2025.04.14 Speaker Card - PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

From:Jay Muir (jaypeegoo@att.net) Sent You a Personal Message To:GRP-City Council Subject:Redwood Life Community Alternative Needs More Work Date:Thursday, March 27, 2025 1:09:37 PM [You don't often get email from kwautomail@phone2action.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Redwood City Council, I live in Foster City and shop at the Nob Hill and its hard enough to into Redwood Shores now this will make it worse! Dear Redwood City Council Members, I am writing to express concerns about the inadequacy of Alternative 2 put forward by the developer. While it includes good steps to reduce the project impact on neighbors, it falls short of addressing key community concerns and does not fulfill the promise of a truly community-developed alternative. Even the project proponents have acknowledged ongoing environmental concerns, including risks tied to building on the landfill, sea level rise, and groundwater issues. I urge you to postpone the vote and finish the final step with the community to develop an alternative that more effectively addresses environmental, safety, and community concerns. We are close to finalizing a solution that meets both community needs and the economic goals of the City, but feedback from the February 12th workshop is not reflected in Alternative 2. The community deserves to see their concerns addressed before moving forward to CEQA review. 1. Overstated Reductions in Alternative 2 At the March 3rd Study Session, the developer claimed a 20 percent reduction in project size, but the actual reduction is only 13.77 percent, from 3,316,970 sf to 2,860,000 sf. This minimal reduction does not adequately address concerns about the project scale. For comparison, the Ravenswood Business District in East Palo Alto reduced its proposal by 25 percent after community feedback. 2. Environmental Concerns Remain Unaddressed The Sensitivity Analysis prepared for the City highlighted environmental risks, but Alternative 2 does not fully address them. * Sea Level Rise. The plan fails to meet Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan requirements for nature based adaptation and does not adequately address groundwater rise or flooding. The vague commitment from developers to fund levee improvements is insufficient. * Landfill. The site, located on a former landfill adjacent to the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, presents substantial risks. The proposed construction would pierce the protective clay cap over 1,000 times, potentially releasing contaminants into surrounding ecosystems. The area already shows signs of deterioration with voids and settlement under the cap, compounded by rising groundwater levels. Additionally, the proposed buildings, as much as 120 feet tall, would place unprecedented weight on unstable soil, increasing risks of seismic activity, liquefaction, and settlement. 3. Selective Response to Community Feedback The City Council required a Community Alternative, but feedback from the February 12th workshop appears to have been ignored. The developer erroneously claimed 70 percent community approval based on a small private survey of a narrowly selected subgroup. A public survey conducted by the independent consultant is needed, as most residents have not had a chance to review or comment on Alternative 2 put forward by the developer. 4. 25-Year Buildout Timeline