Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee Joint Meeting Study Session on Draft Objective Design Standards Ordinance - June 2, 2026

The Redwood City Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) held a joint study session on June 2, 2026, to review and provide feedback on the proposed Draft Objective Design Standards Ordinance. The ordinance aims to implement General Plan policies, comply with state housing laws, and streamline residential project approvals by establishing clear, objective design standards. The meeting included a staff presentation, public comments, and extensive discussion by commissioners and committee members. No formal votes were taken; the session was intended to gather input for further refinement.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Sue Nix (Rabbit Shores Community Association) expressed frustration over lack of response to emails regarding the Redwood Live project and urged the commission to participate in a community walk.
• Michael Arruza Cruz (Yes in Redwood City resident) expressed support for objective standards but raised concerns about the common space amenity requirement (1% of construction cost per 50 units) creating a cost cliff that discourages adding units, and about strict standards for projects under four units.
• Alice Kaufman (Green Foothills) advocated for stronger exterior lighting standards, noting that the current draft allows color temperatures up to 5,000 Kelvin for parking areas and 6,500 Kelvin for sports courts, which can harm human health and wildlife. She requested reconsideration and offered to submit written recommendations.
• Davena Fentry (San Mateo County Bird Alliance) highlighted the severe decline in bird populations and urged the city to adopt bird-safe building standards, noting that many nearby cities (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, etc.) have already done so. She also supported stronger light pollution standards.
• Dash Leeds (Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter) supported adding bird-safe design language (citing Mountain View’s approach via CalGreen) and strengthening lighting standards, noting that the current draft’s color temperature floor (minimum Kelvin) could prohibit warm lighting (e.g., 2200K) and that high Kelvin values reduce visibility and increase glare.
• Inna Magner (SMC Bird Alliance volunteer) echoed calls for bird-friendly design and dark sky lighting standards, emphasizing the impact on migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Community Development Director Jeff Schwob presented the ordinance’s structure, including standards for lighting, bird-safe glass (not currently addressed), open space, amenities, and gateway areas. He noted that the ordinance applies primarily to residential development and creates a discretionary review option for projects seeking flexibility.
• Commissioner and Committee Member Feedback:
  • Prescriptiveness vs. Flexibility: Multiple members (Committee Members Stewart, Jenkins, Tanakatsubo; Commissioners Finch, Hunter, Robinson, Cornejo) expressed concern that the standards lean heavily toward traditional design (pitched roofs, porches, bay windows) and may stifle contemporary or diverse architectural styles. They noted that homeowners wanting modern designs would be forced into discretionary review, which adds time and cost. Suggestions included focusing on bulk and massing rather than specific stylistic elements.
  • Lighting and Bird Safety: Several members supported strengthening lighting standards (lower color temperatures, dark sky considerations) and adding bird-safe glass requirements, but acknowledged the need to balance with residential feasibility. Staff noted that a comprehensive ordinance might be better addressed separately or as a future zoning code update.
  • Amenities and Cost Cliffs: Commissioners Butt, Finch, and Koch criticized the 1% construction cost amenity requirement and the prescriptive list of amenities, arguing it could discourage development, especially affordable projects. They suggested lowering or removing the requirement for affordable projects, or allowing more flexibility.
  • Specific Standards: Committee Member Stewart raised issues with matching neighbor heights, window proportions, garage door widths, and the requirement for front doors to face the street. Committee Member King questioned how split-level homes would comply with height comparisons. Commissioner Robinson questioned the 15-foot upper-story setback and tree spacing (20-40 feet). Chair Crnogorac questioned the personal storage requirement (80 cubic feet) and window transparency requirements, and provided extensive comments on tree standards (planting strips, tree grates, minimum box size, and requiring one tree per lot).
  • Missing Middle Housing: Commissioners Hunter and Finch emphasized ensuring the standards accommodate cottage courts and courtyard buildings.
  • Workshop Suggestion: Committee Member Tanakatsubo proposed a workshop with the local AIA chapter to test the standards on real-world scenarios, which was supported by Commissioner Finch.

Key Outcomes

• The study session concluded with no formal action; staff will use the feedback to refine the ordinance.
• Next steps include: (1) possible review by the Airport Land Use Commission, (2) a public hearing before the AAC, (3) a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and (4) a City Council public hearing, with adoption targeted by the end of October 2026.
• Staff will consider lowering color temperature limits, exploring a pilot project for low-spectrum lighting, and potentially developing a separate comprehensive ordinance for bird-safe glass and dark sky standards.
• The suggestion to engage the AIA chapter for a design workshop will be explored by staff.
• The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 16, 2026; no AAC meetings are scheduled for June or July 2026.