Redwood City Council Regular Meeting: Impact Fees, Downtown Plan, and 84/101 Interchange Study - December 16, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Redwood City Council Regular Meeting: Impact Fees, Downtown Plan, and 84/101 Interchange Study - December 16, 2024
The Redwood City Council held its regular meeting on December 16, 2024, the final meeting of the year. The council approved the consent calendar, adopted updated park and transportation impact fee project lists, approved a community engagement strategy for the Downtown and Central Redwood City Plan, and held a study session on the 84/101 interchange project. The meeting also featured public comments from city employees advocating for improved contract terms and staffing.
Consent Calendar
- Adopted a resolution amending the city's classification and salary and wage plan and the full-time equivalent employee tables (Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget).
- Adopted a resolution authorizing submission of the State of California Office of Emergency Services Form 130.
- Approved the December 9, 2024 City Council minutes.
- Approved claims and checks from December 16, 2024 through January 13, 2025.
- All items approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
Six speakers addressed the council, primarily city employees or union representatives (SEIU Local 521) raising concerns about labor contracts and retention:
- Mike Flynn: Expressed concerns about bumpy city streets and suggested better contractor oversight.
- Amador Garcia (police dispatcher): Highlighted critical understaffing, mandatory overtime, and difficulty retaining employees due to better incentives in neighboring cities.
- Jose Farias (26-year city employee): Spoke about dedication during COVID and the need for fair compensation so employees can afford to live nearby, stressing that retention affects emergency response times.
- Pam Evans (youth services librarian, reading for Monique Rodriguez Gomez): Described the Project Reed literacy program and asked for a strong contract for city workers.
- Nick Nickel (water utility specialist, 30 years): Shared a story about the Kannada fire response to demonstrate the dedication and risks faced by public works staff, and requested a fair and equitable contract.
- Ed Stanzel: Criticized the requirement to sue the city to obtain medical benefits after workplace injuries, and also requested a buyout for his boat lease at the marina.
A written comment from Katie Causey (Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition) expressed interest in participating in downtown planning focus groups.
Parks and Transportation Impact Fee Project Lists
Community Development Director Jeff Schwab presented the updated project lists required under the Mitigation Fee Act. The Parks Impact Fee list identifies approximately $1.4 billion in needs over 5–20 years including land acquisition and development to achieve 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (currently 2.25). The Transportation Impact Fee list includes $105 million in fees for 80 projects, such as the El Camino Real bike lane, Jefferson Avenue safety improvements, and the Woodside/101 interchange.
Council discussion covered:
- Artificial turf vs. natural grass (water savings of 1.6–2 million gallons per field, use of cork infill, injury prevention).
- Park acreage equity (some neighborhoods have less than 0.1 acres per 1,000 residents).
- Request for consistent format between the two reports and inclusion of fund balances.
- Identification of needs vs. specific project prioritization (priorities set later through CIP).
- Public restroom at Palm Park and other improvements.
The council unanimously adopted the resolutions approving both the Parks Impact Fee Project List and the Transportation Impact Fee Project List.
Downtown and Central Redwood City Plan Community Engagement Strategy
John Francis, principal planner, and Punam Narkar from WRT presented the proposed engagement strategy, built on four pillars: equity, efficiency, communication, and flexibility. Methods include focus groups, pop-ups, workshops, speaker series, surveys, and a project website. Key audiences include residents, businesses, property owners, underrepresented groups, and stakeholders.
Public comment:
- Shishir Bat (resident and Peninsula for Everyone) urged considering future residents who will be impacted, as well as hiring residents for outreach.
Council members supported the strategy and offered suggestions:
- Include employers such as Google, Seaport Industrial Association, and the County.
- Reach out to Cañada College, youth, non-drivers, non-English speakers, school PAL centers, and the San Mateo County Pride Center.
- Incorporate regulatory agencies (FAA) and transit districts (SamTrans, Caltrain) to align with their initiatives.
- Provide stipends for focus group participation.
- Use multiple formats (paper surveys, social media, senior-friendly materials, radio).
- Consider language access beyond Spanish, including Mandarin.
The council unanimously approved the community engagement strategy.
State Route 84/101 Interchange Study Session
City Manager Melissa Stevenson Diaz and Leo Scott from Gray Bowen Scott presented the "84/101 Reimagined" project. The current five-legged interchange and intersecting slip ramps cause congestion and safety hazards. The project will construct two bridges for Veterans Boulevard ramps, add bicycle and pedestrian facilities (over 4 miles of new bike/ped paths), and improve intersection operations.
Key updates:
- Total project cost: $14.2 million still needed (applied for through state Trade Corridor Enhancement Program and SHOPP).
- $48 million from Regional Measure 3 and $105 million federal INFRA grant secured.
- Right-of-way acquisition underway; most parcels are partial acquisitions. Denny's parcel pending hazardous waste clearance.
- Construction expected to start in 2027, but council urged acceleration to manage cost escalation.
Council discussion:
- Councilmember G urged expediting the schedule and advocated for closing the funding gap.
- Councilmember Chu asked about lane widths, bicycle/pedestrian connectivity, induced demand, pedestrian refuges, and prohibiting right-on-red for safety.
- Councilmember Howard (ad hoc committee member) praised progress and ad hoc work.
- Councilmember Sturgeon asked about disadvantaged communities and potential private funding.
- Vice Mayor Aiken asked about recycling construction materials.
No action was taken as the item was a study session.
Council Reports and City Manager Updates
- Councilmember Howard reported on the C/CAG meeting where Vice Mayor Aiken was appointed to the One Shoreline board. Also reported on MTC meetings where the Redwood City Ferry Terminal project was proposed for removal from Plan Bay Area 2050+; she advocated for keeping the project due to dedicated funding and planning progress.
- City Manager Melissa Stevenson Diaz provided updates:
- Storm activity: three city-owned trees down; Redwood Shores levee had 30–40 feet of new erosion from overtopping but repaired section held. Trail closed.
- Holiday hours: City Hall closed Dec 24–Jan 1, reopening Jan 2; reduced hours thereafter.
- Quality of life at Sequoia Station/transit center: multiple improvements by SamTrans, Caltrain, and Hunter Properties including increased cleaning, security cameras, and a future police satellite office. Caltrain evaluating paid fare zone. City continues homeless outreach.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously.
- Parks and Transportation Impact Fee Project Lists: Two resolutions adopted unanimously.
- Downtown and Central Redwood City Plan Engagement Strategy: Approved unanimously.
- 84/101 Interchange Study Session: No formal action; staff to continue right-of-way negotiations and pursue remaining $14.2 million funding. Council expressed strong support.
- Reports: Noted Vice Mayor Aiken's appointment to One Shoreline; council supported retaining ferry terminal in regional plan; city manager's updates acknowledged.
Meeting Transcript
Perfect. Well, good evening, everybody. And welcome to the regular city council meeting of December 16th, 2024, our final meeting of the year. We're continuing to offer in-person and remote options for our city council meetings. However, due to continued disruptions during public comment at open meetings throughout our region, we've modified our public comment procedures until further notice. The city welcomes public comment on topics within the city's subject matter jurisdiction. And this can be provided in person during the meeting or by email ahead of time. At this time, we're temporarily suspending public comments by Zoom. We want to ensure that the city can continue to conduct the city's business in a manner that allows all residents to participate. We continue to reevaluate our public comment procedures and will share updates as necessary. Our public comment procedures tonight on items on the agenda or within the city's subject matter jurisdiction are as follows. Public comment is taken in person during the meeting or in advance via email as outlined on the agenda. Comments that were received via email by 5 p.m. may be read aloud, time permitting, or in any case will be made part of the final meeting record. In-person speakers must turn in a speaker card to the city clerk at the dais to be recognized to speak. Please be sure to indicate the agenda item number which you intend to speak on. In-person speakers will be called in the order in which speaker cards were turned in. If there's a high volume of public comment this evening, we may decrease the time allotted for each comment or limit the total time for public comment. This is to ensure that the city council can address agenda items in a timely manner and is allowed under the city council's guide to communications and business. In the event this occurs, please feel free to send your full comments to the city council at public comments at redwood city.org so that we can see your comments and they'll be a part of the meeting record there. Now I'll turn it over to our city clerk to call the roll. Good evening. Thank you. Councilmember Chu. Here. Councilmember G. Present. Councilmember Howard. Here, Councilmember Padilla. Present. Councilmember Stirkin. Here. Vice Mayor Aiken. Here and Mayor Martinez Ayos. Here. Thank you. Perfect. Now on to the Pledge of Allegiance, and I'd like to invite Councilmember Skirkin to lead us. Perfect. On to item four presentations and acknowledgments. Probably the best way to kick off any city council meeting. Uh we're going to recognize and congratulate the winners of the 2024 annual Rethink Waste poster contest. And I'd like to invite Megan from Rethink Waste to the podium to present the case. This year we hosted our 11th annual poster contest open to all eight third through eighth grade classes and individual students in the Rethink Waste Service area. We received 90 submissions from 24 different schools. This year's poster theme was my green routine, encouraging students to artistically depict their daily actions that make the earth a better greener place. The contest has two categories that students can enter either the elementary school or middle school group. With us today are the Redwood City winners. We are recognizing the second place winner from the elementary school, Catherine, and the second and third place winners from the middle school category, Luna and Tobias. We would like to thank the Redwood City City Council for recognizing the students for their hard work.
openpublica.com