►
Description
Live teleconference meeting of the Mountain View City Council Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 17, 2021.
Live Video Conference: YouTube, mountainview.legistar.com, and Comcast Channel 26.
A
Meeting
at
7
01
pm
this
meeting
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
state
of
california
executive
order,
n
29-2
dated
march
17
2020.
All
members
of
the
epc
are
participating
in
this
meeting
by
video
conference
with
no
physical
meeting
location
members.
The
public
wishing
to
observe
the
meeting
made
live
may
do
so
at
mountainview.legistar.com
on
youtube
at
mountainview.gov
youtube
or
on
comcast
channel
26.
A
B
A
A
Okay
item
two
on
the
agenda
is
meeting
minutes
and
we
have
none
this
evening.
Item
three
is
oral.
Communications
is
sorry
and
three
is
minutes.
Item
four
is
arnold
communications
from
the
public.
This
portion
of
meeting
is
reserved
for
a
person's
wishing
to
address
the
epc
on
any
matter,
not
on
the
agenda.
This
evening,
speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
any
non-agendized
items.
A
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
a
non-agendized
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6.
clerk.
Whitehall
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up.
A
C
Here,
okay,
I
hope
everyone
can
see
that
great
okay
welcome
everyone
good
evening.
My
name
is
martin
alkyr,
a
planner
with
the
planning
division
here,
city
mountain
view
and
I'll
be
presenting
an
overview
of
the
r3
project.
To
date.
C
With
several
key
questions,
my
presentation
will
will
just
focus
on
those
three
topics
on
the
screen:
a
brief
overview
of
the
r3
district
summaries
of
recent
community
workshops,
including
a
city
council
meeting
and
then
diving
into
the
details
on
the
proposed
approach
and
standards
for
this
work
just
to
orient
everyone
to
why
we're
here
on
the
screen
lists
the
city
council
goal
which
is
driving
this
project
and
that
is
to
review
and
propose
revisions
to
the
r3
zone,
standards
that
consider
form
based
zoning,
incentivizing,
stack
flats
and
updated
row
house
guidelines,
and
that
is
what
we've
been
working
towards
since
we
started
this
project.
C
C
There's
a
wide
variety
of
different
residential
types
in
the
r3
area,
apartments
row,
houses,
townhouses,
duplexes,
small
lot,
single
family,
really
a
wide
variety
and,
as
you
can
see,
they're
located
throughout
the
city.
Most
of
these
r3
zone
properties
are
have
older
structures
on
them,
mostly
built
from
the
50s
to
the
70s.
C
The
city
council
had
a
study
session
in
october
just
to
check
in
with
the
progress
to
date.
The
initial
work
that
had
started
and
to
provide
some
higher
level
direction
to
the
project
on
the
screen
is
kind
of
a
brief
listing
of
some
of
the
comments
from
that
city
council
meeting
again.
This
is
not
an
exhaustive
list.
The
staff
report
has
a
lot
more
of
their
comments,
but,
as
you
can
see,
just
here's
several
of
them
in
no
particular
order,
but
noting
that
the
r3
standards
do
not
meet
community
goals.
C
C
We
had
about
110
folks
attend
that
we
had
a
discussion
of
the
r3
and
then
we
had
a
small
group
breakouts
where
folks
talked
about
some
key
r3
topics
and
as
with
the
council
comments,
there
are
a
lot
more
kind
of
information
from
the
first
workshop
in
the
staff
report
in
the
attachment,
but
on
the
screen
are
just
some
of
the
bullet
points
that
we
heard
from
the
attendees
support
for
an
increase
in
density
in
r3,
but
concerned
about
impacts,
concern
over
effect
on
adjacent
neighborhood
character
and
several
other
comments.
C
And
then,
in
november
we
had
the
second
workshop.
We
provided
a
summary
of
the
first
workshop.
We
had
about
130
folks
attend
the
second
workshop
and
we
built
into
some
more
detail
about
some
of
the
r3
character
areas
and
the
degree
of
change
that
really
folks
might
be
comfortable
with
or
wanting
to
discuss
more,
and
they
also
provided
some
recommendations
for
changes
in
specific
areas.
C
So
before
I
dive
into
a
lot
of
the
details
with
the
work
to
date,
I
just
wanted
to
step
back
and
again
just
show
the
map
again
of
the
r3
zones
throughout
the
city
and
to
provide
kind
of
a
bigger
picture
context
to
this
work
and
one
of
the
things
that
we've
wanted
to
just
kind
of
illustrate
on
the
maps.
And
it's
in
the
staff
report
is
just
that.
What
we're
planning
to
do
is
the
whole
approach
is
to
break
up
this.
C
You
know
kind
of
one
size
fits
all
r3
zoning
district
on
the
screen
into
smaller
sub
zones.
As
you
can
see
on
the
the
screen,
sub
zones,
we're
labeling
them
r3a
to
r3d
from
less
intense
to
more
intense
or
less
urban
to
more
urban
and,
as
you
can
see,
I'll
dive
into
more
details
for
each
of
these
zones.
But
in
each
of
these
subzones
there
are
height
kind
of
maximums
and
then
the
the
size
of
the
buildings.
C
The
medium
footprint
large
footprint,
small
house
scale
block
scale
and
then
the
bulleted
list
under
each
of
those
subzones,
the
housing
types
that
we
would
see
in
those
subzones
and
the
whole
approach
was
to
to
look
at
kind
of
these
sub
zones
and
think
about
what
would
be
the
best
fit
r3a,
b,
c
or
d
into
each
of
these
existing
neighborhoods
and
then
really.
A
big
picture
goal
is
to
provide
more
housing,
variety
and
types
and
choices
within
the
r3.
C
So
again,
before
diving
into
the
details,
just
a
couple
kind
of
stepping
back
and
looking
at
the
larger
context
of
how
this
all
works
together.
Looking
at
the
maps
city-wide
here,
you
can
see
the
subzones
r3a
through
d
kind
of
in
purple
and
blue,
where
they're
proposed
to
be
located
in
proximity
to
transit
and
the
transit
there
on
the
screen
are
signified
by
the
red
dots
and
that
walkable
radius
around
those
transit
stops
and
that's
for
the
heavy
rail
and
light
rail.
C
And
then
the
aqua
kind
of
points
are
the
el
camino
brt
vta
brt
service,
and
this
is
just
kind
of
showing,
as
we
look
at
providing
more
housing,
variety
and
most
probably
intensifying
in
some
some
of
these
areas.
C
How
close
would
these
areas
be
to
transit
again
designing
around
transit
is
a
key
part
of
planning
in
mountain
view,
it's
a
key
part
of
our
general
plan
strategy
and
overall
sustainability
framework.
So
we
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
another
just
context
map
is
the
one
on
the
screen
here
again
showing
the
proposed
subzones
their
locations
in
purple
and
blue,
and
then
commercial
services
shown
in
red
and
brown
and
tan
and
again
another
key
part
of
kind
of
building
out
the
the
neighborhoods
in
mountain
view
and
addressing
issues
of
quality
of
life.
C
So
I'm
going
to
go
through
very
briefly
each
of
the
subzones
that
we're
proposing
and
I'll
start
with
r3a.
C
As
you
can
see
on
the
screen,
the
r3a,
we
have
kind
of
a
couple
images
of
the
existing
neighborhood
character,
just
a
sample
of
what
that
character
looks
like
in
terms
of
its
scale
and
how
buildings
address
the
street
and
then
the
map
that
accompanies
that
shows
those
locations
where
r3a
is
located
again,
those
purple
areas
and
then
the
r3a
zone
standards
on
this
screen
there
just
a
listing
of
those
key
key
standards,
the
building
types,
the
stack,
duplex,
cottage
court,
etc.
C
And
again,
r3a
is
the
least
intense
and
going
r3d
is
the
the
more
intense
so
again
same
same
thing,
with
r3b,
showing
just
some
sampling
of
kind
of
the
existing
neighborhood
character
and
how
r3b
might
fit
in
to
that
existing
character?
And
then
the
map
again
breaking
out
the
r3b
in
particular
to
see
where
they're
located
and
again
we
can.
C
We
refer
back
to
these
when
we
get
into
the
discussion
or
questions
from
planning,
commission
and
then
again
the
same
thing
looking
at
the
key
development
standards
in
the
r3b,
the
type
of
buildings,
neighborhood,
courtyard,
townhouse,
multiplex,
etc,
building
heights
again
going
down
to
building
placement,
frontage
types,
etc
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
graphic
on
the
right,
giving
you
a
general
sense
of
maybe
a
little
more
intensive
development
than
the
r3a.
C
Again
last
two
sub
zones:
r3c
again,
as
you
can
see
the
image,
is
there
the
locations,
the
map
in
dark
purple
and
then
again,
going
through
the
r3
c
zone
proposed
standards,
core
townhouse,
core
courtyard
multiplex,
and
maybe
I
should
just
pause
here
and
just
note
that
we
have
had
some
questions
from
the
public
as
well
as
some
commissioners
on
what
do
these
building
types
mean
core
town
house,
four
court
corps,
courtyard,
etc.
C
So
we
attach
to
the
epc
questions
and
responses
that
we
sent
out
to
the
planning
commissioners
today
kind
of
a
poster
from
the
opticos
team,
that
kind
of
described
each
of
those
building
types
graphically
and
with
with
text,
and
we
will
post
that
information
on
the
website
as
well.
So
the
general
public
can
understand
a
little
more
detail.
C
Showing
the
map
of
where
that
could
be
located,
and
then
the
standards,
the
core
courtyard,
the
mid-rise,
the
building
heights
etc
and
again
the
graphic
there
to
help
folks
visualize
that
a
little
bit
better.
So
again,
we
we
can
talk
more
about
these
as
we
get
into
the
discussion
and
questions.
C
One
thing
I
wanted
to
bring
up-
and
we
noted
in
the
staff
report-
is
this
issue
of
overlay
zones
and
the
r3
district
has
several
two
overlay
zones
and
an
overlay
zone
is
essentially
an
additional
layer
of
zoning
requirements.
I
guess
you
could
say
that
that
go
that
fit
on
top
of
the
base.
R3
zoning
district
and
there's
two
types:
one
addressing
height,
signified
by
h
on
our
zoning
map
and
another
one,
with
called
special
design
signified
by
sd.
C
C
Within
this
overlay
zone,
the
overlay
zone
restricts
height
on
future
development.
In
the
r3,
either
to
one
story
or
two
stories,
and
this
is
kind
of
a
legacy
overlay
zone
where
it
was
established
years
ago
in
response
to
or
concern
over
how
new
r3
the
heights
of
new
r3
development
might
impact
surrounding
properties.
C
So
that's
the
whole
purpose
why
that
height
overlay
was
put
onto
some
of
those
properties
so
to
respect
that
staff
suggesting
we
maintain
those
height
limits,
either
one
story
or
two
story,
but
we
supplement
that
with
some
of
the
new
r3
standards
that
is,
allow
a
new,
greater
variety
of
housing
types,
perhaps
reduce
setbacks
whatever
it
is,
but
still
respect
that
existing
height
limit
for
the
special
design
overlay
again.
Those
were
established
because
concerns
of
over
how
surrounding
environmental
conditions
might
affect
the
livability
of
those
properties.
C
And
if
you
look
on
the
screen,
the
red
areas,
the
special
design
overlay
was
established
for
properties
that
were
either
impacted
by
noise
from
freeways
or
from
rail
or
were
adjacent
to
industrial
uses,
and
there
might
be
concern
over
odor
or
you
know,
operational
impacts,
so
we're
suggesting,
as
outlined
in
the
staff
report,
that
we
could
kind
of
replace
that
sd
designation
with
with
new
r3
standards,
and
the
reason
is,
is
that
this
will
provide
more
flexibility
to
those
property
owners
in
terms
of
developing
that
and
with
new
newer
building
technologies.
C
Sound
proofing
of
windows,
new
newer,
hvac
technologies
that
you
know
those
could
one
idea
would
be
to.
They
could
be
mitigated
with
these
newer,
newer
technologies,
and
so
you
wouldn't
necessarily
need
that
special
design
overlay.
It
hasn't
been
an
actively
used
overlay
over
the
years
and
it's
it's
kind
of
a
again
a
legacy
overlay
zone
from
years
ago,
but
anyways,
that's
the
suggestion,
that's
outlined
in
the
staff
report
in
terms
of
next
steps
for
this
project
again
taking
it
to
the
city
council
on
april
13th.
C
Once
we
get
that
final
direction
from
city
council,
we'll
begin
the
environmental
review
process
in
the
spring
and
the
fall
and
then
hopefully
bring
back
adoption
hearings
in
early
2022.,
so
again
just
reiterating.
What's
in
the
staff
report,
we
have
a
couple
questions:
does
the
epc
agree
with
the
proposed
r3
subzone
approach,
including
each
subzone's
general
location
and
their
key
development
standards?
C
And
then
the
second
question
is
regarding
the
approach
to
the
r3
zoning
district
overlays.
That
concludes
my
presentation,
but
before
I
wrap
up,
I
just
want
to
introduce
the
opticos
team
that
are
with
us
tonight.
We
have
tony
stefan
martine
and
cal
they've
all
been
doing
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
on
this
project
and
are
here
to
help
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
That
concludes
my
presentation.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
healthcare.
As
a
study
session,
rather
than
doing
commission
commission
commission
questions.
First,
we
go
to
the
public
for
comment,
so
I
would
like
to
open
that
up.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comments
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand
button
in
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6..
A
A
Okay,
then
we'll
just
do
the
normal
three
minutes.
So
if
you
call
the
first
person.
B
B
B
D
Okay,
hi
bruce
england
speaking
for
mountain
view,
coalition
for
sustainable
planning
and
green
streets
mv
this
the
changes
that
you're
looking
at
for
r3
look,
look
really
good.
D
It's
pretty
complicated,
so
I've
been
trying
my
best
to
get
my
head
around
all
the
details,
but
for
our
two
groups
we
are
especially
interested
in
taking
advantage
of
the
changes
to
r3
zoning
that
you're
talking
about
now
to
also
talk
about
streetscapes
and
and
greening
are
our
streetscapes
in
general
and
we're
used
to
the
idea
that
projects
are
tend
to
be
discussed
right
at
the
project
sites
themselves
and
just
end
at
the
sidewalk
or
at
the
street,
and
for
those
of
you
who
are
in
the
city
council
meeting
last
night.
D
You
know
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
this
idea
of
greening
the
streets
and
increasing
park
space
and
open
space,
and
all
of
that
and
the
idea
of
creating
green
streets
where
people
who
are
walking
and
biking
around
our
our
city
are
actually
in
greenery
in
landscaping.
Instead
of
having
to
go
to
a
separate
place
like
a
park
to
experience,
it
we'd
really
like
to
see
that,
but
it
means
taking
into
account
for
any
of
these
r3
projects.
D
What
happens
all
the
way
out
to
the
street,
not
just
ending
at
the
perimeter
of
the
project
site
and
we're
also,
our
letter
points
out
an
interest
in
lighting
controls
highlighting
can
affect
wildlife
and
and
human
mental
health
do
and
biodiversity
paying
attention
to
that
and
landscaping
choices
for
native
drought,
tolerant
and
pollinator
friendly,
all
those
kind
of
things.
So
it's
just
in
general
if
you
could
think
in
your
designing
the
r3
zoning
codes
and
regulations,
thinking
beyond
just
the
perimeter
of
the
project
sites.
That
would
be
wonderful.
Thank.
E
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
corey
smith,
I'm
an
organizer
with
the
housing
action
coalition,
we're
a
non-profit
that
advocates
for
more
homes
at
all
income
levels
around
the
entire
bay
area.
We
care
about
building,
more
supportive
housing,
more
subsidized,
affordable
housing
and
more
market
rate
housing,
and
we
are
participating
in
these
conversations
all
over
the
region.
E
It
is
a
really
important
conversation,
and
when
we
look
at
the
last,
you
know
30,
40
years
of
bay
area
planning
the
situation
we're
in
right
now
our
affordability
and
displacement
crisis
is
totally
predictable
and
it
was
not
one
thing
that
got
us
into
this
problem.
It's
not
one
thing
that
will
get
us
out
of
this
problem.
E
E
First
and
foremost,
while
there
is
no
solution,
single
solution
to
our
affordability
and
displacement
crisis,
no
solution
exists
without
adding
a
lot
more
housing,
so
figuring
out,
and
I
thought
the
presentation
was
really
fantastic
and
I
agree
with
the
previous
commenter
how
to
to
fit
that
into
mountain
view.
Specifically,
is
is
a
totally,
I
want
to
say
productive
and
solutions,
oriented
conversation,
and
we
appreciate
that
you're
having
it.
E
We
also
know
that,
as
we
allow
for
more
homes,
we're
going
to
see
some
some
positive
impacts
in
terms
of
reducing
displacement
and
evictions
of
low
and
middle
income
residents.
All
of
the
data
really
does
support
that
and
in
a
lot
of
cases,
the
the
types
of
housing
that
you're
talking
about
already
exist
in
the
community.
E
E
Last
thing
I
want
to
say,
we
are
again
having
this
conversation
across
the
entire
region
and
we
do
have
developers,
architects
attorneys,
who
want
to
be
a
resource.
So
if
any
of
you
do
have
any
questions
know
that
we
want
to
be
partners
and
again
really
appreciate
you
having
a
conversation.
Thank
you.
E
E
F
Can
you
hear
me
thank
you
chair
vice
chair,
low
and
commissioners.
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
address
you
on
the
r3
zone.
I'm
here
tonight
to
say
that,
as
long
as
the
bonuses
and
establish
courage
can.
G
H
F
F
The
first
is
whether
this
is
the
right
time
to
grant
and
up
zone
by
right
immediately
on
all
the
parcels.
At
the
same
time,
the
shift
in
the
tech
industry
toward
more
remote
works
and
the
uncertainties
surrounding
the
future
of
sb
330
and
its
impact
on
naturally
affordable
housing
suggests.
To
me,
we
should
take
a
more
cautious
approach.
I
would
recommend
for
the
moment,
leaving
these
designations
as
recommended
of
zoning,
a
developer
could
propose
a
project
where
their
recommended
up.
Zoning
in
the
council
could
evaluate
the
merits
of
doing
the
project.
F
The
way
the
project
is
proposed,
while
the
up
zoning
could
help
mountain
view
meet
its
arena
numbers
for
the
next
greenest
cycle.
I
believe
we
should
first
assess
whether
we
have
already
zonked
owned
enough
horses
to
meet
the
next
greenest
bike.
Once.
F
State
law
will
not
let
us
take
it
back.
The
second
concern
is
about
setbacks,
which
I
believe
are
too
small.
I
recommend
adding
a
45
degree
rule
the
rear
setback,
switch
the
epc
applied
on
p-zone
projects
proposed
for
the
upcoming
el
camino
precise
plan
several
years
ago.
Thank
you
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
I'll
stand.
F
A
A
Okay,
next
speaker.
I
Hello,
commissioners
and
and
staff
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
address
you
today,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
staff
for
giving
us
this
report.
I
had
an
opportunity
to
read
over
this
a
little
bit
before
this.
I
So
you
know
we're
talking
about
building
a
lot
of
housing
here
in
mountain
view,
and
I
have
concerns
about
how
these
people
are
going
to
to
have
a
good
quality
of
life
without
a
car
centric
lifestyle,
if
they're
so
far
away
from
these
transit
hubs,
so
certainly
get
a
plan
for
public
transit
and
bike
connections
to
the
rest
of
the
city.
I've,
I'm
gonna.
I
Six,
the
the
r3
zone
is
obviously
a
little
bit
of
a
patchwork
now,
and
I
I
commend
staff
on
trying
to
sort
of
homogenize
that
I
would
say
that,
especially
towards
the
downtown
area,
the
r3,
a
zoning
does
seem
very
low,
and
I
would
also
I
mean
probably
outside
of
the
scope
of
this,
but
I'd
encourage
staff
to
consider
like
whether
or
not
other
properties
in
that
area
could
opt
into
some
of
this
more
dense
zoning
to
promote
transit-centric
development.
I
I
think
that
is
pretty
much
all
I
wanted
to
say.
I
would
say,
should
also
consider
how
the
planning
department
is
going
to
deal
with
all
these
development
applications.
They
need
to
be
resourced
and
empowered
to
to
deal
with
quite
a
few
applications.
I
would
imagine-
and
you
know
together,
I
think
we
can
build
a
really
great
community
in
these
areas,
and
I
thank
you
guys
for
for
looking
into
this
all
the
rest
of
my
time.
Thank
you.
I
A
B
Thanks,
we
have
robin
lynn.
J
Hey
there,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
oh
great,
hey
thanks
so
much
for
the
time
yeah
I
I
guess
I
I'm
becoming
a
lifer
on
these
meetings.
I
was
on
the
city
council
meeting
yesterday
and
was
just
struck
by
the
public
comments
talking
about
so
much
about
quality
of
life,
and
I
think
what
does
it
mean
to
have
a
quality
of
life.
I
think
when
I
I
really
appreciate
staff
staff's
analysis.
J
I
really
hope
that
we
can
before
pulling
the
trigger
on
these
changes
or,
as
we
think,
about
how
we
try
to
densify
the
city
that
we
make
sure
that
we're
looking
at
quality
of
life
from
a
green
space
access
park,
space
access,
because
I
think
you
know
you
don't
grow
parks
anymore
once
this
land
is
built
up,
we're
not
going
to
get
it
back
or
maybe
not
for
another
generation.
But
none
of
us
will
care
at
that
point
right.
J
So
I
sent
as
part
of
my
comments
a
map
overlaying
the
r3
zoning
on
the
park
space
right
now,
and
I
think
to
me
it's
pretty
stark
how
much
we
are
dependent
in
the
city
on
non-city-owned
park
space
and
to
me
it
just
goes
right
to
the
heart
of
what
does
it
mean
to
be?
What
is
mountain
view?
What
what
is
it?
Why
are
we
different?
J
Why
are
we
special
it's
because,
hopefully
we
figure
out
how
to
densify
and
yet
remain
and
yet
maintain
or
even
enhance
the
quality
of
life
for
all
our
residents.
So
no
matter
where
you
live,
whatever
your
housing
looks
like.
However,
whatever
your
you
know,
life
situation
is
that
you
have
access
to
the
same
city,
amenities
as
any
other
resident,
I'm
not
sure
we're
quite
there.
Yet.
J
I
hope
that
as
we
look
at
densifying,
especially
in
the
areas
that
we're
thinking
of
densifying,
which
are
fairly
park,
poor
and
also
you
know,
have
already
densified
quite
a
bit
that
we
will
think
about.
How
do
we
make
sure
that
if
you
live
near
cuesta
park
or
you
live
in
san
antonio
or
any
of
these
other
places
or
old
mountain
view,
or
you
know
montaloma
or
in
the
rock
area
that
you
have
the
same
quality
of
life?
J
K
Hello,
I'm
a
I'm
also
a
member
of
mvcsp
and
green
spaces
mountain
view.
K
Oh,
can
you
hear
me
yeah
yeah?
Sorry
I
was
I
was
busy
talking
away.
I
thought
I'd
hit
the
unmute.
I
just
want
to
say
I'm
also
a
member
of
green
spaces,
mountain
view
and
mvcsp,
and
I
I
wanted
to
key
off
what
you
know
things
that
both
robin
and
bruce
had
to
say,
and
you
know
just
to
think
a
bit
more.
K
I
guess,
when
planning
our
built
environment,
to
think
a
bit
more
holistically
about
the
space
that
we
live
in
in
the
context
out
of
the
environment
and
our
community
buildings
aren't
don't
really
exist
in
isolation
and
so
how
those
connect
us
to
our
green
spaces.
How
that
connects
us
to
transportation?
K
I
think,
is
really
important
to
think
about
when
you
know
taking
in
taking
that
into
account
when
doing
planning-
and
I
just
I
would
like
to
emphasize
that
as
thinking
more
holistically
in
an
integrative
manner
when
working
on
this
sort
of
policy.
L
Help
yeah
I'm
personally
all
d
all
the
time.
I
think
that
density
is
fine,
I'm
not
afraid
of
it,
but
also.
I
agree
with
several
of
the
previous
speakers.
I
don't
have
a
dog
personally,
but
I
would
love
to
put
a
collar
on
and
walk
myself
through
a
park
and
the
more
amenities
that
I
have
access
to
and
that
my
neighbors
have
access
to
the
better.
L
G
Yes,
hi,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes?
Yes?
Well,
I
want
to
thank
you
guys
all
for
this
very
good
work.
It
was.
This
is
my
first
meeting
and
I
got
a
chance
to
look
over
the
staff
report
and
I
was
very
impressed
with
the
hard
work
that's
been
done
so
far.
I
have
some
experience
in
land
use,
but
I'm
not
affiliated
with
any
group
in
mountain
view
or
otherwise,
but
I
did
want
to
say
a
couple
things.
G
You
know
I'm
familiar
with
the
jobs,
housing
imbalance
and
the
problems
that
we're
having
and
the
scale
of
this
problem,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
we're
being
a
little
too
timid
that
we
should
really
be
expanding,
this
r3d
zone
r3c
zone,
expand
more
we're
just
doing
these
on
the
farthest
away,
lots
and
largest
lots.
I
just
don't
think
we're
going
to
be
able
to
meet
the
housing
needs
at
this
level,
and
I
understand
there's
a
lot
of
history
behind
this.
We
had
decades
of
slow
growth
movements,
also
keeping
those
overlays.
G
That
was
those
were
due
to
slow
growth
time
periods,
although
those
don't
affect
very
many
properties,
I
feel
like
being
a
little
more
aggressive
would
be
great.
I
also
wanted
to
say
green
streets
give
a
shout
out
for
bruce
england.
G
I
think
that
is
a
good
idea
to
to
incorporate
those
as
well
and
and
then
also
wanted
to
say
there
is
a
sameness
about
what's
going
on
in
the
designs
in
in
mountain
view,
and
I
think
breaking
that
stranglehold
I
saw
mention
of
that
in
the
report,
but
not
in
the
in
the
verbal
meeting.
I
think
that
is
a
very
good
idea
to
open
up
wider
design
opportunities
in
the
city,
but
thank
you
very
much
and
good
work.
You
guys
thank
you.
M
Hi,
can
you
hear
me
yeah
great
good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
mitch
mankin
and
I'm
with
silicon
valley
at
home,
the
voice
of
affordable
housing
in
silicon
valley.
First
off
I
want
to
thank
the
staff
and
opticos
for
their
hard
work
on
this
draft
r3
zoning
code.
We're
very
pleased
to
see
that
the
city
is
considering
updating
the
code
to
provide
for
greater
variety
and
number
of
multi-family
housing,
while
also
protecting
existing
residents
against
displacement.
M
The
context
that
item
comes
in
is
that
we
are
still
in
a
deep
housing
crisis
for
over
30
years
we
haven't
built
housing,
we
need
to
meet
our
population
growth
and,
during
the
codependent
we've
seen
the
result
of
that.
We've
seen
that
across
the
country,
overcrowding
is
a
huge
risk
factor
for
covet
spread
and
when
we
don't
have
enough
places
for
people
to
live,
people
are
forced
to
double
up
in
homes
that
are
built
for
fewer.
M
M
M
So
turning
to
the
code
itself,
we
think
this.
This
draft
is
a
great
start.
We
also
have
a
few
ideas
we'd
like
the
epc
to
consider.
M
M
Specifically,
this
would
be
true
of
the
del
medio
area,
which
is
next
to
the
san
antonio
price,
precise
plan,
which
already
has
seven
story
buildings
and,
on
the
other
side,
is
boarding,
palo
alto
and,
as
another
example,
would
be,
the
query.
Vodka
r3
areas,
east
of
interstate
85
and
the
sunnyvale
border.
M
M
Basically,
how
this
could
work
is
when
multiple
property
owners
nearby
each
other
choose
to
or
when
a
property
owner
say,
decides
to
buy
up
several
lots
in
order
to
make
something.
That's
can
support
more
units
and
can
support
more
affordability.
M
That
aggregation
becomes
more
difficult.
If
the
area
is
zoned
such
that
such
they
can't
build.
Those
developments
currently
the
the
zone
sub
zones
are
based
on
largely
on
lot
size,
but
if
the
lot
size
changes,
we
think
so
to
the
subzone
designation.
M
M
I
also
just
wanted
the
flags
that,
because
there's
a
lot
of
different
landowners,
any
redevelopment
that
results
in
the
new
code
will
progress
over
the
next
40
to
50
years,
not
the
next
five
or
ten.
So
the
changes
overall
will
be
quite
gradual.
N
Hello,
hello,
hi,
hi,
okay,
hi,
everyone,
I'm
paying
she
her
hers,
seen
some
of
you
here
and
welcome
to
the
new
commissioners
that
I
have
yet
to
speak
or
meet
with
really
appreciate
the
work
on
r3.
So
far,
I'm
also
speaking
on
behalf
of
green
spaces,
mv,
our
community
group
values,
integrating
and
promoting
urban
nature
tree
canopy
and
native
biodiversity
in
city
planning.
So
I'll
echo
some
of
the
earlier
comments,
including
thinking
how
we
can
be
creative
or
help
with
improving
equitable
access
to
public
amenities
in
green
spaces.
N
So,
given
the
dearth
of
park,
lands,
loss
of
necessary
biodiversity
and
the
importance
of
greenery
to
our
health,
especially
as
the
city
develops,
green
spaces,
mv
actively
supports
any
opportunity
to
explicitly
incorporate
green
nature-based,
biodiverse,
sensitive
infrastructure.
We
hope
to
leverage
the
power
and
the
benefits
of
urban
nature
in
these
new
r3
standards
and
guidelines
for
future
development.
N
The
vision
is
to
have
nature
at
our
doorsteps
nearby
nature.
It
will
positively
impact
our
public
health
and
ecosystem
health
and
really
benefit
current
and
future
generations
of
people
and
wildlife.
In
mountain
view,
mountain
view,
our
city
has
a
foundation
for
walkable
tree-lined,
streetscapes
and
ecological
preservation,
so
we
do
really
hope
that
this
foundation
inspires
design
standards
for
architectural
variety,
frontages
and
landscapes.
N
In
recognizing
that
you
know,
future
residents
or
current
residents
will
be
in
close
proximity
sharing
walls
and
possibly
have
less
open
space,
especially
in
high
density
areas.
Can
we
possibly
manifest
the
power
and
benefits
of
the
urban
nature,
especially
imperative
trees?
Large
trees,
mature
trees
are
removed,
may
be
considered
guidelines
to
include
living
walls,
green
roofs,
more
native
trees
and
native
plant
screens
and
living
gardens
for
privacy
and
noise.
Buffers
also
considerations
for
dark
sky
and
bird
safe
design.
N
After
reading
the
staff
report,
which
is
really
great,
I
am
personally
looking
forward
to
the
design
handbook
and
will
encourage
considerations
for
guidelines
or
expectations
that
promote
lighting
standards,
tree
canopy
and
native
plant
options,
which
is
inspired
by
north
bay,
shore's
native
plant
palette,
and
I'm
also
looking
forward
to
the
update
in
the
community
master
plan.
Overall,
I'm
also
looking
forward
to
these
new
sub
zones
for
r3.
Thank
you
very
much.
O
O
I
really
hope
that
you
think
long
term
about
what
mountain
view
will
look
like
in
30
50
years,
so
you
know
the
last
time
our
three
zoning
was
updated
30
years
ago
and
also
the
building
that
we've
built
under
this
new
zoning.
Those
will
last
60
years
or
so
like
so
beyond.
Most
of
us
will
be
alive,
so
you
know
we're
really
talking
about
the
long
term
of
mountain
view,
not
just
where
we
are
today
and
long
term.
There
will
be
many
more
people
in
mountain
view.
O
Housing
will
be
even
more
in
demand
than
it
is
today,
and
one
thing
I'm
concerned
about
is
that
the
r3
zoning
had
a
feasibility
analysis
based
on
current
economic
conditions,
but
we're
pretty
confident
under
the
plan
bay
area
2050
that
there
will
be
even
more
people
demanding
homes
in
in
areas
like
mountain
view,
and
so
it'll
likely
be
the
case
that
we
will
need
even
more
homes
than
we
currently
are
projecting.
So
I
think
long-term
economic
feasibility
might
require
even
lacks
or
standards
in
terms
of
building
heights.
O
In
general
parking
requirements,
I
think,
should
be
reduced
and
also
you
know
getting
eliminating
the
like
density
per
acre
requirements
as
well.
I
think
those
are
all
be
helpful
in
making
sure
that
we
have
enough
homes
for
for
the
long
term
and
also
that
the
that
these
it'll
still
be
economically
feasible.
You
know
many
decades
down
the
line.
The
second
thing,
I'd
like
to
add,
is
in
line
with
what
a
lot
of
people
have
already
said,
which
is
you
know
there
should
be
a
lot
more
density
near
transit.
O
I
used
to
live
near
the
caltrain
station
on
central
avenue
and
it
is
just
wild
to
me
that,
like
there
are
two-story
apartment
buildings
there
and
and
that's
the
densest
it
gets,
I
mean
we
all
know
that
trans-oriented
development
is
incredibly
important
and
I
think
this
is
a
key
opportunity
to
make
sure
that
we
actually
implement
it
by
having
our
highest
density
near
places
like
caltrain,
where
we're
already
serving
tons
of
transit
riders.
So
I
would
love
to
see
the
highest
levels
of
density
near
near
caltrain
and
also
throughout
downtown.
O
I
think
that
would
go
far
towards
affirmatively
furthering
fair
housing
as
well.
So,
in
short,
I
hope
that
all
the
standards
become
black.
You
know
more
pro
housing
and
also,
I
hope
that
there's
additional
density
in
downtown
in
your
transit.
Thank
you.
O
A
P
Hi,
I'm
david,
I'm
a
member
of
mountain
view.
Gimbi
and
I've
been
a
a
resident
of
mountain
view.
My
my
whole
life
and
I
I
also
have
have
two
daughters.
I
hope
will
be
able
to
afford
to
live
here.
One
day
I
want
to
touch
on
two
quick
points.
One
is
really
a
minor
thing,
but
I
I'm
hoping
that
you
can.
You
can
recommend
a
specific
design
improvement
for
r3
zones,
which
is
the
option
for
architectural
arcades
in
the
densest
zones.
P
I
think
they
make
for
more
walkable,
more
walkable
sidewalks,
because
you
get
some
protection
for
pedestrians
and
in
return
we
get
a
slightly
slightly
more
more
units,
which
is
also
a
bonus.
P
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
add
is
sort
of
to
echo
kind
of
what
other
people
have
said
here,
but
it
seems
like
we're
we're
not
having
the
densest
census,
housing
closest
to
the
parts
of
mountain
view
that
have
the
the
most
amenities
specifically
downtown,
which
not
only
has
that
best
transportation,
but,
I
would
say
the
best
the
best
places
to
eat
and-
and
I
think,
some
of
the
best-
the
parkland
I
mean
maybe
outside
of
north
bay
shore,
it's
on
the
best
best
parkland,
and
I
think
that
that's
pretty
clearly
a
place
where
we
want
greens.
P
You
know
we
were
talking
about
options
for
for
green
space.
We
should
absolutely
say:
don't
don't
put
a
bunch
more
people
next
to
the
parts
where
there's
no
no
nearby
parks
put
the
people
next
to
where
we
have
a
bunch
of
parks.
I
would
also
welcome
more
more
density
near
where
I
live.
P
I
there's
three
parks
and
easy
walking
distance
from
my
house
in
in
rex
manor,
and
I
I
think
it's
it's
not
fair-
that
many
of
the
new
residents
in
in
mountain
view
have
to
live,
live
so
far
away
from
that,
and
I
I'd
be
happy
to
welcome
more
neighbors
here
in
rex
manor,
but
I
also
think
downtown
downtown
would
be
a
good
place
as
well
anyway.
Thank
you
very
much.
Q
Hi,
I'm
partis,
I
also
live
in
mountain
view.
I
also
wanted
to
thank
the
members
of
the
staff
for
doing
the
great
work
that
they
did
on
the
r3
zoning
workshops
and
and
putting
the
report
together.
Q
I
wanted
to
reiterate
what
salim
was
mentioning,
and
I
think
mitch
as
well,
that
that
this
plan
is
for
a
really
long
time
and
it
might
be
hard
for
us
to
imagine
what
mountain
view
would
look
like
30
years
from
now,
but
I
think
that
we
should
be
more
aggressive
in
the
height
limits
that
we
set
for
what
is
the
highest
density
zones
in
the
city,
because
I
I
just
I'm
really
worried
that
we
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
meet
our
housing
needs
in
the
next
30
to
40
years
and
when,
when
a
lot
gets
developed,
you
know
this
year,
it's
not
going
to
get
redeveloped
soon,
so
I
think
we
should
be
very
efficient
with
our
land
use
built
taller
that
actually
also
allows
for
more
free
land
elsewhere.
Q
In
mountain
view,
that
could
be
turned
to
parks.
You
know
and
have
be,
that
green
space
that
that
folks
also
mentioned.
So
I
think
it's
really
important
for
us
to
sort
of
not
get
stingy
here
and
and
also
from
an
environmental
global
warming
standpoint.
You
know:
transit
development,
transit,
oriented
development
is
really
important,
so
I'm
also
surprised
a
little
bit
to
see
that
right
next
to
downtown
some
of
the
best
amenities
in
the
city
and
the
calstring
station.
We
are
not
being
more
aggressive
with
the
zoning
designations
that
we're
using.
Q
So
those
are
my
comments.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
we
want
to
bring
it
back
to
the
commission,
so
the
in
the
senate
report.
They
presented
us
with
two
questions
but
question
one:
is
that
has
a
lot
in
it,
so
my
thinking
was
that
perhaps
a
better
approach
would
be
to
kind.
A
A
So
the
question
reads:
does
the
epc
agree
with
the
proposed
r3
subzone
approach,
including
each
subzone
general
location
and
their
key
development
standards,
and
my
thinking
was
that
perhaps
first
throws
can
open
up
for
questions,
but
then,
as
we
go
through
question
one
to
do,
first
discuss
the
overall
approach.
A
Do
we
agree
with
this
kind
of
abcd?
Does
that
work
in
general
and
then
drill
into
each
of
the
subzones
a
you
know?
What
do
we
like
not
like
about
that
3d
and
then
also
a
similar
discussion
around
location,
so
that
way
we
get
feedback
in
each
of
those.
Does
that
work
with
the
commission,
saying
nod,
nod,
nod,
okay,
so
first
open
up
for
questions
from
the
commissioners
of
staff
and
and
opticus.
R
Sure
I'll
kick
us
off
thing.
I
think
the
general
theme
and
public
comment
was
questioning
why
the
greatest
densities
are
farthest
away
from
translate
in
some
cases.
So,
sir,
and
can
we
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that?
Is
it
really
about
lot
size
or
a
little
bit
more
understanding
of
how
the
densities
are
further
away
from
the
key?
What
I
consider
the
key
transit
hubs
of
downtown.
C
Sure
and
actually
I'd
ask
brittany
if
you
could
maybe
also
allow
the
opticos
team
to
be
panelists
if
they
wanted
to
share
additional
materials
through
their
computers,
but
there's
two
two
lenses
to
to
how
we
were
approaching
this
work.
Number
one
was
that
broader
neighborhood
level
location
to
to
transit,
just
more
of
a
descriptive
approach
as
we
shared
with
those
maps,
the
core
of
the
work
that
opticos
did
was
really
looking
at
those
specific.
C
You
know
really
parcel
by
parcel,
seeing
what
could
be
changed
within
the
existing
r3
to
you
know,
get
that
greater
neighborhood
fit,
so
their
focus
was
more
on
the
design
and
and
how
units
could
fit
on
into
different
neighborhoods
and
then
staff
supplemented
that
with
the
general
transit
location
maps
and
certainly
opticos
can
talk
a
lot
more
about
the
process.
They
went
through
with
the
the
actual
development
of
the
subzones.
R
S
I'm
happy
to
answer
that.
Oh
great
thanks,
yeah,
I'm
tony
perez
of
opticos
design.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
cranston
and
epc
commissioners
and
everybody
on
the
meeting.
Thank
you
for
your
observations
and
your
your
your
encouragement
to
to
be
more
to
do
more
with
this
arthur
zone,
and
it's
really
been
on
our
minds
to
do
that.
But
what
you're,
seeing
in
this
pattern
of
of
people
feeling
like
there's
not
enough
intensity
near
the
transit
or
near
downtown,
is
a
combination
of
factors.
S
One
is
certainly
existing
lot
sizes,
but
the
other
is
what
the
r3
is
across
the
street
from
or
behind
or
next
to,
and
many-
and
this
is
in
many
many
cities
that
we've
worked
in.
This
is
one
of
those
situations
where
I
think
an
earlier
commenter
said
it
very
well,
it's
it's
a
patchwork.
The
r3
is
certainly
a
patchwork
pattern.
S
There
really
isn't
one
flowing
pattern
to
it:
it's
intertwined
with
all
these
different
existing
zoning
districts
and
an
existing
physical
character
that
that
may
not
change
so
that
certainly
influenced
our
thinking
and
and
and
so
we
erred
on
the
side
of
being
a
little
more
conservative
with
the
types
of
substance
that
we're
recommending
here.
It
doesn't
mean
it
couldn't
increase
a
little
bit
here
and
there
or
or
add
another
building
type
as
a
choice
within
each
zone.
But
that
is
you
know
just
in
a
short
short
answer.
S
That
is,
that
is
at
the
core
of
our
approach,
the
physical
character
that
exists
and
likely
it
won't
change
as
much
as
the
r3
and
then
what
what
can
the
r3
actually
accommodate
physically
on
the
parcels
that
we
have
and-
and
I
also
want
to
add
to
to
one
of
the
commoners
earlier
talking
about
parcel
assembly-
partial
assembly
can
happen
already.
S
It
just
may
not
be
really
obvious
and
explicit,
but
in
this
approach
with
different
building
types
there,
the
building
types
are,
are
they're
coordinated
to
the
lot
sizes
that
you
have
in
the
different
zoning
districts
different
different
areas.
I
mean
of
the
of
the
r3,
and
so
you
can
actually
already
apply
a
bigger
building
type,
then
maybe
that
lot
will
accommodate
by
by
assembling
two
lots
and
putting
that
bigger
building
type
on
it,
so
that
approach
is
already
integrated
into
our
thinking.
A
R
So
can
you
talk,
you
mentioned
some
other
clients
and
I
think
a
lot
of
the
public
commenters
were
talking
about.
This
is
the
long
haul
planning
in
your
experience,
working
with
other
cities
once
in
r3
zoning
ordinances
change
like
what
is
the
typical?
R
How
soon
have
you
seen
changes
or
requests
for
new
projects?
Is
it?
Is
it
pretty?
Gradual
is
a
longer
term.
Do
you
have
any
experience
that
you
can
share.
S
Oh
yeah,
you
know,
unfortunately,
this
is
a
long
term
business
that
we're
all
in
and,
however,
in
the
bay
area,
you
know
as
compared
to
the
rest
of
the
country.
That's
accelerated,
it's
different,
of
course,
but
I
think
that
you
know.
A
I
A
One-
I
guess
this
for
for
martin
and
staff-
I'm
not.
I
think
a
lot
of
good
work
was
done
here,
but
I
will
admit
that
it
was
it's
somewhat
different
than
what
I
was
anticipating
seeing
part
of
the
original
r3.
The
discussion
came
up
after
the
passage
of
the
rent.
Control
ordinance
essentially
triggered
a
wave
of
conversions
of
essentially
rent-controlled
apartment
buildings
into
town
homes,
and
that
was
easy
to
do
because
it
was
all
within
the
r3
zoning.
A
There
wasn't
anything
special
associated
with
it
and
we
saw
a
rash
of
these.
These
take
place,
as
staff
mentioned
in
the
report.
Two
things
both
the
the
change
of
the
vmware
audience
from
10
to
15
percent
they're
trading
at
20
per
town
homes
and
the
passage
of
sb
330
has
slowed
down,
has
slowed
that
down.
A
So
I
guess
my
there's
a
about
my
question
is:
do
you
feel
and-
and
I
I
I'm
I'm
really
interested
in
your
answer?
Do
you
feel
that
you
have
guidance
from
council
to
try
to
re-accelerate
that
conversion
of
these
essentially
rent
controlled
properties
into
more
dense
properties?
Or
are
we
looking
at
something
that's
supposed
to
be
kind
of
neutral
and
how
does
the
potential
exploration
of
sb
330
in
2025
affect
this
without
carry.
C
Sure,
no,
those
are
all
those
are
all
good
questions,
and
it's
it's
definitely,
as
you
mentioned,
that
there
was
a
trend
that
we
saw.
You
know
the
the
move
to
row
houses
and
how
much
that
was
accelerating.
C
C
Nevertheless,
that
that
issue
aside,
although
it's
still
obviously
a
dynamic,
the
r3
district,
just
standing
alone,
regardless
of
those
issues,
the
r3
codes
are
very
outdated
in
terms
of
their
ability
to
really
incentivize
kind
of
a
wider
variety
of
housing,
types
and
choices,
and
variety
and
density,
and
so
so.
C
The
hope
is
that,
with
this
new
update
in
these
different
sub
zones
and
all
those
different
types
of
of
housing,
types
that
we
outlined
in
the
subzones,
that
will
will
provide
that
long-term,
greater
variety
of
housing
choices
to
to
really
address
a
whole
number
of
of
different
housing
policy
goals.
So
yeah.
Just
to
sum
up,
you
certainly
acknowledge
your
your
comment
and
it's
it's
valid,
but
there's
also
other
larger,
long-term
goals
that
I
think
this
project
will
will
realize.
A
Okay,
so
thank
it
sounds
like
a
it's
kind
of
related
to
commissioner's
question.
You
don't
have
you
don't
have
guidance
from
council
that
it
should
be
pressed
on
the
gas
fast
or
let
it
kind
of
happen.
You
know
let
it
more
happen
more
gradually
over
time.
You
don't
have
a
sense
from
counselors
to
if
they
have
a
preference
for
the
pace
of
change.
C
You
know
at
this
point
we're
just
bringing
forward
the
the
the
analysis
and
the
options
for
them
and
certainly
we'll
hear
from
them
in
april,
more
direction
or
comments
on
on
on
that
issue.
Thank.
T
Thank
you
chair.
I
want
to
thank
staff
and
the
consultant
for
the
great
work
they've
done.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
One
is
also
related
to
timeline
of
change,
specifically
timeline
in
relation
with
the
displacement
response
strategies
to
preserve,
naturally
affordable
units,
because
I
think
it's
important
to
balance
new
development,
with
preservation
of
naturally
affordable
housing
stock
to
prevent
displacement.
C
Sure
so
we
have
been
working,
the
r3
team
has
been
working
very
closely
with
the
housing
division
and
the
housing
division
is
leading
the
work
on
the
displacement
policies.
C
So
we've
been
coordinating,
like
I
said,
very,
very
closely
actually
and
you
know,
making
sure
we're
we're
working
together
and
or
know
what
other
each
is
doing.
Basically
and
again,
we
are
trying
to,
through
the
r3
work
trying
to
generate,
as
I
said,
more
variety,
more
options,
more
residential
capacity
through
new
new
building
types,
but
we're
also
very
aware
of
the
the
need
to
limit
impacts
and
displacement.
C
So
when
we
conclude
our
work
with
the
r3,
at
that
same
time,
the
displacement
policies
will
be
brought
forward
to
the
city
council
and
again
being
coordinated
together
and
will
will
be
applied.
You
know,
city-wide
and,
and
that
will
also
address
the
r3
zone,
work
as
well.
C
Yes,
I
mean
they're
going
to
be,
we
don't.
I
don't
have
the
exact
timing,
but
we
do
want
them
to
be
generally
coordinated
so
that
everyone
is
aware
of.
You
know
that
we're
trying
to
we're
trying
to
accomplish
two
two
goals,
like
I
said,
generate
more
residential
units,
but
also
limit
displacement.
So
there
will
be
strategies
through
the
displacement
policy
work
that
will
apply
to
our
three
to
address
that
issue.
T
Thank
you
and
then,
with
regard
to
you,
know,
pace
of
change.
I
was
wondering
if
you
can
comment
on
what
mr
robert
cox
brought
up
about
the
provisional
rezoning
approach.
Where
we're
not
you
know
blanket
the
changes
to
all
the
our
r3
zones,
but
do
it
kind
of
like
as
needed
basis
as
developers
come
forth
to
you
know,
apply
for
projects.
C
Well,
I
mean
certainly
you
know
we
hadn't
thought
of
that
idea.
Certainly
if
the
commission
feels
strongly
that
that
is
a
an
approach
that
you'd
like
to
forward
to
the
city
council
for
their
consideration
discussion.
You
know
we
could
certainly
do
some
additional
work
on
that,
but
it
hasn't
been
part
of
our
analysis
to
date.
U
U
I
do
in
general,
like
the
idea
of
the
subzones
having
subzones
I
like
that
there
will
be
form-based
codes.
Potentially,
I
would
caution
against
over-prescribing
those
codes.
We
don't
want
to
have
the
same
building
over
and
over
again
I
like
that.
We
are
trying
to
get
the
design
handbook
and
the
guidelines
together,
making
it
easier
for
developers
to
understand
what
to
expect
clearly
early
on.
U
I
like
that,
we're
trying
to
get
a
variety
of
housing
and
that
we
are
trying
to
perhaps
get
more
choices
in
housing,
housing
areas
so
and
so
forth
and
to
work
towards
more
affordable
housing,
and
an
important
part,
as
others
have
mentioned,
is
to
decrease
the
displacement,
and
I
had
asked
a
question
to
staff
and
I
think
martin
had
touched
upon
it
vice
commissioner
lowe
had
also
touched
upon
it,
but
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
and
make
it
explicit
that
in
the
zoning
of
r3,
we
don't
need
to
specify
anything
about
technic
displacement
that
whatever
we're
doing
through
the
housing
division
is
going
to
just
absolutely
take
care
of
everything
we're
doing
in
rf3.
U
C
Yeah
I
mean
we
haven't
figured
out
the
actual,
you
know
specific
operational,
you
know
where
the
the
policies
will
live,
I
mean
it
could
be
a
city-wide
and
we
could
reference
it
in
the
r3.
We
haven't
really
had
those
detailed
discussions,
but
but
rest
assured
it
will
be,
it
will
be
addressed
either
within
the
r3
zone,
or
you
know
strongly
linked
to
the
city-wide
policy
or
just
the
city-wide
policy
will
be
very
clear
about
what
zones
it.
It
applies
to
that
kind
of
thing.
There'll
be
a
clear,
a
clear
connection.
C
U
Okay,
okay,
just
wanna
allay
some
fears
that
the
public
may
have
had
about
that.
I
I
don't
know:
if
now
are
we
gonna
start
discussing
or
are
we
just
still
asking
questions.
U
Oh
I'm
sorry,
I
apologize
for
jumping
ahead
with
comments.
One
question
was
then
well
I'll.
Just
take
one
moment
to
ask
this
question
was
when
the
consultants
were
looking
at
all
these
sub
zones.
I
know
you
were
looking
at
market
feasibility
as
a
priority
and
I
was
wondering
if
there
was
opportunities.
I
didn't
attend
the
workshops.
I
did
see
what
the
comments
were,
but
was
there
an
opportunity
to
look
through
the
lens
of
the
public
realm
in
terms
of
what
would
what
one
would
look
at
an
experience
walking
down
the
street?
U
I
know
it's
in
the
back
of
your
mind,
but
was
that
in
with
that
brought
forward
to
the
community
when
they
were
discussing
this
to
understand
that
that
was
a
possibility
to
look
at
this
purely
through
the
form
base,
and
I
thought
you
know
the
four
base
codes
was
sort
of
the
exciting
part
of
this
too.
We
can
look
at
the
streetscape.
We
can
look
at
the
open
space.
We
can
look
at
the
form
of
the
structure
and
the
massing
and
to
be
able
to
do
that
from
the
outside.
U
U
S
Yeah,
certainly
thank
you,
commissioner
yen,
for
that
that
question
absolutely
you
know
we
we
haven't
talked
about
it,
but
again
it's
one
of
those
things.
That's
implicit
in
the
in
the
physical
character
that
we're
envisioning
when
we
put
those
sub
zones
together,
those
key
standards
are
leading
toward
a
physical
character
and
then
those
diagrams
that
are
on
those
pages
are
intended
to
provide
a
glimpse
of
that.
So,
yes,
we
are
very,
very
aware
of
the
public
realm.
S
Every
everything
that
we
do
is
is
attaching
to
it
in
some
way
and
creating
it
or
reinforcing
it.
So
so,
during
those
workshops,
what
we
did
is
we
showed
views
of
what
was
allowed
under
existing
zoning
and
how
that
was
or
wasn't
feasible
from
a
market
perspective,
and
we
talked
about
the
physical
attributes
of
it
and
and
whether
it
was
a
good
physical
character,
given
the
area
or
or
not.
Maybe
it
was
out
of
scale.
S
Maybe
it
was
under
scale
and
then
we
showed
what
it
would
take
to
achieve
market
feasibility
and
we
did
a
model
model
view
on
the
for
one
lot
in
different
situations,
and
we
took
one
and
said:
here's
what
is
allowed
now,
and
this
is
what
it
achieves
in
the
market
and
here's
one
that
is
achieving
market
feasibility
and
here's
its
intensity
on
the
same
lot
and
we've
done
some
things
to
the
building
and
assumed
some
made
some
assumptions
about
the
public
realm.
S
But
you
could
very
clearly
see
them
and
in
the
context
of
a
adjacent
building.
So
that
was
very
much
discussed
during
the
workshops
and
and
explained.
I
think
that
you
know
over
and
over.
We
we
hear
and
and
believe
me,
it's
it's
on
our
list
to
deal
with
the
public
realm
and
this
form
based
code
that
that
that
is
on
the
list
of
topics
to
make
sure
that
gets
addressed
through
the
standards
for
every
project.
V
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
I
want
to
follow
along
and
ask
a
very
similar
question
to
what
commissioner
yin
did.
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
that
when
you
did
the
analysis
and
you
sort
of
distributed,
the
various
sub-zones
throughout
the
city,
as
you
did,
was
traffic
impact
any
part
of
the
consideration.
S
That
level
of
analysis
isn't
there
yet
that
the
transportation
team
will
take
a
look
at
it.
But
but
we
we
have.
We
have
enough
experience
with
the
intensities
of
these
types
of
buildings
and
and
these
types
of
environments
to
to
understand
where
parking
is
likely
to
be
a
bigger
concern
than
others
where
on-street
parking
is
already
stressed,
and
we
need
to
not
rely
on
it,
but
in
terms
of
traffic
generation
rates,
and
all
of
that
know
that
that
has
not
yet
been
applied.
V
So
what
so?
What
we're
really
seeing
then
on
the
map
is
sort
of
it
all
comes
back
to
the
market
feasibility,
it's
what
you
can
fit,
where
not
necessarily
what
you
know
would
work
where.
S
We
know
that
it
will
work
physically,
not
just
market
wise,
so
there's
a
balance
there.
What
you're,
seeing
isn't
just
what
the
market
says
will
work.
We
we
straddle
that
line.
We
offer
peop.
We
offer
the
choice
in
each
subzone
of
building
types
that
produce
what
the
market
feasibility
is
telling
us.
S
We
each
of
the
zones,
that's
why
it
has
a
at
least
two
building
types
in
there
to
choose
from
so
that
you
can
do
more
intense
or
less
intense,
but
it's
all
more
intense
than
the
current
r3
sound,
and
I
think
that's
something
that
I
was
hoping
to
get
the
opportunity
to
talk
about
that.
Commissioner
dempsey,
that
earlier
you
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
comments.
S
The
big
repeating
theme
tonight
is
about
not
enough
intensity
and
I
think
when
you,
when
people
look
at
the
most
intense
subzone,
that
that
is
in
this
framework
that
we're
proposing
for
your
consideration.
S
I
think
it's
easy
to
say:
well,
it's
not
all
like
that.
So
somehow
we're
leaving
something
on
the
table
and
not
doing
as
much
as
we
could,
but
it's
a
little
more
subtle
than
that.
Even
the
r3a,
the
the
lower
intensity
sub
zone,
the
least
intense
subzone
of
the
four
is
already
more
intense
than
the
r3
itself,
so
you're
beginning
above
the
ar
what
the
r3
allows
it.
Let
me
give
you
an
example.
S
So,
currently
on
many
small
parcels,
you
can't
even
do
two
units,
but
under
the
new
r3a
you
could
do
four.
You
could
do
six,
that's
a
huge
increase
from
not
being
able
to
do
a
two
at
all,
and
you
multiply
that
across
a
number
of
parcels
it
so
it
I
appreciate
we.
We
all
appreciate
the
concern
about
intensifying
more
and
we
think
that
there
is
opportunity
to
do
that,
but
intensifying
more
isn't
the
same
everywhere
across
the
r3
zone
and
and
I'm
not
suggesting.
H
Apologies
just
to
clarify
where
we're
looking
at
more
of
the
open
space
and
all
of
the
the
green
requirements
as
well.
Is
that
further
down
the
line
as
well.
C
As
I
was
listening
to
the
discussion
tonight,
certainly,
I
think
we
can
add
some
more
information
on
that
and
that
would
be
would
be
presented
later
in
some
fashion.
Yes,.
A
Then,
just
one
brief
follow-up
mercury's
for
tony
mr
perez,
the
you
mentioned
small
lots.
I
guess
that
had
come
up
in
some
of
the
speakers
questions
when
this
was
originally
presented
to
council,
saying
that
somebody
with
a
I
think
I
remember
somebody
had
like
a
7
000
square
foot
lot
and
they
were
like
even
invited
into
couldn't
even
do
a
duplex
there.
Are
you
suggesting
that
the
r
the
r3a
would
allow
something
like
that
for
people
to
do
essentially
duplexes
or
something
like
that
on
smaller
pumps,.
S
Yeah,
that's
correct
sure,
cranston.
If
you
look
at
the
r3a,
as
it's
currently
proposed,
we're
proposing
four
plexes
and
pocket
neighborhoods
and
other
other
types
and
possibly
a
six
plex
we've
been
considering
something
like
that
in
the
r3a
as
as
the
higher
end
of
it,
but
right
now
there's
there
there's
a
possibility
to
achieve
five
units,
four
units,
depending
on
the
size
of
the
property
as
compared
to
one
right
now
and
again,
it
all
depends
on
the
size
of
the
lot.
So
yeah.
A
And
I
guess
that,
on
the
flip
side
of
that
was
one
of
the
comments
from
council
early
on
was
a
concern
about
what
we
end
up
with.
Is
you
know
thousands
of
studios
and
one
bedrooms
and
that
we
don't
get
anything
for
families?
A
S
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair,
cranston,
that
that's
certainly
something
that
we
we
intend
to
address
and
there
are
different
ways
to
do
that.
S
We
we
don't
typically
recommend
that
units
unit
size
be
regulated
for
a
lot
of
reasons,
but
there
there
are
approaches
such
as
the
city
of
santa
barbara's
average
unit
density
size,
where
you
can
only
achieve
what
the
zone
allows
you
as
a
maximum
as
the
unit
size
decreases,
and
as
you
get
that
variety
that
you're
talking
about.
That's
that's
one
approach
that
that
we've
seen
work.
There
are
others
but
yeah.
That's
something.
S
Average
price
average
unit
size
density,
yes,
commissioner,
a
meyer
yeah
and
how
it
works
is.
Let's
say
that
the
density
is
is,
is
30
just
for
discussion
purposes.
The
only
way
to
achieve
the
30
is
to
get
these
smaller
units
and,
if
you
don't
and
then
there's
a
minimum
too
there's
a
minimum
that
you
have
to
to
to
achieve,
but
the
only
way
to
get
the
most
out
of
what
the
zone
allows
is
by
decreasing
the
unit
size
so
that
the
achievable
density
increases
as
the
unit
size
decreases.
A
Actually,
I
think
councilmember
cambridge,
when
it
was
actually
was
more
worried
that
that
we
wouldn't
get
any
two
or
three
bedroom,
not
that
we
were
worried
that
all
we
would
get
are
small
units.
But
how
do
we
make
sure
that
we
get
some?
A
You
know
for
families
and
the
like
you're
describing
sounds
like
it
would
push
towards
the
smaller
end.
S
Yeah,
that's
that's
right,
although
you
know
a
system
could
be
devised
to
do
that
because
that's
a
that's
a
big
need
in
many
places,
so
we
haven't
figured
out
how
to
do
that,
but
we
know
that
that
needs
to
be
addressed
and
whether
that's
a
regulation
or
a
policy
we
don't
know
yet.
But
we
are
very
aware
of
that.
T
U
T
Yeah,
I
was
excited
to
see
that
the
r3
team
will
be
working
on
a
design
handbook.
I
think
that
will
go
a
long
way
in
ensuring
that
we
have
some
really
good
designs
and
mitigate
some
of
these
sameness
complaint.
C
Sure,
yes,
that's
correct
for
the
staff
report.
You
know
based
on
the
recent
legislation.
You
know
we
can't
you
know,
enforce
subjective
standards,
they
have
to
be
objective
standards,
and
so
you
know
we
will
have
the
objective
standards
in
the
the
form
based
code
in
the
r3
zone
code.
The
handbook
will
include
you
know
some
guidelines
and
and
kind
of
more
subjective
standards
and
though
it
won't
be
necessarily
legally
enforceable.
C
It
will
set
the
expectation
kind
of
for
developers
and
for
the
community
you
know
of
of
what
we
want
to
see
so
again,
hoping
that
it
will
be.
You
know
both
expectation,
but
also
maybe
a
toolkit
that
developers
could
could
say.
You
know
we.
Let's,
let's
use
this
idea.
This
could
work.
We
know
the
community
would
like
to
see
that
so
again,
nothing
that
we
can
strictly
enforce,
but
could
still
have
value
in
terms
of
setting
that
expectation
and.
E
C
We're
going
to
start
work
on
that
in
earnest
right
after
the
april
13th
council
meeting.
We
haven't
really
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
that
at
all,
but
yeah.
Once
we
get
the
the
basics
of
the
the
r3
code
in
place,
then
we'll
commence
work
on
the
handbook.
A
U
Yes,
the
question
I
was
going
to
ask
was
then
regarding
parking
mundane
but
important.
I
noticed
when
you
when
the
answers
to
the
epc
questions
came.
There
were
some
examples
and
pictures
of
various
unit
types
or
building
types
and
a
lot
of
them
were
quite
attractive
and
I
was
wondering
in
a
lot
of
them.
U
There
were
no
parking,
there
was
no
parking
show,
so
I
am
imagining
that
they're
in
back
alleys
or
there's
a
court
somewhere,
but
then
it
said
if
you
had
a
front
garden
court,
then
you
are
therefore
sort
of
getting
rid
of
any
rear
court.
So
in
looking
at
setbacks
and
the
building
heights
building
placements,
did
you
also
consider
the
number
of
parking
spaces
and
how
much
space
that
would
take
and
what
style
it
would
be
housed.
S
Yeah,
thank
you,
commissioner.
Yen.
Certainly
so
the
way
we
approach
parking
is
that
each
building
is
on
its
lot
and
it
has
to
satisfy
its
parking
requirement.
So
if
it,
if
it
has
let's
say
just
again
for
purpose
of
discussion,
if
it
has
10
units
in
it
and
and
the
requirement
is
one
and
a
half
spaces
per
unit,
it's
going
to
need
15
spaces.
Those
15
spaces
need
to
happen
on
the
lot
that
is
accommodating
that
building
not
somewhere
else,
not
in
a
big
parking
lot.
S
The
idea
is
to
make
lots
and
buildings
that
develop
a
public
realm
with
the
parking
away
from
the
public
realm,
so
the
public
room
is
is
showing
the
building.
That's
that's
one
reason.
Maybe
you
found
those
those
examples
attractive.
Is
that
parking
wasn't
in
front
of
them,
but
just
distracting
and
and
taking
away
from
the
public
realm?
S
It
was
the
public
realm
attaching
to
the
front
of
that
building
and
in
its
facade,
and
so
the
parking
is
either
down
the
side
in
the
back,
in
some
cases,
in
the
podium,
depending
on
the
size
of
the
building
or
if
a
developer
chooses
to
put
it
underground,
which
you
know
we
don't
require
that.
But
that
may
be
something
they
want
to
do
so
yeah.
It
just
depends
on
the
building.
U
Okay,
because
I
was
just
curious
earlier
when
you
guys
were
talking
about
the
7
000
square
foot
lot
that
could
perhaps
go
to
a
six
unit.
I
just
thought
where,
where
the
where's
the
parking
lot,
I
don't
know
if
it
could
manage
it,
and
that
prompted
the
question,
and
certainly
we
don't
want
to
see
it
in
the
public
realm.
And
you
know
I
was
afraid
that
these
little
the
courtyards
would
then
be
a
court
of
parking.
S
Yeah,
no,
no,
and
that
that's
the
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of.
I
would,
I
would
say:
well
I
will
say
there
are
a
lot
of
interpretations
of
the
courtyard
type
that
do
that
and
say:
oh
there's,
the
courtyard,
it's
actually
a
courtyard
for
parking,
but
no
the
way
that
we
propose
the
standards
and
that
we
we
write
standards
for
that
type.
The
parking
needs
to
be
away
from
that,
and
and
generally
our
approach
to
park,
the
parking
location
is
the
same
as
the
building
location.
S
V
There
was
really
excellent
data
on
kind
of
units
and
acreage
in
r3
that
I
actually
found
really
interesting,
and
I
I
don't
think
we
saw
this
for
the
sub
zones,
but
and
if
and
if
it
isn't
there
forgive
me-
and
I
missed
it-
you
can
point
it
out
to
me,
but
if,
but
if
we
don't
have
it
I'd
actually
be
very
curious
in
the
next
iteration
to
see
kind
of,
you
know
a
chart
that
breaks
out
for
sub-zone
a
sub-zone
b,
c
and
d,
how
much
acreage
it
takes
up,
how
many
unit
units
it
has
there
currently
and
how
many
we
think
it
could
add
like
that
kind
of
data,
I
think,
would
be
really
really
interesting,
particularly
because
we
may
in
the
next
iteration
again
want
to
start
talking
about
well.
V
U
U
So
as
many
people
noted
in
public
comments-
and
I
had
saw
myself
I'd,
seen
myself
when
looking
at
the
sort
of
the
walking
radius
the
catchment
areas
that
were
drawn
in
relation
to
the
highest
density,
r3c
and
d,
they
are
away
from
transit
areas.
Now,
what's
your
professional
take
on
adding
so
much
density
over
such
a
large
acreage
in
areas
that
are
lacking
in
transit.
S
Yeah.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Again.
The
the
approach
that
we
took
was
in
in
locating
the
the
r3d
in
particular.
Is
we
tried
to
find
locations
where
that
could
fit
nearest
the
transit,
but
the
parcel
sizes
nearest?
The
transit
are
either
too
small
for
those
bigger
footprint
buildings,
because
that
that's
part
of
what
you
know
density
is
talked
about,
but
the
other
thing
that
goes
along
with
density
is
building
size
in
terms
of
the
footprint
that
needs
to
accommodate
the
bigger
buildings.
S
So
those
bigger
buildings
have
a
wider
footprint
deeper
footprint
than
the
other
buildings,
and
so
they
they,
the
the
parcels
that
exist
that
accommodate
them
more
easily,
unfortunately,
are
farther
away
from
all
the
transit
areas
that
isn't
to
say
that
they
couldn't
happen
closer,
but
the
other
thing
that
again
we're
here
for
feedback
and
direction,
and
and
so
we
can
certainly
we
we
expect
to
take
another
look
at
all
these
things,
but
our
thinking
so
far
has
been
hey.
Those
those
bigger
buildings
need
bigger
parcels
and
we
don't
want
to.
S
You
know,
map
something
that
needs
a
bigger,
bigger
parcel
and
all
of
a
sudden
signal.
Everybody
guess
what
you
have
to
assemble
your
properties
to
make
anything
happen.
That's
the
way
a
lot
of
codes.
Don't
work
is
by
freezing
those
properties
into
speculation.
Now
people
say,
oh,
you
need
my
property
to
make
your
building
work.
So
we've
first
looked
at
all
the
parcels
that
exist
that
are
large
enough
to
hold
those
now
and
then.
S
Secondly,
the
other
thing
that
moved
those
r3d
areas
away
from
the
transit
again
not
to
our
liking,
but
the
reality
of
it
as
it
currently
stands
is,
is
what
all
those
parcels
are
existing
next
to
there's
a
lot
of
single-family
housing
in
and
around
all
these
areas,
and
we
we
have,
we
feel
we
have
some
areas
where
maybe
we
went
too
far,
and
and
maybe
we
need
to
crank
that
back,
but
you
know
so
if
it
seems
counterintuitive,
why
why
these
r3ds
are
farthest
away?
S
It's
it's
those
primarily
those
two
factors
right
now,
but
again
you
know
there
there's
more
process
to
go
and
maybe
that
that
needs
to
be
looked
at
again
differently.
U
V
Maybe
there's
just
a
comment
and
I'll
say
it
really
quick.
Perhaps
one
thing
at
least
worth
thinking
about
is
if
we're-
and
I
agree
that
there
is
definitely
a
surprising
amount
of
r1
space.
When
I
look
at
the
little
circles
around
existing
transit.
One
of
the
things
I
think
would
be
really
at
least
worth
talking
about.
At
least
four
bus
stops.
V
What
if
we
at
least
had
a
little
bit
of
a
conversation
about
moving
the
bus,
stop
instead
of
trying
to
put
a
bunch
of
buildings
next
to
the
bus?
Stop
if
there's
better
places
to
put
those
buildings,
could
we
ask
about
moving
the
bus?
Stop
like
the
one
that's
out
by
san
antonio?
Can
we
just
scooch
that
half
a
mile,
you
know
towards
sunnyvale
and
then
it'd
be
sitting
right
in
front
of
a
huge
block
of
blue
right,
and
that
might
be
a
little
cheaper.
So
anyway,
I
think
it's
we
shouldn't
just
assume
for
caltrain.
V
A
Right,
the
the
in
the
first
part
of
stat's
question
was
on
the
proposed
subzone
approach
overall,
so
what
staff
and
opticus
have
proposed
is
essentially
a
four-tier
structure,
with
a
being
for
smaller
units
and
smaller
lots
b
being
essentially
giving
four
tiers
up
to
d
being
the
highest
tier.
Can
I
get
feedback
from
the
commissioners
and
to
do
you
like
this
approach?
Do
you
have
concerns
about
this
approach
overall,
before
we
then
go
into
the
individual
categories
themselves?
Commissioner,
capriles.
H
It's
so
complex
that
we,
you
know,
need
to
go
down
to
the
next
levels
to
really
understand
what
are
what
are
we
actually
making
our
decisions
on?
I
think
that
you
know
this
is
a
good
like
I
say
it's
a
good
start
at
this
high
level,
but
I
think
there
were
some
areas
of
public
concern
and
and
mine
as
well
that
we
we
need
touched
on
before
we
can
just
say
you
know,
roll
with
it.
I
need
to
you
know,
make
sure
that
we
are
understand.
H
We
have
clarity
around
exactly
the
units
the
unit
size.
Are
we
just
trying
to
hit
numbers?
Are
we
trying
to
look
at
what
is
needed
within
the
community
as
far
as
unit
size?
So
those
are
the
you
know
the
open
questions
that
I
I
would
you
know
like
to
see
at
the
next
level
of
presentation.
U
T
Thanks
yeah
in
general,
I'm
supportive
of
the
subzone
approach.
Also,
I
think
the
current
r3
is
just
so.
T
It
tries
to
cover
so
many
different
types
of
parcels
that
it's
worth
while
diving.
You
know
one
level
down
categorizing
the
different
lots
into
the
four
subzone,
I
think,
makes
sense
in
general,
but,
as
my
colleagues
said
before,
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
questions
that
we
still
need
to
answer
and
I
look
forward
to
more
discussion
and
more
details
thanks.
A
R
This
is
a
big
topic
and
I
I
really
appreciated
figure
one.
I
think
the
concept
of
the
sub
zone
sounds
very
technical
and
the
framework
at
least
being
able
to
spell
it
out
and
say:
here's
what
it
could
look
like
here
are
the
height
standards
that
we're
working
toward,
even
if
they
mean
refining.
I
think
that's
why
we're
having
these
questions
and
conversations
early
on
in
the
process,
so
supportive
of
the
general
approach.
Maybe
you
want
to
have
discussion
within
the
substance.
V
I'm
with
my
colleagues,
I
think
that
this
is
the
right
direction,
broad
brush
strokes.
I
agree
with
it
a
lot
to
talk
about
the
details,
but
I
think
we're
headed
the
right
direction,
so
I
support
him.
A
And
I
also
agree
that
the
overall
approach-
I
think
my
kind
of
the
one
open
question
in
my
mind,
is
kind
of
a
question
for
councils
is
the
as
in
it'll
touch
on
across.
All
of
these
is
the
how
aggressive
council
wants
to
be
on
this
migration
over
time
to
occur.
A
If
you
took
everything
that
was
in
the
the
initial
feasibility
analysis
and
put
all
of
that
in
in
every
one
of
those
those
things
that
make
it
makes
it
more
feasible,
we'd
see
a
a
pretty
fast
rush
forward
and
I
was
struck
by
the
fact
that
there's
what
11,
700
or
11
800
units
in
the
area
and
11
400
of
them
are
under
rent
control.
A
I
know
that
falls
into
the.
How
do
we
mitigate
this,
but
there's
a
lot
of
people
in
the
city
a
lot
of
people
in
this
city
that
are
living
in
those
homes
and
if
there
was
a
sudden
rush
forward,
we'd
be
displacing
a
lot
of
people
all
at
once,
and
we
need
to
be
really
thoughtful
about
how
that
happens.
This
is
that's.
A
My
my
biggest
concern
is
is
is
pace
overall,
so
I
like
the
general
approach,
but
at
a
high
level,
you've
got
you
know
a
lot
of
people
in
the
csfra
units
that
are
going
to
be
impacted
by
how
this
plays
out.
Okay,
all
right,
you're,
editing
on
that
this
first
chris,
hello,
okay,.
T
T
In
addition,
the
path
to
economic
recovery
post
covet
is
so
kind
of
unclear
in
my
mind,
and
given
that
I
believe
we
have,
the
city
has
zoned
more
than
enough
for
rena
for
the
next
cycle,
from
at
least
that's
my
understanding
from
looking
at
the
housing
elements,
I
am
wondering
where
yeah,
how
fast
do
we
need
to
go?
What
is
the
right
pace?
So?
Yes,
I
share
your
concern
on
that
and
also
you
know
what
sv
330
will
look
like
when
it
does
expire.
T
A
Any
other
comments
on
the
overall
approach.
Okay,
then,
why
don't
we
step
through
each
of
the
four-
and
this
is
the
the
general
description
that
that
staff
has
provided
we'll
look
at
the
map?
Second,
but
the
our
r3a
would
be
first
and
he
comments
on
the
on
what's
being
kind
of
outlined,
as
is
the
high
level
standards
for
this
particular.
A
R
I
think
it's
we're
looking
at
a
continuum
right,
and
so
this
is
the
lowest
level
of
it,
and
so
I
I
don't
know,
I
think
it
I
think
it'll
get
more
complicated
as
we
get
higher
as
we
get
further
down
the
alphabet,
but
generally
comfortable.
I
mean,
I
think,
one
question
that
I
did
see
raised
and
maybe
just
it
was
in
the
the
response
to
the
commissioner
questions,
but
the
density
excuse
me,
the
bonus
that's
mentioned
for
the
height
does
include
the
stat
goal.
R
State
density
bonus
right,
that's
the
highest
height
that
we
could
imagine
from
what
I
understand
from
staff.
R
S
S
Commissioner
yeah,
we
can
respond
to
that.
I'd
like
to
ask
our
principal
from
opticos
to
find
pellegrini
to
talk
to
you
about
density
bonus,
but
and
how
we're
approaching
it
here.
W
Thanks
tony,
this
is
stephane.
Can
everybody
hear
me
yep
great
thanks
and
thanks
for
a
great
meeting
so
far,
so
just
with
regards
to
the
state
density
bonus,
the
you
know,
traditionally,
projects
could
apply
for
up
to
a
35
bonus.
W
There
have
been
some
recent
updates
to
density
bonus
law,
allowing
projects
up
to
50
density
bonus
and,
in
some
cases
where
there
is
either
100
affordability
or
proximity
to
transit,
additional
height
bonuses
that
can
function
above
that,
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
the
r3
zoning
standards,
which
is
you
know,
not
really
reflected
in
the
summary
here,
but
something
I
think
for
them
to
be
aware
of-
is
to
accommodate
both
a
base,
condition
and
a
bonus
condition
in
the
zoning,
so
that
projects
that
are
applying
for
the
density
bonus
can
have
just
a
greater
level
of
predictability
about
how
that
actually
might
be
achieved.
W
And
what
impact
sort
of
you
know
in
terms
of
the
physical
envelope
might
be
presented,
and
what
we
are
finding
is
that
in
the
35
to
50
range,
it
is
absolutely
doable
to
describe
increases
in
the
zoning
envelope
of
additional
height.
With
the
clarifications
of
additional
setbacks,
et
cetera,
that
can
accommodate
that
bonus.
R
Thank
you
for
clarifying
the
methodology.
That's
helpful.
So
is
that
fair
to
say
for
all
of
these,
it's
looking
at
the
35,
the
55
bonus
based
on
the
building
the
parcel
envelope.
That's
roughly
your
general
approach.
W
Yes
and
there
will
be
some
additional
locations,
particularly
that
are
you
know,
within
1200
feet
of
of
high
quality
transit
that
where
additional
increases
actually
might
be
allowed-
and
we
definitely
will
be
looking
at
that,
as
well
as
we
craft
the
zoning
standards
in
detail.
R
A
R
Sure
I
can
start
us
off,
but
I
live
right
next
to
one
of
the
pictures
that
was
taken
unless
so,
I
feel
like
I'm
very
comfortable
with
r3b,
but
I
this
is
an
area
where
I
do
think
that
we
can
maybe
look
a
little
bit
more
in
terms
and
I'm
not
sure,
but
it
seems
like
so
this.
R
The
the
images
that
were
shown
on
figure
three,
the
parcels
that
I'm
familiar
with-
and
I
don't
know
all
of
the
areas
all
of
the
verses,
but
they
tend
to
be
deeper
lots,
and
I
don't
know
if
the
analysis
of
opticus
did
shows
that.
But
it
seems
like
these
deeper
lots
could
accommodate
more
of
a
more
of
a
footprint
because
with
a
really
deep
lots.
R
So
I
don't
know
exactly
how
to
give
that
feedback,
except
that
I
think,
there's
more
opportunity
here,
because
I
think
the
I'm
comfortable
with
a
I
think
b
can
go
a
little
bit
more,
dense
and
and
and
leading
towards
c
and
d,
and
I'm
not
sure
exactly
where
to
articulate
the
types
of
buildings
that
I
see
and
that
I
think
the
neighborhood
courtyard,
the
the
townhomes.
I
think
the
multiplexes
potentially
or
I'd
love
to
see
more
of
those
like
the
images
were
really
helpful.
R
But
I
think
that
the
deeper
the
lot
the
more
there
is
a
greater
opportunity
to
to
get
creative
with
how
much
you
can
fit
on
that
parcel.
But
I
just
don't
know
the
personal
analysis.
All
over
wagon
wheel
seems
to
have
really
deep
lots,
and
so
it
seems
to
me
like
there
would
be
more
opportunity
here
for
a
little
bit.
More
density.
U
Okay,
yeah,
I
you
know
I
was
hesitating
on
commenting
on
them.
I,
the
reason
I
hesitate
to
comment
on
is
because
I
can't
help
but
think
about
it
from
the
lens
of
a
public
realm
to
me.
At
this
point,
we
are
asking
so
much
of
our
land
that
the
street
are
such
an
asset
that
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
going
to
do
it
right.
U
You
know
we
heard
a
lot
of
people
talk
about
the
green
scape,
making
a
nice
walkable
area
with
so
much
area
and
looking
at
the
streets,
because
I
don't
know
where
the
property
lines
are.
When
I
see
the
setbacks,
it
gives
me
some
information,
but
I
really
don't
know
you
know
where
the
property
lines
are.
Sometimes
it's
in
the
behind
the
sidewalk.
Sometimes
it's
right
to
the
sidewalk.
I
don't
know
what
the
sidewalks
are.
So
it's
hard
for
me
to
understand
what
these
actually
mean.
Does
that
make
sense
so
generally,
it
seems
reasonable.
U
Maybe
it's
just
more
information,
that's
needed
more
diagrams.
I
don't
know.
I
just
don't
feel
like.
I
have
enough
information
to
say
yep.
This
is
it,
and
also
when
we're
talking
about
the
setbacks.
I
know
there
are
so
many
different
building
types
and
those
setbacks
will
be
different
like
if
you
have
a
courtyard
versus
not.
U
U
A
Can
I
paraphrase
I
can
be
here
sure
your
setbacks
are
a
set
of
numbers
or
your
concern
is.
I
want
streetscapes
that
are
that
work
with
the
neighborhood
that
meet
the
public
realm
and
whatever
the
setbacks
are
that
the
number
is
less
important
than
making
sure
that
whatever
is
in
place
addresses
the
streetscapes,
the
the
walkability,
the
that
is
being
looked
for
and
then
number
two
being
respectful
transitions
to
lower
neighborhoods
or
lower
lower
units?
Is
that
I
think
that's
what
I
can.
U
Yeah
that
sums
it
up
very
well
and
it's
it's
the
neighbors
to
the
rear.
If
you're
you
know
cutting
your
rear
set
back
down
to
10
feet.
If
you
have
like,
let's
say
a
four-story
with
state
bonus,
you're
gonna
get
a
four-story
building.
If
you've
got
single
family
neighbors
to
your
rear,
then
you
are
going
to
cut
out
light
and
air
to
their
entire
property.
Does
that
make
sense?
I
know
you're
looking
very
carefully
at
across
the
street,
because
you
are
looking
at
the
public
realm,
but
what
about
people
to
the
rear?
U
S
May
I
respond
to
that
chair,
okay,
yes,
commissioner,
yen,
the
rear
setback.
Well,
all
the
setbacks
are
are
just
for
the
building
footprint
like
the
building.
That's
that's
where
the
building
would
could
be
placed.
Ultimately,
that's
the
extent
of
how
how
big
the
building
can
be.
S
What
isn't
yet
included
in
this
information
that
would
be
included
in
the
form
based
code
are
upper
story.
Step
backs
in
you
know
in
most
cases
anything
above
three
stories,
especially
in
these
kinds
of
contexts.
S
The
the
fourth
story
would
be
pushed
back
from,
especially
from
the
rear
and
sometimes
from
the
front,
depending
what's
across
the
street.
S
There's
that
kind
of
information
there's
also
there
are
also
requirements
in
the
form
base
code
that
deal
with
building
mass.
So
how
to
break
down
a
building.
Let's
say
is
a
hundred
feet
long.
How
do
you
make
it
look
not
a
hundred
feet
long,
regardless
of
the
architecture?
How
do
you
make
those
volumes?
S
So
all
those
kinds
of
nuances
and
the
standards
will
will
come
forward
in
the
form
based
code
and
they're,
just
not
where
we're
we're,
not
not
at
that
level,
but
your
your
your
feedback
is
is
very,
very
helpful.
The
way
that
you're
talking
about
the
setbacks
and
your
concerns
and
lastly,
given
the
kinds
of
of
massing
standards
and
an
upper
story,
step
back
standards,
and
sometimes
let's
say
that
the
rear
setback
in
this
case
might
increase
to
15..
S
It's
helpful
when
the
the
setbacks
are
very
tight,
but
once
you
start
dealing
with
the
upper
stories
in
the
way
that
that
we
are
proposing
again,
that's
not
your
you're,
not
aware
of
that,
yet
that
that
information
isn't
there,
but
the
way
that
we
would
practice
that
approach
tends
to
make
the
daylight
playing
approach,
not
necessary
and-
and
you
still
achieve
the
same
effect.
U
H
I'm
I'm
certainly
agreeing
with
commissioner
yen's
concern
but
by
the
same
token,
I
think
until
we
get
more
information
about
exactly
what
the
form
base
code
is
going
to
look
at
like
in
each
one
of
these
sub
zones.
It's
not
very
easy
for
us
to
say
yeah.
H
I
agree
with
this
particular
sub
zone,
so
I'm
I'm
having
a
a
tough
time
kind
of
addressing
each
individual
sub
zone,
because
I
feel
like
there's
so
much
more
to
it,
that
I
I'm
not
seeing,
and
so
I
you
know,
I
want
to
take
into
consideration
those.
You
know
different
placement
where,
where
is
it?
And
you
know
it's
easy
to
look
at
a
map?
It's
another
thing
to
go,
actually
see
that
area
and
try
to
visualize.
H
What
is
that
gonna
look
like
in
the
future,
like
so
many
people
said
we're
we're
trying
to
plan,
for
you
know
50
60
years
out,
and
so
I
don't
want
and-
and
I'd
like
to
hear
what
my
other
commissioners
think
I'm
not
sure.
Is
that
really
going
to
be
beneficial
to
opticos
and
and
staff
for
us
to
go
into
each
particular
sub
zone
and
make
a
comment
on,
because
I
you
know
not
knowing
specifically
where
those
places
are
and
really
seeing
them
physically,
because
I'm
I'm
kind
of
a
visual
person.
V
That
doesn't
look
anything
like
the
actual
photograph
that
I
see
in
the
upper
left
hand
corner,
and
I
part
of
what
I'm
kind
of
looking
for
these
pictures
is
getting
sort
of
the
the
out
a
sense
of
the
outward
bound
of
what
we
could
see
there
right
and-
and
if
I
understand
it
correctly,
the
like
the
photographs
in
the
upper
left.
Those
don't
seem
to
represent
the
outward
bound
of
how
big
something
could
potentially
be
under
3b,
probably
a
little
bit
closer
with
the
drawing
in
the
lower
right.
V
So
just
from
my
just
from
as
a
viewer
as
a
user.
I
wish
that
those
two
visual
representations
kind
of
matched
a
little
bit
better
and
perhaps
we're
weighted
towards
showing
us
how
big
something
might
get
rather
than
whatever
a
comfortable
middle
point
might
be.
That's
it.
A
S
Commissioner
dempsey,
that's
that's
a
great
observation
and
unfortunately,
there's
not
enough
explanation
on
there,
but
basically
what
you're
seeing
is?
Yes,
the
diagram
on
the
on
the
bottom
right
that
you're,
referring
to
in
your
packet,
is
not
intended
to
be
what
the
photo
in
the
top
left
is,
and
that's
because
the
photo
in
the
top
left
is
showing
what
exists
in
the
areas
where
we
are
proposing
to
put
that
intended
character.
That's
shown
in
the
bottom
right.
T
A
And
then,
and
looking
at
the
the
photos
that
were
provided
in
the
staff
report
on
the
pages,
eight
and
nine
I
thought
were
helpful.
Looking
at
the
you
know,
the
r3b-
and
I
was
you
know
generally
comfortable
with
what
those
showed
as
a
as
kind
of
a
scale
amassing
associate
with
those.
I
do
share
commissioner
yin's
concern
to
make
sure
that
we're
addressing
the
public
realm,
but
also
transitions
to
neighborhoods
a
lot
of
the
a
lot
of
at
least
and
then
we'll
get
this
into
the
map.
A
But
a
lot
of
these
r3bs
are
closer
to
cinco
family
homes
and
so
those
respectful
transitions
to
the
the
lower
density.
Neighbors,
I
think,
is
important.
I
mean
we,
I
don't
I'm
not
I'm
not
familiar
with
the
sun
plane
or
whatever
it
is
that
you're
referring
to.
But
I
do
I
do
recall
a
discussion
around
the
el
camino
precise
plan,
and
you
know
that
it's
a
45
degree
angle.
As
you
look
up,
you
should
be
able
to
see
the
sky
and
whatever
that,
whatever
that
is.
A
You
know
that
you
can,
if
you're
upper
for
a
step
back.
I
think
that
still
needs
to
be
there.
Okay,
we'll
we'll
take
a
look
at
r3c
and
again,
if
you
you
don't
have
a
lot
of
comments,
that's
fine
we're
providing
as
much
feedback
as
we
can
to
staff
as
we
go
through
this
so
part
3c.
Any
feedback
on
on
that.
A
Okay
and
then
r3d
any
comments
in
our
3d.
A
A
You
know
r4f
for
r4
r4
form
based
or
something,
but
this
is
sure
books
is
not
for
to
me.
It
doesn't
feel
like
something:
that's
an
r3
zone
and
I'm
I'm
even
more
concerned
about
the
items
that
commissioner
ian
raised
both
in
streetscape
and
how
that?
How
does
that?
How
does
that
work
and
how
does
it
transition?
A
Certainly
the
fact
you've
got
a
clustered
helps,
but
when
there
is
transitions
to
other
neighborhoods
that
needs
to
be
taken
into
account.
So
I
would
I
would
I'm
not
in
favor
of
going
to
to
six
stories
up
to
eight
myself.
I
think
that's
too
dense
for
our
three
zoning
area.
T
Thanks
what
struck
me
in
the
map
at
the
top
right
is
the
the
big
block
of
blue
along
el
camino
near,
I
think,
that's
rainstorm,
it's
very
dense,
but
it's
not
near
transit.
T
U
I
was
gonna
comment
on
both
your
and
vice
chair,
lowe's
comments,
which
is,
I
agree.
I
kind
of
the
process
for
changing
r3
is
fine,
I'm
glad
to
get
a
little
bit
more
density
within
r3
or
more
variety,
but
once
we
start
surpassing
r4
that,
then
the
question
becomes.
You
know
what
is
the
process
from
the
city's
point
of
view
to
to
allow
for
higher
than
r4
when
the
old
plans
have
already
been
set
and
there's
no
process
in
discussion
over
intensifying
those
areas?
To
that
degree,
I
just
feel
like.
U
Maybe
this
isn't
the
place
to
do
it?
I
don't
know
it's
a
question
for
for
stuff,
so
that
was
one
concern
I
had
as
well
and
then
the
other
is
just
the
location
of
this
high
density,
and
you
know
mountain
view,
we're
trying
very
hard
to
make
walkable
neighborhoods
service-based,
neighborhoods
areas
where
you
can
work
near
where
you
live
and
there's
this
huge
chunk
over
near
rex,
manor
or
east
of
rinsdorf.
U
That
is
got
very
little
amenities
and
it
is
way
up
north
and
those
folks
can't
really
get
south
very
easily,
with
the
train
coming
and
more
trains
running
more
often,
there's
no
way
to
cross
that
area
easily.
Yet,
and
it's
going
to
just
be
more
difficult
when
that
happens,
and
I
just
feel
almost
like,
if
we're
going
to
that
kind
of
density,
we
need
to
look
at
it
more
holistically.
U
It
needs
to
be
like
a
neighborhood
plan.
It's
going
to
be
like
a
change
area
and
a
fact.
It's
like
a.
I
almost
want
a
precise
plan.
I
know
it
all
sounds
ridiculous,
but
I
feel
like
well.
We
have
to
make
a
neighborhood
out
of
this.
It's
huge
and
you
know
where
what
about
the
schools,
what
about
the
parks,
and
so
it
just
it
just
gets
me
thinking
about
that
kind
of
thing.
U
I
would
love
if
we
could
get
transportation
in
there
and
move
it
around
so
that
it
does
become
something
that
is
transit
oriented
if
we're
going
to
that
density.
I
just
don't
know
that
we
can
do
it
just
from
the
city
side,
but
you
know,
let's
get
creative,
maybe
it's
a
possibility,
but
before
we
jump
into
sort
of
semi-permanent
zoning
changes
I
would
rather
ensure
that,
or
at
least
try
to
look
at
it
more
holistically
to
make
sure
we're
not
creating
areas
where
it's
just
density
for
density
sake
without
any
of
the
amenities
or.
H
H
I
think
that
when
we
get
proposals
from
developers,
if
we
say
four
stories,
they're
going
to
go
to
eight
stories,
if
that's
what
the
zoning
says-
and
I
I
think
to
commissioner
yen's
point-
we
aren't
going
to
have
density
for
density
sake
without
considering
the
rest
of
the
the
adjacent
neighborhoods
and
the
transportation,
and
all
that
that
is
involved.
So
I
you
know,
I
think,
the
you
know
the
heights
in
these
particular
areas.
H
We
need
to
just
be
quite
quite
just
very
questioning
as
to
whether
these
are
the
right
places
for
that
type
of
high
density.
But
I
do
know
that
when
we
place
a
range
of
densities
in
a
particular
zone,
I
can
promise
you
that
the
developers
are
going
to
ask
for
the
highest.
V
So
forgive
me
if
this
is
if
this
is
also
picayune,
but
there's
a
there's
a
parcel
between
the
south
end
of
castro
and
miramani.
It's
blue.
It's
been
labeled
here
for
d4,
it's
south
of
south
belt
camino.
V
V
This
would
put
something
that's
potentially
six
to
eight
stories
if
I'm
reading
it
right
in
the
middle
of
that
neighborhood-
and
you
know
that
road
that
part
of
castro
that's
one
lane
each
way
with
a
bunch
of
traffic
calming
because
of
the
school
and
there's
actually
a
school
on
the
other
side,
too
private
school
on
the
miramar
side.
V
So,
to
put
something
that
dense
in
a
space
where,
like
I
don't
even
like
driving
down
castro
at
nine,
am
in
the
morning
pre-covered
when
there
was
a
lot
more
kids
there,
because
the
traffic
was
so
bad
and
there's
a
place
where
I
don't
this.
This
proposal
almost
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
that
there
would
be
something
proposed
that
dense
like
literally
right
next
to
a
bunch
of
r1.
I
don't.
I
guess
I
feel
like
I'm
missing
something,
and
so
I
so
let
me
just
finish
with
by
saying
this.
V
I
think
that
conversation
about
public
realm
is
really
really
important
and
I'm
not
sure
perhaps
that's
too
much
complexity
for
one
study
in
the
next
study.
We'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
it,
but
I
think
it's
really
really
important
and
part
of
the
reason
it's
important
is
if
we
spring
that
much
lack
of
transition
on
people
it
erodes
the
public
will
and
the
political
will
to
drive
for
more
density.
If
it
really
shocks,
people
and
it
just
is
totally
out
of
proportion.
V
S
Yeah,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Yes,
commissioner
dempsey,
it
doesn't
make
sense
because
that's
an
error.
I
I
saw
a
comment
today
about
that
and
I'm
sorry
that
I
haven't
seen
that
before.
But
that's
my
fault,
that's
a
mapping
mistake
of
that
blue
area
that
you're
talking
about
that
really
should
be
our
3b,
not
r3d.
Next
to
those
one-story
houses
all
around
across
from
the
school.
I
A
R
I
I
I
might
be
a
lone
voice
here
and
I
think
the
biggest
transition
from
a
b
and
c
to
d
is
you're
going
from
the
house
scale
to
the
block
scale,
and
I
I
think
I'm
really
trying
to
keep
that
in
mind
when
talking
about
this
right
I
mean
six
stories
seems
intimidating.
Eight
stories
seems
tall,
but
I
think
on
the
block
scale,
it's
a
different
ball
game.
R
I
I
absolutely
hear
what
my
colleagues
are
saying
about
neighborhood
compatibility,
but
what
would
fall
into
the
the
d
zone
as
I
understand
it,
and
maybe
true,
france
and
you're
right.
There
needs
to
be
a
larger
conversation
of
whether
the
the
d
category
should
be
within
r3
or
r4.
But
I
I
just
urge
all
of
you
to
keep
in
mind
that
we're
talking
about
block
scale
development,
we're
not
talking
about
a
single
family,
one
story
home
next
to
six
to
potentially
eight
stories.
R
At
least
that's
how
I
read
it
and
I
know
we're
early
on,
but
it's
not
the
height
that
scares
me
and
I
I
don't.
I
don't
have
anxiety
about
that,
but
I
think
I
really
want
to
keep
the
end
in
mind,
and
these
are
the
properties
that
are
that
exist
in
these
r3
zones
have
been
there
for
a
long
time,
they're
going
to
be
there
for
a
long
time.
The
change
that
we're
talking
about
is
quite
gradual
and
so
at
some
point
we're
going
to
be
past
this
pandemic.
R
At
some
point,
we
will
not
meet
our
arena
numbers
just
because
of
what
we've
done
in
north
bay
shore
and
east
whisman
right.
This
is
a
huge
opportunity
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're
evaluating
it
in
every
every
lens
possible,
and
so
I
I
just
I
hear
a
lot
of
density
for
density
mistake
and
I
I
don't
think
that's
what
this
is
getting
at.
I
think
this
is
really
trying
to
be.
Let's
be
creative
and
imagine
what
is
you
know
to
commissioner
dempsey's
point?
R
What
is
the
outer
bound
of
what
could
happen
on
these
persons?
I'm
sorry
my
husband's,
and
so
I
I
just
for
me.
What
was
really
illuminating
is
thinking
about
this
at
the
block
scale,
and
I
think
if
we
could
reorient
a
little
bit,
it
would
feel
it
would
make
sense
for
the
longer
term
exercise
that
I
think
we're
embarked
on
tonight.
U
U
It's
just
ensuring
that
when
you
get
density
like
that,
when
you
have
block
scale
development
block
after
block
after
block
of
that
type
of
height
and
intensity,
that
we
are
by
sheer
numbers,
creating
a
neighborhood
and
right
now
that
neighborhood
has
nothing
but
residential,
and
it
just
seems
like
it's
not
really
a
neighborhood
anymore,
that
we
should
take
a
holistic
look
at
not
only
the
public
realm
for
all
of
these,
but
especially
for
those
areas
given
that
they're
lacking
in
so
many
things,
and
so
I
just
wanted,
for
example,.
R
R
I
might
disagree
that
you
know
there
should
be
more
areas
where
there
is
or
3d,
but
we
are
building
significant
services
right
right
across
the
street,
and
so
I
think
that's
where
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
like
how
do
we
look
at
this
integrated
with
what
could
happen
over
the
very
long
term,
because
the
services
that
exist
today
are
not
going
to
be
the
ones
that
exist
tomorrow,
particularly
as
population
growth.
So
I
I
I
that's.
U
We're
the
people
we're
building
for
in
the
very
long
term.
It
seems
like
right
now
we're
getting
for
the
amount
of
density,
we're
increasing
it's
so
hard
to
get
the
publics
that
we're
losing
space
because
well,
as
you
know,
the
school
and
the
city
have
a
joint
use
program
and
you
know
they're
fencing
some
things.
U
Often
a
lot
of
neighborhoods
are
in
fact
feeling
like
they're
losing
their
parks,
so
unless
everybody
can
hike
it
up
to
north
bay
shore,
the
very
north
end
of
our
city,
it's
not
that
every
neighborhood
has
a
ton
of
parks
and
places
to
go
and
to
benefit
and
have
equitable
access
to
you
know
all
the
health
benefits
that
come
from
that
being
in
a
very
walkable
area.
So
when
you
get
that
many
people
coming
in-
and
I
believe
even
optico
said
in
this
area-
it's
not
that
gradual.
U
A
lot
of
other
areas
have
it
they.
You
know
somebody
mentioned
in
public
comments
that
you
know.
Cuesta
park
is
great.
All
the
people
around
cuesta
park
are
probably
very
happy
with
that.
It's
a
high
quality
life
for
them,
but
if
we're
going
to
densify
and
have
block
blocks
and
blocks
of
six
story
that
there's
a
huge
chunk
up
north
of
central
avenue,
that
needs
to
be
a
full-on
neighborhood
and
I
just
feel
like.
U
T
Yeah,
so
I
earlier
pointed
out
the
my
concern
about
the
really
high
density
area
near
el
camino
and
rainstorm,
and
I
certainly
do
hope
that
it's
spilled
out,
as
is
designed
to
be
a
complete
neighborhood,
to
perhaps
have
a
village
center
to
have
really
walkable
bikeable
streets
with
lots
of
greeneries,
so
that
people
who
live
there
in
the
future
can
really
have
a
lot
of
amenities
and
healthy
environment.
T
O
A
Then
the
last
part
of
this
was
the
general
locations.
We
started
touching
a
little
bit
on
it
here.
Christian
meyer
mentioned
with
a
medial
comment:
michigan's
been
kind
of
talking
about
the
the
california
street
area.
Do
we
wanna
just
quickly?
Are
there
any
comments
on
in
general,
on
the
locations
of
our
for
our
3a
areas
or
people
generally?
B
R
What's
in
the
existing
area,
so
I'm
I
I'm
fine
with
it.
I
mean
I
think,
that
I'll
leave
it
there.
A
Okay
other
comments
on
a
okay
locations
of
b
and
then-
and
I
made-
I
guess-
maybe
I'll-
maybe
change
the
comma
a
little
bit
areas
where
you
think
b
might
make
sense.
Okay,
there's
where
staffing
up
because
they've
placed
it,
but
maybe
is
it.
Does
it
make
sense
to
you
that
our
three
b's
are
in
those
areas
and
is
there
someplace
else
that
that
should
be
kind
of
a
comment,
but
they
also
could
also
be
valuable
because
any
feedback
on
that.
A
Oh
comfortable
with
r4b,
okay
r4c,
I
think
chair
little,
were
you.
Are
you
referring
in
your
comments
to
that
area?
That's
kind
of
like
a
shaped
like
a
seven,
I'm
in
the
north
of
central
expressway
and
in
the
density,
or
are
we
referring
to
the
in
the
r4d,
the
area
kind
of
below
central
expressway
at
southwest
central
expressway?
I
just
want
to.
T
A
A
T
I'm
sorry,
my
previous
comment
was
referring
to
r3d.
A
T
Yeah,
the.
A
A
We've
heard
some
comments
on,
I
guess
to,
if
I
may,
I
guess,
respond
to
some
of
commissioner
hamer's
comments
and
actually
some
of
the
comments
in
the
community.
A
I'm
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
generally
disappointed
with
in
this
is
the
is
the
lack
of
proximity
to
high
quality
transit,
while
I'm
not
too
enthusiastic
about
the
r3d
doing
if
it
is
something
like
an
r3d
or
an
r4
in
that
area
of
del
media,
because
there
is
already
high
density
in
the
area,
it's
very
close
to
the
caltrain
station,
it's
close
to
the
ata
bus.
A
Stop
that
to
me
seems
like
a
very
logical
area
to
have
something
higher
density,
whether
it's
whatever
we
call
it
earthwork,
r3d
or
r4,
the
random
items
that
commissioner
dempsey
mentioned
like
the
one
south
on
on
castro,
the
the
eight
story,
building
at
the
corner
of
middle
field
and
easy
street-
I
just
don't
get
so.
I
I'm
more
comfortable
with
the
idea
of
if
we're
going
to
go
for
higher
density.
A
Look
at
as
an
area
and
to
use
my
term
for
commissioner
yin's
holistic
is:
let's
do
a
precise
plan
on
the
california
latham
corridor.
Okay,
if
we're
going
to
look
at
potentially
changing
that
area
from
two-story
r3
into
something
that
is,
you
know
more
like
an
r4
that
to
me
needs
to
be
something
that's
thought
about
at
a
much
broader
level.
We're
looking
at
you
know
how
do
these
things
all
fit
together?
Where
are
the
amenities
that
might
go
into
it?
A
Do
there
need
to
be
perks
associated
with
it,
so
I'm
not
necessarily
adverse
long
term
to
looking
at
more
density
in
that
california
latham
quarter,
but
I
don't
feel
that
dropping
an
r3
zone
on
top
of
it
is
the
way
to
accomplish
that.
If
the,
if
the
intention
of
the
city
is
to
is
to
look
at
that
area
and
say,
can
we
make
it
more
dense,
and
how
do
we
do
that?
Then?
This
feels
like
a
much
bigger
project.
We
have
that
area.
A
That's
in
blue
is
bigger
than
san
antonio,
it's
bigger
than
downtown
it's
not
quite
as
big
as
east
westman,
but
it's
as
big
as
most
it'd
be
like
the
third
or
fourth
biggest
precise
plan
in
the
entire
city.
It's
that
much
area
of
the
city,
so
I
just
I
agree
with
commissioner
again
that,
if
we're
going
to
do
something
in
an
area
it
needs
to
be
holistic
and
holistic
to
me
means
precise
plan,
and
I
I
wouldn't
put
any
of
the
the
the
only
other
one
that
I
thought
about.
A
If
the
intention
is
that
that
becomes
a
bigger
community
center,
then
we
ought
to
be
looking
at
that
as
well
as
a
holistic
area,
and
how
does
how
did
that?
How
does
that
all
fit
together?
I
think
I'm
reluctant
to
say,
let's
drop
in
an
r4d
on
top
of
what
is
basically
a
parking
lot
and
the
the
church
over
there.
The
the
buddhist
temple
just
seems
like
it
should
be
well
more
thought
out
if
we're
going
to
look
at
doing
that
in
that
area.
So.
V
I
think
you,
you
said
very
well
better
than
I
perhaps
what
I
was
feeling
I'm
not
really
ready.
Perhaps
that's
not
what
we're
doing,
but
I'm
not
really
ready
to
commit
to
kind
of
the
way
this
map
has
been
put
out.
I
think
it
needs
a
lot
more
thinking
and
some
moving
around
pieces.
I
mean
clearly
there's
some
pieces
here
that
that
aren't
even
right
yet,
but
you
know
density
has
it's
great
because
it
brings
housing
that
we
desperately
need.
V
It
also
has
impacts,
and
I
think
there
has
to
be
at
least
a
little
bit
of
discussion
about
sort
of
the
equity
impacts
of
of
density
and
growth,
because
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
too
much
of
the
growth
kind
of
pushed
to
one
place
or
another,
or
at
least
if,
if
it's
going
to
be
really
really
concentrated,
we're
aware
and
we're
thinking
about
what
the
impacts
for
the
people
who
live
there
are
going
to
be,
and
that's
not
something
I'm
prepared
to
do
today,
but
maybe
we
could
save
that
for
2022.
B
A
Okay,
then,
the
last
item
that
staff
had
asked
about
was
the
were
these
overlays
supporting.
Do
we
support
the
the
height
overlay
and
the?
A
I
wasn't
quite
sure
what
you
call
the
sd,
what
that
actually
stands
for
special
requirements,
sound
barriers,
kind
of
thing.
That
seems,
like
the
other
question,
that
the
staff
was
looking
for
some
feedback
on.
Commissioner
dempsey,
did
you
have
okay,
you're
supportive
of
stats
proposal.
A
Nod
vice
chair
yep,
commissioner
dempsey,
okay,
okay,
so
we're
all
supportive
of
of
the
approach
this
has
proposed
there
and
then
any
just
just
any
other.
Any
other
general
comments
from
epc
for
guidance
for
the
for
staff
and
the
opticos
as
they
go
forward
here.
C
Yes,
I
very
much
appreciate
the
comments
and
this
will
will
proceed
to
counsel
with
this
information.
Thank.
A
S
A
A
B
Yeah
a
couple
announcements
first
wanted
to
relay
from
eric
that
you
received
the
request
from
those
hoping
to
attend
the
planning
commissioners
academy
and
he's
going
to
be
in
touch
with
you
guys
shortly
and
just
wanted
to.
Let
you
know
that
on
april,
7th
staff
will
be
bringing
forward
the
annual
review
of
the
general
plan
action
plan
to
epc.
A
Commissioners,
let's
julo.
T
Thank
you
chair.
I
wanted
to
announce
that
on
march
13th,
the
city's
forestry
team
and
canopy
collaborated
on
a
arbor
week,
stevens
creek
trail
community
tree
work
day,
so
a
number
of
volunteers
worked
a
morning
shift
and
planted
10
trees
along
the
stretch
of
stephens
creek
trail
between
the
sleeper
trailhead
and
el
camino.
That
part
of
the
trail
is
very
close
to
highway
85.
T
Mayor,
kamay
and
vice
mayor
ramirez.
Were
there
as
well
volunteering
for
part
of
the
work
day,
and
so,
as
these
trees
grow
up,
they
will
help
mitigate
the
noise,
the
pollution
and
the
sight
of
the
highway,
making
the
trail
more
friendly
for
users
and,
of
course
this
was
in
collaboration
of
friends
of
stephens
quick
trail
as
well.