Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening and thank you for joining our 05/05/2026 Planning Commission Meeting. As a reminder, items will be taken in the order they're listed on the agenda. Before we start, I want to briefly go over public comment procedures for the meeting for those of us who may be joining us for the first time. Public comments on the approval of 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 item is called. In person speakers will be called first followed by virtual attendees. In person speakers, please fill out a speaker's card in front of the council chambers and bring to staff the datas. For those of you joining us virtually, you may use the raise hand feature in the Zoom to speak. If you're joining the teleconference by phone, you may raise your hand by dialing 9 and 6 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 Bahn?

Present.

Commissioner Cornejo is absent. Commissioner Finch is absent. Commissioner Hunter?

Here.

Commissioner Robinson? Here. Vice chair Koch?

Here.

And chair Sunegoretz?

Here.

For tonight's meeting, I'm Sue Exline. 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 Erchnard, management analyst, she's joining virtually Tanisha Warner is our engineering and transportation director, also joining virtually and Christina Mateo as the administrative secretary and meeting host.

Thank you. The next item on the tonight's agenda is notification of meeting participation by teleconference due to just cause pursuant to government code 54953Dash-eight-three. 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, tonight's agenda. Item number three is public comments.

At this time, we will take public comments from those joining us in person and through Zoom. Alright. 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 02/17/2026 regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve the draft meeting minutes of 02/17/2026? Motion made by commissioner Hunter. I.

Yes. I will move to approve the 02/17/2026

meeting minutes. Do I have a second?

Second.

Alright. My

light is not working.

Oh. My camera's not working. We'll have a second by commissioner Coke.

Commissioner Baht?

Yes.

Commissioner Grenheit? Yes. Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice chair Coke?

Yes.

And chair Sunegoretz?

Yes.

And I'll just note that commissioner Carnejo has now joined the meeting.

Wonderful. Alright. I think the next item is four b, which is 04/21/2026, joint planning commission and AAC meeting. Is there a motion to approve the draft meeting minutes of 04/21/2026? Commissioner Robinson? Oh, your light was on. I wasn't sure.

I just left it on.

Okay. Alright. See, I'm soliciting approvals. Alright. Moved by commissioner Robinson, second by commissioner Hunter. On to vote.

Commissioner Baht?

Yes.

Commissioner Cornejo?

It looks like we have similar technical issues.

We have another

one. Oh, really?

So I just go raise it here or do I

Go for it. Yeah. I can repeat it. Commissioner Crenshaw is I. Sorry.

Commissioner Hunter.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. I sorry. Either one. Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice chair Coke? Abstain. And chair?

Yes.

The motion passes by five with one abstention.

Alright. 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 six a. Six a is a request for consideration of general plan consistency for projects included in the capital improvement program for the twenty twenty six, twenty seven 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 cost a $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's 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. The current fiscal year twenty twenty six, twenty twenty seven capital improvement program includes 41 existing projects that are carried over from the previous year 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 2627 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 twenty sixtwenty seven 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 each project's consistency with the general plan specific goals. In addition to the staff materials, there is also more information on specific CIP projects that can be found through our following online portal link.

Our users are able to review the recommended budget by district, neighborhood and equity priority maps. In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution finding the projects included in the capital improvement program for fiscal year twenty six through 2027 are consistent with the Redwood City general plan. That concludes staff's presentation. I'm available for questions as well as Giovanna Eckernart, which is our Management Analyst and director of engineering and transportation, Tanisha Warner virtually. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, mister Turner for your presentation. Are there any clarifying questions that the commission would like to ask staff? Commissioner Cornejo.

Oh, I'm

No worries. Commissioner Koch. Thank

you. Thank you, mister Turner. This is such an impressive body of a lot to 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 it's actually up to city council to make a decision on which projects get funded. There was a study session that occurred on April 27 where each department director was able to talk about their specific projects in more detail and provide the council with information where they can vet and decide what projects are funded.

Mhmm. Commissioner Bhatt.

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 license plate readers. And in the past year, I'm sure many of us know there's been added controversy with 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, but Tanisha may know, and she is available.

Apologies. I'm trying to figure out my camera. Oh, there I am. Good evening. I'm Tanisha Berner with Engineering and Transportation. 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 just tracking our our our open spaces.

So sorry. Can you clarify that? We're just not saving the data and tracking mean and combination? So

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

Okay. And as a last question on this matter, do you is the vendor Flock?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Following up on commissioner Bart's question. So is this the only location for the camera on the parkings, or is there any inter other intersections in the city that will contain these cameras?

Oh, no. The we don't have the red light cameras. This is just for the parking.

Thank you. Alright. I have other follow-up questions related to, I think, one of the new projects since it's new. I just would like more information about the feasibility studies for facilities maintenance and safety, I think it was. So it's a $1,000,000 budget. So just a little bit more information on what is the feasibility study for a future capital improvement project relating to facilities?

Yes. So that is a city manager initiative and the purpose is to basically explore an effort to improve city infrastructure and utilities and facilities. And so the goal is just to evaluate what's existing and figure out where there's a need for improvements. This was also reviewed at the mid year budget update hearing by council on February 23 and a $100,000 was allocated for a facilities master plan.

Okay, great. Thank you. Follow-up question I have is some of these projects 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 in transportation about the great separation. I think it's we just chip into, like, a a regional fund to study, I guess, impact of a great separation. So is that the case? So it's not necessarily that these CIPs are going to fund individual departments and projects within. Would may some of them may just be chipping into an overall budget somewhere else.

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 grid separation. So Tanisha Warner with engineering and transportation. For the grid separation project, staff is partnering with Caltrain. There's a federal grant, which is $15,000,000. The city's cost share portion is 1,500,000, 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 as with grade separation, we're only identifying partnering through the environmental phase.

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 matching funds for the federal grant, I presume.

Well, if you're speaking directly to grade separation, it is Redwood City specific. So Redwood City has six at grade crossings, and our our coordination with Caltrain 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. Alright. Thank you so much for the clarification. Alright. And last question, I'm sorry to hold this up is the improvements in the library. I think it's related to the restroom improvements. Just for the visibility for the public, can someone share, are we increasing the capacity? Are we changing their location or how they are being used? Just curious.

Yes. So there will not be a loss in the number of stalls for the bathroom, the restrooms, but there is now a conversion to unisex stalls. So there will be individual, one person stalls as opposed to a larger shared don't know if you've seen like the ones where it's you can be any gender and use it as opposed to where there's traditionally a a male and female restroom. Right. That's the change.

Understood. Yeah. The reason I was asking is, for example, in this building right outside, you know, there's men's what used to be men's women's bathrooms, but there was a reduction in capacity. So, you know, they there's fewer, shall I say, fixtures for people to use. So I was curious because it's a it's a heavily used space, the library. There's, know, hundreds of people using it sometimes. So I just wanted to ask whether the capacity will be reduced.

Yeah. No reduction in capacity.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

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

Great. Thank you so much. Alright. Any other questions from the commission? Seeing none, I will open public comment public hearing. Are there I don't see any speaker cards for person for this particular item. 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 Ms. Xlide, 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. There's no objection, and I will move sorry, I will open the meeting for committee discussion. So any commissioners would like to comment on item six a, the general plan consistency. Commissioner Baht. 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 license plate readers. And I'm I'm not fully convinced of any technology system that can that both claims to not save data and can track. Just that I the technologist to me doesn't doesn't see that adding up. 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 Baht. Any other comments from the commission?

Commissioner Hunter. I think this is fine, and I appreciate all the work for it. I just had a follow-up to your comment, which I think is a good one. And maybe this is for Ms. Xline. When one of the commissioners has a comment like commissioner Bach just had, and I know that our minutes now are are abbreviated and don't go into detail on the discussion, will his comments somehow be relayed to the council when this project come when this comes before them?

I'm gonna

I don't want his comments just to go into the void.

Yeah. So typically, our process when we bring stuff forward is to summarize comments 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 I was just doing right now is taking my notes on them, and I'll be passing them along to the staff that is going bring this item to council. And so they'll determine kind of how they will be incorporated. But when planning staff brings planning items to the council, just to kind of circle back on that, we do summarize the comments in a paragraph. You should see that if at the beginning of all the staff reports. Here's what 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. Yes. I will also summarize, I think I do agree all the projects are consistent with the general plan. Of the five new ones, I really appreciate the ones about improving the parking lot, striping around the community activities building and the new Memorial Center memorial letter, etcetera. I really appreciate the transportation staff effort into optimizing our open space and not paving over any more parkland to increase parking. So I appreciate that. Alright. If there's no more comments, do we need to make a vote on this? Yes. There needs to be a motion. Does anyone have a motion? The

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

Alright. Thank you. Commissioner Robertson moved.

I'll second that.

We have Commissioner Hunter as a second.

Commissioner Baht?

Yes.

Commissioner Cornejo? Yes. Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson? Yes. Vice chair Coke? Yes. And chair Srinagaratz?

Yes.

The motion passes by six with commissioner Finch absent.

Alright. 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. Alright. We have Apollo Roja, senior planner. He will give a presentation on the item. Presume Apollo is joining us virtually. I

believe he's here. I'm going to give him a quick call.

Okay. No problem. Right. We have Mr. Rojas, senior planner, will give a presentation on item we're at six b, which is a request Mr.

For recommendation to the city council to adopt zoning code amendments, etcetera.

Good evening, Chair, Planning Commission, members of the public. My name is Apolo Rojas, and I'm a senior planner with the city. And I'll be presenting these zoning comment amendments today. 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. To prioritize these programs, the city council has adopted housing as a strategic priority, approaching the issue with the four p's of housing. So that's to preserve, to protect, to partner, and lastly and most relevant to the zoning code update to produce housing. The city has also signed to meet its regional housing needs allocation or RINA, which requires the city to approve 4588 units by 2031.

That's our housing planning period. In addition, as a leader in housing and the Peninsula, Redwood 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 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 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 these zoning amendments before you today are just an incremental step forward and towards achieving that housing goal. So there's numerous updates as part of this packet as you may have seen, and we'd like to conceptualize them by putting them into three buckets. Here you have development review, housing element implementation, and code maintenance. So first, development review streamlining. This aims opportunities to develop housing and including a 100% affordable housing.

Next, housing element implementation. It's difficult to approve 7,000 more homes without a plan, and it's difficult to achieve this goal by implementing policies. So again, housing element has 40 programs that city is required to implement. So this includes things like expanding housing opportunities on small lots, 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 many of these buckets.

Another program is to allow more of a streamlined process, so that includes allowing more housing through staff level review. Lastly, these types of amendments or these amendments are intended to address a varied set of issues that we categorize broadly as code maintenance. Items that fall under this category include things like outdated regulations, 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 our zoning code continues to update and evolve. So first, on to development review streamlining.

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. If if it meets certain objective zoning code standards. So discretionary review, including things like pub feedback and public hearings, have been severely limited by state law. In addition, the city has adopted housing element policies 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.

The proposed amendment first would be to adopt a local program to streamline a 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 housing online faster. So some of those reasons are making development more affordable by reducing the cost of holding land, retaining consultants, and it also increases the time that affordable housing is eligible for competitive grants. The sooner you're approved, the more clear when you're gonna be approved, when you're applying for these different grants, it can certainly be a critical part as those grants, those varied income stacks are 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.

You know, in addition the state that has similar programs such as SB 35 and these programs allow for certain affordable projects to be streamlined as well and approved without a public hearing. But there are lot of times they have very complex eligibility criteria and, you know, the state is continually updating state law. So at times, it can feel like a movement moving target to some developers. Next, increasing the architectural advisory committee and planning commission threshold from 35 feet to 45 feet. We have a established high threshold where if projects cross that height, then they need to get reviewed by both the AAC and Planning Commission.

Currently, it is three stories and 35 feet. Unfortunately, that means that many residential three story townhome developments have been 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 your typical floor to ceiling heights, and your roof pitch.

When you add those all together, you're regularly crossing that 35 foot threshold. So the proposed amendments would be to increase the high requirement to 30 to 45 feet, but not the store requirement. Remain that at three stories in keeping with the original intent of that requirement, but to allow those taller floor to ceiling heights for residential townhomes. And then extending entitlements from three years to five years. Currently, planning entitlements or planning permits are active for two years and may get an extension, a onetime extension, 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. They have to obtain financing. They have to develop construction plans. They have to secure building permits and, you know, all that while faced with 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 may 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 varying funding cycles. So Rapid City has had projects in the past come back to Planning Commission because they've exceeded this they've expired, and, 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 is what the city is looking for. So what could be a base of three years is extended now to five years with those extensions. Lastly, this is part of the municipal 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, 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, 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 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. Things like development review streamlining, encouraging a 100% affordable housing, reducing timelines and eliminating the number of public hearings are all part of existing housing element programs. So I did want to flag that there is some overlap between these buckets. The next program here is small lots. This program is intended to incentivize development on small lots.

So some of you might think as well missing middle that could be applied to similar cases. Now what's a small lot? The state defines it as anything as less than half an acre, but this certainly affects lots even smaller than that still. So I think the 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 Rabbit City. So these would include things like reducing daylight plane setbacks for upper stories districts, reducing front and exterior yard setbacks for upper stories in multifamily districts.

Now an exterior yard setback if you're on a corner 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. Reducing open space requirements in residential multifamily districts, and this would be reducing from 300 square feet per unit to a 125 square feet per unit. Now that a 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 allowing for more buildable area. The next two programs include providing housing options to special needs and extremely low income households. So 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 detailed regulations around how they're operated, and a 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 accepted in Rapid City. Now state law requires that these undergo ministerial review. We're gonna talk about ministerial review a lot.

What what's that? It means just review based on objective standards without discretion and typically done without a public hearing, typically done at staff level. And the the final thing would probably be without an appeal process associated with it. So basically, if you meet objective standards, you're able to be approved. Second bullet here being a revised parking standards.

So, you know, the the proposal is to eliminate minimum parking requirements for a 100% affordable housing, senior housing, group homes, and low barrier navigation centers. 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. Construction of parking could be very costly. It could be a significant portion of the cost of developing new housing and the major constraint on housing development and these types of uses.

Removing the parking requirement would facilitate hopefully greater development of these types, these housing types. Now we go into code maintenance. You know, as we learned in the CIP presentation, maintenance is important part of ensuring that, you know, systems are operating efficiently. And a zoning code like anything else, it needs to be revisited, needs to be adjusted just to make sure that it's functioning properly. So the proposed code maintenance updates are to help ensure that the zoning remains current, 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. So for tonight, we're just highlighting the changes that are most substantive in terms of policy clarifications or updates. And they'll include updates to state law on this slide and minor policy clarifications on the next slide. So updates to be consistent with state law. What will those be?

They'll be reverting our ADU ordinance to state law, which is largely consistent with our local standards and updating our short term rental ordinance to strengthen enforcement. There'll be updates to our SB nine ordinance to enforce underlying zoning district standards and to react to recent changes in state law surrounding SB nine. And updates to clarify the review process for state mandated ministerial review. So 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 ministerial review. So the goal is again is to make these things explicit and clear where a state law might not be as clear just so folks know what the regulations are. Minor policy clarifications and updates. 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 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 zoning code, codifying them with minor updates to some of those bicycle parking ratios. The engineering standards have also include things like bicycle parking design and whatnot.

So we'll have references for folks if they need to know how those bicycle parking areas need to be designed, we could reference them to the engineering standards. Still on the topic of bicycle parking, updates to our existing vehicle parking reduction where you're able to substitute bicycle parking for vehicle parking in certain areas, your C districts, industrial those are commercial districts, industrial districts, professional office districts, neighborhood commercial districts. These tend to be smaller sites. These tend to be located more towards neighborhoods. So previously, the requirement had a bicycle substitution for vehicle parking reduction for carpool spaces only or carpool parking only.

This would go and apply to vehicle parking as a whole. Also minor land use updates allow food preparations would be a new land use. So this would be catering and bakeries. We've had a lot of potential business owners come to us and say, hey, where can I locate catering? And it was not as clear based on our previous 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 zoning district. That district transitional, as you can imagine, is transitioning commercial and industrial areas to the neighborhoods. Allowing medical office by right within a half mile of transit. Against state law, it prohibits applying parking standards to new development within a half mile of major transit. That would be Rebate City Caltrain station.

And use permits conditional uses, so require a use permit. Use permits typically analyze impacts, and one of the major impacts that we analyze 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 conditional use permit process in a public hearing near specifically near transit, they'd be permitted by rights, a half mile transit. And then expanding 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 2,500 square feet. Other areas you look and it's permitted if it's 5,000 square feet. So this is just lining up those thresholds to be consistent throughout to be 5,000 square feet, you know, which is pretty much the size of a small medium small size gym. So again, one of those key just little tiny coat cleanups that that we're doing here. Also zone specific, the light industrial incubator zone, we're now allowing indoor recreation and modifying our parking requirements to be more inviting to retail and restaurants.

Light industrial incubator that's kind of located between Woodside and the Stanford campus. And so maybe 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 North For Oaks, so it could benefit from some neighborhood serving uses. And lastly, modifying code language. We've had some sections of our code which have not been updated since the sixties or seventies.

And so as you can imagine, people spoke differently, people wrote differently. So a lot of these might be passive language, things that are grammatically incorrect, things that just easier for staff and the public to understand. So not necessarily even going through broad changes of the actual intent of that code language, but just making it more legible and readable. If it's more readable, it's more usable. Alright.

And lastly, 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, are unlikely to to develop just given site constraints. Amendments would rezone these two parcels to general commercial 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 with a zoning district that it's consistent with the surrounding around it. So this is the current, and this is the proposed here in the red. Go back one more time. Blue to red mixed use waterfront to general commercial. So with that, that concludes my presentation. Staff's recommendations for the commission is to 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, mister Rojas, for your presentation. Are there any clarifying questions that the commission would like to ask staff? Commissioner Hunter.

Yeah. Let's see. I just came up with this one. When you talked about ministerial review for 100% affordable housing, a lot of larger affordable housing projects that come before us Set aside one unit for managers. I assume that still counts as 100%.

Yes. So it would exclude those managers units. The same for the parking as well. The parking exception where removing parking for 100% affordable housing, that wouldn't require additional parking for the managers' units, for example.

Okay. And the only other question right now I have is, I think this was regarding the zoning administrator review of condominium subdivisions, and there's there's some other places also where the the review level would be to the zoning administrator. Would those administrator meetings be public hearings?

Yeah. For the most part, the staff level review the zoning administrator has two major kind of decision paths. One being at a staff level like, you know, many permits are are signed on a daily basis by the zoning administrator at that staff level. And then there's additional there's an 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. It still takes some time. You know, there's packets that need to be generated by staff in order to hold those meetings. It still adds cost to projects and affordable housing developers. So the thought being, you know, with things like SB 35 where it's done on a ministerial staff level basis to to be consistent with that practice for our local program.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Hunter. I also have a couple of questions. Speaking of 100% affordable housing, in addition to ministerial review, do are they required to undergo CEQA review or or is the state law preempt that?

Melinda, did you wanna chime in on that?

I'll take this.

Melinda Hu, Principal Planner, CEQUA Coordinator. To answer your question, because it's ministerial, it is not required to undergo CEQUA review.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. Next question is about the extension of the entitlements from three to five years. I think you offer some reasons as to why this is, but can you just clarify, is it due to 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, twenty 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 Yes.

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 some of the green and red initiatives, right, we had reach codes a while back. Who knows who's to say if that circles back and additional regulations are moving that direction in the future. But yes, I'd say things are getting more lengthy to review as time goes on.

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

Yeah. Entitlement. I for building code standards in particular, I I think you need to have a permit in hand. You know, have to do review on I could look that up for a second for you, but

Mhmm.

I I think that's part of the issue is that until they're actually submitted and and they they got a 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 make sure that we're code compliant going forward? And you know, not just building code, but fire code as well.

Makes sense. 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, you know, the five years is with the ZEA extensions. Right? The zoning administrator 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. Mhmm. And particularly that second extension, that fifth year requires building permit plans to be submitted. Mhmm. 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. Mhmm. 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 applicants, developers to make sure that they're actually moving the ball forward.

Right. Okay. Sounds good. So there's demonstrated progress.

Yes. That's the hope.

All right. Next question is about the what was it? Within gyms or fitness centers. So 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 we're expanding that number instead of contracting that number, I think it's less of an issue. If we were reducing that number, for example, from 5,000 to 2,500 square feet, Oh. Yeah. We would have to do a live analysis to make sure we're not accidentally, you know, making some of our gyms noncompliant.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood. So it's less than 5,000. I thought it was requirement was to be more than 5,000 square feet. Okay.

Yeah. So it it would bifurcate the review process. So anything below 5,000 would be permitted by Wright. Anything above 5,000 would require a use permit.

Got it. Okay. That makes total sense. Thank you. And last question is about food preparation. I think that is exciting to have these types of businesses. And is it permitted by right in commercial general as we speak? Or is

it only in, I guess, in UT 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 primarily to start and then mixed use transitional districts, which are kind of scattered throughout the city and generally closer to commercial areas. Okay.

That sounds good. Thank you. Commissioner Butt, sorry, I'm monopolizing the time. That's fine.

Thank you to staff, first of all, for answering a few of my questions earlier when this package was sent out. Just for 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 the challenge is a little bit of clarity. Know, a lot of developers, whatnot, they look to our ordinances to see what does this city allow because every city is different. And so part of reflecting what the code says, you know, it's important for them and in certain cases important for the state. You know, there's times where you know the state looks at our code and says, what are you allowing?

Is it in compliance with state law? And if there's not, you you might hear from them. So it's a little bit preventative measure from 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. That's what I was wondering. I have no other clarifying question at the moment. I'll talk later.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Cornejo?

Oh, I think I

Thank Sorry.

You can go.

No. No. Commissioner Robinson, sorry. Your hands were in front of the light, I couldn't see whether it was on. Thank you.

Sorry. I had my light on and off, and now it's on again. Thank you for the very detailed presentation. I have some questions. Ministerial review of 100% affordable housing. I understand that's 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 I just need a little bit more education here.

Yeah. Sure. The SB 35 has certain affordability thresholds depending on if your city has met Reno or not. So in some cases, if you haven't met Reno, 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, you know, the the 100% affordable housing encourages developers to, you know, hey, we have a a more streamlined, clearer review path, but you have to provide us with more affordable housing. It's a and it's an incentive in that direction. I would say also the state 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, for developers to use and and fill out.

So there's a lot of parsing out, am I eligible? And a lot of times they ask us, am I even eligible for this? So there's a lot of confusion and the idea is, you know, make affordable housing inviting to Rebate City and and reduce constraints and barriers to even considering Rabbit City. Okay. So

I guess we could get applications that are not covered, but are a 100% affordable and perhaps don't have the same mix. But this is proposing that these would then just go through ministerial review so that would save the applicant some time. 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 development standards. Right? That's sort of first and foremost the biggest part of the review. If they're meeting those standards, there's nothing or there's very few findings for denial 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, we have individual development web pages for each of our major projects. We would continue to do that for 100% affordable housing projects. Those usually include specific details on the plan, links to plans, and also contact information for the project planner and applicants. So you can contact people directly.

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

Okay. Thank you. 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 a small line.

We can extend that, but actually I'm going to just jump in very quickly about lettering. So 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 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 can see in front of the zoning administrator?

Yeah. For some larger developments, we have on-site posting, you know. So there'll be large signage saying there's a development coming to this site. And that's something we typically have as part of our submittal criteria. Hey, did you provide this on-site that we can continue the application review? So, yeah, I think that's a big part of just visibility.

Mhmm. Great. Yeah. Commissioner Robinson, feel free to go into small lots. No problem.

What is the depth what's the square footage of a small lot? I don't know if I missed that or not. For 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 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 I opened up my calculator here. So an acre, 43,560, half of that, 21,780 square feet.

Majority

under program h one a? Yeah.

There is no floor to that small lot size. Like there's not a micro size. It's basically anything under that half an acre. So the housing element, taking a step back, know, there's programs that the city takes initiative in saying, we wanna do this, we wanna adopt certain programs and policies to advance housing. In 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 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 adopt measures that allow 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. I just noticed that less than one half acre. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. I'm going to abuse 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 Robust City are less than 8,000 square feet, it sounds like the small that a code will apply citywide. Or is it only on r two to r five higher density small lots?

Yeah. So going back to the specifics, and I'm not sure. Christine, would it be possible to go back to there we go. So small lots H1, the second bolded bullet here, reduced 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, Broadway, Woodside Road for example. Reducing exterior, front exterior yard setbacks for upper stories in multifamily districts that would be multifamily R4, R5 zoning districts. So these are typically standalone residential districts but that have lots of density. So a good example of R5 would be Arch between Whipple and Broadway.

R 4, a lot of the central District, I think has that designation. And then again, open space requirements in multifamily districts. So that's anything r two to r five. So basically any residential district that's not single family. And lastly, mixed use districts going back to major corridors.

Okay. Great. Thanks for clarifying. So it is restricted, not through the full city, just r two to r sorry, r four, r five is multifamily and an MEG?

Yeah. R two to r five would be multifamily.

Yeah. Okay. That's still a sizable chunk. Okay. Sounds great. Commissioner Kuniho.

Hi. Thank you for your presentation. I had some I have some clarifying questions 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 a 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. I'll give you an example. 707 Bradford, the Arroyo Green Building here on Bradford between Main Street and Jefferson is that's an example of senior housing. Right? And we would say there's no minimum required, but they found it necessary to provide parking. So 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. At the same time, we understand that there's probably different employees or workers that might come in and out. And so, yeah, I think the idea is to remove constraints and barriers to 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 the 100% affordable housing. Yeah. And I think part of that too is state trends. You know, I mentioned the no parking within half a mile of transit, half mile Caltrain station. It seems like it's trending towards that direction of the trade off of space for affordable housing or space for vehicle parking. You know, it's it's it's pushing towards housing, and that's part of the process of the housing element is identifying areas that add cost to housing and the state encouraging you to remove those barriers.

Got it. My second question is on earlier when you were answering one of the questions to one of my colleagues, you mentioned that every city is different when it comes to like criteria. 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, etcetera. You know, every city could 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 21,780 square foot lot. Like 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?

Would depend on what type of standard, right? Like I'm not sure if the on parking particularly, how we stand against them or densities, for example. I think it really just varies on 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 to push to adopt a lot of these 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 x y z. So we'll see as they continue to move forward with their initiatives, how they address that issue.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Cornejo. I have one last clarifying question. It's about navigation centers. I know you mentioned in your slides that, you know, it will be reviewed ministerially against objective standards. Just curious, do we have spelled out objective standards for navigation centers or are they just considered multifamily housing or like what standards are we talking about?

Yeah, that would be part of this particular code adoption is establishing those standards. But for the most part it will reference the state code. 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 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 legally feasible.

But the idea again, provide more clarity, codify in the code, give people clear references of, okay, where do I go if I want to, you know, control f, find a 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 into the state code that we're adopting?

Yeah. I mean, have certain criteria for I'm trying to think of the exact criteria they have, but it's things like people checking in and whatnot. Because there's some overlap between you know land use, where are these things allowed, and then more like health and safety, how the treatment for these the people with these needs occurs within these spaces. So it's a little bit of both regulation of I'd say the state is more heavy on the latter on the making sure that people's needs are met on these areas. So there's maybe not for example, parking isn't referenced in the state code, and that's why we codified it something.

Just clarifying if an application does come in, they know we're not going to require parking. As it might vary from city to city, some are silent. The silence causes confusion as well. So just trying to be clear on what the requirements are and where they're located.

Got it. So but these objective standards will be publicly available specifically for navigation center. I mean, guess they'll be available on the state website, but also in railway city code.

Oh, that's correct, Jared. And I think there's some idea, and Sue, correct me if I'm wrong, but adding more publication material, like adding more handouts to kind of support that, to kind of bolster that or yeah. In addition to those requirements because not everyone's gonna go into the state code, know, everybody's gonna go into the city code. And so I think there's some obligation from the city to make things as accessible as possible. So I know that's one thing that we have going on is we do wanna 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 providers and developers? So that is something that we that came about this zoning ordinance of what to codify versus what to publish and what to broadcast.

Got it. And does it apply only for new construction? I know that the County Of San Mateo has programs that would converting existing hotels into supportive housing and that also probably come with bunch of regulations with them. So would those also have to comply with these standards or they're exempt?

Yes. The from my understanding, the low barrier navigation centers don't have to be built from scratch for example. You know, we have one across Highway 101 that was, you know, brand new. But we also have a proposal to convert a portion of a church by El Camino Real and near near Target area. So it's it doesn't necessarily have to be new. At the same time, project HomeKey, project RoomKey, the two programs to convert hotels to supportive housing or senior housing, that's a separate issue. Separate but similar in that, again, state process mandated and has to be done ministerially.

Review. Okay. Thank you so much. I apologize for all my questions. Any other questions from the commission? All right. Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Thank you so much for your presentation, mister Rojas. We have public speakers. I will call public speakers on first and then followed by Zoom. If you're joining us by Zoom, please raise your hand so miss Exline can have you counted. And in the meantime, I'll have Michael Arruza. Please join us in the podium. You have three minutes to speak.

Thank you. Hi. My name is Michael Arruza. I'm a Redwood City resident and volunteer lead for Yes in Redwood City. I honestly just have to say there's just so much good stuff in here. I was surprised when I was reading through the package. There's so many, like, great idea and change after change. I'm especially excited by the Ministry of Review and parking minimum changes for 100% affordable housing. That goes such a long way towards making these projects more feasible, giving them certainty to their timelines, and making them more fiscally viable by reducing costs significantly. Especially since we're currently behind on our Reno numbers, that'll go such a long way towards helping us actually meet those numbers and get those needed housing units built.

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 state law, especially since when we looked into the permitting timelines in the publicly available data earlier this year, did find larger than expected timelines for ADU permit approval. So we're really happy to see that staff is working to improve those timelines. I would be interested to see data for how what percentage of our ADU permits end up 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.

I urge Planning Commission to follow their commission of staff. And thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Arruza. I really appreciate your comments. I see no other in person speakers. Miss Echelon, do we have any raised hands online?

We do.

Alright.

Dylan Finch.

Alright. Is he allowed to do that?

Yes. Alright. Yeah. Yeah. I am allowed to do that. Right?

Yes.

Okay. Yes. Hello, honorable members of the planning commission. My name is Dylan Finch. Unfortunately, I'm out of town. I wasn't able to attend, the whole meeting, but, I did wanna comment on this important item. I think, yeah, some good questions so far. I think the loss of the the public hearing for the 100% affordable projects is unfortunate. But ultimately, I think the ministerial review is a good idea here. The planning commission has very little leeway to deny or request discretionary changes to these projects anyway.

And I feel like holding the hearing gives the impression that we can request these discretionary changes even though we can't in most cases. 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. And I think that staff does an excellent job collecting public input during planning efforts such as the ongoing greater downtown area plan. And, the public input collected for those larger planning efforts can be used to shape the individual projects. And, of course, it's great to get the, affordable housing built more quickly.

I really love deferring to state law on ADUs. With all the state level changes, I I just think that makes a lot of sense. With regard to the section on reducing parking minimums, I'm a big fan of that. I would also be in favor of making it easier to expand the residential parking permit program to the areas that are affected by these reduced minimums. I do believe that for these types of housing, there will be fewer cars, but I think the permits could 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. When the construction market stabilizes and after this has been effect 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, 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. Thank you, staff.

That was all.

Thank you.

We do not have any other hands raised, Gerard.

That's what I was waiting for. Thank you, Mick Saxe. Seeing no more speakers, I will now close the public hearing, and I will open the meeting for committee discussion. Commissioner Baht, lead us.

Yes. Thank you so much, staff, for all of these updates. This is 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 is very happy read. I mean, I I think this is a incredible step, and I think it's incredible first step.

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 inhibit development. I as I was slipping through, I saw that we still mandate five parking spaces per bowling lane in a building. We mandate for funeral homes, one space for every five seats in the chapel. And some of these might make sense, but some of these I can see would already make a build not pencil out. So my overall comments are I'm extremely excited and after we pass this, I hope more is coming.

Thank you, Commissioner Butt. Commissioner Coke.

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

And the only other thing I will say sort of to piggyback on that is that senior housing. Hey. I live in senior housing. It's anybody 50, basically, is where I live. And that building was built in 1980, 88 units with about 55 parking spaces.

So way back then, they realized parking is much more expensive to build than units. 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 vie for a parking space every night when they come home from work in this parking lot right here. And I did it for eighteen months until an inside spot opened, and if you can't find one, you can't find one. In 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 Coke. Commissioner Cornejo. Yeah.

Thank you. I'm just I'm thinking here, so bear with me. I think 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 live in Downtown Redwood City. And I mean, today I was late because I couldn't find parking. And I'm lucky enough in my in my apartment or I'm privileged enough to afford a parking spot. But I do know a lot of my neighbors can't afford a $125 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. So that to me is really important. And also, the community that come from, like my family and just friends and all of that, we all could benefit from parking. We're 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, I'm really big on the public input. I always think we could do more, even if we're doing great. We could have more voices at table, more people. So I am a little bit concerned of that part, 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. Commissioner Hunter.

Thank you. So this is a tremendous amount of work that staff did, and thank you for that. I think this is probably over the last year. It seems like things you've been working on this. So it's tremendous.

I support almost almost everything in here. I think the recommendations are great, and they're all thoughtful and well thought out. There is one, unfortunately, that I do not support, and that's the mixed use daylight plane. And that's section one a on page four of 14 under the housing element implementation. And if you look at the looking at the at the diagram, figure a, which is on page five, if you look at the right diagram, which is the proposal, the left diagram is is the current 15 foot daylight plane.

So the proposal is to have a 45 degree angle rising from 28 feet 28 feet in height. So if the setback assuming assume the setback for the for the larger the building in the mixed use area is is is 10 feet, that means that there would be a 38 foot vertical wall right on the next to the property line, next to the neighbor's property line. I've been in houses of people whose neighbors had built a 28 foot ADU on the property line, 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. 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. And 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 trades a small gain in buildable area against a really real loss in livability for the for the neighbors. So that is those are my comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter. Commissioner Robinson?

Yes. I would just like the I guess the the report or the recommendation to clarify that I think this is page 63, number one, ministerial review of 100% affordable housing. If I understand correctly that state law only requires ministerial review of a 100% affordable housing applications if they are covered by Senate Bill 35. It's not clear that ministerial review of non SB 35 applications, what the impact of that would be. I mean, we're giving developers maybe two months less time frame for approval because they don't have to go through architectural or planning commission.

But if the RHNA if that process then they can bypass SB 35 and do fewer affordable fewer units of, let's say, lower affordability. I just right now, this isn't clear. I think we had the discussion, but I think it would would be helpful to make sure I mean, I were a council member, I would just like this to be clarified. And if the unit mix on a non SBA 35 application going through non ministerial review could actually have fewer units of the affordability mix, like low, very low Does that make sense? I can Sue, you're about ready to rein me in.

No. No. No. I'm not. I just wanna make sure I'm understanding at the the change in the income levels Is what you're asking Yeah.

I think my I think I heard planner Rojas say that, yes, under it's very complicated in arena and so under SB 30 and therefore, you know, if if we're giving you the same streamlined of ministerial review whether you're SB 35 or a non SBA 35, we're talking both a 100% affordable but one under SB 35 if it has a more favorable affordable affordability mix

Yeah,

we maybe would then, you know, Well, do the same

thing I'll clarify is that the projects that use SB 35 right now are a 100 have been a 100% in Redwood City have all been a 100% affordable, and I think that's pretty common. So he's totally right that there are different levels depending on your how you how you are aren't meeting Rina, that the state applies and that percentage can change. I would maybe not 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, our requirement is 50%. You have to have at least 50% affordable to be able to apply for an SB 35 application.

So therefore, you don't see projects that are 50% affordable. It's just not a prototype that's developed. I can't say never, but it hasn't been developed here. I can say that. So the process is that SB 35 is used for a 100% affordable projects because they meet that threshold.

So I think back to your point about they choose typically, they have been choosing since that a bill was adopted. The 100% affordable housing projects have chosen that path. I think all of them have chosen that path since that bill was approved and said, hey, this is the fastest way that we found to get through the process. So I think you mentioned, hey, could they go through the typical entitlement process? They could. They have not chosen that. They have found it to be faster to do the SB 35 process. Does that answer?

It does, but I guess my concern would be if if I can get ministerial review and not use SB 35 because I'm a 100% affordable but my affordability mix is not as favorable as it would be under an SB 35 application. So the you that, you know, if I'm s b 35 and I'm gonna have more low, very low, moderate income units, but if I'm non s b eight s b 35, 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 that would just be my concern there. Are we losing anything by allowing non s b a s b 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.

I so 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 a 100% affordable housing because of the way tax increment financing works. Tax credits work?

Tax credit.

Tax credit. Tax credit. Sorry.

Favor the lower income.

Yeah. They favor those types. So there is a theoretical option out there that says, hey, I'm a 100% moderate. Let me think through this. I'm a 100 moderate. Would I because of I would go through the city's process and therefore, no, they could go through SB 35 as well. So they could go through either process because they're 100% affordable housing. Right? Paulo, am I missing something?

I think there is some low affordability requirement involved with SB 35. I'm 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 a chart of our RENO obligations. We have to hit a variety of income levels. And I will say in the last cycle of our arena target or arena goals, we did not make much ground on moderate. So it would be very surprising if we were able to hit that moderate number just given how difficult it is to finance that particular type.

Yeah. I think it'd be surprising to find that as a 100% moderate project to be built. So I think we're saying it's theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

Okay.

Well, I think this will be an interesting one just to keep an eye on if non SB 35 projects start coming through, what they look like. I'm just looking for if there 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. My concern would just be if we're just giving a little bit too much unnecessarily. So but largely, our hands are tied when it's SB 35. So okay, thank you. I think that's enough discussion on that.

Thank you, Commissioner Robinson.

I have also a couple

of comments. Speaking about parking, I do agree and I think I support the no parking requirements for 100% affordable housing. 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, guess, to to multifamily district. Reducing parking requirements in the R one to r two and maybe through R four, would that require a particular study?

Or is that something that could be done as part of a code update, Like a further reduction in parking requirements. The reason I'm asking here, there's two part questions. One is about, like, for single family housing, you know, that is is that enshrined in state law that parking is requirement for any single family home. Because if you go to the outside areas of Redwood City, they are very sparse, of course, and the public already or the city already subsidizes two street parking spots per parcel usually. And then, of course, there's garage parking and and carport or driveway parking. So that's four vehicles potentially per particular housing unit. So I'm just curious, were there any requirements from the state side or what would it take to update R1, R2 and R3 zones parking requirements?

Do you want me to give it a shot first? Do you want to jump in? So I I think tonight, like we were saying it, and I think many of you were saying, this is the sort of first first step to to understand. 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 sizable part of the city to start with, and then this was, you know, the next step to sort of say there are certain uses that we think do not need to have minimum parking requirements, and then we want to bring forward as part of our the MTC, transit oriented communities, that we are starting have just started, it was quite delayed because of MTC sort of rolling out of that program that as part of that, there are there's more parking work being done by Redwood City, we have a consultant, and there are some work on sort of densities. And then one more piece of state legislation that's come down is SB 79, which also looks at increasing density around transit. So we have and there's some 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 over the next several months to a year that are will align those two topics together, sort of increasing density and thinking about that, as well as how do we want to think about parking in a city.

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

Sounds great. Yeah. Mean, my only comment is if you go into the r one, which is more than 50% of the area or city, you know, each particular parcel has by code requirement a garage spot, a driveway 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 luxurious, which is great. I think people can enjoy whatever we have, but perhaps not requiring the on parcel either garage or driveway parking may allow for larger for more housing development.

I mean, along those lines, if one develops a ADU on a r one primary lot, is parking extra parking required, like, off-site? No. Okay. At least in that respect, it's not. Great.

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. And one, it's kinda difficult to expect the amenities of an r one neighborhood, you know, and the luxury just having four vehicle parking spots per housing unit in a downtown core. And I think it's something that I I do appreciate and encourage staff to be able to encourage mode shifting of people who live downtown to be able to commute in other modes. I know not everyone can do it for other reasons, but I think it's certainly possible, and I think we need to encourage that.

In terms of other code changes, I have some concerns about open space requirements. I know 300 square feet does sound like a lot per unit. A 125 is small, but if I guess if we're making consistent with multifamily developments, I'm okay with that. But, yeah, I right. Open spaces at a premium, and I know the the staff is having difficult time. At least we're, as a city, have a hard time getting open space for citizens in downtown. There is few parks that we're trying to make a linear park. So I think having the opportunities for residents to have at least within their development of some open space is helpful. All right. Commissioner Hunter?

Can I make a motion?

You can make would you like to make a motion as well or?

You can go next, but I had an additional comment. Please. Commissioner Robinson first then. Yes. So I think 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. Velota Avenue, 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.

I've I've worked in affordable housing tangentially through banking and through nonprofit service. 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 I'm sure that the city staff is just hearing this and it is just part of the plan to hopefully manage going forward.

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

Very old. Some of these are very old existing neighborhoods and the street plotting in our city has not been consistent. You can go through some neighborhoods where you have a wide street, lots of parking, some neighborhoods where if people park on both sides of the street, only one car can go through at a time even though it's two way traffic.

Right. Yeah. I've seen the yeah. I've seen those and certainly the is is probably the most visible example. Me but there are ways to to deal with this. And I was gonna say I I have seen on Palm Avenue, I have a similar issue where actually one side of the street was reduced and 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. There there are engineering efforts available to solve these issues. But go ahead and commit oh, any further comment? No. Commissioner Hunter.

Sorry.

Okay. Thank you, chair. So I think I would like to make a motion and do what I think how the city council often does this is I would like to make a motion to accept this wherever the recommendation is here, to accept the entire recommendation with the exception of the mixed use the section on the mixed use daylight plane. I'd like to so we'll split the whole thing up into two, and then so the motion I would like to make is to approve the the staff recommendation with that one exception, and then after that vote, any commissioners who want, I think, can make and set move and seconded second about the mixed use daylight plan. Is that acceptable?

I think so. In terms of protocol and procedure, I think we'll

In terms of 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 in whole. I don't think you can break down the

Well, it it will it'll it'll be it would be two 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 is my motion right now, period.

You would delete that amendment. Apollo, do you mind just telling us what section that is just so we could put it in the record?

Yeah. Absolutely, Ms. Xline. So that daylight plane amendment is located in three separate zoning districts, three separate mixed use districts. That's Article 53, Article 54, and Article 55.

Unless we need to get more detailed.

I think I got it. Did you get it? Good. Okay.

Thanks. 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.

Do we have a second for a motion to

I will second. Second?

Yeah. All right, Commissioner Butt second. Do we have a discussion on this before we vote? Would anyone like Mr. Robinson?

Yes. I won't support the motion. I think we need further discussion on it. I think I appreciate the fact that you expressed your concern over it and your neighbors' experience. I think I would like to see a little bit more diagrams of what that would look like before making that change.

Wait. Did you say you won't support the motion? Correct. 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 going to take one item out of here, I think it merits further discussion. So I'd like to have further discussion about it before taking a vote on it.

Okay. So Great. Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. Commissioner Baht.

Yeah. So I have I have separate thoughts on the daylight motion, but I'll save that for the second vote. But I'll at least entertain the motion the idea of the vote. I I think specifically on parking, just to chime in as a downtown resident, I guess the majority of council is downtown residents now that I think about it. I got by perfectly fine for many years in Redwood City without a gar.

I've it is a luxury I own now. It is not a necessity. 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. But I personally don't believe it's gonna be that much of a hit to remove the parking minimums. Specifically on the point that commissioner Robinson made about older neighborhoods, while I do also experience the same plight of car of streets that are clearly not wide enough for the current parking situation, there are also plenty of houses in those neighborhoods to paint a really broad stroke that do seem to be underutilizing much of the 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 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 current vote because I believe everything is in order and nice. Mhmm.

Thank you, commissioner Butt. Commissioner Cornejo.

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

I will try to do my best. So we're voting on the resolution as is minus just three articles that are related to the daylight plane that commissioner Hunter wanted to pull for a separate discussion.

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

Yes. Because right now, like, I don't really know what I'm going for.

Sure. So there's well, Apollo, if you want to bring that up and show the current code and then the amendment that we're proposing. And I think 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. And just for clarification, the section in I don't know if you're looking at it, but the section in the staff report is the one that is at the bottom of page four of 14, and it extends to the middle of page five.

What page are you on?

66 on thick back.

Oh, 66. Yeah. There's three numbering systems in all the pages. But the one that says page four fourteen at the bottom middle.

It's 66 of the big number. If

it pleases the chair, I could describe the daylight plan while you while you Now is

the perfect time to review this. Too.

So essentially, the daylight plan acts as a setback, particularly for the upper stories to make sure that light and air is reaches adjacent properties, hence the term daylight. And so here, this imaginary 45 degree angle line starts at the property line from a certain height. Currently, starts at 15 feet height and you have to then the left diagram showing that 15 foot height, how it requires the upper stories, the third and fourth story in this case, to step back to the to the proximity to the the property line of the building. So there's a couple options. Right?

Either you step back the entire building, so you just have a big straight wall, or you have this sort of wedding cake effect, which 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 results. So part of it is maintaining a bit of form. Standard single family maximum building height is 28 feet. Hence why we're starting at that or proposing that point with the idea being this daylight plane wouldn't begin until, you know, the standard 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.

Here talking about mixed use districts that primarily involve major corridors such as El Camino, Veterans, Woodside Road. It would apply to to sites adjacent to our lower density areas, R 1, R two, R three. We would actually have no daylight plane in our higher next to higher density areas such as R 4, R five. So just to be clear, again, this would a, increase the where the daylight plane begins, potentially allowing 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 multifamily higher density multifamily areas such as R 4, R 5 because those tend to have a variety of uses, not just single family.

They also have higher density multifamily. And there are other daylight planes for properties next to public open spaces and historic resources, but we're not proposing any changes to those daylight planes.

Okay. Just for clarification. So the two diagrams, one is for multifamily exterior yard setbacks, frontage, and then the other the other one is for residential zoning district. I'm sorry. There are 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 ones, if they're located next to already R4, R5 multifamily, then there will be no requirement for step backs for for daylight planes.

Yes. That's correct. And I think what we've seen on some of these step back areas is actually because there's building footprint there. It's a roof of the second Story. It it gets used as balcony essentially. And so then maybe a roof deck takes the place of what be just be a building. And and mind you, you know, these districts also have architectural standards as well. So the idea wouldn't be that it'd be a flat building face. There'd be some architectural elements ideally that that are maybe a little bit more of interest than this very generic building massing shown on the screen. Can

I have ask a follow-up question?

Of course.

And why are we removing this from from the item?

Or or commissioner Hunter made a motion.

Is your recommendation.

My concern is that under the proposal, it would be allowed a say there's a 10 say there's a 10 foot setback there. And starting at 28 feet and you go 45 degrees, there would be up to a there would be a 38 foot vertical wall next to a home or residence next door. This this this would only I mean, the the whole thing is fairly limited because it would only apply when a struck a building is proposed in a multiuse area, which is adjacent to one of the residential areas. Mhmm. But in that case, my concern is that that would allow a 38 foot wall right next to a home.

Got it. Got it.

Okay. So the the first picture, is this in r one, r two, r three? The the the 15 to 28 increase?

Yeah. The first picture here on the left is the existing standard, and that applies to any 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, I'll just may say, penalized based on what the adjacent uses may be. So you're having a more stringent setback maybe than someone that's located next to a commercial property in a mixed use zone.

But if you're gonna have a four story building, you probably won't be able to build it in R 1?

Oh, correct. Yeah. This only applies to mixed use zoning districts. So this daylight plane doesn't exist in R one districts. How it does apply is mixed use districts that are adjacent to R 1, r two, r three, which are just more categorically lower density Yeah. Zoning districts.

Yeah. Yeah. A helpful of that border on the city map will be very helpful. But if if we have a photo of the zone map of the city, we would pinpoint exactly where this border and affected properties would be. But I presume it's something that goes along the lines of El Camino right on the west side of it where MUT goes to R 4. But that's just my guess.

Yeah. I'd say that's accurate. A majority of or a good portion of El Camino Real, you know, is within our downtown precise plan. And so there's standards there regarding setbacks. But outside of those areas, yeah, El Camino and I'd I'd say Woodside Road is probably another predominant area where if there are single family properties abutting the rear of Woodside Road properties, they're likely subject to this daylight play 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, this is an example of a four story building. Is that right?

Yeah. It's just illustrative. I'll I'll, you know, preface this disclaimer. It's it's not necessarily to scale perfectly, but yeah. I think just to provide a imagery, it most likely would affect those 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 Multi

use district neighborhood.

That's correct. Yeah. Okay.

Commissioner Hunter, did you want to speak? Did you have your arm raised? I wasn't sure if you No. Needed to speak. Okay. 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 in because they ended up having these balconies on multiple floors as a way to satisfy this daylight plane requirement. So it would allow for higher utilization of this envelope?

Yes, that's correct. They'll allow more buildable area. Anytime you introduce a new corner or a new setback, a new entry point, it adds additional cost to construction. And so, you know, we're not saying we wanna see big boxes go up. But at the same time, the idea was, you know, housing element program, small lots, this this this concept, you know, adjacent to missing middle of how can we as a city tweak different development standards, whether that's heights, setbacks, parking, open space to try to broaden out and expand the allowable development there can be.

Got it.

Makes sense. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hunter.

I just want to, I guess, repeat to the the my fellow commissioners that procedurally, my intent is just to simply break up this entire recommendation, which I think we all support, into two parts. And so if you support this entire recommendation, including this, I would say I I would vote yes on the current one, and then a commissioner should move and second to have a separate vote on the part that was 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

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

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 motion and a second on the floor. And I asked I thought you referenced your neighbors or friends ADU that are adjacent to them. And so I thought, this isn't an ADU example. And 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 adjacent to residential zoning districts.

And I know that 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 zoning ordinance. So that's why I thought, you know, I feel like it merits a little bit more data and information, like 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. They have experience with proposals on the table and they know what it will impact and inhibit.

So that's my thinking is that it merits a little bit further discussion. I appreciate we've had more discussion here, but there are multiuse districts adjacent to residential. I don't know where they are. I don't know how many parcels are impacted.

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

Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Hunter. I do have actually a 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 SB 35 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. 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 know, with objective development standards is that you have 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 waive or exempt certain development standards. So for that particular project, that was the process. And if a similar affordable housing project came in a mixed use zoning district where this daylight plane applies, admits certain affordability criteria, it could too use a concession to potentially concession out of that development standard like it could any development standard including parking.

Yeah. And I'll clarify that that could be a market rate project with affordable housing as part of it too. It could have so if it meets our inclusionary requirement, they can also they have the ability to get certain number of waivers and concessions based on kind of their projects. Yes, several examples in which this and many other standards can simply

Have been ignored. Great.

Be ignored.

Wonderful. All right. Any other comments before I guess since we have a motion and a second before we vote on the motion on the floor? Seeing none, I guess we are voting whether to approve the resolution minus sections 53, fifty four and fifty five related to daylight section.

We had a second. Sorry. I got lost in that. Okay. Yes. We had a second.

I I

was I was second.

Second. Yes. Thank you.

I'll explain the second reasoning later. Alright.

I will do roll call. Commissioner Baht.

Yes.

Commissioner Conejo? Yes. Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

No.

Vice Chair Coke? Yes. And Chair Synagogretz? No. So we have the motion passes four to two with one absent.

Okay. I think the way this was structured actually gave the wrong impression in terms of how this was changed. So yeah, I think maybe a better way to have done it is to introduce an amendment to strip this particular section from this zoning code update and then vote on the amendment first and then vote on the resolution as a whole.

I think you could make a second motion.

Yeah. I think what what commissioner Hatcher 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 Yeah. 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? Go ahead. It's a yes then. It's for improving the remaining meat of this particular resolution. Yes.

That's fine. Okay. So we'll have five in favor and one opposed. Okay. Are there any other motions?

I'd like to make a motion to also approve sections 50 Articles 53 also approve also recommend articles 53 to 55 be approved that we stripped out of the previous motion. Why?

Wait. Why did we stripped it out?

Commissioner Hunter made a motion.

That was my

But now we're approving this again separately?

Just by itself.

So the motion on the do you wanna clarify the motion on the table just so everybody has Yes.

Motion on the table right now is commissioner Hunter is introducing the the piece that was left out from the from the first main motion. So just Commissioner Bahad? I'm the one who introduced it. Oh, I'm so sorry.

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

So we're just voting for this small bit that was missing from the main meet we just passed. So it's the daylight plane requirements or new new standards for the daylight plane.

So Can I hear the motion again, commissioner Baht? Motion

to Ask. Sorry. How do I phrase

this? Recommend?

Recommend. Yeah. Sorry. Motion that we that I recommend we that council approve sections 53 I mean, 53 through 55. Should I enumerate those 53, 54, 55?

On the daylight plane?

On the daylight plane. Second

the motion.

All right. Commissioner Robertson second. We will open the discussion on this particular part. Any comments before we're taking a vote on this section? Commissioner Pai?

Yes. Just to clarify my intention, I didn't realize that the procedural thing we did before was a mess. But the I I heard that commission Robinson wanted more discussion on this, and I was particularly unclear about why there was enough opposition to deny it. So the I just seconded that motion just so 'll be more discussion that we can work off of. But given what I heard and given that it seems that all projects that this or most projects that this might be relevant to are probably utilizing a state law that this does that makes does not apply to it anyways.

And given that I trust in staff's expertise, I would still recommend that we recommend this to counsel.

Thank you, Commissioner Baht.

As it stands.

Commissioner Konejo.

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

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

No, then I

don't Commissioner Robinson.

I mean, I I second the motion to support

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

Yeah. No. We have a a motion made and second in, so now we're in the discussion phase. Sorry. I still have my light on.

Okay, great. Yes, no, I do agree with this. I would like to have this updated version of the Daylight Plan Act Daylight Planing. I think we're always going to have an issue where we have the step down from multifamily high density neighborhoods to single residential neighborhoods, and that is going to expand over time. So if one makes a step down building, then in a generation's time, you're to 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. So I don't necessarily think that this is, you know, with a view in the future will will stand the test of time. So I think having the flexibility for the for the developer to decide whether envelope and building form should be is is good things.

Okay. Can I just to to respond to commissioner Carnejo Of course? 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 so what's on the screen here?

Mhmm.

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

Yeah. That's what I

yes.

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 Coke.

Thank you. Now I'm confused because I thought so if we I thought this was 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

We're back to the same as if we passed the whole No. 497,000 pages at once. Yes. Thank you.

Would it oh.

That was probably yesterday. That was yesterday, commissioner.

Commissioner Hunter, yes. Would it

would it make sense for commissioner Baht to add to his his his motion that the intent is to restore recommendation twenty six zero two? I mean, would would that would that be helpful?

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

That is. Yeah.

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

Well, except that there's confusion.

So Well, the confusion is just to put it in a different way. I think commissioner Hunter would have 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 to 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, that's basically what commissioner Bot's motion was, to approve the whole shebang.

Thank you so much for clarification. That really clarifies the intent behind the complex motion. All right. If there's no further discussion, I will let this next line do the call vote.

Okay. Commissioner Baht?

Yes.

Commissioner Cornejo? Yes. Commissioner Hunter? No. Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice chair Cook? Yes. And Chair Sunegoretz?

Yes.

The motion passes six to one.

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. Yes, that's it. Five to one.

All right. That concludes item 6b. We're moving on to item seven, planning commission liaison updates of matters of committee interest.

Okay. So we are likely canceling the May 19 upcoming Planning Commission meeting. I will send out an official announcement on that next week if that's happening, but it does seem like that's unlikely to happen. We are 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 will be sort of the flavor of that is, you know, as we as the city moves to get more objective design standards so that there's less subjectivity in our zoning code.

That's what this next 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, you know, detailed discussions about those objective standards. And we are trying to hone in on exactly which date. We've targeted a couple here, 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. And then just looking ahead, we are still targeting July 21 for the workshop on GDAP, which will be all of the there's two different sessions. So all of the BCCs the Boards, Commissions, and Committees will be coming into two different sessions to have a large kind of workshop on the next step of the Greater Downtown area planning process. So those are all the updates I have.

Thank you. Just to clarify, are we trying to schedule two joint meetings in June, or one of those dates will work?

Just one. 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 16.

Yes, I was going to ask, is there like do we share a preference or

Unfortunately, no. I hope we hope if there's quorum. We are trying to schedule several items. There's a couple other items that are not listed on here. So June 16 we are having a meeting on the proposed SB79 and our proposed approach to that. So that is scheduled for June 16. And this will likely be scheduled for June 2 if we can make the timing because it would be a lot to do on June 16. But do let me know. If you're unable to attend and we end a meeting, then please do let me know.

Okay. I'll talk to you offline because I think I have I have a I have to certain time on June 2.

Okay. Yeah.

So I will chat.

Okay. Yeah. And I'll just maybe take the chance to remind folks that if you do want to attend via the Brown Act and you want to attend remotely, you can do that as long as you post your address and you 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 process.

And then you post that, and then you post the agenda seventy two hours in advance on the 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 well as other options for just cause. But to dust off, we'll send you kind of a reminder on those as well as to just remember how to kind of process how to go through that the steps to do that.

Excellent. Thank you very much. That concludes the items for tonight's agenda. The next Planning Commission meeting is tentatively scheduled for May 19 at six p. M. All right.