Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and thank you for joining our September 2nd, 2025 Planning Commission regular meeting. As a reminder, items will be taken in the order they're listed on the agenda. Before we get started, I'd like to briefly go over public comment procedures for the meeting for those that might be joining us for the first time. of commission interest and items not on the agenda will be taken during item number two on this evening's agenda. Comments on other agenda items will be taken only when that item is called. We're continuing to offer in-person and remote options for our planning commission meetings. However, due to continued recent disruptions during public commentary at open meetings throughout our region and state, we've modified our public comment procedure. The city welcomes public comments on topics within the city, the city's subject matter jurisdiction, and this can be provided in person during the meeting or by email ahead of the meeting. At this time, we're temporarily suspending public comment provided by Zoom. We want to ensure the city can continue to conduct the city's business in a manner that allows all residents to participate. We will continue to evaluate our public comment procedures. Our public comment procedures are as follows. Public comment will be taken in person during the meeting or in advance via email at pc at redwoodcity.org. In-person speakers must turn in a speaker card to our staff. or staff liaison at the dais, and then you will be recognized to speak. Please be sure to indicate the agenda item number that you wish to speak on. In-person speakers will be called in the order in which the speaker cards are turned in. Comments that were emailed to pc at redwoodcity.org by 5 p.m. today may be read into the record by the staff liaison and will be made part of the final meeting record. Both in-person and email comments are subject to the three-minute time limit. I will now turn over to staff to call roll.

Commissioner Batt.

Present.

Commissioner Cornejo. Present. Commissioner Finch?

Here.

Commissioner Hunter?

Here.

Commissioner Robinson?

Present.

Vice Chair Koch? Here. And Chair Sonargarats is joining us virtually.

Present.

Thank you. For the purposes of this meeting, I'm Sue Exline, the Assistant Community Development Director and staff liaison to this commission and other city staff that are attending this evening. Jeff Schwab, Community Development Director. Margaret Netto, Consultant Principal Planner. Ryan Kuchnig, Senior Planner. Rick Jarvis, Consultant City Attorney. And Christina Mateo, Administrative Secretary and Meeting Host.

public comments on the approval of minutes, consent items, matter of commission interest, and items not on the agenda. At this time, we'll take public comments. For those of you joining us in person only, we're temporarily suspending public comment provided by Zoom. If you've joined us in person, please fill out a speaker's card if you haven't done so yet.

We do have one public comment. Cassie, do you have the name?

I do. So at this time, I will call, I'm so sorry, I can't read the first name, but Aiken? Mr. Aiken, Ms. Aiken, please.

Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen, I guess. My name is Bridget Aiken and I live in Redwood Shores and tonight I would like to mention about all those empty buildings around this area. Every time I went by the 405 Industrial Boulevard, which is a huge building and empty building. And I also see that development being approved, like the one in 100 Marine Parkway, 200 Twin Dolphins has been completed. And I'm just wondering what it's for. And there's a lot of people wondering about why we keep continuing building and there's a lot of vacancy. So I am just... since you are the Planning Commission here, I was just wondering, the role is to make sure that those buildings are being occupied. Of course we build those buildings for the economic development, but if there is no you know, no business, then do we want to continue to approve all of those big, huge projects? So that's all my comment for tonight. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Sue, were there any comments received via email?

No.

If there's no objection, then I will close public comment. The next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes. Is there a motion to approve draft meeting minutes from August 19, 2025?

Motion to approve. I'll second it.

Commissioner Budd?

Yes.

Commissioner Cornejo? Yes. Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch? Yes. And Chair Sunagoretz?

Yes.

The motion passes seven to zero.

The next item would be our consent calendar. However, there are no items on this evening's consent calendar. So we will move on to agenda item five. Location 800 to 3400 Bridge Parkway. And we will be having a presentation from Jeff Schwab.

Good evening, Vice Chair Koch, Chair Sigurnats, and members of the Commission. My name is Jeff Schwab. I'm the Community Development Director. Today we're here to receive comments on the scope of the EIR for the Redwood Life project in Redwood Shores. This is not a meeting on the merits of the project. It is rather to receive comments on the scope and content of the draft environmental impact report that will be prepared for the project. Along with me tonight is Margaret Netto, our principal planner, working on the project. Ryan Kuchnig, our senior planner. And with us on Zoom tonight is Tyler Rogers and Christy Weiss from David J. Powers and Associates. They're the consultants that are going to prepare the environmental impact report. And with that, I will turn it over to Margaret to give you the presentation. Thank you.

Thanks Jeff. Again, my name is Margaret Netto. Here's tonight's agenda. We're going to go over a project overview first and the purpose of CEQA and the scoping meeting, the EIR content and issues to be analyzed, the EIR process and opportunities for public participation. And we'll have some questions from the Commission if they have questions on the process. And then we'll open the public hearing and receive comments on the scope and focus of the EIR. Here's the location. The site is located on the northwest portion of Redwood Shores bordering Bridge Parkway and the Belmont Slough to the north and the west. To the south and the east lies Marine Parkway, multifamily residential uses. Island Drive runs through the middle of the site. Next slide. Here's the conceptual site plan. The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing 20 life science buildings and associated surface parking in order to construct 11 life science buildings totaling 2.731 million square feet, a net increase of 1.764 million square feet compared to the existing conditions. and approximately 20,000 square foot community amenity center within one of the life science buildings and approximately 104 room hotel and four parking garages and 42.4 acres of open space. The applicant has revised the project proposal to be smaller than their original proposal. Now the 2.73 million square feet, a net new of 1.76 million and 11 buildings. The number does not include the hotel or the community center. some of the changes include longfellow lane has been relocated there's more open spaced open space increased buffer areas from the surrounding neighborhoods the amenity center is now 20 000 square foot and within the life science building the hotel remains the same at 104 rooms This revised project proposal now represents the maximum amount of development for the preparation of the EIR. Next. The purpose of the EIR and the scoping meeting tonight, the purpose of an EIR is to inform decision makers and the general public the environmental impacts of a proposed project that an agency, and in this case the City of Redwood City, may implement or approve. The EIR process is intended to disclose the environmental impacts Identify ways to mitigate, to avoid or mitigate those impacts. Inform decision making. Enhance public participation. Foster intergovernmental coordination. Next. Oh, sorry, I forgot. The purpose of the scoping meeting. The purpose of the scoping meeting is to provide an overview of the environmental review, solicit comments regarding the coverage, focus, and content of the scope. Okay. Thanks. Here's the general content of the EIR will be a project description, the environmental setting, any significant environmental effects and mitigation measures to avoid any of those impacts and alternatives to the proposed project, including the new project alternative and other alternatives that may lessen the identified significant impacts. Next. Here are the environmental topics to be evaluated. The EIR will also evaluate cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and alternatives to the project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Next. The EIR review process. We prepared the notice of preparation, which went out on August 22nd. Tonight we're holding the public scoping meeting. After that, we will prepare and circulate the draft EIR and then prepare and circulate the final EIR and respond to any comments and then certification and final public hearings. Next. Here are the opportunities to participate in the process. As I noted, the notice of preparation went out on August 22nd. The public scoping meeting is tonight. The end of the NOP comment period will be on September 22nd. That'll be at the end of the business day. The draft EIR review, the 45-day review, will be done in late spring, early summer of 2026. And the final EIR response to comments, late fall 2026. and certification of final public hearings early in 2027. Next slide. And how to provide comments. You can provide the verbal or written comments tonight. You can also email me at mnetto at redwoodcity.org until September 22nd. And then you can mail also comments to the Redwood City Planning Department. And then the current project plans can be viewed online. Next. Take questions or clarifications from the Planning Commission. Thank you for your presentation, Margaret. Wait, one more slide. I think there's one more. I think there's one more slide. Is there one more slide? Thanks. And then again, the purpose of tonight's hearing is to receive comments on the coverage, focus, and content of the EIR and not the project itself. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Any clarifying questions on the presentation from the commission that you would like to ask? And we will have time for our comments after the public hearing. Commissioner Finch.

Yes, so you had said that the size of the project studied in the EIR is the maximum allowable size of the project, but could the eventual project be smaller than the one that's being studied?

Yes.

Okay. And will the draft EIR come back to Planning Commission for review? Yes. Thank you.

Chair Sagonarek?

Thank you, Kimberly. I have a clarifying question about environmental impact. Well, one question is about sea level rise. It's something that has been brought up by some of the written comments to this particular item. And I have a question whether this is something that is really an environmental impact on the project versus projects on the environment. And how does that tie in for this particular EIR?

Thank you for the question. So under the Environmental Quality Act, the evaluation is the project's impacts on the environment and not the environment's impacts on the project. That said, the project does include sea level rise improvements, like a levee, and the impacts of constructing that levee will be evaluated in the environmental impact report.

Great, thank you.

Commissioner Hunter.

Thank you. Just one quick comment for the benefit of members of the public who may want to comment but can't comment tonight. The NO notice of preparation comment period that ends September 22nd, is that also really for the purposes of commenting on the scope of the EIR, just like tonight's meeting is, as opposed to general comments on the project?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Any other clarifying questions from the Commission? Okay, I will now open the public hearing. At this time, we'll take public comments from those of you joining us in person only. Just a reminder, we're temporarily suspending public comment provided by Zoom. If you've joined us in person, please fill out your speaker's card and bring it to staff here up in the front. I will call in-person speakers first, then I'll turn it over to staff liaison to read any public comments that we have received via mail. And I am taking the public speakers in the order that we did receive them. First speaker is Earl Aiken. Mr. Aiken?

Excuse me. To the chair, we are having challenges with our broadcast at the moment. And so we'd like to take a five-minute recess. Yeah?

Five minutes work?

A five-minute recess to resolve the broadcast issue. So I apologize. Five-minute recess. Thank you for your patience.

I thought there were, I didn't see. I can never see. I'll just check. Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, the Zoom is fine. It's just people at home can't see it on the TV.

Yes, exactly.

Oh, yeah.

There were only a couple, there were three.

Scoping's a little early in the period, so I think people will probably write in. Oh, will these letters get added?

That's an interesting question, if they did.

We're going to read it out loud today.

Yeah.

And then we train to Valencia. We spend 11 days there. Okay. And that's kind of like the chill. That's the real vacation. And then we go up to Barcelona for a week and then back to Madrid. Got to use all that vacation. Yes, yes. We did all the alcohol in the winter. We used to do that. It's about saving. Yeah, some of it. I think, you know, some of it. You know, most of it. Every so once we get, like, a liquor. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, my brother brought over a bottle of Charles Crude Cabernet from the 80s. He's all excited about it. But we had it back. No, no, no, we found it. You know, I think he had moved so many times that, you know. Yeah, and that was always going to go this way. Yeah, it was probably. It's probably been in different climates. Yeah. We actually just went, we stopped in Paso for lunch and then we stayed in Paso. Yeah. And Paso, I think we just got into Paso around 11ish. We left at maybe 1.30. Went from like 70 degrees to like 95 degrees. It was like, oh my God.

And then back in San Luis Obispo was pleasant.

My dad lives kind of south of there. He's in the Pomas. He's actually living in Pismo. Yeah. It's just, you know, you come over the hill and drop down and you just get that coastal influence. But there's a lot of, we went years ago, we went to Sonsario, which is a place of... Yeah, but it's not far out of town. It's really cool. They've added to it a neighborhood last year. Oh, OK. Let's see. Sam is here. Yeah, well, it wasn't so long ago. I want to do the work on it. And then we, a few years back when we were there, we tried to do some wine here. And we ended up with this one winery distillery called Refine. It is so good. It's not cheap, but it's good. The wine I didn't care for. The skilled spirits were quite good. She said that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It was super hot. I was like, we were like .

Apologies for the delay, but I think we're ready to pick up where we left off. Mr. Aiken, feel free to.

Stop Redwood Life began as a grassroots community movement in 2021. We collected over 1,800 signatures on a petition opposing the original Redwood Life plan. We supported alternative two as the best option to begin the CEQA process, but we stipulated alternative two needed further changes. As it now stands, Redwood Life alternative two will adversely affect the existing visual character and quality of the Redwood Shores neighborhood. This is an aesthetics issue which is an EIR category. To mitigate these negative impacts, Stop Redwood Life is seeking changes to alternative two. One, Keep the existing Westport building setbacks, including buildings in one and into at a maximum of 170 feet from the property line to lower the maximum heights of buildings in one and into to 70 feet and three eliminate the hotel. There is very strong opposition to the hotel in the community. We have collected almost 600 petition signatures from our residents in Redwood Shores supporting these changes, and we will submit this petition during the scoping comment period.

Thank you, Mr. Aiken. Next, Bob Highsmith.

Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Bob Highsmith and I live in the Boardwalk community of Redwood Shores. Boardwalk along with neighboring Peninsula Landing share an actual border with the Redwood Life Campus. I'm here this evening to strongly oppose Alternative 2 in its present form. I think you've all heard this regarding the redevelopment project would be constructed on a site that was originally a public dump and toxic waste area. We cannot ignore that fact that carcinogenic contaminants were once present on the site. To move forward with such a large-scale redevelopment and break through the thick clay cap on the land with this toxic legacy poses really unacceptable biosafety health risk to the surrounding communities. Beyond the health, alternative two is simply not compatible with the built environment of Redwood Shores. At 2.76 million square feet, it would be 35% larger than the Oracle campus. And one million square feet larger than Hillsdale. Isn't that amazing? And this is without even counting the four parking garages which are being constructed for 7,000 cars in the proposal. And a large amenity center in addition to a hotel. This is a gigantic commercial complex that will tower over neighboring homes. That scale is far too big for our community. The massive increase in density, traffic, and infrastructure demand would overwhelm nearby neighborhoods and fundamentally change the tranquil nature of Redwood Shores. Let's not overlook the quality of life impacts. A project this size would mean decades of heavy construction, traffic construction, and noise. We would be looking at 25 years of on-and-off construction activity, which would not only disrupt daily life, but also permanently alter how our community functions. Any prospective homebuyer would need to be told about this level of disruption, which would have a devastating effect on our property values. Families who have invested their lives here in Redwood Shores should not be asked to sacrifice their peace and financial security for a project of this scale. Approving alternative two would signal that short-term economic development matters more than environmental health, safety, and community balance. This is not the kind of Redwood Shores we want for our children. I urge you to reject alternative two of the Redwood Life proposal and instead pursue a greatly reduced alternative plan for environmental review, one that supports thoughtful growth without sacrificing the livability of Redwood Shores. Thank you.

Thank you. Stephen Goodtow.

Can you hear me? Is it working? How's that? Good. Okay. All right. Good evening, virtual chair, and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Steven Goodale, and I'm a resident at the Boardwalk. I'm here to express my deep concerns about the proposed development at the Westport site. This project is not compatible with the Westport specific plan, the surrounding low density residential or the built environment. When PGIM, the majority owner, bought the site in 2005, they were fully aware of the restrictions in place. The scaleless development is grossly out of character with the neighboring built environment. The rezoning to commercial park in 2010 and 2013 intensification were mistakes as it's completely incompatible with the adjacent multi-family, low density neighborhoods of the Peninsula Landing and the Boardwalk, which totals 293 homes. The Westport-specific plan capped the total gross square footage at around 970,000 square feet and setbacks of 238 feet. In contrast, the CP commercial park zoning allows for buildings up to 120 feet tall with an FAR floor area ratio translating to... 2 million around 2,900,000 square feet of leasable space which when parking structures are factored in nearly doubles the gross square footage for a project this far from public transport you need the parking. There are no other commercial park zones this close to residential areas in all of Redwood City none. Westport is the only exception, sitting directly adjacent to families and sensitive receptors at Peninsula Landing and the Boardwalk. I implore you to reconsider this development. The rezoning was a mistake. The proposed project is not in line with our community's character and needs. PJM knew the restrictions when it bought the property and the city should hold them to it and stay within the Westport specific plan. Thank you for your service as well as your attention to this critical matter.

Please hold your applause. Thank you.

Okay. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Gail Robbie, Revit City resident and co-chair of Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, a regional environmental organization that advocates for the protection of San Francisco Bay, wetlands, and wildlife. We have participated in a number of the community outreach events associated with this highly controversial proposal, and our concerns continue to be focused primarily on the integrity of the unlined former landfill that is present throughout most of the site. Specifically, we are very worried that the new building construction, in association with future sea level rise and groundwater rise, will lead to off-site movement of landfill contaminants into the adjacent wetlands and waters of Belmont Slough. This ecologically sensitive area is part of the state's Redwood Shores Ecological Preserve and is home to a number of state and federal endangered species. We will be submitting written scoping comments later this month, but I did want to call your attention to a serious omission in the notice of preparation that was sent to all the various regulatory agencies. The notice states, quote, the city is interested in the views of your agency as to the appropriate scope and content of the draft EIR, as well as any mitigation measures or alternatives related to agency statutory responsibilities, unquote. Receiving valuable feedback from agencies early on is a primary purpose of sending out a notice that a project EIR is being prepared. And yet nowhere in the notice does the city mention the fact that the project site is located on a former landfill that is at the edge of San Francisco Bay. I believe it's irresponsible that this site information isn't being provided to the agencies. And this also... excuse me, works against the best interests of the city and the community as we try to ensure a thorough and comprehensive environmental impact report is completed for this project. I would urge the city to reissue an amended notice of preparation with the important landfill information included. Thank you.

Divina Gentry.

Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the Redwood Life Project. My name is Davina Gentry and I am a member of the Conservation Committee of the San Mateo County Bird Alliance. Our mission is to advocate for healthy habitats and ecosystems for birds. Regarding biological resources, both state and federally listed as endangered species, the California Ridgeways Rail and the State Saltmarsh Harvest Mouse are known to occur year-round in Belmont Slough. The DEIR should evaluate the potential impacts of this project to these protected species and other wildlife found there. A recent American Bird Conservancy study confirms building collisions kill over a billion birds annually. The revised height of the buildings in the plan requires a study of the impact on birds during migration and while wintering in Belmont Slough and the Redwood Shores Lagoon as they move between feeding and nesting areas. In this ecological context, all building elevations pose a bird strike hazard, with the greatest risk occurring below 60 feet, but meaningful risk extending throughout the full height of the structures. Certain building features create especially high bird collision risk. The DEIR should perform a detailed evaluation of their risk to birds and appropriate mitigations to the following see-through conditions. Highly reflective glass. Balconies, freestanding walls, and building corners. Three floors adjacent to greenery. Reflected in grass, this creates a significant hazard. The introduction of light from buildings and nighttime glare into the habitat of Belmont Slough and its impact on wildlife species should also be studied. San Mateo County Bird Alliance recommends the adoption of bird safe building practices, which include the use of non-reflective fritted glass and of dark sky lighting standards. For reference, several local jurisdictions have adopted these standards. San Francisco, Cupertino, Mountain View, Brisbane, and Palo Alto. Thank you.

Sagal Elyon.

Hi, my name is Sigal Ilan. I've spoken here a couple times already, and I just want to support my colleagues against the project. It just does not belong in Redwood Shores. Redwood Shores has an area specific for these type of projects, which is along the 101 corridor. The inner area is residential, and I want to remind you that the original plan for this site was just a golf course. It wasn't supposed to be built at all. So it just does not belong in Redwood Shores, this plan in general. From a safety, it's just like... From a safety perspective, you're looking at the size of like a town. If you look at 7,000, 10,000 people living in a town, they're all working in life sciences and they're all having an impact of potential impact to the environment around them, to the people around for safety reasons. And we're just like minutes away from a... I forgot the geological earthquake. The fault line. Sorry, thank you. We're just missing away from fault line. So how can you put such a huge large scale project right next to residents when you're like, any time you can have a potential huge earthquake and the whole thing just like, maybe not tumble down, but it's going to be damaged and you have leaks and you're not even specifying what level of lab PSL that you can be there. So potentially you can have like pathogens like, you know, just creep out through the doors or whatever. It just, This does not belong in Redwood Shores. Redwood Shores is more of a residential area, and it's got the commercial area along the 101. That's where these high-rises belong, not next to our homes. and not to imagine all the damage from the construction that we're going to have millions of dollars of damage to their building because the land is going to be shifting, and so are our buildings. Who's going to pay for that? And with everybody who's been in for a while has had to go through a project where Buildings need to be brought up, leveled again, because it's just that the land, it's a landfill. So there's just no space, there's no question, there's no room for this project at all in Redwood Shores. Thank you.

And our last speaker, Sue Nipp.

Hi, my name is Sue Nix. I'm a longtime resident of Redwood Shores. And I'm sorry, I don't have a speech really ready this evening because I had to deal with a family emergency all day today. So one thing that I am asking for for the community is an extension on the 30 days. I looked into this and other cities and other communities and they have provided extensions for projects of this type of magnitude. I can honestly say the process really hasn't been transparent to the Shores community. Meetings that have been scheduled with very little notice, even this particular meeting, I had to keep calling and calling the city and then find out that it was already scheduled and we didn't even know about it. So that's kind of upsetting. This is a project that's going to be the biggest project on the peninsula, one of the biggest on the peninsula and in rabbit shores. Sorry. And I think that people have to really think about that. This is the biggest project on the peninsula that they're planning. They can't put housing on it and they can't have childcare because of the toxic site. That's something to think about. The Shores really needs an additional time for this 30 days because, I mean, already a week has gone by, over a week. And this is the biggest thing that's happened in Redwood Shores, period. So I'm really requesting that. I'm really begging everybody on planning and council to think about the risks of this project, the risk for the city, the risk for the community, the risk for the people that live there. There's a lot. So, again, I'm just asking if they can please take into consideration and have an extension. Thank you.

Thank you for all of your comments. We do appreciate you being here. Ms. Exline, did we receive any comments via email? We did.

We received three comments, so I'll start with the first one. Dear Mayor Martinez-Caballos, City Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, As a concerned resident of Redwood Shores, I am writing to express my deep reservations about the proposed Redwood Life development project. This large-scale transformation of our community raises significant issues that I believe must be thoroughly addressed before any approvals are granted. One of my primary concerns is the project's proposed building heights. The plans call for structures up to 140 feet taller than the surrounding landscape, a dramatic vertical expansion that would fundamentally alter the character of our neighborhood and create substantial viewshed disruptions. These towering buildings also raise compatibility concerns with the nearby San Carlos airport, as the mechanical screens and heights could potentially interfere with flight paths. The increased shadows and wind patterns change, changes from these tall structures would further impact the quality of life for nearby residents. Equally troubling are the drastic reductions in critical buffer zones between the development and our residential areas. The project would shrink building setbacks from 238 feet down to just 146 feet, bringing the commercial activity much closer to our homes. This loss of privacy barriers would expose us to heightened noise, light, and activity from the commercial development, undermining the tranquility we have come to expect in our community. The sheer scale of the project also raises significant concerns about traffic impacts. With plans for up to 92,300 new vehicle trips per week from 11,000 employees, our local road infrastructure would be overwhelmed, leading to severe congestion, safety hazards, and environmental degradation. The two major parking garages proposed along Longfellow Lane facing directly toward residential areas would further exacerbate these issues, subjecting us to constant noise, emissions, and light pollution. Perhaps most alarmingly, the development's focus on 50% biolabs and research facilities introduces unique safety and operational risks to our residential neighborhood. These high-containment laboratories would handle hazardous materials up to biosafety level 3, including serious human and animal diseases. The lack of dedicated setback zones between These labs in our homes is deeply concerning as prevailing winds could potentially carry airborne contaminants over our community. Beyond these immediate impacts, the project's 25-year construction timeline would subject us to decades of continuous disruption and environmental degradation. Sustained noise from pile driving, air quality issues, and significant land elevation changes would profoundly impact our quality of life and property values for an entire generation. The Redwood Life Development also poses grave threats to the surrounding ecological areas, including the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve and Wildlife Refuge. The project would disrupt crucial habitats for over 170 recorded species, including nine threatened or endangered species, and directly interrupt the Pacific Flyway. The second comment. to City of Redwood City Planning Department and City Council. I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the notice of preparation for the draft environmental impact report for the Redwood Life Project. As a Peninsula resident, I have personal interest in the San Francisco Bay and its ecosystems and am aware of the interconnected nature of developments surrounding our Bay. I'm also aware of the impending impacts of sea level rise and groundwater upwelling on infrastructure and public health. The siting of this project abutting protected wetlands and on top of a poorly documented dump creates the potential for long-term and wide-ranging impacts to the water quality and health of the entire Bay region and thus deserve serious consideration. Number one, lack of alternatives analysis. The NOP proposes to study only two alternatives, a threefold expansion versus no project, ignoring the obvious and reasonable alternative of a more appropriately scaled project. These artificially constrained alternatives fail to meet CEQA guideline section 15126.6, which requires evaluation of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives. smaller-scale alternative. Working within the currently in force Westport specific plan and appropriate scale development would accomplish the majority of project goals while eliminating multiple impacts. This is the obvious feasible alternative. The applicant could remove, reconfigure, restore, and expand by 10%, yielding a manifold increase in functional usability and sustainability without the enormous impacts inherent in a threefold expansion. Section B, relocated alternative. A second feasible alternative is the same proposed development site but sited above sea level on land connected via transit and city services not adjacent to single family housing or protected wetlands and not subject to flooding or earthquake liquefaction. By facilitating a transfer of development rights, the city could eliminate nearly all impacts while furthering general plan goals. The NOP is inadequate right out of the gate for the failure to study a reasonable, feasible alternative. Number two, land use and planning. The city has thus far ignored the Westport-specific plan and is proceeding as though it were not still in effect. Before the proposed project can proceed, the city must complete the legally required public process to rezone. And given the potential... conflicts with the general plan, new BCDC, Bay Plan policies, as well as regional housing needs assessment demands, the huge industrial upsending entail is not a given. Section A. The project conflicts with the existing Westport zoning density, setback, and height standards while offering meaningless benefits to justify the exception sought. Levee repair and repair of a leaking collapsed dump are not a benefit. They are legally mandated minimum standards. An isolated community room is a questionable utility. And comment number 3, this is from Gita Dev to the planning commissioners. Dear commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the scope of the environmental impact report for the proposed Redwood Life project. At approximately 3.31 million square feet, actually over 5 million gross square feet, including proposed structured parking, this project represents a scale of development with the potential to create wide-ranging and significant environmental effects. EIR should carefully and thoroughly analyze the following issues. Number one, project scale and land use compatibility. The project's overall size is significantly larger than nearby corporate campuses, Oracle, Google, Facebook, Genentech, and more than five times larger in terms of total gross square feet of structures proposed than the existing use on the site. Given its location within a residential setting and on a constrained landfill, the EIR should evaluate whether the proposed intensity of development is compatible with surrounding land uses. Traffic circulation and emergency access. The site is remote from all forms of regional transit and is dependent on limited freeway access and local roads that already experience congestion and periodic tidal flooding. The IAR should evaluate how this scale of development may affect both daily circulation as well as emergency access, particularly during flood events. In addition, the existing perimeter road appears inadequate to serve the proposed huge scale of the project and is already subject to periodic flooding. Raising and enlarging portions of this road will likely be required to ensure safe and reliable access. The EIR should evaluate whether the proposed phasing of development will account for necessary roadway modifications, including elevation, flood protection, and local traffic and emergency access considerations. Number three, flooding, sea level rise and landfill stability. The project site is located on a subsiding capped, unlined landfill. It is already subject to tidal flooding, including levee overtopping during extreme high tides, as well as frequent backup flooding from storm drains along the perimeter road. The proposed placement of approximately eight feet of surcharge fill raises substantial concerns regarding additional fracturing of the existing clay landfill cap and submergence of the leachate collection system as ground model level rises. Such an increase in fill height and weight would normally necessitate the design and installation of a new landfill cap and leachate system. The EIR should evaluate the long-term feasibility and adequacy of the project's lack of landfill protections under future conditions, including projected sea level rise, groundwater rise, and ongoing subsidence. Section 4, building height, shading, and shoreline setback. The increase in building heights from two stories to eight stories, 120 feet, plus mechanical penthouses and required exhaust stacks as tall as 25 feet. Thank you. Those are all of the e-mail comments.

Thank you, Ms. Exline. So if there is no objection, I will now close the public hearing. And I will open the meeting for committee discussion. Commissioners?

So I think one of the things that was brought up in the public comment is that the area is, that we have the landfill there. I guess all of my questions are just, will these things be covered in the EIR? So will that be covered in the EIR?

Yes, that'll be covered in the EIR.

And it was also brought up the 7,000 parking spaces and the increase in traffic. Will that be covered in the EIR?

Yes.

And it was also brought up the flight paths at the San Carlos Airport. Will that be covered?

Yes, that will also be covered in the EIR.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Papp?

Yeah. I'm in a similar line as Commissioner Finch. A few public commenters brought up the birds and wildlife around. Will that be covered in the EIR?

Yes. Under biological resources, that will also be covered.

Cool. Thank you.

Chair Sargonarek.

Thank you. I also have a couple of questions. One is about project alternatives. One of the commenters mentioned a relocated project alternative, perhaps in a completely different community out of Redwood Shores. Is that something that will be added as an alternative, or is that equal to the no project alternative?

We would have to study the alternatives just based on the analysis of all the resources and what alternatives we come up with.

Okay. Next question I have is about, again, sea level rise. I know many of the concerns are about sea level rise and impact on potentially this underlying landfill and its conditions. In the case of no project alternative, the underlying landfill will also be subject to sea level rise. So is the environment impact like the difference between the two, like with the project and sea level rise and without the project and sea level rise, or is it just isolated?

I believe.

So, again, this is one of those issues that's intertwined and a bit complex. As we discussed earlier, the impact of sea level rise itself is not the project's impact, that's the environment's impact on the project. That said, there's going to be activity on the site, construction activity, for example, pile driving. that may impact the landfill and may cause an impact that would need to be evaluated and addressed in the EIR. And if that impact affects sea level rise in some way, then that would be covered too. But if it doesn't, or if sea level rise is causing an impact, that's the project's owner's responsibility. We held a webinar on this topic actually early on, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board says the landowner has the responsibility for maintaining this and addressing that. And they're required to, not annually, but to report regularly to the Regional Board and to take precautions to make sure that the landfill is safe and it's addressed properly. So if sea level rise affects the landfill, they have to address it to the satisfaction of the Regional Board.

Got it. In a non-project alternative or a project alternative?

Correct.

Great. Thank you.

Commissioner Robinson.

Yes. First question is regarding, well, first, thank you for the staff memo on what's going into the draft EIR. So, you know, it has the usual geology soils, hazards, hazardous materials, but this is the first time I'm seeing one on a landfill site. which is kind of unique. And so I guess I'm curious, to what extent will this EIR scope, who's performing it, will have any additional analysis, testing, or otherwise on the fact that it happens to be on an old landfill? And then I'll have just a follow-up question on process after that.

We have our consultant, Tyler, on the line, so maybe he can address that. But I believe that it'll be addressed probably in three of the sections, which is water quality,

geology and i'm missing one is tyler there hi yes okay um afternoon commissioners you you are correct margaret um we will be addressing impacts of the project on the landfill in geology and soil section the hazards and hazardous materials section and hydrology and water quality section. Excuse me. And that will be based on technical work performed by our sub consultants and information provided by the applicant, as well as coordinating with the regulatory agencies like the Water Board, DTSC and County Health and other regulatory agencies who are responsible for overseeing the landfill and what the applicant needs to do to manage it.

Okay, thank you. And then, so getting from draft to final, so if in the process, what would the next step in if we have, if there's additional concerns on, say, the level of testing done in the EIR on the landfill before we get to final, what does that process look like?

The process between the draft EIR and the final EIR?

Yes, if, for example, additional concerns are raised about the quality of the review or the EIR's depth of analysis on the risk of the landfill to the three areas, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology, water quality, etc.,

Okay. So we will do our draft EIR first based on our scoping and coordinating with city staff. And the draft EIR will be published. It will circulate for public review. If other agencies or public send comments in questioning or requiring or requesting additional testing and provide valid reasons as to why this additional testing is needed in order to make an accurate environmental conclusion, We will respond to those in the final EIR, and that may include additional technical information that can be done at that time after the draft EIR is circulated and before the final EIR is published. Yeah, Margaret, one of the slides shows the timeline of the EIR. All that would be addressed as we're preparing the final EIR. Between summer 2026 and late fall 2026, during that public review time, if we get comments requesting additional testing and based on our review and analysis by experts in coordination with the city, that additional testing can take place. If it still proves whatever our EIR's conclusion is, then that will go into the final EIR. If for some reason the testing rises to the level of recirculating EIR, we will address it at that point. But that's when it would take place. Thank you.

Commissioner Corneo.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the presentation and all the public comment. I noticed that in one of the public comments, it was discussed that they didn't receive enough notice or that they just found out about the meeting. And as I was reading the staff report, I saw that one of the methods that was used was to advertise it on San Mateo Daily Journal. I'm wondering if there was any other consideration to share it in other news outlets or media outlets like the Redwood City Pulse or other methods of spreading the word and giving the opportunity to the public to share their thoughts.

We also did a social media blast that went out to all the people on our mailing list, too, and people that are interested in the project. So that went out. But no Redwood City Pulse? Do we have any other?

No, not specifically. Okay. Yeah, just something to consider. This is a huge project, and I'm actually surprised that there's no more public comment. I would think that it would be a room full of residents and just want to remind everyone that we want to hear as many voices as possible during such a large project. Thank you.

Commissioners, any other comments for discussion, questions?

Were we just doing clarifying questions now?

No, we are doing commentary or asking questions for discussion or adding things we would like to see that are added into the EIR or asking questions if things we're concerned about are part of the EIR already.

In that case, I have something to say.

Commissioner Hunter.

And I do thank all of the commenters and hope that everyone realizes that this is just one preliminary step in a very long process. So this is the beginning, not the end, of this whole approval process and analysis. I'm not, I think there were a lot of, I think, excellent suggestions, recommendations on things to look at. I'm not gonna repeat all of them, but clearly the fact that this is on a large capped landfill is very important, especially being near both residences and wildlife areas. So I think there needs to be a significant analysis of what could conceivably go wrong with building a project of this size on the landfill. I would also like to, and this hasn't come up in the oral comment today yet, but I would definitely want the EIR to evaluate, since this is gonna be biological laboratory space, I would like to evaluate the potential public health and safety implications of the various biohazard safety levels. I presume that four would never be approved here, but mainly the implications of the biosafety levels two and three. And I have a question about alternatives. This was originally alternative two to a larger project, and I think a lot of people have been referring to this as alternative two. But this is now the proposed project, is my understanding. And as far as I see, there is no current alternative to this. Is that true? And assuming it is, hopefully there will be alternatives maybe more than one, I would like, in the draft EIR process? How will alternatives be proposed from here?

So the consultant does the initial preparation of the draft environmental impact report and looks then to develop the alternatives that would lessen impacts that were identified in that preliminary analysis. And those become the alternative or alternatives that get included along with this now project. which was alternative two, is now the project, and the no project, as I think Margaret described early on in the presentation, is required by CEQA. So the intent of the additional alternatives is to find alternatives that lessen impacts that have been identified in the preliminary analysis. And that's why we don't know exactly what they are yet, because we don't know exactly what the impacts are, because the study hasn't been prepared.

Great, thank you. So since this is such a large project, and so there's such a huge delta between the current project, the current status, which is no project, and the proposed project, I would like to request that there be more than one alternative that would be considered, just because if there's only one, it's just such a huge space between now and what's being proposed. I think more than one alternative would probably be very helpful.

Chair Saganarik.

Thank you, Vice Chair Koch. Yeah, I also wanted to express my gratitude to the public for coming out, expressing all those great ideas to evaluate. I really enjoyed reading the written comments and they've been very well thought out and raised a lot of interesting and very important topics to be studied. I know this is already, I think, a third time this particular topic has come in front of Planning Commission and we first discussed Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and I want to echo Commissioner Hunter's comment that this is just, you know, one of the steps on many more opportunities to comment and provide input. And I would also like the Commissioner Cornejo's suggestion to also add alternative methods to reaching out populations that are not necessarily reading the Daily Journal, whether it be online, through Nextdoor, or otherwise online. I know in the first two meetings we had about this project prior to EIR, there was a very robust community of participation, and I sure hope that that continues as we go along. Thank you so much.

I just have one comment and sort of a question. sort of going back to our speaker from the Bird Alliance, which is something I was gonna mention, or hopefully see that was gonna be added onto the sequel list, and I don't see it, was a light study. And it may be wrapped up in something else, maybe called something else, but a light study for the sake of our birds. and looking at using the non-reflective glass. And I know that we have actually approved other projects in the last couple of years that just started right off with their non-reflective glass and doing light studies because it makes a difference, particularly for our migrating birds and particularly at nighttime. because they get confused and we don't want them banging into our buildings and that doesn't end well. So I don't know if that's already part of this. Does that fall under the category of anything that's already listed here that I'm just not able to put together because I don't see it?

So it would come under the biological section where they're going to look at the impacts to wildlife and the like. This comment's come up from the beginning of time that this is an issue and this is going to get addressed in the ER.

Great. Thank you. Okay. If we have no more commentary from our commissioners, then I will go to Ms. Exline and see if we have any Planning Commission liaison updates.

Thanks, Chair. I think we just need to close the public hearing. Okay. Then we will close our public hearing.

Now we will turn to Ms. Exline.

Thank you. Just letting folks know that we will cancel the September 16th Planning Commission meeting. We have no items on the agenda. So we'll come back here on October 7th. I will let the commissioners know that we are having a study session at two items of interest, I'll say, at the September 8th City Council meeting. One is the Chair, Senator Ratz, will be presenting the Planning Commission Work Plan to City Council. And the second item is a study session on 910 Marshall, which is a new senior residential development project. So those are the two items that I have for updates. Nothing more. Thank you. That concludes the items.

Through the chair. Oh, yes. Yes, I just had a question. Do you know if we'll be bringing back virtual public comment for planning commission?

So right now the BCCs are awaiting the kind of next steps from city council. City council has just started receiving public comment via Zoom. and so they will then roll out all of the public comment for all of the BCCs at a future date. So I don't have that date yet as to when that will be, but I do understand that it is coming. It will be coming.

Okay, yeah, thank you. I was interested because I know council started doing it, so yeah, thank you.

That concludes tonight's agenda. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October 7th. Thank you all for coming.