In an informational forum about shoreline conditions and sea-level rise, Redwood Shores residents were given a broad understanding of the ecology and regulatory framework in which a massive life-science campus development proposal would operate.
Regional organizers from the city, county and state level spoke to efforts underway to address sea-level rise and how policies should be considered amid developments near the shores.
Longfellow Real Estate Partners, the developer behind the Redwood LIFE project, proposes to redevelop an 84-acre site between Belmont Slough and Marine Parkway from a 970,000-square-foot, 20-building office park into a more than 3.3-million-square-foot life science campus with 15 larger buildings.
The site would include 13 office structures, a 104-room hotel and a 46,000-square-foot amenities center including a conference and meeting center, food hall and outdoor terrace and three parking structures distributed across the campus.
A commitment of developers include funding levee improvements along Redwood Shores.
No particulars of the proposed Redwood LIFE project at the site were addressed in this forum, but it was held as part of the city’s efforts in engaging the community while it is preparing a precise plan and environmental impact review for the development.
One area of concern is the current inadequacies of the levees in the Redwood Shores.
Levees all around the Bay lost accreditation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2020 for not being built high enough to protect against projected future flooding and sea-level rise, and are currently being studied for improvements, James O’Connell, assistant director of Engineering and Transportation for Redwood City, said.
Alongside OneShoreline, a county agency created in 2019 to plan and build resilience to the water related impacts of climate change, the city submitted for a FEMA sponsored grant to support the design, investigation and environmental documentation of building the levees up to the necessary height.
“It is a long-term process to build it all out,” O’Connell said. “For the most part, FEMA has been fairly accommodating that we are working towards a goal and that it takes time to get there.”
Recommended for you
Underground utilities often are also an area of concern for developments placed near water surfaces, and considering the site of the Redwood LIFE project is placed upon a former landfill, O’Connell said special consideration will be given to these issues.
“Storm water in particular will be a challenge for the site, but with all engineering, when there is a will, there’s a way,” O’Connell said. “It won’t be problematic, just something that will get extra scrutiny.”
Though the informational forum did not speak to the Redwood LIFE project specifically, Len Materman, chief executive officer of One Shoreline, said it’s good the development is being considered concurrently with regional projects addressing sea-level rise.
OneShoreline works to provide guidance to regional developers through a development agreement to consider implementation of climate change resilience planning, CEO Len Materman said.
“As part of the development process, it talks about the need from the get go for shoreline infrastructure, and it doesn’t assume that’s coming in years after the development is completed, it tries to bake it in from the beginning,” Materman said. “We would encourage that this occur in all developments along the shoreline.”
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a state level agency addressing climate adaptation plans, is also about to approve its Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan guiding coordinated, local planned sea-level rise adaptation actions. This guide will inform how local agencies should plan accordingly for climate change and include information specifically for developments, Dana Brechwald, assistant planning director for climate adaptation, said.
As the consideration for the development of the life science campus continues, local governing agencies are working on increasing awareness on the effects of sea-level rise, groundwater rise and flooding.
“There’s a lot of energy and information coming forward,” Materman said. This is a good time to gain an understanding for all of us on the subject.”
Though attendees of the virtual informational forum were upset that more details of the site’s contentious plans were not discussed, city consultants working on the project maintained the information discussed informs considerations of the large commercial development.
A similar city-led information forum on the landfill on which the development site lies will be held in November. Results from the sensitivity analyses current underway by the city, including one conducted on transportation impacts, will also be reported by the end of the year.
(1) comment
My guess is this is the foreplay to asking taxpayers to pay higher taxes and contribute to this alleged sea level rise gloom and doom. I’d ask folks to focus on what addressing these predictions will cost and when we should expect to see (in the near future is my guess) tax measures to take more of your hard earned money to pay for these predictions (which may never come to pass). Money which will likely go towards paying union-compensated salaries and their ever increasing pensions and benefits. And what happens if there’s no meaningful sea level rise. Um – money’s wasted. BTW, how much has the sea level risen in the past 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.