Often, when a new development project is proposed in or near Redwood City, I drop whatever I was planning to write about, and instead write about that newly proposed project. That is the case this week, although I must admit that I had to double-check the calendar when I first saw what was being proposed, since I almost immediately thought that perhaps it was an elaborate April Fool’s joke. But no, this one seems to be real.

You may have already read about it, but I can’t not write about a project like what has been proposed for 910 Marshall St. (and 1000 Marshall St., and 1800 Broadway). The developer has apparently purchased three parcels that they intend to combine into one large (just a tad over two acres) parcel that they would then redevelop. Currently, all three of the subject parcels have single-story buildings on them that are entirely or at least partly being used as medical offices. For instance, here is what is on 910 Marshall St. today:

The signs on the building indicate that this is Kaiser’s “Birch” building, and that it is a medical office. Next door, at 1000 Marshall St., there is this:

The sign on the side of this building indicate that it is a DaVita Dialysis center. Finally, over on Broadway, the building there is organized as a small L-shaped array of shops or offices:

Kaiser is using the right-most portion of this building as its Hearing Aid Center/Audiology office. As for the rest of the office/retail spaces in this building, together they appear to be headquarters for a tech company called Quilt that is working on what they say will be a “better way to heat & cool your home”: an intelligent, ductless heat pump system for residential use. As someone who had their home upgraded to a central heat pump a couple of years ago, I’m very curious to see what this particular company is up to. But if the property’s current owner has their way, Quilt is going to have to relocate in the next year or two. Fortunately, available office space is something we have no shortage of in our area…

Before I move on to the project itself, let me finish off by showing one final picture of a building:

This one is on the corner of Marshall and Maple Streets. While it is on the same block with the three buildings I showed earlier, it is not part of the proposed project site and thus would remain as-is.

Here is a map showing the property, and some of the surrounding area:

On it, I’ve highlighted the subject property in green (the larger one, to the right, for anyone with color issues). I’ve also taken the liberty of highlighting another property to its left: the not-quite-as-large rectangular parcel bounded by Marshall, Walnut, Broadway and Main that is in the process of gaining city approval as the 1900 Broadway mixed-use project. If this map looks a bit confusing, that is because the 1900 Broadway project hopes to abandon a one-block-long section of Spring Street and absorb the triangular parklet that today stands along Marshall Street between Main and Walnut streets. This map shows what the street arrangement would look like if both projects got the go-ahead and were constructed: those of us who frequently use Spring Street to transition smoothly from Marshall Street to Broadway would have to adjust, either by making the sharp turn at Marshall and Walnut streets, or by taking an altogether different route.

Although 1900 Broadway (the blue one along Main Street in my map) does have a residential component, that project’s developer is proposing to put the 85 deed-restricted affordable housing units out on Woodside Road, where today a former mortuary is serving as a church. Their downtown parcel would consist of a seven-story, 92-foot-tall building containing mostly offices, with some retail on the ground floor,

In contrast, the project that is the subject of today’s post would be primarily residential, with a small amount of retail on the ground floor. Exactly where that retail would be is hard to say: the plans submitted so far (with what they admit is a very preliminary application) don’t provide enough detail for anyone to tell. Really, all they include is a very rough site plan and two elevation drawings, one showing the project’s Marshall Street side, and one showing what the project would (kind-of) look like from Broadway. Here is the elevation drawing showing the Broadway side of the project:

At a quick glance, it doesn’t look all that unusual. But count the floors, and you realize that what the developer is proposing is extremely unusual, at least for Redwood City. That tower on the left? It is 28 stories — 310 feet — tall.

Take a minute to let that sink in. Here in Redwood City, downtown buildings are limited to 12 stories, and only in certain prescribed portions of downtown. This project falls within Redwood City’s Downtown Precise Plan Area, and according to that plan the three parcels that would support this project are all limited to a maximum height of 8 stories, or 92 feet. Thus, what the developer is proposing is to build a residential building in downtown Redwood City that is more than three times the maximum height allowed for the parcel upon which it sits. (That other, shorter tower is still well over the limit, at 20 stories and nearly 228 feet tall). See why I thought this might be an April Fool’s joke?

For the record, the tallest building in Redwood City today is, I believe, the Indigo Apartments complex, with its 10-story towers. You have to go all the way to San Francisco or Oakland to find anything taller than what is being proposed here. Even San Jose, it seems, doesn’t have anything quite this tall (although they have two buildings that are close: a 300-foot-tall office building at 200 Park Ave., and a 298-foot-tall, 28-story residential building at 181 E. Santa Clara St.). So if built as proposed, this would be one for the record books.

Of course, I’m guessing that it won’t actually be built as currently proposed. The developer (R&M Properties, of Palo Alto) hopes to rely on SB 330 — the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 — and the fact that this project would be exclusively for seniors in order to get around Redwood City’s height limits. They are also relying on it to increase the number of residential units within the project beyond what would normally be allowed: the project proposal contains 378 residential units (whether for-sale or for-rent, I’m not sure), as opposed to the 315 units that would otherwise be allowed.

As I said, all 378 units would be restricted to seniors. And to its credit this project would have units for Independent Living, Assisted Living, and Memory Care, all of which would be much appreciated by our aging population (which, gulp, includes me!). But it is important to note that those units would be leased (or sold?) at prevailing market rates: no subsidies to make the units affordable here.

Given the rather scant information in the submission so far, the only mundane details of interest that I can glean are the fact that it would include 2,871 square feet of retail space, and 164 parking stalls, apparently in an internal (likely above-ground) parking garage. That number of parking spaces, at least, feels reasonable given the number of housing units and the fact that many of the senior residents likely won’t have cars (particularly those in assisted living or memory care units).

This is the most preliminary of project applications, and the developer has stated that not only do they intend to modify the project design between now and when they formally submit the project application (they’re aiming for October), but also that they intend to consider public opinion when making modifications. Since I have to imagine that much of that public opinion will be focused on the heights of those two towers, if the project can be reduced in scope while still remaining financially viable, it likely will be. Plus, I have to imagine that the city will do what it can to challenge the SB 330 application. Undoubtedly there will be a lot of pressure to make this project more in line with the projects that are already in Redwood City’s development pipeline.

I have to think that if a significantly smaller project, one more in keeping with Redwood City’s current downtown, could be done in today’s economic climate, the developer might have proposed that instead. The fact that they didn’t either means that they are incredibly confident that SB 330 is going to allow them to reach for the stars, or that they are simply proposing such an extreme project as a starting point in negotiations for something that is smaller, but still over the city’s 8-story limit for that part of town. Whichever it is, we should find out later this year.

Just when things get quiet in Redwood City, along comes a project like this one. What can I say? There’s never a dull moment in Redwood City…

---

Redwood City’s Sea-Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Study is publicly available, and the city is accepting comments just until this Sunday, March 30. Comments can be emailed to SeaLevelRiseStudy@redwoodcity.org. While that isn’t much time (it is 103 pages long!), know that the city is planning a community workshop for sometime in April (time and date TBA), so presumably there will be other opportunities to comment. But if you have any comments now, by all means email them to the city by the end of day on Sunday.

---

It wasn’t until I saw the brief article in this week’s Redwood City eNews about our Bird scooters that I realized that they haven’t been around lately. Bird, the company, has a new owner and as temporary removed its scooters from our (and presumably many, many other cities) streets. But they’ll be back in April, so if you are someone who found them useful, know that their absence should be short-lived, at least in Redwood City.

---

It is BCC (“Boards, Commissions, and Committees”) time again: the city has openings on the following:

• Arts Commission – One partial-term position expiring May 31, 2026 and four full-term positions expiring May 31, 2028
• Architectural Advisory Committee – Two partial-term seats expiring May 31, 2026 and two full-term positions expiring May 31, 2028
• Board of Building Review – Three full-term positions expiring May 31, 2028
• Board of Port Commissioners – Three full-term positions expiring July 31, 2028
• Historic Resources Advisory Committee – Two full-term positions expiring May 31, 2027
• Housing and Human Concerns Committee – Three full-term positions expiring May 31, 2028
• Library Board – Two full-term positions expiring June 30, 2028
• Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission – Three full-term positions expiring May 31, 2028
• Planning Commission – One partial-term position expiring June 30, 2026 and two full-term positions expiring June 30, 2028
• Senior Affairs Commission – Four full-term positions expiring May 31, 2028

Applications are being accepted now through April 30. For more information, including specific eligibility criteria that may apply to certain positions, and a link to the application, go to www.RedwoodCity.org/BCCRecruitment. For anyone who has opinions about how the city should be run (which is probably a lot of us, I suspect!) or who simply wants to contribute to the health of the city, I highly recommend applying. These positions are a great way to have your voice stand out from the crowd.

---

Sadly, after 25 years with the city of Redwood City, Chris Beth, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Director, is retiring. There will be a “farewell reception” to celebrate his service from 5 – 6 p.m. on Monday, April 15 at City Hall (1017 Middlefield Rd.) — immediately before the regularly scheduled City Council meeting (which starts at 6 p.m.). If you’ve gotten to know Chris, or simply have been positively affected by all of the great work he has done, do consider dropping by and thanking him for his service.