Joint Planning Commission & Architectural Advisory Committee Study Session – April 21, 2026

This was a joint study session of the Redwood City Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) to review the proposed site and building design for the 910 Marshall Street project, a state-licensed senior residential care facility. The meeting was informational only; no formal action was taken. The project proposes a 21-story, 258-foot tower (to the top of mechanical equipment) containing 222 units (188 independent living, 19 assisted living, 15 memory care), 1,210 sq. ft. of retail, and 95 parking spaces. The applicant is seeking waivers under State Density Bonus law, including a height waiver from the Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP) maximum of 92 feet to approximately 258 feet. The city has requested technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development on the height waiver. Over 14 waivers are being requested.

Public Comments & Testimony

• In-person speakers:
  • Mike Bolander (Redwood City resident) – Expressed support for senior housing at the site, citing the need for seniors to age in place with dignity and access to downtown amenities.
  • Michael Cruz – Supported the development, arguing that the housing crisis requires building more homes, especially senior housing, and that the location is ideal.
  • Nicolas Kennen (District 6 resident) – Strongly urged support, noting the city has built only about 200 senior care units in the past 30 years and that other Bay Area cities have built 20+ story senior towers.
  • Brett Weber (adjacent property owner, Redwood City resident) – Deeply opposed, citing concerns about height (260 feet), airplane safety near San Carlos Airport, fire department capability, and the impact on the downtown skyline. He suggested the developer acquire his adjacent property and lower the height.
  • Thomas Gomez (lifelong resident) – Encouraged approval, stating seniors need more help and that the building should move forward.
• Virtual speakers:
  • Adrian Brandt – Supported height and location but criticized the Spring Street frontage as a “cold, harsh, deadening” wall; suggested underground parking despite groundwater challenges.
  • Nate S. – Spoke in support, noting his grandparents had to leave Redwood City due to lack of senior housing.
  • Florence – Supported the project, emphasizing the importance of older adults staying in the community.
  • Orionjenkins-schell – Supported, citing that nearly 25% of Redwood City residents are 55+ and that senior housing is a pressing need.
  • Alana Ballon – Supported, hoping it would free up family housing and create jobs, but urged attention to affordability to avoid a “V-like” community.
  • Cherrill – Supported as a recently retired homeowner, stating current senior facilities are unsuitable and that she wants to stay in Redwood City; she noted the Box building’s height was once controversial but is now accepted.
  • Jordan Grimes (Greenbelt Alliance) – Supported from an environmental and climate standpoint, emphasizing building dense housing near transit and that housing is an ecosystem that frees up units for families.

Discussion Items

• Staff presentation (Senior Planner William Chui): Reviewed the project site, proposed design, and four study session questions: (1) overall thoughts on building and tower design, (2) site design including lobby setback, porte-cochere, and Spring Street frontage, (3) breaking up the length of massing, and (4) opportunities for a signature building. Staff noted that the current design is starting to respond to earlier comments but could be strengthened.
• Applicant presentation (Stephen Reller, R&M Properties; Kevin Deng, HGA): Presented demographic data (baby boomers turning 80, Redwood City’s over-70 population expected to increase ~70% in 20 years, only ~300 senior units built in last 20 years). The design evolved from a horizontal to a vertical expression. The architect explained the massing, ground floor, and amenity level. They acknowledged 14 waivers but said they tried to meet the DTPP intent. Community outreach included 21,700 mailers, two in-person meetings (~60 attendees total), and 120+ surveys.
• Commissioner and AAC questions and comments:
  • Height and precedent: Several members expressed concern about 21 stories (tallest on the peninsula). Commissioner Cornejo asked how 21 stories was chosen; the applicant cited base case metrics, unit yield, and program needs. Commissioner Hunter asked about the business model (rental with potential entrance fees, estimated $5,000–$15,000/month for rent, meals, healthcare).
  • Spring Street frontage: Many members criticized the blank wall of the parking garage. Chair Tanakatsubo suggested the city should expedite closing Spring Street. Committee Member Stewart noted that if Spring Street were vacated, the site could be redesigned. Applicant said the city is still evaluating the closure.
  • Community outreach: Commissioner Cornejo felt 120 surveys were insufficient for a landmark project. Commissioner Bott agreed, calling for more comprehensive outreach. The outreach consultant said the process is iterative and they will conduct additional meetings, advertising, and neighborhood association outreach.
  • Design feedback: Commissioner Finch supported the porte-cochere setback but worried about the Spring Street wall. Commissioner Bott, citing a visit to Channing House in Palo Alto, argued towers can foster community. Commissioner Robinson focused on the Spring Street elevation being flat and uninteresting. Committee Member Jenkins liked the vertical redesign but felt the concrete elevator core was less detailed. Committee Member King questioned the height given airport flight patterns and evacuation concerns; suggested smaller units might reduce height. Committee Member Tanakatsubo showed examples of more articulated facades and urged the applicant to push the envelope beyond the DTPP guidelines. He also raised concerns about the narrow 8-foot sidewalk on Marshall Street for seniors with walkers.
  • Technical issues: Committee Member Stewart noted potential PG&E transformer requirements, package room space, and the need for a fourth elevator. He also suggested relocating the loading dock to Spring Street if it becomes a dead zone.
  • Legal context: City Attorney Barbara Kautz explained that under state density bonus law, waivers must be granted unless one of three findings (health/safety, state/federal law, historic impact) can be made, citing a recent court case (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego). She noted that the city has asked HCD for technical advice on the height waiver.

Key Outcomes

• No action was taken; this was a study session only.
• The AAC and Planning Commission provided extensive design feedback, which the applicant will use to refine the project before a formal hearing.
• The next steps include a joint meeting on Objective Design Standards (tentatively June 2 or June 16, 2026) and a formal AAC review of the design, followed by Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
• The city is continuing to evaluate the closure of the portion of Spring Street adjacent to the site and the legality of the height waiver.
• The applicant committed to additional community outreach before the next hearing.