Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, and thank you for joining our June 16th, 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 the public comment procedures for the meeting. For those 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. this evening. 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 at the front of the council chambers and bring it to staff for today to be recognized. If you're joining us virtually, you may use the raise hand feature on Zoom to speak. If you're joining by teleconference, by phone, you may raise your hand by dialing star 9 and star 6 to unmute your microphone when prompted. Please only raise your hand at a time when the item on which you are speaking is called. Each speaker will be allotted two minutes, and for in-person speakers, there will be a light on the podium to let you know how much time you have left. Lastly, we want you to know that we each bring different perspectives to discussion, and we want to be sure everyone has a chance to be heard without interruption. Planning Commission welcomes public comment on the items within our purview. Any speaker whose comments and topics are not under Commission purview will be warned and potentially removed. Thank you for your attention and consideration during this process. I will now turn it over to staff for the roll call.

Commissioner Batt?

Here.

Commissioner Cornejo is absent. Commissioner Finch?

Here.

Commissioner Hunter?

Here.

Commissioner Robinson?

Here.

Vice Chair Koch?

Here.

And Chair Suna Gorwatz.

Here.

So I'm Sue Exline. I'm the Assistant Community Development Director and the liaison for the meeting this evening. Tonight I have with me Rick Jarvis, our Consultant City Attorney, John Francis, our Principal Planner, and Ellen Yao, who is a new Senior Planner in our department. She just joined us about a few months ago, and she is going to be working on our Long Range Planning Team. She'll be presenting tonight. And we have Jessica Goodall, secretary and meeting host.

Wonderful. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is notification of meeting participation by teleconference due to just cause pursuant to government code 54953-8-3. Do we have any remote participation notifications or requests from the commission to consider?

No, we do not.

All right, let's move on to the next item on the agenda. It's item number three, it's public comments. We will take public comments at this time from those joining us in person and through Zoom. These are, public comments should be in the topics within the Planning Commission's purview. I think we went over the procedures as to how to comment. So these are comments on the approval of minutes, consent items, and matters of commission interest, as well as items not on the agenda. So anything that is not currently on the agenda list of items. Are there any speakers? I don't see any cards for in-person speakers. And do we have any online speakers who may want to give a public comment?

We do not have any online speakers.

All right, I will then close. If there's no objection, the public comment for item number three and moving on to an item number four, which is approval of minutes. We have two meetings. I think we have a May 5th, 2026 regular meeting. Maybe at this time, is there a motion to approve the draft meeting minutes of May 5th, 2026?

I'll make that motion.

Okay, moved by Commissioner Hunter. Second. Second by Commissioner Koch.

Commissioner Budd.

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch? Yes. And Chair Sunagoratz?

Yes.

The motion passes by six to zero with one absent.

All right, we also have June 2nd, 2026 Planning Commission and Architectural Advisor Committee joint meeting that we had, that was, I guess, a couple weeks ago. Is there a motion to approve the draft minutes of this meeting of June 2nd?

Motion.

All right, moved by Commissioner Bott. Second. Second by Commissioner Hunter.

Commissioner Bott?

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch? Yes. And Chair Sunagoratz?

Yes.

The motion passes by six to zero with one absence.

All right, moving right along. The next item on the agenda is the consent calendar. There are no items on tonight's consent calendar and we will move directly into the public hearing item 6A. Our sixth item is request for planning commission recommendation that the city staff should prepare a transit-oriented development alternative plan in compliance with the obligations of Senate Bill 79. Do any commissioners have any ex-party communications to report for this item? Seeing none, we'll have Alan Yao. Welcome. Our new senior planner will give a presentation on the item.

WONDERFUL. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ELLEN YOW, AND I'M A SENIOR PLANNER. SO TONIGHT, I WILL BE PRESENTING ON SENATE BILL 79, THE ABUNDANT AND AFFORDABLE HOMES NEAR TRANSIT ACT. I'LL GO OVER SPECIFICALLY SB 79 ELIGIBLE AREAS AND THE REQUIREMENTS. THEN I'LL GO INTO THE SPECIFICS APPLICABILITY OF SB 79 IN REDWOOD CITY AND THE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES THAT WE CAN TAKE. THEN I'LL GO OVER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND NEXT STEPS. So SB 79 is a recent state law aimed at increasing housing availability and affordability near transit. It is one of many laws that have been passed in the recent years enacted to address the state's housing shortage. SB 79 requires that housing is an allowed use on residential, mixed use, or commercial sites that are located within a half mile of a TOD stop. It also establishes density, FAR, and height standards, and in some locations within the city, this would supersede our locally adopted standards. SB 79 doesn't establish a new review process, so standard city review processes and CEQA will still apply. So in Redwood City, we have one eligible transit stop, and that is our Redwood City Caltrain Station. So this map that you see here shows the three zones, the 200 feet, quarter mile, and a half mile, and it's color-coded to the red, orange, and yellow. On the chart to the right, you'll see the allowed maximum height and maximum density zones. As allowed by SB 79. So sites within the half mile radius, which is in the yellow, would allow a developer to build up to 65 feet at 100 dwelling units per acre. And then the inner red circle, you could build up to a height of 95 feet for maximum density of 160. Just for a little bit of context, right across City Hall behind the library, we have a lot of residential development between the Caltrain tracks and El Camino. Those are about 80 feet, which is about eight stories, and a density of 180 to about 215 dwelling units per acre. To qualify for SB 79, a residential development has to be located within that half-mile radius of transit, and there are additional project requirements. So it has to be zoned residential, mixed-use, or commercial. The project cannot be located in a site that has or have had two units subject to rent control. The project must provide for a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre and provide five residential units. Projects that provide 11 or more units must build affordable housing. For some context of that, the city also has an affordable housing requirement. And in the case that the city has a stricter or higher level of affordability, the city's requirement will apply. So it's the greater of what SB 79 has or what the city is requiring. Lastly, projects that are over 85 feet in height must comply with prevailing wage and skilled and trained workforce requirements. So if you look back at the map before, 85 feet would generally just mean that inner red circle. I'm going to talk about state density bonus law. It is a law that provides incentives to encourage development of affordable housing. Developers can exceed a local height and density zoning standards in exchange for providing those affordable units. SB 79 projects that also meet the requirements of a state density bonus law project can utilize state density bonus on top of the requirements of SB 79. So they can request for additional density. They can also request waivers for reduction of other standards like parking or other modifications. However, projects can't apply state density bonus to request additional height beyond what is required. This map shows the sites where current where current development standards comply with SB 79 development standards. So the areas shown in green indicate that current standards already allow for height and density above SB 79. So practically speaking, if an applicant wanted to propose a building on any of these green sites, THEY REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY NEED TO INVOKE SB 79 BECAUSE OUR CITY STANDARDS WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE HEIGHT AND MORE DENSITY THAN SB 79. NOW, THE AREAS SHOWN IN PINK INDICATE WHERE THE CITY'S CURRENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE LOWER THAN SB 79 STANDARDS, AND THIS MEANS THAT SB 79 WOULD EFFECTIVELY INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND DENSITY FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT. Now while it appears that there's a substantial number of sites that are eligible for increased development capacity, there's a lot of pink, there are site specific factors and marking conditions that will determine whether the theoretical capacity of SB 79 will actually be realized into development. So in the near term, SB 79 will likely have a limited impact due to the following considerations. In many of the areas in pink, we do have recent development projects that have already been built or under construction or entitled. So it's very unlikely that those would turn over beyond what they've already applied for. There are also many parcels within the half mile radius that are small parcels. And so by virtue of their size, smaller parcels have constraints on their development. And currently, construction costs and interest rates are very high, and they have restricted the amount of housing currently being built. And we kind of see that in our housing development based off of our APRs. We can see a little slowdown. It does come in cycles. So together these factors suggest that in the near term impact may be limited. NOW I'M GOING TO GO INTO REDWOOD CITY'S HOUSING POLICY AND DIRECTION. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE POLICY GOALS OF SB 79 HAS CONSIDERABLE OVERLAP WITH THE CITY'S OWN POLICY GOALS OF ENCOURAGING HIGHER DENSITY NEAR TRANSIT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN 2002, WE ESTABLISHED THE TRANSIT DISTRICT AS A SUB AREA WITHIN OUR DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN. THIS REALLY FOCUSED TRANSIT- ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND REMOVED MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL CAPS. In early 2023, we also adopted the housing element, which identified many programs to increase permitted density citywide. Additionally, we recently received funding through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission through their TOC policy. This is to study and to propose minimum densities for new residential and commercial projects within half a mile of Caltrain Station. And lastly, we have the Greater Downtown Area Plan, GDAP. It's a new vision for downtown Redwood City and the surrounding neighborhoods. And the main priority for GDAP is to also focus new development and intensity around the Caltrain Station. So all together, these ongoing efforts demonstrate that the city has consistently supported and taken action intended to increase supply and provide prioritized development near transit. similar alignment to the goals of SB 79. So the law allows for different implementation approaches. I will go over the four applicable ones highlighted on the screen in the following slides. So the first one is baseline SB 79. On July 1st of this year, SB 79 obligations will be in effect. So the potential benefit is that because SB 79 is in alignment with city policy to support housing development, increase residential density, we can choose to not take any additional action and SB 79 obligations would just be taken as is as projects come through. A jurisdiction can also adopt a local temporary exclusion ordinance. This would pause the effect of SB 79 on those certain sites that are excluded. In the state law, there are certain categories that you can exclude sites. And I'll go over that in a little bit. But I want to highlight at the bottom of this chart, we have two options. THESE ARE PART OF THE STAFF REPORT, ATTACHMENT B AND C. WE LISTED OUT EXCLUSION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AND EXCLUSION OF ALL POSSIBLE SITES AS THOSE TWO OPTIONS. SO FIRST OPTION HERE IS IF A SITE ALREADY MEETS 50% OF THE CAPACITY THAT IS LISTED IN SB 79, THEY CAN BE EXCLUDED. THAT'S SHOWN IN GREEN HERE. Sites that are identified as low resource, this is defined by the California's Tax Credit Allocation Committee. They use this to categorize neighborhoods based on various factors like economic conditions, educational resources. This is outlined in pink. And then if a site contains a locally designated resource as of January 1st of 2025, they can also be excluded, and that's in blue. So when you look at all of those available options, I'm just gonna go back, right, one, two, three. We found that many of the eligible areas do have geographic overlap. Because of that overlap, there may be limited practical benefit to try to choose one of those three. But we do break that down into the two approaches. First is the narrow option of the historic resources exclusion that's shown on the screen here. And then a broader option that combines all of those three approaches. categories into one option, which is all available exclusions allowed by state law. So this shows the geographies of all the exclusion categories together. Local jurisdictions can also adopt a transit-oriented development alternative plan, also known as a TOD alternative plan. This benefits, this is essentially a targeted approach. So you would still be required to meet the requirements of SB 79 and maintain the overall capacity of SB 79. However, there are restrictions. No site can reduce their density by more than 50%. and no site can increase their SB 79 maximum density by more than 200%. So we're looking at the half mile radius of the transit station, and through a TOD, you would shift the capacity from certain sites to other sites. The benefit of this is you can redistribute the housing capacity to align with local context, because SB 79 right now is just those three rings. So lastly, there's another what we call a combination approach. So again, we've kind of streamlined it. There's two options you can do through the combination approach. One is come July 1 of 2026, baseline SB 79 would apply. And if the city decides to develop a TOD alternative plan, that's the option on the left. That's staff recommendation. Or you can do a baseline SB 79 applicability until you adopt the local ordinance. and then the local ordinance will run until you develop a TOD alternative plan. As I described that, I'm going to go into the timelines. I've taken those two options and laid them out in a timeline. Again, the first dash indicates the July 1st, 2026 applicability of SB 79 requirements. If Planning Commission decides to recommend City Council to adopt the local ordinance, WE'RE PLANNING TO BRING THE ITEM TO COUNCIL AROUND JULY AND IT WILL TAKE IN EFFECT 30 DAYS AFTERWARDS IF THEY GO TO THE SECOND READING SO YOU CAN SEE THAT TIMELINE OF THE ORDINANCE. AND THROUGH THE TOD ALTERNATIVE PLAN STAFF HAS SEVERAL ONGOING PROJECTS THAT WE CAN KIND OF COMBINE THE WORK OF A TOD ALTERNATIVE PLAN AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT FIRST DEADLINE TO BE MID-2027. So we can see most likely a TOD alternative plan brought to planning commission and council mid next year. So staff recommends allowing SB 79 to take effect. So this is the baseline SB 79 and focusing city's effort on developing a TOD alternative plan. This approach recognizes that SB 79 is in generally alignment with what the city has, uh, has in their objectives for promoting housing development near transit. The city is already studying increased density and development in portions of the SB 79 areas through things like GDAP and the citywide housing element implementation programs. Plus, the TOD alternative plan would provide the city an opportunity to tailor SB 79 requirements to local context. Given current conditions, staff anticipates limited near-term development activity, so therefore we don't recommend the ordinance because the TOD Alternative Plan will come soon, mid-next year. In terms of next steps, we plan on bringing this to City Council on July 13th. If Council chooses to implement just the baseline SB 79 requirements, there's no further action necessary. If they choose to adopt a local ordinance to temporarily exclude sites, This may take effect around August. I do want to note that with a local ordinance or a TOD alternative plan, we are required to submit drafts and adopted versions to HCD, and HCD has up to three to four months to do review. So it does add some time to the effectual date of those plans or ordinance. Lastly, you could develop a TOD alternative plan through these other works that we're doing. Again, most likely this will come in mid-2027. And this is our staff recommendation, and that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Yao, for the very informative presentation. Are there any clarifying questions that the Commission would like to ask staff at this time? Commissioner Bhatt.

Yes, I'll save some more comments until after some members of the public have spoken, but just as a clarification, if we adopt the TOD, as I understand it, we have to maintain the same capacity that SB 79 would have allowed for. Do you have an understanding of what that capacity is versus what our current capacity is in that same area?

Yeah, we've done a couple of iterations just because the final maps with MTC only recently, or the draft maps just came out from MTC. I don't have the actual numbers, but I can get that back to you. I think it's about just a couple thousand between our current zoning and what SB 79 would allow. So like I said, our policy direction has pushed to increase housing development. So we're almost there.

So as I'm hearing it, we don't need to make much modifications to our current map to even be compliant within a TOD?

Correct. Yeah. But you could always do more. Like I said, the TOD alternative does allow you to go all the way down to less than 50% for a particular site. And if you refer back to the previous map with the red and the green, you can see that there are certain areas that have significant capacity already.

Just for the clarification, when you mentioned 1,000 or 2,000 units, what is that as a percentage of the overall units that could be built in the DoD?

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

Okay, that's okay. No worries. Commissioner Hunter.

First of all, Ellen, welcome. Welcome to Redwood City, and we're glad you're here. Let's see. My first question is, in the staff recommendation, it says, by minute order, recommend that the city council do something. I've never heard that term before. What does that mean?

I'm going to direct this to Rick Jarvis.

Thanks.

It really is just a, you don't need to do a resolution. There's not, you don't need to make any findings. So this is just sort of a summary direction that indicates support for the staff's direction. And it doesn't require, if it doesn't require a resolution, you can do it by minute order.

So we don't take a vote on it?

No, no, you're voting to approve them. Rather than voting to adopt a resolution with three pages of recitals and five pages of substance, you're adopting a simple minute order by vote to say, indicate that you support doing nothing. I mean, really, where we are right now is if the city can do nothing right now and simply allow SB 79 to take effect and it doesn't require any further action other than doing nothing. If you want to do something, then there's resolutions and findings that would have to be made to do something different.

Okay, interesting. That's a new one. Okay, this is a little out of left field, I think, but I never thought I'd be asking this, but has staff considered what happens if Caltrain stops running? And, of course, I ask because it's in the news that the Caltrain board is actually publicizing a threat to stop running. service as the most extreme result if the upcoming revenue sales tax measure is defeated. So have we thought about that? Is it something that's even in what you're considering here? In other words, it may not be a transit stop.

State law is constantly changing. And so I think if, let's say, Caltrains were to stop service right now, then an applicant would come in and say, hey, I want to use SB 79. Maybe it wouldn't be applicable, right? But right now, with a lot of state changes, a lot of people are actually considering other transit areas that would come up. And that's actually been a big topic of discussion. So I think the likelihood of Caltrain to stop while we're dealing with this probably isn't too likely. But great question.

I hope you're right. And the last, my last question is just about affordability requirements. And it's kind of a question I've had in other projects too. So on table two you show the the project eligibility requirements, and under affordable housing, it's at least 7% extremely low income, 10% very low, or, and these are alternatives, not in addition to, or 13% low income. And it's whatever the SB79 affordability results are versus what the city's are. So the city's requirements are a bit of apples and oranges to that. For a larger project, I think it's 5%. very low, plus 5% low, plus 10% moderate, total 20%. So how do you compare those things? Like if a developer comes in with a project for 10% very low income, well, that's more than the very low income requirement that the city has, but it's less than the low and moderate. So is there a formula, or how does that comparison work?

CORRECT. WE HAVE A WHOLE ANOTHER DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION WHO DEALS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLIANCE. THERE ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE AFFORDABILITY LEVELS. LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'S THE RANGE FROM MODERATE TO LOW TO VERY LOW. And with SB 79, there's also extremely low. I think we would have to see the specific project to be able to compare that. I mean, it looks like it's hard to compare, but there are requirements. We have, within our affordable housing ordinance, an ability for developers to also choose other alternatives than what is provided here. So there are formulas to kind of compare what is provided, whether it's on-site or kind of converting it to affordable housing impact fees. So I don't know the exact relationship, but if we do have a project, there is a way for us to make sure that we get the most affordable housing that we can for the city.

Great. Yeah, I was just wondering if there was an equivalency formula or chart or matrix or something somewhere. It sounds like there is. Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter. Commissioner Robinson, do you have any questions? The light is on. I need some help, yes. Okay, great. Now's the time.

The figure on page 12 or 20, figure number six, eligible and non-eligible sites. Intuitively, this doesn't make sense to me, but I'm trying to understand why the non-eligible sites surrounding Sequoia High School, why are those non-eligible versus all of the other sites? It would seem to me like that would be the reverse, just because what I personally know of the neighborhoods. But could you help me understand how those are differentiated? And then the second question was, is the train station going to move or not? Thank you.

Great question. So I'm showing on the screen the all exclusion, which just shows the yellow parcels. And Commissioner Robinson is talking about a figure in our staff report that shows red and yellow. Essentially, the red is the inverse of the yellow shown on the screen right here. SO THE ELIGIBLE SITES ARE THE COMBINATION OF THE THREE COLORED SLIDES THAT I SHOWED. THOSE ARE THE SPECIFIC CATEGORIES THAT THE STATE LAW SAYS YOU CAN EXCLUDE. SO I'M JUST GOING TO FLASH THROUGH THOSE REALLY QUICKLY RIGHT THERE ON THE SCREEN. THIS YELLOW MAP IS A COMBINATION OF THESE COLORED ONES. ALL POSSIBLE EXCLUSIONS UNDER SB 79. so then the red is the inverse why do we have those red sites the red sites don't meet any of those categories therefore they don't qualify for exclusion the sites that you're thinking that's below the high school there are some r1 or you know small single family THEIR DENSITY RIGHT NOW UNDER CURRENT CITY REGULATIONS WOULD NOT MEET THE 50% THRESHOLD, RIGHT? THE SMALLEST THRESHOLD THAT WE HAVE IS 100 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IN THE OUTER RING. SO, 50% OF THAT WOULD BE 50 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THOSE ZONES WOULD BE. SO, THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE OF WHY THOSE SITES ARE RED. THEY ARE ALSO NOT HISTORIC SITES. THEY ALSO DON'T FALL UNDER THE LOW RESOURCE. SO, THEREFORE, THEY'RE INELIGIBLE FOR EXCLUSION THROUGH SB 79. Yes, thank you. Yes, it will be. The timeline for that is, yeah. I'm going to pass this to Principal Planner Francis.

Timeline is unknown. And it's probably quite some time away. So by the time I think that the train station is relocated, based on when we get funding and all the infrastructure in place to do that, Very likely we'll have other state laws that will be probably superseding SB 79 around the station area, but it's very hard to predict. So we sort of are in the short and medium term planning for our station to be where it is today. In our longer term planning for the greater town area plan, for example, we are thinking further ahead to when that station will move because the time horizon and timeline for that planning that the time horizon for the overall plan is three decades out, which theoretically is within the time horizon when the station would move.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Hunter. I also have a couple of questions. Oh, I will yield to Commissioner Finch. He has questions too.

Yeah, I'm sorry. Just one technical question, so no worries if you don't know the answer. But if the station does move, does SB 79 still apply to the original location of the train station, or it would be the new location?

Most likely would be the new location, let's just say as it stands, because the law just says within a specific geographic area. So if it moves, then the whole circle would move. And we would only review projects as they come into, so it's not in perpetuity that that status would apply to a site.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Finch. I also have three clarifying questions. One, piggybacking off the questions from Commissioner Hunter about affordability levels, it doesn't state specifically whether the applicant invoking SB 79 can pay in lieu fees for affordable housing. Are they required to build or can they also pay fees?

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

So they would build, I guess, if they bought this particular one. Okay, second one is, there are also any parcels that are subject to rent control. I'm curious, I'm not aware that Redwood City has a rent control, but it does have deed-restricted units. Is that what they mean, or does it mean a unit has to be specifically under... rent control to be...

Correct. We don't have rent control, so that would not really be applicable to Redwood City. But I believe there is an item that is coming through that... City Council. Yes, correct.

Got it. We'll see how that shakes out. The last question I have is about maximum density. So the minimum density required by SB 79 is 30 dwelling units per acre. Does the city within this half mile radius have also a minimum density? Independently of that?

No, we do not. But as I mentioned with our MTCTOC policy, part of that is to study and to analyze and propose minimums. So we don't currently.

Got it. So if SB 9, if we do a baseline approach of not doing anything, it's going to come up earlier, like a year earlier, the minimums for these parcels within half a mile of?

Correct. Okay, great.

Thank you.

But it would only be applicable to projects that actually came to apply and use SB 79 versus a blanket, you know, a city regulation is applicable to all that we rezone, right? But SB 79 would just be for projects that came in. So that's the trigger. Someone has to apply and say, I'm using SB 79. Right.

Okay. Got it. So he's not going to do the work for us. Okay. Great. Commissioner Butt, follow-up question.

Yes. You touched on what I was going to ask about a bit. But in our staff report, it says that if we adopt the TOD alternative plan, then no sites may exceed 200% of the density allowed in RSP 79. Does that mean that technically if we do adopt an alternative plan we're somewhat tying our hands behind our back with like down zoning parts of downtown? Like that's what this reads as of if we don't do anything we're allowed to zone however we want in the upwards direction but if we do adopt any alternative suddenly we have to have zoning like density maximums. Is that the correct read?

I'm going to try to answer your question, and then if I'm not getting right to it, please describe a little bit more. So there's housing accountability laws statewide that actually limits us from down zoning if we don't also accommodate that somewhere else. SO FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, WE'VE IDENTIFIED SITES THAT COULD MEET A SPECIFIC CAPACITY. AND IF THAT PROPERTY GETS DEVELOPED NOT AT THE CAPACITY, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT. SO IF WE ACCEPTED SB 79 AS IS, WE WOULDN'T TAKE ANY ACTION. WE STILL WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO NECESSARILY DOWNZONE IF WE WEREN'T GOING TO ACCOMMODATE IT ELSEWHERE.

I think I'm asking about the other way around. Say we have a site in downtown that is zoned for what would currently be like 250% of what SP-79 prescribes, right? And we adopt a TOD alternative plan. And I see that it says maximum site capacity, no TOD alternative plan may exceed 200% of the density of SP-79. Does that mean that suddenly that site has to drop to that 200% threshold?

That is a fair question. I don't think that would be what the intent of the law would be. Now, HDD will review all of these, and as we... design this plan as long as we can have justification, you know, because we are above that. It doesn't, it would not make much sense for HD then force us to do a below. So as part of our packet to them, we would have to explain why it is simply it's already currently existing.

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

You're not sort of moving it onto a few sites, and that's why they put... Yeah, I understand the good intent of why a rule like this would exist. It's just, I read a line like that, and I'm like, this feels like we might be shooting ourselves in the foot if it's read the wrong way by certain people, you know?

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean, if they want to squeeze all the requirements into a single lot of an Empire State Building with 100 floors, I mean, that's one way to get around it, but yes. Any other follow-up questions? Commissioner Hunter.

I was just followed to follow up on the chair's question before about rent control. There is state rent control that lighting limits increases to 10%, you know, and the, you know, The effort in Redwood City is to lower that amount, but does that apply? Does that mean that we do have rent control for SB 79 purposes?

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

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter. Good question. Commissioner Robinson.

I'm going to go back to that figure six, if that's okay. And the bullet point under the staff recommendation on page 15 and 23. So given that current housing market conditions remain soft, few housing projects are likely to utilize SB 79 provisions in the short term before the city adopts a TOD alternative plan. And just keep in mind, I'm just thinking of adverse consequences of all the various scenarios. So given that statement, though, hypothetically, could someone build something on, let's say, the 2 to 300 block of Fulton and Grand, which is just behind the high school. It's a single family, low level neighborhood. And that's where my mind is going. It sounds like the recommendation, I'm reading through staff's recommendation, I'm just looking for potential adverse consequences.

Great question. Yes. Any site within the SB 79 could develop. But I want to point out that if you're looking at that figure number six, that specific address that you gave us is located in the red. So any of the options that I've presented today, there's no alternative. SB 79 would be the default. If we were talking about another site that's in the yellow that you're concerned about, then the option of doing a local ordinance would pause SB 79. But not in any of the red, because those are not eligible for any exclusions. So once July 1st hits, SB 79 would take effect.

even if the council adopts the provision in the short term and then a TOD alternative plan at a later date?

Correct. Because the local ordinance would only exclude the yellow if we were to do all exclusion, right? And then when we do the local TOD alternative plan, remember there's that minimum of 50% threshold. So any of those sites would still naturally have to be upzoned as part of the TOD alternative plan.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. Commissioner Koch.

Thank you. Welcome. And thank you. And I'm glad, Commissioner Robinson, you brought up the question about the train station because I've already asked that question. I think I know with the long-term planning, and it's been on a lot of residents' minds for such a long time, I'm happy to hear that, obviously. That's sort of worked into the long-term plan for all of this. I just have really one question. It sounds to me as if once a TOD plan is established, adopted by the city, And then we also have SB 79. Is it if a new project is going to be built, the most prescriptive of these two would supersede the other? That's kind of what it sounds like to me, but I'm not certain.

Yeah. So once we adopt the TOD alternative plan, that would take precedent. SB 79. essentially wouldn't exist for a city that has a TOD alternative plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Koch. I have a final question, which is a continuation, I guess, of Commissioner Robinson's question about the red marked area south of El Camino around Sequoia High School and also below Jefferson Avenue. I mean, these are all currently zonas, R4, R5 residential, and the dwelling unit density there is close to 40 or 50, which is... You know, not necessarily a six-story, you know, apartment complex, but it already is, you know, four plexes, five plexes, and multiplexes. So I'm just, for Commissioner Robinson, I know it looks like there's a few single-family homes over there, but there's a few multiplexes, and as zoned currently, I think, if I'm understanding correctly, already allows for significant density, even without SB79.

That is correct.

Okay, great. Thank you. All right. If there are no other clarifying questions, I will open the public hearing in order to see how many speakers we have. I ask everyone who wishes to speak on the item to raise your hand now in Zoom. And I also have one card for in-person. If there's any more in-person speakers, please pass your cards up front to the dais. How many speakers do we have online?

We do not have any speakers online.

OK. Well, we will wait, and I'll loop back to Ms. Exline, and we'll recognize Michael Aruza. You have three minutes to speak on this item.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF ADOPTING SB 79 AS IS. RIGHT NOW, REBIT CITY IS NOT ON TRACK TO MEET ITS ARENA GOALS. WE'RE UNFORTUNATELY FALLING BEHIND IN BUILDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE NEED. AND GIVEN THAT CONTEXT, SB 79 helps actually meet the goals of the city it is in many ways um a bit of a um a bit of a gift um and i think the simplest option here is also the best option adopt spc9 as is and start working on implementing uh tod alternate plan that would mesh well with the greater downtown precise plan as well um with regards to the tod um i think that there's many opportunities to um SHIFT DENSITY AROUND IN WAYS THAT MAKE SENSE AND HELP MAXIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF SB 79 IN BUILDING BOTH NEW OVERALL HOUSING AND NEW AFFORDABLE UNITS. I DID NOTICE THAT THERE'S A COUPLE PARCELS RIGHT NOW IN THE SB 79 PLAN THAT ARE VERY UNLIKELY TO SEE ANY DEVELOPMENT ever. Specifically, I think the Sequoia High School is a really big chunk of the plan that, unless there are plans for affordable teacher housing, which would be great, but I have not heard of that and don't think that that is in the plan, that seems to me like a pretty good parcel that could be, whose area could be moved around to support more housing in other areas downtown, for example, near the train station. Overall, big fan of the staff proposal to just implement SBC-9 as is and then work on the TOD. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Arruzza, for your comment. Are there any speakers that showed up online?

No.

All right. If there's no objection, I will now close the public hearing, and I will open the meeting for committee discussion. Commissioner Finch.

Yes, so I think I am in favor of the staff recommendation to just allow the baseline SB 79 to go into effect until we have the TOD alternative plan. And when that's completed, you know, as part of probably GDAP or the MTC TOC planning, I think that staff makes a compelling argument that SB 79 is and as our public commenter alluded to, generally aligns with our city's goals to encourage density around the train station. And I also agree with staff that I think the effects will be pretty limited, especially in the lower-density residential areas, just due to the constraints of the small lots and just the general... economic headwinds right now i would i wouldn't expect too much um too many projects anyway and um i i just worry that the the ordinance we would have like three different sets of rules over the course of you know a year or so um and the exclusion areas i i feel like i mean i understand what the um justification for the exclusion areas is in the state law um but you know just looking at the map of the red and yellow um it's a little like arbitrary where you know houses on the opposite side of the same street one of them would be able to be a six you know 60 foot building and the other one you know wouldn't uh so i i feel like it's maybe more fair in a way just to just to apply it as is so uh yeah thank you thank you commissioner finch uh commissioner butt

Yeah, I concur with Commissioner Finch. I'm very much in favor of the staff recommendation to adopt SB 79 as is without exclusions and work on our TOD. Also, as the public commenter alluded to, there's very nice ways to shift density more into downtown with our GDEP. And maybe we can allow even more people to be closer to the train station because a quarter mile is still better than half a mile. Yeah, just effectively what we're talking about today is whether or not we want to implement or recommend exclusions. I agree that exclusions just make the landscape harder for developers. It makes the rules harder to understand. This map is a patchwork of red and yellow in many places. The public wouldn't understand it. Obviously, we were having trouble understanding it up here on the dais. And since most of the area that's yellow already seems to be mostly compliant with SB 79, I think it just makes sense to just say we're not gonna go through a weird exclusion process.

Thank you, Commissioner Butt, for your comments.

Commissioner Hunter. So I actually support the second combination approach. So on page 13 and 14, combined approach of adopting the local ordinance to exclude the sites and then subsequently adopt a TOD alternative plan. The reason for excluding the sites temporarily, and that's what this is, is to give us maximum flexibility to come up with the best solution for Redwood City. And it's only going to be for a year or so. I think you said next summer is because I think we want to go with the MTCs. I forget, the MTC's transit-oriented communities policy, which is what we're trying to get to, which is very similar to what SB 79 would require. So we want to get to the best result and maintain maximum flexibility for that year. As the staff report says, this option allows jurisdictions time to maintain existing development standards on selected sites while conducting additional analysis or pursuing a more comprehensive strategy. And I also note that in attachment E, and I'm really glad you included that, where you went out to all the local other cities, that the large majority of them did also elect to do the option of temporarily excluding some of those sites.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter. I mean, actually, I do have a question for Commissioner Hunter. What extra flexibility would adding an exclusionary section of this add to the toolkit of us being able to come up with a better plan within a year's time, other than freezing in amber the current development standards?

I don't know. That's actually an argument for doing this. I don't know. I am dealing with these things day to day.

Yeah, because I think the staff's recommendation, as far as I understand, maybe the staff can correct us, is that we're waiting for the transit-oriented development plan, which will address some of these nuances as to how to more holistically develop this area around the Cal train station.

Right. And in the meantime, we can have our current standards and be flexible.

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

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

That may be the case. I have actually looked. I was kind of curious to look at... appendix e to find out what other jurisdictions and you know i i work in palo alto and it's perennial uh issue over there in terms of housing and one of the reasons palo alto put exclusions is to lower development also increase the um development uh density to 50 so they can exclude the whole city for any further densification so I mean, there are other nefarious ways of trying to, you know, use the state law and exclusion process to stymie potential development. But I think I agree with you. This one year is really a short amount of time. And within the context of what the staff has proposed, given the current market conditions, there's unlikely to be any movement on the ground for these particular sites.

It very well might not have any practical effect.

Right, right. Okay. Agreed. Just curious. I wanted to have clarification as to the proposal. All right. Commissioner Cook.

Thank you. And this is sort of off track, obviously, because it's from me. Any concern about the potential for developers or multiple developers wanting to come in and develop between five and ten units only so they can skirt around everything having to do with SB 79? It's a hypothetical, obviously.

Hypotheticals can always come true.

You know, it's hard to say how often that might happen. It's possible. It's possible for, you know, it's also possible for us to be wrong about, you know, our kind of predictions about the market too. You know, I think indications suggest that, you know, the market still hasn't recovered. We're not seeing like a glut of new housing development. So it's hard to say for sure, but it's not impossible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Koch. Any other comments from the Commission on the discussion? I mean, I guess my last comments, I mean, given that there's no further comments, is that I also agree with Commissioner Butt and Commissioner Finch that the staff recommendation seems to be the most reasonable path forward in terms of being able to allow us time to develop the transit-oriented development alternative plan within the framework of the MTC project and recommend just the SP79 to come in as is. All right. Is there a motion on the floor?

ticket and no it's on the screen uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... motion uh... that by many order we recommend that the city council direct city staff to prepare transit oriented development alternative plan pursuant to the obligations of senate bill seventy nine uh... and just as a clarification for staff if i give this recommendation that's an explicit like no without the exclusions part then okay yeah so that's my motion was sunscreen i second the motion second-rate commissioner uh... coke uh... i will open it the motion up for discussion commissioner hunter uh... i uh... though with the wording of the and

does not and it does not say anything about the exclusions but i would i will support this because i uh definitely recommend that uh city staff should prepare a tod alternative plan thank you any other comments for the discussion no um all right oh commissioner finch oh sorry but we this uh this

minute order is to recommend that base are we rec oh sorry we're not recommending that baseline sp79 going to effect okay okay just to clarify it's baseline you are recommending the transit orient development alternative because the baseline is in action so we're recommending that after this inaction which is going to take place anyways we recommend they adopt the tod alternative

Oh, I see. Okay. Because there is no recommendation needed to do nothing. Okay. I understand. Okay.

Yes.

Everyone should just relax. It's allowing the baseline to go into effect.

We're not saying anything contrary to allowing.

Okay, yes. But we recommend preparing of the TOD alternative plan.

Okay, I support that. Thank you. Sorry.

No worries. Okay, great. All right, if there's no other comments or discussions on the motion, I guess we can move to vote.

Commissioner Batt?

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson? Yes. Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch? Yes. And Chair Sunogoratz?

Yes.

The motion passes with six votes, with one absence.

All right, thank you. Moving on to item number seven, which is matters of committee interest, I guess commission interest. We have liaison updates.

So let's see, a couple updates. We will cancel the next July 21st Planning Commission meeting. On July 13th at City Council, it will be a big meeting for planning items. This SB 79 will be brought to Council. We will also have the annual zoning code updates that the Commission heard. I can't remember when that was. I think mid-May. That will also go to council on July 13th. And then finally, there is a discussion about extending the greater downtown area plan boundary at council that evening. I also wanted to let you know that council will be voting on new planning commission members on June 22nd. And thank Commissioner Bott for his service as this is his last meeting tonight.

THANK YOU. I'VE HAD A NICE TIME ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BUTT. WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME ON THE COMMISSION ON THIS DAY. THIS HAS BEEN VERY INSIGHTFUL, AND YOU ALWAYS BRING QUITE A LOT OF INSIGHT, ESPECIALLY FROM YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN MEBU CITY, AND WE REALLY VALUE ALL THE CONTRIBUTIONS YOU'VE MADE OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS YOU'VE BEEN HERE. THAT'S GREAT.

THANK YOU. WHO KNOWS, I MIGHT BE BACK IN A FEW YEARS.

We will welcome you. I probably will. Virtually. You don't have to drive all the way down. Great. Wonderful. Okay, so there's no other meetings until, I guess, August 18th is the next scheduled? That's correct.

Yeah, we'll send out an official notice canceling that.

Great. Are there any commission updates from the commissioners? I do have a quick update. I think maybe it's been almost a month ago, Commissioner Budd and I went to a training by housing, I forget, maybe 13 elements, and it had a really neat inclusionary calculator, which I think we have links to, so we'll share with the planning commission. So you can basically, it's kind of like SimCity, but working with affordable units, so it's in case you have extra time for fun. All right, next item is adjournment. This concludes the items for tonight's agenda. The next planning commission meeting is August 18th, 2026.