►
From YouTube: May 17, 2022 UDC Steering Committee Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
E
Yeah,
I
can
get
us
started
and
I
can
chime
in
when
he
joins.
I
I
don't
know
if
I'm
giving
away
the
farm
here,
but
I
think
he
just
landed
on
an
airplane,
so
he's
getting
to
a
spot
where
he
can
contribute
to
the
meeting
but
good
evening.
Everyone.
My
name
is
graham
smith,
I'm
with
gould
evans.
I
work
closely
with
chris
brewster,
who
I
think,
you've
all
met
and
talked
to
several
times
before,
as
well
as
matt.
E
We've
been
working
with
matt
for
probably
the
last
12
to
15
years,
and
I'm
gonna
do
my
best
matt
and
chris
impersonation
all
rolled
in
one
tonight,
so
bear
with
me
a
little
bit.
E
But
what
we
wanted
to
try
and
do
with
you
all
tonight
was
really
give
you
an
update
on
the
public
engagement
that
we've
been
going
through
over
the
last
couple
of
months,
in
particular
the
public
meeting
that
was
held
back
in
april
and
then
a
follow-up
survey
that
was
online
on
the
engage
inglewood
platform
that
was
really
intended
to
mirror
the
public
meeting
that
was
held.
E
The
real
big
difference
between
the
two,
the
meeting
and
the
online
mechanism
is
the
the
structure
we
used
in
person.
E
We
used
a
a
platform
called
pull
everywhere
and
it
did
have
some
limitations
with
regard
to
how
much
information
we
could
put
in
front
of
people
in
terms
of
the
questions
we
were
asking
and
the
detail
of
those
questions,
we
didn't
have
that
same
restriction
when
we
put
the
survey
out
online,
supported
by
some
of
the
information
and
diagrams
that
were
shown
at
the
public
meeting
as
well
as
online,
and
so
that's
really
the
big
difference
between
the
two
they're
intended
to
elicit
the
same
information
or
the
same
types
of
responses
from
people,
and
I
think
you'll
see
when,
when
we
go
through
these,
that
there's
a
lot
of
similarities
between
what
was
done
in
person
and
what
was
online,
and
so
I'm
gonna
try
and
share
my
screen
here.
D
D
E
E
Perfect
so,
as
I
said,
what
we
wanted
to
do
tonight
is
really
kind
of
give
you
an
overview
of
what
we
went
through
with
the
public
engagement
in
the
meeting
as
well
as
online.
E
So
the
way
these
slides
are
structured
is
on
the
top,
with
the
blue
background
is
the
the
question
that
was
asked
after
the
review
of
some
information
and
some
diagrams
during
the
public
meeting,
and
so
people
were
able
to
respond
in
through
the
pull
everywhere
app
and
then
based
on
their
responses,
which
this
top
slide
is
a
screen
capture
of
one
of
the
questions
and
the
responses.
After
those
questions
were
compiled
or
the
answers
were
compiled,
there
was
a
discussion
after
each
topic
with
the
group
that
was
in
the
room.
E
So
that's
on
the
top
of
the
slide
on
the
bottom
of
the
slide
or
the
bottom
half
is
the
question
and
the
response
that
was
done
online.
So
you
can
see
there's
a
lot
of
similarities.
E
The
question
is
identical:
it's
the
amount
of
detail
that
we
could
provide
in
the
question
or
in
the
answer.
Excuse
me
online
versus
in
person
and
then
the
very
bottom
of
the
page,
you'll
see
kind
of
our
observations
from
the
responses
we
we
gathered
and
then
what
we
are
starting
to
understand
about
what
it
means
to
how
we're
going
to
address
any
code
modifications.
E
A
little
bit
question
one
was
about
parking
under
the
guise
of
walkability
in
inglewood,
and
so
the
question
really
is
about:
how
do
we
optimize
parking,
and
so
there
were
options
from
you
know,
reduce
the
minimum
number
of
required
parking
stalls
to
set
a
maximum.
E
And
then,
when
we
went
to
the
to
the
survey
tool,
they
really
got
into
this
whole
idea
of
streamlining
streamlining
the
opportunities
for
shared
parking
so
trying
to
get
at
that
maximum.
Excuse
me
that
optimization
of
parking,
so
that
parking
is
not
just
being
built
because
of
the
standard
and
is
not
being
used
and
so
really
what
we
started
to
observe
through
these.
E
These
results
and
these
responses,
because
they
are
just
a
little
bit
different,
is
across
the
board.
There
was
really
this
emphasis
on
sharing
or
again
optimizing
or
efficiently
using
the
parking,
wherever
it's
provided
and
and
the
opportunity
for
those
to
change
within
those
different
contexts,
so
a
wider
range
of
required
parking,
depending
on
the
the
services
that
are
being
served
by
that
parking.
So
this
idea
of
soft
maximums
again
so
for
us,
as
we
start
to
look
at
how
that
might
shape
the
code.
E
That
may
reduce
the
parking
minimums
that
are
in
there
now
and
those
types
of
those
types
of
solutions,
and
then
really
because
this
is
trying
to
optimize
and
use
the
parking
efficiently
in
different
contexts,
really
starting
to
look
at
what
are
those
different
criteria
for
addressing
parking
within
those
different
contexts?
Again,
if
you're
in
a
commercial
corridor
versus
a
neighborhood,
a
commercial
area,
maybe
a
mixed
use
area,
what
are
those
criteria
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
look
at
and
make
decisions
about
parking
in
those
different
contexts?.
E
And
so
staying
on
the
parking
piece,
one
of
the
questions,
the
follow-up
question
was:
what
are
the
physical
attributes
or
aspects
of
parking
that
are
important
to
consider
in
the
code,
so
taking
not
just
how
we
address
parking,
but
as
we
develop
parking
what's
most
important
to
remember
about
that,
and
so
you'll
see
from
the
the
meeting
the
in-person
meeting,
there
was
really
kind
of
a
split
between
limiting
the
size
of
the
lots
to
focusing
our
parking
regulations,
specifically
in
those
areas
where
we
want
to
promote,
walking
and
biking
and
transit
and
then
also
from
the
physical
design
aspects,
the
landscaping,
the
buffering
and
screening
and
those
types
of
things.
E
So
really
it's
about
balancing
the
overall
amount
of
parking,
but
also
design,
designing
parking
in
a
way
that
mitigates
the
impact
of
that
parking.
Whatever
that
context
may
be
so
for
the
code
implication
that
really
starts
starts
us
down
a
path
of
looking
at
not
only
the
size
and
amount
of
parking
within
different
contexts,
but
also
how
do
we
landscape?
How
do
we
buffer
and
how
do
we
make
sure
that
transitions
between
parking
and
adjacent
uses
are
done
correctly
and
in
a
in
a
thoughtful
way?.
E
And
then
one
of
the
I
guess
the
third
question
with
regard
to
parking
was
really
about
parking
and
sustainability
and
how
we
can
address
the
different
elements
of
sustainability
within,
as
we
address
parking
as
we
provide
parking
within
the
community.
E
E
We
just
coordinate
things
that
impact
that,
or
do
we
go
all
the
way
to
requiring
the
best
practices
with
return
in
terms
of
sustainability
as
we
develop
parking,
and
so
there
was
a
clear
emphasis
on
the
on
the
sustainability
aspect,
but,
as
you
can
see
from
the
from
the
public
meeting
as
well
as
the
online
there
were,
it
was
really
kind
of
evenly
split
across
the
board
about
what
was
most
important
to
address,
and
so,
as
we
continue
down
this
path,
it'll
be
topic
specific
with
each
one
of
these
topics
in
terms
of
heat,
island,
green
infrastructure,
storm
water,
it'll
be
topic
specific.
E
F
The
the
chart
is
obviously
not
percentages.
That's
a
the
number
of
people
that
have
mentioned
that,
or
can
you
explain,
explain
the
charts
a
little
bit
yeah.
E
I'm
sorry,
I
should
have
done
that
up
front
I'll,
go
back
to
the
pie.
Chart
the
pie
chart
is
percentages.
The
the
online
the
mechanism
allowed
us
to
gather
those
numbers
by
total
responses
to
that
category.
So
we've
been
kind
of
thinking
through
some
of
the
different
responses
for
the
different
percentages
from
those,
and
we
can
certainly
generate
those
from
this
to
be
a
little
more
consistent
between
the
two
but
like
on
this
one.
E
You
can
see:
there's
28,
25,
23
and
17
percent
for
the
top
four,
and
you
can
see
the
top
four
from
the
community
are
all
about
equal,
probably
coming
in
in
a
similar
range,
so
we're
starting
to
look
at
those
things
a
little
deeper
in
terms
of
what
those
percentages
are
for
the
the
online
version
and
that's
consistent
throughout
all
of
these,
where
the
pull
everywhere
allowed
us
to
do
percentages,
and
then
the
online
platform
was
more
just
direct
responses.
E
Okay,
so
then
there
were
additional
questions
with
regard
to
parking
and
sustainability,
specifically
about
how
rigorous,
as
I
mentioned
a
minute
ago,
with
one
of
our
code
implications
at
the
bottom
here
of
how
rigorous
or
how
onerous
we
want
to
be
with
the
requirement
and
really
that
goes
back
to
this.
E
The
top
chart
here
from
anything
from
coordinating
or
identifying
those
non-code
specific
issues
and
making
sure
that
they're
coordinated
to
bring
about
sustainability
to
enabling
or
removing
the
barriers
in
the
current
code
to
implementing
sustainable
measures
to
promoting,
which
is
incenting
those
best
practices
to
actually
happen
all
the
way
to
requiring
those
best
practices
to
happen
and
writing
those
as
the
standards
within
the
code.
And
so
we
followed
up
with
folks
online
in
terms
of
what
their
desires
were
for
like
on
the
top.
E
Is
heat
island
on
the
bottom
is
storm
water
management
and
which
options
for
addressing
the
each
one
of
these
in
terms
of
coordinating
in
green,
enabling
in
yellow,
promoting
and
purple
and
requiring
in
in
this
reddish
color
how
what
their
desires
were
in
terms
of
those
different
options,
and
so,
as
we
went
through.
E
D
E
Oh,
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we've
noticed
about
the
survey
is,
and
even
the
ones
that
we've
got
in
here.
Some
of
them
have
like.
If
you
look
at
the
one
on
the
bottom
here,
there's
about
150
responses.
There's
a
you
know.
The
one
on
top
has
similar
numbers,
but
there
was
one
on
a
response
here
like
this
one
has
over
200
responses,
so
there's
real.
It
was
really
kind
of
inconsistent.
E
D
Okay,
so
that
makes
sense
so
refresh
my
memory,
because
I
I
think
I
might
have
even
taken
the
survey,
but
I
don't
remember,
were
people
allowed
to
have
more
than
one
answer
to
all
of
these,
or
just
some
of
these.
E
That's
a
good
question.
I
need
to
follow
up
with
matt
about
that
and,
if
matt's
on,
he
can
maybe
answer
that.
Typically,
the
way
we
set
these
up,
though,
is
that
each
individual
computer,
or
not
to
be
too
technical,
but
I
t
address,
gets
one
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
survey.
D
E
Yes,
yeah
and
you
know-
maybe
they
just
didn't-
have
an
opinion
about
it,
so
they
skipped
it
or
you
know
they
didn't
feel
as
strongly
about
it.
So
they
may
have
skipped
it
and
they
only
wanted
to
log
on
and
and
respond
to
things
that
they
were
very,
very
interested
in
and
not
take
the
entire
survey.
So.
D
E
Again
I'll
have
to
ask
matt
for
the
details,
but
typically
we
set
it
up
if
they're
taking
it
from
the
same
computer.
They
cannot
duplicate
their
efforts
if
they
went
to
a
different
computer
if
they
had
multiple
computers
in
their
house
multiple,
I
think
it
takes
a
different
profile.
Maybe
then
they
could
they
would
be
able
to
do
that.
D
Okay,
thank
you
very
much,
sorry
yeah
sure.
Actually
I
can
provide
a
bit
of
clarification
on
that.
If
you'd,
like
you,
had
to
register
so
people
going
in
to
take
the
survey
had
to
register
with
an
email
address.
So
unless
you
did
it
under
multiple
emails,
you
would
only
be
doing
it
be
able
to
take
it
once.
D
Okay,
perfect
and
then
I'll
have
a
number
for
you,
michelle
on
how
many
actually
completed
the
survey,
but
that'll
be
a
bit
later.
Okay!
Well,
it's
to
me
it's
important.
I
mean
if
we
really
truly
only
had
150
people
or
maybe
200
people
in
the
entire
city
of
englewood,
responding
to
this
I'm
concerned
about
how
you
know
how
valid.
Well,
we
obviously,
if
that's
the
case,
then
we
obviously
need
more
more
input
to
before
we
make
big
decisions
so.
B
Thank
you.
I
do
wish
there's
a
way
that
the
survey
could
be
expanded
or
reopened
to
get
more
input.
I
don't
know
if
that's
possible
in
our
process
or
not.
I
did
hear
some
people
say
that,
because
they
had
to
write
their
name,
they
did
not
fill
out
the
survey
because
I
think
they
thought
it
would
be
held
against
them
or
or
their
name
would
be
released
publicly
or
something
like
that.
B
G
Okay
good
deal,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
folks
understand
that
this
is
not
intended
to
be
a
scientific
survey.
It's
really
intended
to
be
questions
that
give
us
general
feedback
on
an
overall
direction.
So
you
know
to
make
sure
that
we're
generally
headed
in
the
right
direction,
and
so
you
know,
I
think
I
think
what
this
tells
us
is
more
so
that
we're
we're
not
crazy
and
we're
not.
G
A
And
I'll
build
on
that
I
I
was
ecstatic
that
we
would
have
200
answers.
I
didn't
think
we
were
gonna
get
more
than
40
or
something
like
that.
So
and
I
I
know
we
have
30
000
people
that
live
in
the
city,
but
you
know
trying
to
get
people
to
be
completely
evolved
and
engaged
is,
is
challenging.
So
I
personally
I
thought
I
I
was
pretty
happy
with
those
numbers,
but
maybe
I'm
just
trying
to
be
positive
on
it.
D
C
And
this
is
brian,
so
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
work
in
cities
of
260
000
and
one
of
almost
400
000,
and
these
numbers
are
great
for
this
type
of
work.
It
doesn't
have
the
appeal
of
like
a
master
parks,
master
plan
or
something
like
that,
where
you're
going
to
get
a
lot
more
responses.
C
Code
updates
for
our
development
code
are
usually
this.
This
is
actually
really
good,
and
a
lot
of
the
discussion
has
been
really
on
point
with
your
citizens.
So
this
is,
I
think,
honestly,
we're
headed
in
a
great
direction.
A
G
Yeah,
I
I
think
it
is
possible
that
there
could
potentially
be
folks
that
you
know
gained
the
system
and
maybe
provided
more
than
one
answer,
but
I
think
combined
with
the
40
responses
that
we
had
with
the
in-person
meeting
as
well.
As
you
know,
the
general
direction
of
the
200
responses.
E
The
other
I'll
just
keep
going
and
I'll
try
and
keep
an
eye
on
hands
going
up,
but
if
you,
if
you
don't,
if
I
don't
see
you
just
interrupt
me,
please
the
other
question
with
regard
to
sustainability
sustainability.
Excuse
me
was
this
idea
of
alternative
transportation
options
and
we
talked
about
ev
charging
stations.
E
E
This
was
one
of
the
few
that
really
they
shied
away
from
the
requirement
and
went
more
to
the
promoting
in
terms
of
allowing
it
to
happen,
making
sure
that
we're
providing
incentives,
whatever
the
incentives,
might
be,
whether
it's
better
facilities
whatever
that
case
is
that
those
things
can
happen
easier
and
then
you
can
see
it
kind
of
tail
off
down
to
just
coordination.
So.
E
E
It's
kind
of
we
knew
parking
would
probably
be
the
biggest
word
in
the
word
cloud,
but
it's
kind
of
interesting
that
near
was
the
second
interesting,
not
unexpected,
though
a
lot
of
people
like
to
park
right
where
they're
going
so,
but
you
can
see
other
things
that
kind
of
had
more
than
one
response
in
terms
of
security
streets,
unsafe,
overflow,
buildings,
things
like
that,
so
this
was
kind
of
again
all
over
the
board
and
things
we'll
keep
or
we'll
continue
to
look
at
as
we
discuss
parking
going
forward.
B
Thanks,
can
you
back
up
just
one
slide,
yep
on
that
one
options
like
ev
charging,
for
instance,
and
the
prioritization
for
incentives
rather
than
requiring?
B
I
think
that
the
question
couldn't
get
at
the
nuance
of
perhaps,
if
we're
talking
about
commercial
development
versus
multi-family,
because
I
would
see
a
big
difference
there,
where,
if
you're
going
to
the
grocery
store,
you
might
not
need
ev
charging.
But
if
it's
your
apartment
building,
that's
the
only
option
you
would
have
and
those
people
are
ripping,
so
they
can't
really
add
their
own
eevee
charger.
So
perhaps
there's
a
there's
somewhere
where
we
can
read
into
the
the
nuance
of
that
question.
A
little
bit
more
than
the
data
chose.
F
I
kind
of
connected
with
that
as
the
av
chargers
in
the
april
14th
meeting.
They
mentioned
the
flexibility
to
be
able
to
adjust
the
code
in
the
future
and
right
now
the
ev
is
starting
to
take
hold
it's
starting
to
be
more
common,
so
that
maybe
have
to
go
to
from
promotion
to
a
requirement.
F
E
I
think
that
I
think
the
structure
of
the
code
will
definitely
allow
that
type
of
change
to
happen
where
it
becomes
more
of,
as
you
said,
more
from
promoting
and
allowing
thing
allowing
those
things
to
happen,
so
that
people
can
use
those
facilities
to
it's
just
a
fact
of
everyday
life
now,
so
it
might
as
well
be
required
as
people
continue
to
build
parking,
even
as
christine
pointed
out
in
residential
or
commercial
districts,.
F
B
Thanks
one
last
thing
on
that
carl:
I
liked
what
you
were
saying
about
flexibility,
and
it
seems
like
one
way
to
do
that
is
to
make
sure
that
the
parking
garages
or
parking
lots
just
have
at
least
the
conduit
at
least
the
space
for
future
wiring.
B
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
require
the
actual
charging
stations,
but
if
we
at
least
have
room
to
put
in
wiring
in
the
future,
then
that
seems
to
be
key.
That
seems
to
be
where
we
get
the
most
cost
savings
up
front,
while
preserving
flexibility.
E
You
know
I
would,
I
would
just
add
to
that
we've
just
as
an
anecdotal
kind
of
story.
I
know
the
the
professions
that
deal
with
these,
whether
it's
the
conduit,
whether
it's
the
actual
charging
or
any
of
those
facilities
that
tie
into
that
are
already
starting
to
think
about
that
anecdotally.
We
did
a
small
remodel
on
our
house
and
it
happened
to
touch
our
garage
and
our
construction
person
asked
us
if
we
wanted
our
garage
wired
for
ev
charging,
we
don't
have
a.
E
We
don't
have
an
electronic
vehicle,
we
probably
will
someday,
and
so
you
know
thinking
short
term.
We
decided
not
to
do
it,
but
we
probably
should
have
knowing
that
it's
coming,
so
the
professions
are
already
thinking
about
it.
Michelle.
D
Sorry,
I
have
to
remember
to
unmute
good
point
there
on
charging
stations.
I
do
think
we
need
to
be
keep
in
mind
that
just
your
everyday
retail
center,
I
don't
think
we
need
to
have
any
charging
stations
there.
There's
you
know
the
where
we
need
charging
stasis
is
where,
in
the
residential
parts
where
people,
actually
you
know,
need
to
charge
overnight
or
whatever
that
is.
I
don't
think
that
you
know
walmart
needs
to
necessarily
have
charging
stations,
because
the
theory
is
you
go
in.
You
go
out
kind
of
thing.
B
Okay,
christine
thanks-
and
I
just
thought
to
mention
that
there
was
a
state
law
that
just
passed
that
requires
a
multi-family
and
commercial
over
a
certain
square
footage
to
have
a
certain
percentage
of
ev
capable
and
ev
ready,
so
we'll
make
sure
have
to
make
sure
that
our
building
code
matches
what
the
state
says
we
have
to
do.
That
was
hb
22-1218.
A
I
guess
I
I
disagree
slightly
with
you
michelle,
I
think,
with
some
of
the
supercharging
capabilities
and
whether
that's
going
to
be
in
all
these.
I
think,
if
there's
a
place
where
you
could
go
into
walmart
and
plug
your
car
in
and
be
in
there
for
a
half
hour
and
then
have
it
come
out
and
be
charged.
I
think
there
is
an
opportunity
for
that.
A
I
think
I've
seen
them
in
different
commercial
buildings
or
city
public
space
buildings
if
there's
a
way
to
kind
of
just
top
off
or
even
just
get
a
little
charge,
while
you're
in
I
think
is,
is
still
something
that
we
should
consider
and
I
think
what
the
infrastructure
needs
are.
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
in
order
to
provide
the
network.
That's
going
to
have
to
be
there
to
be
able
to
make
it
sustainable,
but
just.
D
That's
a
that's
a
fair
comment,
colin
and
I
think
we're
talking
about
the
same
thing.
We
need
to
build
build
some
flexibility
in
this.
That's
all.
D
F
E
E
Okay,
so
the
all
of
this,
the
parking
even
was
tied
to
this
idea
of
walkability,
and
so
the
other
piece
of
the
walkability
discussion
was
around
street
design.
And
so,
when
we
talked
about
street
design
and
how
we
encourage
more
walkability
in
inglewood.
E
The
first
question
was
what
are
the
most
important
elements
or
what
are
the
design
elements
that
are
most
important
to
encouraging
walking
and,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
top
that
there
was
a
there
was
a
lot
all
over
the
board
kind
of
from
the
public
in
terms
of
the
at
the
meeting
and
in
everything,
from
an
improved
sidewalk
network
to
landscaping
and
streetscaping
to
on-street
parking
to
bicycle
facilities.
E
The
buffering
of
the
cars,
but
also
the
multimodal
aspect
of
the
streets
themselves,
so
accommodating
different
modes
of
transportation,
as
well
as
parking
on
the
street
and
so
for
us
as
we
move
forward
and
continue
to
talk
about
what
that
means
for
the
code,
it's
really
again
about
designing
streets
within
the
code
that
are
appropriate
for
the
different
contexts,
so
taking
the
commercial
core,
the
commercial
corridor
versus
the
town
center
versus
a
neighborhood.
What
are
the
context
appropriate
streets
for
those
different
areas?
E
It
also
points
to
because
of
the
quite
the
responses
to
the
question.
It
also
points
to
this
greater
emphasis
on
just
public
realm
design
in
general
and
when
we
say
public
realm
design,
that's
streets
as
well
as
public
spaces
to
encourage
their
use
and
then
because
we're
dealing
with
the
public
realm
the
public
rights
of
way.
This
also
necessitates
that
the
code
updates,
the
code,
modifications
are
coordinated
with
the
public
work
manual,
public
works
manuals
and
transportation
plans
for
the
city,
so
that
they're
not
at
crossroads
with
one
another.
E
So
that's
what
we'll
be
continuing
to
discuss
going
forward
and
then
also
similar
to
the
sustainability
question
for
parking.
The
question
with
regard
to
street
design
was
really
about
environmental
impact.
E
And
so
those
landscape
and
streetscapes
to
to
encourage
sustainability
as
well
as
walkability
are,
is
a
pretty
clear
priority,
not
only
in
the
public
meeting,
but
also
reiterated
in
the
survey,
as
you
can
see
from
the
responses
down
below,
but
there's
also
additional
benefits
that
people
were
thinking
of
in
terms
of
green
infrastructure,
slowing
traffic
with
reduced
sorry,
reducing
the
overall
street
width
to
to
reduce
the
impervious
pavement
and
where
you
do
have
payment
thinking
about
it
in
terms
of
providing
pervious
pavement
so
that
we
address
stormwater
and
things
like
that.
E
E
And
then,
with
this
one,
we
also
said
you
know
what
are
the
what
other
characteristics
that
we
haven't
talked
about
again
at
the
public
meeting,
and
so
this
word
cloud
really
came
with
we.
We,
we
could
have
guessed
that
with
walkability
sidewalk
would
probably
be
the
biggest
one.
But
then
we
started
getting
into
words
like
bus
lane
lanes
the
width
of
the
streets,
snow
main
street
storm
drainage.
E
And
then
the
rest
of
the
the
rest
of
the
survey
really
dealt
with
housing.
I'm
sorry,
the
rest
of
the
meeting
and
and
the
rest
of
the
survey
really
dealt
with
housing
and
the
different
types
of
housing
that
were
discussed.
I
think
you
all
have
discussed
them
quite
a
bit
so
going
into
the
public.
E
We
wanted
to
get
their
feedback
on
a
similar
kind
of
discussions
regarding
the
different
types
of
housing
that
are
appropriate
where
those
types
of
housing
might
be
appropriate
and
then
what's
important
about
their
design,
and
so
the
first
question
was
around
accessory
dwelling
units.
This
is
one
where
the
people
in
the
room
took
a
little
bit
different
approach
or
a
little
different
view
towards
adus
than
those
online.
E
E
Whereas
on
the
survey
most
people
felt
like
permitting
adus,
but
only
in
specific
cases,
that
kind
of
lighter
shade
of
green,
which
you
can
match
to
the
up
top
that
got
about
the
third
most
responses
from
the
people
in
the
room,
and
so
there
is.
There
was
a
lot
of
support
for
adus.
In
general,
there
was
just
some
differences
of
opinion
on
how
those
should
be
regulated
throughout
the
community
and
encouraged.
E
So
what
we're
starting
to
think
about
and
kind
of
the
discussions
we're
starting
to
have
is
going
beyond
just
the
r1c
and
our
going
beyond
the
r1c
excuse
me
and
allowing
all
adus
in
all
r1
districts
with
existing
detached
homes,
and
so
at
that,
at
that
more
modest
scale
of
r1
zoning
district.
Can
we
pair
up
the
adus
with
the
existing
detached
homes
and
then
re
revisiting
the
conditions
for
adus
and
any
unintended
barriers
or
consequences
that
are
in
the
code?
E
So
the
second
question
was
the
the
number
of
adus:
should
some
lots
be
allowed
to
have
more
than
one
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
in
general,
in
the
meeting,
the
response
was
only
on
larger
lots,
so
example
was
more
than
9
000
square
foot
lot.
You
could
potentially
have
more
than
one
adu,
and
that
was
somewhat
agreed
upon
in
the
survey.
E
However,
their
top
priority
was
limiting
adus
to
one
per
detached
house
throughout
the
entire
community
and
so
again
a
little
bit
difference
of
opinion,
but
again
general
support
for
adus
and
then,
as
I
said,
that
the
online
response
had
more
concern
about
the
more
than
one
adu
or
multiple
adus,
and
so
this
has
really
started
to
help
us
understand
some
of
the
criteria,
some
of
the
discretion
that
needs
to
be
built
in
the
code
for
where
appropriate
thresholds
for
the
number
of
addus
might
be
appropriate.
E
Some
ideas
that
we
might
be
able
to
bring
back
to
this
group
and
other
groups
to
discuss
if
a
different
number
of
adus
are
appropriate
in
different
contexts
and
then
the
other
part
that
the
other
question,
the
other
part
of
the
adu
issue,
that
this
question
didn't
get
specifically
to.
Was
the
def
the
difference
between
an
internal
adu
to
an
existing
structure
versus
an
attached
adu
versus
a
detached
adu
on
a
single
lot.
E
Oh
wow
holy
cow.
I
apologize
I'm
taking
too
long
with
these.
This
is
the
question,
though,
about
what
are
the
important
things
to
regulate
when
integrating
adus,
and
you
can
see
really
the
two
biggest
concerns
both
on
the
survey
and
in
the
public
meetings
had
to
do
with
parking
and
really
the
size
of
the
structure.
E
There's
a
there's
a
few
other
things
in
here,
but
a
lot
of
these
points
straight
to
the
height,
the
bulk
or
size,
the
massing
and
the
design
of
the
structure
itself,
and
so
those
two
are
really
the
things
that
came
forward
as
the
biggest
concerns
and
so
again
revisiting
those
conditions,
the
design
of
80
years
and
and
trying
to
limit
or
mitigate
the
impacts
of
adus
in
certain
contexts.
E
This
one
I'm
going
to
skip
over
because
I
had
originally
had
in
the
wrong
meeting,
but
that'll
be
it'll,
be
in
the
full
packet
and
since
we're
short
on
time,
I
can
skip
over
that
and
so
from
adus.
We
went
to
integrating
small
lots
within
neighborhoods,
so
the
idea
here
is
that
small
lots
come
with
smaller
structures,
but
there's
the
potential
you
might
have
more
of
them
on
lots,
more
smaller
structures,
so
they're
more
in
context
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood
or
the
existing
neighborhood.
E
Some
of
the
major
concerns
with
small
lots
are
parking
and
the
size
of
structure
that
goes
on
those
and
so
trying
to
understand
the
relationship
between
the
size
of
the
lot
and
the
size
of
the
structure
is
going
to
be
important
and
again
trying
to
look
at
where
in
neighborhoods,
different
or
smaller
lots
might
be
appropriate,
whether
they're
on
the
block,
whether
they're
on
the
end
grain
or
the
ends
of
the
blocks
or
on
corner
lots
and
trying
to
make
those
criterion
determinations
in
the
code.
So
people
can
use
that.
E
And
then
we
went
from
a
small
lot
detached
to
small
lot:
multi-unit
housing,
so
we're
just
kind
of
stepping
up
in
in
terms
of
intensity
of
develop
of
structure,
but
looking
at
them
from
alternative
formats
of
housing
and
so
again,
looking
at
this
from
small
lot
multi-unit
housing
in
neighborhoods,
a
lot
of
folks
in
the
meeting
thought
they
were
only
appropriate
in
the
higher
intensity
r
categories
in
the
mu
r
3
zones.
So
the
r
2
and
m?
U
r
3.
some.
E
Some
people
thought
it
would
be-
should
be
permitted
with
some
limitations
again
around
the
context
and
make
sure
that
it
fits
into
existing
context
so
again,
similar
to
adus.
This
really
kind
of
showed
a
willingness
to
accept
more
types
of
housing
in
different
contexts
and
in
neighborhoods.
E
And
that
a
little
bit
more
density
within
different
contexts
is
okay.
If
the
scale
of
the
building
is
is
appropriate
and
then
we
can,
we
can
mitigate
for
some
of
those
site
issues,
including
parking
and
other
things,
and
so
for
the
code
implications
really
starting
to
look
at
the
smallest
apartment,
buildings
or
apartment
types,
mixed
use,
types
in
the
mur-3a
district
and
considering
allowing
some
of
those
things
in
the
r2b
provided
it's
of
a
similar
scale,
similar
context
and
really
talking
about
those
three
and
four
plexes.
E
That
would
be
like
row,
houses,
townhomes
things
like
that
and
then
maximums
lot
size
and
building
for
footprint
more
than
minimums
to
start
to
address
the
scale
of
those.
E
And
so
when
we
talked
about
those
different
housing
types,
we
started
to
ask:
what
is
it
about
the
design
of
those
elements,
the
site,
design,
building
design
those
types
of
things
that
are
important
to
regulate
when
we're
integrating
these
different
types
into
neighborhoods
and
again,
similar
to
adu
similar
to
small
lot?
It's
really.
E
The
responses
were
primarily
about
addressing
parking
and
addressing
the
building
size,
whether
that's
height,
whether
that's
bulk
and
mass,
but
addressing
those
things,
so
they
are
contextual
to
where
they
are
being
allowed
and
so
similar
to
the
previous,
improving
mur
three
districts
for
multi-unit
and
mixed-use
projects
rezoning
to
these
districts,
because
they're
not
widely
used
right
now,
and
particularly
around
transit
and
tod
areas,
and
then
overall,
trying
to
incorporate
these
things
in
a
way
that
you're
not
so
relying
on
puds
so
being
able
to
build
in
the
flexibility
of
different
contacts.
E
E
E
And
then
it
got
into
a
lot
of
the
actual
building
design,
go
back
to
landscape
and
setbacks,
facade
design
so
really
similar
results
online
and
in
the
public
meeting.
E
E
Yeah,
I
think
I'm
gonna
stop
there
and
give
people
the
few
minutes.
We
have
left
an
opportunity
to
ask
any
more
questions.
I
apologize
for
taking
so
long.
A
I
guess
maybe
what's
next,
then
so,
where
we've
got
all
this
information.
E
How
would
we
yeah
so
I'll
I'll
start
and
matt,
please
chime
in
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
one
of
the
things
we're
trying
to
do
with
this
again
is
trying
to
from
our
observations
and
and
what
we
see
is
starting
to
shape
kind
of
the
code,
modifications
or
the
implications
for
changing
the
code.
E
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
get
these
compiled
to
really
start
bringing
these
topics
in
front
of
our
technical
committee
and
having
those
discussions
with
the
folks
that
use
the
code.
E
The
other
city
staff,
like
we
talked
about
with
the
streets,
the
potential
street
design,
changing
per
context
within
the
code,
making
sure
that
those
things
are
coordinated
and
having
some
of
those
deeper
discussions
with
those
folks,
so
that
we
can
continue
to,
as
matt
said
earlier,
continue
to
make
sure
we're
on
the
right
track
with
how
we're
thinking
about
these
things
and
addressing
those.
F
F
E
I'm
gonna
have
to
get
back
to
you
on
that.
I'm
not
sure
what
matt's
got
put
together.
He
actually
just
texted
me.
It
looks
like
he
he
got
kicked
off
so
off
of
his
phone.
So
let
me
get
back
to
you
I'll
get
back
to
brian
and
the
city
folks,
and
we
can
get
that
out
to
you.
F
And
we'll
let
go
to
nancy
and
then
she'll
distribute
it
out
to
us.
A
Yeah
I
appreciate
the
summary
that
you
provided
graham,
was
like.
I
said
I
really
was
excited
by
the
number
of
folks
that
we
had
participating
so
some
great
information,
some
great
work.
E
And
I
would,
I
would
just
put
a
plug
in
that
for
those
of
you
that
weren't
at
the
public
meeting
it
was
a.
It
was
a
really
really
good
conversation
about
a
lot
of
these
topics,
so
it
was,
it
was
well
attended
and,
and
the
conversation
was,
was
really
a
lot
more
detailed
than
what
I've
seen
in
most
public
meetings.
People
know
their
stuff
about
inglewood
and
they're,
not
shy
about
talking
about
their
city.
So
it's
it
was
really
nice.