How Redwood City will protect its industrial zones, accommodate an influx of office workers and change with some $70 million in community benefits promised to the city by the Jay Paul Company were top of mind for Redwood City officials Monday as they reviewed the developer’s proposal to build a 1.2-million-square-foot office complex east of Highway 101 at the vacant site of the former Malibu Grand Prix.
The council voted 4-2, with Councilwoman Diane Howard absent, to initiate a study of the plan to build laboratories and offices at the 27-acre site east of Highway 101, which require an amendment to the city’s general plan designating the site for light industrial and port-related uses. It was the second time the plans, dubbed the Harbor View project, had come before city officials, following the Planning Commission’s rejection in November out of concerns about the project’s fit with the area’s existing zoning and density.
Along with Vice Mayor Ian Bain, Councilwoman Janet Borgens voted against initiating a study of the general plan amendment. She said city officials designated the area for industrial uses when they adopted its general plan in 2010, and advocated for officials to stick with the plan as exceptions for individual projects could undermine its goals.
“It would be sending the wrong message if we change the density and the use in that area,” she said. “We’re very fortunate to have an industrial area and I don’t want to see that disappear.”
Former mayor Barbara Pierce said the site’s current designation was meant to support industries related to the Port of Redwood City, less than 2 miles to the east of the proposed project, and emphasized the importance of these industries to help the city weather dips in revenue.
“[The current designation] helps to protect a diversity of economy and jobs,” she said. “This has been very important for our community, especially during the economic downturns when office has been severely hit.”
Proposed community benefits
But others were hopeful about the estimated $70 million in community benefits the developer included in the project proposal, among them improved connections to bike lanes and Bay Trail paths near the site, open public space and almost $5 million toward renovations of the Redwood City Boys and Girls Club building, which opened in June.
Sean Mendy, a 10-year employee with the Boys of Girls Clubs of the Peninsula, said the Jay Paul Company has been one of the nonprofit’s most helpful partners in recent years. He said he expects the developer’s presence in the community to have far-reaching effects beyond the funds it is committing to the project.
“I’m seeing [students] benefit from the transformation of the clubhouse, I’m also seeing the benefits from the economic growth that’s happening in Redwood City,” he said, adding that students from the North Fair Oaks neighborhood in unincorporated San Mateo County have been able to participate in internships with local technology companies like Google and LinkedIn as the nonprofit’s programs have expanded.
The developer also pledged funds to the roads surrounding the project, including $26 million to extend Blomquist Street and $10 million toward the interchange between Woodside Road and Highway 101. Councilman Jeff Gee voiced support for initiating the study and determining the project’s impact on the surrounding area, which he said would help inform the community benefits package accompanying the project.
“As well as whether that $10 million is right for the Woodside/101 interchange, without looking at it, I can’t say it’s the right number or the wrong number,” he said.
Redwood City resident Matthew Self said that while he’s not opposed to the project, he thought officials should consider the area surrounding the project instead of focusing on a review of the project itself. He said the process to come up with a plan for downtown Redwood City had been successful in gathering community input and creating rules that took the need for housing and transportation options new workers and residents would need into account.
“We had an upfront planning process with a lot of community input a lot of planning … planning the whole area at once, not one project at a time,” he said. “So the problem with this proposal is we’re not following that successful formula.”
Councilwoman Shelly Masur expressed similar concerns about how the developer could account for the need for housing the four office buildings could create.
“I am concerned about the jobs housing imbalance and what that means,” she said. “I would be looking for more commitment to housing and affordable housing in part to mitigate the impact of this project.”
Recommended for you
Labor support
Redwood City resident Don Haynes was among several members of local labor unions who voiced support for the developer, who he said has been committed to working with labor unions during previous projects. The developer estimated the number of union jobs to be created by the Harbor View project to be 4,400. Haynes said the developer understood what could be involved with cleaning up a site used for a variety of industrial uses and hiring the skilled labor to do a thorough job.
“We have a company in front of us that is willing to bear all of the expense to environmentally go in there and clean this place up and provide us something that is safe for our grandchildren, that is safe for us and that we can live with environmentally,” he said.
Mayor John Seybert also supported moving forward with further study of the project. He said by asking a lot of questions and gathering answers, city officials were able to collect the information needed to create the city’s downtown precise plan, which he said should be open to revisions in case officials got certain aspects of it wrong.
“I think it’s an opportunity to do our homework one more time,” he said.
Caltrain grade separations
In other business, the council discussed how safety on the more than 2 miles of train tracks running through the city with Caltrain officials, who are working with several other Bay Area cities to build grade separations at the intersections of major streets and the rail line.
Among the biggest challenges Caltrain officials identified to starting grade separations was obtaining funding for them, which they said would likely come from a variety of county, state and federal agencies. They recommended the city start the planning process soon to “get in line” along with other Peninsula cities in need of grade separation projects, even though 10 or 15 years could pass before the projects were complete.
Gee emphasized how critical it would be that the city begin the planning process as soon as possible to be gather funding from several sources.
“This is really critical. No one goes it alone with regard to funding,” he said. “I would encourage our community, our council and future councils to stay at it.”
Given that new developments with Caltrain service, such as electrification of the line and integration of service with high-speed rail, could factor into the funding for other Caltrain projects, Masur encouraged residents to stay informed about updated Caltrain service and voice their opinions about how it affects them.
“I would just encourage our community members to be paying attention to this,” she said.
Seybert said the grade separation projects could be incorporated into the council’s discussion on the city’s transportation study slated for the fall.
Yet another shining example that the wishes of developers take precedence over quality of life issues for the residents of Redwood City. Another embarrassing performance by Council and their orchestrated idea of a "study session" to distract from the heart of the resolution. Plain and simply, the resolution that passed started the process to amend the General Plan for the benefit of a developer. It's never too early to start the planning for yet another referendum to corral the majority of Council that is beholden to development.
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN In order to clear up any confusion as to what passed Monday night, I have included below the resolution's exact verbiage from the voting summary report. If there was any confusion or inconsistencies then someone should have asked for the resolution to be changed. Kudos to Councilmember Borgens for attempting to make sure everyone knew what they voting on before she was rudely cut-off by our Mayor. I have also included a link to a YouTube video of the meeting if anyone wants to relive the horror show. The starting points are at the end of this post and video commences with Council comment. Bottom line: Aguirre, Gee, Masur and Seybert all voted to initiate the process for amending the General Plan to benefit a massive office project with impacts that can never be fully mitigated. These four Councilmembers have chosen the wishes of a developer over the best interests of the residents they are supposed to be representing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ VOTING SUMMARY REPORT Recommendation: If the City Council wishes to initiate the General Plan Amendment, it should adopt a Resolution to Initiate Proceedings to Amend the Redwood City General Plan RESOLUTION NO. 15612 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND THE STRATEGIC GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY AS REQUESTED BY THE JAY PAUL COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH THE HARBOR VIEW PLACE PROJECT M/S Aguirre/Gee to initiate the General Plan Amendment, it should adopt a Resolution to Initiate Proceedings to Amend the Redwood City General Plan. Motion carried 4-2 by roll call vote with Vice Mayor Bain and Council Member Borgens opposed.
This comment by Kris Johnson is the absolute truth. The Council Meeting on Monday evening was very hard to watch. The residents of Redwood City deserve better. Thank goodness for the honest and straightforward comments made by Vice Mayor Ian Bain and Councilwoman Janet Borgens. The comments we heard by the other members of the council were misleading at best.
"Mayor John Seybert also supported moving forward with further study of the project." He said (the plan)..."should be open to revisions in case officials got certain aspects of it wrong."
(Deja vu: Where have I heard that "in case we get it wrong" statement before?)
"“I think it’s an opportunity to do our homework one more time,” he said.
(I would suggest TWO more times.)
Better to do your homework BEFORE the construction. How can you "make revisions" to a completed 8-story building, once built?
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.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(6) comments
Yet another shining example that the wishes of developers take precedence over quality of life issues for the residents of Redwood City. Another embarrassing performance by Council and their orchestrated idea of a "study session" to distract from the heart of the resolution. Plain and simply, the resolution that passed started the process to amend the General Plan for the benefit of a developer. It's never too early to start the planning for yet another referendum to corral the majority of Council that is beholden to development.
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
In order to clear up any confusion as to what passed Monday night, I have included below the resolution's exact verbiage from the voting summary report. If there was any confusion or inconsistencies then someone should have asked for the resolution to be changed. Kudos to Councilmember Borgens for attempting to make sure everyone knew what they voting on before she was rudely cut-off by our Mayor. I have also included a link to a YouTube video of the meeting if anyone wants to relive the horror show. The starting points are at the end of this post and video commences with Council comment.
Bottom line: Aguirre, Gee, Masur and Seybert all voted to initiate the process for amending the General Plan to benefit a massive office project with impacts that can never be fully mitigated. These four Councilmembers have chosen the wishes of a developer over the best interests of the residents they are supposed to be representing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VOTING SUMMARY REPORT
Recommendation:
If the City Council wishes to initiate the General Plan Amendment, it should adopt a Resolution to Initiate Proceedings to Amend the Redwood City
General Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 15612 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND THE STRATEGIC GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY AS REQUESTED BY THE JAY PAUL
COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH THE HARBOR VIEW PLACE PROJECT
M/S Aguirre/Gee to initiate the General Plan Amendment, it should adopt a Resolution to Initiate Proceedings to Amend the Redwood City General Plan. Motion carried 4-2 by roll call vote with Vice Mayor Bain and Council Member Borgens opposed.
Kris Johnson's account of the events of this council meeting are absolute truth.
More and more jobs and no complementary housing.
This comment by Kris Johnson is the absolute truth. The Council Meeting on Monday evening was very hard to watch. The residents of Redwood City deserve better. Thank goodness for the honest and straightforward comments made by Vice Mayor Ian Bain and Councilwoman Janet Borgens. The comments we heard by the other members of the council were misleading at best.
"Mayor John Seybert also supported moving forward with further study of the project."
He said (the plan)..."should be open to revisions in case officials got certain aspects of it wrong."
(Deja vu: Where have I heard that "in case we get it wrong" statement before?)
"“I think it’s an opportunity to do our homework one more time,” he said.
(I would suggest TWO more times.)
Better to do your homework BEFORE the construction. How can you "make revisions" to a completed 8-story building, once built?
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.