This blog post is a bit later than usual due to the fact that I didn’t plan ahead and watch the recording of the September 17 Planning Commission meeting in enough time to both finish the meeting (which ran just over four hours!) and also write a post. But having finally finished watching it, I’m now able to say something (hopefully) intelligent about it. Better late than never, I guess…

This particular meeting was of real interest to me because it consisted primarily of two public hearings: one for the large office/retail project proposed for the former Wells Fargo Bank site at 1900 Broadway, and one for the affordable housing project tied to that project. The affordable housing project would be constructed at 847 Woodside Rd. and managed by a separate outfit (Hayward-based Eden Housing), but on a parcel that would be purchased by the office/retail project’s developer — Lane Partners — and then donated to Eden Housing. I’ve been paying close attention and writing about this project since at least 2021, when the project popped up on the city’s Development Projects webpage, but became aware of it even earlier when the city began its so-called Gatekeeper Process, which enabled the city to collectively get its head around the potential impact of a relatively large number of projects proposed for in and around Redwood City’s downtown. (For background on the project itself, see my month-ago post For Their Consideration.)

This project has jumped through a number of hoops since it was first proposed to the city, and there are still some important hoops yet to navigate. However, this week’s Planning Commission meeting, in which both projects were unanimously approved (one member of the commission did have to abstain, given that they live kitty-corner from 1900 Broadway), was a big step. The commission’s approval was to recommend that the City Council approve both projects, as well as to show their personal support. The next step, then, is for the City Council to review and grant their approval (or not) to both. After that, it’s up to the developer to try to obtain sufficient construction financing, draw up construction plans, obtain building permits, etc. All of which, I was told, would be dependent on Lane Partners either pre-leasing a large part of the building’s future office space, or at least obtaining firm commitments. This is one developer, it seems, who has no intention of constructing a large office building that would just sit empty. So if the City Council indeed gives both projects the thumbs-up, I’ll be watching closely to see if and when these buildings will actually get built.

Based on the many public comments plus the comments made by the various Planning Commissioners, it certainly seems as if there is a lot of public interest in seeing the office building, at least, be constructed on the former Wells Fargo site. When it came to consideration of that project, the praise was pretty much universally in favor, with only one or two very minor nits. I was particularly interested to hear two or three people praising the closing of the one block of Spring Street: their point was that the current five-way intersection at Marshall/Main/Spring is confusing for some drivers and, more importantly, difficult to navigate if you are on foot or on a bicycle. While I still am interested in seeing what effect on traffic flow the closure of that section of Spring Street will actually have — a lot of us use it to merge between Marshall Street and Broadway when heading to or from the vicinity of Woodside Road and Broadway — the points raised were excellent ones. As someone who often walks through that part of town, I certainly have to agree with those who noted the issues that particular intersection poses for the pedestrian. And those of us who frequently drive along that section of Spring Street will no doubt develop alternative, regular routes.

There was more pushback on the affordable housing project proposed for 847 Woodside Rd. (the site of a former mortuary that currently houses a church), but thanks to a lot of work on the part of the architect to adjust their project based on feedback from the city’s Architectural Advisory Committee, the comments this time around were not so much about how the structure itself would affect its immediate neighbors but instead about parking.

As it now stands, 847 Woodside is slated to have 72 apartments, one for the manager and 71 affordable at the Low and Very Low income levels. Of those apartments, 22 would have two bedrooms and 20 would have three bedrooms, making this development particularly attractive to families (the remaining apartments would be a mix of studios and one-bedroom units). For many commenters, 72 apartments, many with more than one bedroom, implies more cars that will fit in the building’s 57-space garage. Any additional cars would likely end up on the neighborhood streets, something complicated by the fact that Caltrans is removing street parking along Woodside Road plus the fact that the other neighboring streets are already pretty much full of parked cars. However, the speaker at Tuesday’s meeting from Eden Housing didn’t seem concerned. Based on the many other housing projects that Eden Housing manages up and down the state of California, Eden apparently believes that 57 spaces is likely to be sufficient for the people who would move into a project such as this. Hopefully Eden is correct, but in any case I believe that state law doesn’t allow a fully affordable housing project to be rejected for a lack of parking. Certainly, the Planning Commissioners showed no concern around parking issues. The need for affordable housing, particularly at the low levels that this project is targeting, is so great that I’m not sure a deficit in the amount of parking would matter in any case. In the meeting there was a lot of good back-and-forth about the (lack of) safety for cyclists along Woodside Road (the project would have a secure storage area for 86 bicycles — more than one per unit — plus four additional short-term bicycle parking spaces). And all residents would get free vouchers for SamTrans, allowing them to freely use the bus service that runs up and down Woodside Road today. Finally, Safeway is directly across the street from the project site, and various stores and restaurants can be found within an easy walk along Woodside Road, so a good many residents may indeed find that they needn’t incur the expenses of car ownership.

Tentatively, City Council review of both of these projects is currently scheduled for October 28 (along with a study session on the 30-story housing project proposed for 1800 Broadway; it should be a fascinating meeting).

On the subject of upcoming City Council meetings, I was delighted to see that the expansion of the lovely Jardin de Niños park is on next week’s meeting agenda as a Consent Calendar item. Being a Consent Calendar item, it’s likely to be approved along with a handful of other items with a single vote and no comment. This particular item awards a construction contract and a contract for the purchase of a metal gazebo-like structure, all using funds already allocated for city parks. The city currently owns the 3,800-square-foot parcel where the expansion will be located, having purchased the neighboring property along Middlefield Road back in 2015. Shortly after purchasing it, the run-down house on the property was torn down, and since then the property has sat pretty much empty with a construction fence around it (during the reconstruction of Middlefield Road the parcel was used as a staging area for materials and equipment).

I’ve been anticipating this project ever since the city bought that piece of property, and thus I’m really looking forward to it being developed. Jardin de Niños currently is mostly geared towards younger children, so the expansion is being designed to serve teens and seniors. The expanded area will include “a plaza with benches (featuring mid-bench armrests), tables equipped with power outlets for working or studying outdoors, tree-lined accessible pathways, and a colorful and unique outdoor classroom.” (The metal gazebo will frame the outdoor classroom area.) There will also be a pathway for dogs and a doggie-bag station. Finally, the city has coordinated with the County to ensure that there is strong public Wi-Fi coverage in the park. All in all, this small addition to an already great park should make it just that much better for the surrounding residential neighborhood, and something likely to get a great deal of use. All in all, it appears to be an excellent use of city funds.