OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

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

Planning Commission — Tuesday, June 2, 2026
BodyRedwood City, California
SessionPlanning Commission
DateTuesday, June 2, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:04:03
Transcript — Verbatim
5:01

The idea of what we have to pre-cause that's excellent.

5:08

I feel like I just dishovel.

5:16

Okay.

5:24

I mean that's a question of items.

5:30

Okay.

5:31

I think the back lines might get the lenses.

6:04

I need to party it up or not.

6:06

All right.

6:08

You okay?

6:08

Good.

6:10

All right, we're good.

6:12

All right, good evening, and thank you for joining our June 2nd, 2026 Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee joint meeting.

6:19

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

6:23

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

6:27

For those who may be joining us for the first time.

6:45

In-person speakers, please fill out speaker cards like these and hand them out to the staff at the dais uh to be recognized.

6:53

If you're joining us virtually, you may use the raise hand feature on Zoom to speak.

6:57

If you're joining us, we are teleconference by phone.

6:59

You may raise your hand by dialing star nine and star six to unmute your microphone when prompted.

7:05

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

7:09

Each speaker is allotted three minutes and in-person speakers.

7:13

There will be a light at the podium to let you know how much time you have left and a buzzer when time is up.

7:17

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.

7:24

Planning commission welcomes public comment on items within within our purview.

7:28

Any speaker whose comments are on topics not under the commission's purview will be warned and then removed if necessary in order to allow planning commission to conduct their business.

7:38

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

7:51

Commissioner Cornejo here.

7:54

Commissioner Finch?

7:55

Here.

7:56

Commissioner Hunter?

7:58

Here.

7:59

Commissioner Robinson?

8:00

Here.

8:01

Vice Chair Koch?

8:02

Here.

8:03

And Chair Sunogaretz.

8:05

Here.

8:10

I'll just go ahead and read the architectural advisory.

8:12

Committee roll call as well.

8:14

Committee member Davidevits.

8:19

Absent.

8:21

Committee member Jenkins.

8:23

Here.

8:25

Committee member King.

8:31

Vice Chair Stewart.

8:33

Here.

8:34

And Chair Tanakasubo.

8:36

Here.

8:37

Uh youth committee member Perettis.

8:41

It's also absent.

8:50

I'm Sue Xline.

8:52

I'm the Assistant Community Development Director.

8:53

Evelyn Garcia, associate planner and I'm the liaison to the Commission.

8:55

Tonight I'm here with Rick Jarvis, our consultant city attorney.

8:59

Jeff Schwab, our community development director.

9:05

And Christian Mateo, administrative secretary and meeting host.

9:12

All right.

9:13

Next item of the agenda is notification of meeting participation by teleconference due to just costs pursuant to government code 54953-8-3.

9:22

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

9:28

We do not.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████████████████████████████████████████53%
Historic Preservation██████████████████21%
Affordable Housing██████7%
Procedural█████6%
Community Engagement█████6%
Parks and Recreation███3%
Public Safety██2%
Transportation Safety██2%
Summary of Proceedings

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.

Meeting Transcript

The idea of what we have to pre-cause that's excellent. I feel like I just dishovel. Okay. I mean that's a question of items. Okay. I think the back lines might get the lenses. I need to party it up or not. All right. You okay? Good. All right, we're good. All right, good evening, and thank you for joining our June 2nd, 2026 Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee joint meeting. As a reminder, items will be taken in the order listed on the agenda. Before we get started, I want to briefly go over public comment procedures for the meeting. For those who may be joining us for the first time. In-person speakers, please fill out speaker cards like these and hand them out to the staff at the dais uh to be recognized. If you're joining us virtually, you may use the raise hand feature on Zoom to speak. If you're joining us, we are teleconference by phone. You may raise your hand by dialing star nine and star six to unmute your microphone when prompted. Please only raise your hand at a time that the item on which you're speaking is called. Each speaker is allotted three minutes and in-person speakers. There will be a light at the podium to let you know how much time you have left and a buzzer when time is up. 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 within our purview. Any speaker whose comments are on topics not under the commission's purview will be warned and then removed if necessary in order to allow planning commission to conduct their business. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Commissioner Cornejo here. Commissioner Finch? Here. Commissioner Hunter? Here. Commissioner Robinson? Here. Vice Chair Koch? Here. And Chair Sunogaretz. Here. I'll just go ahead and read the architectural advisory. Committee roll call as well. Committee member Davidevits. Absent. Committee member Jenkins. Here. Committee member King. Vice Chair Stewart. Here. And Chair Tanakasubo. Here. Uh youth committee member Perettis. It's also absent.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com