Inner Harbor Redwood City
Part 1 - Background

Background Information

July 7, 2020

Diane Howard, Mayor
Redwood City Council
Redwood City Citizens

cc: San Mateo County Supervisors

Disclosure: We are members of the Bair Island Aquatic Center (BIAC) that is located in Inner Harbor, but our views are not made for BIAC. We are not leaders or board members of BIAC – just members. The views expressed here are from living in Redwood City for 40+ years and from being on Redwood City Council for 16 years, and as a former Redwood City mayor.

We recently learned that at the upcoming Redwood City Council meeting (July 13, 2020) there will be a vote on a land swap between Redwood City and the County of San Mateo for land in Redwood City’s Inner Harbor Area. This exchange would be significant for our City and its residents. It disregards the substantial public input for the use of the land that was given in a very long and detailed Inner Harbor Specific Plan process that was the outcome of many meetings of the Inner Harbor Task Force. (See Inner Harbor Vision document https://www.redwoodcity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=17100  and the full final report: https://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community-development-department/planning-housing/planning-services/general-plan-precise-plans/inner-harbor-specific-plan . )

As far as we know, THERE HAS BEEN NO PUBLIC INPUT TO THIS PROPOSED SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE VISION FOR INNER HARBOR and that would be a loss of recreational and water front opportunities for Redwood City residents. We know that civic engagement done correctly leads to residents to trust their government. Given the wonderful job the city did with its initial community engagement (Inner Harbor Task Force), it would be a real insult and could damage the city credibility if you now made changes without consulting this Task Force again.

Even today (July 7, 2020) there is no notice posted of this upcoming vote or of the reasoning for this exchange. While we understand this is legally correct, we feel an action of this magnitude should include public discussion and involvement, not a one evening public hearing. we would hope that the Council would not ignore the input of our residents developed as part of the Inner Harbor Task Force process. Redwood City should not “give up” public recreational activities nor future access to the waterfront by a vote by the Council, especially when it has not included a substantial public input process that Redwood City has prided itself upon.

We are sorry we are coming to council at the last minute, but we became aware of a possible land swap early last year and Jerry expressed his concern in a letter to council in March 2019 (Pierce Comments on Cemex). Since that time we are not aware of any opportunity for the community to provide comment or gain an understanding of the benefits to Redwood City residents.

We understand the need for the Blomquist extension and are strong supporters, but not at the expense of a public recreational destination. We think we can have both!

To be clear, our focus is on the LONG TERM use of these lands. The use of the CEMEX land for temporary RV parking or other shelter needs is very appropriate. 

Background

Redwood City’s Inner Harbor Area is bounded by Redwood Creek on the North West, US101 on the South West, Steinberger Slough on the North East and the Heavy Industry on the South East (next to Woodside Road). The Figure below shows this area in light blue.

Figure 1 – Overview of Redwood City’s Inner Harbor

In 2009 The City of Redwood City purchased the land know as “CEMEX.” Shown in orange on this current satellite view. The original purchase agreement report dated April 27, 2009 states “If the city is able to successfully conclude this transaction, the city council will be able to secure prime bay-front land for public benefit, and give the city the ability to control land uses within/adjacent to the Marine development area“. (See a video of this decision and the rational. 2009 Council Vote / discussion Video)

Figure 2 – Overview of CEMEX and Shelter

The CEMEX land is zoned Heavy Industry (2010 designation includes light industrial and industrial/Port Related) and is located across the street from the County Jail and directly adjacent to Granite Rock railroad tracks. The City purchased it in anticipation of recreational uses and/or appropriate uses on land understanding it being in a flood zone, subject to sea level rise and the close proximity to heavy industry with the associated airborne particulates. It was never contemplated for housing and is not zoned for housing.

Redwood City formed the Inner Harbor Task Force in 2013 and held over 11 meetings resulting in a complete EIR for the area as well as a Draft Inner Harbor Specific Plan in 2015. This was a 2 year open process with significant public input. An overview layout of the recommendation of the vision is below.

The Inner Harbor Task Force recommended that the area would become an open area / recreational destination for the City and Region. The unique access to the waterfront is a very limited resource in Redwood City (and the region), so it was proposed to maximize the waterfront access.

The final report was issued in 2015 https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showdocument?id=5664

Figure 3 – Overview of Inner Harbor Specific Plan

Following the issuing of the report, the County constructed the County Jail on the corner of Blomquist and Maple, across from the Redwood City Police station and across the street from the CEMEX land. Redwood City leased part of the CEMEX land to the County as a staging area for the construction and the County has assembled a number of temporary buildings for offices for the construction as well as their planning department.

Redwood City has also leased the CEMEX water’s edge to BIAC (Bair Island Aquatic Center) – an open-to-the-public private club for rowing and paddling.

The Strada Development has started construction in the region next to Redwood Creek and the former “DockTown” area. The space occupied by a Shelter (LiveMoves) and the former Women’s Jail is shown in Figure 2 as the blue area and it is land owned by San Mateo County.

The current status is shown below (this was part of the March 2019 document provided to Council).

Figure 4 – The current status for the area. 
This shows the Strada Development, Area 1 the open area is county owned. Area 2 (CEMEX Property) is Redwood City owned.

The Proposal

Redwood City and the developers in the region have wanted to build the “Blomquist Extension” to connect the Inner Harbor to Whipple Ave with a bridge parallel to 101 and crossing Redwood Creek. This would be an expensive project and has been long in the planning. (Note: We strongly support this project!)

To build it, it requires use of a corner of the land owned by the County where the Shelter and the former Women’s Jail is located.

The current proposal is for a land swap of most of the CEMEX land (Redwood City – roughly 5 acres) with the Shelter land (County – roughly 2.5 acres) and additional concessions (We are not aware of the details of the negotiations.)

Figure 5 – Detail of future Blomquist Extension near County Land

 

The County wants to move the Shelter plus build housing on the CEMEX land. The City is opening up space for Safe Parking for RVs and plans to use the CEMEX land until the county relocates the shelter, then move the Safe Parking to the Shelter land (next to Strada development).

Why This Is A Bad Idea

The CEMEX Land is a very bad location for housing – especially for a shelter or low income housing

  • Proposing housing for “marginalized” members of our community in industrial areas is seen as perpetuating historically bad land use practices.
  • This land is subject to flooding, sea level rise and particulates from the heavy industry adjacent to the property. (See the EIR for the area.)
  • This location is not near transportation
  • This location is not near any services
  • This location is next to a working concrete plant with a working railroad spur next to the property.
  • This location is much better utilized for open space or heavy industrial or (as proposed by the Task Force) a portion as recreational space.
  • This land is not zoned for housing

2) The Bloomquist Extension benefits the region – the County benefits as much as the City and yet the land swap puts most of the burden on the City.

  • The primary beneficiaries of the Blomquist Extension are the County Jail, Redwood City Police station, the future office development proposed by Jay Paul (Harbor View Place) and Pacific Shores. The residents of the Strada development and the developments along Bair Island Road would also make use of it. This is a regional project and Redwood City should not hold the full burden to provide the land for the project.

3) The necessary land to build the Blomquist Extension is a minor part of the County land.

  • Only a corner of the County land is required to complete the Blomquist Extension. The current trade is to swap a 2.5 acre piece of land which will be of little use to the City since it is bounded by a roadway and a condominium project, for a 5 acre piece of land that has value as open space and waterfront access.
  • We do not dispute that the economic cash value of the 2 parcels are probably equal. The cash value of land is not the only measure of a parcels worth. The 5 acre parcel has much greater value than the 2.5 acre parcel in terms of open space, waterfront exposure, recreational/sports use. These values are equal to or greater than just cash value as RWC has limited land that can be used for waterfront and organized sports.
  • The Shelter land (less the space for Blomquist road) has little use for Redwood City other than to sell to a developer for additional housing or services. It could be a pocket park, but at the expense of a much more appropriate waterfront park.

4) Redwood City would lose control over what can be built on the CEMEX land.

  • By doing a land swap (rather than an extended lease), Redwood City would give up control of what could be built on the land. Today the land is zoned Industrial and Redwood City would need to change the zoning requirement to construct housing. This has been an effective tool to prevent inappropriate projects in our City Limits.

5) Redwood City needs more waterfront access and recreation areas. Waterfront access properties are limited in supply. The City was visionary when it purchased this property to create a waterfront destination, this will substantially limit this opportunity.

  • The increased housing on Bair Island and in Inner Harbor will increase the need for additional fields and recreational activities. This is one of the few places left for this opportunity.

6) The County is counting on grants to build the shelter and housing. There needs to be a contingency clause if they are unable to obtain the funds, or change the type of development they do there, so that the land could revert to the City to create the originally planned recreational area.

Bottom Line:

This appears to be a bad deal for the Redwood City community. We would lose a water front / recreational opportunity in exchange for land use that is inappropriate for the area (housing) and a road extension that would benefit the County as much as the City.

IT WOULD BE BETTER TO LEASE THE LAND TO THE COUNTY FOR TEMPORARY USES UNTIL A SUITABLE PLACE FOR THE HOUSING / SHELTER COULD BE LOCATED.

The options we think are possible for the City:

  1. Lease the land to the County for a period of 5-10 years for temporary housing/shelter as we find a location that has access to transportation and services appropriate for housing.
  2. Recall the Inner Harbor Task Force to inform and engage to understand their recommendations. Trust in a public process is critical in maintaining a healthy relationship between government and citizens.
  3. Sell a 2.5 acre section of the CEMEX along Blomquist in exchange for the Blomquist road rights on the Shelter land and funding for the Blomquist extension. The county can retain ownership of the Shelter land. Include language to revert the CEMEX land to Redwood City if the county doesn’t use it for the shelter (they can’t build another jail or office building on the sold land).
  4. If you must do the land swap, please consider how Redwood City would use the Shelter land. Is this really the appropriate place for RV parking? Please include in the swap the ability for RWC to reclaim CEMEX if the County can not use it for housing.
  5. At the vary least please honor your well thought out previous commitment to engage the community regarding issues that affect the buildout of Redwood City.

We want to thank you for your time and attention to our comments and suggestions.

Honorable Barbara Pierce, Former Redwood City Mayor
Jerry Pierce

1028 Eden Bower Lane
Redwood City, CA 94061
650-843-9949