Only objection to this Redwood City housing project: 'Should be bigger'

A Redwood City first: Not enough in my back yard

in Featured/Headline/Infrastructure and

Housing crisis or not, any council meeting on the Peninsula is more likely than not to hear from NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard) opposing new housing development.

And so it came as a surprise to members of the Redwood City Planning Commission last week when a townhouse development near downtown received nary an objection from the community, except for one: That it’s not big enough.

A three-story residential development featuring 10 townhouse-style units at 211 and 217 Vera Ave. received unanimous approval by the city’s Planning Commission. The development, which will feature units of about 2,000 square feet with garages and private porches, is set to replace aging homes at the site.

The project received no push back from neighbors. No protest signs were drawn up. No outrage was expressed in social media groups. All commissioners supported the addition of housing options near downtown.

However, there was one comment from the owner of three nearby properties that came close to opposition. In a letter to the city, Kevin Guibara, owner of three nearby properties, voiced “strong support for any type of new construction to help ease the housing crisis.” But he felt the project should have been five stories with at least 20-25 units.

“Zoning has failed to keep up with the population growth,” his letter stated.

The dissent was not unnoticed by the Planning Commission.

“It’s very rare we get letters from the public saying, ‘This project should be bigger,” Commissioner Giselle Hale said.

Photos courtesy of the City of Redwood City


  1. Again, most of us don’t dislike development. Three stories is great! Fits the neighborhood. Maybe even bigger is good, including some below market purchases?

    Redwood City has built a TON of units, it’s pretty disingenuous to think everyone is against all development. Just silly hyperbole.. click-baitish.

  2. With all the high density luxury appartments going in across El Camino from this site, I dont think this development needs to be bigger.
    However I DO wish that parking was made a mandatory part of any housing being built. I live between Vera and Jefferson, and parking in our neighborhood is TERRIBLE. People park here and walk downtown or to Caltrain. I’ve seen people who live in the neighborhood have to park so far away from their cars that they have to take a scooter or skateboard to their vehicles in the morning.
    AND Cars don’t move. The street cleaning truck is useless because it only goes down the center of the street.
    I have heard from renters that the luxury units Between Sequoia Station and Franklin St are charging extra for parking spaces, on top of the already high rent, AND utilities. So there is no incentive to park in the building, which is also adding to the problem.
    I know the goal is to discourage people from having cars, but… people…have…cars. At least 2 per unit. Usually more. Parking needs to be made available in these buildings for people who live there, and it needs to be “affordable” and accessible.

  3. Given the enormous projects with millions of square feet of development in the pipeline and incredible impacts, it is any wonder that project this wasn’t opposed? Plus, the developer did adequate outreach and this project is not a gross overreach when it comes to size. And maybe, just maybe, residents are tired of banging their heads against the wall.

  4. Interesting, yesterday Kris’ post was right after mine, now it’s slipped a slot. Good thing I’m not a conspiracy theory kind of person. 😉

  5. Why isn’t the author of this article credited? If we can’t post comments anonymously, why is such lopsided, unexamined boosterific tripe allowed to be published anonymously?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.