Officials dig into Bayside office complex proposal

“I think that what I heard tonight is very important — the traffic, the housing, the sea level rise — those are valid concerns that need to be addressed as we look at the scoping,” she said. “I think about affordable housing. To me, that’s my number one issue and I’m challenged because I don’t know if this project fits to the folks that are needing the jobs.”

Monday’s session marked the first time councilmembers reviewed the four, seven-story buildings included in the plans for the 27-acre site along the Redwood City waterfront since they initiated a general plan amendment process and study of the impact of allowing offices in an industrial part of the city last year. Up for review Monday was an updated environmental analysis and economic study. Residents and officials had suggestions that included further study of the city’s ratio of jobs to housing units and the possibility of requiring the developer to provide a mix of uses including biotech laboratory space in the project.

But Janette D’Elia, chief operating officer with the developer Jay Paul Company, defended the company’s decision to provide office space at the site, adding that a recent uptick in biotech interest in neighboring San Carlos did not necessarily mean the same trends would hold true for office space in Redwood City.

D’Elia said the economic analysis conducted by the firm Keyser Marston Associates concluded tech office space is the most economically feasible use for the site and would generate the most economic benefit to the city given the $19.6 million in community benefits the developer is proposing, which include $10 million for the Highway 101/Woodside interchange project, $2.25 million toward an east-west shuttle and more than $5 million toward an off-site waterfront park, among others.

“This is significant because if a project were developed per the existing zone there would be no requirement for any community benefits,” she said.

Whether the office use is compatible with the industrial uses permitted for the site has been debated in recent years, especially after the Planning Commission rejected it in November of 2016 out of concerns about the project’s fit with the area’s existing zoning and density. For Councilwoman Janet Borgens, who voted against revisiting the plans in July, concerns about the loss of industrial zones in the city remained fresh.

Borgens wondered whether including research and development uses in the project could mitigate the project’s effect on the city’s economic diversity, which she noted has depended upon the nearby port and port-related uses in the past and could in the future.

“That’s my concern that we’re going to encroach all the way into our industrial area and once we [lose] that, it’s gone. We won’t get that back,” she said. “I just want us to be very careful that we don’t encroach that far that we do [ourselves] a disservice.”

Councilman John Seybert pegged a future study of what constitutes research and development uses in the city to help update zones to reflect the uses taking place on them, noting many who work in laboratory and research and development-oriented spaces may not be using those spaces for the same uses today as they were decades ago.

Acknowledging suggestions from other councilmembers that child care and open space be prioritized among the community benefits included with the project, Seybert also voiced support for asking residents what benefits they would like to see in their community.

For Mayor Ian Bain, who acknowledged in-lieu fees dedicated toward the city’s affordable housing fund would be included within the estimated $48.4 million the developer will pay in impact fees, a closer look at how the project could boost the city’s housing stock was top of mind.

“As we’ve said before, developers have an ability to acquire and develop land in a way the city does not,” he said. “So I would like to look at it through the lens of is there something that would help the city advance its goals with respect to affordable housing, below-market units, that we would otherwise not be able to achieve?”

Written comments on the project may be submitted to city planner Lisa Costa-Sanders at lcostasanders@redwoodcity.org by 5 p.m. Feb. 12. Another 60-day public comment period will be noticed when the Harbor View project’s draft environmental impact report is released.

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102