Biotech project may get study in Redwood City

Longfellow Real Estate Partners, the developer behind the Redwood LIFE project, is proposing 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. In addition to funding levee improvements along Redwood Shores, other project commitments are an $85 million investment into affordable housing and a $2 million investment into child care. The public benefits package is valued at around $385 million.

Planning process

For the project to move forward, the city would need to agree to repeal the Westport Specific Plan, a 60-page study document that laid out how the existing campus could be built while taking into account environmental factors and the nearby residences.

If that plan were to be repealed, Longfellow would then be allowed to undergo the work to create a new plan and environmental study that would assess how the proposed project would affect the area. Company representatives have argued the updated study is vital because it would help develop answers and mitigations to some of the concerns raised by neighbors and environmental groups.

“The item in front of City Council this coming Monday is to start studying the project, and any questions about it will be able to be thoroughly addressed during the CEQA Environmental Impact Report; Monday’s meeting is not a decision on the project nor the fate of the existing Westport Specific Plan,” read an email statement from Longfellow. “Also, thanks to the many benefits of the project that directly impact Redwood Shores such as sea level rise improvements, acres of public parks, a new community center, an open fitness center, food/beverage options and more, many Shores residents support the project and the study of the project.”

Among those supporters are Brigitte and Earl Aiken, the husband and wife duo behind the Stop Redwood LIFE campaign, who have pivoted from rallying support against the project to backing the developer’s request to study potential development impacts of a compromised version of the project. After meeting with the couple multiple times over the past few weeks, the couple submitted a letter of support to the city.

Similarly, Joel Dujsik, another Shores resident, shared his support for the updated project moving forward, arguing the existing office park “is built for a bygone era.” He pointed to the project’s benefits package as a clear win for the city and shared his disappointment that some neighbors have expressed resistance to the project being studied.

“The current office park is not an asset, but the new one absolutely will be,” Dujsik said in an email. “It is unfortunate there are strident voices in the community who aren’t willing to engage with positive change when it is presented, but I have to commend Longfellow on being open, transparent and patient throughout this whole process. Since they acquired the property, they’ve been great neighbors and I look forward to their continued partnership with the community.”

Lingering concerns

But other neighbors aren’t convinced the studies will adequately take into account their concerns or that the benefits package will touch the lives of Redwood Shores residents. Many have regularly argued the proposal is too large for the site. Over a development period of 25 years, the project would bring in buildings that would loom over single-family and multifamily homes, increase traffic and add additional pressure to a clay cap that was laid decades ago over a landfill under the site, protecting the community from toxic fumes. Concerns have been raised the project could disrupt local sensitive habitats and put birds at risk, some have said.

And the safety levels of biological research going on at the campus is also a quickly growing concern for the Goodales. Both said they hope to see the city prohibit labs with biosafety levels 3 and 4 on the site. Those levels typically involve research into high-risk and strictly regulated microbes such as yellow fever and West Nile virus for level 3 and ebola for level 4, according to Consolidated Sterilizer Systems, a biosafety company based in Massachusetts.

Steven and Nina Goodale said they’d also like to see officials adopt a strong monitoring and oversight process for labs with BSL 2, which is currently permitted and used at the site, disputing claims both private and public sides of the industry are well regulated. Those levels are also permitted in San Carlos where councilmembers recently banned BSL 3 and 4 labs ahead of a boom in life science development on the city’s east side.

“We’re not alarmists, we’re informed,” said Steven Goodale, who, with his wife, acknowledged the importance of medical advancements and the fact that neither of them are scientists by trade but are instead concerned citizens who believe residents should educate themselves and get involved. “I want to know that there are intelligent, reasonable people who are considering not only industry needs but also neighborhood needs and are on top of what’s happening in these labs. That’s all I want.”

After hearing many of those concerns during a public council meeting in April, councilmembers encouraged Longfellow to meet with residents in hopes that the developer and public would find common ground. Since making that request, Steven and Nina Goodale said the firm asked to meet once in June.

Those who participated in the meeting expected to see a draft of a smaller alternative plan for the site, they said, but instead were presented with a draft community engagement plan. The Goodales said another meeting with the group has not been scheduled since and requests for other documents, including a copy of the community engagement plan, have gone unanswered.

Now, the Goodales said they’d like to see the city lead the community process rather than putting the responsibility on the developers for the sake of transparency and accountability.

Alternatively, Longfellow said the company has long engaged with residents and has held dozens of meetings with different groups since April. Those meetings, the company said, have helped create a “collaborative, transparent and data-informed compromise” that earned the proposal support from groups like Stop Redwood LIFE.

“One of the key components we are most proud of is our engagement with Redwood Shores over the past few years,” read the Longfellow statement. “After hundreds of hours of listening and constructive conversations, our team has made a commitment to develop project modifications that respond to direct community feedback, which has resulted in many residents and neighbors supporting the process.”

The council meets 6 p.m. Monday, July 24, at City Hall, 1017 Middlefield Road. Go to redwoodcity.org for more information.