Laserfiche WebLink
From:tomercer@comcast.net <br />To:GRP-City Council <br />Subject:Public Comment - Aug 25 Agenda item 8A - Alternatives for Sea Level Rise Protection Plan <br />Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 11:54:43 AM <br />Some people who received this message don't often get email from tomercer@comcast.net. Learn why this isimportant <br />Dear Council. <br />I strongly OPPOSE Staff recommendation of Alternative 2, and ask you to Support Alternative 1 – <br />NO SEA WALLS in Redwood City <br /> <br />I attended the ONLY community presentation on the 60% levee designs for Redwood City (Aug <br />15th), and was disappointed to see the staff promoting sea-walls exactly like those in Foster <br />City. I was further disappointed that staff had ZERO awareness of RSAP and horizontal levee <br />principles. In fact, they openly stated that “what is outside the wall is not their jurisdiction and <br />they are not involved in those plans” WHAT? <br /> <br />Alternative 2, regardless of what you name it, is engineered sea walls and does not <br />conform with RSAP policies. After all the public outcry against those Foster City walls, <br />including threatened litigation by neighboring cities, and after all the promises to incorporate <br />nature-based solutions as required by RSAP, your staff seems to have NOT gotten the <br />message. Redwood City plans should fully consider and integrate with what is “outside the <br />levee”. <br /> <br />I respectfully propose ALT 1.5. This begins with Alternative 1, building a base that can be <br />modified in the future, but keeping ONLY a 10-foot-wide crest for the present (a lower slope <br />on the sides, less fill weight, and no vehicle roads on top). Currently, if there are sections <br />where Alternative 1 is not feasible due to site conditions then those sections could <br />incorporate sea-walls. But sea-walls should be the exception, not the rule. <br /> <br />Please renew your direction to staff that RWC plans must fully embrace the RSAP principles, <br />and it is their job to know and plan for “what is outside the walls”. <br />Essentially, the RSAP tells cities to plan cooperatively, treat the Bay as a complete entity, allow <br />nature to suggest solutions before resorting to walls, pay attention to hidden groundwater <br />rise and contamination risks, and include vulnerable communities in decisions that shape their <br />future. <br />This matters because local choices accumulate. A seawall in one place can increase flooding or <br />erosion somewhere else. New development in a vulnerable shoreline area can reduce the <br />space available for future adaptation. A plan that ignores rising groundwater may miss serious <br />risks to homes, roads, utilities, and contaminated sites. A process that fails to meaningfully <br />involve vulnerable communities can reinforce the same inequities which sea level rise is likely <br />to worsen.