We're good.

Yes.

Okay.

We're all yeah, Maggie can't make it today.

Oh, right.

So she's she's sick.

Good evening, and thank you for joining our August nineteenth, twenty twenty-five planning commission regular meeting.

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

Before we get started, I wanted to briefly go over public comment procedures for the meeting for those who may be joining us for the first time.

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

We're continuing to offer in-person and remote options for a planning commission meetings.

However, due to the continued recent disruptions during public comment at open meetings throughout our region and state, we've modified our public comment procedures.

The city welcomes public comments on topics within the city's subject matter jurisdiction.

And this can be provided in person during the meeting or by email ahead of the meeting.

At this time, we're temporarily suspending public comment provided by Zoom.

We want to ensure that the city can continue to conduct the city's business in a manner that allows all residents to participate.

And we will continue to evaluate a public comment procedures.

Our public comment procedures are as follows.

Public comment will be taken in person during the meeting during the meeting or in advance via email to PC at rebocity.org org.

In person speakers must turn into speaker card to our admin or staff liaison at the dais uh to be recognized to speak.

Um comments that were emailed to PC at Reboe City by 5 p.m.

today may be read into the record by staff liaison and will be made part of the final meeting record.

Both in-person and emailed comments are subject to the three minute time limit.

I will now turn it over to staff for the role present.

Commissioner Cornejo is absent.

Commissioner Finch?

Here.

Commissioner Hunter?

Here.

Commissioner Robinson?

Here.

Vice Chair Koch?

Here.

And Chair Swinnagaratz.

Here.

And for the purposes of this meeting, I'm Sue X Line.

I'm the Assistant Community Development Director and Staff Liaza to this commission.

Other city staff that are attending this evening.

Include Evelyn Garcia, associate planner, Ryan Kuchenek, Senior Planner, Patrick Heisinger, Assistant City Manager, Elenn Lancaster, Housing Leadership Manager, James Dotson, Assistant Planner, he's attending virtually.

Rick Jarvis is our consultant city attorney.

And Christina Mateo is our administrative secretary and meeting host.

Thank you.

No?

All right.

Seeing none.

Were there any public comments received by email?

No, there were none.

Okay.

None.

If there's no objection, I will now close the public comment.

We're moving on to item number three, approval of minutes.

First, we have 4A, which is the June 17th, 2025 meeting.

Is there a motion?

I think I have Commissioner Hunter raising his hand.

Go ahead.

I would like to make a motion to approve those, but uh with the change.

Um for uh the benefit of the uh of our newer members.

Um we used to have very uh comprehensive um meeting minutes, and they were great, and they were uh not not a uh um not a transcript, but they were actually a pretty uh complete record of all the discussion that was going on.

And um that's uh that's been gone for a couple years because of staff constraints.

Um staff we just don't have the resources to uh to do all that.

Um and so in recent years they've been much more minimal.

Um however, I think I think this one is kind of taking minimalism to the extreme.

Um the main point of the meeting here was the staff report, and uh it says Principal Planner Francis and Consultants gave a presentation.

I think we should at least say what the presentation was about so that anyone in the public looking at our minute our minutes could uh could know what the subject was.

So I would just like to um propose that we say gave a presentation on the greater downtown area plan and project background and existing conditions analysis, which was just the subject of the meeting at the time.

So I make a motion to um approve those minutes with that change.

Um, I'm sorry, uh you had your light on, so I was wondering if you want to speak.

I hit the wrong no worries.

Uh do I have a second for the motion from Commissioner Hunter to approve the board minutes from uh June 17, 225 with the amendment as indicated.

Commissioner Bott.

I'd like to second.

All right, second by Commissioner Bott.

So Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Finch.

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch.

Yes.

And Chair Swinnaga Ratz.

Yes.

The motion passes six to zero.

All right.

Moving straight ahead.

Uh item number four is consent calendar.

There are no items on the consent calendar.

Uh and we'll now move on to agenda tonight.

Agenda item number five.

It is a public hearing.

5A's request for review or proposed architectural advisory committee work plan for the fiscal year 2526 and fiscal year 2627.

And Evelyn Garcia, the liaison to the architectural advisory committee will introduce the item, and AAC Chair Niles Tanakatsuba will present the work plan.

Thank you, Commissioner Chair Sinagorak.

Good evening.

My name is Avalan Garcia, and I'm the staff liaison to the architecture advisory committee.

And I would like to introduce the chair of the architecture advisory committee, uh Niles Tanaka Tsubo, who brings a wealth of knowledge and architecture and design, and we're very grateful for his leadership leadership on the committee, and who will be giving the presentation this evening.

The chair and I will be available for questions following the presentation.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Chair Tanakatsubo.

Thank you, Alpha.

Good evening, Commissioners.

It's good to see folks I haven't met and one Commissioner Hunter, I've seen a few times.

So it's uh it's a pleasure to be here this evening.

So the uh first uh item on our work plan is the work plan adoption process, and I will not bore you with the process, because it's the same process I believe most of our uh committees have to go through.

Um if there are any questions about the items in our adoption process, we can discuss it later.

I think one of the most important components of our work plan is the mission statement.

So I will go through each one of these items uh one at a time.

Uh the next slide, please.

So we are to provide architectural and urban design direction for the enhancement of the natural beauty and sustainability of the built environment.

To provide for the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and integration into their surroundings in accordance with the project specific opportunities and constraints, goals and objectives, concepts, and visions.

I know those are all very similar words, but for architects, they they have actually very specific uh meanings.

Commitment to uphold the highest standard of professionalism in order to render in fairness a clear committee consensus for all recommendations.

And finally, to strive to achieve a balance between the business climate and the built environment, knowing that there can be positive or negative impacts on the quality of life within the public realm.

So the first item to provide architectural and urban design direction for the enhancement of the natural beauty and sustainability of the built environment.

Um it's always our task to uh review the designs that come before the AAEC for their context, but also in a relationship to the built environment.

Uh provide the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and integration into the surroundings.

And that's always a very careful uh consideration on our part.

I mean, we could have a design that is actually quite stunning, but it may not fit in the context or in that location that it's being placed.

Uh commitment to uphold the highest standard of professionalism in order to render in fairness a clear committee consensus for all recommendations.

One of the things that myself and uh current and past AEC members share are times that we've been on the other side of the dais, and we've received conflicting comments, concerns, directions.

And then basically what you've heard everybody's concerns, you need to address it when in fact to do one would be in direct conflict to another because the people that we are uh in front of are having difficulties finding consensus in their direction to us, or they don't want to give up this, and this person doesn't want to give up that.

The two by themselves cannot be resolved without some level of compromise.

So it's always been the direction of this committee for the time I've been on and in past to at the end of the day come together with a consensus, a clear direction to the applicants, to the architects of our concerns.

And then finally, strive to achieve a balance between the business climate and built environment, knowing that there can be positive or negative impacts or the qu on the quality of life within the public realm.

So again, the effort not to be lofty heads in the clouds.

This is what we want to see.

Well, in fact, that would be nice, but it may or may not uh be a reasonable direction to provide to a uh a project because of constraints that the project has to deal with.

And those are constraints that unfortunately many times we cannot get around.

No, that also doesn't mean that we want people to build a box because it's economically uh justifiable for their project.

No, it can't be that either.

So we have to try and find a way using our experience to see if we can again find a not just a middle-bound compromise, but a direction that will hopefully elevate the project to a different level to be able to resolve all the issues, but at the same time not be a compromise aesthetically because of economic reasons, but at the same time not impose unfair economic restraints that could really impact a project.

Um I know that there might be issues of that balance that the planning commission and then possibly later on in the city council may want to take into effect, and they may or may not agree with our direction, but we would we strive to use our years of experience to provide the most uh reasonable and professional recommendation of the project to then forward it to the planning commission.

And to that end, uh it's kind of interesting that we have a developer on the committee this year, so um his real world experience of doing projects will also be a great assistance to us in that measure.

Um the next item are AAC goals.

There are quite a few items here.

I won't go through each one of them.

Uh, but we went through all these uh goals very carefully.

Some of them are mandated, some are not.

Uh, and so if we can go to the summary of the AAC priority list.

There we go.

So we've basically taken the last three pages of goals and we have condensed them into uh a list of priorities of where we're we'd like to head in in this plan.

So the first is review large project applications that are three stories or 35 feet greater in height, uh, review the DTP development applications seeking deviations from development standards, provide input and design related elements or updates to the new precise plan.

Annual study session with the planning commission.

Um this is something we would like very much to re-implement or to find time to do in the next uh course of this uh plan time frame.

We've had a couple of times when we've been able to do that, and it's been a very, I believe, fruitful discussion because we get a better sense of the sorts of things that commissioners are looking for in terms of our review, what would be helpful from us uh as we recommend projects, to what extent uh the planning commission would like us to see maybe explore different areas.

Uh so I think it's a very fruitful discussion between uh the AAC and then the planning commission, of course, in support of the planning commission and the task that you have to do at a much different level.

And enhance the recruitment uh procedures.

We've seem to have had a difficulty kind of post-COVID trying to fill some of the seats.

Uh it would be nice if we could have a landscape architect on the committee, because the landscape architecture of projects that we review is such a critical component because before people walk into the front door of a building, they are walking through possible, you know, many times really involved urban uh design effort presenting itself in front of or around the building as before people even get to it.

And then finally, on a less um priority basis, the professional education and development of AAC members.

Um we've had a number of thoughts of of how we might want to do that.

Time is a constraint, but that is on the list to uh find opportunities to expose members to maybe some different venues uh that would help in their review of projects.

So finally, uh I think that pretty much wraps up our quick review of of our proposed work plan for the next couple of years.

So be more than happy to answer uh any questions or concerns you might have about this.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation, uh Chair uh Tanakatsubo.

Um are there any clarifying questions that the commission would like to ask staff uh or the AAC chair Commissioner Robinson?

I don't know if it's a clarifying question that I'm just you know more curious about you know do you what sort of obstacles do you guys see sometimes are an example of you know when our aspiration for certain architectural design may exceed a developers, for example.

Is that is that a common event?

And I know I should attend your committee.

So and I will plan to do some.

Thank you.

To a large extent, it it doesn't present a problem.

Uh what will sometimes happen is our um uh downtown plan is rather prescriptive in many ways.

And so we will have uh architects working really diligently with staff to meet the prescriptive guidelines of our downtown precise plan and guidelines.

But in doing so, sometimes it really constrains the design team in how they might pursue an ex you know a design of a project.

So there have been times where uh we have given an applicant permission to go beyond or to modify the prescriptive components of the plan for the betterment of the project.

I know sometimes it probably gives staff a little a little it makes them nervous because we're going off the off the um off the tracks, so to speak.

But in doing so, we we do so with very clear reasons as to why this might work.

You know, for instance, there might be the issue of having a a cap right on the building.

Well, the cap that is within scale based on the parameters of the guidelines is out of scale.

It might be too small or it might be too large.

Now, in itself, it satisfies the constraints being laid out, but uh as it relates to the exterior form of the building, the proportions may be such that we will give people a pass, or we will suggest an alternative.

Uh sometimes to the relief of the design team going, yeah, we've been we we were worried about that.

So yes, we would love to do that.

Um we've generally not had a lot of pushback from uh from design teams as they've been presenting to the uh to the committee.

So we try to maintain a very collegial and non-aggressive approach to design.

I mean we don't have an agenda.

Uh we don't have a style that we want people to be forced into, even though sometimes our uh downtown plan does have very specific guidelines about how buildings should look.

Um if the architectural team, if the design team can express it in a manner which uh is not as prescriptive as the guidelines suggest, and that's okay.

I don't know if that helps at all.

Very helpful context, thank you.

Great.

Uh I do have three three clarifying questions.

Uh one, you mentioned in uh the plan, and one of them is a professional education and development.

Uh I understand that we recently uh or the the committee architectural advisor committee community recently um acquired a uh I guess uh a youth member.

Uh so I was wondering if this is related to you know development and educational part just for the youth development uh the youth person, uh, or is it also for the rest of the uh the committee uh and those that involve going to conferences and what does it look like?

Uh yeah, so it would be great, you know, if we could take a first class plane to the East Coast for a design conference, but you know, it's not the sort of thing that we're looking for.

Uh it's more uh doing trying to do something locally.

So there's been uh Vice Chair uh Stewart has been very involved with the uh AIA chapter you know over the years is uh as I have in past years.

And so there might be opportunities where uh we could be at an AIA meeting and have a discussion with the with the architects who would many have been before us uh and listen to them and they can also sh uh we can also share with them the concerns that we have when we review projects without finding a way to get around the too many people in one room uh act, right?

Yeah.

So that makes sense.

Um second question is about um design related elements.

Uh since you guys provide input, especially if a new plan, let's say the the greater downtown precise plan, um my question was about whether green infrastructure is included in the architectural review.

Uh you mentioned about landscape architect, but uh so is it when the whole project comes along every single plan sheet, including the landscape plan sheet is being reviewed by AAC?

Yes, yes, it is.

We um may not be as versed on a specific plant species, but we are very versed in the space that is defined by the landscape uh architect of how they're approaching the exterior design as coming to the building, but the exterior space is extremely important.

And we've had some real serious discussions with projects in the past of uh the geometry, the axial approach to the building, uh whether or not uh an area is appropriate as oh, this is a nice outdoor, you know, seating area.

It's on the north side of the building, it's never gonna get any sun.

So or it's facing you know our hills and kind of n uh northwest.

Yeah.

So do you know how windy it gets here?

Yeah, we can get an ar a firm, you know, from outside our our area, and we say, do you know really how windy it gets?

Right.

It's not protected.

So there are a lot of those issues that we'll bring to the fore uh as related to the exterior space.

And once in a while, maybe some of us have had experience is with either good or bad plant materials, and it we might happen to see uh plant material being used that we either support or we or we have concerns about.

Right.

Great.

Okay, good to know.

Uh and then last question was about uh in the mission statement, you highlighted this this this balancing between uh design choices and and economic conditions.

So, you know, many times the projects that come in front of the planning commissions, all the design has been already pre-baked.

We have you know the final version, what it's gonna look like.

Um so much of that bargaining or discussion happens at the AAC level, which is great to hear.

Um and then the question I guess was I wanted to have is that do you need any support in terms of being able to make that type of balance?

Like how do you find out what are the economic impacts of particular choices that the AAC may request, say they like say you say, yeah, when we want tile roof and you don't really know exactly in this climate today with whatever macroeconomic conditions and and and terrace or whatever may be how much you know that really impacts the the penciling out of a particular project.

So you mentioned you have someone on the on the committee that has more recent experience as a developer, but you know, do you need any more input or support to be able to be able to make this kind of decisions as you have discussions with developers since you know things change on a yearly basis?

They do.

Uh and we have relied on uh our committees combined years of experience.

I mean at one point we we figured that we had easily over 200 years of experience, you know, sitting uh on the other side of the uh the counter uh reviewing projects and and over that period of time uh as things have evolved, we've also evolved with them, experienced uh things we've done uh and later on said, you know, I don't know that I would do that again necessarily.

Uh it was a good idea, but it didn't work out.

You know, so we're we're trying to bring all of that experience to the table uh without it being uh prescriptive or uh uh or forced into a design philosophy that would be too rigid.

Um or coming and saying, well, the building should look like this.

Well, no, the building doesn't need to look like that.

It could look like something else, and that's okay.

Right.

So I I hope that that helps.

Yes, uh, I will have follow-up questions, but thank you.

Um Commissioner Koch.

Thank you.

I just have a question, follow-up question about um landscape architect.

What would you say is your percentage of projects that that would be useful for you as a committee?

Um pretty much everyone.

Okay.

Okay.

And I'm gonna have a follow-up question for that when we go to discussion.

Thank you.

Commissioner Finch.

Um yeah, I was interested.

Um do you uh is it is something that the the committee kinda kind of focuses in on uh or something that I'm particularly interested with architecture is like the the garage entrance to a lot of buildings.

Um like we have a lot in downtown, and I think it's it's a particularly tough area because you're interfacing with cars going one direction and and pedestrians going perpendicular.

Um I think it's it's tough to get those site lines right because you you want to give the drivers you know enough space to kind of see them.

Uh are those kind of smaller, um more niche details.

Is that something the committee kind of deals with, or is it more bigger picture stuff?

Oh no, we will we will burrow into things like that.

Uh recently, not recently, but I do recall uh a project um over on Marshall, and the driveway entrance was very close to the corner.

Um now we're not supposed to within our sphere be messing around with people's and floor plans, right?

They're building plans.

However, we we can't help ourselves.

So we um looking at where that proposed entrance was for vehicles so close to the corner, you know, we noticed that looking at the garage plan of that level, they could take that entrance and move it further down in the parking area that aligned with a street that was less busy, you know, a lot less intense in terms of traffic.

Uh we'll ask about things like you know what how how do people moving, how are people gonna move in?

Or with uh our current uh convenience of Uber and Amazon and UPS and everything else showing up in front of the building.

Uh we've had issues with projects where they haven't dedicated enough drop-off zone or enough consideration for how are when you got these things stacked up.

I mean, really, this person's double parked.

This is not other cities where it's allowed, not that it's ever allowed.

So how are you going to accommodate all these all these things?

Or or they have to come here, but in fact residents have to come all the way from over here.

There was a large project that we saw one time and they had one elevator or two elevators, but the elevator banks were on one side of the block.

And if you were a resident on this side of the block, as it was an entire block development, you had to walk one block to the elevator.

So how does that work?

I mean, I wouldn't want to be that person.

I wouldn't mind being the person next door to the elevator, but I wouldn't want to be the person a block away to have to walk through the building to get to it.

So we we kind of push the envelope or our sphere of of concern when we're seeing things like that.

Okay.

That thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

I will now open the public hearing at this time and we'll take public comments from those joining us in person only.

Uh we're temporarily suspending public comment by Zoom.

It sounds like we do not have any in-person speakers.

Um do we did we receive any comments by email?

We have not.

If there's no objection, I will now close the public hearing and I will open the meeting for committee discussion.

Okay, Commissioner Hunter.

Excuse me.

Um I think the you could.

Oops.

Yeah, you you can stay up.

Okay.

There, sorry.

Um I'm used to be kicked off the diasp when you go into when you close public hearing.

You know, I usually then say I reserve the right to come up and answer any questions, even though the public hearing is closed.

So actually, I guess I don't actually have a question.

You could say that if you wanted, but uh I the first thing I just wanted to do was to uh thank you.

And I'm sure all of us here um show our appreciation um for the the research that you do before projects come to us.

And just thank you for your time and your commitment to the city.

Um we know that it's hard finding people because I think it is such a commitment, and um I think you guys do an outstanding job, and we really appreciate um you know all the the roles you fulfill.

Um I also you mentioned um coming to one of the goals is coming to a consensus.

And I wanted to compliment you for that too, because um when things come when projects come to us that um that you have have reviewed.

Often one of my questions um is is gonna be uh was the AAC vote um unanimous, just because um, you know, if if it wasn't, you know, it would be good for us to know if there were conflicting opinions on on the thing.

And virtually every time that I asked that, um, and and I can see that you have done a lot of back and forth in the staff report.

Virtually every time I asked that, it was unanimous.

So it's really clear that you work with the applicants, with the developers to to improve the projects, and that you work with each other to come to um projects that you can all support.

So um I just expressed my appreciation for for your work and for for that attitude.

Well, thank you.

I I think it's we in the time that I've been on the AAC, I think there may have been a maybe a total of two times or three times where uh our vote wasn't unanimous.

And it's usually been just a descent of one for various reasons.

Uh but it hasn't been one of these close calls, you know, we need a tiebreaker.

You know, if there's the tiebreaker, we try and figure that out before it comes to a vote.

But thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Kook.

Thank you.

Um I echo exactly what Commissioner Hunter said.

This is so much work, and thank you all.

Um it does make a big portion of our responsibility and our job much easier, knowing that projects have gone through uh the AAC before they come to us, and sometimes multiple times they've gone back to you all.

And clearly working on the behalf of the city, but on behalf of the residents in many cases.

Um, and that's always a blessing.

So thank you so much for all the work you're doing.

Um and Sue I have a question.

Is there an opportunity to I because I don't know how this works, but to add another slot onto the AAC for a landscape architect.

So um the code has the allowance for a landscape architect to be considered along with architects.

So they can apply for any of the seats currently.

Um I think we've as I think you've mentioned and you've noted that it can be a challenge to recruit um for some of these bodies, and so we have left it's it's pretty broad and and open to those positions.

Okay.

I know recruiting is so hard.

We've seen it before, and for us it's really nice.

We finally have a a full, you know, we have a full commission for the first time in I don't know, well over a year.

So well, it is difficult because a number uh because uh let's face it, you know, as architects, you're doing projects for clients in Redwood City, and it it's been a difficult uh difficulty in the past where we've had maybe at least one or two members of the committee having to recuse themselves from a project because of the relationship they've had with the client and within a certain time frame.

I'm the one up here that tends to have to do that because I live right here downtown.

So I am well familiar with that.

Um it's actually kind of nice to know that sadly for you all that you're hit with a lot of the same issues that we are as far as as planning and building, and I want it to look like this, it's gonna look great, but you can't.

Well, why not?

Because the state just changed the regulations again.

So all the back and forth, and again, just thank you all for all the hard work that you do on behalf of the city and all of our residents.

It's most appreciated.

Thank you.

I just want to quic quickly clarify um you could only do have five members and and the sixth member is a youth advisory member.

It's a non non-voting member is the fifth uh sixth one, so it's like an odd number uh for I guess tiebreaking, not that we need to since it seems to be very much a unanimous decision making.

Um yes, I just wanted to echo the thanks, and I'm so glad to have um a very like technical expertise uh body uh before it comes here that gets into really the the nitty-gritty of of exactly how the building is gonna shape out.

So, yeah, thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Finch.

Uh yeah, I I don't want to um add of uh any more, but thank you again uh for all your support uh of both uh the the city's efforts and and the planning commission.

Uh I do have to agree about the landscape architect part, uh, and I wonder whether you know changing or at least uh specifically delineating in your uh priority list for number six enhanced recruitment and have you know specifically look for um a landscape architect, or is that gonna just make it more difficult if you just insert that language into that um into your uh work plan as you present in the next uh meeting or does it make any difference in terms of the recruitment.

I think you know, with staff, I mean staff uh works really hard trying to um put out the word that uh these positions are available, and they're also staff has also been very sensitive to uh making sure that the uh the pool of candidates are are have been vetted or have the the professional experience to be able to render a decision or to assist, you know, in in the review of a project.

Um this time around, we haven't had a uh landscape architect.

Actually, it's been in a while, but I'm uh we would be completely uh happy to have a landscape architect as part of the committee.

Yeah.

Right.

I I uh I agree with that, and you know, I I'm not qualified to make those type of decisions, right?

And then by the time uh the project comes in front of us, of course, all the plan sheets have been pre previously made.

And the one thing I have noticed, and and I want to bring this up also with the AAC is that many times the proposals for say certain plantings, especially on the street side, um, due to the utilities or other conflicts, what's written in the plans I would say majority of the times ends up being exactly what's being built in the end.

Uh and sometimes those types of conflicts, I'm curious whether they can be foreseen, you know, during the the architectural advisory uh committee process, uh, you know, to allow for particular soil volume for a tree to actually be planted versus you know, finding out whether there's a I don't know, sewer main or whatever it may be that you know we're gonna nix X number of them uh or so.

So I I don't know if this requires a landscape architect, but of course uh it will be a benefit benefit uh to the process.

Well, some of the some of those metrics and details really uh are part of the plan check process that applicants have to go through with city staff between public works and also landscape uh review by planning staff.

Um and as our built environment continues to be more and more built, the conflicts between existing infrastructure and requirements for street landscaping and those types of things, yeah, they are they are very, very difficult.

Um it's and even if you have supposed maps, uh unless they've been updated and there's always as built drawings, but they're never as built, they're always different.

Right.

And so it it's it's an imperfect world in off time.

We don't know we we've got until you dig you're out there and start digging and go, oops, it's not supposed to be here.

Right, right.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for that.

Um, Commissioner Butt.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um echoing my fellow commissioners, I am glad that we have a group of professionals um who are reviewing all these plans so that we don't we're a bit relieved of that duty.

Um we're good hands.

Um but I'm just curious um about your work on the your as in the committee's work.

Um when you make design decisions that need to balance out against the commercial interests or against a project potentially penciling out.

Do you often have rough ideas of the costs associated with recommendations that differ from a plan as presented?

No, we don't have a specific dollar per square foot metric.

Uh but we do know that, okay, if you put this on a building, that's one cost.

And if you put this on a building, that's another cost.

We have that sense of it.

Um we would not want to impose an let's say an unnecessarily expensive finish, for instance, on a building, knowing that that cost as opposed to what's being pre proposed in the scale of the building could become an economic difficulty.

So when someone presents a building that is, let's say, exterior cement plaster, stucco.

Oh, it'd be nice if you guys would put marble on the building.

Well, no, that's not a good idea from an from that might be a great design concept, but from a economic concept, we just made it really, really hard for that project to move forward.

Okay, so you have some general framework you work through about like even if you don't have exact if you even if you don't have estimates, you still think like, all right, so these are the proposals that would theoretically cost less and maybe pencil out.

That's what you work through.

Yes.

Okay.

And you can also see the pain on the applicant's face.

So we suggest something and they go, uh oh we would love to do that, but agree.

Thank you, Commissioner Butt.

Uh at this time I'll uh be ready to entertain a motion.

If there's no other questions.

Okay, Commissioner Hunter.

I'd be happy to.

Um I uh move the we uh recommend the city council approved approve the proposed AAC work plan for fiscal year 25-26 and 26-27.

All right.

And do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, seconded by Commissioner Koch.

Commissioner Bott?

Yes.

Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch?

Yes.

And Chair Senegaretz.

Yes.

The motion passes six to zero.

All right.

Well, th thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um we look forward to getting together with the planning commission sooner than later to have our joint meeting.

But I will tell you that the uh term limits of uh two of our more recent uh commission uh committee members uh John Spaterno has been on the committee for decades.

Yeah.

And he always brought a wealth of institutional knowledge of how things have progressed through time, as well as being one of the best proponents for trying to find consensus.

Uh and it would be it would be good if assuming a com uh committee person would wish to remain on the committee not to be termed out only because we lose that institutional knowledge.

We lose that uh we we lose the the ability to reach back and bring something forward to not just the interest of the committee, but also to the applicant.

Um thank you for bringing that up, actually.

I wanted to ask whether I mean this is kind of a rules and ways committee or which everyone from the city council, but is it is there a limit for consecutive terms, or if one takes a break, let's say for one term, uh can they come back, or is there a is there, I guess, uh a bylaw limit for the total number of terms one can.

Yeah, there's a there's a there's a limit for the total number of terms.

In fact, I'm turned out after um next year.

Oh wow.

It's okay.

It happens in uh Sue, please.

I I would have to look it up.

Um it is I believe it's in the city charter though, so it would be a charter amendment for for anyone to change it on any of the term limits.

So there are there's no ability to kind of pull out one committee.

Um it would be a charter amendment for anything, just to let you know the process.

And is this something that would have to be brought up in front of the council directly, or would a recommendation by the planning commission um help moves forward?

Um the council I I don't actually know the full process to do a charter amendment, to be honest.

Um I believe the city council has one path is through a city council vote to put something on for a charter amendment.

And so if you were to recommend it, um then it would go forward to the city council.

Um so we could include something in the staff report that um so I think that would you'd need to revise your motion, which I think you've already voted on.

So we have voted, but I mean perhaps in the in the future meeting in the next month or two we can have a standalone item to discuss this as a formal request or uh if if the of course the planning commission agrees uh to be able to start.

Yeah, and we can also summarize it in the staff report.

The item is going to council.

Your work plan is going to council.

So we can definitely definitely summarize in the staff report the the commission also discussed um the rec and without you know an official recommendation, we can just say the commission discussed um this and put it in the staff report as as the first step.

Great.

I mean that would be wonderful.

And can you keep us informed so in case it does fall in a month or two, at least we can uh revisit it so it's not forgotten.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Hunter.

Um I think putting it in the staff report sounds like a really good idea.

And I would also encourage you, Nels, that when you do this for the same presentation to the city council.

Um are you presenting to the city council doing the same presentation to the city council?

I don't know.

Do it do I do I need to?

I know I don't know the answer.

I don't know if I do.

I was thinking you did, and then I'll be able to do that.

I mean, I'd be happy to, but you know, look, if if if you are, I would definitely encourage you to um tell them what you just told us, because that's a very powerful point you made about the loss of of um you know important institutional knowledge.

So um, you know, it had an effect on me when you when you said that that's a that's a pretty big deal.

And so if you are making the presentation, I would just encourage you to tell them the same thing you told us.

And I understand that there are probably administrative expenses in having to draft a revision to the city charter as the current charter was you know was brought forward and was voted, and then in fact I believe it was on the ballot, wasn't it?

Um so it's not an inexpensive modification.

Uh so if there is a a administrative legal um massaging that can be done uh or different interpretation then that would be good.

Because I think the way it was written, theoretically, it was about commissions in as committees as non we are non-regulatory, we are advisory.

So theoretically, I could make the interpretation that we would not come under the city charter of commission regulatory body because we are advisory.

The planning commission is a different thing.

You are a regulatory uh board or commission, but we're just a committee.

Right.

But I think the city attorney at the time had a more direct or encompassing interpretation of those particular words.

Maybe the it'll be different if we that's very much a legal question.

I mean, the the only other idea they all may have is is uh uh what do you call it?

A um a non-voting member kind of I I think the youth member is recently added, I don't know if there was a charter change to add that actual youth member, but having another I mean you would still be able to join the discussion.

You may not be able to vote.

As at least still a method or to maintain that knowledge uh is like a less complicated administrative uh just a suggestion.

Um Chair Um Tanakatsubo uh for your time.

And we are moving on to item number five B, which is a request for review of proposed historic resources advisory committee draft work plan for fiscal year 2526 and 2627.

Um Ryan Kuchenig, yes, uh liaison to the Historic Resources Advisory Committee.

We'll introduce the item and the chair John Goldman will present the work plan.

Yes, I think you spoke for me there.

Uh just to introduce myself.

Go a good evening, Ryan Kitchenig.

I'm the staff liaison, senior planner with the uh uh Historic Resources Advisory Committee.

Um but with me this evening is John Goldman, he is our chair.

Uh we also have our vice chair, Glenn Babbitt here as well.

But uh uh uh Chair Goldman will be presenting the work plan for you.

Thank you.

Hi, Commissioners, thanks for uh having us here.

And it's always a pleasure.

I've been on the uh HREC for seven years.

This is my first time coming to US Chair.

So um we're gonna get some slides.

Okay.

There we go.

Excellent.

So uh there's a couple of things that'll weave through the presentation um that we talk about a lot.

The historic uh preservation ordinance is due for an update, so I will mention that a few times.

And then as a committee, we also have talked a few times about uh kind of lowering the barriers to entry to uh perform preservation if you're a homeowner or building owner.

Uh and I'll talk a little bit about that, and then also raising awareness of the incentive, which in Redwood City is the MILS Act.

Um and just I mean, it's kind of funny, but I'm a commercial real estate and we were managing a building that had a Mills Act contract and I had never even heard of it.

Uh so it was learning experience for me.

Uh so I'm not gonna go on about on on our first slide here, just a mission statements worth reading.

The HREC's mission is to establish equitably safeguard the city's past and heritage by protecting and identifying resources, representing special elements of its history, and to encourage, educate, and advocate for historic preservation.

So part of what that is saying is we're not just preserving uh mansions or um elaborate structures, they may be very specifically related to people, movements, uh historical eras, and uh that could be something like a greenhouse uh not just the mansion.

So that's sort of why we um talk about equitably safeguard.

And one of the things worth mentioning again is the his the historic preservation ordinance only uh is related to uh applies to buildings built pre-1940.

So that's one of the things that we have been talking about is how do we change that criteria to maybe be rolling like a building over 50 years or something like that.

So, you know, we'll we'll be actively engaged in that conversation with the City Council and probably with the planning commission.

Uh, can I get the next slide?

Okay, so um, these are the city's strategic initiatives and goals, which we of course include in our packet, but uh they apply to everyone, so there's no reason for me specifically to read these.

Uh so we'll go to the next slide.

So I think the HRIC is pretty good at its required functions.

Um the primary function is we reviewed development applications for historic properties.

Um we uh very much enjoy that.

The city has a good roster of consultants, and uh typically we are you were asking about votes.

We're I don't think we've ever in I think maybe seven years ago once we had a vote that wasn't unanimous, but we do have vigorous discussion where appropriate.

Um so that that I think is going quite well.

The landmark designation requests, that's of course sort of the pleasure of of what we do, is when people want to uh have their property designated.

And typically they're doing it to get a Mills Act contract, because that is the financial incentive, which is a great privilege that that the HREC participates in along with the planning commission in the city to be the ship the steward of giving property tax discounts.

So it's a powerful incentive.

It's the one that we have.

We don't we don't have any other.

Uh when I was talking about the barriers to entry, if you own an older home and you want to uh understand whether it's eligible for a MILSAC contract, the city process now requires a a cost of approximately four to five thousand dollars.

Uh we were hoping to implement maybe some kind of pre-screening or uh, you know, a a discount version because even for someone who's not um wealthy, the property tax discounts are significant.

So four or five thousand dollars would be a worthwhile investment.

But if the return on five thousand dollars invested is zero, then that's a very bad investment.

Um and some of the things that we may bring up, even to perhaps have the city offer uh some limited number of loan programs or grants, you know.

And again, that's way out of our uh purview, but that's something that is worth mentioning because there are some spectacular homes that are smaller and uh don't aren't the mansion on the hill.

So we uh as mentioned, we review Mills Act contracts.

Uh one of our required functions is the annual CLG certification, which um I'm not really uh qualified to speak to that, but some of it has to do with pursuing training, which any time any of us take a training class, we report it to the staff, and that's part of our CLG uh renewal.

Uh review of historic evaluations for structures built before 1940.

I mean, that's kind of the same thing as the development applications.

Occasionally we do get a project submitted.

Um again, some of the projects that come to us, we have no authority, but there are things that are in the ordinance, like I recall we saw the Sequoia Hotel, and there's a limit of how many floors you can add and what setbacks you have to have.

So again, we're uh adaptive reuse of historic structures is the key to preserving them.

And uh so we're very much in favor of some more liberal interpretation of uh adding additional floors where it makes sense and doesn't impact the structure.

And some of this was uh on the downtown precise plan, which was a massive effort for the city to accomplish putting that together, but you know, it's it's it's time to maybe for a tune-up on a few things.

Uh study session with AAC on the greater downtown area plan.

So that's some of what we're talking about.

We have not done that in the past.

So that would be an excellent way to have some of these conversations.

Um, Ryan, can I get the next slide?

Or again, we mentioned update the historic preservation ordinance.

So we do have a few ideas for that.

Research and highlight Redwood City history not previously well documented or studied, increase awareness of the Mills Act program.

So that's exactly what we're talking about.

If someone owns a small home but it has merit, uh we would encourage if there was a discounted way for them to find out whether they might be eligible, that's exactly what we're looking at.

Um, you know, and I was a little bit joking about the greenhouse, but uh, I mean, I think a greenhouse would qualify if it illustrated patterns of migration um or you know, business among certain segments of the population at that time.

So these are meaningful things.

Uh education and outreach for historic preservation, especially focusing on youth groups and local schools.

That was uh there was a uh fairly significant um tour program that uh used to occur with seventh graders.

It kind of got disbanded during the uh pandemic.

So you know, we're we have to restudy this to kind of see what uh impact or connections we can have to schools.

Um historic landmark designation plaques don't seem to exist, so we will be uh pestering the city council.

Um there are no um available plaques being manufactured in Redwood City at this time.

So we certainly would like to do that.

And of course, those are an ad for hey, you have a plaque on your on your house or your building.

What is that?

Well, how'd you get it?

Wait, what?

You get a property tax discount?

So that's uh, you know, that's our uh that's our calling card, but we don't have one, so we're gonna we want to work on that.

So uh I guess I didn't get into the uh benefits, but I I guess when you have questions, I can get into it more.

Um but really that's it.

We're pretty straightforward committee, so we don't have a lot to uh to talk about.

So thank you.

Great.

Um thank you for your presentation.

Sorry.

I think I lost my part on the script.

Um if there are any clarifying questions that the commission would like to ask the HRAC chair.

Um Commissioner Bott.

Yeah.

Uh thank you for your work on the committee and for I mean everyone on the committee.

Um we have another member here tonight.

Um one of my main questions about this committee's work is that one of the key um what do we call them initiatives, objectives of the city is housing, right?

Um that we have a major goal where we want to be able to provide housing for current and future residents.

Um sometimes there is a thought that hey, this could run into conflict with historic preservation, right?

If we're not if we're keeping the housing stock stable or frozen in some areas, that could run into trouble with this idea that we want uh build out more stock in other places, right?

Or where viable.

How do you balance that in your approach to reviewing these historic applications?

Historic designations.

Well, it some of the things you mentioned are more at the level of authority of the city council, not really our level, but there are two parts to that.

One is there's what's called the historic district, which there are several in Redwood City.

Within those districts, you can have what's called the contributing structure, which can be not on its on its own having merit, but it's related, it's similar.

And that's um there was a big sort of protest when Mount Carmel had been referenced as a possible district.

My impression uh from being on the committee and talking to City Council members is there is an interest in making additional historic districts.

So if there was a blitz of historic districts popping up, which costs many hundreds of thousands of dollars to study a district, it's not happening.

But if it did, that would uh basically freeze these single family neighborhoods the way they are.

Uh and you know, you would never see a change.

So I think that's not going to happen.

The other part are the restrictive regulations about that Redwood City, particularly in the downtown precise plan where there's higher density.

And the Sequoyo Hotel is the best example.

I think you guys saw that too, where uh they were only technically allowed to add one floor and had to be set back uh 20 or 30 feet from the front of the historic building.

That doesn't make sense.

So, you know, and that's a hotel, but if it was going to be an apartment building, it would be even better.

So I think um using our brains and updating the ordinance, updating the downtown precise plan, and then having a city council historically that's been amenable to making changes, giving exceptions, uh have been key to uh adding housing.

So I don't think we really have um any part of what the HRC is doing or even the historic ordinance that's significantly impeding housing production.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Goldman, for the thorough response.

Uh Commissioner Hunter.

Thank you so much, John.

Um I have a couple of questions just on the status, the current status of some of the items that you uh you you have in your plan.

Um the Mills Act.

So uh recall when when we had, I th I think it was a very good meeting a while ago now, you know, joint meeting.

Um a lot a lot of the discussion was about the Mills Act.

And um if my memory serves me right, um we concentrated on it seemed like maybe there was a bit of a um the city was a little bit behind in their enforcement uh of um you know the the property owners who've committed to do separate several things over you know over the 10-year period.

There was maybe um a little behind on the on enforcement.

Um and I think the other thing that you had wanted to do was, as you mentioned uh tonight, uh um publicize the Mills Act more so that people didn't know about it.

Um can you can you update us on the status of you know both those things, the enforcement and publicizing that?

Sure.

I think the city council has tasked the staff with providing an answer on the enforcement issue.

I mean, that's sort of outside of what the commissioner, the committee members do, but we agree with you that uh if we issue uh and we are, you know, sometimes we do get into um some sort of vigorous debates about how far we want to go on the maintenance agreement because we feel like that is our only chance to talk to these people, and it sets the tone.

Uh we do feel like people are probably gonna do what they put in the agreement, but we are definitely in support of enforcement, so I would have to defer to the staff as to how they're going to enforce that.

But I think there will be some uh maybe Ryan could tell me a formal presentation of that to City Council at some point.

Yeah, I could I could provide an update.

We do have that actually scheduled to be reviewed by our council in combination with this work plan is to provide that update about the Mills Act, and we'll have some of the feedback that we received back at that February study session that you all held uh with the HRAC.

So we'll be forwarding that feedback, have some kind of recommendations in there or suggestions of what could be done to improve the Mills Act program.

Um some of that actually goes hand in hand with the update of the heritage or the historic preservation ordinance um in terms of incorporating Mills Act language in there, which is completely void of it right now.

So we're we're hoping uh we're getting underway with that uh ordinance study and uh looking to ways to incorporate actual recommendations about the Mills Act program in terms of minimum standards as well as procedures and enforcement.

Um that's something that I very much what I'm working on, and we'll be presenting that to uh planning commission in the coming or city council in the coming months.

Terrific, thank you.

Um that actually leads to my uh others the other question I was uh wondering about the status um is what is the status on updating the uh um the historic preservation ordinance.

Okay.

Just getting started on that.

That's actually the kind of the most important item on our in our work plan.

It's the first item.

So um I know it's been in uh in the works for a while, but we've uh just started scoping that uh it's gonna take about a year to get going, but we've we've had some brainstorming internally with staff, and we'll be presenting uh or at least getting some input from the HRAC through study sessions probably in next year or um we're still kind of scoping out the schedule, but that is getting underway.

Um it's not just the Mills Act program that's part of that, but a lot of a lot of other cleanup items related to the ordinance.

It hasn't been updated since 1980.

So long time.

Um that's kind of the uh where we where we are on that, and a lot of the procedures aren't necessarily what we do in practice.

Um for example, there's uh a statement in there about going to the building department with an application, whereas typically the planning commission is the first step when we're talking about preservation.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um there any other clarifying questions from the commission.

All right, if not, we're gonna um move to public comment uh or public hearing.

At this time, I will take public comment from those joining us in person only.

Uh are there any there are no public comments in person?

Are there any public comments received by email?

There were none.

All right.

At this time, I will close the public hearing and I will open the meeting for committee discussion.

Commissioner Finch.

Um yes, I just wanted to say thank you very much for the presentation.

And I really liked your comment about um trying to be more lenient with the the modifications that are allowed to these historic structures.

And or specifically how you said adaptive reuse is key to keeping these old buildings like around.

Um and and I think that's just such an up an important point where um, you know, um you know, giving them some new purpose where they really are contributing to the local economy, kind of rather than just sitting there.

It definitely makes it much more of an incentive to uh keep them maintained and keep them accessible to people as well.

So I I just thought that was a really great uh comment.

And um yeah, thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Finch.

Uh Commissioner Koch.

Thank you so much.

Um I love the work you guys do.

Every time I'm walking downtown or somewhere else, and I see a plaque, I stop and I look at it.

I usually take a picture or send it to my kids.

I'm like, hey, look at this one.

Um more plaques is a very good thing.

Um of the things about the Mills Act, uh it was probably three years ago when I heard about it for the first time.

Um then we had something come to us maybe a year, two years ago.

It was a house on Edgewood, and it was a couple who wanted to do some minor modifications, and that's when I learned that it wasn't always about the home, but who had lived in the home.

And I thought I wonder how many people that are living in these houses realize that.

And I think there's so much public knowledge that needs to get out to people that live in these houses that have no idea.

Um, not just for um oh, someone famous in the 1940s might have lived in this house, but if they want to do some modifications, maybe they're afraid they can't.

Maybe they've just gone ahead and done it and they weren't supposed to.

But some clarification on that to the general public and to homeowners, I think is an incredible thing.

And I fully support us doing that as a city.

I think it's gonna be really great.

Um I think everything you're doing is so incredibly important.

I live right here downtown in where our historic district and the stories of all of the buildings here and the original Hambra and all the places, they're just they're incredible.

And um keep up the good work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Koch.

Um I also have a few questions, and of course, I want to thank you for all your work and the presentation.

Uh much appreciated.

Uh I really enjoyed our joint meeting.

Uh guess it was earlier this year, I forget time flies, but it was very um informative and educational for me.

It's the first time I really learned the ins and outs uh of your committee.

Um you mentioned about trying to get more outreach about Mills contracts, and I completely agree with that, and how there's geographic disparity from you know the center of town versus any of the outlying areas in terms of uh which uh properties have qualified or are on the mills contract.

Uh I'm curious about whether um the committee or I guess the city itself can do speci uh sorry, like um targeted outreach.

So if you're walking around and you see, as you say, a small house that may not be on the contract, but you know, someone has lived there for a long time.

Could the city proactively you know, give information and drop it in a mailbox about you know what the options are is all the outreach has to be citywide just for legal reasons or otherwise versus uh you know being able to really target the parts that you know uh that that the committee may tar may uh deem uh worthy of you know designated this type of uh designation.

Right.

We did uh is it appropriate for me to respond.

Okay, yeah, we do have we did have an idea, which is basically just to put a flyer in the utility bill that says is your house well right now it's pre-1940, but maybe in the future it'll be is your house over fifty years old.

You may be eligible for very significant tax incentives.

Yeah.

Uh you know, please contact the city, go on this website, whatever it is.

Um, you know, that's a really easy way to cut because I mean we're basically it's kind of a fun part of our job.

We're giving away money.

And we take it seriously, though.

So that's another funny part of it is that you know, like if someone's not gonna do a real maintenance plan, we kind of talk them into it.

So the enforcement is really important.

Like we did have one house that had big it was an unreinforced masonry and had cracks in it, and we said we're gonna ask you to get an a structural engineer to come out.

And then there was some debate of like that goes beyond your authority.

It's like, well, if you want it approved today, that's what we want.

So um, yeah, so uh that would be the kind of outreach.

Um something that wouldn't cost a lot of money, but would reach everyone.

So the utility bill was the first thing we came up with.

Great.

Um right, and you have enough resources to to work with the city staff for that, or do you need a support from the planning commission uh to this?

I'll let you know.

I don't know.

Let us know.

And the second part of what pre-screening, and I completely agree with this.

I live in a in a fairly elderly home, but I think it's just old.

I'm not sure if it has any historical value.

So I in this this you know, pre-screen, would this be like by a private historian at a discounted level, or would this be something that you know uh like amateur, I don't want to call you guys amateur historians, but uh the HRAC members would be able to assist, you know, community members before they delve much deeper into the process of Mills Act research.

Yeah, we we were trying to think of ways to study that.

And I think even it's kind of funny, but like with AI and some of the web resources available now, you there might be a way to do it for free.

Um, because some of what was brought up was about if a a very well uh known resident lived in the home, that uh alone can make it historic.

So it's it's a database search and sometimes it's not uh you know, not even about is the house fully intact architecturally, it can be just uh what's the history?

So yeah, we we don't have an answer, but we think the answer may uh appear as especially with technology and AI and and web searches and things like that.

All right.

Looking forward to see what comes up, but I know you have number one priority is this uh the ordinance that's gonna be updated.

So uh good luck with that and thank you so much for moving it forward.

Thank you.

If there's no other discussion points, um open to a motion would you like me to move?

Move my own motion.

Commissioner Hunter?

I'd be happy to.

Um I uh move that we recommend that the city council approve the proposed HRAC work plan for fiscal year 2526 and fiscal year 2627.

All right, do I have a second second?

Commissioner Butt second, all right.

Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch?

Yes.

And Chair Cernagarats.

Yes.

The motion passes six to zero.

All right.

Thank you so much, guys.

Um where are we?

We are moving on to item number five C, uh, which is a request for a public hearing to consider approval of affordable housing incentive program, which would temporarily amend the requirements of the affordable housing ordinance, uh, otherwise known as AHO.

Um Patrick Heisinger, our city assistant manager will give the presentation.

Great.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening.

Patrick Heisinger, assistant city manager.

Um yes, I'll be here tonight talking about a proposal to as a for an incentive program to try to get more development moving forward in the city.

Um so here's a little presentation for tonight.

I'll go over a good amount of background.

I could I think I could do it pretty briefly.

Um I'll do some background about the housing element.

Uh I'll talk a little bit about the city's affordable housing ordinance, also sprinkle in some information about the two-year economic development work plan that the council approved last April.

Um that really, you know, directed staff to start looking at ways in which that we could try to incentivize development in the current market.

I'll talk about some um many of the conversations we've had with applicants and developers to try to better learn about the positions they're in.

And then we'll talk about the proposed approach, the rationale for our recommendation, and then we'll get to the recommendation and discussion.

Um so by way of background, back in 2023, Redwood City was one of the first cities in the state of California to get a new approved housing element.

Um there's a big deal.

Housing elements actually have teeth now.

They don't just sit on um, you know, you don't just do them now and then they sit on the the uh you know the anywhere in your office or whatnot, or prop up your your desktop.

Um, there are actually laws and and obligations, it's tied to funding, and so um the city took this very seriously, not just in 2023, but for probably two years leading up to it.

I know there are a handful of folks sitting on this commission that were sitting in in those chairs when this uh um housing element was approved.

So we obviously thank you for the support.

Um, but it really what the the housing element does for anybody who may not know is it really let you know uh lays out the city's policy objectives for housing for an eight-year period that will end in 2031.

Um I should say one of the things most folks focus on in the housing element is that arena uh number.

So the regional housing needs assessment number, the city of Redwood City is um obligated uh to try to create 45 4,588 units in the eight-year term.

I do want to note that the city also does have a pro housing designation as well, where we are endeavoring to try to make the 150% of that number, which is just under 7,000.

But the number that we really focus on um every year and we we report back to the state is that 4,588 um number unit, unit number.

And then it breaks down by the different AMI levels from above moderate to moderate, low, and extremely low.

Oops.

So where are we at?

So these numbers here were up to uh December 31st, 2024.

This is what was presented to the city council back in March as the uh annual process, the the APR as we refer to it.

You could see we're a little bit behind.

Um so if you look on the left, tried to kind of create one of those fundraising goal uh, you know, uh icons where 4,588 units.

Ideally, last December 31st, we'd have about you know 1147 units, and we're at 831.

So not trying to alarm anybody, but definitely the city is is a little bit behind.

Um I will say that since January 1st, we are aware of a couple projects have moved forward, so we think there's anywhere between 400 and 500 more.

Um, but it is clear to say that now is the time to say, are we what can we do to start getting more of these projects moving forward?

The farther we go behind per quarter or poor half year, we're just falling farther and farther behind.

So again, don't want to alarm anybody.

We'll start to get into some um into some of the how the pipeline looks, but I just wanted to kind of tee that up.

Pivoting a little bit to the city's affordable housing ordinance.

This slide is really to try to set some context on what projects are we talking about here, because there's so many different things going on in Redwood City.

Um we talk about the affordable housing ordinance, what we're really talking about is inclusionary housing for the most part.

There are some subtle iterations, but for the most part, we're talking about when every project moves forward, whether it's residential and they're gonna do a carve out for affordable, or if it's a commercial project, paying impact fee is everybody paying their fair share to contribute towards affordable housing in the community.

So right now, really have two um call bands.

So projects of 20 or more units are required to build the units off on site.

Um smaller projects, those are projects that are five to nineteen, can simply pay a fee, and that'll become important in a few slides when I talk about the the incentive.

Then folks are gonna be like, wait, what's all this other stuff going on?

So, yes, we have the gatekeeper process, we have projects that have development agreements.

We also you know periodically dispose of land and get affordable housing out of it.

Um, and then we also issue subsidies to affordable housing developers.

So there are other ways in which other tools that we get housing, but for the purpose of this night, we're really talking about the projects that are subject to the city's affordable housing ordinance or the city's inclusionary policies.

Pivoting to the two-year economic development plan, like I like I mentioned in my opening remarks, the city council did adopt it in April of 2024.

Um we came up with the acronym of ART, so adapt, reimagine, and thrive.

And really what this plan really set forward was the city's policy objectives for economic development really coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I'll really focus on adapt.

Um the the main goal or priority was can we find ways to be more flexible as a city?

Um the the comprehensive report that went to council in April didn't just talk about big large developers, it talked about mom and pop operations, small businesses, it talked about a lot a lot of that stuff.

So what we've been doing since that plan was adopted is sitting down, speaking with applicants and really trying to better understand is there's something the city can do, notwithstanding throwing all regulations out the window, but is there something that we can do to try to move it forward?

Um really, and these are not gonna be surprised to anybody.

Here's what we've heard interest rates are too high, the cost of construction, construction continue to grow, inflation is up, labor shortages.

Um things in like December really started rolling and getting better, and then the whole thing about tariffs really came down.

Um all the developers have spoken very similar about these these items, and there are probably some some others, but really have hit hard on these items.

I would like to say that the conversations we had we've we've between um community development, the city manager's office, engineering, we've probably had dozens of different conversations with applicants, and they've all been very respectful.

What I mean by that is no developer has said just totally you know eliminate all housing.

It's we really try to figure out what is the bare minimum that we we could do.

And so I really um appreciate the conversation we've had.

We've had some developers be very open with their books.

I'm not saying they've laid the books out, but really try to be like this is the rate of return our investor needs.

It's been very um a very good uh process that folks have been so transparent.

So if anybody's listening or are here, I'd just like to say thank you.

So let's talk about the housing pipeline.

Um so we define pipeline.

There are different different definitions of of pipeline.

Um, but for the purposes of this program is projects that have received a city approval but have not yet not yet begun construction.

Um, or their application has been submitted and it's currently under review.

So these are the projects that have not pulled building permits.

They're trying to find any way in which they can.

Um that's really our our pipeline.

When you look at the pipeline, we have about 2,500 housing units in the pipeline, of which about a thousand are affordable.

So going back to that list of projects I had, not projects, but the list of tools, some of those are 100% affordable projects tied to gatekeeper projects, some of those are 100% affordable projects that are just on their own.

Um but as you can see, definitely have a really healthy pipeline.

But on the third column over there, what we're trying to say is it doesn't count for RENA unless those building permits are pulled.

And as folks know, for a project right now to be able to pull building permit to count for arenas, they gotta get moving.

2031 will be here a lot more before before we know it.

So we gotta get going.

So the key takeaway is doesn't count for RENA unless the building permits are pulled.

Um just last week, um one one one two Vera pulled their permits, so that will now count.

So it's 178 uh new units, 177 of which are affordable.

So again, there still is work going on.

Um, so I don't want to freak everybody too out, but too much by talking about how much we're falling behind.

One of the things internally when we started looking is how can we help these projects?

We did a lot of research.

Other cities have just lopped all impact fees or or took uh a haircut to sorry, I can I can say that because I don't have any hair, but take basically lopped off a bunch of different impact fees across the board or or whatnot.

And what we did is we looked at, we said, look, let's total all the impact fees and and other you know public benefits at these seven projects.

There's this is really for seven projects that we've identified currently, um, would pay to the city if they did move forward.

And you as you can see, there are substantial investments to parks, to transportation, to water, other affordable um projects that are saying contributions that would pay rather than build units.

And really, when we had this data, it really had uh let us look at things differently then rather than cutting the park's impact fee further or cutting sewer further, because we have such a robust housing pipeline, maybe that's where we should focus some of the flexibility on.

And that that really is where our you'll I'm kind of burying the lead here.

Um so what is our proposed approach?

In short, it's a temporary 25% reduction in housing obligations for how for eligible projects.

This table here really shows what the current obligations are.

So right now, if you are a rental project, it's essentially about a 20%, I shouldn't say about it's a 20% inclusionary requirement.

If an if it's an ownership project, 15%.

And then you can see the table below shows um what the impact fee payments are, or should say the in-loo fee payments are for those that that can pay out the smaller projects.

If you take a 25% reduction to it, here's how the percentages lie out.

Um so projects would still have to, so for example, for the for the rental projects, a 15% obligation.

The developer would still have to provide those units in the moderate ban, the low, the very low, or or still have to comply with the city's ordinance so they have some flexibility there.

Um on the ownership project, we go from 15 to 11.25%.

And you could see how the fees would adjust accordingly, just a simple 25% reduction.

So let's talk about applicability.

Um so here's where timelines really come in, we're really trying to incentivize folks to move forward.

Um, what we're recommending is that it would apply to any project that obtains project and tail entitlements by June 30th of 2026, and obtains building permits for vertical construction of residential development by June 30th of 2027.

So really the goal is is really we've identified seven projects now.

We know more projects could probably come in between now and June 30th of 2026.

But really what we're trying to do is pull those building permits by 2027, so we can definitely get the arena credit.

So you know, we think a year is is reasonable for that.

Projects that would not be eligible for this, again, gatekeeper projects with development agreements, and then non-residential.

Um the reason for gatekeeper is those are completely individually negotiated separately, where commercial developers are we're we're seeking other city uh entitlements um for those projects.

So we negotiate those on the non-residential, that would be for projects simply paying an impact fee, and um that is not um being contemplated currently.

We are looking at other ways in which to try to advance other um commercial projects.

Um September 8th, if this item comes to city council, we we do hope to couple it with another item that's focused solely on commercial buildings.

So you might see if you're like, oh, that looked different at the plan commission, but we are again really trying what we can to um soften the the blow on those.

Um we have 30% vacancy rate currently, so we're trying to put a dent into that.

Um so again, I keep I've I've said it a couple times.

We think there's about seven seven projects currently that can meet this.

Of those seven, it's one thousand two hundred and fifty-three units, of which 234 of those are affordable.

Um, as noted in the staff report, um, if all these projects move forward, which that is not likely, there will be some casualties to this market, which is unfortunate.

There'll probably be others that move forward as well.

So maybe around a thousand or something could really benefit from this.

Um we did note that 57 units would probably go from being deed restricted to unrestricted.

Um, but we also showed the data about how robust the pipeline is to helpfully make those units up through 100% affordable housing developments or other um projects subject to the city's inclusionary housing ordinance.

So wrapping up here, so the rationale for our recommendation, I've talked about some of this so far, is this would absolutely support the city the city's arena goals.

It's really the robust housing pipeline that led us to look at providing flexibility in housing and not taking away from parks or other areas.

Um our current affordable housing ordinance is slightly higher than many of our neighbors, and we did have an attachment in the staff report um to show that.

We don't, I mean, we're still we still stand behind our ordinance and and whatnot in the 20%.

But if you know, we just wanted to show that what we'd be recommending is is what many cities do as a base.

Um other jurisdictions have granted far greater concessions.

Everybody talks about San Jose and their downtown and waiving all impact fees, construction taxes that I mean um we really tried to thread the needle here, and that's where a lot of the feedback from developers came in to say like yes, we think we could make this work um with these small uh reduction.

We really appreciate if these projects move forward, it could help other city goals.

For example, the the impact fee capacity fees that would help improve the much needed infrastructure that that benefits not just the project but the the overall um community and the bottom line is if the projects don't move forward, the city gets nothing.

So we're really trying to look at this in a way with how do we not give up too much, but also trying to you know incentivize projects to move forward.

So with that, I'll just read the recommendation.

Uh adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance approving the affordable housing incentive program.

And with that, I'll turn it back to you guys for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Patrick, for your presentation.

Um, at this time, are there any clarifying questions the commission would like to ask staff?

Commissioner Butt.

Yeah.

Uh thank you for doing this work and finding some way to get all these projects moving forward.

Um that is a scary chart, as you noted.

Um, our pace towards these um housing goals.

Um, so one question I had was I want to hear your logic around arriving at this um 25% reduction from 20% to 15%, as noted in the staff report.

Um, our neighboring huge cities, San Francisco and San Jose, did took much greater measures to make sure that the housing pipeline could actually move forward.

And it seems like uh you so you use the words you you threaded the needle here to see, oh, what is how much can we reduce this to for developers to say, oh yeah, maybe we can make this happen.

Um it seems that there's a good bit of downside risk in case a project doesn't move forward, right?

Because zero units is zero units.

So what was the thought process around that approach?

Yeah, I I appreciate the question.

Um, when you look at San Jose, and I've worked for San Jose for for many years.

Uh there were some big incentives given in in North San Jose and downtown.

They have these very specific planning areas that just have their own economics.

The incentives that were provided in downtown were all for high-rise.

So that's steel construction.

That's a much different product that than we're talking about here.

When you talk about steel construction, cities are having to give up more the high-rise construction and whatnot.

Um so we didn't want to go that to that far end of the spectrum.

And then other cities really, they just did the approach where they lopped it across all the other impact fees.

So it really wasn't until we sat down with developers, like, you know what, we just think we need a little bit of like, huh?

Maybe we're on to something here, rather than just I don't want to say giving away the store, because obviously if projects move forward, it was good, but we tested it with many of the the applicants, and it seemed palatable, you know, to them.

We'll see how if if approved, we'll see how it works in in practice, you know.

But um it shows you how strong the the economics here are are in Redwood City, where the the land values here are much higher than they are in San Jose.

So the thought is is could the project carry a little bit more, or I should say a less incentive than other cities and and uh and we'll see how that plays out.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Commissioner Finch.

Um yeah, thank you very much for the presentation.

I was gonna ask about the pro housing designation number, but you beat me to it.

Um I um just uh so yeah, I I so I noticed um we're trying to have this done.

Uh it would only apply to until uh 26, 27.

And I understand that the main focus is just trying to get projects that are in the pipeline out of the pipeline.

I think that makes a lot of sense.

But do you think there's any value in trying to maybe give a longer window and incentivize new projects that like don't currently exist?

Um just because I think that would also help with you know, we're giving up a few affordable units in order to get this, but if a new project that the developer wouldn't even even have considered comes in, that would again help us uh with that deficit of affordable units.

Yeah, another great question.

I think I'm gonna I'm gonna have uh Elenn take it.

I probably I should have introduced Southern Lancaster housing leadership.

I totally apologize, Elain.

She was a huge um help in this.

Uh there is a big effort going on right now on this, and I'd like a Lynn to kind of speak to that on the on the timing of it and and why it might make sense to hold off a little while.

Go ahead.

Uh good evening, commissioners.

Elain Lancaster Housing Leadership Manager.

Uh it's briefly noted in your staff report, but we are in the beginning stages of working collaboratively with um, I believe it's 10 other jurisdictions in San Mateo County to do new nexus studies and feasibility studies for our ordinance.

Um and we anticipate that that process will be done right around the same time that this program would expire.

And so at that time, we would likely be changing our affordable housing ordinance requirements.

Um and they would likely reflect those requirements reflect the more current market compared to when the ordinance was first uh adopted.

So that's kind of where we got this timing and uh expect projects that are not known to kind of follow the new ordinance requirements.

Okay, that makes perfect sense.

Thank you so much.

And um and then I think you had also it kind of sounded like you might be um just keeping an eye on how this implementation goes.

Uh, are you gonna be open to maybe making an update like in I guess tight timeline, six months or something if if you see you're not getting the results you want?

Yeah, I I think now, and and I really appreciate uh community development and and Sue's leadership in this.

Um, we have regular meetings with with applicants across the board.

Um and so yeah, I I think what we'll do is is see like how it plays out, see what the economy does.

Like I said, in December, I was having calls with folks in December, like wow, things are really different, and then January, it just it just really so it's like it's like day by day right now.

Um what I would say is with a lot of the new state legislation as well, is projects can be approved almost at the staff level now.

And so um, so we do think, and we have gotten some more calls recently, like, oh, you know, we have plans where you know we we think we might be able that this could benefit.

So yeah, to answer your question, yes, I I think we'll continue to kind of you know not kind of, but we'll continue to discuss with applicants um and see what we can do.

And and um, and like I said, we're also really focused on the commercial stuff as well, you know.

All right, super exciting.

And then one last question.

Um, what happens if we don't meet our arena in six years?

Uh do we just get like builder remedied uh for the next eight years or something?

That's a good question.

I don't know if Sue knows or Lynn knows or Mr.

Jarvis.

Um well, I don't think we get builded remedy.

I can I can say that much.

I don't know if you want to chime in too.

But um I think well, there's another arena cycle that comes out then.

Um I'll also note that several jurisdictions are in the same boat.

You know, Patrick mentioned we're we're not we're a little behind.

I think we're actually probably a little ahead of several other jurisdictions around us.

So I think it will be an interesting conversation to see how we go as a state to figure out, you know, as these years go on, uh, you know, where where is everybody?

If if nobody's meeting the arena, you know, that's a different story than if you know several people are, you know, and a couple people aren't.

So um my guess is that you know there will be continuing conversations too to try to sort of say HD is really on top of following up on how we are implementing all of our policies and we're doing all of that.

So we're creating the uh we're adopting all the policies, the zoning changes, everything we need to do to stay in compliance with our housing element.

Um so where we can control it and move it forward, we can.

And so I I would you know continue to remind everybody that there's only so much we can do to actually we don't build housing.

So um we have to have you know, there's other other folks involved in that process.

So um I if that answers, but maybe a Lynn can answer as well.

Um I was just gonna say great answer.

And the only thing I was gonna add is at the halfway mark and at the end of our housing element cycle, so the four-year and eight-year mark, uh, we are assessed at how well we did meet RENA.

Um, and that also dictates how um SB 35, which is a ministerial approval process, um, applies to our city.

So there is a there is a check-in kind of halfway through too on that.

Okay, uh thank you, thank you very much.

And it's I'm glad to hear that Redwood City is at least doing well relative to the other jurisdictions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner uh Finch.

Commissioner Robinson.

Hi.

Uh I have probably three questions.

So um has this been reviewed, presented, reviewed with the housing and human concerns committee.

I I believe they were updated, but no, but not as far as a formal recommendation.

I believe Lynn, right, provided them an update.

Yeah, just a staff update.

So that has not they have not reviewed this proposal, but we are being asked to take a position on it today.

Correct.

Okay.

And then um have any uh community or advocacy groups in our area given input.

We on the uh I don't know if Sue wants to opine on here's one.

So on uh on uh the distribution that we did for this.

Was it Lynn?

The mailing.

Um hundreds of folks.

So I don't uh we we notify, we do the kind of public notification that's needed for this meeting.

Um I don't know if there's any other distribution lists that it's been sent to besides the public notification.

Maybe Elyn, if you have any additional information.

Um yeah, we did our standard notifications and then we did send this to all of the um pipeline projects that we could identify.

So all of those developers who we are aware of that could be impacted by this were notified as well.

Okay.

So this document has been in the public domain since Friday?

That's correct.

Yes, and a public hearing notice about it went out uh ten days prior to this meeting.

With this document.

Not with the document, just the notice that this meeting will be held and this so the document was just released on Friday.

And then just yeah, and then it will go as a reminder, this next step is city council.

So there's so this is this isn't there's a public notification and a process for this, and then there's another public notification and another process um to let folks know about when it goes to city council.

Yeah, absolutely.

I I understand it will go to council next.

I'm my curiosity is have other members of the community besides um this group and staff and developers have the opportunity to take a look at the proposal, especially housing advocates.

So um and then I guess my third part of my question is um has this been done in other jurisdictions and have we seen results of it?

Yeah, so incentive programs are not um are not new.

They usually come with um terrible economic cycles, you know.

So you saw a lot of these back in 2011, 2012.

Um a lot of them have a very similar structure where if you get approved by X date and you can poll by Y date is really how they are structured.

Yeah.

So um so projects have already moved forward in North San Jose and downtown San Jose, as I have mentioned, and in San Francisco as well.

Um so yeah, it seems like they are paying off.

And some of the cities up the peninsula, I think they're a little bit behind us on this, but they're moving forward.

So um to your to your quite to your point I think you're getting at is um you can't count it until it actually works.

But it has worked definitely in in in uh North San Jose and and other areas.

So but we are confident, you know, we had really good conversations with folks and um we feel good, we feel confident we've met the mark.

Yeah.

Okay and then so the the 57 deed restricted units that we would lose based on this proposal if hypothetically it went through and all the all these projects went through and they didn't produce these.

Um the offset being the nearly 1,000 deed restriction uh units already in progress.

Those are like in progress of being built or they're permitted.

Various stages.

So some are 100 percent approved, waiting for financing, others are still in pre in pre-application.

Um and then some are under construction currently.

So, you know, so we have a we have a very robust uh pipeline.

Actually, no, they're not under five because they wouldn't count, no, but most of them I'd say probably 50-50 are already approved or tied to a gatekeeper project or um are in pre-application with us currently.

Okay.

So I guess when I read this with nearly 1,000 deed restricted units already in progress, they're not actually under construction though.

No, so if they're under construction, we'd we'd have the we'd count those already.

We wouldn't be talking about those.

Yeah, all right.

So thank you very much um for the clarification.

Um I think you can hear my concern about you know, has there been adequate community input?

Um that's where I'm you know trying to get at.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Robertson.

Uh Commissioner Hunter.

Good.

Thank you.

And thanks for the all the all the work in uh that's what that went into this.

Um I have some number questions that I just don't understand.

And um can we put up table two from the um staff report?

Possible.

Sorry, I hadn't thought about I hadn't thought before that I should give you some notice to to have that.

Oh, that's not um I'm looking for the one that's on page five of nineteen.

Perfect.

Um yeah, if you could maybe help help us understand some of these.

So um under the large developments, the first three on that list, uh Bay Shore Veterans and Maine, um, the number of affordable units is less than currently is less than 20 percent of um the total units.

So I don't understand one how how that can even how that can be.

Um but for instance, um East Bay shore 480 total units, so 20 percent of that would be 96, but they're only doing producing 85.

There's a couple a couple of factors for that.

So first we apply our affordable housing ordinance requirements on base density.

Um so any project that then also gets a density bonus and adds units, those units are not subject to the ordinance.

So I don't remember I don't recall off the top of my head the base density for 5570's base short, but that differential is a reflection of density bonus units.

Um for 590 veterans, this project was actually approved as a um a condominium project, and so uh it is subject to the lower 15 percent.

Um and the commission may recall also that the developer in this case proposed um an alternative affordability level.

So they actually are per providing, I believe, very low in community instead of moderate, and so we do allow fewer of overall affordable units if the affordability level is greater or deeper.

Um then I believe 1201 main similarly, which will also be presented later this evening.

Uh the requirement is off the base density, which uh I believe is 26.

Uh okay, great, thank you.

That's uh very good explanation of a real complicated bunch of uh calculations there.

So um looking at at the spatial, and just trying to understand this, um the 25 percent reduction in affordable units um comes is compared to the I'm trying to okay.

Yeah, so that's a 25 percent reduction in the 85.

Right, but it's not a reduction of 96 that would be recorded.

So I just want to make sure is is that correct that that's what 557 basically for is the correct number?

557 East Meisure is actually a little bit unique in that it's actually two projects.

We look at it as two projects.

One of the housing projects parcels has already moved forward.

So it could be skewing the numbers a little bit.

Is that correct, Dylan?

A little bit.

I was gonna say we just did for simplicity, you know, purposes, it's a 25% reduction from the affordable number of units listed uh in that second column, recognizing that um we are really gonna have to evaluate all of these projects on a case-by-case basis.

Um couldn't speculate what they may end up changing.

Um this is just kind of a simple exercise to give you a ballpark estimate of what could um the the policy could provide.

Okay, good.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Um the other uh question that just came up during your presentation, Patrick, is um there's an attachment that lists uh I think 22 cities here in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and and their um numbers.

But you have mentioned that a number of other cities now you mentioned San Francisco and San Jose that are not included here, um, but a number of other cities have already reduced or reduced their incentives.

So these numbers here that are on this uh table here, it does that is that before some of these cities have reduced their incentives or or their their requirements, I mean.

Yes.

So many of the other cities didn't didn't touch their inclusionary schemes.

It was more just lopping off all of their impact fees or not requiring any affordable units whatsoever.

So what we were trying to show was really to try to make the case of well, if we do approve it, how how do we compare if we were to lower it with our neighbors on their inclusion areas?

So many of the jurisdictions shown on there have not adjusted their inclusionaries as far as like we're doing 25 percent reduction.

Those are just what their base inclusionary obligations are.

But most of the cities that you're seeing it are approaching this mostly by lowering fees or other type of you know barriers to to the project.

Oh, some of the some of the other impact fees, you know, correct parks and transportation or just waiving all fees for for yeah.

You'll see a lot of that more in more with like high-rise steel construction is you really need that's a big needle to thread.

So we don't have that luxury.

There's not a lot of uh residential being built with steel here, so it's still um you know, mostly wood product that can that can or stick belt, I should say that can absorb some of the costs a little bit better.

Okay.

Good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Uh Commissioner Koch.

Thank you.

Lots of hard work, lots of numbers.

I appreciate this.

Um I'm looking at arena goals, and I know that we were the first city in the state of California to have our submitted and approved.

And I know that because when I went to um California League of Cities, they did a standing ovation for us.

Those of us that were from Redwood City that were down in Long Beach, and a couple of other training sessions we went to here was the same thing.

Had to tell them I had nothing to do with it, but they congratulated us anyway.

Um we're behind by seven percent.

That number is going to grow.

I'm not gonna get off into the weeds, but this actually is a number that some other residents, no one here, and myself started talking about a year ago because we know we know how many projects we have approved, and how many we've approved that have not yet gotten shoveled to dirt.

And we have a fairly good reasoning why, because of costs of construction, cost of loans, tariffs now on top of that big ugly pile.

Um I think this is a brilliant idea.

We have got to do something for the state of our city and the current state of our residents, people that need this housing, and our city economy that needs this housing to do something to break this dam.

You know, we did a couple of things last year for the gatekeeper projects and got a couple of those things shaked loose, which was wonderful.

We need to do something in the hope that this is gonna go the same way for these other things that are backed up.

And I think, you know, you sound like you've done the research, had the conversations we needed to have with the developers, which I think is incredible.

And I think this could quite possibly work really well.

And I hope that it does.

I have faith that it will, because I know that a lot of these I think a lot of the projects are very close.

And I hope this is what it takes, and I hope we can start moving forward because a lot of these have been held up for a long time.

And we need to just start moving forward again into this wonderful city that we've been planning for and to move forward into for quite a long time.

So thank you for this.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions?

Um questions, Commissioner Butt.

Yeah, this is a question maybe for staff, um, just in general.

Say, for example, we need to this it turns out that this um reduction does not move most of these projects forward.

I'm not gonna say all seven, we're gonna move forward.

I don't have that high hopes.

But say it does it doesn't uh show the results we want.

What would be the approximate timeline it would take to push a new amendment to our affordable housing ordinance to make sure that projects can move forward?

Like what is just approximately how many weeks, months would that be.

Yeah, I don't know.

Two things here.

I I think the the work that uh that Lynn had had uh mentioned, I think that work is gonna go on, it's gonna take its its time.

So I think that will so regardless of what the city adopts in the future is one thing.

It doesn't mean foreclose the opportunity to do something in between.

I think for us we'd want to at least see what can this do in for six to nine months.

Let's see what stabilizes.

Um let's see what else comes in, you know, at that time.

Like like I said, I mean Sue's team gets I call it rumor calls all the time, like hey, we're interested in this property, you know, and with housing now, you could be interested in a property and almost entitled in a couple of months.

It's it's a lot different.

So I mean, I think what we would want to do, because each project that comes in, we have to amend agreements.

There's a lot of work that goes into this.

So I I think we'd probably want to at least have a six to nine months like see how this works and then reevaluate where we are at, to be honest with you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

But um, I do have a couple of also clarifying questions.

One is about uh, you know, changing these percentages of requirements for the affordable housing ordinance.

I know sometimes affordable housing requires uh support from grants either from the state or federal government.

I know that's in flux for separate reasons, but um because these are not standalone 100% affordable development, they will not affect any ability to qualify for those types of things.

No, and keep in mind using the word inclusionary, most of these are being paid for by the developer.

So no, it shouldn't be sometimes and not in our portfolio, sometimes habitat might be in the mix, but they're not in any of these units.

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Uh and the next question is about you mentioned um with changing state law, some you know, uh applicants are looking to skip the public review process.

And now that you have gone through all these numbers so very um deeply, uh how I mean, is this really an impediment uh in terms of on the budgetary purposes, the public review?

I mean, I know it takes staff hours and hours of the applicant and and their professional staff, but uh is this a large line item uh for them?

I'm curious compared to all the other um parts like when you say live which which line items.

Light out of the talk to us and talk to the architectural advisory committee uh compared to the other impact fees.

I mean, the this public review process itself.

Oh, you mean as far as those not being required anymore?

Correct.

I think it's just I think the legislature has stepped in and said, not Redwood City, but other communities are putting applicants through nine different hearings and time is money, and that's really where the intent comes from.

Where you know, there are there's a lot of regulations that go into the streamlining bills, has to be consistent with zoning, all the you know, all this and there's certain labor requirements.

So um I I would say here in Rubbit City, I don't think that's been a well, it depends which which applicant you ask.

Um but I I I would say I think it's a very I think the the from the outside looking in folks know that's a very pro-housing state, it's very different.

But that that let that legislation was crafted from parts of Orange County and other other parts of the Bay Area.

You know, right.

I I just wanted to see whether we ourselves are, you know, align it to this production.

But yes, okay, great.

Thank you.

Um all right.

If there are no other questions, I will now open public hearing.

Uh at this time we'll take public comments from those joining us in person only.

Um there oh, we do have public comment in person, and we are suspending comments by Zoom.

Um we have Michael Arusa.

Um please come to the podium and you have three minutes to speak.

Welcome.

Uh hello, members of planning commission.

My name is Michael Arusa.

I'm a Rabut City resident and volunteer leader lead for Peninsula for Everyone.

I'd like to speak in support of the proposed affordable housing ordinance incentive program.

I think I think it could go a long way towards helping the city spur more housing development in the midst of the current development slowdown.

While inclusionary zoning can be a useful tool for producing affordable housing and meeting arena goals, setting the rates too high can have notable trade-offs in the overall housing construction.

The Berkeley Tanner Center released a study in April of last year simulating the impact of various different inclusionary zoning rates on both market rate housing production and affordable housing rate production in Los Angeles.

And they found that not only can high inclusionary zoning rates significantly reduce the production of market rate housing, but large rates can actually have diminishing returns on affordable housing production as the number of total units built starts diminishing at a faster rate.

In fact, they found that increasing the rate past 25% actually produces a net reduction in the total affordable units as the reduction in overall development starts to decrease too sharply to keep up with the proposed temporary rate of 15% better trades off the need to build more affordable housing with the need to increase overall development of new housing, of all new housing.

In the current development environment with higher interest rates and tariffs increasing construction costs, we've already seen an overall slowdown in construction with multiple projects being withdrawn or delayed due to no longer penciling.

The city should consider any and all levers available to help counteract the slowdown and a temporary reduction in inclusionary zoning rates is one of the is one potential tool that has research backing its effectiveness.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Arusa, for your comment.

Um public comments received by email.

Yes, there was one.

Go ahead.

Chair Sinnegaretz and the esteemed members of the planning commission.

IQHQ Alco Yards is the developer of a mixed-use development which includes approximately 530,000 square feet of office uses, 501 residential units, 28,000 square feet of retail, including 19,000 square feet, family-friendly entertainment, 8400 square feet of child care, and 40,000 square feet of publicly accessible open space.

Alco Yards Project, previously known as South Main Mixed Use Project, generally located at 1601 El Camino Real, between El Camino Royale, Maple Street, Cedar Street, and Main Street in Redwood City, California, the site.

While the commercial component of the project is nearing completion and it's attracting high quality commercial tenants in a challenging market, the delivery of the residential of the project has stalled due to challenges unique to the multifamily residential development sector.

However, due in large part to the unmatched livability of Redwood City, we are happy to share that we are under contract to sell the residential parcels to a residential developer who is committed to delivering these much needed units quickly.

Should the proposed temporary program for Redwood City's affordable housing ordinance be adopted?

Because of changing market conditions, variability in interest rates, construction cost increases, tariff uncertainties, and limited availability of capital, development environment has shifted.

As a result, the proposed temporary program for Redwood City's affordable housing ordinance provides the much needed relief, flexibility, and incentive needed to deliver these units.

Thank you for consideration of this item.

Justine Nelson Thank you.

So any other comments?

No other comments.

Great.

Thank you.

If there's no objection, um I will close the public hearing.

Uh and I will open the meeting for committee discussion.

Uh Commissioner Finch.

Um yeah, I I wanted to thank the the public commenters.

Um very interesting to hear from a developer.

Um, and I definitely agree with the other public commenter about I I think it's better to have um you know some affordable housing rather than none.

And if the projects don't get built, then you don't get any affordable housing.

Um and it definitely seems like a very challenging environment.

So I I I really just wanted to thank staff.

I feel like this was a very thoughtful process uh communicating with the developers and trying to see, you know, what the the best um what we could do to, you know, kind of push them over the finish line while still negotiating on our behalf and you know continuing to get the some of the impact fees and even still a fairly high amount of affordable housing, I think.

So I yeah, I just big thank you to staff.

I feel like this is just a a very um you know incredibly well done item here.

And I'm yeah, I'm so glad that staff is listening and you know is where aware of all these problems and working to fix them.

It's it's uh it's great.

Um yeah, I think that's it.

Yeah.

Thank you, Commissioner Finch.

Commissioner Butt.

Yeah.

Um I'd like to thank staff for putting this affordable housing ordinance together.

I think we got a housing advocate and a developer to speak in favor of this um in public comment.

So there's some community input we were looking for.

Um I really appreciate the fact the staff is trying to meet our arena goals.

Now, uh we are mandated by law to do so, but we don't know what it means if we don't hit them, right?

As noted before.

Um but you know, housing, as Commissioner Finch noted, zero units of housing is zero units of housing.

If a building does not get built, nobody benefits from that.

Um I would love to see this uh ordinance implemented and for staff to go back in six to nine months as mentioned, check if it's accomplishing its goals and potentially even revise it more if need be.

But for now, this we're hearing if we're hearing from developers that this is what it'll take to get these things to start construction.

I am fully in favor of it.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Commissioner Butt.

Um Commissioner Robinson.

Yeah, I've heard a lot.

We've we've heard and staff has had a lot of discussions with the developers, and and please don't take this as being anti-developer.

I'm married to one.

Um but I do, and perhaps it's been too long since I've been on the housing and human concerns committee, and I'll have to revisit their charter and purpose.

Um this is a housing policy that advocates in our community have worked very hard for to establish.

It took a long time to get to 15 percent.

And so, you know, I my comments are really regarding process and making sure that members of the committee have adequate time to provide input on a material change to the policy of the city.

Um and maybe I'm seeing it wrong or um or or taking it uh too much to heart here, but um, you know, I I think we have we have many constituencies that have made this such a signific a very uh vibrant city, and that means investors, developers, um, but also members of of the advocacy community on housing here in here in uh Redwood City and in our county.

So um, you know, I I perhaps staff can then light me a little bit more on that role of the housing and human concerns committee.

I I there's nobody here from that committee tonight.

I'm not aware of.

Um and if if they're if this is not something that would typically go to them, then you know I I stand corrected.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I might ask Elen, um she's the liaison to the HHCC to if you could um maybe discuss their sort of mission and yeah, I think there was a couple things because the affordable housing ordinance is in our zoning code, it does have to come to the planning commission.

Um, I think we envision this as a temporary interim uh change, and that when we do the bigger kind of broader ordinance updates that I spoke about earlier, that's where we do a more robust process.

I think we're also trying to balance um urgency to you know get things moving forward.

Um so that that's kind of the balance we were trying to strike.

Um but the HHCC does give input on housing policy.

Um I think it's always tricky on when things are in the zoning code and when it becomes planning commission versus HHCC purview.

Um thank you for that thoughtful answer.

Yeah, I mean I I do agree uh that this it is definitely a hard fought um um I guess goal from the HRCC from more than a decade ago, I guess, when this first the AHA AHO was passed uh for this inclusionary housing uh and uh and I think I'm relieved to hear that this is currently a temporary proposal, and I do understand the city is underway undertaking this nexus study that with um neighboring jurisdictions to really you know update the housing ordinance to reflect whatever the the market conditions or just general um conditions are out there on the yeah, but I understand there are um multiple points of view that is uh commissioner hunter.

Yeah, um yeah, I think that's a good comment about um you know what it took to to get these um you know impact fees or uh inclusionary percentages up there in the first in the first time.

So I don't think we should be too enthusiastic about re removing them, but I appreciate the city's flexibility in you know seeing in this case for hopefully a temporary period um that it might be necessary to get some things moving.

So um I agree with the thinking that it's more feasible, it's better to accept a slight reduction in this than in other um impact fees such as parks and transportation um because these buildings actually do have that in have those impacts on the needs for parks and the needs for roads.

Um and so I I think this is overall a good um you know good move by the city to you know hopefully move things along a bit.

Um but there's one thing that I don't see the need for, and that's the uh reducing the ownership um reducing the percentage for um for ownership properties.

So um, you know, look at looking at that chart of the 22 cities.

Um, you know, virtually every virtually um all the other jurisdictions are between 15 and 20 percent for for rental, and we're 20.

Uh most of them are are 15, we're 20.

So we're reducing it to 15, which is in line with you know the great majority of the other cities.

For the for the ownership properties, most of them are also, in fact, all but one is between 15 and 20 percent.

We're 20.

So um it would make sense to um no, no, I mean I'm sorry.

We we're we're at 15.

We're we're at the low end of that.

So I don't see how that makes sense to reduce it from 15, which is basically the standard in the county, uh, to 11, 11 and a quarter.

Yeah.

No, it's great, it's a great point.

And especially if you want to drill down deeper and if you're talking about town homes, everybody's talking about town homes can support a little bit a little bit more.

Well, we tried to do is be more inclusive.

What we did not want to do was set up different rules for rental and different rules for ownership, and we want it to be a little bit more inclusive.

I guess what I'm trying to say is we didn't want to we want to be we want to eliminate any legal challenge of why not why them, but why not us is really why we tried to do that.

And so rather than coming doing individual project reductions, one-on-one, I said, why don't we just do something that anybody, any applicant, if they can meet those certain terms, could benefit from it.

And that's really was just thought on being a little bit more inclusive.

So it didn't look like we were catering to one product type over the other.

Yeah, and I I I want to ask actually a follow-up question on that is you know, uh ownership opportunities as in terms of housing built either within this wena cycle or previous is an extremely small percentage of historically we had very low ability to to even induce any type of construction for this ownership, which we from ATRAC and others is like really uh an important step for people both to you know build generational wealth and being stable in our community.

So it's something that I feel uh is is we should support uh even if we do the deeper cuts if we need if needed to uh to get that numbers out, my personal opinion.

Um no, that's that's my comment.

Yeah, uh thank you, um Mr.

Hessin Hesinger um for your presentation.

Of course, I I really uh uh agree with everything that's been said so far.

Uh I do want to come back to uh the other impact fees, mainly because of the the the number for the parks is very high, 75% of all, and it's it's a very large number.

And I know the council has considered this uh previously in the SIR and rejected any reduction in that.

Uh I I do understand parks are important, especially in downtown.

We have zero, I mean very little.

Uh and there are you know uh things underway to to ameliorate that.

Uh so I want to ask, are these impact fees for these projects that if they come online is for specific improvements that will be uh due to the effect of these new housing units, or is this for you know general programming of the parks department for I don't know whatever other program we're gonna have?

That's correct.

The the fees shown on the table in the report and the presentation were those fees that would be I'll call it mitigations for those specific projects.

So when a project comes in, there's certain fees based on their their demand for the park or or or transportation.

Doesn't necessarily mean you have to fund it within a radius of of those projects, but it would go to fund, yeah, it's really to try to offset those demands for those those new of the new development.

Got it.

Sounds great.

Um all right.

Well thank you.

And again, I appreciate uh everything as we've done and and uh having this dialogue, and I think uh I am ready for a motion if there is one on the on the day.

Would you Commissioner Koch I I'd like to make a motion that we adopt a resolution recommending the city council adopt an ordinance approving the affordable housing incentive program?

Do I have a second?

I'll second it.

Uh Commissioner Hunter seconds.

Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson.

No.

Vice Chair Koch?

Yes.

And Chair Sona Garetz.

Yes.

The motion passes five to one.

All right.

Okay, we are on five D, uh, which is request for architectural permit, tentative map, and use permit to demolish a vacant structure and construct a new six-story mixed-use development with 96,000 square feet of office and 32 residential units, including the provision of four affordable units through the affordable housing plan.

The applicant is also seeking a density bonus and concessions through sections 32.19 of the city's zoning ordinance.

Um before we get to that, um does it make sense?

It's been a long meeting.

Does it make sense that for you guys to have a five-minute break?

Um yeah, but I will now that I've gone through my training uh last week, it's someone from the day as needs to make a motion for a recess.

Uh so anyone commissioner Hunter.

No, no pun intended.

You will move for a let's say five minute recess, ten, five.

Five minutes.

Five minutes would be great.

Sounds good, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I think points of motion, I don't think there's a vote for that one.

Oh we won't tell we won't tell anyone.

I was gonna say we should have voted.

We're gonna reconvene uh and we're back to item number five D request for architectural permit, tented remap and use permit to demolish your vacant structure and construct a new six-story mixed use development with uh nearly ninety-seven thousand square foot of office and thirty-two residential units, including the provision of Ford Affordable Units through an affordable housing plan.

The applicant is also seeking a density bonus and concessions through section thirty-two point nineteen of the city's zoning ordinance.

Um James Dotson, assistant planner will give the presentation.

Um good evening to the commission, um members of the public and my fellow sta uh staffers in attendance today.

Um as stated, my name is James Dotson and I will be presenting the staff presentation on twelve oh one uh with me.

Um I'll have support from a Land Lancaster, the uh housing leadership manager who you met earlier during the Affordable Housing Um Incentive Program and Victor Gayton, the management uh our housing management analyst um as well joining virtually for any questions in regards to the um affordable housing uh calculations for this particular project.

Um next slide please.

So my presentation will conclude uh will consist of uh brief background information on the project, uh the project proposal, um so you know and then a summary of updates or changes to the project from a previous entitlement that was received in twenty twenty-three and then um followed up by the staff recommendation.

Um as a disclosure, this project um, as I mentioned, was previously permitted in twenty twenty-three.

So my presentation will pretty much highlight the uh the modifications to that entitlement.

However, your review and your decision on this project should be based on the totality of the project as this project is before you as a um new entitlement.

Um so if there's any questions in regards to the full project, we can go through through that as well.

The project site is located or front um Main Street, Cassia Street, and Hallish, and it is indicated in the um blue highlight there on the screen.

Um the project site is about six three acres and located in the mixed use transitional district, which is a district that allows for uh transition between residential commercial, light industrial uses and um to allow a diverse mix of uses through vibrant moderation and size of buildings.

Um adjacent to this site is the CowTrains track, which I've um indicated with the till or turquoise colored line there following the tracks down um Pennsylvania Street, and then um just south of that is the uh 1180 main project.

Um this was a project that was entitled uh pretty recently, um, which has a uh a max height of about 51 feet, and uh a little bit more south to that, south east is the project um known as South Main Mixed Use Project or the Elco Yards project, and that those areas of the project are highlighted in red.

Um the there's about five structures as part of this project, uh one structure having a max height of about 81 feet and one inch.

Um that one would be the closest to the project um with the more rectangular um shaped or triangular shaped um highlighted red um on the screen here.

Um as I stated, this project was approved in April of 2023 through PC, and it was a unanimous approval six to one.

Um, and then most recently it was reviewed by AAC and recommended for approval on June 5th, 2025, and that was also approved unanimously.

Uh the site design are uh as part of the approval, the AAC did want the applicant to come back with uh a study on site design or a design of entries and then uh material boards for the project to review by the the chair and um AEC.

Next slide, please.

So what is the project proposing?

They're um proposing an increase in height to the previous structure.

The total height of this structure would be 89 feet and two inches, which consists of two stories.

This would be uh a mixed use structure with uh three levels or of four levels of office and two levels of residential um and consist of 128,343 square feet of floor area.

Um this project is located in the AB2097 zone, which means it is within half a mile of a high quality transit um stop, which would be the Cal Train station, and as for set by the state, uh there are no uh there's a park, there's a zero parking uh requirement for projects within this distance of uh a high quality transit stop.

However, um, even with the zero um parking standard, the applicant is proposing 123 spaces.

Next slide, please.

And so with this slide here, what we're trying to highlight is the difference in what was approved in 2023 to what is being proposed today.

Um the structure from 2023 was approved for 60 feet, uh, six inches and five stories.

And as I stated, this project will be 89 feet and two inches and six stories.

Um as part of that increase, the unit count would be increasing by four, so from 28 to 32.

Um, and then you can see the calculations here for the size or floor area, total floor area, and then office floor area that would be increased as part of this project as well.

Um next slide, please.

So this project, as stated in the staff report, and as provided through attachment four or attachment three, um conformance with development standards or the mixed mixed use transitional development standards, is compliant with most of the development standards with respects to um five items that would be subject to a state density bonus um increase because this project is providing affordable housing um and meets the um affordable housing ordinance.

They are allowed um by the state an increase in density, which would allow for the units to go up to the 32.

Um they are allowed waivers, which are exemptions to development standards based on um a proclusion of a standard that would not allow the construction of or a construction preclusion that would not allow the the product to move forward, and then um a concession, which is a uh a proclusion based on financial um uh a financial burden that would not allow the project to move forward.

And then a concession, which is a uh a preclusion based on financial um a financial burden that would not allow the project to move forward.

And as you see, um there's three waivers here building height, uh, permeability and daylight plane, and then a concession for floor area ratio.

I do want to also highlight that this project was initially approved in uh 2023 with community benefits that did at that time allow for a height increase in the structure, and the applicant was using that in conjunction with the state density bonus um waivers.

Um, however, for this particular project, um the ordinance has changed, and there has been some increases to density, which um the state density or which these community benefits are more so voluntary than uh required in order to meet these uh the thresholds or the requirements based on the the zoning district.

Uh next slide, please.

So this is what the the structure looked like for 2023.

Um this is again five stories, got the three uh levels of office and then two levels of residential, and then if you go to the next slide, you'll see where that uh additional slot uh additional floor is being added to which raises the height, and in a later slide, I'll break down how the actual height is being increased and where the inches and feet are being allocated in order to get up to that 89 feet two inch height.

Um with the height increase again, you have three three levels or four levels of office and then two levels of residential um units.

Uh level five would be a residential unit and level six would be a residential um units.

Level five would actually would also have a portion of it, about 4,000 square feet of office also on that um floor as well.

And this particular uh frontage that you're seeing here is the main street frontage, um, which has a balcony that is split between residential use and um office use, um, which you can see just above the the brick um material facade there.

Um next slide.

This will be the Heller Street side frontage.

Um again, this is the 2023 entitlement approval and facade, as you can see again, five stories.

Um, and if you go to the next slide, you'll see how that additional story is being added into this particular project, and how um the articulation and and the shape of this building is formed with that particular addition.

Uh again, this is the Heller side on this side of the street.

We do have the vehicular um entrance to the subterranean parking, uh, which again is 103 spaces.

That interest would be um just on the the left side of this image here, um with the driveway that would lead down and to the subterranean parking.

Next slide, please.

And so as I stated, this is the the high comparison of how this particular project is getting up to that um 89 feet just by adding one story.

Um it's about a 28-foot increase in height from the original proposal.

Um, each floor is getting about two feet um of additional height to the floors, um, and then you have that final story of about 16 feet eight inches, um, and that would get it up.

That's to the top of the parapet, and that would get it up to the 89 feet.

So on the left, you have the uh what was approved in 2023, and then on the right, you have uh what is being proposed and um subject to your uh review and uh decision today.

Again, you can see the two levels of subterranean parking here on this image, and then uh four levels of office with two levels of residential above that.

And this is on the um, if you're facing the main street side, um, the left side of the building where uh the office um entrance is located.

So with this particular section, you see the office units primarily on the left side of the building.

uh review and uh decision today again you can see the two levels of subterranean parking here on this image and then uh four levels of office with two levels of residential above that and this is on the um if you're facing the main street side um the left side of the building where uh the office um entrance is located so with this particular section you see the office units primarily on the left side of the building um if this was a full image of the sub of the section you would see the residential units on the right side of this structure but just for the purpose of comparing heights um I've shortened these images um so that we could um have them uh adjacent or next to each other for visual representation uh next slide please all right so this project in addition to the high change the unit change or the unit increase the height increase and the unit increase there were also some improvement or modifications to the landscape plan due to um unforeseen um unforeseen um obstacles with utilities existing utilities on the site that required a reduction and the street trees on Heller Street um but overall the project is still adding more trees and they are removing um and and that is in both categories of off street trees or street trees and then on site trees as well this property or this project is taking advantage of the zero setback um requirements for this particular zoning district so a majority of the on street or all of the on street trees that are existing today would be removed in order to accommodate the construction of this building however um these trees are being replaced um on the project so you see um on the left hand side here um the fourth floor which is the um the straight image of the uh balcony there uh we have four trees there and then um more trees on the other side and this the bottom is the fifth level balcony and that's the balcony that is the split so on the left side of that balcony you have the uh office space and then on the right side is the residential um division but this particular slide is uh intended to show how the landscape plan is being changed um and what the total numbers are in regards to what is being removed and what is being um replaced um next slide please and so as I stated this project is proposing um affordable units for a total of four affordable units and this chart here is showing the relationship of how this particular project is is going to approach the affordable housing units required in order to take advantage of the affordable housing or the uh state density bonuses that um is also being uh proposed as part of this project um in here is uh a bit of a calculation where they are proposing on an alternative um amount of units um and based on that um proposal they are allowed certain um reductions of other type of units and i'll let a land and um victor speak to that if there's questions but this chart basically sets that up and and breaks down how they are proposing um their units and in addition to that the community benefits that are being proposed again these community benefits were proposed as part of the original project and and and was used in order to um get a reduction and or an increase in um height for the project um and they have continued as part of the revision but um because of changes to the the zoning ordinance and 2023 in order to implement the housing um ordinance uh these community benefits don't have the same um effect as it did in 2023 as this the ordinance already allows for you know these certain increases without the the community benefits and so at this point um they they are still being proposed um but they don't like i said have the same um impact toward the project or requirement or the project um and and in regards to having the the development standard increases for the zoning district um next slide please as a stated this project is consistent with uh zoning development standards um the project does um comply with the density bonus or affordable housing ordinance requirements and as such uh staff is making a recommendation for planning commission to adopt the resolution 25 05 um for the project at 1201 Main Street uh that concludes my presentation um I'm available for any clarifying questions or any questions about the project um in general and then also a land and uh Victor are available for questions in regards to the affordable housing uh calculations um in addition to that the applicant is present um and will be providing um a presentation for us today as well

Uh that concludes my presentation.

Um I'm available for any clarifying questions or any questions about the project in general, and then also uh Len and uh Victor are available for questions in regards to the affordable housing uh calculations.

Um in addition to that, the applicant is present um and will be providing um a presentation for us today as well and are available to answer any questions that I am not able to address.

Thank you for your time.

All right, all right.

Thank you, Mr.

Dotson, for your presentation.

It's been uh very informative.

Um are there any clarifying questions that the commission would like to ask staff at this time?

Okay.

Um I do have a question.

Uh it's about the mix of units.

Um I'm just curious if you have the information as to uh the units for the for the 32 proposed uh in this particular version of the project, the size of the units.

Are you asking about the affordable?

Just the actual size uh of the one bedroom, two bedroom studios.

Um these units are um studio and one bedroom units.

Okay.

Um great.

Um that's all the questions I have for now.

Um other questions?

All right, the applicant will be now be presenting.

Thank you so much for uh having us tonight.

We are excited to finally before you.

Um it's been a long road with 1201 Main Street having initially um gotten approved quite some time ago.

Thank you for whoever put the stickers on this.

Um okay, let's see here.

So uh my name is Mike Field, and I represent Mecca Ventures.

Um, and uh we're a downtown Redwood City uh developer.

We built um the building at 610 Walnut across from the Kaiser Building, Kaiser Hospital, um previously with Windy Hill property ventures.

Um everything we do is on the Mid Peninsula, so from downtown Mountain View to downtown Burlingame, those are kind of the areas that we look to add value and to develop um mixed-use projects.

So the majority of our projects are mixed use with office and multifamily.

Um not a lot of developers doing that yet, but I think it's becoming more common.

And uh we have several in downtown San Mateo that are already constructed and fully leased.

And um this will be our first mixed-use project office residential in downtown Redwood City.

Let's see here.

Okay, so this was approved initially forever ago, April of 2023, when the world still spun round and when uh we weren't talking about reducing fees.

Um and obviously, you know, to the second bullet point, a lot's changed.

Um we uh saw an opportunity here to do two things.

One is to add more units.

Um in the time that we got it approved, and today we were allowed to add another four units where we had maxed it out prior.

Um, and in addition to that, we needed to change the four to four, and we needed to make the project more viable by adding additional density.

Um so the four to four uh height that we had previously was very specific and specialized.

And given the state of the market, we're trying to get a more generic design that can fit uh uh more uh a broader array of uses.

Um and so I can delve into that more if you have additional specific questions on that.

Um, but we we were able to increase our our unit count, and I'll have the unit mix.

Oh, he's probably texting it to me right now.

Hang on a second.

Because that was the question.

16 studios and 16 one bedrooms.

There we go.

So um so we're happy with those one bedrooms.

We found uh those to do really really well.

Um the two other projects we have that are similar to this, all of the units except for the boil market rate units will be leased by the people occupying the office portion of the building.

It's just the way it goes.

Um, a lot of the a lot of the uh market or all the market rate units are you know a hot commodity when these companies move into the buildings, and so they end up you know becoming a reward incentive and things like that.

But of course, the BMR units will still go through the normal BMR process.

Okay.

Let's see.

I'm gonna skip that.

Okay, you know where it is.

It's directly across uh Maine from the Chan Zuckerberg building, which is a gorgeous building.

Um then it's been you know amazing to see IQHQ take shape even through this crazy market.

Um so this will be a wonderful addition to what has already been constructed over there and what is coming, specifically with the uh large multifamily project that you know has some potential here after the fee reductions that you discussed tonight.

That uh multifamily project that you referred to is you know just on the other side of the railroad tracks from us.

So that'll be a buffer between our building Chan Zuckerberg and the IQHQ office projects.

Um we have a historic church next to us, which is actually wonderful.

Uh they're a nice buffer off the property line.

We've already talked to them about shared parking agreements and things of that nature, where they can use our parking on Sundays, we can use their parking, which they don't need and which they would love to lease us right uh to help maintain their facilities.

Um we're really happy with that.

And we were intentional on the design there.

You'll see there might be a rendering of that facade, but there's a balcony to cut up the structure up against the church boundary.

Um, and that was done uh on on purpose.

So we've gone through most of this.

It's six stories, so it's so it's four and a half of office is the right way to think about it.

Because you got that office amenity area, which is small, you know, five or six thousand feet that has the outdoor balcony, and then uh you've got the uh two levels of multifamily that kind of wrap around that.

And the multifamily looks out on the single family and multifamily uh area, so that you kind of have that natural feel as opposed to having the office space looking over the adjacent residential, our residential will look over the adjacent residential.

Um it has all the things you would expect.

Uh, it'll be built to lead silver.

Um, we have bicycle parking and showers and all the things that you know modern um buildings in downtown Redwood City are expected to have.

Um we exceed the affordability uh requirement, which is uh, you know uh good.

Um we uh don't create any VMT.

Um we have robust TDM measures which have really become kind of an expectation with our uh office tenants anyway.

Um and so we implement those and um and most of our clients are very proactive about implementing themselves for their employees.

Um let's see.

I'm just trying to be as efficient as possible here.

Um the pedestrian experience will be a whole new world at this intersection.

Right now it ain't great, and so it'll be a much more improved environment connecting, you know.

Obviously, the goal is with IQHQ and with this is to bring that connection from the single family and multifamily neighborhood adjacent all the way into the downtown.

And I think we're kind of the last piece that gets us there on that side of the railroad tracks.

Um, because obviously, you know, the historic church is never going away.

So um it'll be a significantly improved pedestrian experience, tying that neighborhood into the downtown environment.

Um we're planting as many trees as the gas main will let us plant.

You know, that's kind of what we did there.

We would love to, I mean uh, you know, we we like trees.

We like to wrap our buildings in trees, but for some reason they get touchy when you start putting them on top of gas mains.

I don't know what it is.

Uh reflect okay, so contemporary architecture.

You'll notice the design's intentional.

We looked at the buildings being built around us.

Um you'll notice color transitions that tie several adjacent buildings into this project so that it looks apart, separate, but also ties into this neighborhood very, very well.

So, for example, there's two different kinds of brick, and you can find those same brick colors on two adjacent buildings.

Um, and so uh we've really tried to be deliberate about the overall material choices, the design, the corner is a huge advantage for us.

We have this really cool corner element that we're able to use that'll be very inviting for people who are walking from the downtown to the building.

And uh, and then the building's more traditional on the areas that face the subdivision.

Um that was all very uh deliberate.

That's that cool corner element I talked about.

That'll be very inviting to uh folks coming from the downtown environment.

And the brick facade there facing essentially directly the Chan Zuckerberg brick facade.

And you can see on the top of the building.

Is there a laser?

There might be a laser.

I bet there is.

Anyway.

Um the left side of the upstairs balcony is office, the right side is residential.

So they abut each other, and there's a bifurcating wall that'll keep them private.

But that gives you an idea of, you know, we're really trying to prioritize outdoor space in these buildings.

Um then there's another large balcony on the side of the building facing the church, which hopefully we may see today.

We'll see.

Um, there it is.

So that little step down that you see, that's that's against the church parking lot.

So it's a huge balcony.

And it's a nice step down, and then the residential units look over the top of that.

And um, this is the part of the building that's closest to uh the crossing.

This is the residential entry.

Um obviously this is the I should say that differently.

This is a residential lobby entry.

There's obviously multiple residential entries as well as the parking uh garage.

Um, but uh this is really a place where the residents will enter the building, they're in a private lobby with a private elevator.

There's no mingling of uses.

So thanks for the light.

Okay, there we go.

Uh this is on Heller, and so you can see the residential balconies facing the subdivision and um you know, kind of the back peekaboo of the building.

But um that uh tall stair element is again a really cool corner element that we're trying to uh make the building very inviting from a pedestrian standpoint coming from the downtown.

And that's another view of the balconies.

So happy to answer any questions and um thanks for letting us uh present tonight.

All right.

Uh thank you for your presentation.

Um are there any clarifying questions the commission would like to ask the applicant?

We'll start with Commissioner Bott.

Yeah.

Thank you for your presentation.

Um you made a remark earlier that um the expectation generally with these sorts of projects is that the office, um, the company in the office will be the purchaser of the market rate units and that they would generally give the renter.

Sorry, what?

Not the purchase.

Sorry, the renter.

The render of the market rate units and they this is generally provisioned to employees.

Um that line stood out to me.

Uh is this so do we you mentioned that there's not commingling between the residential and the commercial, but it seems that the intention of the residential units is for the people partaking in the commercial aspect, is that right?

Sorry.

So they're not deed restricted or required to be rented by the office occupants.

What I'm saying is is that generally speaking, when you deliver several hundred occupants of an office building and you put 32 apartments on top of it, those occupants get really excited about those apartments.

And so generally speaking, we're gonna have a lot of demand for this residential.

Now, saying that, Kitty Corner, we're gonna have a 500 unit project with pools and gyms and lots of amenities.

So residents are gonna have options in this location.

Cool.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um Commissioner Hunter.

Yeah, uh, thank you.

Um I I I had a question about why it's 29 feet taller when you're only adding one story, and it looks like the reason really is that you're adding two two about two more feet to each of the first five stories.

Why is that?

So the as a developer, you actually want your building to be short because it's really expensive the taller it gets.

And it means more curtain wall.

And that's the big that's the costliest thing with this building is the underground parking and the curtain wall system, which is the glass and the brick and all that fancy stuff.

Um the problem we have now, we had originally uh designed it as a concrete building.

Concrete allows you to do a much tighter floor-to-floor because uh you don't have big steel beams blocking the way to run the HVAC and electrical and all the other utilities that the building needs.

Unfortunately, the the market has become uh pretty dynamic and there's can be significant cost impact with building a concrete building versus a steel building.

So we need to make sure and maintain the flexibility.

So ultimately when we uh the so the next decision for us to make is do we want to spend 1.6 million dollars developing construction drawings for this project so we can then build it, right?

So this is like important part of the process, but uh that decision of concrete or steel is gonna get made.

It's gonna be kind of a game time uh decision.

In addition to that, tenants are requiring more flexibility.

And if we limit their ability to be flexible within the interior envelope of the space, it drives them to other buildings.

So more height gives them more flexibility to run process piping, you know, higher rates of air conditioning, larger conduits, all uh and and uh ventilation shafts, all those things come with more height.

But it's a significant cost impact to the project.

So ultimately, what sa what what height will this building end up being at the end of the day?

We're getting it approved for maximum flexibility, but I would love to make it shorter because it would be cheaper.

Interesting.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um the other question I had this was gonna be in my comments later, but uh one thing that um just from reading the staff report, and I did not know about the idea of the uh the the business tenant, you know, using it for their employees.

Um but what one idea that I would like to see with shared parking where the residents could use um some of the um the so some of the b the uh the company's parking spots in after hours.

And given the dynamic that you just talked about, is is that the part of the plan?

Yes, it's very li yes.

So it lends itself to allowing that shared parking because you're just not using it when the cr when everyone from the office goes home, or even when 20 percent of the office vacates, it's gonna open up a lot of parking stalls.

In addition to that, you know, we'll probably have some sort of uh you know uh additional parking potentially at the church too for residents.

So this we're gonna have more uh plenty of parking here for a downtown building.

Great.

I like the idea of shared parking.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Commissioner Finch.

Um yeah, and I I was interested, I know I think the TDM plan gets finalized later, but I was wondering if you just had any inkling.

Uh I mean the shared parking stuff is is great.

Uh I was wondering if you had any other ideas, maybe what the TDM might look like.

Absolutely.

We we already have the plan pretty much done, I think.

Oh, nice, nice.

So I'll at least I need some water anyway.

Uh good evening, Commissioners.

Um my name is Lisa Ring.

I'm a planning consultant for Mecca Ventures, and so we work together on uh all aspects of the project.

Yeah, we have submitted um a TDM plan that looks at a variety of measures, actually quite a few measures, and a lot of the things that you would expect to see, also particularly because it is a mixed-use building, that it opens up some opportunities.

So we have both measures uh for housing and for office.

So some of the things that you might see um if you've you know, in your review of commercial projects would be guaranteed ride home, um showers and you know um those those types of measures.

Um and then we also have some for the residential.

Um so we have you know uh passes, a TDM board, uh uh um a manager that will help residents um make selections.

Uh so it runs the gamut from both the physical programs, etc.

that can be applied for both the uh residential and office uses.

So it is fairly robust.

And that's been submitted to the city.

That's uh that's great to hear.

Um I'm uh are you considering um unbundling the parking for the office or the residential at all?

Absolutely.

That is one of the measures.

Thanks for uh reminding me of that one.

Oh, nice, nice.

Okay.

Um and then Yeah, I think my only other question was I was just curious how um how you kind of came to that number of parking spaces that you have.

I I mean I I think it's it's it's low, it's you know, it's great because it's in a in a transit focused area.

Um but I was just wondering kind of what the thought process, like why you drew the line there as opposed to like I guess if you added more, you'd have to have another level of underground parking, which would add a lot of cost, but bingo.

Yeah, yeah.

So basically we said, okay, how many salts can we get by going down two, and that's that's it.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

And you felt like one was just it would be a tough sell to like people leasing it out.

Yeah, it would be too little parking, I think, for um we for the for the type of residents that we're looking to attract and also for the office use, given what parking is available at competing properties in the neighborhood.

Yeah, I mean, that was my follow-up question as well.

And you will you this is probably one of the first projects that has complete um well uh you know, freedom as to how much parking to provide is always interesting to hear from from your side what number you guys decide with.

And I was curious why exactly the same question, not just a single uh single level, but um it sounds like people still need to drive to work, even though it's close to uh transit.

Yeah, and and and it um yes, I think that the that's accurate.

You know, when you look at uh total occupancy load and just the convenience factor, some people leave their car at the office now and they commute to on the train, and then if they want to run errands during the day.

Um so we just have to make sure that we have a competitive product, basically.

All right.

Yeah.

Great.

Um I do have oh, sorry, Commissioner Coke and I'll go after you.

Thank you.

Just a couple quick questions.

Um great, great answer on the TDM.

Thank you for that.

I knew Commissioner Finch would ask that, so I was just waiting.

Thanks, Rask.

Um lead silver.

Beautiful, wonderful.

Thank you.

I wish we saw more of that here.

Um as far as parking, I read in here bike parking, lockers, the whole thing.

All the above.

Is that for residents or employees or both?

Both.

And will that be separate?

Will the residential bike parking and be separate from employee bike parking?

Yes.

It is.

And and we have it for both.

Yeah.

We we've learned with these mixed use buildings, you have to bifurcate them completely, basically.

There can't be any crossover or people get grumpy.

So the question I have um is I was looking at the increase in the size, so it's I guess 25,000 square foot was added in area, but you went all to the office side.

So but the number of units has increased from 28 to 32.

So I guess we squeeze four units from the same floor plate plan.

Yeah.

Is that right?

Okay.

That's right.

Is the mix of units the same or is it some of them became studios?

I think we converted, I'd have to ask Evan to go back through the dusty files of 2024.

How many studios in one?

So we're 1616 now.

No, yeah.

He'll look and to answer your question.

No, no worries.

Um, and is there is there um well uh I guess these are young urban professionals, presumably that that it would potentially would be in these particular units.

So uh one bedroom versus a studio, right?

May one may house a couple or something like that.

I prefer one bedrooms personally.

Right.

But but uh this particular environment will sustain studios and and if you look at the product that's been built around us um that we'll be able to lease those studios just fine.

Um I do think though that um there are other projects that you're gonna see that will be residential in nature shortly here from me.

Um and those are gonna gravitate towards larger units.

I think that we're starting to see that there's um rent support to get the same rent per square foot on larger units now, given the way that our demographics are going and was and and the demand trends that we're seeing.

So what we saw the last go around, kind of 2012 to to when the market stopped, was a lot of efficiency units, a lot of just get units out.

That was driven really by two things design standards, the lack of state density bonus law.

So we couldn't get around so in downtown San Mateo is an example where we were limited at 35 units to the acre.

Um you couldn't build anything, right?

Now we can build it, we have a lot more flexibility, and so it allows us to do more creative unit mixes, bigger unit mixes, um from a development standpoint where we're going from a residential standpoint uh is really a good thing.

It it's gonna allow us to meet a broader demand instead of just cramming a bunch of small units on a site.

Got it.

Um and then following up from uh Commissioner Hunter's about two increased increased ceiling height of of two feet uh for uh I guess mechanical uh I mean you talk about process gas and you know HVAC uh is is lab use one of the potential use cases for this.

I hope that's with a tenant well, I guess you guys are talking about.

I will lease this building to any tenant that comes knocking.

Right.

Um but but it will make it more flexible.

Right.

So we would have a live load issue if it were true lab, if it's a steel building.

Um now if we built it out of concrete at those heights, then we could have support lab.

Is is lab use one of the potential use cases for this with a tenant well I guess you guys are I will lease this building to any tenant that comes knocking um but but it will make it more flexible so we would have a live load issue if it were true lab because if it's a steel building um now if we built it out of concrete at those heights then we could have support lab um again it's a it's we're we're we're hanging on just like everybody else is trying to figure out how to fit this product kind of you know uh the assistant city manager kept talking about uh threading the needle yeah we're threading needles okay we're trying to make the project as economically feasible as possible to a wide range of uh of office occupiers so that when someone says oh we want to be in downtown Robert City but we need this that we can say oh we got it for you right so whether it's a law firm whether it's biotech whether it's you know an AI robotics company we want to be able to say we can do it.

Got it.

Thank you for that.

Um the next question is about uh the cycle track uh as one of the I guess the the improvements on the main street frontage uh your uh rendering shows uh cars parked there right now so I I know that there was one rendering in the in the packet uh of a general uh cycle track so I just I was just curious will there be parking uh or will there be just you mean along Main Street is there bicycle lane I mean it sounds like there's gonna be a cycle track so the question is will there be parking?

No it'll be just like the rendering slide to you.

Yeah so so it'll be yeah is there a bike lane right you should be the the way I read it is bike lane with a separated flexible ballard so that's right uh as right I was just curious whether there'll be parked cars in addition to the ballers the particular thing but there's not enough space I think I've got to think so no it's already kind of a little narrow.

Yeah because of the crossing right that's that's fine.

Yeah just wanted to confirm that.

And then for the community benefit part I think there there was some discussion about ramp improvements um out of the the the chestnut inhaler and chestnut and spring and there will be two ramps in the end the other ones that all currently comply with all the ADA requirements that's correct it's two improvements.

Okay.

Great um I do have one uh item and I think I asked the staff earlier uh about the trees being planted thank you so much for accommodating those uh ones on Heller and moving with the bulbouts I think that's a great solution uh for that issue uh the one is about the size of the trees planted I think uh the plans it's at 15 gallon I think that's too small for the abuse they will take on the sidewalk so I I think we generally we have 24 inch box minimum I don't want to necessarily put this into uh resolution if if needed but I think I would I would um I would recommend that particular type uh to be uh to be planted got it um the other thing I was gonna ask it's mostly actually a question for staff more than anything else is um I realized that you guys have to have an exception for a compact parking space uh and I didn't realize this is not allowed uh generally speaking in this particular zone I I mean I I've definitely parked my car in a compact space somewhere in in DTP so I'm just curious is this a M UT particular zoning designation requirement or is it citywide I can answer.

Yeah go ahead yeah we don't have any parking standards for compact parking in the city within our um the zoning ordinance got it so because we don't have standards we can one it cannot construct such parking yeah I I mean I I would guess maybe someone just wrote that on there um oh right so it wasn't I don't know if it meets you know I don't know if it meets any um specifically I know staff is working on a parking ordinance uh or pardon update it will this be part of that I don't know that's a good question I'll um I'll circle back with our transportation team and ask them yeah uh I think it's worthwhile insuring that to give the option to the applicant since clearly there is demand out there okay great thank you um commissioner hunter oh yeah uh just one very quick follow-up question um how many employees do you expect there to be usually it's somewhere between one employee for every 200 square feet of office if you take into account the amenity areas and things like that.

That would be a high density occupancy.

That would be about 500 then great um commissioner Robinson uh questions this might be a question also for our city planner um but is there any plan for a Caltrain grade separation at that you know just adjacent to the building we spent so much time on yeah the first entitlement we that was like a melee the first entitlement so we know a lot about that but when I say we she so I'll let Lisa speak about it.

But yes um and and this site's not not uh not problematic from what I remember but I'll let Lisa speak to that yes um so during the first entitlement uh we spent a large majority of the time designing it to making sure there would be no conflict so we met multiple times with staff and the joint powers board to look at all of the the right of way how this project would be cited you know the setbacks those kinds of things and we were able to come to a conclusion of exactly how this project could be cited to not conflict with any um you know future plans and any future plans uh of the city and the joint powers board so this uh new and revised plan just maintained that those boundaries and so there are a series of decisions related to that that are all included in the location of the building and how the everything was cited.

And we were able to come to a conclusion of exactly how this project could be cited to not conflict with any future plans and any future plans of the city and the joint powers board.

So this uh new and revised plan just maintained that those boundaries.

And so there are a series of decisions related to that that are all included in the location of the building and how the everything was cited.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

And I trust your building will uh take into account the noise of the bell and when the uh the train crossing comes down because I I I worked at a building and people complained about it all the time.

But um I'm uh you know, all many buildings are along the near near the train stations now, so people get tolerant to it.

But uh it's a really um good-looking building.

Uh the brick is I think very respectful of um Main Street.

So thank you.

Thank you.

But yes, we thick thick windows along that facade.

Thank you.

But yeah.

Um Thank you, Commissioner Robinson.

Commissioner Finch.

I'm sorry, one follow-up to that.

It's taking into account the four possible four-track Caltrain.

Okay.

Thanks.

Well, yeah, that's it's a large right-of-way.

Um any other clarifying question that uh the commission may ask.

Applicant, uh seeing none, uh uh, we'll open the public hearing.

At this time, we'll take public comments from those in person.

There are none.

Any comments received via email?

No, we have not received any comments.

All right, there's no objections.

I will close the public comment.

Um I will open the meeting for a committee discussion.

Commissioner Finch.

Um yeah, so I I wanted to say first, I feel like the building just looks I'm not on the architectural advisory committee, but it is.

It just looks very interesting.

I it's very pleasing to me.

I think it's it's it's interesting to see the mix of residential where you have like smaller windows and then the floor to ceiling windows on the on the glass like office thing.

Um yeah, I think it looks nice.

Um I I love, I feel like um uh you have been very thoughtful about the uh the thinking about parking, uh trying to share it with the church and um trying to share between the office and the residential uh and the TDM measures.

I think that's all that's all great.

Um I love the the street improvements that are included with the project, um the bullbouts uh on Heller Street and the bike lanes and um the other the neighborhood improvements that are off-site.

Um that's all that's all really great to see.

I think it's gonna be a much more pleasant place to walk and bike once the project is done.

Um and I think that the project is consistent with the surrounding uses, which we also have some tall-ish office space and residential around there.

Um so I do think it's consistent.

And uh yeah, thank you very much for the the presentation Thank you, Commissioner Finch.

Um anybody else would like to make a comment or discuss.

Um Commissioner Commissioner Butt.

Oh no.

I just heard that we were making a motion.

Oh sure, we can make a motion and discuss further if you'd like.

So yes, go ahead.

All right.

I move uh the commission adopt resolution 2505, finding the 1201 Main Street project to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA, and approving the project, including an architectural permit, tentative parcel map, and use permit density bonus request and affordable housing plan subject to conditions of approval for a proposed mixed-use building located at 1201 Main Street in the multi-use trans MUT zoning district.

Thank you, Commissioner Butt.

Um do we have a second?

Well done and second.

All right.

Second it by Commissioner But before we move on to vote.

I want to open it up to discussion uh this particular motion.

Uh were there any comments to be made.

Uh I do have a question actually uh for staff.

Uh you know, if if I have not seen the resolution in our agenda packet in particular part, but let's say if we wanted to add a requirement um for to formally formalize that, you know, the trees that are on street size should be 24-inch box.

Is there something that one would uh introduce as an amendment to the motion?

Uh I have not seen the language of the actual resolution.

Yeah, I wanted to clarify maybe we can ask the applicant as we thought the plans actually have 24-inch box proposed.

So do you have your length architect?

I will put in 24-inch box, but I believe they're 15 because of the conflict with the utility.

So I don't think that's why.

But um we're talking not a not I I will you know we'll do a groundbreaking ceremony on which you put them in your cell.

No, uh we would be fine with 24-inch box trees.

Um we have no issue with that, but it would all be subject to making sure that we're not messing with the gas line.

No, I right.

I understand.

Uh the size of the tree that's being planted is is kind of uh irrelevant as the terms of the the conflict of the of the utilities that are underneath it really has to do with the soil volume and and where it's being planted in place.

Um it's more about you know the survivability for the first two years of its life, whether it's being protected from you know uh environmental abuse or just just general uh you know, pedestrian uh streetscape.

Um the reason I asked for that is because you know we have um Main Street planted 15 gallon trees before uh and from different projects and they don't survive to year two, and then it's somewhat difficult to enforce this on the city side because we have to you know staff time to go back there and then uh ask the either the tenant or the the the I guess the developer to uh to do so.

So I think in terms of best uh best practices uh and uh best outcomes, uh this is uh the way to go forward.

So I um anyway.

I I don't mean to like toot a particular horn on a particular uh item, but I I just know what what works and what has worked well and I would like this project to succeed and have you know um the right landscape for your benefit and the benefit of the tenant and the people who will be living there.

I like big trees, especially with 89 foot tall buildings.

So um so I don't know if you need to do an amendment.

I I'll make that commitment.

We can add it after the fact.

I've said it here publicly.

We'll do 24 inch box so long as it doesn't cause some sort of problem with that gas line or other utility surrounding it.

And I understand that uh I understand what you're saying.

It's just a matter of how we would have to manipulate that box to get it in that soil right.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

I just want to say, yeah, the plans as as written right now don't reflect that.

That's why I just want to make sure it's uh it's there.

Um okay.

Um, that was really the in the weeds in a minutiae, so I apologize for that.

That was a side trip.

Um but uh any other comments that we made on the motion that's uh currently on hand.

Uh Commissioner Butt.

So were you proposing an amendment?

Uh no, I will not use an amendment because right now we don't um have exact wording on the resolution.

So we're gonna have it as it stands.

All right.

Well, if there are no further discussions on this particular motion, I think I will let um Miss Xline uh do a vote.

Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch.

Yes.

And Chair Swanaga Ratz.

Yes.

The motion passes six to zero.

All right, congratulations.

Um looking forward to seeing this project.

It looks that fantastic.

So you and me both.

All right.

Well done.

All right, moving on to item number six, matters of commission interest.

Uh 6A is planning commission li lia zone updates.

Um just uh the only updates I have is that um we do have a meeting on September 2nd planned.

Um and I'll kind of looking quite forward into October, we are reminder that we're planning the October 21st.

We are planning one of our first or shouldn't say first of the year, because we've already had one for the year, but maybe second of the year, but first with the transportation advisory committee, a joint session on the greater downtown area planning process.

Um there are several outreach events um that are coming up this summer and um uh into the fall for uh for the Greater Denton area plan.

So just wanted to put that on your radar.

And that is all the updates that I have.

Great.

Uh thank you, Sue.

Commissioner Finch.

Yes, I was wondering is the parking item coming before planning or just council?

The um code updates for parking will come before our planning commission um because they will be in the zoning code.

So yes.

Okay, thank you.

Great.

Um any other updates?

All right.

If not, that concludes the items for tonight's agenda.

The next planning commission meeting is scheduled for September 2nd, 2025.

Thank you so much.

I'm gonna ask you what the temperature is.

So,

No, I'm saying I would ask you.

Um, so okay, so I see it's fifteen yards.

Tell me what the difference between they don't