Okay.

Good evening, and thank you for joining our June sixteent items, twenty twenty six planning commission meeting.

As a reminder, items will be taken in the order they're listed on the agenda will be taken during item number three this evening.

Comments on the agenda items will be taken in the or uh only when the item is called.

In-person speakers will be called first, followed by virtual attendees.

In-person speakers, please fill out a speaker's card at um at the front of the council chambers and bring it to staff for today as to be recognized.

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

If you're joining by 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 when the item on which you are speaking is called.

Each speaker will be allotted two minutes.

And for in-person speakers, there will be a light on the podium to let you know how much time you have left.

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

Planning commission welcomes public comment on the items within a purview.

Any speaker whose comments and topics are not on the commission purview will be warned and potentially removed.

Thank you for your attention and consideration during this process.

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

Commissioner Bott.

Here.

Commissioner Cornejo is absent.

Commissioner Finch?

Here.

Commissioner Hunter?

Here.

Commissioner Robinson.

Here.

Vice Chair Koch.

Here.

And Chair Sunagoratz.

Here.

So I'm Sue Xline.

I'm the Assistant Community Development Director and the liaison for the meeting this evening.

Tonight I have with me Rick Jarvis, our consultant city attorney.

John Francis, our principal planner, and Ellen Yao, who is a new senior planner in our department.

She is just joined us about a few months ago, and she is going to be working on our long-range planning team.

She'll be presenting tonight.

And we have Jessica Goodall, Secretary and meeting host.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Notification of meeting participation by teleconference due to just cause pursuant to government code 54953-8-3.

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

No, we do not.

All right.

Let's move on to the next item on the agenda.

It's item number three, it's public comments.

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

These are um public comments should be in the topics within the co the planning commission's purview.

I think we went over the procedures as to how to comment.

So these are comments on the approval of minutes, consent items, and matters of commission interest, as well as items not on the agenda.

So anything that is not currently on the agenda list of items.

Are there any speakers?

I don't see any cards for in-person speakers.

And then do we have any online speakers who may want to give a public comment?

We do not have any online speakers.

All right.

Uh I will then close.

If there's no objection to public comment for item number three and moving on to an item number four, which is approval of minutes.

We have two meetings.

I think we have a May 5th, 2026 regular meeting.

Uh maybe at this time.

Is there a motion to approve the draft meeting minutes of May 5th, 2026?

I'll move.

I'll make that motion.

Okay, move by Commissioner Hunter.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Koch.

Commissioner Bye.

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter.

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson.

Yes.

Um Commissioner Finch.

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch.

Yes.

And Chair Sunagoratz.

Yes.

The motion passes by six to zero with one absent.

All right.

We also have June 2nd, 2026, Planning Commission and Architectural Advisor Committee joint meeting that we had.

That was, I guess, couple of weeks ago.

Is there a motion to approve the draft minutes of this meeting of June 2nd?

Motion.

Alright.

Moved by Commissioner Bott.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Hunter.

Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter.

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson.

Yes.

Commissioner Finch.

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch.

Yes.

And Chair Sunaca Ratz.

Yes.

The motion passes by six to zero with one absence.

Alright, moving right along.

The next item on the agenda is the consent calendar.

There are no items on tonight's consent calendar, and we will move directly into the public hearing item 6A.

Our six A item is request for Planning Commission recommendation that the city staff should prepare a transit-oriented development alternative plan in compliance with the obligations of Senate Bill 179.

Do any commissioners have any ex-party communications to report for this item?

Seeing none, we'll have Ellen Yao.

Welcome.

Our new senior planner will give a presentation on the item.

Wonderful.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners.

My name is Ellen Yao, and I'm a senior planner.

So tonight I will be presenting on Senate Bill 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act.

I'll go over specifically SB 79 eligible areas and the requirements, then I'll go into the specifics applicability of SB 79 in Redwood City and the implementation approaches that we can take.

Then I'll go over the step for staff recommendation and next steps.

So SB 79 is a recent state law aimed at increasing housing availability and affordability near transit.

It is one of many laws that have been passed in the recent uh years enacted to address the state's housing shortage.

SB 79 requires that housing is an allowed use on residential, mixed use, or commercial sites that are located within a half mile of a TOD stop.

It also establishes density, FAR, and height standards, and in some locations within the city, this would supersede our locally adopted standards.

SB 79 doesn't establish a new review process, so standard city review processes and CEQA will still apply.

So in Redwood City, we have one eligible transit stop, and that is our Redwood City Caltrain station.

So this map that you see here shows the three zones, the 200 feet, quarter mile, and a half mile, and it's color coded to the red, orange, and yellow.

On the chart to the right, you'll see the allowed maximum height and maximum density as allowed by SB 79.

So sites within the half mile radius, which is in the yellow, would allow a developer to build up to 65 feet at 100 dwelling units per acre, and then the inner red circle, you could build up to a height of 95 feet for maximum density of 160.

Just for a little bit of context, right across City Hall behind the library, we have a lot of residential development between the Caltrain tracks and El Camino.

Those are about 80 feet, which is about eight stories in a density of 180 to about 215 dwelling units per acre.

To qualify for SB 79, a residential development has to be located within that half mile radius of transit, and there are additional project requirements.

So it has to be zoned residential, mixed use, or commercial.

The project must cannot be located on a site that has or have had two units subject to rent control.

The project must provide for a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre and provide five residential units.

Projects that provide 11 or more units must build affordable housing.

For some context of that, the city also has an affordable housing requirement.

And in the case that the city has a stricter or higher level of affordability, the city's requirement will apply.

So it's the greater of what SP 79 has or what the city is requiring.

Lastly, projects that are over 85 feet in height must comply with prevailing wage and skilled and trained workforce requirements.

So if you look back at the map before, 85 feet would generally just mean that inner red circle.

I'm gonna talk about state density bonus law.

It is a law that provides incentives to encourage development of affordable housing.

Developers can exceed local height and density zoning standards in exchange for providing those affordable units.

SB 79 projects that also meet the requirements of a state density bonus law project can utilize state density bonus on top of the requirements of SB 79.

So they can request for additional density, they can also request waivers for reduction of other standards like parking or other modifications.

However, projects can't apply SB state density bonus to request additional height beyond what is required.

This map shows the sites where current where current development standards comply with SB 79 development standards.

So the areas shown in green indicate that current standards already allow for height and density above SB 79.

So practically speaking, if an applicant wanted to propose a building on any of these green sites, they really wouldn't have any need to invoke SB 79 because our city standards would allow for more height or more density than SB 79.

Now the areas shown in pink indicate where the city's current development standards are lower than SB 79 standards, and this means that SB 79 would effectively increase the allowable height and density for a proposed project.

Now, while it appears that there's a substantial number of sites that are eligible for increased development capacity, there's a lot of pink, there are site specific factors and marking conditions that will determine whether the theoretical capacity of SB79 will actually be realized into development.

So in the near term, uh SB 79 will likely have a limited impact due to the following considerations.

In many of the areas in pink, we do have recent development projects that are already been built or under construction or entitled.

So it's very unlikely that those would turn over beyond what they've already applied for.

There are also many parcels within the half mile radius that are small parcels, and so by virtue of their size, smaller parcels have constraints on their development.

And currently, construction costs and interest rates are very high, and they have restricted the amount of housing currently being built, and we kind of see that in our housing development based off of our APRs.

We can see a little slowdown.

But it does come in cycles.

So together, these factors suggest that in the near term, impact may be limited.

Now I'm gonna go into Redwood City's housing policy and direction.

You can see that the policy goals of SB 79 has considerable overlap with the city's own policy goals of encouraging higher density near transit.

So for example, in 2002, we established the transit district as a sub-area within our downtown precise plan.

This really focused transit-oriented development and removed maximum residential caps.

In early 2023, we also adopted the housing element, which identified many programs to increase permitted density citywide.

Additionally, we recently received funding through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission through their TOC policy.

This is to study and to propose minimum densities for new residential and commercial projects within half a mile of Caltrain Station.

And lastly, we have the Greater Downtown Area Plan, GDAP.

It's a new vision for downtown Redwood City and the surrounding neighborhoods.

And the main priority for GDAP is to also focus new development and intensity around the Caltrain station.

So all together, these ongoing efforts demonstrate that the city has consistently supported and taken action intended to increase supply and provide uh prioritize development near transit, similar in alignment to the goals of SB 79.

So the law allows for different implementation approaches.

I will go over the four applicable ones highlighted on the screen in the following slides.

So the first one is baseline SB 79.

On July 1st of this year, S B 79 obligations will be in effect.

So the potential benefit is that because SB 79 is in alignment with city policy to support housing development increased residential density, we can choose to not take any additional action, and SB 79 obligations would just be taken as is as projects come through.

Jurisdiction can also adopt a local temporary exclusion ordinance.

This would pause the effect of SB 79 on those certain sites that are excluded.

In the state law, there are certain categories that you can exclude sites, and I'll go over that in a little bit, but I want to highlight at the bottom of this chart, we have two options.

These are part of the staff report attachment B and C.

We listed out exclusion of historic resources and exclusion of all possible sites as those two options.

So first option here is if a site already meets 50% of the capacity that is listed in SB 79, they can be excluded.

That's shown in green here.

Sites that are identified as low resource.

This is defined by the California's tax credit allocation committee.

They use this to categorize neighborhoods based on various factors like economic conditions, educational resources.

This is outlined in pink.

And then if a site contains a locally designated resource as of January 1st of 2025, they can also be excluded, and that's in blue.

So when you look at all of those available options, I'm just gonna go back, right?

One, two, three, we found that many of the eligible areas do have geographic overlap.

Because of that overlap, there may be limitable limited practical benefit to try to choose one of those three.

But we do break that down into the two approaches.

First is the narrow option of the historic resources exclusion that's shown on the screen here, and then a broader option that combines all of those three categories into one option, which is all available exclusions allowed by state law.

So this shows the geographies of all the exclusion categories together.

Local jurisdictions can also adopt a transit oriented development alternative plan, also known as a TOD alternative plan.

This benefits this is essentially a targeted approach.

So you would still be required to meet the requirements of SB 79 and maintain the overall capacity of SB 79.

However, there are restrictions.

No site can reduce their density by more than 50%, and no site can increase their SB 79 maximum density by more than 200%.

So we're looking at the half mile radius of the transit station, and through a TOD, you would shift the capacity from certain sites to other sites.

The benefit of this is you can redistribute the housing capacity to align with local context, because SB 79 right now is just those three rings.

So lastly, there's another, you know, what we call a combination approach.

So again, we've kind of streamlined it.

There's two options you can do through the combination approach.

One is come July 1st of 2026, baseline SB 79 would apply, and if the city decides to develop a TOD alternative plan, that's the option on the left, that's staff recommendation.

Or you can do a baseline SB 79 applicability until you adopt the local ordinance, and then the local ordinance will run until you develop a TOD alternative plan.

As I described that, I'm going to go into the timelines.

So I've taken those two options and laid them out in a timeline.

Again, the first dash indicates the July 1st, 2026 applicability of SB 79 requirements.

If Planning Commission decides to recommend City Council to adopt the local ordinance, we're planning to bring the item to council around July, and it'll take in effect 30 days afterwards if they go to the second reading.

So you can see that timeline of the ordinance.

And through the TOD alternative plan, staff has several ongoing projects that we can kind of combine the work of a TOD alternative plan, and we anticipate that first deadline to be mid 2027.

So we can see most likely a TOD alternative plan brought to planning commission and council mid next year.

So staff recommends allowing SB 79 to take effect.

So this is the baseline SB 79 and focusing city's effort on developing a TOD alternative plan.

This approach recognizes that SB 79 is in generally alignment with what the city has uh has in their objectives for promoting housing development near transit.

Uh the city is already studying increased density and development in portions of the SB 79 areas through things like GDAP and the citywide housing housing element implementation programs.

Um plus the TOD alternative plan would provide the city an opportunity to tailor SB 79 requirements to local context.

Uh given current conditions, uh staff anticipates limited near-term development activity, so therefore we don't recommend the ordinance because the TOD alternative plan will come soon, mid-next year.

In terms of next steps, we plan on bringing this to city council on July 13th.

If council chooses to implement just the baseline SB 79 requirements, there's no further action necessary.

If they choose to adopt a local ordinance to temporarily temporarily exclude sites, this may take effect around August.

So it does add some time to the effectual date of those plans or ordinance.

And this is our staff recommendation, and uh that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs.

Yao for the very informative presentation.

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

Commissioner Pott.

Yes, um, I'll save some more comments until after some members of the public as well.

Just as a clarification, um, if we adopt the TOD, as I understand it, we have to maintain the same capacity that SB79 would have allowed for.

Do you have an understanding of what that capacity is versus what our current capacity is in that same area?

Yeah, we've done a couple of iterations just because uh the final maps with MTC only recently, or the draft maps just came out from MTC.

I don't have the actual numbers, so I can get that back to you.

I think it's about um like just a couple thousand between our current zoning and what SB 79 would allow.

So, like I said, our policy direction has pushed to increase housing uh development.

So we're almost there.

So uh as I'm hearing it, like we don't need to make much modifications to our current um map to even be complying within a tod.

Correct.

Yeah, but if you you know could always do more.

Like I said, the a TOD alternative does allow you to go all the way down to less than 50 percent for a particular site.

And if you refer back to the previous map with the red and the green, you can see that there are certain areas that have significant capacity already.

Just for the clarification, when you mention a thousand or two thousand units, what is that as a percentage of the overall units that could be built in the TOD?

I do not know that on the top of my head right now.

Okay, that's okay.

No worries, uh Commissioner Hunter.

First of all, welcome.

Welcome to Redwood City, and we're glad you're here.

Um, let's see.

Uh my first question is um in the staff recommendation, it's it says by minute order recommended the city council or something.

I've never heard that term before.

What does that mean?

Uh I'm gonna direct this to Rick Jarvis.

Thanks.

It really is just a um you don't need to do a resolution.

There's not you don't need to make any findings.

So this is just sort of a summary direction that indicates support for staff's uh direction.

And it doesn't require if it doesn't require a uh a resolution you can do about minute order.

Huh.

So um so we don't take a vote on it.

No, no, no, you're voting to approve them.

Rather than a voting to adopt a resolution with you know three pages of recitals and and five pages of substance, you're you're adopting a simple minute order by vote um to say indicate that you support doing nothing.

I mean, really where we are right now is if the the city can do nothing right now and simply allow SB 79 to take effect, and it doesn't require any further action other than you know doing nothing.

If you want to do something, then there's there's resolutions and and findings that that would have to be made to do something different than okay, interesting.

That's the new one.

Um, this is a little out of uh left field, I think.

But uh I never thought I'd be asking this, but um has staff considered what happens if Caltrain stops running.

Um of course I asked because it's been it's in the news that the Caltrain board is actually publicizing a threat to stop service, you know, as as the most extreme you know, um result if uh the um upcoming um you know revenue uh sales tax measure is is defeated.

So what is have we thought about that?

Is it something that's that's even in um you know in in what what would you considering here?

In other words, it may not be a good stop.

State law is constantly changing.

And so I think if let's say Caltrains were to stop service right now, then an applicant would come in and say, hey, I want to use SB 79.

Maybe it wouldn't be applicable, right?

But right now with a lot of state changes, you know, a lot of people are actually considering other transit areas that would come up, and that's actually been um a big topic of discussion.

So I think the likelihood of Caltrain to stop while we're dealing with this probably isn't too likely.

But great question.

I hope you're right.

Um, um the last my last question is just about um affordability requirements.

Um, and it's kind of a question I've had with you know in in other projects too.

So on table two, you show the um the the affordability require project under project eligibility requirements and under affordable housing, um, it's seven at least seven percent uh extremely low income, 10 percent very low, or and these are alternatives, not in addition to, or 13% low income.

Um it's whatever the SB 79 affordability results are versus what the cities are.

So the cities we the cities requirements are a bit of apples and oranges to that, um, it's for larger projects.

I think it's five percent very low plus five percent low plus ten percent moderate, total twenty percent.

So um how do you compare those things?

Like like if a developer comes in with a project for um 10% very low income.

Well, that's more than the very low income requirement that the city has, but it's less than the um you know low and moderate.

So how do is is there a formula or how does that comparison work?

Correct.

Uh we have a whole another department and division who deals with affordable housing compliance.

Uh there are measurements of the affordability levels, like you said, there's some range from moderate to low to very low, and with SB 79, there's also extremely low.

Um, I think we would have to see the specific project to be able to compare that.

I mean, it looks like it's hard to compare, but there are requirements.

We have within our affordable housing ordinance uh an ability for developers to also choose other alternatives than what is provided here, and so there are formulas to kind of compare what is provided, whether it's on-site or kind of converting it to affordable housing impact fees.

Um, so I don't know the exact relationship, but if we do have a project, there is a way for us to make sure that we get the most affordable housing that we can for the city.

Great.

Yeah, I just I was just wondering if there was an equivalency formula or chart or matrix or something somewhere.

It sounds like there is no great thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Hunter.

Commissioner Robinson uh do you have any questions the light is on I need some help yes okay great now now's the time um the figure on um page 12 or 20 it uh figure number six eligible and non-eligible sites intuitively this doesn't make sense to me but I'm trying to understand why why the non-eligible sites um surrounding Sequoia High School why are those non-eligible versus all of the other sites it would seem to me like that would be the reverse just because I what I personally know of the neighborhoods but could you help me understand that that how those are differentiated and then the second question was do we know is the train station going to move or not?

Thank you.

Great question.

So I'm showing on the screen the all exclusion which just shows the yellow parcels and commissioner Robinson is talking about a figure in our staff report that shows red and yellow essentially the red is the inverse of the yellow shown on the screen right here.

So the eligible sites are the combination of the three colored slides that I chose those are the specific categories that the state law says you can exclude so I'm just gonna flash through those really quickly right there on the screen.

So this yellow map is a combination of these colored ones all possible exclusions under SB 79.

So then the red is the inverse why do we have those red sites the red sites don't meet any of those categories therefore they don't qualify for exclusion.

The sites that you're thinking that's below the high school there are some R1 or you know small single family their density right now under current city regulations would not meet the 50% threshold right the smallest threshold that we have is um 50 a hundred dwelling units per acre in the outer ring.

So 50% of that would be 50 dwelling units per acre and that's not what those zones would be so that's one example of why those sites are red.

They are also not historic sites they also don't fall under the low resource so therefore they're ineligible for exclusion through SB 79.

Yes thank you.

Yes it will be uh the timeline for that is yeah I'm gonna pass this to Principal planner Francis.

The timeline is unknown and uh it's probably quite some time away.

So you know by the time I think that the train station is relocated you know based on when we get funding and all the infrastructure in place to do that.

Very likely we'll have other state laws that will be um probably superseding SB 79 around the station area but um it's very hard to predict um so we sort of are um you know in the in the short and medium term planning for our station to be where it is today in our longer term planning for uh for the greater time area plan for example um we are thinking further ahead to when that station will move because that the time horizon and timeline for that planning that the time horizon for the the overall plan is you know three decades out which theoretically is within the time horizon when the the station would move okay thank you thank you commissioner hunter um i also have a couple of questions oh um i will yield to commissioner finch he asked questions too yeah i'm sorry just one uh like technical question so no worries if you don't know the answer um but if if the station does move, does SP 79 still apply to the original location of the train station or it would be the new location?

Most likely it would be the new location.

Let's just say as it stands, because the law just says within a specific geographic area.

So if it moves, then the whole circle would move.

And we would only review projects as they come in too.

So it's not in perpetuity that that status would apply to a site.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Finch.

I also have three clarifying questions.

Uh one, piggybacking off the questions from Commissioner Hunter about affordability uh levels.

Um it doesn't state specifically whether uh the applicant can invoking SB 79 can pay in lieu of fees for affordable housing.

Are they required to build or can they also pay fees?

So when the law it says to provide those units at those percentages, so it doesn't say that you can do in loo fees.

But it's so they're they would build, I guess, if they invoke this particular one.

Okay, second one is uh they're also uh any parcels that are subject to rent control, uh I'm curious.

I'm not aware that we city has a rent control, but it does have deed restricted units, is that what they mean, or does it mean a unit has to be specifically under rent control to be?

Correct, we don't have rent control, so that would not really be applicable to Redwood City.

Uh, but I believe there are is an item that it's coming through that uh city council.

Yes, correct.

Got it.

Um yeah, we'll see what how that shakes out.

Uh the last question I have is about maximum density.

So the the minimum density required by uh SP 79 is 30 dwelling units per per acre.

Uh does the city within this uh half mile radius have also a minimum independently of that?

No, we do not.

Um, but as I mentioned with our MTC TOC policy, part of that is to study and to analyze and propose minimums.

So we don't currently.

Got it.

So if SB9s, if we if we do a baseline approach of not doing anything, it's gonna come up earlier, like a year earlier, the minimums uh for these parcels within half mile of the correct.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Uh but it would only be applicable to projects that actually came to apply and use SP 79 versus a blanket, you know, a city regulation is check.

Applicable to all that we rezone, right?

But SP79 would just be for projects that came in.

So that's the trigger.

Someone has to apply and say I'm using SB 79.

Right.

Okay.

Got it.

So it's not like they're gonna do the work for us.

Okay.

Great.

Commissioner Butt, follow the question.

Yes, um you touched on what I was gonna uh ask about a bit, but uh the in our staff report um it says that if we adopt the TOD alternative plan, then no sites may exceed 200% of the density allowed under SP 79.

Does that mean that technically if we do all adopt an alternative plan, we're somewhat tying our hands behind our back with like downzoning parts of downtown?

Like that's that's what this reads as of if we don't do anything, we're allowed to zone however we want in the upwards direction.

But if we do uh adopt any alternative, suddenly we have to have zoning like density maximums.

Is that the correct read?

I'm gonna try to answer your question, and then if I'm not getting right to it, please describe a little bit more.

So there's housing accountability laws statewide that actually limits us from down zoning if we don't also accommodate that somewhere else.

So for example, like our housing element, we've identified sites that could meet a specific capacity, and if that property gets developed not at the capacity, we have to make sure somewhere else in the city can accommodate that.

So if we accepted SB 79 as is, we, you know, we wouldn't take any action.

We still wouldn't be able to necessarily down zone if we weren't gonna accommodate it elsewhere.

I think I'm asking about the other way around.

Like say, okay, say we have a site in downtown that is zoned for what is what would currently be like two fifty percent of what SB 79 um prescribes, right?

And we adopt a TOD alternative plan.

And I see that it says maximum site capacity, no TOD alternative plan may exceed 200% of the density of SB 79.

Does that mean that suddenly that site has to drop to that 200% threshold?

That is fair question.

Um, I'm gonna.

Yeah, I don't think that would be what the intent of the law would be.

Now, HDD will review all of these, and as we design this plan, as long as we can have justification, you know, because we are above that.

It doesn't, it would not make much sense for HC then force us to do a below.

So, as part of our packet to them, we would have to explain why it is simply it's already currently existing.

Yeah, but maybe I'll just add a little bit more that my sense is that they're trying to make it so that you're not necessarily like loading up a few sites, and that's why there's a maximum with all of the density around sort of moving it onto a few sites, and that's why they put it.

Yeah, I understand the the good intent of why a rule like this would exist.

It's just I read a line like that, and I'm like, this feels like we might be shooting ourselves in the foot if it's read the wrong way by a certain certain people, you know.

Yeah, I mean if they want to squeeze all the requirements into a single lot or empire state building with 100 floors, I mean that's one way to get around to it.

But yes, so uh any other follow-up questions, Commissioner Hunter.

Oh yeah, um I was just followed to follow up on the chair's question before about rent control.

Um, there is state rent control that um lighting limits increases to 10 percent, you know, and the um you know we're the the effort in Redwood City is to is to lower uh lower that amount, but uh does that apply?

I mean, does that mean that we do have rent control, you know, um for SB 79 purposes?

Great question.

We have talked to you know, all the cities in the Bay Area, we all talk to each other and we have communication with HCD representatives, and our initial responses from that is uh the state would not apply, would be local rent control.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Good question.

Uh Commissioner Robinson, I'm gonna go back to that figure six, if that's okay.

Um, and the bullet point under the staff recommendation on page 15 and 23.

Um, so given that current housing market conditions remain soft, few housing projects are likely to utilize SB 79 provisions in the short term before the city adopts a TOD alternative plan.

And just keep in mind, I'm just thinking of adverse consequences of you know any all the various scenarios.

So, given that statement, though, hypothetically, could someone build something on, let's say the 200 to 300 block of Fulton and Grand, which is you know, just behind the high school, those are uh it's a single family low-level neighborhood, and and that's kind of what I'm that's where my mind is going.

Like it sounds like the recommendation, I'm reading through staff's recommendation, I'm just looking for potential adverse consequences.

Great question.

Uh yes, any site within the SB 79 could develop, but I want to point out that if you're looking at that figure number six, that specific address that you gave us is located in the red.

So any of the options that I've presented today, there would be there's no alternative.

SB 79 would be the default.

If we were talking about another site that's in the yellow that you're concerned about, then the option of doing a local ordinance would pause SB 79.

But not in any of the red, because those are not eligible for any exclusions.

So once July 1st hits SB 79 would take effect, even if the council um adopts uh the provision in the short term, and then a TOD alternative plan at a later.

Correct.

Um, because a local ordinance would only exclude the yellow if we were to do all exclusion, right?

And then when we do the local TOD alternative plan, remember there's that minimum of 50% threshold.

Right.

So any of those sites would still naturally have to be upzoned as part of the TOD alternative plan.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Robinson.

Commissioner Koch.

Thank you.

Um, welcome.

And thank you.

Um, and I'm glad, Commissioner Robinson, you brought up the question about the train station because I've already asked that question.

I think I know it with the long-term planning and it's been on a lot of residents' minds for such a long time.

I'm happy to hear that, obviously, that's sort of worked into the long-term plan for all of this.

It sounds to me as if once a TOD plan is established, adopted by the city, and then we also have SP 79.

Is it if a new project is going to be built?

The most prescriptive of these two would supersede the other.

That's kind of what it sounds like to me, but I'm not certain.

Yeah.

So once we adopt the TOD alternative plan, that would take precedent.

SB 79 essentially wouldn't exist for a city that has a TOD alternative plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Cook.

I have a final question, which is a continuation, I guess, of Commissioner Robinson's question about the red marked uh area south of El Camino around Sequoia High School and also to below Jefferson Avenue.

I mean, these are all currently zone as R4R5 residential and the dwelling unit uh density there is close to 40 uh or 50, which is uh, you know, not necessarily a six-story uh, you know, apartment complex, but it already is uh, you know, four plexus, five plexus and multiplexes.

So I'm just uh for Commissioner Robinson.

I know it looks like there's a few single family homes over there, but it also there's a few multiplexes and as zoned currently.

I think if I'm understanding correctly, already allows for a significant density, even without SB 79.

That is correct.

Right.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um all right.

If there are no other clarifying questions, uh I will open the public hearing in order to see how many speakers we have.

I ask everyone who wishes to speak on the item to raise your hand now.

Uh in Zoom, and I also have one card for in-person.

If there's any more in-person speakers, please pass your cards up front to the dais.

Um, do we how many speakers do we have online?

We do not have any speakers online.

Okay, well, we will wait uh and I'll loop back to um Ms.

X-line and well recognize Michael Arusa.

Uh, you have three minutes to speak uh on this item.

Hello, uh, my name is Michael Arusa.

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

I'm here to speak in support of um the staff recommendation of adopting SB 79 as is.

Right now, Rabbit City is not on track to meet its arena goals.

We are unfortunately falling behind in building the affordable housing that we need.

And given that context, SB 79 helps actually meet the goals of the city.

It is in many ways um a bit of a um a bit of a gift.

Um, and I think the simplest option here is also the best option.

Adopt SP 79 as is and start working on implementing uh DOD alternative plan that would mesh well with the greater a downtown precise plan as well.

Um with regards to the TOD, um I think that there's many opportunities to um shift density around in ways that make sense and help maximize the potential of the SP79 and building both new um overall housing and new affordable units.

Um I did notice that there's a couple parcels right now in the SB 79 plan that are very unlikely to see any development in a ever.

Um specifically, I think this is Sequoia High School is a really big chunk of the plan that unless there are plans for affordable teacher housing, which would be great, but I have not heard of that and don't think that that is in the plan.

Um, that seems to me like a pretty good parcel that could be um whose area could be um moved around to support more housing in other areas downtown, for example, near the uh train station.

Um, yeah, overall, big fan of the staff proposal to just implement SP 79 as is and then work on the TOD.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Arusa, for your comment.

Um are there any uh speakers that showed up uh online?

No.

All right.

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

Commissioner Finch.

Uh yes, so I I think I am in favor of uh the staff recommendation to just allow the baseline SB 79 to go into effect until we have the TOD alternative plan.

Um and uh when that's completed, you know, as part of probably GDAP or the MTC TOC planning.

Um I think that staff makes a compelling argument that um SP 79 and as our public commenter alluded to generally aligns with our city's goals to encourage density around the train station.

Um and I also agree with staff that I think the effects will be pretty limited um, especially in the um lower density residential areas, um, just to the due to the constraints of the small lots and just the general um economic headwinds right now.

I would I wouldn't expect too much um too many projects anyway, and um I I just worry that the the ordinance we would have like three different sets of rules over the course of uh you know a year or so um and the exclusion areas I I feel like I I mean I understand what the um justification for the exclusion areas is in the state law, um but you know just looking at the map of the red and yellow, um it's a little like arbitrary where you know houses on the opposite side of the same street, one of them would be able to be a six you know, 60 foot building and the other one you know wouldn't.

Uh so I I feel like it's maybe more fair in a way just to apply it as is so uh yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Finch.

Uh Commissioner Bott.

Yeah, I concur with uh Commissioner Finch.

Um I'm very much in favor of the staff recommendation to adopt SP 79 as is without uh exclusions um and work on our TOD.

Um as also as the public commenter alluded to, there's very nice ways to shift density more to downtown with our GDEP.

Um and maybe we can allow even more people to be closer to the train station because a quarter mile is still better than half a mile.

Um yeah, I on the just since effectively what we're talking about today is whether or not we want to implement or recommend exclusions.

Um I agree that like exclusions just make the landscape harder for developers, it makes the rules harder to understand.

This map is a patchwork of red and yellow in many places.

Um the public wouldn't understand it.

Uh obviously we were having trouble understanding it up here on the dais.

Um, so it and since most of this, most of the area that's yellow already seems to be mostly compliant with SB 79.

I just I think it just makes sense to just say we're not gonna go through a weird exclusion process.

Thank you, Commissioner Butt, for your comments.

Uh Commissioner Hunter.

Um so I actually support the um the second combination approach.

So on page 13 and 14, um combined approach of um adopting the local ordinance to exclude exclude the sites um and uh then subsequently adopt a TO uh TOD alternative plan.

Um, the reason for uh excluding the sites temporarily, and that that's what what this is, is uh to give us maximum flexibility to come up with the best uh best solution for Redwood City.

Um for the it's and it's only gonna be for a year or so.

Uh I think you said next summer is because I think we want to uh go with the um MTC's um I forget the MTC's transit oriented communities policy, which is which was what we're trying to get to, which is very similar to um to what SB 79 would require.

Uh so we want to get to the best result and uh um maintain maximum flexibility for that year.

Um as the staff report says this option allows jurisdictions time to maintain existing development standards on selected sites while can just conducting additional analysis or pursuing a more comprehensive strategy.

Um and I also note that in attachment E um would and I'm really glad you've included that um where you went out to um all the local uh other or local other cities, um, that the large majority of them did also uh elect to uh um to do the option of uh temporarily excluding uh some of those sites.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Uh I mean actually I do have a question for Commissioner Hunter.

Uh what extra uh flexibility would adding uh an exclusionary section of this add in to the toolkit of us being able to come up with a better plan within a year's time, uh, other than freezing in amber the current development standards.

I don't know.

I don't know.

That's why that's actually an argument for doing this.

I don't know.

I am right uh dealing with these things day to day.

Yeah, because I think I think that the staff's recommendation is as far as I understand.

Maybe the staff can collect correct us, is that uh we're waiting for the transit oriented development plant which will address some of these nuances as to how to more holistically develop this area around the Cal Train Station.

Right.

And in the meantime, we could have our current standards uh and be flexible.

But freezing the standards doesn't add an extra toolkit to um to develop a different version of this particular uh transit oriented development.

I think most of the other cities in the area think that it does.

That may be the case.

You know, I I have actually looked, was kind of curious to look at um appendix E to find out what other jurisdictions and you know I I work in Palo Alto and it's perennial uh issue over there in terms of housing, and one of the reasons Palo Alto put exclusions is to lower development or sorry increase the um development uh density to 50 percent so they can exclude the whole city for any further densification.

Uh so I mean there are other nefarious ways of trying to you know use the um the state law and exclusion process to to STIMI uh potential development.

Uh but I think I agree with you this one year is really a short amount of time, and within the context of what the staff uh has uh proposed, given the career marking conditions, there's unlikely to be any movement on the ground uh for these particular sites.

It very well might not have any practical effect.

Right, right.

Uh okay.

Uh agreed.

Um just curious, I wanted to have clarification as to the proposal.

Um right, Commissioner Koch.

Thank you.

Um, and this is sort of off track, obviously, because it's from me.

Any concern about the potential for developers or multiple developers wanting to come in and develop between five and ten units only so they can skirt around everything having to do with SB 79.

It's a hypothetical, obviously.

Hypotheticals can always come true.

Um, you know, I I it's hard to it's hard to say how often that might happen.

It's possible.

Um it's possible for you know, you know, it's also possible for us to be wrong about you know our kind of predictions about the market to, you know, I think indication suggests that you know the market still hasn't recovered.

We're not seeing like a glut of new housing development.

Um so it's it's hard to say for sure, but it's it's not impossible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Koch.

Um, any other comments from the commission on the discussion?

Um, I mean, I guess uh my last comments.

I mean, uh, given that there's no further comments, is that I also agree with Commissioner Butt and Commissioner Finch that the staff recommendation seems to be the most uh reasonable path forward uh in terms of being able to allow us time to develop the transit oriented development alternative plan uh with within the framework of the MTC um project uh and um recommend just the SP 79 to come in as is.

Um all right, is there a motion on the floor?

Take your time, don't worry.

It's okay.

It's on the screen.

Oh, yes, oh yeah, okay, I have the motion.

All right, Commissioner Butt.

Okay, I motion uh that by minute order we recommend that the city council direct city staff to prepare a transit-oriented development alternative plan pursuing to the obligations of Senate Bill 79.

Um, and just as a clarification for staff.

If I give this recommendation, that's an explicit, like without the exclusions part, then, right?

Okay, yeah.

So that's my motion.

What's on the screen?

I second the motion.

All right, second by Commissioner uh Koch.

Uh I will open it the motion up for discussion.

Commissioner Hunter.

Um I um the with the wording of the I mean it does not in it does not say anything about the exclusions, but uh I would I will support this because I uh definitely recommend that uh city staff should prepare a uh TOD alternative plan.

Thank you.

Any other comments for the discussion?

No.

Um all right.

Oh, Commissioner Finch.

Oh, sorry, but we that this uh this minute order is to recommend um that base are we rec- oh sorry, we're not recommending that baseline SP 79 go into effect.

Okay, okay.

Just to clarify, it's baseline the transit oriented development alternative.

Because the baseline is inaction.

So we're recommending that after this inaction, which is going to take place anyways, we're recommending they adopt the TOD alternative.

Oh, I see.

Okay, because there would there is no recommendation needed to do nothing.

Okay, I I understand.

Okay.

Everyone should just relax.

It's allowing the baseline to go into effect.

We're not saying anything contrary to allowing.

Yeah, because it's going to go into that.

Okay, yes.

But we recommend preparing of the TOD alternative plan.

Okay, I support that.

Thank you.

Sorry.

No worries.

Okay, great.

Um, all right.

If there's no other comments or discussions on the motion, I guess we can move to vote.

Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson.

Yes.

Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch.

Yes.

And Chair Sunogaratz.

Yes.

The motion passes with six votes with one absence.

All right, thank you.

Uh moving on to item number seven, which is matters of committees committee interest.

Um, I guess commission interest.

Um, we have Leah's on updates.

Um, so uh let's see, a couple updates.

We will cancel the next July 21st um planning commission meeting.

On um July 13th at City Council, it will um be a big meeting for uh planning items.

This um SB 79 will be brought to council.

We will also have the annual zoning code updates that the commission heard.

Um, I can't remember when that was early, I think mid-May.

Uh that will also go to council on July 13th.

And then finally, there is a discussion discussion uh about extending the greater downtown area plan boundary at council that evening.

I also wanted to let you know that uh council will be voting on new planning commission members on June 22nd, and uh thank Commissioner Bott for his service, as this is his last meeting tonight.

Thank you.

I've had a nice time on the planning commission.

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner But I really appreciate your your time on the uh on the commission on this day.

It's been very into uh very insightful, and you always bring quite a lot of insight, uh, especially from your personal experience uh uh in Mebwa City, and uh we really value um all the contributions we made over the last couple of years.

You've been here.

That's great.

Thank you.

Who knows?

I might be back in a few years.

We will welcome you.

I I probably will.

Virtually, you don't have to be drive all the way down.

Great.

Um wonderful.

Okay, so there's no other um meetings until I guess August 18th is the next scheduled.

That's correct.

So this says candidate July 21st, and you said that's cancelled then.

Yeah, we'll send out an official notice.

Canceling that.

Great.

Are there any uh commission updates from the commissioners?

Um I do have a quick update.

I think um maybe it's been almost a month ago, Commissioner Bott and I went to a training uh by housing, I forget uh maybe 13 elements.

Uh, and it had a really neat um inclusionary calculator, uh, which I think we have links to, so we'll share with the the planning commission.

So um you can basically it's kind of like SimCity, just but working with affordable units.

So it's it's in case you have extra time for fun.

All right, uh next item is adjournment.

This could this concludes the items for tonight's agenda.

The next planning commission meeting is August 18th, 2026.