OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Redwood City, California/Planning Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Redwood City Planning Commission Adjourned Meeting - June 21, 2022

Planning Commission — Tuesday, June 21, 2022
BodyRedwood City, California
SessionPlanning Commission
DateTuesday, June 21, 2022
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:35:02

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
32:02

There we go.

32:04

Good evening.

32:05

Thank you for joining our June twenty first, twenty twenty-two planning commission meeting.

32:09

This meeting is was adjourned from our June seventh, twenty twenty-two meeting.

32:15

As a reminder, items will be taken in the order they are listed on the agenda.

32:20

Before we get started, I want to briefly go over public comment procedures for meeting for the meeting for those who have not been with us before.

32:29

All public comment on items not on tonight's agenda will be taken during general public comment, which is item number three on this evening's agenda.

32:38

Comments on other agenda items will be taken only when that item is called.

33:13

Each speaker is allotted three minutes.

33:32

So thank you for your attention and consideration to this during our process.

33:36

Now if we could please have roll call, Miss X.

33:41

Commissioner Bondano is absent.

34:19

Yes.

34:20

Thank you.

34:21

So for the purposes of the teleconference, I will state that I'm Sue X Line, the staff liaison to this commission and other city staff that are attending tonight include Apollo Rojas, Senior Planner, Jennifer Byers, Assistant City Attorney, Christina Mateo, administrative secretary and meeting host, and also Jessica Mansey, transportation manager.

34:43

Great, thank you, Miss Exxon.

34:45

Uh next we have approval of the minutes.

34:48

This is for our March fifteenth, twenty twenty-two.

35:00

I have a motion by Commissioner Minier and a second by Commissioner Martinez.

35:04

All in favor do we need to do roll call?

35:06

We'll do a roll call, yes.

35:07

Okay.

35:08

Commissioner Commissioner Chu.

35:11

Yes.

35:12

Commissioner Cernogoratz.

35:14

Yes.

35:15

Commissioner Martinez.

35:18

Yes.

35:19

Commissioner Mounier.

35:21

Yes.

35:21

And Chair Radcliffe.

35:23

Yes.

35:25

Motion passes.

35:26

Thank you.

35:27

Next we have minutes from April 5th, 2022.

35:33

Motion to approve.

35:36

Second.

35:37

Great.

35:38

I have a motion from Commissioner Minier and a second from Commissioner Chu.

35:42

Roll call, please.

35:43

Commissioner Chu.

35:45

Yes.

35:46

Commissioner Surnagorats.

35:49

Yes.

35:50

Commissioner Martinez.

35:52

Yes.

35:54

Commissioner Mounier.

35:56

Yes.

35:58

Chair Radcliffe.

36:00

Yes.

36:00

Motion passes.

36:02

Great.

36:03

Thank you.

36:04

Next, we will go on to item number three, public comments on items not on our agenda.

36:10

At this point, I do not have any speakers' cards.

36:15

Do we have any audience members that have raised their hands on our teleconference?

36:24

Give it just a few more seconds.

36:25

I don't see anyone.

36:32

No, Chair Radcliffe, I don't see any.

36:34

Great.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Planning██████████████████████22%
Affordable Housing███████████████████19%
Procedural█████████████████17%
Public Comment█████████████████17%
Transportation Safety███████████████15%
Environmental Protection██████████10%
Summary of Proceedings

Redwood City Planning Commission Adjourned Meeting - June 21, 2022

This meeting, adjourned from June 7, 2022, included a public hearing on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Transit District Downtown Precise Plan and General Plan Amendments, and a study session on Senate Bill 9 (SB9) implementation. The commission heard public testimony and discussed key issues, but took no formal votes on the SEIR or SB9 ordinance.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved the March 15, 2022 regular meeting minutes (5-0).
  • Approved the April 5, 2022 special joint study session minutes (5-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

Public Hearing on Draft SEIR:

  • Gwen Litvak (Bay Area Council) provided statistics: within a quarter-mile of a fixed-line station, 11% of workers commute via transit vs. 9.5% of residents; each additional 1,000 sq ft of commercial space near a rail station generates 6 additional transit trips/day; each additional 100 employees/acre near transit raises rail ridership by 2.2%. She expressed support for the draft EIR.
  • Greg Greenway (Chamber San Mateo County) urged certification without delay, requested life science be included as a land use (studied project-by-project) and that natural gas be allowed per the REACH Code.
  • Evelyn Stivers (Housing Leadership Council) asked for certification, citing improved circulation, affordable homes, and jobs near transit.
  • Nadine Fogarty (Caltrain) noted that by 2040 a 40% increase in population/jobs within 2 miles of stations is expected; Redwood City is the ideal location for a four-track hub; the developer Lowe has agreed to dedicate land for track expansion; Caltrain supports the draft EIR.
  • Vince Rocha (Silicon Valley Leadership Group) supported the plan, noting the 2020 Measure RR for Caltrain electrification.
  • Adrian Brandt (Caltrain Citizens Advisory Committee) supported the plan, calling it critical for regional success and growth concentration at transit.
  • Rick Solis (Carpenters Local 217) expressed support for the plan and the construction jobs it would create.

Study Session on SB9:

  • Wasi Wahid asked the city to evaluate multi-family lots that miss the minimum lot size by a small amount, as single-family regulations under SB9 appear more relaxed than multi-family regulations.
  • Adrian Brandt noted that adding a second story through a ministerial process would not add new housing units, unlike SB9 projects, and suggested retaining some review for such additions.
  • Sue Nix (Redwood Shores Architectural Design Board) asked about SB9's interaction with CC&Rs, noting that in Redwood Shores every property has CC&Rs and SB9 does not explicitly supersede them.

Discussion Items

Public Hearing - Draft SEIR:

  • Commissioner Chu echoed public support for quick approval, citing urgency of climate and housing crises.
  • Commissioner Crnogorac asked about REACH codes and natural gas. Karl Heisler (ESA) stated REACH codes apply, with some exceptions; the greenhouse gas impact was deemed significant and unavoidable because going beyond REACH codes may not be feasible. Alexandra Barnhill (Special Counsel) noted that eliminating natural gas is a political decision, and when significant unavoidable impacts exist, the city can consider legal, technological, social, and economic factors. A future decision will evaluate feasibility for commercial kitchens and affordable housing.
  • Commissioner Chu asked about economic trade-offs of eliminating natural gas.
  • Vice Chair Hunter (arrived at 5:52 PM) expressed concern about the jobs/housing imbalance. He argued the SEIR uses a flawed definition of planned vs. unplanned growth, does not consider cumulative effects of other projects, and uses an incorrect jobs-to-housing ratio (2.2 persons/household vs. BIA's 1.5 jobs per housing unit). He supported the altered land use mix alternative with more housing and less office.
  • Commissioner Chu responded that SB9 and other state laws can expand housing capacity beyond the transit district.
  • Commissioner Martinez wanted alternatives studied more and wanted to bridge downtown to a walkable destination.
  • Staff noted that citywide jobs/housing studies are underway and will be presented later.

Study Session - SB9 Ordinance:

  • Senior Planner Rojas presented: SB9 allows two-unit projects and urban lot splits ministerially. Key items for commission input: whether to allow second-story additions through a ministerial process, floor area ratio (FAR) soft cap interaction, rear yard height standards (staff recommends 24 ft), parking (no parking required within 1/2 mile of major transit, otherwise max 1 space/unit), number of units per lot split (staff recommends limiting to 2 units per new lot, totaling 4 for both lots), and affordability requirements.
  • Commissioner Hunter agreed with staff on parking, height, and rear yards; supported restricting lot splits to 4 units; neutral on second-story additions after public comment; interested in affordability options (e.g., size-based affordability).
  • Commissioner Chu supported 4 as a starting point, concerned affordability requirements could blunt production but suggested trading density/parking concessions for affordable units; favored clear objective standards and reducing discretionary review.
  • Commissioner Crnogorac favored a carrot approach (voluntary affordability in exchange for reduced parking), agreed on uncovered parking, and raised concerns about greenery/screening and front-yard parking impacts.
  • Commissioner Martinez worried FAR soft cap triggering a public hearing would conflict with SB9, and that affordability requirements could be a barrier; suggested not adding restrictions before seeing SB9 in practice; opposed limiting lot splits initially.
  • Commissioner Chu asked about allowing alley access to qualify as street access.
  • Staff responded that they are exploring frontage and driveway curb-cut limits, and recommended uncovered parking and eliminating side-yard setbacks.

Key Outcomes

  • No votes were taken on the Draft SEIR or SB9 ordinance. The SEIR will be finalized with written responses to comments and brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council for certification in fall 2022.
  • The SB9 ordinance will be drafted and brought back to the Planning Commission later in summer 2022 for a formal recommendation, then to City Council in September 2022.
  • The meeting adjourned at 7:02 PM, with a recess before the regular June 21, 2022 meeting.

Meeting Transcript

There we go. Good evening. Thank you for joining our June twenty first, twenty twenty-two planning commission meeting. This meeting is was adjourned from our June seventh, twenty twenty-two meeting. As a reminder, items will be taken in the order they are listed on the agenda. Before we get started, I want to briefly go over public comment procedures for meeting for the meeting for those who have not been with us before. All public comment on items not on tonight's agenda will be taken during general public comment, which is item number three on this evening's agenda. Comments on other agenda items will be taken only when that item is called. Each speaker is allotted three minutes. So thank you for your attention and consideration to this during our process. Now if we could please have roll call, Miss X. Commissioner Bondano is absent. Yes. Thank you. So for the purposes of the teleconference, I will state that I'm Sue X Line, the staff liaison to this commission and other city staff that are attending tonight include Apollo Rojas, Senior Planner, Jennifer Byers, Assistant City Attorney, Christina Mateo, administrative secretary and meeting host, and also Jessica Mansey, transportation manager. Great, thank you, Miss Exxon. Uh next we have approval of the minutes. This is for our March fifteenth, twenty twenty-two. I have a motion by Commissioner Minier and a second by Commissioner Martinez. All in favor do we need to do roll call? We'll do a roll call, yes. Okay. Commissioner Commissioner Chu. Yes. Commissioner Cernogoratz. Yes. Commissioner Martinez. Yes. Commissioner Mounier. Yes. And Chair Radcliffe. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Next we have minutes from April 5th, 2022. Motion to approve. Second. Great. I have a motion from Commissioner Minier and a second from Commissioner Chu. Roll call, please. Commissioner Chu. Yes. Commissioner Surnagorats. Yes. Commissioner Martinez. Yes. Commissioner Mounier. Yes. Chair Radcliffe. Yes.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com