My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
2026.02.09 Speaker Cards - PC
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2026
>
Speaker Cards - Public Comments
>
2026.02.09 Speaker Cards - PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2026 1:47:22 PM
Creation date
2/24/2026 1:47:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Speaker Card
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
2/9/2026
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />February 9, 2026 <br />Redwood City Council <br /> <br />Subject: Redwood Shores Sea Level Rise (SLR) Protection Project <br /> <br />Input from the Community and stakeholders on the proposed alternatives should be <br />presented and considered before Council vote. <br /> <br />Dear Mayor Saballos and Redwood City Councilmembers, <br /> <br />We appreciate that the Consultant team is looking at 2 alternatives, including an Adaptive <br />Pathways approach with an intermediate 35 year phase. We generally support a phased, <br />adaptive approach, not merely as a cost-saving measure, but as a core implementation strategy, <br />consistent with BCDC’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP). A phased approach allows <br />the City to align future infrastructure investments with evolving sea level rise and regulatory <br />conditions while minimizing unnecessary impacts and preserving flexibility. However, how Phase <br />One design will influence and limit Phase Two design was concerning. <br /> <br />We are concerned that the City Council is being asked to vote on these alternatives without the <br />benefit of community feedback. <br /> <br />The Redwood Shores Flood Protection Project must comply with BCDC’s RSAP. This requires, <br />per the consultant contract, Community Involvement to ensure that there is actual dialogue with <br />the community about the SLR strategies that are proposed for their community. Yet the current <br />process falls short: <br /> <br />1. Online Survey results have not been made public. More than 480 responses were <br />reportedly received., Those results should be transparently shared especially given that <br />some of the design concepts presented appear inconsistent with community <br />expectations. <br />2. Community Meetings are not informing decision-making. One meeting occurred just <br />two days ago, yet the Council staff report and recommendation was published before the <br />alternatives and design details were even revealed to community members at the <br />second meeting. <br /> <br />While we recognize project schedule pressures, the Council needs to realize that, once again,* <br />Redwood Shores Community members and stakeholders are feeling frustrated in their attempts <br />sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.