OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Redwood City, California/City Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session on Redwood Life Project - March 4, 2025

City Council — Tuesday, March 4, 2025
BodyRedwood City, California
SessionCity Council
DateTuesday, March 4, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:53:26

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
2:57

Between Mr.

2:58

Stancil and the city relative to Docktown Marina and the Docktown Plan.

3:03

Mr.

3:03

Stancil has agreed to the settlement prior to the closed session.

3:07

Thus, upon the city council's vote approving it, the city has taken final reportable action.

3:30

Mutual releases on the part of both parties for all claims, including dismissal of actions.org as outlined in the agenda.

5:00

Comments that were received via email by five o'clock may be a read aloud, time permitting, and in any case will be made part of the final meeting record.

5:09

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.

5:17

In the event this occurs, please feel free to send out your full comments to the city council at public comment at Rewood City.org.

5:24

I will now turn it over to the city clerk to call the roll.

5:28

Good evening and thank you.

5:30

We'll start with the city council.

5:31

Councilmember Chu.

5:33

Here.

5:34

Councilmember G.

5:35

Present.

5:35

Councilmember Howard.

5:38

Here.

5:38

Councilmember Padilla.

5:41

Present.

5:42

Councilmember Sturkin.

5:44

Here.

5:44

Vice Mayor Aiken.

5:45

Present.

5:46

And Mayor Martina Samayos.

5:48

Here.

5:48

And now for the Planning Commission.

5:50

Commissioner Cornejo.

5:52

Here.

5:53

Commissioner Finch.

5:54

Here.

5:55

Commissioner Hunter.

5:56

Here.

5:56

Vice Chair Koch.

5:58

Here.

5:58

And Chair Cernokaratz.

6:00

Here.

6:01

Thank you.

6:04

Thank you, everybody.

6:04

We'll move on to item three, the Pledge of Allegiance.

6:07

And Council Member Chu, could you do us the honors.

6:32

Thank you, Councilmember.

6:33

We'll move on to item four, public comment.

6:35

We'll now take public comment on topics that are not on the agenda, but within the city's subject matter jurisdiction.

6:42

I'll turn it over to the city clerk to facilitate public comment.

6:46

Thank you.

6:46

At this time, I don't have any in-person speaker cards or emailed comments.

6:51

I'll do a last call to the audience for public comment on topics other than Redwood Life.

7:01

Seeing none, I'll turn it back to you, Mayor.

7:05

Great.

7:06

Thank you, City Clerk.

7:07

Moving on to item five, study sessions for our topic of the evening, a study session on the Redwood Life projects.

7:15

We are very grateful to be joined by the Planning Commission to receive an update from staff, hear community feedback, and discuss next steps on the project.

7:24

As a reminder, tonight is a study session, so no formal action will be taken.

7:29

And that leads me to item 5A.

7:32

Joint study session on life sciences office and laboratory proposal known as Redwood Life, located at 800 to 3400 Bridge Parkway.

7:41

Community Development Director Jeff Schwab will introduce the item and give an overview of the presentation, and then turn it over to Eric from Aramion Associates, and the presentation should take about 40 minutes.

7:54

Project applicant Peter Fritz will from Longfellow will also give a presentation, and that application, that applicant will have about 10 minutes for their presentation.

8:03

So before we get started, we'll take public comment on this item and I'll turn it over to the city clerk to help facilitate.

8:14

Good evening, Mayor Martina Subaios and members of the council, Chair Sigarnets, and members of the planning commission.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Planning██████████████████████████████30%
Community Engagement██████████████████████████26%
Transportation Safety█████████████13%
Environmental Protection████████8%
Economic Development██████6%
Procedural█████5%
Engineering And Infrastructure███3%
Public Health███3%
Public Safety██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session on Redwood Life Project

On March 4, 2025, the Redwood City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session to receive an update on the Redwood Life project, a proposed life sciences and office development at 800-3400 Bridge Parkway. The meeting focused on community engagement results, a sensitivity analysis, and two project alternatives. No formal action was taken, but the bodies provided feedback to direct staff toward initiating the environmental impact report (EIR) process.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Adelaide Nye (Redwood Shores resident) opposed the project, citing risks from the 42-acre unlined landfill beneath the site, potential pollution from pile driving, and sea level rise. She requested a special insurance policy to protect taxpayers.
  • Mary Morrissey Pardon (Redwood Shores resident since 1989) strongly supported the proposal and alternative two, arguing the project improves stormwater management and sea level rise protection, and that delays are unnecessary.
  • Ken Chan (Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County) expressed appreciation for the partnership with Eden Housing and the $85 million commitment to affordable housing, urging support to keep low-income residents housed.
  • Henry Yoon (reading for Louis Kwan) spoke in strong support, noting the project would bring well-paying jobs, fund affordable housing and child care, and benefit all Redwood City residents.
  • Sarah Morgan's statement (read by another) emphasized sea level rise concerns and the need for levee reinforcement, arguing traffic concerns are misplaced and the project would improve walkability and bikeability.
  • Johnny DeRosa (Peninsula Chinese Business Association) supported the project, highlighting sea level rise mitigation and the city's budget deficit, and commended Longfellow's 20% reduction in project size.
  • Chuck Schultz (Redwood Shores resident) voiced support, noting the current site is an underutilized parking lot and the project would revitalize the area and bring biotech jobs.
  • Rona Gundrum (Redwood Shores resident) expressed concern that the alternatives do not adequately address building heights (up to 100 feet) and density, with only a 10-20% reduction.
  • Amy Buckmaster (Chamber San Mateo County CEO) strongly supported alternative two, noting a compromise with 65% of former opponents now supporting it, but urged faster progress.
  • Felicia Basquez (15-year Redwood Shores resident) supported the project, citing community benefits, parks, and sea level rise protection, and warned against misinformation.
  • Anthony Urbina (building trades union) urged moving forward with studying alternative two, emphasizing local jobs and workforce benefits.
  • Nels Delander (Carpenters Local 217) supported alternative two, highlighting union labor commitments and local economic benefits.
  • Stephen Goodale (Boardwalk Association) opposed the process, alleging the developer cherry-picked engagement, manufactured support, and conducted meaningless meetings. He asked for a restart of the process.
  • Nina Goodale (Redwood Shores resident) questioned the project's compliance with the Westport Specific Plan, incomplete applications, and whether the sensitivity analysis truly informed alternatives.
  • Anthony Newanis (Painters union) supported the project, citing local hire and apprenticeship opportunities.
  • Scott Beale (HVAC apprenticeship instructor) supported alternative two, emphasizing the value of skilled trades and apprenticeships.
  • Sue Nix (42-year Redwood Shores resident) opposed, stating community meetings were frustrating, alternatives insufficient, and concerns about the landfill, property values, and responsibility for toxic leaks.
  • Sigal Alon (resident across Marine Parkway) opposed, describing the project as a mini-downtown on a toxic landfill in a seismic zone, and raised concerns about wind blockage.
  • Mark Nye (Redwood Shores resident) expressed distrust, citing broken promises and inadequate community feedback mechanisms.
  • Thomas Gomez (IBEW Local 617 resident) supported alternative two, citing job creation and apprenticeship opportunities.
  • Carol Ford (30-year Redwood Shores resident) opposed, noting the toxic landfill and methane risks, and suggested building taller on existing structures instead.
  • Emailed comments: Richard Hedges supported; Roger Hausler opposed the hotel; Vidyut Lingam Nenny opposed; Bridget and Earl Aiken (Stop Redwood Life) reported 68% of signers support alternative two but with hotel removed and N1/N2 heights reduced; Jeff Schibels (Silicon Valley Lions Club) supported community space; Corey Smith (Housing Action Coalition) supported affordable housing investment; Kristen Mercer opposed, citing landfill and levee issues; Christine Padilla (Build Up San Mateo County) supported child care investment; Alejandro Santillian supported; Jenny Lee opposed, citing environmental and traffic impacts.

Discussion Items

  • Staff Presentation: Community Development Director Jeff Schwab and consultant Eric Yerkovich (Ramian Associates) presented an overview of the city-led engagement process, sensitivity analysis (transportation, utilities, environment), and two project alternatives. Alternative one reduces project size by 10% (244,000 sq ft removed), alternative two by 20% (459,000 sq ft removed), both increasing setbacks from residences and the Belmont Slough, shifting Longfellow Lane inward, and reducing building heights near neighbors.
  • Applicant Presentation: Peter Fritz (Longfellow Real Estate Partners) highlighted major changes in alternative two, including a 20% size reduction, removal of buildings N7 and N12, doubling setbacks, and increasing greenway buffers. He noted 70% of the Stop Redwood Life group supports studying alternative two and requested EIR initiation.
  • Planning Commission Comments:
    • Commissioner Hunter: Clarified differences between specific and precise plans; questioned ability to study more than one alternative in detail; raised biosafety level concerns. He supported alternative two but wanted biosafety studied.
    • Commissioner Koch: Asked about levee funding responsibility and landfill liability (property owner). Supported alternative two, noting 35 acres of open space would be the city's largest park.
    • Commissioner Finch: Supported alternative two, appreciated design changes, emphasized need for robust TDM (transit passes, parking cash-out, unbundled parking).
    • Vice Chair Koch: Echoed need for strong TDM, bike infrastructure.
    • Chair Sinagora: Highly commended community engagement, supported alternative two, noted 35 acres of open space as a major benefit.
    • Commissioner Cornejo: Supported moving forward with alternative two.
  • City Council Comments:
    • Councilmember Chu: Clarified that moving Longfellow Lane inward could also be applied to the original plan. Preferred alternative one for more jobs but open to either. Supported unbundling parking, bike routes from Caltrain.
    • Vice Mayor Aiken: Asked about insurance for landfill/sea level rise risks; questioned timeline for community benefits (tied to phases). Supported alternative two, emphasized robust TDM and TMA.
    • Councilmember Surkin: Noted traffic analysis without mitigation; asked about TMA timing. Supported alternative one or two, stressed EIR will address hazards.
    • Councilmember G: Questioned traffic modeling post-COVID; favored alternative two but asked staff to explore further reductions, underparking, and VMT analysis comparing hotel vs. no hotel. Suggested learning from Stanford development agreement.
    • Councilmember Howard (virtual): Applauded developer's responsiveness on setbacks, heights, and sea level rise. Asked about building heights (90-100 feet) and their placement; supported alternative two. Proposed variance for BSL-3/4 labs citywide rather than per project.
    • Councilmember Padilla: Praised robust community engagement; supported moving forward to address sea level rise.
    • Mayor Martinez Samayos: Concluded that alternative two is the preferred direction, with continued community engagement and sensitivities. Thanked all participants.

Key Outcomes

  • No formal vote was taken; the study session was for feedback only.
  • The majority of council and commission members expressed support for directing staff to proceed with the EIR process, studying the original Longfellow proposal and alternative two (the 20% reduction) alongside the required no-project alternative. Additional alternatives may be studied in lesser detail.
  • Staff will incorporate feedback on transportation demand management (TDM), unbundled parking, transit pass programs, and the potential Transportation Management Association (TMA) with neighboring cities.
  • The city attorney noted that a future council action to initiate the EIR could be placed on the consent calendar.
  • Community engagement will continue through the EIR process, with emphasis on addressing landfill, sea level rise, traffic, and ecological concerns.
  • Next steps: Staff to prepare materials for council consideration to formally initiate the precise plan and EIR process.

Meeting Transcript

Between Mr. Stancil and the city relative to Docktown Marina and the Docktown Plan. Mr. Stancil has agreed to the settlement prior to the closed session. Thus, upon the city council's vote approving it, the city has taken final reportable action. Mutual releases on the part of both parties for all claims, including dismissal of actions.org as outlined in the agenda. Comments that were received via email by five o'clock may be a read aloud, time permitting, and in any case will be made part of the final meeting record. 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. In the event this occurs, please feel free to send out your full comments to the city council at public comment at Rewood City.org. I will now turn it over to the city clerk to call the roll. Good evening and thank you. We'll start with the city council. Councilmember Chu. Here. Councilmember G. Present. Councilmember Howard. Here. Councilmember Padilla. Present. Councilmember Sturkin. Here. Vice Mayor Aiken. Present. And Mayor Martina Samayos. Here. And now for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cornejo. Here. Commissioner Finch. Here. Commissioner Hunter. Here. Vice Chair Koch. Here. And Chair Cernokaratz. Here. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. We'll move on to item three, the Pledge of Allegiance. And Council Member Chu, could you do us the honors. Thank you, Councilmember. We'll move on to item four, public comment. We'll now take public comment on topics that are not on the agenda, but within the city's subject matter jurisdiction. I'll turn it over to the city clerk to facilitate public comment. Thank you. At this time, I don't have any in-person speaker cards or emailed comments. I'll do a last call to the audience for public comment on topics other than Redwood Life. Seeing none, I'll turn it back to you, Mayor. Great.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com