All right.

Good evening.

And thank you for joining our May 5th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

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

Before we start, I want to briefly go over public comment procedures for the meeting.

Public comments and the approval minutes, consent items, matters of commission interest, and items not on the agenda will be taken during item number three.

Comments on the agenda items will be taken only when the items called.

If you're joining the teleconference by phone, you may raise your hand by dialing to star nine and star six to unmute your microphone.

Please only raise your hand at a time that the item on which you are speaking is called.

Each speaker is allotted three minutes, but that may be adjusted depending on how many speakers we have.

Lastly, we know that we each bring different perspectives to the discussion, and we want to be sure everyone has a chance to be heard without interruption.

Planning Commission welcomes public comment on items within a purview.

Any speaker whose comments are on topics not under commission's purview will be warned and then removed if necessary.

Thank you for your attention and consideration during this process.

I will now turn it over to staff for the roll call.

Commissioner Bond.

Present.

Commissioner Cornejo is absent.

Commissioner Finch is absent.

Commissioner Hunter?

Here.

Commissioner Robinson.

Here.

Vice Chair Koch.

Here.

And Chair Sunagar Ratz.

Here.

For tonight's meeting, I'm Sue Xline.

I'm the Assistant Community Development Director and Staff Liaison to the Commission.

Tonight in attendance are Rick Jarvis, our consultant city attorney.

Jonathan Turner, Assistant Planner.

Apollo Rojas, senior planner.

Giovanna Erknott, management analyst, she's joining virtually.

Thank you.

The next item on the tonight's agenda is notification of meeting participation by teleconference due to just cost pursuant to government code 54953-8-3.

Do we have any remote participation notification or requests from the commission to consider?

We do not have any.

All right, let's move on to the next item on tonight's agenda.

Item number three is public comments.

At this time I will take public comments from those joining us in person and through Zoom.

All right.

As a reminder, public comments should be on topics within Planning Commission's Purview.

I have one speaker card, but not for the public comment.

Are there any online speakers for the public comment on items not on the agenda?

There are none, so we'll move straight on to actually I will first close the public comment and move on to approval of minutes.

Item number four.

We have February 17th, 2026 regular meeting.

Is there a motion to approve the draft meeting minutes of February 17th, 2026?

Motion made by Commissioner Hunter.

Yes, I will move to approve the February 17th, 2026 meeting.

Minutes.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All right.

Oh.

All right.

Uh, we'll have a second by Commissioner Koch.

Let's go.

Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Cornejo is absent.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch.

Yes.

And Chair Sunagaretz.

Yes.

And I'll I'll just note that Commissioner Cornejo has now joined the meeting.

Wonderful.

All right.

I think the next item is 4B, which is April 21st, 2026.

Joint Planning Commission and AAC meeting.

Is there a motion to approve the draft meeting minutes of April 21, 2026?

Commissioner Robinson.

Oh, your light was on.

That wasn't.

I just left it on.

All right.

I'm soliciting approvals.

All right.

Move by Commissioner Robinson, second by Commissioner Hunter.

On to vote.

Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Cornejo.

It looks like we have similar um technical issues.

Oh, really?

So I just mobilize it here or do it.

Go for it.

Yeah.

I can I can repeat it.

Commissioner Cornejo is aye.

Sorry, Commissioner Hunter.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, I.

Sorry.

Either one.

Commissioner Robinson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch.

Abstain.

And Chair Sunagar Ratz.

Yes.

The motion passes by five with one abstention.

All right.

The next item on the agenda is the consent calendar.

There are no items on tonight's consent calendar.

We will now move on to public hearing item sixa.

Six A is a request for consideration of general plan consistency for projects included in the capital improvement program for the 2026-27 fiscal year.

Jonathan Turner, our assistant planner will give a presentation on the item.

Good evening, planning commissioners, members of the public and city staff.

My name is Jonathan Turner, and I am the project planner for the CIP presentation this evening.

The Capital Improvement Program is where we plan and appropriate funding for capital projects like buildings and infrastructure that costs 100,000 or more and has a useful life of two years or more.

The city has two different plans for the CIP, a five-year plan and a one-year plan, which identifies short and long-term funding priorities for infrastructure projects and is used as a guiding document for future capital needs.

The longer term five-year CIP is a list of priorities for which the city is seeking funding.

However, it is not guaranteed that all items in the plan will be funded.

The shorter one year CIP is adopted on an annual basis as part of the budget process to appropriate funds to pay for specific capital improvements.

I'm sorry, capital projects in the next year.

Includes 41 existing projects that are carried over from the previous year, uh, as well as five new projects as shown here on the slide for a total of 46 CIP projects in the current fiscal year.

This evening, the planning commission is tasked with confirming the five new projects in fiscal year 26-27, conform to the general plan, and are consistent with the general plan goals.

The general plan establishes the basis for zoning regulations and provide guidance in the evaluation of development proposals through goals, policies, and programs.

And it creates the framework for economic development, transportation improvements, and balances residents' desires with city services.

The general plan consists of five elements, including the built environment, building community, public safety, natural resources, and housing element.

Staff has evaluated the CIP projects for fiscal year 26-27 under each of the elements and found them to be consistent with the city's general plan.

Attachment two of the staff materials include a general plan consistency table, which demonstrates uh each project's consistency with the general plan specific goals.

In addition to the staff materials, there is also more information on the specific CIP projects that can be found through our following uh online portal link.

Uh users are able to review the recommended budget by district, neighborhood, and equity priority maps.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution, adopt the resolution finding the projects included in the capital improvement program for fiscal year 2026 through 2027 are consistent with the Raywood City General Plan.

That concludes staff's presentation.

I'm available for questioning for questions, um, as well as Giovanna Ecknart, uh, which is our management management analyst and director of engineering and transportation, Tanisha Warner uh virtually.

Thank you.

Great, thank you, Mr.

Turner, for your presentation.

Are there any clarifying questions that the commission would like to ask staff?

Commissioner Cunejo.

Oh, um, Commissioner Koch.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Turner.

This is such an impressive body of lots of work.

So thank you to everyone for putting it together, and thank you for bringing it to us.

I just had one question.

I know that all of these projects will not, cannot be funded.

How do you decide where to put the dollars?

Yes, so uh it's actually up to city council to make a decision on which projects get funded.

Uh there was a study session that occurred on April 27th, uh, where each department uh director was able to talk about their specific projects in more detail and provide um the council with information where they can vet and decide what projects are funded.

Commissioner Bott.

Yeah, I just have a question about our the residential apartment parking platform in here.

And it's fine if you don't have an answer for this.

But I just I just noticed that it's a project that's funding uh license place readers.

Um and in the past year, I'm sure many of us know there's been um added controversy with um certain license plate reader companies sharing data with the federal government for uses that don't align with the city's values.

Do you happen to know what our vendor is for these license plate readers?

I do not know specifically, uh but Tanisha may know.

Um, and she is available.

Yeah, it is apologies.

I'm trying to figure out my camera.

Oh, there I am.

Good evening.

I'm Tanisha Werner with Engineering and Transportation.

Uh so the license plate readers, we actually do not save the data.

What we do is it reads the license plate as they are going into the garage so that we can have more automation, and it will help us with um just tracking our our open spaces.

So sorry, can you clarify that?

We're just not saving the data and tracking mean in combination.

So as somebody goes into the garage, it will identify their parking space, their license plate, and then um that is how they will be uh paying like a pay by plate, and then um once everything is paid, we do not save the data.

Okay, and uh there's a last question on this matter.

Do you is the vendor flock?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Following up of Commissioner Bott's question, so is this the only location for the camera on the parkings, or is there main interest other intersections in the city that will contain this cameras?

Oh no, they we don't have the red light cameras.

This is just for the parking.

Thank you.

All right, I have uh other follow-up questions related to um, I think if one of the new projects, uh, since it's new, I just would like to more information about the feasibility studies for facilities maintenance and um safety, I think it was.

So it's a one million dollar budget, so just a little bit more information.

What is the is the feasibility study for a future capital improvement project relating to facilities?

Yes, so uh that is a city manager uh initiative.

Um, and the purpose is to um basically explore an effort to improve city infrastructure and um uh utilities and facilities, and so the goal is just to evaluate what's existing and figure out where there's a need for improvements.

Um, this was also reviewed at the mid-year budget update uh hearing by council on February 23rd, um, and a hundred thousand dollars was allocated uh for a facilities master plan.

Okay, great, thank you.

Um follow-up question I have is um some of these projects uh may not be executed by the city.

So are all the capital improvement projects, I guess executed by a department of the city.

I know one of them uh in transportation about the grade separation.

I think is we just chip into like a regional fund to to study, I guess, environmental impact of a grade separation.

So um is that the case?

So it's not necessarily that these CIPs are gonna fund individual departments and projects within some of them maybe just be chipping into an overall uh budget somewhere else.

Um I would I believe so, but I would defer maybe to Gio who has more background on the project.

I can actually speak to the grade separation.

So Tanisha Werner with engineering and transportation where the grade separation project staff is partnering with Caltrain, there's a federal grant, which is 15 million dollars.

The city's cost share portion is 1.5 million, and so the city will be partnering through the environmental stage.

So typically when we have projects that we're partnering with other cities, there's a cost share involved, and there's it depends on what the project is, but sometimes we partner all the way through construction improvements, and sometimes that's with grade separation, we're only identifying partnering through the environmental base.

Got it.

So I mean, I guess then all the municipalities are the ones who are cost-sharing will have to chip in at the same time for us to be able to you know get the matching funds for the federal grant, I presume.

Um well if you're speaking directly to grade separation, it is Redwood City specific.

So Redwood City has six at grade crossings, and our coordination with Cal Train is to do grade separation at all six of those locations.

So even though other jurisdictions along the Caltrain right away do have their own stations, the grade separation project in our budget is specific to Redwood City six at grade stations, and so no other cities are cost sharing in that.

Got it.

All right.

Thank you so much for the clarification.

All right, and last question, I sorry to hold this up.

Is um the improvements in the library, uh, I think it's related to the restroom improvements.

Just for visibility for the public, can someone share it?

Are we increasing the capacity?

Are we changing uh their location or how they are being used?

Um just curious.

Yes, so there will not be a loss in the number of um stalls for the bathroom, the restrooms.

Um, but there is now um a conversion to UNICEX uh stalls, so there will be individual um one person stalls as opposed to a larger shared um I I don't know if you've seen like the ones where it's you can be any gender and use it um as opposed to where there's traditionally a uh male and female rushroom.

Um that's the change.

I understood.

Yeah, the reason I was asking is that for example in this building right outside, you know, there is men's and uh what used to be men's and women's bathrooms, but there was a reduction in capacity.

So you know they there's two fewer um how shall I say fixtures for people to use.

Uh so I was curious because it's uh it's a heavily used space, the library, there's you know hundreds of people using it sometimes.

So I just wanted to ask whether the capacity will be reduced.

Yeah, no uh reduction in capacity.

Okay, great, thank you.

I'm happy to add a little bit to that response.

So right now the existing women's restroom has four stalls, and the existing men's restroom has three stalls and two neurals.

We'll be replacing the same number of fixtures, so there'll be nine total all gender stalls.

Great, thank you so much.

All right, any other questions from the commission?

Uh seeing none, I will open public comment uh public hearing.

Uh there I don't see any speaker cards for in-person for this particular item.

Um are there any if you're wishing to speak on this item and you're joining us by Zoom, please raise your hand now.

Sorry.

And uh Ms.

X line, are there any hands raised on Zoom?

There are no hands.

There are no hands.

All right, seeing no comments, I will close the public hearing if there's no objection, and I will move sorry, I will open the meeting for committee discussion.

So any commissioners like to comment on item six A, the general plan consistency.

Commissioner Bott.

Yeah.

So our our job before us tonight is to find that the capital improvements plan is consistent with general plan, and I don't necessarily have objections about that.

But I just want to voice my objections about the um license plate readers.

And I'm not fully convinced of any technology system that can that both claims to not save data and can track um just the I the technologist meeting doesn't see that adding up.

Um but I I do think that this is consistent with the general plan, and I believe it's up to council to determine whether or not we want to go forward with that project in particular.

Thank you, Commissioner Bott.

Um any other comments uh from the commission?

Commissioner Hunter.

Um I think this is fine.

Um and I I appreciate all the work for it.

I just um had had a follow-up to your comment, which I think is a good one.

Um, and maybe this is for uh Ms.

X line.

Um when uh one of the commissioners has a comment like uh Commissioner Bot just had, um, and it I know that our minutes now are are abbreviated um and don't go into detail on the discussion.

Um will his comments somehow be relayed to the uh council when um when this project comes when when this comes before them uh I mean uh I don't want its comments just to go into the void.

Yeah.

So typically our process when we bring stuff forward is to summarize comments um that were at the commission, so I'll pass these comments along.

We technically don't take this item to the council as planning staff.

So I'll be passing those comments along.

I'm actually so just doing right now is taking my notes on them, and I'll be passing them along to the staff that is gonna bring this item to council.

And so they'll they'll determine kind of how they will be incorporated.

But when when planning staff brings planning items to the council, just to kind of circle back on that, we do um summarize the comments in a paragraph.

You should see that if at the beginning of all the staff reports, here's what you know happened at the planning commission.

So I can imagine a similar process would be followed for this item as it goes through, but I just I don't know exactly how this goes through that next step because we're not involved.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Yeah.

I will also summarize.

I think uh I do agree um all the projects are consistent with the general plan of the five new ones.

I had really appreciate uh the ones about improving the parking lot striping uh around the community activities building uh and the new memorial center, uh memorial litter, et cetera.

Uh I really appreciate the transportation staff effort into optimizing our open space uh and not paving over any more parkland to increase parking.

So I appreciate that.

Um right.

If there's no more comments, uh, do we need to make a vote on this?

Yes, there needs to be a motion.

Um does anyone have a motion?

So uh the staff report recommending to council approval for the um improvement projects being consistent with the general plan.

All right.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robertson moved.

We have Commissioner Hunter as a second.

Rolling Commissioner Bond.

Yes.

Commissioner Corneho.

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch?

Yes.

And Chair Sunogar Ratz.

Yes.

The motion passes by six with um Commissioner Finch absent.

All right.

Moving along, we're going on to item six B.

It's a request for recommendation to the city council to adopt zoning code amendments that implement general plan housing element programs and development review streamlining strategies, and to adopt other code changes for clarity.

All right.

We have Apollo Rojas, Senior Planet.

Uh, he will give a presentation on the item.

I presume Apollo is joining us virtually.

Um I believe he's here.

I'm going to give him a quick call.

Okay, no problem.

All right.

We have um Mr.

Rojas, our senior planner will give a presentation on item where it's 6b, which is a request for recommendation to the city council to adopt zoning code amendments, etc.

Good evening, Chair, Planning Commission, members of the public.

My name is Apollo Rojas, and I'm a senior planner with the city.

And I'll be presenting these uh zoning comment amendments today.

All right.

All right.

So a little background.

As we know, Redwood City, the region, the state are faced with severe housing needs that require significant actions to address.

So one of the goals of the zoning code amendment is to implement existing policies and programs from the city.

So prioritize these uh programs.

Uh the city council has adopted housing as a strategic priority, approaching the issue with the four Ps of housing.

So that's to preserve, to protect, to um partner, and lastly, most relevant to the zoning code update to produce uh housing.

Uh the city also signed uh to meet its regional housing needs allocation or RENA, which requires the city to approve uh 4,588 units uh by 2031.

That's our housing planning period.

In addition, as a leader in housing in the peninsula, Rebood City has a housing target above and beyond that of over 7,000 units in that same planning period.

So, in order to plan for this housing goal in 2023, the city adopted the housing element, which includes 40 programs that the city is required to implement uh by the end of that same 2031 period.

So, over the past three years, the city has adopted a number of zoning code updates to implement the list of programs, and this update included is continuing to build upon that previous work to focus on expanding uh housing opportunities in Redwood City.

So, to summarize the background, we have a challenge in housing.

We have policies set in place which set a goal, and the zoning uh amendments uh before you today are just an incremental step forward in towards achieving uh that housing goal.

So there's numerous updates as part of this packet, as you may have seen.

Um, and we'd like to conceptualize them by putting them into three buckets.

Here you have development review, uh housing element implementation and code maintenance.

So, first development review streamlining.

This aims to expand opportunities to develop housing and including 100% affordable housing.

Next, housing element implementation.

It's difficult to approve 7,000 uh more homes without a plan, and it's difficult to achieve this goal by implementing the city's current policies.

So, again, housing element has 40 programs the city is required to implement.

So, this includes things like expanding housing opportunities on small lots, um, you know, eliminating parking requirements, and revising those park revisiting those parking minimums for affordable housing, senior housing, and also housing for people with special needs.

So there will be some overlap between uh many of these buckets.

Another program is to allow more of a streamlined process, so that includes allowing more house housing through staff level review.

Lastly, these types of amendments or these amendments are intended to address uh a varied set of issues that we categorize broadly as code maintenance.

Items that fall under this category include things like outdated regulations, uh cleanup to minor errors that staff has identified through their regular course of work, and updates to ensure the zoning code remains consistent with state law.

And of course, changes to our you know minor policy as our zoning code continues to update and evolve.

So first, onto development review streamlining.

Uh, it's important to note you know, changes of state law over the past eight years have prevented cities, they now prevent cities from denying qualified housing projects, and that's at any affordability level.

Yeah, if it meets certain objective zoning code standards.

So discretionary review, including things like pub feedback and public hearings, have been severely limited uh by state law.

In addition, the city has adopted housing element policies uh that have committed the city to streamlining development review, and again, including expanding the types of housing projects that may be reviewed and approved at a staff level.

So I'll go through this list right now.

Um the proposed amendment first would be to adopt a local program to streamline 100% affordable housing and review these at a staff level without a public hearing.

So currently, larger development projects require review by both the architectural advisory committee and the planning commission.

And the proposed amendments would be to eliminate those requirements for a public hearing in order to reduce the overall time of review and bring new affordable uh housing online faster.

So the some of those reasons are making development more affordable by reducing the cost of holding land, retaining consultants, uh, and it also increases the time that affordable housing is eligible for competitive grants.

The sooner you're approved, no more clear when you're going to be approved.

Uh, when you're applying for these different grants, it can certainly be a critical part as those grants, those varied uh income stacks are uh critical to affordable housing.

The projects, of course, would still need to meet all of the city's objective development standards, meet building code requirements, and pay all applicable fees.

Um, you know, in addition, the state has similar programs such as SB 35, and these programs allow for certain uh affordable projects to be streamlined as well and approved without a public hearing.

Uh, but a lot of times they have very complex eligibility criteria, and uh, you know, the state is continually updating state law.

So at times it can feel like a movement moving target to some uh developers.

Uh next, increasing the uh architectural advisory committee and planning commission threshold from 35 feet to 45 feet.

We have an established height threshold where if projects cross that uh height, then they need to get reviewed by both the AAC and Planning Commission.

Currently it is three stories and 35 feet.

Unfortunately, uh that means that many residential three-story townhome developments have been uh triggering planning commission review because 35 feet is low for most townhomes.

You know, when you consider a three-story townhome, what's it built of, right?

You have a foundation, you have a garage on the bottom, you have uh your typical floor to ceiling heights, and your roof pitch.

When you add those all together, you're regularly crossing that 35 foot uh threshold.

So the proposed amendments would be uh to increase the high requirement to 34 to 45 feet, but uh not the story requirement.

Remain that at uh three stories in keeping with the original intent of that requirement, uh, but to allow those taller floor to ceiling heights for residential townhomes.

And then uh extending entitlements from three years to five years.

Uh currently planning entitlements or planning permits are active for two years and may get an extension, a one-time extension, uh, with a request to the zoning administrator.

So that is a total of three years currently.

But within that three year period, there's a lot to do for a developer.

You have to obtain financing, they have to develop construction plans, they have to secure uh building permits and uh you know, all that while faced with uh a building code cycle that updates every three years, potentially affecting those very same construction drawings that they've just paid for.

This is even more complicated with larger projects as you would imagine, and even more complicated still with affordable housing projects, which have various forms of financing and have to wait till those get secured on uh varying uh funding cycles.

So Rabbit City has had projects in the past come back to planning commission because they've exceeded uh this um they've expired, and uh you know it's costly for both the applicant and the city.

So the proposed amendments would be to extend it to five years.

It would be a base of three years with two one-time zoning administrator extensions.

The first would just be granted, and that would make sure that they would come in and talk to staff and make sure the project's still going well.

The second one actually need to have building plans, you know, drawn up, submitted to the city to show a commitment that this project is actually moving forward and to pay all fees.

And you know, developing construction drawings, like I mentioned, can be very costly.

So it you know, already there showing that there's a commitment to move forward, is what the city is looking for.

Uh so what could be a uh base of three years is extended now to uh five years with those extensions.

Uh lastly, uh this is part of the missile code, not really part of the purview of tonight, but just in the greater scheme of development review streamlining, more staff level review.

Currently, condominium projects are required to be reviewed by the planning commission.

So even if all things being equal, uh it would not if it did not trigger planning commission review for things like height, for example, it would still need to come here just because it's an ownership project.

So a apples to apples rental and ownership project, uh, the ownership project would have to go to a public hearing, whereas the rental project might be already approved at a staff level.

So this would just be uh trying to reconcile that issue.

We talked about development review streamlining, but it's not just a separate issue, it's also part of the housing element.

Um things like development review streamlining, encouraging 100% affordable housing, reducing timelines and eliminating uh the number of public hearings are all part of existing housing element uh programs.

So I did want to flag that there is some overlap between these book buckets.

Uh the next uh uh program here, small lots.

This program is intended to incentivize development on small lots.

So some of you might uh think as well uh uh missing middle uh that could be applied to similar uh cases.

Now, what's a small lot?

The state defines it as anything as less than half an acre.

Uh but this is certainly affects uh lots even smaller than that still.

So I think uh the uh proposed amendments are all in the spirit of allowing more buildable area, making it more feasible to do development on infill sites, which is the majority of what we have here in Rubbit City.

So these would include things like uh reducing daylight plane setbacks for upper stories and mixed use districts, reducing front and exterior yard setbacks for upper stories and multifamily districts.

Now, an exterior yard setback if you're on a coral lot, you have a front yard, the secondary street is your exterior yard.

So reducing those upper story setbacks, reducing open space requirements and open space districts.

I'm sorry, uh reducing open space requirements in residential multifamily districts.

And this would be reducing from 300 square feet per unit to 125 square feet per unit.

Now that 125 square feet per unit, that's something that already exists in mixed use districts, so this would be consistent with that.

And lastly, allowing open space within setback areas in mixed-use districts.

This is something that's already allowed in multifamily districts.

So just trying to make sure everything is consistent throughout and uh allowing for more buildable uh area.

Uh the next two programs include providing uh housing options to uh special needs and extremely uh low-income households.

So uh the first bullet here has proposed amendments that will deal particularly with low barrier navigation centers.

Now, what's a low barrier navigation center?

These things are temporary shelters that provide services for individuals experiencing homelessness.

And the state has very uh uh detailed regulations around how they're operated, and part of the update is codifying state code references into our standards into our ordinances so they're clear and visible to the public, as well as providers of these low barrier navigation centers so that they know that we do allow them.

We are consistent with state law, and they are uh accepted in Rabbit City.

Now, state law requires that these undergo ministerial review.

We're gonna talk about ministerial review a lot.

What's that?

It means just review based on objective standards without discretion, um, and typically done uh without a public hearing, typically done at staff level.

Uh and the final thing would probably be uh without an appeal process associated with it.

So basically, if you meet objective standards, you're able to be uh approved.

Second bullet here being uh revised parking standards.

Uh so uh you know the the proposal is to eliminate minimum parking requirements for 100% affordable housing, senior housing, group homes, and low barrier navigation centers.

Um these are removing minimums, meaning that parking could still be constructed or provided for for these types of uses.

However, the city won't mandate that they're provided.

Uh construction of parking can be very costly, it could be a significant portion of the cost of developing new housing and a major major constraint on uh housing development and these types of uses.

Removing the parking requirement would facilitate hopefully greater uh development of these types, these housing types.

Now we go into uh code maintenance, you know.

As we learned in the CIP presentation, maintenance is an important part of ensuring that uh you know systems are operating efficiently.

And a zoning code, like anything else, uh it needs to be revisited, it needs to be adjusted just to make sure that's functioning properly.

So uh the proposed code maintenance updates are to help ensure that the zoning remains current, uh that it's internally consistent, and it's consistent with state law and city policies.

I'd say this is probably the highest volume of the updates in your packet.

Uh so for tonight we're just highlighting the changes that are most substantive in terms of policy clarifications or updates.

And they'll include uh updates of state law uh on this slide and minor policy clarifications on the next slide.

So uh updates to consist be consistent with state law.

Uh, what will those be?

It'll be reverting our ADU ordinance to state law, which is largely consistent with our local standards, and uh updating our short-term rental ordinance to strengthen enforcement.

Uh there'll be uh updates to our SB9 ordinance to enforce underlying zoning district standards and to uh react to recent changes in state law uh surrounding SB9, and uh updates to clarify the review process for state mandated ministerial review.

So uh we talked about SB 35 earlier, that's an example of something that the state says, hey, you need to apply this ministerial review process, low barrier navigation centers again, that's another example of a state mandated mandated ministerial uh review.

So uh the goal is again is to make these things explicit and clear, where state law might not be as clear, just so folks know what the regulations are.

Uh co uh minor policy clarifications and updates.

Uh so we'll also be updating things that staff has deemed to be minor in scope and minor in impact.

So, first establishing bicycle parking standards by land use.

So this isn't brand new.

In 20 in December 2025, the city council approved amendments to the city's engineering standards, which included adoption of the bicycle uh parking design guidelines.

So those were now put in the engineering standards, but they weren't codified in our zoning code.

So it's taking those same standards, taking them to our uh zoning code, codifying them with minor updates to some of those bicycle parking ratios.

Um the engineering standards also include things like bicycle parking design and whatnot.

So we'll have references for uh folks if they need to know how those bicycle parking uh areas need to be designed.

We could reference them to the engineering standards.

Uh still on the topic of bicycle parking uh exp updates to uh our existing vehicle parking reduction where you're able to substitute bicycle parking for vehicle parking in certain uh areas, your C districts, industrial those are commercial districts, industrial districts, professional office districts, neighborhood commercial districts.

These tend to be smaller sites, these tends to be located more towards uh neighborhoods.

So previously the requirement had uh a bicycle substitution for uh vehicle parking reduction for carpool spaces only or carpool parking only.

This would go and apply to vehicle parking as a whole.

Um minor land use updates, uh allow food preparations.

Would be a new land use.

Uh so this would be catering in bakeries.

You know, we've had a lot of potential uh business owners come to us and say, hey, where can I locate catering?

And it was not as clear based on our previous uh zoning code layout, so adding a new land use classification and clarifying that you know, catering bakeries are allowed by right, primarily in industrial zones, and also our mixed use transitional uh zoning district.

That district transitional, as you can imagine, is transitioning uh commercial and industrial areas to the neighborhoods.

Uh allowing medical office by right within a half mile of transit.

Again, state law, it prohibits applying parking standards to new development within a half mile of major transit.

That would be Rebid City Caltrain station.

And use permits, um conditional uses, so uh require use permit, use permits typically analyze impacts.

And one of the major impacts that we analyze is parking.

So without the requirement for parking, you know, it was found that it would be more consistent to allow these by right than have those same uses go through a uh conditional use permit process in a public hearing.

Specifically near transit, they'd be permitted by right.

So half mile of transit.

And then uh expanding uh uh health and fitness as a permitted use.

Right now it's very inconsistent in the code.

Some areas you look and it's permitted if it's 2500 square feet, other areas you look and it's permitted, it's 5,000 square feet.

So this is just lining up those thresholds to be consistent throughout to be 5,000 square feet, um, you know, which is pretty much the size of a small, medium small size uh gym.

Uh so again, one of those key, just little tiny co cleanups that we're doing here.

Uh also zone specific, the light industrial incubator zone.

We're now allowing uh indoor uh recreation and uh modifying our parking requirements to uh be more inviting to retail and restaurants.

Uh light industrial incubator, that's kind of located um between Woodside and the Stanford campus.

Uh and so maybe uh around six blocks there that it it totals.

So there's only one specific area where that zone is located, but it's a transitional area to a neighborhood and to neighboring Northfort Oaks, so it could benefit from some uh neighborhood serving uh uses.

And lastly, modifying uh code language.

Uh we've had some sections of our code which have not um been updated since the 60s or 70s.

And so as you can imagine, people spoke differently, people wrote differently.

So a lot of these are might be uh passive language, things that are grammatically incorrect, things that just uh easier for staff and the public to understand.

So not necessarily necessarily even going through broad changes of what the actual intent of that code language, but just making it more legible and readable.

If it's more readable, it's more usable.

All right, and lastly, uh zoning code amendments.

We would rezone two parcels in the Bear Island neighborhood.

These sites are located underneath a major electrical transmission line and an electrical tower and are you know and are unlikely to develop just given uh site constraints.

Uh amendments would rezone these two parcels to general commercial uh with a residential overlay.

This is actually their previous zoning designation as well, and so the idea here is allowing more feasible uses on that constraint site uh with a zoning district that it's consistent with the surrounding around it.

So uh this is the current and this is the proposed here in the red.

Go back one more time.

Blue, the red mixed use waterfront to uh general commercial.

So with that, that concludes my presentation.

Staff's recommendations for the commission uh is to the adopt the resolution before you and to recommend that the city council adopt the proposed zoning code amendments.

Thank you.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Rojas, for your presentation.

Are there any clarifying questions that the commission would like to ask staff?

Commissioner Hunter.

Um yeah, let's see.

I just uh came up with this one.

When you um talked about ministerial ministerial review for 100% affordable housing, um a lot of the larger affordable housing uh projects that come before is um uh set aside one one unit for managers.

Um I assume that still counts as 100%.

Yes, so it would exclude those managers' units.

Uh the same for the parking as well, uh, the parking exception uh where removing parking for 100% affordable housing, that wouldn't require additional parking for the managers' units, for example.

Okay.

Um and um yeah, the only other uh question right now I have is um I think this was regarding the zoning administrator review of condominium subdivisions and there's there's some other places also where the um the the review level would be to the zoning administrator.

Um would those the zoning administrator meetings be public hearings.

Yeah, for the most part the staff level review, um the zoning administrator has two major um kind of decision paths, one being at a staff level, like uh uh you know, many permits are are signed on a daily basis uh by the zoning administrator, that's staff level, and then there's additional uh uh additional process with a zoning administrator public hearing for things like conditional uses that actually go to the hearing.

This would be at a staff level, so no public hearing with the zoning administrator, with the thought being that you know the intent is to remove public hearings, shifting the public hearing over to the zoning administrator.

Uh still takes some time.

You know, there's packets that need to be generated uh by staff in order to hold those meetings.

It still adds uh cost to uh projects and affordable housing developers.

So the thought being uh, you know, with things like SB 35 where it's done on a ministerial uh staff level basis to be consistent with that practice uh for our local program.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Um I also have a couple of questions.

Speaking of 100% affordable affordable housing, in addition to ministerial review, um, do are they required to undergo CEQA review or is a state law preempt that Melinda, did you want to chime in on that?

I think they're hello, Melinda Hugh, principal planner, sequel coordinator.

Um to answer your question, because it's ministerial, um, it is not required to undergo CQR review.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Um next question is about the extension of the entitlements from three to five years.

Um I think you you offered some reasons as to why this is is, but uh, we can just clarify is it your current economic conditions and difficulty in lining up financing, or is it that the code has become more complex over time?

So compared to like 20 years ago, developers will need much more time to be able to get accurate drawings.

I'm sorry, Chair.

Is this regards to the the permit extension?

Correct, three.

Yeah, yeah, I'd say that the the building code is not shrinking.

It's it's generally expanded.

And I would say even with um some of the green initiatives, right?

We had reach codes a while back.

Who knows who's to say if that circles back and additional regulations are uh moving that direction in the future.

But yes, I'd say uh things are getting more lengthy uh to um review as as time goes on.

But just to be clear, uh did they get locked into whatever the particular uh standards are at the time of I guess entitlement?

Yeah, entitlement.

Uh I th for building code standards in particular, I I think you need to have permanent hand.

Uh you know, I have to do review on the I could look that up for uh a second for you, but uh I think that's part of the issue is that until they're actually submitted and and they they got a uh permit ready to go, it still could potentially fluctuate on them.

So if they're you know midstream on developing plans and the code changes, you know, December, you know, to January, and they haven't completed their review.

Well, now they have to go take a step back.

Hey, what changed in order to um you know make sure that we're code compliant going forward?

And you know, not just building code but fire code as well.

Makes sense.

Um do you foresee any negative effects of extending the entitlements?

Let's say a developer has a very prime piece of land that's highly visible to the public and it's like a dirt lot for you know five years versus three years.

Is that something that is a concern for staff?

Yeah, I would say uh you know, the five years is with the ZEA extensions, right?

The zoning administrator is extensions.

And so part of that is to make sure that applicants are in communication with city and our staff, the project planners, the development team, the development review team.

And uh particularly that second extension, that fifth year, uh, requires building primary plans to be submitted.

Part of the reason is it takes time to review plans.

It and usually has to go through multiple rounds of review, but potentially revisions.

So if those aren't ready six months to a year out, I mean it's really not realistic for this to pull a permit in the first place.

So a little bit of that of trying to incentivize uh uh applicants, developers to make sure that they're actually moving the ball forward.

Right.

Okay.

Sounds good.

So there's demonstrated progress uh to use.

Yes, that's that's the hope.

All right.

Uh next question is about the uh within gyms or fitness centers.

So I I know that there currently exists a few small businesses that operate gyms in areas that are smaller than 5,000 square feet.

Will they be non-compliant with passing of this or will they be grandfathered?

Yeah, I'd say because uh we're expanding that number instead of contracting that number.

I think it's less of an issue.

If we were uh uh reducing that number, for example, from 5,000 to 2500 square feet, yeah, we would have to do uh uh a live analysis to make sure we're not accidentally you know making some of our gyms non-compliant.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

So it's less than five thousand.

I thought it was requirements to be more than five thousand square feet.

Yeah, so it it would bifurcate the review process.

So uh anything below five thousand would be permitted by right.

Anything above five thousand require use permit.

Got it.

Okay, that makes total sense.

Thank you.

Uh and last question is about food preparation.

Uh I think that is uh exciting uh to have these types of businesses.

Um is it permitted by right in commercial general as we speak, or is it only in um I guess MUT now?

Yeah, currently it's it's it's very vague on where it is provided, right?

We have to like tie together some restaurant land uses to kind of say what's permitted, what's not permitted.

And this is just trying to be very explicit that we have heard a lot of interest and input that they want us perform catering in our city.

And so what we're proposing is to allow it in industrial areas uh primarily to start and then mixed use uh transitional districts, which are uh kind of scattered throughout the city and generally closer to uh commercial areas.

Okay.

That sounds good.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Butt, sorry, I I'm monopolizing the time.

That's fine.

Uh thank you to staff first of all for answering a few of my questions um earlier when this appetite's pack was sent out.

Um just for uh public clarification, what's the advantage to us updating our code to be consistent with state law if state law would already override it?

Yeah, I think uh the challenge is uh a little bit of clarity.

Uh you know, uh a lot of uh developers uh whatnot, they they look to our uh ordinances to see what does this city allow?

Because every city is different.

And so part of reflecting what the code says uh you know it's important for them, and in certain cases important for the state.

You know, there's times where uh you know the state looks at our code and says, what are you allowing?

Is it in uh compliance with uh state law?

And if there's not, you you might hear from them.

So it's a little bit preventative measure from in that perspective, and a lot more broadcasting advertising and reducing the confusion.

So you're not having a fight on down the road with a developer.

And for the public, I'd say visibility on their end too, right?

Yeah, something's going on down the street, they could say, is that is that allowed?

Is that not allowed?

Oh, I had no idea the state code even existed.

And so those references can be helpful to pointing them in in the right direction.

Thank you.

So it also shields us from legal risk.

Um that's what I was wondering.

Um I have no other clarifying question at the moment.

I'll talk later.

Thank you, Commissioner But uh Commissioner Cornejo.

Oh, I think that's you can go.

No, no, Commissioner Robinson's hands were in front of the lights, I couldn't see whether it was on.

Thank you.

Sorry, I had my light on and off and now it's on again.

Um thank you for the very detailed presentation.

Um I have some questions.

Uh ministerial review of 100% affordable housing.

Uh I understand that's um is it largely driven by SB 35?

And if there are projects that are not or applications that are not applying under SB 35.

When would somebody you know with 100% affordable housing apply that's not under SB 35?

And why would we not want to have that go through?

Why would we want that to go through ministerial review?

I just need a little bit more education here.

Yeah, sure.

The uh SP35 has certain uh affordability thresholds depending on if your city has met RENA or not.

So in some cases, if you haven't met RENA, I think the I don't know the percentage off the top of my head, apologies, but let's say for example, it shifts from 50% affordability to something low, like 25% affordability.

So, you know, there's that issue there where um you know the the 100% affordable housing encourages uh developers to, you know, hey, we have a a more streamlined clearer review path, but you have to provide us with more uh affordable housing.

It's a and it's an incentive in that direction.

I would say also the state um can be it can change and it's subject to a different eligibility criteria that isn't always as clear.

It's not as if they develop a a worksheet, for example, uh for developers to use and and fill out.

So there's a lot of parsing out um, am I eligible?

And uh a lot of times they ask us, am I even eligible for this?

So there's a lot of confusion and uh the idea is you know uh make affordable housing and inviting uh to Rebid City and and reduce constraints and barriers to even considering uh Rabbit City.

Okay, so um I guess we could get applications that are not covered but are 100% affordable and perhaps don't have the same mix.

Um but this is proposing that um these would then just go through ministerial review um so that uh would save the applicants some time.

Um I guess then my question is, and I you may have already mentioned this, but as part of ministerial review, what is what does that process look like in terms of notifying members of the public and any input that city staff would seek from you know adjacent neighborhoods, that type of thing.

Yeah, I think on one hand, we're constrained by the objective uh uh development standards, right?

That's sort of first and foremost the the biggest part of the review.

If they're meeting those standards, there's nothing uh or there's very few findings for denial uh for those types of projects.

And so I think a lot of it is being clear about what the criteria is and what the review process is and what cities can and cannot do as far as public noticing.

Um we have uh individual uh development uh uh web pages for each of our major projects.

We would continue to do that for 100% affordable housing projects.

Uh those usually include uh specific details on the plan, uh links to plans, and also contact information for the project planner and applicants.

So you can contact uh people directly.

We would take feedback, you know, or uh record to the file, then communicate with them uh kind of what the process is so that they understand kind of what the city city's ability is uh to regulate these types of projects.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have a question on another topic on small lots.

So I don't know if we want to stay on ministerial review or if I can pivot over to what is uh small lot.

We can extend that, but actually I'm gonna just jump in very quickly about uh lettering.

So if if there is a zoning administration review and there's really not much of a public input per se, sure there's a website for this, but how will people know where the website is?

Like at what stage in the process when the application is submitted, will the neighbors get something in the mail, or at the point that we come in front of the zoning administrator?

Yeah, for larger developments, we have uh on-site posting, you know.

So uh there'll be large signage saying there's a development uh coming to this site, and that's something we typically have as part of our submittal criteria.

Hey, did you uh provide this on site so that we can continue the application review?

So um, yeah, I think that's a big part of just visibility.

Great.

Uh yeah, Commissioner Robinson, feel free to go into small lots.

No problem.

What is the def what's the square footage of a small lot?

I don't know if I missed that or not.

Um I see a program intended to incentivize development on small lots.

Would this be existing small lots?

It says less than half an acre.

So um I I thought a half an acre was fairly sizable.

When I was an intern, my mentor told me never do math on the dais.

So uh I opened up my uh calculator here.

So an acre uh 43,560, half of that, uh 21,780 square feet.

Okay.

Majority of the How small can you go under program H1A?

Yeah, there is no uh um uh floor to that uh small lot size, uh like there's not a micro size, it's basically anything under that half an acre.

So the the housing element, uh taking a step back, you know, there's programs that uh the city takes initiative and saying we want to do this, so we want to adopt uh certain programs and policies to advance housing.

And other instances, the state has certain criteria as part of the review of our housing element that they say you need to implement.

So as a reminder, the housing element has to be reviewed and approved by the housing uh and community development department or state housing community development department HCD.

So small lots is like one of those criteria where they say you need to uh adopt measures that allow uh greater development on small lots.

So I would imagine that that small lot size is so large because it's meant to be applied statewide.

Okay.

That's that's interesting.

That I just noticed the less than one half acre.

Um thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Robinson.

Um I'm gonna abuse my um uh my ability to ask questions whenever I can.

So I will ask questions.

Actually, follow up on this.

I mean, given that 95% of lots in Robisticity are less than 8,000 square feet.

Um, you know, it sounds like the small lot um adjustment that the code will apply citywide, or is it only on R2 to R5 uh higher density small lots?

Yeah, so going back to the specifics, and I'm not sure, Christina.

Would it be possible to go back?

There we go.

Uh so uh small lots, H1, the second bolded bullet here.

Uh reduced uh daylight plane setbacks and mixed use districts.

So that would apply to all mixed use districts.

We have maybe five different categories of mixed use districts throughout Redwood City.

I'd say those are primarily on major corridors, El Camino, Veterans Boulevard, a Broadway, uh Woodside Road, for example.

Uh reducing uh exterior, front exterior art setbacks for upper stories in multifamily districts.

Uh that would be um multifamily R4 R5 zoning districts.

So these are typically standalone residential districts, but that have uh lots of density.

So a good example of R5 would be uh Arch uh between Whipple and uh Broadway.

Yeah.

Uh R for a lot of uh the central district uh I think has that designation.

Uh and then again open space requirements in multifamily districts.

So that's anything R2 to R5.

So basically any residential district that's not single family.

And uh lastly, uh mixed use districts going back to major corridors.

Okay.

Great.

Thanks for clarifying.

So it is uh restricted, not through full city, just the R2 to Right, R4 R5 is multifamily.

Uh and an M U T.

Yeah, R2 to R uh 5 would be multifamily, yeah.

Okay.

That's still a sizable chunk.

Um okay.

Sounds great.

Commissioner Puneho.

Um hi, thank you for your presentation.

Um I had some I have some clarifying questions um on the revised parking standards.

And just like bear with me here as I'm thinking out loud.

So it says that it would be eliminating the parking requirements for 100% affordable housing for seniors.

What is what does that look like?

Does that mean like there's not gonna be any parking?

Just like help me understand that part.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'll get a good example.

Uh 707 Bradford, the Arroyo Green building here on Bradford between Main Street and Jefferson.

Is uh that's an example of senior housing, right?

And we would say uh there's no minimum required, but they found it necessary to provide uh parking.

Uh so I we would leave it up to providers to make that determination on themselves.

Obviously, there's probably lower rates of automobile usage for senior housing.

Uh at the same time, we understand that there's probably uh different uh employees or workers that might uh come in and out.

And so yeah, I think the idea is to remove constraints and barriers uh to uh lower the cost of those types of housing.

So just hypothetically speaking, someone can just build a building and not have any parking.

If it meets uh the 100% affordable housing.

And I think part of that too is uh state trends, you know.

I I mentioned uh the uh no parking within half a mile of transit, uh half mile trail train cow train station.

It seems like there it's trending towards that direction of the trade-off of you know uh space for affordable housing or space for vehicle parking.

Um it's it's uh it's it's pushing towards housing, and that that's part of the process of the housing element is identifying areas that uh add cost to housing and uh the state encouraging you to remove those uh barriers.

Got it.

My second question um is on uh earlier when you were answering one of the questions to uh one of my colleagues, you mentioned that every city is different when it comes to like criteria.

Um so would we be different from other cities and like what are our neighbor cities doing?

Yeah, that's more more of a general statement.

So things like setbacks, height requirements, et cetera.

You know, every city can be different.

So when a developer comes in and says, what can I build here?

It's because that it's different in every place, how many units you can do on, say, a given uh 21,780 square foot lot.

I uh it it varies from city to city.

So we would be would we be pretty similar with Santa Clara County and like just our neighboring cities?

It would depend on what type of standard, right?

Like uh on uh I'm not sure if uh on parking particularly how we stand against them or uh densities, for example.

I think it really just varies on uh standard by standard.

And I think that's been one of the the complaints from the state and the reason why they're trying to push to uh uh adopt a lot of these uh ministerial processes because there is so much variance.

And if it was up to them, they would like a very uniformed, very standardized, hey, on a 10,000 square foot lot, you have to allow XYZ.

So we'll see as they continue to um move forward with their initiatives, how they address that issue.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Corneho.

Um I have one last clarifying question.

It's about navigation centers.

Um I know you mentioned in your uh slides that you know it will be reviewed ministerially against objective standards.

Um just curious, do we have spelled out objective standards for navigation centers, or are they just considered multifamily housing or like what what standards are we talking about?

Yeah, that would be part of this particular uh code adoption is uh establishing uh those standards.

But for the most part, it will reference the state code.

Uh it's not gonna go anywhere above and beyond the state code.

And it is a little unclear how far a city can go above and beyond the state code uh given that the state has the requirement to allow those types of uses.

So you know, if we wanted to establish a certain set of criteria, it would probably take a lot of research to see if that is uh legally feasible.

But the idea again, provide more clarity, uh codify in the code, give people clear references of okay, where do I go if I want to, you know, control F, find uh low barrier navigation centers.

Oh, there's a reference to state code, very easy to access.

Got it.

But there's no like a state registry or like best practices or things that have worked elsewhere, or is the state itself already done that and accumulate it into the state code that we're adopting?

Yeah, I mean they have certain uh criteria for uh uh trying to think of the exact uh criteria they have, but it's things like uh like people checking in and whatnot.

And because there's some overlap between you know land use, like where are these things allowed, and then more like health and safety, uh how uh the treatment for uh these uh the people with these needs uh uh occurs within these spaces.

So it's a little bit of both regulation of I'd say the state is more heavy on the on the latter on the making sure that people's needs are met on the these areas.

So uh there's maybe not um uh for example parking isn't referenced in the state code, and that's why we uh codified it's something, just clarifying if an application does come in, they know we're not gonna require parking as it might vary from city to city, some are silent.

The silence causes confusion as well.

Sure.

So just trying to be clear on on what the requirements are and where they're located.

Got it.

So but the these objective standards will be publicly available specifically for navigation center.

I mean, I guess they'll be available on the state website, but also in Railway City code.

Oh, that's correct, Chair.

And I think there's some idea uh and Sue, correct me if I'm wrong, but adding more uh publication material, like adding more handouts to kind of support that, to to kind of uh uh uh bolster that or uh yeah, in addition to those requirements.

Because not everyone's gonna go into the state code, you know, not everybody's gonna go into the city code.

And so I think there's some obligation from uh the city to uh you know make things as accessible as possible.

So I know that's one thing that we have going on, is we do want to make handouts to these as well.

We're still trying to land on like what the purview is, like who's the audience?

Is it is it geared more towards the public?

Is it geared more towards uh providers and developers?

Uh so that is something that we that came about this zoning ordinance of what to codify versus what to publish and what to uh broadcast.

Got it.

And does it apply only for new construction?

I I know that uh the county of Samateo has programs that would convert existing hotels into uh supportive housing and that also probably come with a bunch of regulations with them.

So would those also have to comply with these standards or they're exempt.

Yeah, the for my understanding the low barrier navigation centers don't have to be built from scratch, for example.

You know, we have one uh uh across uh Highway 101 that was you know brand new, but we also have a proposal to convert uh portion of a church uh by El Camino Real uh and uh near near Target in that area.

So it's it doesn't necessarily have to be uh new.

Uh at the same time, uh Project Home Key, Project Roomkey, the two programs to convert hotels to uh supportive housing or senior housing.

That's a separate uh issue, separate but similar, and that again, state process mandated uh and it has to be done uh ministerially.

Review.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I apologize for all my questions.

Any other questions from the uh commission?

All right, seeing none, I will open the public hearing.

Thank you so much for a presentation, Mr.

Rojas.

Um we have public speakers.

I will call public speakers on first uh and then followed by Zoom.

If you're joining us by Zoom, please raise your hands so Ms.

X Line can have you counted.

Um and in the meantime, I'll have Michael Arusa please join us in the podium.

You have three minutes to speak.

Thank you.

Um hi, my name is Michael Arusa.

I'm a Redwood City uh resident and volunteer lead for Yes in Redwood City.

Um I honestly just have to say there's a there's just so much good stuff in here.

Um I was surprised when I was reading through the package, is so many like great idea and uh change after change.

Um I'm especially excited by the ministerial review and parking minimum changes for 100% affordable housing.

That goes such a long way towards making these projects um more feasible, um giving them certainty to their timelines and making them more um fiscally viable by reducing cost significantly.

Uh especially since we're currently behind on arena numbers, that'll go such a long way towards helping us actually meet those numbers and get those needed housing units built.

Um but the reduction of minimum height thresholds, the small lot incentives all go a long way towards helping build more missing middle housing.

Love to see the section on ADUs aligning us with um state law, um, especially since when we looked into the permitting timelines um in the publicly available data earlier this year, we did find larger than expected timelines for ADU permit approval.

So we're really happy to see that staff is um uh working to improve those timelines.

Um I would be interested to see data for how what percentage of our ADU permits end up in in incomplete status moving forward, since we do have some concerns on that, but don't have very good data on that.

But in general, this is awesome stuff.

Um I urge Planning Commission to um uh break uh follow the recommendation of staff and thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Arusa.

I really appreciate your comments.

Um I see no other in-person speakers.

Um Ms.

X Land, do we have any raised hands on mine?

We do.

All right.

Uh Dylan Finch.

Yes.

Yeah, I I am allowed to do that, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh yes.

Uh hello, uh, honorable members of the planning commission.

Uh, my name is Dylan Finch.

Uh unfortunately I'm out of town.

I wasn't able to attend uh the whole meeting, but um, I did want to comment on this important item.

Um I think, yeah, uh some good questions so far.

I think the loss of the the public hearing for the 100% affordable projects is unfortunate.

Um but ultimately I think the ministerial review is a good idea here.

The planning commission has very little leeway to deny a request discretionary changes to these projects anyway.

And I feel like holding the hearing gives the impression that we can request these discretionary changes, uh, even though we can't in most cases.

Uh I think as was covered, the residents will still have the opportunity to submit feedback to staff and the developers through the project's website.

Um and I think that staff does an excellent job collecting public input during planning efforts, such as the ongoing greater downtown area plan and uh the public input collected for those larger planning efforts can be used to shape the individual projects.

Um and of course it's great to get the uh affordable housing built more quickly.

Um I really love deferring to state law on ADUs with all the state level changes.

I just think that makes a lot of sense.

Um with regard to the section on reducing parking minimums, um, I'm a big fan of that.

I would also be in favor of making it easier to uh expand the residential parking permit program to the areas that are affected by these reduced minimums.

Um I do believe that for these types of housing there will be fewer cars, but I think the permits could uh give existing residents some peace of mind with that.

And with the increased entitlement period, I'm in favor of increasing it from three to five.

I think the construction environment is very challenging right now, and I think the increase could help more projects get completed.

Um, when the construction market stabilizes and after this has been in effect for a few years, I would be interested in going back and just looking at the data just to make sure that the longer entitlement period doesn't make developers drag their feet um and and wait longer than necessary to pull the building permits and actually start construction.

But other than that, I think it's a great idea and overall really exciting changes.

So thank you, staff.

Oh, that was all thank you.

We we do not have any other hands raised, right?

That's what I was waiting for.

Thank you, makes excellent.

Um seeing no more speakers, I will now close the public hearing and I will open the meeting for committee discussion.

Commissioner Bottos.

Yes.

Um thank you so much, Staff, for um all of these updates.

This is uh I went through all the pages just to like see if anything stuck out and every single time I got into one of the amendments or changes or strike throughs, I was like, wow, this is a great change.

So it was very happy to read.

I mean, I I think this is uh incredible um step, and I think it's an incredible first step.

Um there's still many places in the code that may require more public input or more deliberation that I'm sure we can see might um inhibit development.

Um I j as I was slipping through, I saw that we still mandate um five parking spaces per bowling lane in a building.

Um we mandate uh for funeral homes, one space for every five seats in the chapel.

Um and some of these might make sense, but some of these I can see would already make a build not pencil out.

Um so my overall comments are I'm extremely excited.

And after we pass this, I hope more is coming.

Thank you, Commissioner Buddha.

Uh Commissioner Koch.

Thank you.

I just want to pick up on what um Commissioner Finch just said as he popped in to visit.

And I I know I've spoken about this before, but because I'm a resident of the downtown area, we have a lot of people living in affordable housing, knowing that there was no parking when they moved in, and then after they're there for a year or two, they can afford a car, but they have nowhere to park.

So that it has been a little bit of an issue because I'm still getting emails about that.

I really like the idea of potentially thinking about extending RPPs into those areas if as bigger projects open that are 100% affordable.

Um the only other thing I will say sort of to piggyback on that is that um senior housing.

Hey, I live in senior housing.

It's anybody over 50, basically, is where I live.

And that building was built in 1980, 88 units with about 55 parking spaces.

Um so way back then, they realized parking is much more expensive to build than units.

Um the problem is, even present day, we have anywhere from 10 to 25 residents that have to buy the gold parking pass across the lobby, and then buy for a parking space every night when they come home from work in this parking lot right here.

And I did it for 18 months until an inside spot opened, and if you can't find one, you can't find one.

And downtown, there's not a lot of places where we can park overnight.

So, as the downtown neighborhood in particular begins to grow as a neighborhood, just maybe something to think about for the future.

Thank you, Commissioner Koch.

Uh, Commissioner Cunejo.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I'm just I'm I'm thinking here, so bear with me.

I think so the changes just to remove barriers so that we can get closer to having more affordable housing are great.

There's a lot of people that could benefit from that.

I am concerned about the parking.

I I live in downtown Redwood City.

And I mean just today I was late because I couldn't find parking.

Um and I'm lucky enough in my in my apartment or I'm uh privileged enough to afford a parking spot, but I do know a lot of my neighbors can't afford 125 dollars a month for a parking spot.

So I do think that as we evolve as a city, we need to remember that we still have a community that you know could benefit from parking.

And I'm not saying that the other side isn't correct.

I just think that we need to remember that there's multiple communities to serve in our city.

Um so that to me is really important, and also the community that I re that I come from, like my family and you know, just friends and all of that, we all could benefit from parking.

Um from all ages, all backgrounds, and that's just something to keep in mind.

Another thing that I wanted to say that is concerning for me.

Um I'm really big on the public input.

I always think we could do more, even if we're doing great.

Um we could have more voices at the table, more people.

So I do I am a little bit concerned of of that part.

Um, but just wanted to make sure that I was expressing and making sure that all communities in Redwood City are being heard through this process.

Thank you, Commissioner Cornejo.

Um thank you.

Um so this is a uh a tremendous amount of work that staff did, and uh thank you for that.

I think this is probably over the last year, it seems like things you've been working on this, so um, it's tremendous.

Um I support um almost almost everything in here, I think the recommendations are great and they're all thoughtful and well thought out.

Um there is one, unfortunately, that I uh do not support, and that's the um mixed-use daylight plane, and that's section one A on page four of fourteen under the housing element implementation.

Um if you look at the looking at the uh at the diagram uh figure A, which is on page five, um, if you look at the right diagram, which is the proposal, the left diagram is is the uh current 15-foot daylight plane.

So the proposal is to um have a 45 degree angle um rising from 28 feet um 28 feet in height.

Um so if the setback assuming assume the setback for the um for for the larger build the building in the mixed use area is is is 10 feet.

Um that means that there would be a 38-foot um vertical wall um right on the uh um next to the property line, next to the neighbors property line.

Um I've been in houses of people whose neighbors um had built a 28-foot ADU on the property line, um, and it really felt oppressive to the to them, and these are actually people who support housing and ADUs, but it felt oppressive and it invaded their light and their privacy.

And this proposal I think takes that to an extreme.

38 feet is very tall.

Um I think it replaces a gradual transition under the current code at 15 feet with a vertical wall right by the property line that just looms over the house next door.

Um I think this so I think that this part of the proposal, and again, I support everything else in in all of this work here, but I think this part of the proposal um trades a small gain in buildable area against a really uh real loss in livability for the uh for the neighbors.

So that is uh those are my comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Um Commissioner Robinson.

Uh yes, um I I would just like the um I guess the the report of the recommendation to clarify that I think this is page 63, number one, ministerial review of 100 percent affordable housing.

If I understand correctly that state law only requires ministerial review of 100 percent affordable housing applications if they are covered by Senate Bill 35.

It's not clear that ministerial review of non-SB35 applications, um what the impact of that would be.

I mean, essentially we're giving developers um maybe two months less time frame for approval because they don't have to go through architectural or planning commission.

But if the arena it if that process then they can bypass SB 35 and do fewer affordable unit, fewer units of let's say lower uh affordability.

Um I I just right now this isn't clear.

Uh I think we had the discussion.

Um, but I think it would it would be helpful to make sure, I mean, if I were a council member, uh I would just like this to be clarified.

And if the unit mix on a non-SBA 35 application going through uh non-ministerial review could uh actually have fewer units of the affordability mix, like low, very low.

Does that make sense?

I can So you're about ready to rein me in here.

No, no, no, I'm not.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding um at the change in the income levels.

Is what you're asking?

Yeah, I think my I think I heard uh uh uh planner Rojas say that yes, under it's very complicated in arena.

And so under SB35 and therefore, you know, if if we're giving you the same streamlined of ministerial review, whether you're SB35 or a non-SBA 35, we're talking both 100 percent affordable, but one under SBA 35, if it has a more favorable affordable affordability mix, yeah, maybe we would then you know give you the same.

I'll clarify is that um the projects that use SB35 right now are 100 have been 100 percent in Redwood City have all been 100 percent affordable.

And I think that's pretty common.

So he he's totally right that there are different levels depending on your um how you how you are or aren't meeting RENA that the state applies and that percentage can change.

Um I would maybe not um put a high emphasis on that point because it's a very high affordability requirement that's typically and for us it is.

So if you just look at Redwood City and maybe sort of not think about the other cities for a second, um our requirement is 50 percent.

You have to have at least 50 percent affordable to um be able to apply for an SB 35 application.

Um so therefore you don't see projects that are 50 percent affordable, it's just not a prototype that's um developed.

I can't say never, but it hasn't been developed here.

I can say that.

So the um process is that SB 35 is used for 100 percent affordable projects because they meet that threshold.

So I think back to your point about they choose typically um they have been choosing since that uh bill was adopted.

The 100 percent affordable housing projects have chosen that path.

Um I think all of them have chosen that path since that bill was approved and said, hey, this is the fastest way that we've found to get through the process.

So I think you mentioned, hey, could they go through the typical entitlement process?

They could.

Um they have not chosen that.

They have found it to be faster to do the S B 35 process.

Does that answer?

It does, but I guess my concern would be if if I can get ministerial review and not use SBA 35, because I'm 100 percent affordable, but my affordability mix is not as favorable as it would be under an S B 35 application.

So the the, you know, if I'm SB35 and I'm gonna have more low, very low, moderate income units.

Um but if I'm non-SBA thirty-five, I'm still getting ministerial review, I'm getting that city incentive for streamlined processing, then maybe I'm most I'm all moderate affordability.

That's that would just be my concern there.

Are we losing anything by allowing non-SBA SB 35 projects to go through ministerial review?

Are they losing it, are we losing any units that would be affordable at a lower level?

I see.

I see.

And I know that's very hypothetical.

Yeah.

But I'm always trying to analyze adverse consequences.

Um I'll say one of the hardest types of housing to get built is moderate income housing because of the tax increment financing.

So what we see is we more often see housing built at lower income levels when it's 100 percent affordable housing because of the way tax increment financing works, tax credits work.

Tax credit is not taxing.

They favor those types.

So there is a theoretical option out there that says, hey, I'm a hundred percent moderate.

Let me think through this.

I'm 100% moderate.

Would I because of I would go through the city's process.

No, they could go through SB 35 as well.

So they could go through either process because they're 100% affordable housing, right?

Apollo, am I missing something?

I think there is some low uh affordability requirement involved with SB35 trying to pull that up right now.

But I think you're to echo the point of moderate income.

On the screen here, we have uh a chart of our arena obligations.

We have to hit a variety of income levels.

And I will say, and the last cycle of um or you know, our arena target or arena goals, we did not make much ground on moderate.

So it would I it would be uh very surprising if we were able to hit that moderate number, just given how difficult it is to finance that particular type.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think it'd be surprising to find that as a hundred percent a moderate project to be built.

So I think we're saying it's theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

Okay.

Um I think this will be an interesting one just to keep an eye on.

Um if if non-SB35 projects start coming through what they look like.

Um I'm just looking for if they're if if we're giving someone you know a developer more flexibility than is necessary.

The nonprofit developers using the low-income housing tax credit are very clearly, you know, mission driven, incented to go after extreme low, very low, low.

Um my concern would just be if we're just giving a little bit too much unnecessarily.

Um so um, but largely our hands are tied when it's SBA thir SB35.

Um I think that's enough discussion on that.

Thank you, Commissioner Robinson.

Um I have also a couple of comments.

Um speaking about parking, uh I do agree, and I think I support the the no parking requirements for 100% affordable housing.

Um and I do wonder about you know extending some of these development benefits through other parts of the city.

I know this only currently applies uh I guess to multifamily districts.

Um reducing public uh parking requirements in the R1 to R2 and maybe through R4, would that require a particular study, or is that something that uh could be done as part of a code update?

Like a further reduction in parking requirements.

The reason I'm asking here, uh there's two part questions.

One is about like for single family housing, you know, that is is that enshrining state law that parking is requirement for any single family home.

Um because if you go to the outside areas of Redwood City, um they are very sparse, of course.

Uh and the public already or the city already subsidizes two street parking spots per parcel usually.

Uh and then of course there's garage parking and and um carport or driveway parking, so that's four vehicles potentially per particular housing units.

I'm just curious whether any requirements from the state side or you know what would it take to update uh R1, R2 and R3 zones parking requirements.

You want me to give it a shot first while you want to jump in.

Um so I I think tonight, like we were saying it, and I think many of you were saying this is the sort of first step to to understand.

Um as you as you all mentioned, there's AB 2097, which has one half mile from the transit.

There are no parking minimums for any use.

So that's a pretty um sizable part of the city to start with.

Um and then this was you know the next step to sort of say there are certain uses that we think uh do not need to have minimum parking requirements.

And then the um we want to bring forward as part of our um the um MTC transit-oriented communities work that we are um starting, just have just started, it was quite delayed um because of um MTC's sort of rolling out of that program that that as part of that there are there's a more parking work being done by Redwood City, we have a consultant, and there are um some work on sort of densities, um, and then one more piece of state legislation that's come down is um SB 79, which also looks at increasing density around transit.

So we have and there's some um alternatives that cities can adopt if they want to.

So we'll be coming back to you with that.

So there's there's kind of several pieces that are coming up um over the next several months to a year that are um uh will align those two topics together uh sort of increasing density and thinking about that, as well as how do we want to think about um parking in a city.

Yeah.

Sort of increasing density and thinking about that, as well as how do we want to think about um parking in a city.

So it is great to hear what whatever feedback you do have on that is is welcome so that um as we kind of move forward we we know where uh what the commissioner would like to see.

Sounds great.

Um yeah, I mean my only comment is if you go into the R1, which is more than 50% of the area or city, uh, you know, each particular parcel has uh by code requirement a garage spot, uh a driver spot, and then they're usually two publicly subsidized street spots available, so that's four vehicles per housing unit, which seems you know quite um luxurious, uh, which is great.

I think people can enjoy whatever we have, uh, but it perhaps not requiring uh the on-parcel uh either garage or um driveway parking may allow for larger um for more housing development.

I mean, uh along those lines, if one develops a ADU on a R1 fire melee lot, is parking extra parking required, like off-site?

No.

Okay, at least in that respect it's not.

Great.

Um I mean to continue this discussion.

I think I I do appreciate the comments from my fellow commissioners about downtown requirement for parking, but you know, downtown only comprises less than 10% of the city area, and one of the things about downtown is that it is served by transit, uh, and one it's kind of difficult to expect the amenities of an R1 neighborhood uh, you know, and the luxury that is having four vehicle parking spots per housing unit uh in a downtown core.

And I think it's something that I I do appreciate um and encourage staff to be able to encourage mode shifting uh of people who live downtown to be able to um commute uh in other modes.

Uh I know not everyone can do it for other reasons, but uh I think it's certainly possible.

Uh and I think we need to encourage that.

Uh in terms of other uh code changes, I have some concerns about open space requirements.

Um I know 300 square feet does sound like a lot per unit.

125 is small, but if I guess if we're making assistant with multifamily developments, um I'm okay with that.

Um but yeah, I um right.

Um open space is at a premium, and I know that the staff is having a difficult time, or at least we are as a city have a hard time getting open space for citizens in downtown.

There's a few parks that we're trying to make a linear park.

Uh so I think having the opportunities for residents to have at least uh within their development of some open space is is helpful.

All right.

Commissioner Hunter.

Can I make a motion?

Uh you can make would you like to make a motion as well?

Or you can go next, but I I had an additional comment.

Oh, please, Commissioner Roman's enforcement.

Yeah.

So I think um we've all heard comments about parking, and I think we have to comply with state law on ADUs and other requirements.

We are one of the older cities between San Francisco and San Jose.

We have neighborhoods that are already parking constrained that are going to be impacted by these changes that the state has brought down on us.

Valota Avenue.

Um there are streets now that historically did not have cars on the street that now only have enough traffic to fit one car at a time going one direction.

And that that is just going to continue to be, I think, a topic of conversation among city staff and neighborhood associations to figure out how we can manage that.

It is not new to areas that have redeveloped with significant affordable housing.

Um I've I work in affordable housing um tangentially through um banking and through nonprofit service.

Um the massive redevelopment of the Hunters Point area in San Francisco created a huge parking issue.

It's just it's one of those things that's very, very difficult to mitigate due to the high expense.

So I I'm sure that the city staff is used to hearing this and it is just part of the plan to hopefully manage going forward.

Well, certainly one that has to manage expectations uh in this particular case because it's a different type of housing that is being provided in a higher density neighborhood than you know, a single family that comes.

These are those luxuries very old.

Some of these are very old existing neighborhoods, and the um street plotting in our city has not been consistent.

Um you can go through some neighborhoods while you have a wide street, lots of parking, some neighborhoods where if people park on each either both sides of the street, only one car can go through at a time, even though it's two-way traffic.

So I've seen the yeah, I've seen those in certainly the lota is is probably the most visible example.

Um but there are ways to to deal with this.

Uh and I was gonna say uh I have seen uh on Palm Avenue, I have a similar issue where actually one side of the street was reduced, basically eliminated on street parking to be able to have clearance for both vehicles to pass each other, because otherwise there could be an accident.

So there and their engineering efforts available uh to solve these issues.

But go ahead and come.

Oh, any further comment?

No.

Commissioner Hunter, sorry.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Um so I think I would like to make a motion and uh uh do what uh I think how the city council often does this is uh um I would like to uh make the motion um to accept this uh well wherever the recommendation is here to accept the entire recommendation with the exception of the mixed use uh the section on the mixed use daylight plane.

Uh I'd like to s so we'll split the whole thing up into two.

Um and then um so uh the motion I would like to make is to um approve the uh the staff recommendation with that one exception and then um after that vote uh any commissioners who want, I think can uh uh make and set move and seconded second about the um mixed use daylight plane.

Is that uh acceptable I think so uh in terms of protocol and procedure I think we'll turn the protocol and all we will be able to then vote separately on the resolution as is for recommendation and then have a separate recommendation just for that particular item.

Yes.

I'm not sure I understand the motion.

I think you need to have a very clear motion, get a second, and then it's up and down on the motion and whole.

I don't think you can break down the well it it will it'll it'll be uh it would be too much it'll end up being two motions.

So my motion would be to adopt this resolution with the exception of the section relating to daylight use or mixed use daylight plane.

That that that is my motion right now, period.

You would delete um that amendment.

Yeah, Paula, do you mind just telling us what section that is just so we could put it in the record?

Yeah, absolutely, Ms.

X line.

So that uh daylight plane uh amendment is located in three separate uh zoning districts, uh three separate mixed use districts.

That's Article 53, Article 54, and Article 55.

Unless we need to get more uh uh detailed uh I think I got you get it coming up.

This is just a recommendation anyway, so we don't have to have it.

Perfect.

Okay, thank you.

And then I guess we need a second.

Um do we have a second for a motion to I will second.

Second?

Yeah.

All right, Commissioner But second.

Um do we have a discussion on this before we vote?

Would anyone like uh Commissioner Robinson?

Uh yes, I I won't support the motion.

I think uh we need further discussion on it.

Uh I think um I appreciate the fact that you expressed your concern over it in your neighbors' experience.

Um I think I would like to see a little bit more uh diagrams of what that would look like um before making that uh change.

Wait, um did you say you won't support the motion?

Correct.

Um so the motion is to approve everything here except that which we'll vote on next.

Agreed.

I think for that particular item, if we are gonna take one item out of here, I think it merits further discussion.

So I'd like to have further discussion about it um before taking a vote on it.

Okay.

So great.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Robinson.

Commissioner Butt.

Yeah.

So I've I have separate thoughts on the the daylight motion, but I'll save that for the second vote.

Um but uh at least I detained the motion, the idea of the vote.

Um I I think um specifically on parking, uh just to chime in as a uh downtown resident, I guess the majority of council is downtown residents now that I think about it.

Um I got by perfectly fine um for many years in Redwood City without a car.

Um I it is a luxury I own now.

It is not a necessity.

Um and I also understand that many parts of downtown Redwood City are already subject to state law that do not require parking or ban parking minimums in the first place.

Um but I personally don't believe it's gonna be that much of a hit to um remove the parking um minimums.

Specifically on the point that Commissioner Robinson made about older neighborhoods.

Um while I do also experience the same plight of car of streets that are clearly not wide enough for the car and parking situation, there are also plenty of houses in those neighborhoods um to paint a really broad stroke um that do seem to be underutilizing much of the um parking space available to them, including not using the garage, not using the driveway, and instead opting to use our public streets and use their designate their parking spaces for other uses.

So it's I'm only so sympathetic to the idea that we don't have enough parking in those neighborhoods when I see underutilization everywhere.

But I I will support the car and vote uh because I believe everything is in order and nice.

Thank you, Commissioner Bott.

Um Commissioner Cornejo.

I just um I was unclear with what was removed, so I was just wondering if I could get some clarity on that.

Um I will try to do my best.

So we're uh voting on the resolution as is, minus just three articles that are related to the daylight plane uh that Commissioner Hunter wanted to pool for a separate discussion.

Do you you want us to um go through what that amendment was about the daylight plane again?

Would that help?

Yes, because that right now, like I don't really know what I'm voting for.

Sure.

So there's while you want to bring that up and show the the current code and then the amendment that we're proposing.

And I think um Commissioner Hunter is saying that he does not want to make the amendment.

He would like to retain the existing code as is.

Correct.

Yeah.

Uh and just for clarification, the section in the I uh I don't know if you're looking at it, but the section in the staff report is the one that be is at the bottom of page four of fourteen.

And it extends to the uh middle of page fifth, page five.

What page are you on?

Uh 66 on the thick page.

Oh, 66.

Yeah.

There's three numbering systems in all the pages.

So but the one that says page four fourteen is at the bottom middle.

It's 66 of the big number.

If it pleases the chair, I could describe the daylight plane while you while you like it.

Now is the perfect time to review this too.

Uh so essentially the daylight plane acts as a setback, particularly for the upper stories to make sure that uh light in there is reaches uh adjacent properties, hence the term daylight.

And so here uh this imaginary 45 degree angle line starts at the property line from a certain height.

Currently it starts at 15 feet height, and you have to uh uh then the left diagram showing that 15 foot height, how it uh requires the upper stories, the third and fourth story in this case, to step back do the to the proximity to the uh property line to the of the building.

So there's a couple options, right?

Either you step back the entire building, so you just have a big uh straight wall, or you have this sort of wedding cake effect, which uh we've seen in a couple of projects as a result of this requirement, and has not really resulted in let's say the most architecturally desirable uh results.

So part of it is maintaining uh a bit of form, uh standard uh single family um maximum building height is 28 feet, hence why we're starting uh at that or proposing that point, with the idea being this daylight plane wouldn't begin until um you know the standard uh maximum height of 28 feet.

So currently, in most residential districts, you can have two abutting 28-foot-tall structures with six-foot side setbacks.

Uh here talking about mixed-use districts that primarily involve major corridors such as El Camino, Veterans, Woodside Road.

Uh, it would apply to um to uh sites adjacent to our lower density areas, our R1 or two, R3.

We would actually have no daylight plane in our higher next to higher density areas such as R4 or R5.

So just to be clear, again, this would A increase the where the daylight plane begins, potentially allowing uh uh building massing a little bit more consistent, what the maximum allowed height is in the adjacent property.

It would remove it when it's next to existing multi-family higher density multi-family areas such as R4R5, because those uh tend to have a variety of uses, not just single family.

They also have higher density multifamily.

And uh uh there are other daylight planes for um properties next to public open spaces and uh historic resources, but we're not proposing any changes to those daylight planes.

Okay.

Um just for clarification, so the two diagrams, one is for multifamily exterior yard setbacks front and then the other the other one is for residential zoning district.

Um sorry.

The two different ones.

One is the fifth fifth floor is being set back, and then the other one is a wedding cake.

So you were saying so for the multifamily uh ones, if they're located next to already uh R4, R5 multifamily, then there will be no requirement for for stepbacks for for daylight planes.

Yes, that's correct.

I think what we've seen on some of these um step back areas is actually because there's building footprint there, it's a roof of the second story.

It gets used as balcony essentially, and so maybe a roof deck takes the place of what be it just be a a uh a building.

And and mind you, you know, these districts also have architectural standards as well.

So um the idea wouldn't be that it'd be a flat uh building face, there'd be some um architectural elements, ideally that uh that are maybe a little bit more of interest than this very uh generic uh building massing uh shown on the screen.

Can I have ask a follow-up question?

Of course.

And and why are we removing this from the item?

Or or Commissioner Hunter made a motion recommendation?

My concern is that um under the proposal the um it would be allowed a uh say there's a 10 says there's a 10 foot setback there, and starting at 28 feet and you go 45 degrees, there would be up to a th there would be a 38-foot vertical wall next to um a home or residence uh next door.

This was this this would only apply.

I mean the the whole thing is fairly limited because it would only apply when um a structure a building is proposed um in a multi-use area which is adjacent to one of the residential areas.

Um but in that case, uh my concern is that that would allow a 38-foot wall uh right next to a home.

Got it, got it.

Okay.

So the the first picture is this in R1, R2, R3.

The the 15 to 28 increase.

Uh yeah, the cur first picture here on the left is the existing standard, and that applies to any um residential development adjacent to another residential property.

So, you know, depending on whether or not you're located next to a residential unit, that determines whether or not you have to apply this additional upper story setback, this daylight plane.

So you're sort of uh uh uh I'll just may say penalized uh based on what the adjacent uses uh may be.

Uh so you're having a more stringent setback maybe than someone that's located next to a uh commercial property in a mixed-use zone.

But if you're gonna have a four-story building, you you know you probably won't be able to build it in R1.

Oh, correct, yeah.

This only applies to mixed-use uh zoning districts.

So this daylight plane doesn't exist in R1 districts.

How it does apply is mixed-use districts that are adjacent to R1, R2, R3, which are um just more categorically lower density zoning districts.

Yeah, a helpful of that border on the city map will be very helpful.

But it is if we have a photo of the zone map uh of the city, we would pinpoint exactly where this border and afflicted properties would be.

But uh presume it's something that goes along the lines of El Camino right on the west side of it, uh where M U T goes to R4.

Um but that's just my guess.

Yeah, I'd say that's accurate.

Uh a majority of or a good portion of El Camino Real, you know, is within our downtown uh precise plan.

And so there's standards there uh regarding setbacks.

Uh but outside of those areas, uh yeah, El Camino and I'd say Woodside Road uh is probably another uh predominant area uh where if there are single family properties abutting the rear of Woodside Road properties, uh they're likely subject uh to this daylight plane requirement.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robinson, you had your light on.

I would just say the in the proposed 28-foot daylight plane in the example page six on the right hand one.

Um this is an example of a four-story building, is that right?

Yeah, it's just illustrative.

Uh I'll I'll uh you know preface this disclaimer is it's not necessarily two scale uh perfectly, but uh yeah, I think um just to provide uh imagery, it most likely would affect uh those two upper stories.

And that but and this is a presumption that it would be you know somebody would be proposing a four-story building.

Yes, the image on the right would be a four-story building.

That's correct, yeah.

Okay.

Commissioner Hunter, did you want to speak?

Did you have your arm raised?

I wasn't sure if you needed to speak.

Okay.

And then just to go back to the motivation for this.

So this is because you wanted a more uniform massing or at least ability to have different, I guess, massing types that were not wedding cake like in uh because they ended up having these balconies on multiple floors as a way to have satisfy this daylight plane requirement.

So it would allow for m higher utilization of this envelope.

Yeah, that's correct.

The allow more uh buildable area, you know, any time you introduce a new corner, a new setback, a new entry point, it adds additional cost to construction.

And so, you know, uh we're not saying we want to see you know big boxes uh go up, but at the same time uh the idea was you know, housing element program, small lots, this this this concept, you know, adjacent to missing middle of how can we uh as a city tweak different development standards, whether that's heights, setbacks, parking, open space, to try to uh broaden out and expand the allowable uh development there it can be got it.

Makes sense.

Um okay, thank you.

Um Commissioner Hunter.

Okay, I just wanted to um I guess repeat to the my fellow commissioners uh procedurally, my intent is just to simply break up this entire recommendation, which we I think we all support into two parts.

And so if you support this entire recommendation, including this, um I would say uh I would vote yes on the current one, and then um a commissioner uh should uh move and second to have a separate vote on the part that was was removed here, and you would vote yes on that.

And then it would be basically the same as approving the whole thing from the start.

I agree, Commissioner Hunter.

I I think I think we're okay with the intent of the report.

Well, I didn't I think Commissioner Robinson, I wasn't sure if he was on board with that.

Uh well I no, I I completely understand our procedures, and that's why I spoke to say I I won't support after we went after we had a a motion of a second on the floor.

And I asked, I I thought you referenced um your neighbors or friends ADU that are adjacent to them.

And so I thought, well, this isn't an ADU example.

Um I don't think we had sufficient discussion on the parts of the city that this would apply to where we actually have multi-use uh adjacent to um residential zoning districts.

And I know that you you mentioned it verbally, but you know we're talking about policy for the city to move forward with that will be codified in our in uh in our zoning ordinance.

So that's why I thought, you know, I feel like um it merits a little bit more data and information, like where where will this apply in the city before we decide to go against staff recommendation?

I mean staff clearly knows this, they've studied it.

Um they have experience with proposals on the table and they know what it will impact and inhibit.

Um so that's that's my thinking is that uh it merits a little bit further discussion.

I I appreciate we've had more discussion here, but there are multi-use districts adjacent to residential.

I don't know where they are, I don't know how many parcels are impacted.

So my only point about the uh ADU was not to it was not to indicate that this is applied to ADUs or anything, it's just uh that um the those that was a case with a 28-foot wall, and this is 38, you know, we give if that's what what the setback is.

So that was my only point about that.

Yeah.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Um I do have uh actually uh uh question related to this.

So where MUT goes down to R1, I think that currently there's a project on Vera Avenue that is an SP35 project.

It's a seven-story building adjacent to a single-story single-family house.

So that is not complying with any of these standards.

Uh so my question, I guess, for Mr.

Rojas is that you know, are there instances where you know, due to state law this will not even apply?

Yeah, I think that's some of the challenge you, you know, with uh objective development standards is that you have um the state density bonus law.

And a lot of times we've seen the state density bonus law not even necessarily utilized for additional or bonus density, but for the waivers and concessions that come along with it to uh waive or or or exempt uh certain development standards.

Uh so uh uh for that particular uh project uh that was the process.

Uh and if a similar affordable housing project came in in a mixed use zoning district where the state light plane applies and admit certain affordability criteria, it could too use a concession to potentially uh uh concession out of that development standard, like it could any development standard including uh parking.

Yeah, and I'll clarify that that could be a market rate project with um affordable housing as part of it too.

It could have so if it meets our inclusionary requirement, they can also um they have the ability to uh get certain number of waivers and concessions based on kind of their projects.

So yes, several several examples in which this and many other standards can simply have been ignored, great be ignored.

Wonderful.

Um before I guess we since we have a motion and a second before we vote uh on the motion on the floor.

Seeing none, I guess we are voting uh whether to approve the resolution minus uh sections 53, 54, and 55 related to the daylight section.

We had a second.

Sorry, I got lost in that.

Okay, yes, we had a second.

I was I was second.

So we're second, yes, thank you.

I'll explain the second reasoning later.

Uh all right, I will do roll call.

Commissioner Bot.

Yes.

Commissioner Cornejo.

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson.

No.

Vice Chair Koch?

Yes.

And Chair Sonaga Rats.

No.

Okay.

So we have the motion passes four to two with one absent.

Uh okay.

I think the the way this was structured actually gave the wrong impression in terms of how this was being a good thing.

So um yeah.

I I think maybe a better way to have done it is to introduce an amendment to strip this particular uh section uh from this zoning code update and then vote on the amendment first uh and then vote on the resolution as a whole.

I think you could make a second motion.

Yeah, I think what what Commissioner Hunter was envisioning is now that everything else has been approved, if any other commissioner also wants to now make a motion to approve the remainder that he carved out, it's within your pro any of your prerogatives to make that motion and then see if there's a majority of commissioners who would vote yes to also make the full staff recommendation.

Got it.

Can I then clarify my vote for the previous motion?

It's a yes then.

Yes, that's fine.

Okay, so we'll have five in favor and one opposed.

Okay.

Are there any other motions?

I I'd like to make a motion to also approve sections 50 articles 53.

I'll also approve also recommend articles 53 to 55 be approved that we stripped out of the previous motion.

Why wait why did we strip it out?

Commissioner Hunter made a motion.

That was my but now we're approving this again separately.

Okay.

So the motion on the do you want to clarify the motion on the table just so everybody has it?

The motion on the table right now is Commissioner Hunter is introducing the piece that was left out from the from the first main motion.

So the just introduces that.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Oh, I know, but I think he's trying to explain to me.

Yeah, so we're just voting for the small bit that was missing from the main meet we just passed.

Uh so it's the daylight plane requirements uh or new new standards for the daylight plane.

So can I hear the motion again, Commissioner Bott?

Uh motion to recommend.

Recommend.

Yeah, sorry, motion that we that I recommend we that council approve sections 53, I mean articles 53 through 55.

Should I enumerate though?

53, 54, 55.

Um on the daylight plane.

On the daylight plane.

Yeah.

Um second the motion.

All right.

Commissioner Robertson second.

Uh we were open the discussion on this particular part.

Any comments before we take a vote on this section?

Commissioner Pai.

Yes, just to clarify my intention.

Um I didn't realize that the procedural thing we did before was a mess.

But the I I heard that Commissioner Robinson wanted more discussion on this, and I was particularly unclear about why there was enough opposition to deny it.

So that I just uh um seconded that motion just so there would be more discussion that we can work off of.

Um but given what I heard and given that it seems that all projects that this or most projects of this might be relevant to are probably utilizing a state law that this does that makes this not apply to it anyways.

Um given that uh I trust in staff's expertise, I would still recommend that we recommend this to council.

Thank you, Commissioner Bott.

Yeah, as a standard.

Commissioner uh Cunejo.

So now I'm saying yes or no, right?

No, no, we're not voting, we're just discussing.

Commissioner Robinson.

Uh I mean I second the motion to support I'm uh the change.

I wasn't sure we're in the discussion phase if you wanted to add anything more.

Yeah, no, we have a uh motion made and seconded, so now we're in the discussion phase.

Sorry, I still have my light on.

Okay, great.

Um yeah, no, I I I do agree with this.

Uh I I would like to have this updated version of the uh of the um daylight plane act, uh dayline planning.

Uh I I think we always gonna have an issue where we have the step down from multifamily high density neighborhoods to single residential neighborhoods, and that is gonna expand over time.

So um, you know, if if one makes a step-down building, then you know, in a generation's time you're gonna have three more parcels next to it.

So we're gonna have like I don't know, multiple wedding cakes in a row because we're expanding our multifamily parts and uh so I I don't necessarily think that this is you know uh with a view in the future we'll we'll stand the test of time.

So I think having the flexibility uh for the for the um developer to decide whether envelope and building form should be is is good things.

Oh can I just to respond to Commissioner Crunelly?

So about what this means because it's more confusing than I imagined it would be.

So what I would say to you is if you would have voted what so what's on the screen here?

If I hadn't done all this stuff, if you would have voted yes, then you should have yes on this.

Yeah, that's what I think that's what I understood.

That's why I asked the question of so now we're voting yes on this, because we're recommending the whole packet.

Yeah, correct.

Pretty much.

Yes, correct.

And Commissioner Koch.

Thank you.

Now I'm confused because I thought so.

If we I think this is gonna be easy.

If we if we vote yes now, just on this specific piece that we've already carved out.

We're back to the same as if we passed the whole thing.

We're back to the same as if we passed the whole 497,000 pages at once.

Yes.

Thank you.

Would it oh that was not a yes for this?

That was yesterday, Commissioner.

Um Commissioner Hunter, yes.

Would it make sense for um Commissioner Bott to um add to his um his his motion that the intent is to restore recommendation 2602?

I mean, would would that would go would that be helpful?

I think that's the effect of what that is what he would.

We don't need to add any clear clarification of that.

Well, except that there's confusion.

So the confusion is just to put it in a different way.

Uh I think Commissioner Hunter would have pref prefers not to be in the position of if there was simply a motion to approve the whole thing.

Commissioner Hunter would have felt compelled to vote no on that.

And he wants to be on record as supporting everything about this except for that one carve out.

So he made that special motion.

That was approved, and now the the rest of the commissioners who want to approve the whole shebang, uh that's basically what Commissioner Bott's motion was to prove the whole Shebane.

Thank you so much for clarification.

That really clarifies the intent behind the complex motion.

Um all right.

If there's no further discussion, I will uh let Ms.

X line do the call vote.

Okay, Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Corneho.

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter.

No.

Commissioner Robinson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch.

Yes.

And Jersonagaratz.

Yes.

Okay.

The motion passes six to one.

Five five to one.

Five to one.

Oh my gosh.

I even did a little nice little thing tally here that should have told me that very easily.

Uh yes, that's it.

Five to one.

All right.

That concludes item six B.

We're moving on to item seven.

Planning commission liaison updates of matters of committee interest.

Okay.

So we are likely canceling the May 19th upcoming planning commission meeting.

I will send out an official announcement on that next week if that's um happening, but it does seem like that's um unlikely to happen.

We are um trying to schedule this as we mentioned, I think at the joint meeting last time, a joint planning commission and another joint planning commission NAAC session on the objective design standards.

So a little taste of what you saw tonight times many, many uh will be sort of the the flavor of that is you know as we as the city moves to get more objective design standards so that the there's less subjectivity in our zoning code.

That's what this next um code update that we're bringing.

So this will be a study session.

So there'll be lots of time to sort of go into um you know detailed discussions about um those objective standards, and we are we're trying to hone in on exactly which date.

We've targeted a couple here, um either the second or the sixteenth.

So that's the big item.

There's a couple other small items that are sort of becoming as well.

Um and then uh just looking ahead, we are still targeting July 21st for the um workshop on GDAP, which will be all of the um there's two um different sessions.

The so all of the uh BCCs, the boards, commissions and committees will be um coming into two different sessions to have a large kind of workshop on the the next step of the Greater Downtown Area Planning process.

So um those are all the updates I have.

Thank you.

Just to clarify, uh are we trying to schedule two joint meetings in June or one of those dates will work?

Just one.

Uh there will be one joint meeting.

Those are the two dates we're targeting, and we have yet to land on which one of those dates.

Excellent.

I will just put in for June 16th.

Yes, I was gonna ask, is there like do we share a preference or um unfortunately no?

Um I hope we hope if there's quorum, um, we are trying to schedule several items.

There's several there's a couple other items um that are not listed on here.

So um June 16th, we are having a meeting on um the proposed SB 79 and our proposed approach to that.

So that is scheduled for for June 16th, and this will likely be scheduled for June 2nd if we can make the timing because it would be a lot to do on June 16th.

So do let me know if you're unable to attend and we and um a meeting, then please do let me know.

Okay.

I'll I'll talk to you offline because I think I have I have a stop a certain time on June 2nd.

Okay, yeah.

So I will chat.

Okay, yeah.

And and um I'll just maybe uh get take the chance to remind folks that um if you do want to attend um via the Brown Act and you're want to retend attend remotely, um you can do that as long as you post your address and you um put it on the agenda.

We send that agenda out on Friday.

I think some folks are more familiar with that, but I just kind of wanted to remind folks of that um uh process, and then you you post that and then you you know post uh the agenda 72 hours in advance on the meeting note um meeting space as well.

So there's so in case as we're getting into summer and folks want to think about if they need to attend remotely, there are there are options as as well as other options for just cause, but um to dust off we'll we'll send you kind of a reminder on those as well as to just remember how how to kind of process how to how to go through that's the steps to do that.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Uh that concludes the items for tonight's agenda.

The next planning commission meeting is 10 to 2 is scheduled for May 19th at 6 p.m.

All right.