Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues housing-definitions ordinance to May 13 after late comment; staff to refine language
Summary
The Redlands Planning Commission on April 8 continued a broad zoning-text amendment (OTA No. 361) that updates housing definitions and development standards to implement the city’s housing element and state law, returning the item to the commission on May 13 for additional refinements.
The Planning Commission on April 8 continued Ordinance Text Amendment No. 361, a comprehensive zoning update to implement elements of the city’s adopted housing element and state law requirements, to its May 13 meeting so staff can review a written comment submitted shortly before the hearing and make targeted revisions.
Brian Foote, planning staff, described the draft ordinance as a sizable package of code changes to align city zoning with state law and the city’s housing element. Proposals in the draft include updated definitions for employee housing, supportive housing and transitional housing; new development standards for farmworker/employee housing in agricultural zones; ministerial “urban lot split” and two-unit procedures to implement Senate Bill 9 (SB 9); single-room occupancy standards in multifamily and certain commercial zones; a formal standard for low-barrier navigation centers (a form of shelter plus services); changes to administrative procedures for lot-line adjustments and extensions of time; and a proposal to remove the separate conditional-use permit requirement for multifamily projects that meet objective standards.
Foote said the ordinance text is intended to align zoning with state law and the city’s housing-element work program. He explained staff’s reading of SB 9 (ministerial lot splits and two-unit developments) and said that deed restrictions and administrative procedures are included in the draft to be consistent with state law.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about definitions (particularly whether to replace the term “family” with “single housekeeping unit”), about how single-room occupancy and low-barrier navigation centers will be treated, and about roadway-width requirements in high fire hazard areas. Foote said staff can refine the draft language on definitions and verify whether several points raised in a late letter from the California Housing Defense Fund require statutory adjustments.
A written letter from the California Housing Defense Fund arrived about an hour before the meeting and was distributed to commissioners at the dais. Foote said some points in that letter could be changed quickly in the draft ordinance but other points require legal vetting against state law (for example, the relationship of SB 9 and ADU law and roadway-width questions in high fire hazard areas). Commissioners discussed whether to continue the item to allow staff time to reconcile the comment letter with the draft language and legal requirements.
After discussion, Commissioner Stanson moved and Commissioner Smith seconded a motion to continue OTA No. 361 to the May 13 meeting so staff can finalize revisions and respond to the comments. The commission voted in favor and the motion carried.
Staff told commissioners the ordinance as drafted is exempt from environmental review under the CEQA sections cited in the staff report; staff also said additional public hearings and council review will follow and that any necessary edits that do not change policy intent can be made before the item goes to city council.
