Housing advocates question Redwood City’s Gatekeeper process

“I wanted to look into why we are able to zone for more housing in theory, but trouble building that housing in practice,” said Michael Arruza Cruz, a lead volunteer with the pro-housing organization. “The actual reason for that is complex, of course, and the Gatekeeper Process is just one part.”

The city’s Gatekeeper Process was an intentional selection of eight office development proposals in 2020 and 2021 that the city felt were likely to be built if approved, and would include community benefits — including affordable housing that would allow for increased heights of office buildings. Based on these eight proposals, a high-level environmental impact report was conducted and amendments were made to the city’s Downtown Precise Plan to accommodate development caps and zoning updates. 

A brief report authored by Arruza Cruz tracked the progress of the proposals initiated through the Gatekeeper Process and how long they’ve remained at each step of review. 

“We were surprised to find that not only have most projects not received approval to begin construction, but most projects have been withdrawn or have not had their applications deemed complete,” the report reads. 

While the report looks to identify the bottleneck effect caused by the Gatekeeper Process, Community Development Director Jeff Schwob said the city is not the reason for delays in moving forward. 

“We’re ready, they’re asking for extra time,” Schwob said of proposed developers. 

Four years after the eight proposals were decided upon, two have been approved by the City Council to move forward. Only one other proposal has a completed application submitted.

“Even projects that are approved aren’t breaking ground or moving forward because of the financing challenges, construction costs, labor, all this adds up,” Schwob said. 

A development of 56 townhouse units at 505 E. Bayshore Road was approved by the City Council in June 2023, but a building permit has yet to be issued. This delay may be a result of the extensive permits required for developments on the Bayfront, Schwob said. 

A joint project proposal at 1900 Broadway with an offsite housing development at 847 Woodside Road, that would contain 71 affordable units, was approved by the council in October 2024. The fate of the housing development, though, heavily depends on the possibility of leasing the major office space downtown. 

Of the eight original proposals, two have also been pulled from the Gatekeeper Process, including one on Allerton Street that would have included 26 affordable units. Schwob felt this “wasn’t a big deal” because it was “only a handful of affordable units.” 

The other proposal pulled is at 651 El Camino Real, which is still moving forward under state density bonus provisions, though not through the same gatekeeper process because of a major change to its development proposal, Schwob said. This site looks to revitalize the American Legion hall, create veteran support offices, and 135 affordable units. 

“It’s easy to say the interest rates are what killed these projects, but the fact these were waiting so long is also a problem,” Arruza Cruz said. “’It's not that delays are 100% to blame, but delays exacerbate those other issues of changing economic landscapes and rising costs.” 

Proposals can get “stuck in a back and forth” between the city and developers before being finalized as they work to figure out appropriate community benefits, concessions and waivers, Arruza Cruz said. 

However, Scwob said the delay in progress is often at the hands of developers. 

“With the exception of the ones approved, all other projects have asked for additional time, modified their projects substantially, or are responding to the changing financial climate,” Schwob said. 

With these major changes, updated benefits analyses must be conducted to make sure each proposal is in compliance with city regulations, Schwob said. 

The next Gatekeeper Project moving along in the pipeline is the joint effort at 901 El Camino Real with an off-site affordable housing proposed at 920 Shasta St., which will be discussed in a public hearing at the April 15 planning commission meeting. The housing development will include 99 affordable apartments. 

The developer at 2300 Broadway, proposing 80 affordable units, requested to be “put on hold,” as they look for a tenant for its proposed 200,000-square-foot office development, Schwob said. At 750 Bradford St., proposed developer Sobrato also requested time to work out details for school district employee housing. 

Significant changes were made to the proposal to 1205 Veterans Blvd. — originally a 5,000-square-foot retail and 6,000-square-foot day care, with 430 units in total — and the applicant has not resubmitted anything since October 2022, Schwob said. A new request must be made for the completely different project, which may include adding 50% more units, he said.  

Ministerial process

One of the calls to action from Peninsula for Everyone is for the city to consider applying the ministerial approval process to more proposals, which ultimately streamline the approval process for affordable housing projects and exempt the proposals from undergoing a major environmental review. Discretionary approval processes tend to require significant more time for public comment and ultimately result in cost increases and delays, Arruza Cruz said. 

“The city can and should consider adopting ministerial approval for a wide range of projects,” the report reads. 

A housing development at 112 Vera Ave. that used this expedited process was recently approved within months, despite the trend of slowing development and high-density concerns. The development includes 176 low-income units in a seven-story building. 

However, even if a proposal gets approved quickly, without money to build it, delays may still continue. A streamlined ministerial-qualified proposal at 1304 Middlefield Road has been approved for two years and still hasn’t broken ground. 

“Some of it is just market conditions, and not really the process,” Schwob said. 

Although the Gatekeeper Process was initiated in a time when financing conditions were more favorable and developers were eager to move along, there was still a series of Downtown Precise Plan amendments that had to be made, and the overarching environmental review that must be conducted, Schwob said. 

“The planning part and environmental review took a while on the heels of COVID, and on the heels of COVID, the economy changed and the office market went down substantially,” Schwob said. “But here we are. We’re trying to make further accommodations to get those developments through.” 

Development agreements between the city and developers include up to a six-year approval period in exchange for locked-in fees and maintained rules, Schwob said. The city is also looking to get the housing component of the bifurcated proposals to move along quicker than the office developments. 

“It’s admittedly complex, and it’s not super visible to the public, but it hasn’t been that we have been stalling or delaying,” Schwob said. "The developers are trying to figure out what they could make work financially.” 

The report has been sent to councilmembers and city staff, and Arruza Cruz said it felt like “there is an awareness that the gatekeeper process has proven to be a bit of a bottleneck.” 

Calling attention to the report comes ahead of the city looking to update its vision for the greater downtown area. 

“We want this to be top of mind as we potentially zone for more housing downtown,” Arruza Cruz said. 

On April 17, Redwood City is hosting an open house from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Downtown Library Community Room where residents can provide input on the greater downtown’s plan. 

“If you grade Redwood City on a curve, they come in high above their neighbors,” Arruza Cruz said. “But that doesn’t mean it can’t do better and that there aren’t very real roadblocks. As the economic environment changes, we need to adapt our policies to promote development.”