DID YOU KNOW That Blu (Former Pete's) Harbor in Redwood City is up for approval at the next Bay Conservation and Development Commission on Thursday November 6th?

The former Pete’s Harbor is now Blu Harbor. When the new project located at the former Pete’s Harbor was proposed the plan was to raise the land three feet to account for sea level rise. The new plan submitted to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) proposes five feet. According to BCDC staff the project raises one major issue: “whether the proposed public access improvements are consistent with the McAteer-­Petris Act and Bay Plan policies on public access, including policies on sea level rise, appearance, design, and scenic views, and Bay natural resources.” The cost of the proposed plan is $76,590,981 and proposed construction is to begin in the first quarter of 2015.San Mateo county is one of the most exposed counties in the state if not the country to sea level rise.

“The Commission will hold a public hearing on an application for a major permit to build, use and maintain a portion of a 411 unit residential development within the 100 foot shoreline band at the intersection of Smith Slough and Redwood Creek. Development proposed within the 100 foot shoreline band includes portions of four, 10 unit residential buildings totaling 5,393 square feet, 31,482 square feet of roadways and parking, and a 110,939 square-foot public access area. The public access improvements include a twelve foot wide and 1,260 foot long Bay Trail spur, public access landscaping, two trellises, four overlooks, a public playground, bocce ball court, a gazebo, seven public access parking spaces, a boat launch and wash-­‐down station for hand launch boats, seating areas, and bike racks. No Bay fill is proposed. The project in total would consist of 11 residential buildings, one 302 unit building and ten10 unit buildings with an expected occupancy of approximately 737 residents, a 10,000 square foot clubhouse, 580 surface parking stalls, and a 228,000 square foot parking garage, but the great majority of the proposed development would occur outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-­‐3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.]”http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/meetings/commission/2014/2014.11.6ComMtgNotice.pdf

Meanwhile as I wrote in a recent blog the California Coastal Commission recently voted to implement a safeguarding plan for California. As Heal the Bay noted in their letter of support “the 2009 Climate Adaptation Strategy states that California ‘should pursue activities that can increase natural resiliency, such as restoring tidal wetlands, living shoreline, and related habitats; managing sediment for marsh accretion and natural flood protection; and maintaining upland buffer areas around tidal wetlands.…. Beach, dune, and wetlands habitats create a natural buffer zone to protect coastal communities, and associated infrastructure, from surging seas.’”

In other words as the seas rise up, “coastal armoring should be the last resort to shoreline protection in California.” (Coastal armoring is further described as “beach armoring, including the use of hardened structures such as seawalls.”) “Instead, softer strategies that enhance an ecosystem’s natural adaptive capacity are the preferred option, such as managed retreat.” http://patch.com/california/redwoodcity-woodside/did-you-know-california-ocean-protection-council-just-voted

But the plan presented by RWC Harbor Communities LLC relies on a mix of three elements: a deep soil mixture (DSM) buttress system, a concrete retaining wall and a sheet pile fascia wall. This all sounds like the very coastal armoring that is supposed to be the last resort.

Where is the living shoreline? Where are the tidal wetlands? Where is managed retreat?

In contrast cities like London and Amsterdam are building floating communities that allow for sea level rise. http://patch.com/california/redwoodcity-woodside/did-you-know-london-getting-floating-village

What do you think?