Laserfiche WebLink
mandate only housing and related retail and human services will occupy the Sequoia Station <br />site in the future. A reasonably sized all housing zoning decision for Sequoia Station would <br />dramatically reduce property acquisition costs. This model's assumptions are circular and <br />illogical reasoning. It presupposes a council waiver of current zoning rules, provides no "all <br />housing" option with reasonable property acquisition costs that would follow. We have almost <br />4 million square feet of office space in the pipeline already approved. We have not even <br />debated the point, of needing even more offices, but the financial analysis argues that `only <br />offices are viable.' We need a new model with an all housing option using realistic property <br />acquisition costs that also uses the currently approved zoning and with enough detail so <br />assumptions and results can be vetted by council and the community. <br />3- A New Downtown Plan <br />Our current Downtown Plan is over ten years old. It has has been super -ceded by council <br />decisions too many times. The current realities we face today, plus the impacts of a post <br />pandemic world, need to be comprehended and managed for us to have a prosperous future <br />that is fair to all living and working in our community. We need a new plan. It's in process. It <br />needs to be completed BEFORE addressing this mega project. The new plan needs to <br />overweight housing needs, addressing lower incomes, plus the larger living spaces that <br />undoubtedly will be needed post COVID for home based workers. Most employers are saying <br />office workers will still be working many days from home post COVID. To retain and attract <br />residents, we need a new balanced Downtown Plan. BTW an EIR report for one project doesn't <br />replace the need for a revised and realistic Downtown Plan. Don't allow the developer to win <br />the argument that only an EIR is needed to move the process forward. <br />4- Apparent Conflict of Interest <br />Sadly, we already have a perceived conflict of interest by one council member who ordinarily <br />would play a key role in the review and approval of this proposal. It needs to be addressed now <br />before this review process continues to be sure the community has confidence that the <br />ultimate outcome was done impartially. The end result must not unduly benefit anyone on <br />council. Perceptions matter. Jeff Gee should recuse himself now from this process as I believe <br />he has a significant perceived conflict of interest. This is my view as well as many others in the <br />community. Just the appearance of a material conflict of interest should disqualify any council <br />member from participating in major decisions. Jeff has been a senior executive of a major <br />building company, who has already had large contracts on mega projects in RWC (Stanford & <br />Kaiser). We can reasonably expect his employer might be involved in new mega projects again <br />in Redwood City. Even if he retired or left there employ today, this perceived conflict would <br />remain. It is unfortunate, as he is my district representative, but Jeff Gee must recuse himself <br />on this project. I ask his council colleagues to call for this immediately if he does not do the <br />right thing. Appearances often matter more than laws. This appearance of conflict would taint <br />this entire process from the outset. <br />Thank you for your consideration. <br />Bob Wilson <br />Redwood Shores, CA <br />