Redwood LIFE project gets support, pushback

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. In addition to funding levee improvements along Redwood Shores, an $85 million investment into affordable housing and $2 million investment into child care are also project commitments.

The public benefits package is valued at around $385 million, Peter Fritz, Longfellow’s senior director of development, said. He called the offering “unprecedented” and noted it’s larger than the city’s entire annual operating budget.

“What sets Longfellow apart is our long-term outlook and our commitment to be good neighbors as we develop spaces that foster innovation,” Fritz said during the Monday night session.

A split community

But the proposal has faced strong opposition since developers made their proposal public. 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.

The concerns raised by the groups and by residents during the meeting range from environmental impacts to quality of life. Some worry the new development will disrupt a clay cap that was installed to cover the municipal waste landfill in the 1970s that was meant to keep toxic chemicals from resurfacing.

If disrupted, some worried the chemicals would have negative side effects on nearby residents and for a sustained period of time, given that construction would be phased over 25 years. That construction would also create hardships from increased truck traffic, materials entering the air and noise.

Once complete, residents argued the high rises would infringe on the privacy of those nearby and the new site will lead to an increase in traffic in the neighborhood with already limited entrance and exit points.

Others also shared concerns about birds that may fly into the new buildings, particularly when brightly lit at night and other potential disruptions to sensitive habitats living in the Bay.

“This is completely one-sided, it is not a win-win,” said Rich Brazeau, a resident who bought his home 15 years ago. “I appreciate the comments from those outside of Redwood Shores. However, if you live in Redwood Shores, it would be blatantly obvious that this is lopsided. It’s going to absolutely destroy the quality of life for myself and other Redwood Shores residents and we will ultimately pay the price.”

Many supported the project though. Housing advocates argued that $85 million is desperately needed to help secure or preserve new housing. Councilmember Chris Sturken noted that money would be leveraged with other funding sources to bring in additional housing while Councilmember Diane Howard suggested the developer consider stretching the funding by using it to purchase existing affordable housing, keeping it affordable in perpetuity.

The project will also bring in thousands of union jobs over the span of construction, Fritz said. Union laborers underscored that point during the meeting and argued the steady jobs will not only keep blue collar workers employed but will enable them to train and recruit new construction workers.

Amy Buckmaster, CEO and president of Chamber San Mateo County, said the development would bring in a substantial amount of tax revenue that will go toward supporting city services, a concern for city officials who face potential budget shortfalls in the future.

As a Redwood Shores resident, Buckmaster also pushed back on assertions that Longfellow had not conducted adequate outreach. She noted the group has held numerous community meetings and conducted other forms of outreach since acquiring the site in 2018.

“As with any proposal, the loudest voices must be heard but not assumed to be representative of all the voices,” Buckmaster said, adding that many local residents she’s spoken with support the project.

Council concerns, support

Councilmembers shared both appreciation for the benefits package being offered and concerns for the size and potential impacts of the project. Vice Mayor Lissette Espinoza-Garnica asked for staff to provide more information on biosafety levels, specifically higher levels 3 and 4, a subject being discussed in San Carlos.

Councilmember Kaia Eakin said she felt uncomfortable about building additional infrastructure in an area known to be at risk of sea-level rise. The county only recently formed One Shoreline, its Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District, and is still in the process of creating a new flood plan.

Councilmember Elmer Martinez Saballos and Espinoza-Garnica also stressed the importance of bringing in as many community benefits as possible given the size of the project. Espinoza-Garnica noted the city has a long list of capital improvement projects they could use help addressing and Martinez Saballos said inflation should be taken into consideration when providing benefits.

“I want to make sure that it’s comparable to neighboring projects in San Carlos, Belmont, South City, but I also want to make sure that it doesn’t lose its punch over the next 25 years, that it really does make that impact for our neighbors if that’s the direction the council chooses,” Martinez Saballos said.

And traffic impacts were also a top council concern. Assistant City Manager Alex Khojikian said the city will be meeting with representatives from San Carlos and Belmont to discuss ways to address the issue together.

Ultimately though, staff said the city would need to move forward with a specific plan study, including an environmental review, to find answers to many of the questions and concerns raised. The site’s current Westport Specific Plan was initially adopted in 1985 and hasn’t been updated since 1995.

More discussions will be held on the project through the city review process. But councilmembers also encouraged Longfellow to continue conducting its own outreach.

“I know there’s a lot of people for the project and I respect everyone’s opinion on this, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you’ve heard the concern. They’re real, they’re palpable,” Howard said. “See what you can do to come back to us with something you feel is a better project that the public can say, ‘Wow, they’ve made some changes and maybe this is going to be OK.’ It may not but it certainly would be worth the try because I’m trying to make this a win-win as much as possible for the community and for you.”