Laserfiche WebLink
From:John Kirk (elmogrot@astound.net) Sent You a Personal Message <br />To:GRP-City Council <br />Subject:Redwood Life Community Alternative Needs More Work <br />Date:Thursday, March 27, 2025 4:41:06 PM <br />[You don't often get email from kwautomail@phone2action.com. Learn why this is important at <br />https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] <br />Dear Redwood City Council, <br />I?m concerned that this proposed development is not in the interest of the people of Redwood City for a number of <br />reasons. <br />1. The increasing pace of global warming is guaranteed to cause a rise in the level of the bay. Unless the developer <br />puts up the money to raise the required levies, those costs will be placed on the shoulders of the taxpayers of <br />Redwood City. <br />2. The land on which the development is planned would be better utilized an addition to the existing marshland. <br />3. Large buildings built on land fill are sure to cause liquefaction during a major earthquake resulting in the <br />buildings sinking into the mud. <br />4. Almost all developers make more promises than they actually keep leaving some hidden long run costs for the <br />city to pay. <br />Dear Redwood City Council Members, <br />I am writing to express concerns about the inadequacy of Alternative 2 put forward by the developer. While it <br />includes good steps to reduce the project impact on neighbors, it falls short of addressing key community concerns <br />and does not fulfill the promise of a truly community-developed alternative. Even the project proponents have <br />acknowledged ongoing environmental concerns, including risks tied to building on the landfill, sea level rise, and <br />groundwater issues. <br />I urge you to postpone the vote and finish the final step with the community to develop an alternative that more <br />effectively addresses environmental, safety, and community concerns. We are close to finalizing a solution that <br />meets both community needs and the economic goals of the City, but feedback from the February 12th workshop is <br />not reflected in Alternative 2. The community deserves to see their concerns addressed before moving forward to <br />CEQA review. <br />1. Overstated Reductions in Alternative 2 <br />At the March 3rd Study Session, the developer claimed a 20 percent reduction in project size, but the actual <br />reduction is only 13.77 percent, from 3,316,970 sf to 2,860,000 sf. This minimal reduction does not adequately <br />address concerns about the project scale. For comparison, the Ravenswood Business District in East Palo Alto <br />reduced its proposal by 25 percent after community feedback. <br />2. Environmental Concerns Remain Unaddressed <br />The Sensitivity Analysis prepared for the City highlighted environmental risks, but Alternative 2 does not fully <br />address them. <br />* Sea Level Rise. The plan fails to meet Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan requirements for nature based <br />adaptation and does not adequately address groundwater rise or flooding. The vague commitment from developers <br />to fund levee improvements is insufficient. <br />* Landfill. The site, located on a former landfill adjacent to the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, presents <br />substantial risks. The proposed construction would pierce the protective clay cap over 1,000 times, potentially <br />releasing contaminants into surrounding ecosystems. The area already shows signs of deterioration with voids and <br />settlement under the cap, compounded by rising groundwater levels. Additionally, the proposed buildings, as much <br />as 120 feet tall, would place unprecedented weight on unstable soil, increasing risks of seismic activity, liquefaction,