Redwood City pushes for development promises

“These projects came forward because of their promises and we were all excited. I know the market is now a bit changed but it will bounce back,” Councilmember Diane Howard said during a meeting Monday, May 8. “For us to start loosening up the obligations will only hurt the city and it won’t be fair to the taxpayers of the city who are taking the brunt of the noise and the building and everything else that is going on.” 

Nine projects were presented to the City Council in late 2020 as part of the city’s Gatekeeper process which was meant to help officials narrow down the projects that would be allowed to seek formal considerations through the city review process. At that time, the city had already hit its development caps for office and residential projects listed in the Downtown Precise Plan, a guiding document adopted in 2011. 

The council agreed to let six of the nine developers submit their projects for review. A year later, two more projects were permitted to initiate the review process. And by October 2022, all eight had formally filed applications with the city Planning Department. 

But Assistant City Manager Alex Khojikian said during last Monday’s council meeting that much has changed since those projects were first considered. Uncertainty in the economy has made it more difficult for projects to find funding and to get insured, Khojikian said. 

Downtown vacancies have also grown due to hard financial times and an increase in remote work. Before the pandemic struck, only about 6.6% of commercial spaces were empty. Now, that number is around 25%. 

Residents have routinely warned officials about the trend when considering more commercial development proposals but developers have assured the city the demand is there or will come back and the projects also came with needed benefits like housing and child care packages.  

“We’re facing persistent office vacancies so we need more homes downtown to increase foot traffic and for businesses, to activate public spaces and to really become a 24/7 downtown,” Councilmember Chris Sturken said. “The bottom line is we need more housing, we need deeper affordability and we need it to be done as quickly as possible so wherever you can find that property, whether it be in downtown, which is my hope and my preference, or outside downtown like on Woodside Road or elsewhere, I’m supportive of that, of just getting the housing built, getting it done.” 

Proposal changes

Developers behind the eight downtown projects are now proposing changes. Most of the changes are moderate with developers slightly increasing office and retail space. Increases have also been proposed to the amount of housing they’re offering. 

Developers behind a project at 1900 Broadway want to increase office space by about 11,000 square feet. They also want to move the proposed housing portion of the project off site while adding five units of affordable housing to the plans. And the developers of a project at 750 Bradford St. have proposed increasing their housing proposal by 54 units without altering office space at all. 

Another project at 2300 Broadway could see its office space increase by 13,000 square feet while retail space would be dropped by 2,000 square feet. At the same time, an off-site affordable housing development would be increased by 18 units. 

Meanwhile, the developer behind the 651 El Camino Real proposal wants to remove one rental unit — a suggestion that confused the council. A 601 Allerton St. project could lose its rooftop futsal court and the developers have asked to get out of renovating an affordable housing site it acquired for preservation. 

And the developers of a project at 901-999 El Camino Real are seeking to increase its office project by 8,000 square feet while reducing a teen center by 1,500 square feet and a retail space by 1,800 square feet. The affordable housing portion of that project remains unchanged. 

Two projects just outside of the boundaries of the Downtown Precise Plan — 505 E. Bayshore Ave. and 1205 Veterans Blvd. —  also propose changes to their housing offers. The 505 E. Bayshore Ave. site, which was approved by the Planning Commission this Tuesday and will come to the council for final approval, eliminated four units while the other wants to remove 21. 

The changes were concerning to councilmembers who asked for more information on why they were being proposed. Staff noted the council will get the chance to review the projects individually. As an alternative to providing housing, staff also proposed an option that would allow developers to donate land to the city or a nonprofit who could develop the site. 

Howard and councilmembers Alicia Aguirre and Kaia Eakin shared concerns about the concept because they were worried the city would end up with land on their hands without the means to develop it. Howard argued developers would be getting out of the hard part of the job and Aguirre said the city wasn’t in the development business. 

“We were given hopeful promises and I’m hoping we can help these developers figure out how to make that happen because we want these units, we need these units,” Howard said. “But they have to be the driver, whether they do it personally or they have a partner. But they, I feel, have to be the driver.”

Alternatively, Vice Mayor Lissette Espinoza-Garnica and Councilmember Elmer Martinez Saballos said they were less worried about the possibility. Martinez Saballos noted affordable housing developers spoke up during the meeting in support of the option and Espinoza-Garnica, who uses they/them pronouns, said they’d like to see the city establish its own housing authority that acquires and develops affordable housing. 

More downtown changes

Beyond the changes in the project proposals, the council also weighed in on whether they’d support research and development uses with biosafety levels 1 and 2 in the downtown corridor. And if they did, staff also wanted to know whether the council would support safety precautions that would allow them in the same buildings as sensitive uses like child care and residential units. 

Councilmembers unanimously agreed that the BSL 1 and 2 should be permitted, BSL 3 and 4 should be prohibited, and that staff should study how to make it happen safely with other uses. In doing so, they agreed the city could tap into a growing industry already putting down roots in the Bay Area, bring additional employees and residents into downtown to frequent shops and ensure highly needed amenities will still be accommodated.   

“With the job market contracting around the Bay Area, I think the conditional use for R&D use labs offices at the 1 and 2 biosafety levels makes a lot of sense,” Martinez Saballos said. “We’re late to this party. … This is going to be the next wave of industry we have in the Bay Area so I think at least moving forward with conditional uses is going to at least help sustain the vitality of our local economy and hopefully keep the lights on here at City Hall.” 

The Planning Commission will weigh in on the draft general plan and downtown precise plan amendments in July, followed by a formal decision by the council in the same month. Beginning this summer, gatekeeper projects will undergo a California Environmental Quality Act consistency check and negotiations will begin on development agreements which will lay out community benefits. Most of the projects are expected to come back for formal council consideration next year with a few being considered later this year.

sierra@smdailyjournal.com 

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106