Plans to overhaul an existing office campus in Redwood City’s Redwood Shores neighborhood has drawn concern from residents who believe the project, dubbed Redwood LIFE, would negatively impact the environment and their quality of life.
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. An $85 million investment into affordable housing is also a project commitment.
Peter Fritz, Longfellow’s senior director of development, lauded the project in an email statement. Beyond increasing public green space by 163%, renovating the Bay Trail and establishing four new parks, he said the project has also been designed to meet LEED Gold Standards, the second best of four rankings given to projects that reduce environmental impacts while improving human quality of life.
“Longfellow is thrilled about the number of community benefits and amenities we will be able to provide throughout the life of this project and proud of our long-standing commitment to sustainability in the region,” Fritz said.
But locals have argued the project will bring more troubles than good and have asserted these changes won’t come without a fight. The Redwood Shores Community Association has partnered with Save the Shores, a recently formed nonprofit, to rally against the project and Stop Redwood LIFE, an effort led by husband-and-wife duo Brigitte and Earl Aiken, also aims to draw attention to community concerns.
Coalition against
RSCA and Save the Shores during a meeting Tuesday and the Aikens in an interview with the Daily Journal asserted they are not against all development in Redwood Shores but have taken particular issue with Redwood LIFE.
“Do we oppose all development projects? No, we don’t. The development proposals we oppose are the ones we believe are unnecessary, could harm the environment, wildlife or community well-being for those who live or work in Redwood Shores,” Martha Cullimore, secretary of Save the Shores’ Board of Directors, said.
A top environmental concern involves a clay cap used to cover a municipal waste landfill in the 1970s when the area was being transitioned into an office park. The cap was intended to keep toxic chemicals from resurfacing and the groups shared concerns that the larger buildings could crack or penetrate the cap.
Having lived in Redwood Shores for about 30 years now, the Aikens are largely concerned about the effects the project will have on what they described as a “tranquil island” in the middle of a growing Silicon Valley, concerns shared by the RSCA and Save the Shores.
“We want to let them know this is what we, the Redwood Shores residents, the neighborhood here, how much this is going to cost. Our quality of life is going to be sacrificed,” Brigitte Aiken said. “I don’t know how much I can achieve, how successful I’ll be but I just feel we have to do whatever we can.”
Construction, noise, shadows and community engagement
Recommended for you
Those who live near the site will be subjected to years of construction traffic and noise pollution, they argue. Current plans are for building the site out in seven phases over the next 10 to 20 years. Development wouldn’t likely begin until 2025, following a number of public engagement meetings, completion of an environmental review and Planning Commission and City Council review.
Once the project is completed, local residents say the traffic concerns will only continue, given that the new biotech campus would bring thousands of employees into the area. The groups also shared concerns for potential shadows being caused by the future 100-foot buildings.
In a project narrative filed with the city, Longfellow said its team has been working with the consulting firm Fehr & Peers to develop a transportation demand management program aimed at encouraging multi-model connectivity, reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips and supporting a “sustainable transportation system.”
Longfellow also asserts feedback gathered from hundreds of stakeholders and neighbors through community meetings, one-on-one discussions and community social events have helped shape the current proposal.
“In fact, many of the features in our campus came directly from the last two years of recurring meetings that our Redwood City team has had with our neighbors in Redwood Shores and a wide variety of local civic groups such as the Redwood Shores Community Association, Sierra Club, and so many more,” Fritz said.
The project as designed aligns with the city’s General Plan and what “goals, policies and standards” have been set for the proprietary, according to the project narrative published online. But the developer is asking the city to approve a subdivision, rezone the property to Planned Community District, adopt a new Redwood LIFE: Evolve Precise Plan, approve permits for the initial phases of the project and enter into a Development Agreement.
Speaking out
With years to go before final consideration to approve or deny the project ahead, the opposition groups intend to make their voices heard by speaking out at meetings and gathering signatures in support of their efforts.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Cullimore acknowledged that the council cannot outright deny a project due to community opposition. Ultimately, she said the plan is to encourage greater scrutiny of the projects and its potential adverse effects on wildlife and the community without modifications.
Meanwhile, the Aikens hope to stop the project altogether.
“There’s a lot to be done between now and then,” Earl Aiken said. “We’re a bunch of Davids and Longfellow is a huge Goliath but we have a lot of rocks in our sling to bring out.”
(650) 344-5200 ext. 106
(3) comments
Hello, Sierra… thanks for an informative and balanced article about Longfellow’s Redwood LIFE project.
There are many aspects of the project that will surely attract scrutiny in the months to come. Longfellow’s agreement to contribute funding for affordable housing will certainly be one of them.
Longfellow has committed $85 million toward affordable housing in Redwood City. It touts this contribution as an amenity for the larger community. While that seems like a lot, will it move the affordable housing needle enough to make a real difference? Consider the Harbor View project in Redwood City. The developer has agreed to donate $36 million to a non-profit for acquisition of 64 affordable apartments in Redwood City. The non-profit would make those apartments available to qualifying families. As a lot of people know, due to your reporting, Redwood City is planning to add nearly 7,000 new housing units by the year 2030. That is an ambitious goal created to address the affordable housing crisis now.
Longfellow plans to contribute $85 million for the acquisition of already existing homes and the construction of new homes somewhere in Redwood City over the horizon of their project’s development. For the sake of argument, if we apply the Harbor View formula to Longfellow’s offering, that means Longfellow would be adding 151 affordable homes… at sometime in the future. Those homes would not become available until after Redwood City’s 2030 goal of adding thousands of new housing units. When you compare the number of affordable homes Longfellow might create through its donation, it’s fairly easy to see Longfellow’s contribution does not move the affordable housing needle enough to make a real difference… and the difference it might make may not be realized for another twenty years.
Like the Harbor View developer, Longfellow has decided to partner with some non-profits. Those non-profits optimistically believe Longfellow’s contribution may create as many as 250 affordable housing units. 250 units, some of which may not materialize until the year 2045, is a far cry from the nearly 7,000 new units Redwood City wants by the year 2030.
There is another aspect of Longfellow’s offer to fund some affordable housing that deserves scrutiny. Longfellow forecasts that 7,000 employees will ultimately work on its Redwood LIFE campus when the project is complete. However, it’s unlikely the employees working on the Redwood LIFE campus would qualify for the affordable housing funded by Longfellow. It’s clear, Longfellow’s offer to contribute to affordable housing will not draw life science employees to Redwood City. The non-profits working with Longfellow have suggested that some "service" workers who will qualify for affordable housing will be employed on the Redwood LIFE site. The reality is… Longfellow is not redeveloping its campus to bring in service workers, and that means their $85 million "contribution" is not really an amenity for the larger community.
Peter Fritz of Longfellow says the project "aligns with the city’s General Plan." The project is in direct conflict with Principal BE 1.8 of the General Plan, which states "Require that new projects are integrated as seamlessly as possible into surrounding development, creating extensions of the urban fabric."
“According to this article, Martha Cullimore of Save the Shores, during their recent open house, "acknowledged that the (city) council cannot outright deny a project due to community opposition." What is a city council for if not to represent its constituents? Of course, public opposition can influence a government decision.”
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.