Redwood Shores historically is a more residential and community-focused area, but as business opportunities such as the Redwood Lab and Innovation Focused Environment (LIFE) project start to grow, expanding the city’s economy comes into question.
The Redwood LIFE project is a proposed development in the Redwood Shores campus to expand lab and office spaces as a science and innovation hub and add green areas and community amenities.
Some other highlights of the project include its new science campus, affordable housing off-site, child care, and long-term economic growth through creating more jobs.
However, it has brought some concern among residents of local neighborhoods.
“I think it’s ridiculous,” said Bridgette Aiken, one of the leaders of Stop Redwood LIFE. “It’s just too big for Redwood Shores, especially because you have two condominiums next door to it. It’s too close to the neighbors, and so they need to make it smaller.”
This turned into action to voice her opinion. As a chief financial officer (CFO) for a start-up company, Bridgette Aiken leaned on her background to implement a grassroots movement in Redwood Shores.
“My skill is a startup to initiate things. And so that’s what I decided. I want to initiate and start a grassroots movement in Redwood Shores to oppose Redwood LIFE,” Bridgette Aiken said.
With her husband, Earl Aiken, the couple started a Stop Redwood LIFE movement among neighbors. The Aikens quickly realized that stopping the development entirely would be very difficult.
“I realized that there is no way we can stop the development because the land here is too expensive. The city council aggressively wants some money,” Bridgette Aiken said.
This development includes a hotel, which would allow the city to get an occupancy tax from the hotel. On the other hand, the hotel would draw a large number of additional people who would be in Redwood Shores.
“Most of the people we know don’t want a hotel because they feel like there are enough hotels here, and having a hotel and transient traffic in a residential area is something that people don’t like,” Earl Aiken said.
Given that the time frame for the Redwood LIFE project is estimated to be 10 to 25 years, Katherine Levine Einstein, an associate professor of political science and director of undergraduate studies at Boston University, mentions that the construction disadvantages in a community add to the perceived concentrated costs.
“I think it’s pretty rational not to want a construction project next door, right? I don’t know if you had to live through construction projects that I am living through right now. It’s loud, it’s annoying, it’s hard to park. It has all these things that are irritating,” Einstein said.
Similarly, Bridgette Aiken acknowledges the amount of disruption construction can create, especially if it is a 15-25 year construction plan. However, although the development is large, she wants to make sure that construction isn’t disruptive.
“I don’t think I have a problem with that space to be used as an office as long as it’s small and not too destructive to our community, meaning traffic and noise, and construction,” Bridgette Aiken said.
“So in sort of jargon-y economic terms, those are the concentrated costs, and they feel really big, and they feel really important for people living nearby,” Einstein said.
Instead, finding middle ground was crucial for the Aikens to voice what residents wanted. Earl Aiken says Longfellow employees approached Bridgette and Earl Aiken to discuss alternative plans.
However, when they first heard of Alternative One, they had more immediate concerns.
“When they presented us with Alternative One, I said, ‘Oh no. This is really bad. That’s nothing. It’s not enough,’” Bridgette Aiken said.
From Bridgette Aiken’s perspective, the amount of reduction in buildings was still far less than many residents had been voicing. This resulted in another alternative plan on a smaller scale.
“We are satisfied with Alternative Two. Our goal all along was to get a smaller alternative; that was a stated objective of our movement,” Earl Aiken said.
The Aikens say they are not against offices being built on the site, but that the original 3.3 million square foot proposal, with ideas such as 15 buildings and a hotel, would be overwhelming to the community. But, even after pushing back on the initial plan to get the introduction of Alternative Two, Bridgette Aiken says further reduction could be helpful.
“When they presented us Alternative Two, I said, ‘I still have two problems: You have M1 and M2 right on the corner of Island Drive and Marine Parkway, and they are colossal. They’re too huge and you need to reduce the height,’” Bridgette Aiken said.
Their focus, she says, is diverting the attention from the main road.
“My goal is to really push the building way back. I don’t want the buildings to be exposed right there on Marine Parkway,” Bridgette Aiken said.
According to Earl Aiken, the approval process is a long way from complete and must go through an environmental impact report and community feedback in terms of trying to push for more changes and possibly scaling it down even more.
Even if Stop Redwood LIFE and the planners at Longfellow are advocating for different things, open and frank discussion is needed.
“We just deal with each other very straight, no games, and it’s all so far personally pleasant, even though we don’t have complete agreement on a lot of things,” Earl Aiken said.
Bridgette Aiken says that the developers know that the Aikens are helpful to them, because “without us, you know, he cannot communicate with the community.”
“We are like the bridge and we communicate with the community, but we understand his position, and we expected him to respect our positions for the community,” Bridgette Aiken said.
According to Earl Aiken, while some people in the Redwood Shores community consider Longfellow to be inherently “evil,” they don’t think that way. He says that some take the mindset that Longfellow are “the big, rich developers coming in from out of town, and they really don’t want to communicate. They just want to confront.”
Earl Aiken says he takes the position that “you have your objectives. We have our objectives. Let’s sit down and talk, and keep an open channel of communication and, you know, negotiate what we can.”
“And for that reason, I think we’ve had pretty successful open communication all the way with Longfellow, Peter, and four or five other people. I think we’ve achieved some things because of that. But again, it doesn’t mean that we work for them or with them,” Earl Aiken said.
With Stop Redwood LIFE, the Aikens have been able to create a community-wide call with their petition. According to Earl Aiken, they’ve been able to get over 1800 signatures, 1500 of which are from Redwood Shores residents.
“They have three options on the table right now. The city council could have no project, the original project with 3.3 million square feet, and Alternative Two. So we just don’t know what they’re going to do,” Bridgette Aiken said.
The Environmental Impact Report that new developments in California go through is scheduled to come out in the summer of 2025.
“We just need to let the process play out and see where we go with it, and see what finally comes out the other end,” Bridgette Aiken said.
