At a Dec. 16 special meeting, multiple residents and design professionals focused on the Spring Grove project as a case study of unwanted scale and massing produced under the 2023 zoning code. Wayne Leong said Spring Grove “complied with the city adopted standards and state housing law, yet it produced an outcome that many in the community and on this commission found unacceptable in scale, massing, and impact.”

Leong identified five primary fixes: calculate residential density on net developable acreage (excluding creeks, private streets and bioretention areas), clarify that density ranges are permissive rather than mandatory minima, require discretionary design review for larger or sensitive projects (for example projects with 20 or more units or buildings over two stories), demand stronger findings when granting density‑bonus waivers and modernize the city's water neutrality ordinance.

He said the current approach treated density ranges as a production mandate, leaving little discretion to reduce unit counts even when physical site conditions warrant fewer units. He recommended code language that would permit projects to approve below the stated minimum density when “objective documented conditions limit feasible development.”

Staff did not accept or reject the technical claim at the meeting but noted that affordable housing outcomes are negotiated through an affordable housing agreement presented to city council for approval. Director Maya DeRosa told the commission that such agreements allow staff and council to negotiate unit mix and affordability levels on projects subject to the affordable housing chapter. That process, she said, can influence actual affordable unit counts on a project but does not on its own resolve Leong’s density‑calculation proposal.

Leong also urged modernizing the city's 15‑year‑old water neutrality ordinance and suggested a moratorium on large development projects until the ordinance is updated; staff said water policy is currently under council review and will be considered separately by the council.

What’s next: Commissioners asked staff to compile written examples and a proposed list of code edits and said they expect follow‑up workshops. Commissioner Covell also moved to schedule an annual review of the general plan and related code provisions for further study.