Laserfiche WebLink
From: Bob Wilson <br />To: GRP -City Council <br />Cc: Council -Ian Bain; Janet Boraens; Council -Diane Howard <br />Subject: Comments for Item 8.A. Council Meeting November 9, 2020 - South Main Mixed Use Project <br />Date: Monday, November 9, 2020 3:42:23 PM <br />I am a long term resident of Redwood City having lived and or worked in Redwood City for <br />most of the time since 1983. I strongly urge Council NOT to approve this project in its current <br />form. It does not serve the needs of Redwood City and our extended community. It is a <br />massive project that cannot be supported by our existing infrastructure or the meager <br />improvements being offered by this developer. There are alternatives for development of this <br />site and they have not been adequately vetted. Here is why I urge you NOT to approve this <br />project. We need to send a strong message to the developer that we can do much better as a <br />community. <br />1. Members of the Planning Commission stated in their last meeting that there was not <br />adequate time to absorb the findings of the EIR for this project and they were rushed to <br />review the project. Candidly, they did not do their collective jobs and forwarded this <br />project to you anyway. You should send it back to them for a proper and thoughtful <br />review. Even in its current form, the Planning Commission did not adequately review <br />the project and secure answers from the developer on key questions. <br />2. We do not need another 530,000 square feet of office space in Redwood City. We have <br />a huge backlog of offices in the pipeline and we do not have the housing or <br />transportation infrastructure to support exiting needs, let alone this massive backlog. We <br />cannot support over 500K square feet more in offices and the over 2,500 new workers <br />being added to the downtown area. Given the uncertainly on what a post COVID world <br />will be like for work in offices versus work at home, it is irresponsible to even consider <br />this addition at this time. <br />3. We already have a massive imbalance between office space and housing. The size of <br />this project is immense. It should be dedicated to housing NOT more office space. Once <br />the area is developed as offices it cannot be easily converted to much needed housing. <br />They strangely do not ask for more housing than the current Zoning allows. Why? If <br />they really were good partners with the City they would be seeking permission to add <br />housing above the current zoning caps. <br />4. The developer in their cunning game plan to gain community support, is dangling low <br />income housing as a sweetener for your approval. I do not see a net gain at all in low <br />income housing. Yes we will have more net low income housing, but we will create far <br />more demand than supply in -spite of the calculations in the EIR. Those calculations, <br />while based on accepted formulas, have never shown the full impact that these office <br />projects have on the lower income members of our community. Have staff do a more <br />comprehensive study of how our needs have been changing as development of offices <br />and corresponding increases in housing have impacted our community. Our formulas <br />have not worked. <br />5. The contribution to our massive deficit in transportation infrastructure is insulting. Yes <br />it fits a formula, but we have unwisely followed these formulas for far too long. In spite <br />of massive developments yielding huge profits for developers, we do not have funding <br />for key projects like the Woodside 101 interchange or local public transit. We must stop <br />ignoring this problem. <br />6. Demand to see the developers financials for this project and forecasts for returns. They <br />are gaining much and we will be left to fund their gains for decades as we struggle to fill <br />