relations lady stepped in, allowing
Lewis to scurry away to talk to reporters. I asked Menlo Park Councilwoman
Kelly Fergusson what research she did before supporting Save The Bay’s
position and I was treated to her telling me she had a lot of letters after her
name before proceeding to tell me she didn’t have to know how many twoby-fours
or two-by-sixes came from old-growth trees. Huh? You can be sure
there’ll be more press conferences and attempts to circumvent our process.
You can also be sure Redwood City’s leaders will not cave to outside pressure
and will go forward with the environmental impact review. Because that’s
what residents want.
Barb Valley, Redwood City
(continues on next page)
The Spectrum 11