Redwood City OKs limits on home size

“My hope is that by doing this the developer will actually adjust the projects, that they will downsize them to a reasonable size that the neighborhood can live with and that will still meet the needs of a growing family,” said Mayor Ian Bain.

Until Monday, new home proposals and second-story additions were approved or denied by the city’s zoning administrator and often without public input. The new process entails public hearings for home proposals that exceed the above threshold at which residents can express their concerns without having to file a costly appeal. 

Redwood City was also one of the only cities on the Peninsula without an FAR prior to the meeting.

During 2017 and 2018, the city received 98 applications for new homes and second-story additions, with the Mt. Carmel neighborhood receiving the most applications. Acting Planning Manager Diana O’Dell said home projects are typically proposed by homeowners but are increasingly being submitted by development companies.

The city recently received 17 architectural permit applications, 11 of which were submitted by a development company, that have been deemed incomplete or have not yet been reviewed for completeness. Those applications are now subject to Planning Commission review because of the urgency ordinance. 

The council’s soft cap approach is not as restrictive as the staff recommended ordinance, which would have limited single-family homes to a hard cap FAR of 40% or 2,5000 square feet — whichever is greater. 

Officials began exploring a FAR ordinance in response to deep concern within the community that starter homes as well as historic homes are being torn down to make way for massive houses that are incompatible with the neighborhood.

Councilwoman Janet Borgens said the urgency ordinance was needed to “stop the bleeding.” 

“I’m tired of out-of-town developers coming into our community and telling us what we have to do or what we’re going to do,” said Borgens. “I believe developers and architects have a right to make money, it’s their jobs. But it’s our job as a representative for this community to make sure our residents keep the feel and texture and harmony and family and community that they bought into. It’s not my job to take it away from you, it’s my job to see that you keep that.” 

One of the developers Borgens likely had in mind is Orange County-based Thomas James Homes, which has 13 active projects in the city. John Tattersall, a representative of the company, argued against the urgency ordinance and proposed hard cap during the meeting.

“While we do support a FAR ordinance and development standards, we do think the item needs further study and should be measured in a concurrent fashion,” he said. 

Some residents suggested any of the proposed restrictions on home size would be counterproductive in the midst of a housing crisis.

“We have a housing crisis in Redwood City. My friends keep moving away because of the escalating prices and we need more [square] footage,” said resident John Kim. “The restrictions don’t directly allow more homes but this is the wrong direction for keeping people who have been living here and want to expand for their families and bring their friends and relatives to Redwood City, which I believe we should welcome.” 

Several councilmembers, including Borgens, countered that large home projects are not helping the housing crisis.

“I do believe we’re losing starter home sales. … When you tear down a $1.2 million house and put a $3.4 million house on it, that takes it off the affordable market for most people and you’re not guaranteeing me that’s going to provide more needed housing,” Borgens said. “It’s going to provide more housing for whoever is living there, more space for them, but it’s not providing affordable housing.”

Councilwoman Giselle Hale wrapped up the discussion by saying she hopes the Planning Commission review process is not overly restrictive.

“I just hope that if it’s an applicant and a family coming in and saying ‘this is why’ that we are reasonable and I think if we’re not [the ordinance] will come back and it’ll come back sooner than a year because people will feel they’re not getting heard,” she said. “There’s nothing legal about that, there’s nothing in the language about that, but I certainly think it’s different when it’s coming from an applicant than from a developer that’s building it as a product.”

The ordinance is part of the city’s three-pronged approach to addressing home size and neighborhood character. Last month, the council voted to limit the height and size of second-story accessory dwelling units, and the city is beginning the process of developing citywide design guidelines, a process expected to extend into the summer of 2020. 

zachary@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102