Laserfiche WebLink
From:Gail Raabe <br />To:publiccomment <br />Subject:CCCR comments on Agenda Item 6E April 14 council meeting <br />Date:Monday, April 14, 2025 4:49:24 PM <br />You don't often get email from glraabe@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important <br />City Clerk: <br />I am unable to attend the meeting tonight, and would appreciate having my comments read into the <br />meeting record. <br />Thank you, <br />Gail Raabe, Co-chair <br />Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge <br />Redwood City Council <br />c/o City Clerk <br />1017 Middlefield Road <br />Redwood City, CA 94063 <br />Sent via email to: publiccomment@redwoodcity.org. <br /> RE: JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE <br />AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Monday, April 14, 20256. <br />CONSENT CALENDAR <br />6.E. Selection of an alternative for evaluation in the Redwood Life Evolve Project <br />Environmental Impact Report located at 800-3400 Bridge Parkway Recommendation: <br />By motion, approve and authorize staff to proceed with selection and review of <br />alternative 2 for evaluation alongside the proposed Longfellow development project in <br />the Redwood Life Evolve Environmental Impact Report. CEQA: This is not a project <br />under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA <br />Good evening Mayor Martinez Saballos and Council Members: <br />I’m Gail Raabe, Co-chair of Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, a local <br />advocacy group for the protection and restoration of San Francisco Bay wetlands and <br />wildlife. <br /> First, I am requesting that Item 6.E., Selection of an alternative for evaluation in the <br />Redwood Life Evolve Project, be removed from the Consent Calendar for further <br />Council discussion prior to a decision being made on this controversial project. <br />Alternative 2, put forth by the developer and recommended in the April 14 Staff <br />Report, does not adequately address the serious concerns of many residents and <br />groups regarding the development’s potential to adversely impact the integrity of the <br />unlined landfill on the site. With future sea level and ground water rise, this could <br />result in contaminants moving off-site into Belmont Slough, an environmentally <br />sensitive area. <br />I believe selecting only this alternative would be a premature decision since this will <br />not allow for a more precautionary alternative with respect to the landfill, to be studied <br />in the environmental impact report.