|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Redwood City Council on Monday voted 6–1 to move forward with an environmental review of the proposed Redwood LIFE Evolve redevelopment project, including an evaluation of an alternative version of the original plan.
“I feel very comfortable moving this forward at this point, recognizing that there’ll be ample opportunity for more community involvement, community discussion, and it will be a transparent process,” Council member Diane Howard said during the meeting.
Council member Marcella Padilla cast the lone dissenting vote.
The decision includes evaluating a scaled-down alternative to the original plan following pushback from environmental groups and residents concerned about the project’s size and environmental impact.
Originally built in 1997, the Redwood LIFE office park spans 84 acres of waterfront land between Belmont Slough and Marine Parkway in the Redwood Shores neighborhood. The site includes 20 buildings totaling 980,000 square feet, 4.6 acres of public open space and 3,400 parking spaces.
Longfellow Real Estate Partners acquired the property in 2019 and proposed a significant redevelopment. The original plan includes 15 fully electric buildings ranging from 55 to 100 feet in height, a 104-room hotel, 7,000 parking spaces and 29.6 acres of public open space. The buildings would span 3.3 million square feet and reach up to seven stories, exceeding the height limits set by the city’s Westport Specific Plan, adopted in 1995 to guide development in Redwood Shores.
The project has drawn criticism from environmental groups, including the San Mateo County Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club, for its scale and potential ecological impacts.
The Bird Alliance raised concerns about the development’s effects on bird populations and sensitive ecosystems surrounding the slough. In a message to its supporters, the group warned that light pollution from 24/7 traffic and illuminated buildings—including a hotel overlooking the water—would harm nocturnal and diurnal bird species.
“The objections of Redwood Shores residents and environmentalists are not being listened to and are being inadequately addressed,” said Chris MacIntosh, a member of the Bird Alliance and a Redwood Shores resident, in the message.
Gita Dev, sustainable land use chair and conservation committee chair of the Sierra Club, said the development would threaten wildlife habitats along the Belmont Slough, a designated refuge for birds and other species.
Longfellow presented an amended version of the project—known as alternative 2—to the Redwood City Planning Commission and the council in early March. The revised plan, which was developed in collaboration with city staff, proposes 12 buildings totaling 2.86 million square feet, a 13% reduction in size. It would also add 5.5 acres of open space and reduce the number of parking spaces to 5,200, though the hotel remains unchanged.
Casey Angel, the director of corporate communications at Longfellow, said the new plan was created as a “continued compromise with our neighbors and community.”
“A true win-win-win for all those involved,” Angel said.
Dev, however, argued that the proposed alternative 2 fails to address environmental risks, including flooding and sea-level rise. According to her, the project poses a sea-level rise risk because it is located on a low-lying former landfill site with no bottom liner. As sea levels and groundwater rise, there is a danger that toxins from the landfill could be pushed up and released into surrounding areas, including the adjacent Belmont Slough.
“It’s just the same as having no alternative,” she said.
At Monday’s meeting, nine members of the public spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns about environmental damage, building height and increased traffic caused by the development.
“The currently proposed development alternatives by Longfellow have been reduced very minimally, and construction will occur over the next 25 years,” said Vidyut Linganmemi, a Redwood Shores resident. “We will face increased light pollution over the slough at night from traffic lighted buildings, including the hotel nearby.”
Gale Raabe, co-chair of the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, urged the council to remove the item from the consent calendar and hold a full discussion, saying the project posed significant environmental risks.
Council member Jeff Gee said that the vote was not to approve the project itself, but rather to move forward with analyzing alternative 2 as part of the environmental review process.
“Until we get something going where we all can see the data at the same time, same level, read the same words, it’s going to be very hard to get to the point where we can all agree to disagree, or we all agree to agree,” Gee said.
The environmental impact report will evaluate the original proposal, alternative 2 and a no-project scenario.
Redwood City police warn public after woman’s necklace stolen in ‘blessing’ scamOctober 28, 2024 11:05 am