Planning Commission Study Session on Housing Element Zoning Amendments - June 21, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Planning Commission Study Session on Housing Element Zoning Amendments - June 21, 2022
This was a study session (no formal action) of the Redwood City Planning Commission held on June 21, 2022, at 6:00 PM (actual start 7:15 PM) in Council Chambers. The session focused on proposed Zoning Code and Map Amendments associated with the Housing Element Update, including changes to facilitate missing middle housing and amendments to Mixed Use Districts to increase housing opportunities. The meeting lasted until 7:52 PM.
Consent Calendar
- No items were on the consent calendar.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public spoke during the public comment period or the public hearing for the study session.
Study Session: Housing Element Zoning Amendments
Principal Planner O'Dell presented the fifth study session on this topic, covering three main areas:
- Missing Middle Housing Amendments: Proposed changes to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes more easily in R2–R5 zoning districts by removing minimum lot size/width restrictions, reducing parking to one space per unit, and simplifying open space requirements (per unit, not per bedroom).
- Streamlining Review and Use Changes: Proposals to streamline 100% affordable housing projects (fewer public hearings) and other residential projects by eliminating the 35-foot/3-story threshold for Planning Commission review. Also, allowing senior residential care and general residential care facilities conditionally in R2–R5 districts.
- Mixed-Use District Amendments: Rezoning commercial office areas to Mixed Use Corridor to allow residential, increasing density in all mixed-use districts (e.g., from 60 to 80 du/ac in Mixed Use Corridor, 40 to 60 du/ac in Mixed Use Transitional with community benefits), increasing building heights, eliminating minimum guest parking requirements, and modifying daylight plane setback requirements.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion
- Commissioner Meunier asked about definitions for missing middle and mixed-use transitional; staff clarified that draft ordinance will include definitions.
- Commissioner Crnogorac asked about setback requirements for new residential development next to residential uses; staff confirmed daylight plane requirements would apply regardless of zoning if adjacent to residential use.
- Commissioner Chu expressed support for increasing height limits but raised concerns about parking requirements for disability/elderly housing, and voiced strong concerns about concentrating housing along El Camino Real (a state highway) without traffic safety improvements, citing pedestrian death statistics (46% increase in past decade, ~129 injuries per death).
- Commissioner Martinez asked about adult day programs vs. child care centers; staff noted they may permit them differently due to transportation needs. She also asked about the pipeline of 100% affordable projects; staff noted success but did not provide a specific number.
- Commissioner Crnogorac asked about open space requirements in R2–R5; staff explained recent changes allowing front yard open space and simplifying calculations. Commissioner Crnogorac expressed hesitation about rooftop gardens for small-scale projects due to privacy and accessibility concerns.
- Commissioner Chu urged aligning parking reductions with SB9 and offering incentives for deed-restricted units near transit.
Key Outcomes
- No formal actions or votes were taken, as this was a study session.
- Staff received feedback to inform the draft ordinance, which will be brought back for future Planning Commission consideration.
- The Housing Element must be certified by the end of January 2023.
- The meeting adjourned at 7:52 PM with a motion (6-0) to adjourn to the next meeting scheduled for July 19, 2022.
Meeting Transcript
Assistant City Attorney. Christina Mateo, administrative secretary, meaning host. And Apollo Rojas, senior planner. Thank you. We'll now move on to item number two approval of minutes, which we have none. Item number three, public comment. For this is a time for the public to comment on items that are not on their agenda. If anyone has a comment, would you please raise your hand? And I did not have this on my screen. So are you pleasing? I am not seeing any hands raised. Right. Thank you so much. Then we will go on to item number four, consent calendar. There are no items on our consent calendar, which brings us into our study session item number five. This is a study session on proposed zoning code and map amendments associated with the housing element update, including zoning code changes to facilitate missing middle housing and amendments to the mixed use districts to increase housing and opportunities. This is a study session, and the commission is taking no action at this time. Environmental review for the housing element update and associated zoning ordinance and missile and municipal code amendments will be completed prior to when we do have approval. We have a staff presentation, Miss O'Dell. Yes, good evening. So before I get started, I just wanted to put this into context. This is actually the fifth study session we've had with Planning Commission on this very important project for the city. We have had previous meetings giving overviews of the housing element process, talking in a very broad way about some of the strategies that we would pursue in order to build additional housing in Redwood City. And then we had some very specific conversations this year on the goals, policies, and programs, and very specifically some of the major rezoning actions that we'll be taking in order to increase the amount of housing we can build in Redwood City. And so that for this study session, we're going to be diving deeper into some of the details associated with the rezoning and what that would mean for our zoning code. So tonight's meeting purpose is to receive feedback on three subject matter. First is proposed missing middle amendments. And this is a topic we've talked about with the planning commission in the past, and I'll be giving an update on that. The second is proposed streamlining and use changes in the residential and mixed-use zoning districts. And then third are some details about proposed mixed-use zoning district changes that we'll be proposing. So first, just a quick overview on what is missing middle housing. It's a term used to describe duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes that are compatible in scale with detached single family homes. Concise definition is a house scale building with multiple units in walkable neighborhoods. And it's great that tonight this sort of follows on with the SB9 discussion. As this sort of takes what is happening in SB9 and builds even further on it, as this will not be impacting the RH and R1 zoning districts. So between the changes that are being considered with SB9 and these missing middle changes that I'll be talking about tonight, we'll be covering a lot of the city's existing residential neighborhoods and making changes that allow for this incremental development and new housing. And in this case, particularly close to El Camino and transit. So I wanted to speak briefly about missing middle and why we're doing this. We've met with planning commission, it was I think it was back in 2019, as we have identified this as being a barrier. The previous commenter on the previous item talked about some of these barriers, where right now the zoning district has very specific minimum lot size and lot width requirements before you can even build a duplex or a triplex. And these requirements actually don't match up with the way our existing loting pattern is in Redwood City. And the staff report also discusses some state law changes that have occurred that make this even more urgent that we make these changes to our zoning code to make that density possible. So on we these are three key changes and then some other miscellaneous changes I want to speak about. We are going to change our lot density restrictions. So we're no longer going to tie your potential lot density to whether or not you have a lot width of 50 feet or 75 feet. We are going to make the density consistent with the zoning district and the general plan densities, the general plan densities that are allowed. So we're not going to have sort of different, more restrictive constraints on what development you can build in the R2 through R5 zoning districts. We are going to reduce parking to one space per unit, in many cases to make this consistent with some of what we're mandated to do through SB9. It doesn't really make sense to require more parking spaces in lots that just because they happen to have an R2 zoning as opposed to an RH or R1. So we wanted to make this consistent and it would allow for some additional flexibility in developing these addition and more housing.
openpublica.com