►
From YouTube: 10-23-2019: Environmental Planning Commission Meeting
Description
Council Chambers, 500 Castro St., Mountain View, CA 94041
7:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 23, 2019
A
D
A
We
have
no
minutes
to
approve,
so
we
will
skip
from
3.0
to
4.0,
which
is
oral
communications
from
the
public.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
Commission
on
any
matter,
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes.
During
this
section.
A
E
Good
evening,
chair
and
members
of
the
Commission,
my
name
is
Diana
Pancholi
senior
planner,
with
the
city's
Planning
Division
I
have
with
me
tonight.
Our
advance
planning
manager,
mr.
Martin
Alki
and
Eric
York
ovitch,
representing
ramune,
associates
our
consultant
on
the
terrible
evasion
plan
project.
E
So
for
tonight's
meeting
staff
is
presenting
the
final
version
of
the
turbo
low
vision
plan
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
approval,
adoption
or
other
alternatives.
A
little
bit
of
introduction
to
the
project.
The
travela
vision
plan
area
is
in
the
of
the
city
between
us,
101
and
Middlefield
on
two
sides
of
north
shoreline
Boulevard
along
Terra
Bella
Avenue.
It's
an
hundred
and
four
acre
project
site
with
the
existing
general
plan.
Land
use,
designation
and
zoning
designation,
which
is
purely
industrial.
E
The
existing
uses
on
site
are
predominantly
office
and
R&D,
with
some
amount
of
environmental
contamination
towards
the
north
along
the
west
of
shoreline
Boulevard
how
we
started
this
process.
Council
had
been
receiving
a
lot
of
development
proposals
in
this
area
and
there
was
a
lot
of
market
demand
for
additional
housing
in
the
area
as
well.
But
when
we
did
our
2030
general
plan,
which
is
the
vision
for
the
entire
city,
this
area
was
not
identified
as
a
change
area.
E
At
that
point
of
time,
Council
directed
staff
to
go
and
do
a
visioning
process
to
understand
what
is
the
vision
of
the
community
and
what
is
our
appetite
for
development
in
this
area?
What
can
we
really
do?
What
is
the
public
input
and
that's
how
we
started
with
the
visioning
process,
which
began
in
April
2018?
E
This
visioning
process
has
been
a
targeted
community
outreach
effort
as
part
of
the
process
since
April
2018,
we
have
done
two
community
meetings
to
community
workshops,
one
community
meeting
several
stakeholder
interviews.
We
also
came
back
to
our
Planning
Commission
and
City
Council
during
study
sessions
to
get
directions
on
key
topics
and
inputs
and
as
a
towards
the
end
of
the
process.
Tonight
we
are
presenting
it
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
a
city
council
meeting
is
tentatively
scheduled
in
November
following
this
EPC
recommendation.
E
So
what
we
did
in
this
process
is
we
received
input
from
various
stakeholders
and
community
members
and
our
decision-makers
on
what
is
the
vision
for
this
area?
Where
do
we
see
this?
What
kind
of
development?
What
are
the
key
considerations
that
we
should
be
thinking
about?
If
we
look
at
future
developments
in
the
area,
what
are
the
guiding
principles
which
are
actually
driving
the
of
demand
that
me
might
see
or
what
we
would
like
to
see
in
the
area?
E
We
also
focus
on
what
are
some
of
the
key
development
strategies
that
we
should
be
thinking
about
when
we
review
future
developments
and,
in
the
end,
another
key
aspect
of
the
input
we
receive
was
regarding
what
kind
of
land
uses
we
want
to
see.
How
are
they
distributed?
How
does
that
attain
what
we
want
to
see
in
the
area
and
also
a
little
bit
about
building
heights.
E
So,
at
the
last
study
session
meeting,
where
we
heard
from
city
council
on
some
of
the
key
topics,
the
main
topic
that
we
discussed
was
what's
the
preferred
land
use
for
this.
For
this
area,
based
on
EPC
recommendation
and
with
some
additional
modifications,
City
Council
actually
supported
the
lower
intensity
land
use
alternative,
which
was
alternative
six.
E
This
included
some
further
focus
on
better
transitions
along
single-family
residential
neighborhoods
and
allowing
up
to
five
storey
residential
along
middlefield
Avenue
towards
west
of
shoreline,
with
some
amount
of
transfer
of
development
rights
possibilities
or
possibilities
for
expanding
school
Crittenden
middle
school
along
that
area
as
well.
So
this
is
the
revised
land
use
vision
plan,
which
is
also
included
in
the
Vision
Plan
document,
as
figure
3.1.
This
will
has
been
revised
based
on
the
input
that
we
received
at
the
last
City
Council
meeting.
E
So
did
most
of
the
three
council
members
agreed
that
we
do
need
a
precise
plan
for
having
more
organized
development
in
the
indicator,
Bella
area,
but
later
on,
at
the
council
goal-setting
session,
depending
upon
the
prior
other
priorities
and
other
tasks,
a
precise
plan
for
turbo
was
not
identified
as
a
priority
item.
So
we
were.
E
I
would
just
like
to
clarify
some
of
the
key
questions
that
I've
been
receiving
throughout
the
process,
and
maybe
it
will
be
helpful
for
our
community,
our
decision-makers
and
development
community.
As
well,
it
is
not
a
legislative
change.
A
vision
plan
document
is
a
guiding
a
document.
It
is
going
to
direct
us.
It's
going
to
provide
us
guidelines
on
how
to
review
how
to
propose
developments
and
review
them
for
future
in
this
area.
We're
not
changing
any
zoning.
Your
properties
underlying
zoning
is
not
going
to
change
we're,
not
changing
any
general
plan.
E
Land
use
designation
as
part
of
this
visioning
process.
No
technical
studies
have
been
done
in
terms
of
detail,
transportation,
analysis,
sequin
alysus.
We
have
not
done
any
of
those
studies,
they'll
be
done
as
part
of
future
master
plan,
precise
plan
development
review
process.
That
is
what
this
vision
plan
document
is
and
I'll
dive
further
into
that.
So
the
vision
plan
really
guides
us
through
these
five
chapters.
E
Chapter
one
is
basically
introduction
and
key
considerations
for
this
area
chapter
two
further
dives
into
what
are
the
guiding
principles
and
things
which
are
really
important
which
are
going
to
guide
the
development
in
the
future.
We,
what
kind
of
outreach
efforts
were
done
as
part
of
this
process
which
guided
us
to
these
principles?
Chapter
three
further
defines
what
is
the
land
use
vision
for
the
area
based
on
the
input
that
we
have
received
so
far,
and
what
kind
of
development
character
that
we
would
like
to
see,
or
we
encourage
and
require
fill-in
future
developments.
E
Chapter
four
really
talks
about
development
principles
and
strategies
for
future
development.
These
development
strategies
are
focusing
on
you
know
the
underlying
zoning
is
industrial,
but
if
you
want
to
come
in
for
higher
intensity
development,
a
different
land
use
type,
you
will
need
a
zoning
and
a
general
plan
modification
at
that
point
of
time.
E
Basically,
talks
about
transportation,
network
vision
for
the
area
and
some
amount
of
street
design
concepts
so
driving
into
the
vision
plan,
strategies
I
think
the
the
key
strategy
that
is,
or
the
biggest
one
that
is
coming
out
of
this
vision
plan
document
is
how
are
we
going
to
implement
it
and
I
think
that
has
been
a
question
in
everyone's
mind
since
we
started
this
process,
if
you're
not
gonna,
do
a
precise
plan,
then
what
is
the
legislative
change?
There's
none.
So
how
are
you
going
to
implement
it?
We
doing
the
visioning
process.
E
That
said,
staff
is
requiring
a
master
plan
for
any
development
to
happen
in
area.
First,
you
need
to
come
in
with
a
master
plan,
one
each
for
east
side
and
west.
The
way
it
has
been
proposed
right
now.
We
are
not
envisioning,
multiple
masters
master
plants
in
each
side,
we're
just
saying
one
for
East
one
for
West
the
vision
plan
further
goes
into
the
requirements
of
a
master
plan.
E
So
these
key
development
strategies
that
counsel
indoors
have
been
highlighted
in
Chapter
three
and
four
of
the
vision
plan.
They
again
talk
about
neighborhood
transitions
to
provide
better
transitions
between
single-family
residential
zones
and
the
proposed
future
development.
We
have
specified
some
kind
of
requirements
for
parks
and
open
spaces
for
acres
of
park,
space
on
east
and
west
side
both
and
there
are
other
strategies
through
which
we
will
be
able
to
get
a
more
open
space
and
parks.
E
In
conclusion,
staff
would
like
to
say
that
again,
this
has
been
a
targeted
community
outreach
effort.
The
summary
is
of
public
input
and
series
vision
for
the
area
and
the
guiding
principles
it
tells
about
guiding
principles
to
support
review
of
future
developments
in
the
area
with
this
staff
will
recommend
that
environmental
Planning
Commission
should
recommend
the
City
Council
to
approve
the
turbo
low
Vision
Plan.
E
Alternatively,
EPC
can
also
consider
modifications
to
the
final
tribal
Vision
Plan
or
do
not
accept
the
final
turbo,
low,
Vision
Plan
and,
as
I
said
earlier,
City
Council
meeting
has
been
tentatively
scheduled
on
November
17th
next
month.
This
concludes
staff,
presentation
staff
and
the
consulting
team
is
here.
If
you
guys
have
any
questions
happy
to
answer.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
Diana,
so
for
those
of
you
who
are
not
familiar
with
how
the
Planning
Commission
conducts
meetings
the
first
portion,
we
will
have
questions
of
staff
by
the
commissioners
to
clarify
parts
of
the
the
precise
I'm.
Sorry,
the
visiting
plan.
That
may
not
be
clear
to
us
or
things
that
we
made
want
to
have
further
clarification.
A
Then
the
meeting
will
be
open
to
public
comment
and,
depending
on
how
many
people
will
want
to
speak,
we
will
make
a
determination
of
how
long
each
person
will
have
to
speak,
and
then
we
will
take
it
back
to
the
Commission
for
questions.
I'm,
sorry
deliberation
and
then
we
will
come
up
with
our
recommendation
to
city
staff
for
them
to
take
to
City
Council.
So
with
that,
I
have
one
question,
then
I'll
open
it
up
to
the
other
commissioners.
A
F
E
E
F
And
let
me
ask
a
few
other
questions:
I
want
to
understand
the
residential
types
on
the
east
side
of
Terra
Bella,
up
against
the
existing
Sterling
Heights,
Cerrone,
Estates,
sorry,
single-family
residence
we've
got
like
three
storey
residential
and
that
we've
got
five
storey
residential
and
then
we've
got
a
street.
So
I'd
like
to
understand
a
little
bit
more
detail.
How
are
people
going
to
get
in
between
the
three
storey
and
five
storey
residential
which,
where
is
the
front
of
these
properties
going
to
be
like,
particularly
for
the
three
storey
residential?
So.
E
That
level
of
analysis
we
have
not
done,
we
can
certainly
give
you
a
couple
of
you
know
probable
answers
of
what
that
could
be.
But,
as
I
said,
you
know
when
further
detailed
master
plan
will
be
developed
or
when
a
development
will
come
in
for
review
at
that
point
of
time,
you'll
be
able
to
see
further
possibilities
of
what
makes
the
best
sense
out
of
that.
Okay.
F
F
Thing
I
want
to
know
about
is
the
retail
that
is
envisioned
on.
You
know
either
side
of
shoreline
Boulevard,
you
know.
Sometimes
the
traffic
gets
to
be
really
extreme,
particularly
at
the
peak
areas
in
the
morning
and
in
the
evening,
are
people
going
to
be
able
to
like,
let's
say,
I'm
coming
north
on
shoreline
and
it's
six
o'clock
and
all
the
Google
people
are
coming
down
through
there?
Are
we
gonna
have
like
traffic
lights
so
that
you
can
actually
get
into
the
retail
or
I
mean?
Is
that
gonna
require
some
special
review
so.
E
That
will
be
analyze
the
traffic
light,
whether
a
traffic
light
is
actually
required
at
particularly
intersection
or
not.
That
is
an
exceptional
point
of
analysis
with
the
traffic
impact
analysis,
so
I'll
be
done
with
the
projects,
but
the
other
thing
that
we
should
be
remember,
which
you'd
remember,
is
that
we
want
to
see
this
as
a
complete
neighborhood
we
and
do
anticipate
that
it
will
be
serving
the
neighbors
and
the
residents
of
that
area.
So
they
should
not
have
you
know
we
might
see
more
people
more
pedestrian
coming
and
using
the
retail
uses
as
well.
E
F
E
F
And
then
one
other
question
and
I'll
yield
to
others
and
I
may
have
follow
up
and
that's
about.
We
talked
about
parking
garages
and
we
talked
about
cash
out
and
what
I'm
wondering
there
is?
Do
you
envision
needing
special
equipment
in
order
to
be
able
to
you
know,
make
the
cash
out
program
effective.
I
would
think
that
you
know
employees
coming
into
the
garages
are
going
to
have
to
have
like
you
know,
some
recording
of
whether
they
drove
in
there
or
not.
F
E
G
E
Definitely
understands
the
challenges
associated
with
you
know
where
we
are
asking
people
to
come
together
and
come
in
for
a
more
United
approach
for
development.
But
what
I
have
on
screen
is
you
know
some
of
the
guiding
principles
that
we
have
selected
and
as
a
planner,
if
I
have
to
implement
this
and
I
have
to
decide
who's
gonna
put
a
park
on
their
property.
It
is
next
to
impossible
for
me
to
force
anyone
to
do
that
unless
they
all
come
in
collectively.
E
We
look
at
it
at
a
higher
level,
and
we
see
these
are
the
amenities.
These
are
the
things
which
are
important
to
our
community
and
we
need
them
when
individual
gate
keeper
projects
are
reviewed
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
You
know
that
Eastside
of
terrible
will
require
eight
acres
of
parkland
based
on
the
intensities
we
are
proposing,
but
it
doesn't
say
where
and
how
and
in
that
kind
of
a
scenario,
the
last
parcel
which
will
come
in
the
development
he's
really
forced
to
create
that
kind
of
a
park
space.
E
E
Don't
have
a
very
specific
definition
that
has
been
adopted
by
the
city.
What
are
we
going
to
call
as
a
master
plan
or
a
precise
plan
or
a
specific
plan,
but
what
I
would
like
to
say
is
that
you
know
so
far.
We
have
seen
smaller
master
plans.
You
know
a
master
plan
or
a
precise
plan,
or
a
specific
plan
is
the
tool
with
which
we
are
going
to
have
more
in
depth,
analysis
and
detail,
directions
and
requirements.
It's
not
just
a
guideline.
E
It's
going
to
be
a
requirement
of
what's
going
to
be
planned,
where
exactly?
Were
you
going
to
have
streets
where
you're
going
to
have
connections
where
you're
gonna
have
parks
which
parcel
is
gonna,
be
developed
with
what
kind
of
intensities
what
kind
of
design
guidelines
are
going
to
be
implemented
in
those
areas?
What
kind
of
development
character
are
we
going
to
see
in
each
and
every
area
of
the
of
the
development
plan,
and
that
is
the
main
goal
of
creating
a
master
plan?
E
Precise
plan
like
what
we
were
suggesting
in
our
past
meetings,
could
have
been
one
single,
precise
plan
for
the
whole
area.
It's
normally
for
a
greater
area
like
we
have
seen
for
North
Bay,
Shore,
East,
Wisman,
alcaman,
Orioles
and
other
precise
plans
that
we
have
done
in
this
kind.
In
this
case,
it's
going
to
be
for
more
small
area,
but
it
is
still
comparatively
a
bigger
master
plan
than
what
we
have
seen
in
anywhere
else
in
the
city
of
Mountain,
View.
Okay,.
C
E
So
what
the
vision
plan
is
proposing
is
that
before
any
standalone
gatekeeper
project
comes
in,
they
need
to
come
in
for
a
bigger
master
plan
for
east
and
west
side
of
shoreline.
Whether
individual
gatekeepers
are
permitted
or
not.
Whether
we
would
like
to
entertain
them
or
not
is
up
to
Council,
and
that
will
be
a
question
that
will
be
discussed
with
the
City
Council
and
then
in
the
next
meeting.
I.
C
C
E
C
F
A
Any
other
questions
I
have
someone
in
that'll,
maybe
spark
after
you.
Okay,
all
right.
One
thing
that
I
asked
about
earlier
on
page
44
covers
the
master
plan,
and
just
this
is
really
more
of
a
kind
of
a
nitpicking
as
far
as
wording.
It
says
the
west
of
shoreline
requires
a
master
plan
for
the
entire
area
quote
unquote
and
then
it
says
east
of
shoreline
requires
quote
projects
submit
a
master
plan,
so
that
implies
that
each
project,
rather
than
the
whole
east
side.
A
So
you
might
want
to
clarify
that
or
make
that
wording
exactly
the
same,
because
I
took
it
to
mean
that
there
wouldn't
be
as
much
unification
as
it
were
on
the
east
side,
so
just
to
clarify
again
on
this
master
plan
process.
So
let's
say
let's
take
the
west
side
because
it
sounds
easier
because
there's
fewer
property
owners,
so
if
property
owner
B
says
I
want
to
redevelop,
then
property
owner
B
would
go
to
all
the
other
property
owners
on
the
west
side
and
try
to
work
together
to
create
a
master
plan.
A
That
would
then
come
to
the
city.
So
the
city
is
really
not
going
to
be
driving
anything.
The
city
will
be
waiting
for
a
master
plan
to
come
from,
and
everyone
as
I
call
it
recall
in
the
document.
Everyone
has
to
sign
off
on
it
or
at
least
acknowledge
it.
They
don't
have
to
present
individual
projects.
Do
they
know.
E
It
is
not
going
to
be
individual
projects,
it
is
going
to
be,
they
all
have
to
come
together
and
come
in
for
a
single
master
plan.
It
is
not
going
to
be
a
city
led
effort
that
is
not
in
the
plan.
So
far
we
don't
know
what
modifications
might
come
in
the
future,
but
at
this
point
of
time
the
way
it
has
been
proposed-
it
is
not
gonna,
be
a
city
led
process.
City
will
be
just
reviewing
the
the
development
application
of
a
map
master
plan.
So.
A
How
much
detail
is
same
property
owner
B
has
a
specific
owns.
You
know
several
acres
and
has
a
very
clear
sight
of
what
they
want
to
do,
but
the
other
property
owners
are
are
not
of
a
mind
to
develop
right
away.
So
could
the
property
owner
be
go
ahead
and
develop
their
prod
their
their
property
and
then
not
have
the
rest
of
them
be
clear
as
far
as
how
those
properties
will
be
developed,
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
exactly
how
fine-tuned
so.
E
Something
that
we
discussed
very
recently
as
part
of
our
assessment,
precise
plan
process
and
something
that
we
are
working
on
right
now
in
North,
Bay
Shore,
with
our
gateway
master
plan
process,
we
can
have
phasing,
there
can
be
phase
development
as
of
masterplan,
and
that
is
going
to
give
that
relief
too.
You
know
the
property
owners
or
the
section
of
the
area
which
doesn't
need
to
be
developed
right
away
and
others
which
are
ready
to
move
forward
and
develop
under
and
ask
for
the
master
plan.
A
E
A
E
I
would
just
like
to
reiterate
that
we
have
not
done
any
kind
of
technical
analysis
as
part
of
the
visioning
process
and
the
fine
person
metric
that
you
are
looking
at
here
has
been
inspired
from
our
east-west
and
precise
plan
and
the
North
Bay
Shore
precise
plan,
which
have
been
the
guiding
documents
for
a
lot
of
the
development
strategies
that
we
have
proposed
in
the
Vision
Plan
document.
Here.
Okay,.
A
E
The
way
we
look
at
the
vision,
plan,
development
guidelines
and
requirements
is
that
this
is
our
best
foot
forward
in
terms
of
the
realistic
possibility
of
development
with
these
requirements,
there's
always
a
possibility
of
negotiation
on
for
each
and
every
development
standards
or
requirements
in
the
future.
When
we
review
a
master
plan,
whether
we
develop
a
precise
plan
or
we
review
individual
development
through
gatekeeper
process,
so
this
is
the
best
that
we
thought
is
feasible
based
on
our
industry
experience
and
what
we
feel
is
feasible
in
this
area.
It
can
definitely
be
increased
again.
E
F
You,
chair,
Merida,
okay,
so
just
to
reprieves
on
the
question.
I
was
asking
for
now
that
I
understand
that
that
path
between
the
residential
light
industrial
is
not
actually
a
street.
So
then
it's
fair
to
say
that
this
vision
plan
on
the
east
side
doesn't
envision.
Adding
any
new
public
streets
is
that
right.
E
F
F
F
And
fair
enough,
then
let
me
ask
another
question
about
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
also
on
the
east
side,
because
there's
a
number
of
you
know
very
small
landowners
over
there.
Even
people
who
owned
single-family
homes-
and
you
know
what,
if
somebody
one
of
them
decided
I,
just
don't
want
you
know
to
participate
in
this,
I
mean
if
you
go
up
to
like
where
the
Costco
is
right.
There's
still
one
person
living
in
a
single-family
home
right
up
there
and
I.
Could
envision
that's
possible
here
so
I
mean?
Is
it
like?
F
E
Are
all
good
possibilities
and
they
are
realistic
possibilities
as
well.
It
depends
upon
what
is
the
stance
that
City
Council
wants
to
take
for
development
in
the
area,
and
you
know
whether
we
want
to
achieve
all
these
goals
that
we
have
put
in
the
document
or
not,
and
there
there
is
a
very
good
possibility
that
you
know
some
of
the
parcels
who
don't
want
to
see
doing
more
than
what
the
existing
zoning
allows
can
remain
asses.
They
can
still
be
participating
in
that,
but
not
developing.
Okay,.
F
J
F
And
then
another
question
we
talked
about,
you
know
the
conceptual
open
spaces
right,
and
so
you
know
those
are
like
these
are
nice
places
that
we
think
would
be
good
places
to
put
an
open
space.
Then
it's
not
again.
It's
not
in
stone,
but
one
concern
I
had
was
that
the
document
said
that
it's
possible
to
substitute
community
benefits
for
open
space
and
I
I.
Guess
I'd,
like
some
insurance,
that
it
doesn't
mean
that
you
could
substitute
community
benefits
for
all
open
space
because
they
didn't
see
the
language
in
there
I
mean.
E
The
way
the
vision
plan
envisions
this
and
I
would
like
to
answer
this
in
two
parts.
Actually,
the
first
is
the
way
the
vision
plan
envisions
is
that
you
know,
depending
upon
the
kind
of
intensities
that
we
are
anticipating
in
this
area,
based
on
our
non
technical
vision
plan,
we
will
need
around
16
acres
of
open
space
throughout
this
whole
vision
plan
area.
Considering
you
know,
80
acres
of
parkland
requirement
on
each
side.
We
are
putting
a
requirement
of
at
least
four
acres
of
parkland
dedication
on
each
side.
E
We
do
anticipate
that
you
know,
based
on
the
last
council
meeting
and
a
couple
of
past
projects,
we
are
looking
a
lot
of
new
private
development
with
publicly
accessible
prop
but
privately
maintained,
open
spaces.
That
will
be
another
means
of
getting
additional
open
space.
Then
some
of
the
open
space
can
be
shared
with
the
schools,
and
some
of
the
open
space
requirement
will
be
met
will
be
met
by
the
in
low
fee
payment,
which
can
then
be
developed
into
a
open
space
by
city
itself.
So
these
are
different
measures.
E
It
is
not
that
one
is
going
to
substitute
the
other,
we're
putting
that.
You
know
based
on
the
development
that
we
envision
for
acres
is
a
minimum
requirement
as
a
parkland
dedication
on
each
side,
and
this
is
exactly
why
staff
feels
that
we
need
to
have
a
more
organized
approach
to
make
sure
we
get
those
parks
and
we're
saying
we
should
do
a
master
plan.
Thank.
C
I'm
fully
understanding
this,
so
there
is
no
change
in
zoning.
There's
no
legislative
component
to
this.
So
while
this
may
be
what
we
think
is
a
great
idea
right
now,
any
and
all
development
requires
a
gatekeeper
or
a
master
plan
at
councils
decision,
no
matter
what
and
because
there's
no
actual
zoning
change
or
legislative
component.
This
could
be
completely
ignored
in
those
processes
without
any
clear
recourse,
correct.
E
Yes,
you're
correct
in
that
it
is
a
guiding
document,
but
this
process
and
this
project
has
been
initiated,
because
that
was
the
council's
decision
to
see
what
can
we
develop
in
this
area
and
if
we
have
put
in
so
much
effort
into
this,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
do
respect
the
kind
of
input
we
have
received.
The
way
we
envision
using
this
document
is
that
if
I'm
a
developer,
I'm
gonna,
say
okay,
this
is
the
most
recent
expectation
from
the
city.
E
This
has
been
endorsed
by
the
City
Council
and
the
EPC
by
the
community.
This
is
where
I
start.
There
will
definitely
be
negotiations
unless
we
create
a
precise
plan
and
change
the
zoning,
but
unless
we
do
that,
when
someone
is
going
to
come
in
with
their
development
proposal,
this
is
the
baseline,
where
they
should
be
starting.
E
If
you
know
certain
things
can
be
replaced,
certain
development
standards
can
be
replaced,
but
the
City
Council
will
have
to
actually
endorse
it
and
support
it,
and
based
on
that,
it
can
be
changed
when
city
staff
will
be
assisting
someone
to
say
what
kind
of
development
can
be
proposed
here
or
what
will
be
more
feasible
and
supported
by
council.
This
is
the
document
which
we
are
going
to
show
and
say.
This
is
where
you
should
start
the.
H
Know
that
we've
approved
a
lot
of
projects
in
recent
past
and
a
lot
of
them
require
very
robust
TDM
s.
Have
there
been
any
projects
that
have
been
developed
and
we've
had
enough
time
where
we
see
that
follow-through
and
can
get
any
data
back,
or
is
that
something?
That's
so
new
that
we
we
don't
have
enough
information?
We.
E
Do
have
projects
where
we
should
have
been
approved,
such
as
the
Samson
project,
which
was
approved
back
in
the
day
with
20%
TDM
requirement.
We
there
are
projects
with
which
we
can
come
in.
There
might
not
be
too
much
history
on
that,
but
whatever
data
we
have,
we
can
do
an
effort
on
collecting
them,
and
maybe
there
will
be
a
bigger
requirement
once
we
do
a
TDM
ordinance,
yeah.
K
A
A
E
At
this
point
of
time,
the
only
project
under
entitlement
process
is
the
dorama
veer
off,
which
is
of
considerable
nature,
is
the
residential
gatekeeper
at
1001
North
Shore
line
and
the
intersection
of
turbo
and
shoreline
Boulevard
towards
the
northeast
quadrant
of
this
precise
one
area
that
is
under
review
right
now.
It's
a
gatekeeper
project
and
yeah
staff
is
working
on
that.
Okay,.
E
That
is
not
scope
of
the
vision
plan
at
this
point
of
time.
The
key
consideration
that
we
have
asked
so
far
in
the
vision.
You
know
what
kind
of
development
in
terms
of
land
uses
and
intensities
what
are
the
key
features
in
terms
of
amenities
and
stuff
which
are
important
to
us.
Architectural
styles
are
completely
different.
E
The
recent
precise
lands
that
we
have
developed,
whether
it
was
North
Bay,
Shore,
East,
West,
mint,
San
Antonio.
We
do
have
some
design
guidelines
and
some
discussion
about
that,
but
architectural
styles.
We
have
not
developed
them
in
a
full-fledged
precise
plans
either.
So
that
is
a
totally
different
task
and
outside
the
scope
of
this
vision,
plan
task.
A
A
E
So
far
it
has
been
just
possibilities.
We
don't
know
where
exactly
that's
gonna
be
discussing
with
epc
and
City
Council.
There
has
been
a
lot
of
talk
about
expansion
of
Crittenden
middle
school,
which
is
exactly
next
adjacent
to
the
parcel
which
has
been
shown
on
the
map
right
here,
and
that
has
been
the
basic
guiding
consideration
for
that.
A
Okay
and
then
one
last
question
on
parking
on
page
36,
regarding
parking
being
counted
in
FA,
are
on
residential
and
not
being
counted
for
commercial
I
know
we're
exploring
that
and
other
precise
plans.
And
can
you
explain
staffs
thinking
this
recommendation
and
does
this
potentially
diminish
the
amount
of
housing
that
could
be
provided.
E
Our
intent
is
not
to
diminish
the
amount
of
housing
that
can
be
provided,
but
certainly
what
we
have
practiced
so
far
is
that
you
know
when
we
have
an
office
development.
We
are
not
accounting
the
parking
square
footage
in
it,
but
when
we
are
having
a
residential
development,
we
do
account
the
parking
square
footage
in
it
and
I
think
that's
how
we're
going
to
move
forward
with
that.
A
A
A
I
I
I
Name
is
Rex,
Blaine
I
live
on
San,
Pablo,
Drive
and
I
would
be
on
the
eastern
side
of
Terra
Bella.
So
these
are
some
models
that
are
neighborhood
with
Albert's
help
built
to
visualize
what
it
would
look
like
with
the
current
forty
five-foot.
Setbacks
have
been
proposed
in
the
current
vision
plan.
So
there
you
see
a
three-story
house
45
feet
from
the
from
the
property
border
of
the
of
the
of
the
current
existing
single-family
residence.
J
I
As
you
can
see,
it's
still
quite
intrusive,
even
with
a
45
foot
setback.
This
is
the
view
from
rooftop
view.
You
can
see
basically
what
the
single-family
residence
would
look
like
on
the
other
side,
and
this
is
what
it
looks
like
from
the
from
the
viewpoint
of
the
person
in
the
single-family
residence
and
what
their
view
would
be
after
the
three-story
building
were
constructed.
D
Hi
I'm
Nancy
weed
I
live
at
the
townhomes
at
Linda,
Vista
and
Middlefield.
Your
vision
is
going
to
be
my
nightmare
unless
you
reduce
proposed
density
and
Heights
improve
transitions,
increase
parking
at
a
Linda,
Vista
middle
field.
Traffic
signal
which
Albert
jeans
will
demonstrate
is
necessary
and
greatly
reduce
the
seven
storey
building
on
shoreline
that
extends
behind
two-story
townhomes,
with
your
knowledge
of
the
current
plan.
D
That
they
will
be
unable
to
hire
the
help
they
need,
because
no
one
is
willing
to
deal
with
the
traffic
in
the
parking
and
don't
count
on
the
retail
happening.
It's
already
possibly
disappearing
at
1001
shoreline,
because
it
generates
too
many
trips
and
the
neighbors
alone
can't
support
it.
Because
of
this,
our
real
estate
values
will
decline.
Sadly,
unlike
your,
and
we
cannot
stay
far
away
or
even
leave,
because
you've
chosen
to
create
high-density
housing
and
extreme
parking
and
traffic
problems
in
an
area
with
some
of
the
lowest
priced
real
estate.
D
We
can't
sell
for
enough
to
replicate
our
current
lifestyle
elsewhere.
We're
neither
wealthy
enough
to
have
a
choice
to
leave
the
area
nor
apparently
wealthy
enough
to
have
an
adequate
voice
in
making
it
livable
prove
me
wrong
that
we
do
have
a
voice
that
you
are
listening.
Do
not
pass.
This
plan
incorporate
the
well-thought-out
changes
presented
by
my
neighbors
tonight.
Thank
you.
Thank.
L
In
the
new
plan,
there
was
figure
three
five
showing
a
residential
neighborhood
transition.
Diagrams
and
I'm
I
decided
to
kind
of
concentrate
on
the
middle
one
there,
which
was
three
story,
townhomes
backing
up
the
the
one-story
residential.
So
if
we
kind
of
zoom
into
what
is
in
this
kind
plan,
the
latest
vision
plan
lacks
proper
two-story
transitions
to
this
three-story
townhomes
and
the
five
story.
Residential's
are
much
too
close
at
160
feet.
L
L
Transition
next
to
existing
one-story
homes
would
be
very
helpful.
Having
tall
high
densities
start
at
four
storeys
instead
of
five
storeys
would
be
much
preferable.
Setting
reasonable
height
limits
on
the
four
five-story
buildings
also
would
be
very
important
in
increasing
the
three
four
and
five
storey
setbacks
from
the
property
line.
L
The
modest
addition
of
a
two-story
transition
provides
substantial
added
privacy
and
more
sunlight
for
our
gardens
and
our
solar
panels
following
the
three-story
townhomes
changing
the
next
transition
from
five
stories
to
four
stories
will
help
limit
taller
buildings
from
looming
over
our
existing
neighborhoods,
not
to
mention
improving
sunlight
to
the
town
homes,
with
a
variety
of
building
types
on
both
sides
of
Terra
Bella
Porter.
Please
make
similar
considerations
of
setbacks
and
building
heights
for
all
the
residents
living
around
the
transition
zone.
Thank
you.
M
Good
evening
my
name
is
Albert
Jane's,
longtime
resident
and
I'd
like
to
talk
to
you
about
the
traffic.
You
said
that
you
know
a
lot
of
this.
We're
gonna
wait
for
the
traffic
studies
to
occur
before
you
decide
on
stuff
or
determine
things,
but
I
want
to
tell
you
I've
done
a
detailed
traffic
study
already
and
I
think
that
these
housing
densities
aren't
sustainable
by
the
road
system.
So
I
hope
to
show
you
that
in
this
presentation,
this
video
actually.
M
So
this
is
the
current
vision
plan
in
3d
last
year,
you
may
remember
I,
actually
calculated
how
many
buildings
could
fit
here,
given
the
constraints
of
transitions
and
how
much
land
area
were
allocating
and
it
turns
out
to
be
what
you
came
up
with
it's
1500
housing.
You
know
it's
20
hundred
residents
based
on
8
acres
of
park
land.
M
This
is
what
the
micro
simulation
that
I
did
shows
for
the
current
existing
conditions,
and
those
of
you
thinner
will
see
lots
of
familiar
things
here,
like
the
big
backup
on
the
off
ramps
from
the
freeways
the
backup
on
shoreline,
which
then
prevents
people
on
Terra
Bella
from
merging
in
here,
you've
got
lots
of
people
doing
u-turns.
Drawing
continues
to
back
up.
This
is
a
little
field
and
oftentimes
the
line
extends
you
know
up
to
the
Safeway
or
even
further,
quite
often
I've
done
this
drive
several
times.
It's
always
been
starts
right
around
here.
M
Actually,
so
that
gave
me
a
lot
of
confidence
that
this
model,
which
was
based
on
actual
traffic
data
for
2000
and
1000
ones,
traffic
impact
analysis.
Ok,
this
shows
the
improvement
that's
going
to
be
coming
Sunday.
Hopefully
soon
the
101
85
off-ramp
realignment,
it
helps
a
lot.
I
was
surprised,
I
was
actually
dubious
and
that's
why
I
modeled
this,
but
it
works
wonders
it
removes
that
impediment
on
the
other
side
of
Bayshore.
M
M
M
So
now
we
have
the
terrible
terrible
plan
which
I
conservatively
estimated
will
generate
another
500
peak
hour
trips,
I
just
superimpose
the
thing
on
here,
so
the
north
of
Asia
is
still
fine.
The
problem
comes
in
here
at
Terra
Bella,
because
you
have
to
let
these
people
in
and
that
takes
away
time
from
shoreline,
and
so
the
shoreline
starts
clogging
up
here.
This
becomes
a
new
bottleneck.
M
Yeah.
If
you
see
what
happens,
it
backs
up
on
shoreline
and
also
backs
up
on
middle
field
now
and
as
time
goes
on,
the
backups
get
longer
and
longer,
and
it
actually
goes
off
the
screen
in
both
sides,
and
then
you
get
Moffett
becoming
impacted,
so
I
would
recommend
that
you
limit
the
density
now
I
mean
this
shows
pretty
conclusive,
we're
heading
for
a
disaster
if
we
don't
limit
the
density
in
this
area.
Thank
you.
Thank.
F
M
J
Mr.
Murtaugh
I
am
a
commercial
property
owner,
one
of
those
small
commercial
property
owners
on
909,
San
Rafael.
That
is
right
now
zoned
as
office
and
light
industrial
and
in
the
vision
plan,
would
be
considered
to
be
the
three-story
residential.
You
know
part
of
the
guiding
principles
number
one
on
the
guiding
principle
list
is
maintaining
Terra
Bella
as
a
strong
center
for
employment.
That's
what
our
property
provides.
J
It's
been
it's
a
small
site,
but
it's
a
15,000
square
foot
building
that's
been
continuously
occupied
over
over
a
length
of
many
many
years
with
minimal
vacancy,
but
really
an
incubator
for
tech
companies.
We've
had
several
successful
companies
in
there.
Our
neighbor
to
the
to
the
rear
of
us
who
couldn't
be
here
tonight,
but
sent
a
letter
in
90
to
San.
Leandro
has
a
similar
property.
We
where's
they
have.
She
has
8
tenants
again
small
2002
five
thousand-square-foot
tenants
that
really
really
need
that
kind
of
space.
J
There
I
know
that
there's
no
zoning
change
necessarily
for
existing
uses,
but
this
is
putting
a
cloud
for
all
of
us
property
owners
on
our
title,
in
fact,
for
us
for
future
sale
ability
and
to
keep
the
our
properties
in
the
use
that
they
are
right.
Now,
we've
expressed
this
besides
the
zoning,
the
bike
path,
we
there
was
a
bike
path
on
our
property
line
and
between
us
and
the
residential
neighbors
to
the
next
of
us.
J
We
have
expressed
it
to
City
Council
on
several
occasions
this
summer,
our
concern
with
the
bike
path
requirements
and
what
it
looks
like
on
our
property
and
now
this
revision,
that's
just
recently
done-
has
a
second
bike
path
along
the
rear
of
our
property,
as
well
as
the
conceptual
open
space
over
lapping,
our
property
line,
so
there's
been
even
more
added
to
what
we
feel
like
is
the
again
the
cloud
of
what
the
potential
of
our
property
looks
like
down
the
road.
So
at
this
point,
we're
not
in
support
of
this.
J
We
we
think
that
the
overlying
principles
we
agree
with,
but
really
putting
that
down
on
a
on
a
plan
and
and
mark
marking
existing
uses
as
different
than
they
are
now
really,
as
you
can
tell
it,
gets
everybody
a
little
riled
up
and,
and
it
gets
us
nervous
as
to
our
viability
of
our
businesses,
our
homes
for
the
future.
Thank
you,
Thank.
N
Hi,
I'm
barbara
hartford
me
and
I
am
a
30-plus
resident
30
year
plus
resident
of
Mountain
View
I
live
in
the
Morgan
Street
area
and
I
wanted
to
just
say
just
a
couple
of
brief
comments.
But
I
wanted
to
say
that
I
do
support
the
comments
that
have
been
made
and
the
information
provided
by
both
both
of
our
speakers
Albert
and.
N
I,
like
you
know,
the
current
current
neighbors
we
have
are
you
know
one
in
two
story:
buildings
and
I
know
that
that's
not
feasible
for
the
future.
I
understand
that
we
need
housing
I'm
fully
in
support
of
that,
but
I
think
as
what
was
presented
earlier.
We
really
need
to
increase
those
transitions.
N
We
need
to
reduce
the
heights
of
the
buildings
that
are
directly
impacting
the
neighborhoods
that
we're
in
now,
and
that
takes
me
back
to
one
of
the
guiding
principles
which
was
number
five
on
the
list
again
maintaining
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
surrounding
Terra
Bella,
and
that
was
from
the
original,
the
original
vision
plan
meetings
and
it's
been
carried
on
all
throughout.
Thank
you.
O
O
Maybe
they
will
suggest
sports
facilities
for
kids
after
school,
maybe
a
public
pool
or
a
park,
perhaps
some
restaurants
or
produce
stores,
basically
anything
that
can
benefit
the
existing
residents
as
well
as
the
rest
of
Mountain
View
and
the
bonus
will
be
walking
distance
at
the
same
time.
Well,
all
I
saw
was
more
homes
and
more
office
buildings.
They
hire
the
better,
the
more
dance,
the
better.
O
Let's
ignore
recycling
center
and
place
homes,
on
top
of
it
and
more
home,
surrounded
and
show
everyone
how
many
we
can
fit
in
this
overlooked
area
after
feedback
from
the
community.
The
guidelines
were
developed
and
they
sound
great,
but
at
the
end,
I
see
a
floating
green
area
not
today,
but
there
was
a
floating
green
summer
park,
some
kind
of
park
and
a
gradual
transition
to
a
very
dense
development.
There
is
no
creativity
or
anything
special
to
make
me
want
to
get
behind
this.
All
I'm
asking
is
before
you
approve
anything,
please
ask
yourself.
O
Is
this
something
I
want
X
to
my
house?
This
is
my
home:
I
can
get
up
and
move.
This
is
where
I
live.
This
is
going
to
be
directly
behind
my
backyard.
Please.
We
would
like
to
see
a
more
realistic
vision
where
the
beautiful
guidelines
are
applied
and
not
just
words
on
paper
and
where
the
existing
facilities
or
offices
that
there
to
stay
are
being
incorporated
in
division
to
show
the
space
that
is
left
there
to
work
with.
Thank
you
thank.
P
Hello,
I'm
Craig
Noah
from
Sterling
estates
and
I'd
like
to
make
three
points,
first
of
which,
over
the
months
that
we've
been
involved
in
this
process,
the
neighbors
have
hammered
on
transitions
and
one
of
the
better
suggestions
that
we
believe
that
we've
made
is
to
create
transitions
that
maintain
some
equality
with
the
surrounding
single-family
neighborhoods,
namely
r1
heights.
For
the
bordering.
P
P
The
second
point
I'd
like
to
make
is
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
consideration
for
the
single-family
homes,
but
Nancy
pointed
out
that
the
Stanton
Place
condominiums
are
going
to
be
adjacent
to
what
appears
to
be
a
five-story
building,
that's
a
three-story
transition,
and
we
would
certainly
like
to
see
something
more
in
keeping
with
what
we've
been
talking
about
as
reasonable
transitions.
And
the
final
point
I'd
like
to
make.
He
is
that
if
I
were
a
retail
business
owner,
I'm,
not
sure
that
I
would
like
to
have
my
business
frontage
on
shoreline.
P
Turning
from
across
shoreline
to
building
on
the
opposite
side
of
traffic
will
be
impeded
or,
if
not
forbidden,
and
so
that
puts
a
traffic
circulation
problem
in
and
that
routing
puts.
If
you
want,
for
example,
to
go
to
a
business
on
the
southbound
side
of
shoreline
between
Terra
Bella,
excuse
me
and
Middlefield,
you
would
need
to
make
a
u-turn,
and
that
puts
you
cutting
through
the
Sterling
Estates
neighborhood
or
going
well
into
another
location.
Where
you
can
make
a
u-turn.
P
Q
For
someone
like
me
who
moved
to
Mountain
View
in
the
last
two
years,
I
was
always
impressed
by
mountain
view,
because
it
has
a
character
of
a
cozy
and
a
quaint
town
and
I
think
this
plan
really
challenges
that
character
and
the
idea
of
Mountain
View
and
the
plant,
which
is
envisioning
five
storey
and
seven
storey
buildings.
Next
to
very
close
to
two-story
buildings,
referential
places
it
will
destroy
overall
the
idea
of
a
beautiful
town.
What
Mountain
View
is
and
I
think
I'm
all
in
for
more
housing.
Q
We
definitely
need
that,
but
I
think
we
should
come
up
with
a
better
and
a
smoother
transition.
I
live
in
Stanton
place
and
I
totally
echo
what
Nancy
and
Craig
mentioned.
It
will
be
a
nightmare
to
see
a
five
storey
building
right
behind
us
and
that's
not
a
very
good
sight,
I'm
sure.
None
of
you
would
like
that
also
I'm
very
concerned
with
the
amount
of
greenery
and
the
trees,
removal
that
this
plan
would
impact.
So
I
think
we
should
make
this
make.
Q
Already
we
have
a
very
hard
time
on
taking
from
India
stuff.
You
try
to
go
and
Middlefield
it's
really
very
hard
to
get
into
middle
field
during
the
peak
of
his
time,
so
I
think
that
something
which
definitely
will
cause
a
lot
of
concern
to
the
residents
around
Linda
Vista
and
definitely
to
Staunton.
Please
members,
that's
all.
Thank
you.
Thank.
R
Evening
my
name
is
Debbie
chin.
First,
thank
you
to
everyone,
Dianna's
team
and
the
council
for
all
your
consideration
that
you've
already
given
on
Terra,
Bella
I,
know,
there's
been
reworking
and
I
feel
like
we're.
Definitely
moving
in
the
right
direction
in
a
lot
of
areas,
I'm
glad
to
see
it
used,
increase
use
of
that
area.
You
know
with
all
the
stakeholders
concerns
addressed.
R
That
parking
lot
is
not
very
deep,
so
my
concern
is
having
so
many
people,
so
many
residents
looking
all
over
the
football
field
and
the
track
and
the
baseball
field
also
there's
going
to
be
on
the
middle
field
side.
This
is
next
to
Crittenden.
Then
there'll
be
two
very
long
blocks.
A
couple
thousand
feet
of
abrupt
five-story
buildings,
a
towering
over
one
side
of
middle
field
and
then
single-family
homes
on
the
other
side
of
middle
field.
So
it's
going
to
give
you
that
kind
of
creepy.
R
You
know
all
those
all
those
old,
very
small,
modest
homes.
On
the
other
side
of
middle
field,
the
more
people
you
cram
into
this
project
area,
the
worse
the
traffic
is
going
to
be.
We
already
talked
about,
and
biking
and
pedestrian.
You
know.
Considerations
are
obviously
ideal,
but
we
see
people
in
Morgan
area
and
Rock
and
Farley
all
the
time
waiting
for
uber
waiting
for
a
lift
just
because
they're,
not
driving
that
doesn't
mean
there
isn't
a
car
creating
traffic
for
them.
R
Crittenden
has
over
600
students
a
lot
of
them
bike,
which
is
awesome,
but
a
good
number
of
them
that
are
biking
are
crossing
the
field.
There's
a
lot
of
close
calls
all
the
time
and
the
more
traffic
increase
is
going
to
decrease
their
safety.
There's
also
a
lot
of
students
that
just
can't
bike
or
walk
to
school.
For
for
various
reasons
you.
F
R
They
have
instruments,
they
have
something
so
finally,
I
know:
we've
had
some
recent
projects
that
were
approved
for
four
storeys
and
turned
into
six
storeys.
So
my
concern
here
is
that
a
5-story
could
turn
into
a
seven-story
which
would
exacerbate
all
the
issues.
I
already
described.
I
hope
you'll.
Take
some
of
these
points
into
consideration
and
again,
thank
you
all
for
your
service
to
the
entire
city
of
Mountain
View.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
S
S
So
we're
gonna
be
neighbors
with
all
the
new
developments
and
I
have
concerns.
I
share
the
traffic
concerns
with
Albert,
and
some
of
these
guys,
but
I
think
that
that's
something
that
can
be
solved.
They
could
be
accounted
for
by
being
more
holistic
and
considering
Street
changes
in
this
plan,
especially
something
like
finding
way
to
had
a
bike
ped
crossing
from
make
on
to
San
Rafael,
underneath
the
101
I
think
that
would
be
nice.
I
also
wish
that
we
had
more
ground-floor
retail
in.
S
S
Right
here,
it'd
be
nice
if
there
were
ground-floor
retail
that
were
walkable
that
wasn't
surrounding
shoreline,
which
is
not
a
pedestrian
friendly
or
Street
crossing
from
the
area.
This
is
something
I
could
see
myself,
walking
down
to
or
biking
down
to,
to
get
to,
and
I
would
love
for
there
to
be
a
district
that
we
could
travel
to
to
take
advantage
of,
given
both
the
existing
residents
up
there
and
the
future
residents
with
all
the
new
housing
that
hopefully,
will
be
coming
in
soon.
S
S
T
Hiya
Patrick
Nashville
above
a
15
year,
Mountain
View
resident
I
live
in
the
Morgan
Street
area
just
north
to
this
person.
I
just
want
to
say,
I
agree
with
the
comments
that
were
made
by
my
neighbors
already
about
building
sizes
and
Heights
and
density
in
the
ER,
and
very
much
appreciate
and
support
them.
Just
have
a
couple
comments
to
add.
T
First
of
all,
a
minor
technical
note
I
know
that
you
said
that
you
wouldn't
be
doing
technical
studies
at
this
point,
but
we
recently
remodeled
our
house
and
did
a
soil
study
and
found
groundwater
eight
feet
below
the
ground
in
the
Morgan
Street
area.
So
if
we're
going
to
make
comments
like
30
foot
parking
garages,
I
think
we
need
to
be
a
little
bit
more
informed.
We
start
assuming
that
there's
enough
parking
density
with
this
density,
development
and
I
would
encourage
you
to
look
for
that
level
of
detail.
T
Second
great,
to
see
the
support
for
additional
school
space
in
the
area,
but
we
want
to
consider
the
schools.
You
know
there's
already
a
lot
of
kids
crossing
the
street
in
middle
field.
We
have
had
accidents
and
I
support.
What
Debbie
said
already
about
the
increased
density
really
needing
more
study
and
the
impact
it
may
have
to
student
safety?
Finally,
just
one
point
that
I
think
hasn't
been
made
yet
is
I.
Think
one
thing
this
vision
plan
doing
is
taking
account
the
other
vision
plans
around
it.
T
Think
at
some
point
you
need
to
step
back
and
look
at
the
big
picture
and
what
the
combination
of
these
plans
is
doing
to
these
neighborhoods
and
I
would
just
encourage
for
this
plan
that
you
consider
some
of
the
lower
height
alternatives
that
have
been
proposed
by
some
of
the
other
residents
tonight.
Thank
you.
U
A
F
Yeah
I'm
gonna
start
with
some
follow-up
questions
based
on
the
testimony
that
I've
heard
okay,
so
you
know
one
sense:
I
I
heard
Ms
piccoli
say
you
know
no
new
net
trips
and
I'm
trying
to
understand
exactly
what
that
means,
because
I
mean
you
know
in
a
sense,
are
you
saying
like
in
the
VMT
sense
of
there
will
be
no
new
net
rips?
You
know
over
the
entire.
F
F
So
another
question
is
I'm.
Trying
to
understand.
One
of
the
gentlemen
sent
us
showed
us
diagrams.
You
know
with
a
different
vision
of
the
residential
that
was
up
against
her
own
estates.
How
wide
are
those
strips
I
mean?
Is
that
envisioned
to
be
like
one
row
or
is
there
room
for
two
rows
there,
or
do
you
have
a
sense
of
that
I.
F
E
At
this
point
of
time,
we
do
not
have
a
clear
sense
on
that
that
will
depend
upon
when
we
get
and
like
a
master
plan
or
a
detailed
development
proposal
and
see
how
people
will
like
to
actually
collect
the
parcels
and
rearrange
the
parcels
and
put
a
development
proposal
up
there.
And
that
would
be
a
correct
time
when
we
can
negotiate
the
amount
of
setbacks.
F
Another
question
I
had
sent
in
a
question
with
several
others
ahead
of
time
asking
about
tree
screening
and
in
particular
I
mean
you
know,
because
they
had
said
in
the
plan
that
you
know
medium
to
large
trees
might
be
used,
as
screening
and
I
think
the
answer
I
got
back
was
it
might
be
possible
to
screen
the
area
in
sterling
estates
so
that
the
height
of
those
trees
were
where
equal
to
the
townhomes
or
at
least
would
just
screen
the
down
homes.
So
people
in
the
single
family
wouldn't
be
able
to
see
them?
E
Cannot
anticipate
that
how
much
it
is
gonna
screen?
It
really
depends
upon
the
type
and
the
species
of
tree
that
you're
gonna
be
planting.
How
tall
you
are,
how
much
distance
away
are
you
looking
at
the
tree
from
landscaping
in
general,
has
been
seen
as
a
good
tool
to
screen
it
about.
It
provides
certain
amount
of
screening,
in
addition
to
other
techniques
that
that
can
be
adopted.
It
is
not
going
to
provide
you
hundred-percent
screening
into
the
adjacent
property.
E
A
E
A
E
A
A
F
I
would
like
us
if
we
could
to
start
with
specific
concerns,
because
I
mean
we
heard
a
lot
of
specific
concerns
from
from
the
testimony
and
I
would
just
I
think
it
would
be
nice
if
we
could.
You
know
just
talk
through
it.
Some
of
those
before
we,
you
know,
do
a
final
up-and-down
vote,
because
we
might
want
to
make
amendments.
Okay,.
A
One
more
question:
I
do
have
for
staff.
There
was
some
concern
about
some
of
the
existing
light
industrial
buildings
that
there
was
concerned
that
the
property
might
be
diminished
and
I
know
this
may
be
hard
for
for
staff
to
answer.
Can
you
clarify
whether
the
property
values
would
be
diminished
if
the
visioning
plan
were
to
be
passed?
I.
A
A
G
What
has
been
a
constant
is
the
height
and
the
transition
of
height
to
you
know
the
residences
and
I.
Think
that's
you
know,
certainly
something
we
need
to
look
at
I
think
there
is
an
impact
on
the
small
businesses
that
are
there
and
they
want
to
make
sure
that
they're.
You
know
that
the
guidelines
are
not
going
to
negatively
impact
the
smaller
spaces
that
they
have,
so
they
can
continue
to
generate
revenue.
G
I
think
the
other
thing
I
cost
that
we
have
heard
is
the
traffic
impact
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
look
at
this
vision
plan
as
it
isn't
a
precise
plan.
It's
a
its
guidelines
and
so
I
think
that
we
need
to
emphasize
those
particular
issues
and
concerns
to
make
sure
that
we
and
incorporate
that
in
into
those
guidelines,
somehow
I
think
I
think
we
have
I
mean
I.
Think
a
number
of
us
realized
that
some
of
the
images
that
were
portrayed
on
pages,
24
and
25
in
the
vision
plan
were
very
too
high.
G
When
I'm
hurt
hearing,
we
had
some
proposals
for
how
we
could
potentially
manage
some
of
the
traffic
issues
and
including
you
know,
bike
and
pedestrian
and
making
that
as
safe
as
it
could
be.
So
I
think
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
guidelines
that
we
have
in
the
vision
plan
are,
you
know,
have
have
covered
that
you
know
as
thoroughly
as
possible
because
we
want.
G
You,
know
the
safety
and
the
enjoyment
of
this
community
to
be
reflected
in
this
vision
plan,
because
I
think
that
we
have
heard
from
from
you
and
I
appreciate
your
taking
your
valuable
time
to
come
and
I
want.
You
to
know
that
we
hear
you
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
council
hears
us.
So
that's
where
I'm
at.
C
My
concern
is
that
we're
putting
something
in
place.
That
would
then
be
normal
if
it
was
a
precise
plan
that
would
normally
go
through
a
full
yeah.
Our
secret
process
to
assess
the
impact
of
these
visions
and
we're
not,
and
what
it's
going
to
do
is
is
place
a
cloud
over
the
neighborhoods.
It
will
I've
you.
C
Don't
it
feels
like
it's
a
we're
dating
we're,
we're
not
getting
married
and
and
if
you
really
want
to
plan,
you
got
to
go
all
the
way.
This
is
I
I
I'm
frustrated
that
we
spent
all
this
time
and
we're
not
gonna
be
able
to
take
the
next
step.
But
I
don't
feel
like
this
is
the
right
that
approving
this
at
this
point
is
sends
the
right
message
to
developers
or
the
community
as
a
whole
at
this
point
and
feel
that
we
should,
quite
frankly
walk
away
from
it,
put
it
on
the
Shelf.
A
H
Understand
where
commissioner
Cranston
is
coming
from
I
also
know
that
city
wide
there
there's
need
for
the
housing
so
I'm
a
little
torn
I'd
I
would
like
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
the
neighborhoods
have
and,
at
the
same
time
try
to
move
forward
the
vision,
because
it's
not
very
detailed.
It's
going
to
take
time
to
get
there
that
just
drags
out
the
whole
process
for
getting
the
housing
that
we
do
need.
So
I'm,
not
gonna,
put
a
full
stop
on
this
I.
H
Just
I
just
feel
like
there
should
be
discussion
as
to
how
to
move
forward
whether
or
not
it
moves
forward
is
still
up
in
the
air.
Given
that
we
need
master
planning
and
then
that
all
the
property
owners
need
to
come
together
to
have
this
more
detailed
vision
and
then
from
there
than
they
negotiate
with
the
city
so
and
so
forth.
So
I
am
for
having
a
discussion
on
how
to
maybe
amend
a
bit
and
work
with
the
neighbors
on
transitions
and
Heights
and
other
things
in
order
to
progress.
Okay,.
A
So
what
I
think
I
heard
from
the
other
commissioners
is
that
we
would
like
to
discuss
four
subject
matters.
One
is
the
transitions
to
single-family
neighborhoods,
the
setbacks,
which
would
be
a
different
item
from
I?
Would
views
transitions
as
being
height
and
then
setbacks
would
be
a
separate
item,
traffic
concerns
and
then
some
of
the
concerns
of
saw
small
parcel
owners
of
and
a
small
business
retention,
so
can
I
see
that
we
have
yes,
Commissioner
Vice,
Chair
cars
and
parking
and
parking?
Okay,
we'll
add
that
okay,
so
we
have
five
items
will
be
discussing.
F
Right
so
you
know
I'll
get
back
to
I'll
mention
back
what
I
said
last
time
and
but
I'll
make
an
amendment
on
it.
I
mean
particularly
along
the
Sterling
Heights
neighborhood
I
mean
you
know.
I
I
had
said
that
you
know
we
should
look
at
doing
it.
Two-Story
transition,
you
know
in
thinking
about
trees.
The
reason
I
asked
about
trees
is
because
I
mean
it
did
stay
in
saying
the
staff
questions
that
it's
possible
to
find
trees
that
are
large
enough
to
I
mean
to
to
shield
this
in
the
back
of
the
property.
F
So
I
mean
my
view,
I
I,
guess
I
would
amend
it
to
say
that
if
people
don't
need
to
look
at
the
what's
on
the
other
side,
it
shouldn't
bother
them
too
much,
and
so
I
mean
that
might
be
an
alternative.
There's
a
way
to
you
know
effectively
screen
any
three-story
buildings
from
people.
Saying
I
mean
I
can
point
to
you
places
in
Mountain
View,
where
there
are
very
long
large
tall,
pine,
trees
and
stuff
like
that
that
are
next
to
each
other
that
actually
do
effectively
screen
the
properties.
F
So
I
think
that's
another
thing
to
consider,
but
I
think
you
know
with
a
combination
of
screening
and
with,
and
you
know,
stepping
it
down
a
bit
immediately
jacent.
You
know
we
might
have
something
workable
there.
So
that's
that's
my
offer
and
I
want
to
hear
what
the
other
commissioners
saying
anyone.
A
A
E
I'm
looking
at
the
transition
standards
on
page
29-
and
there
are
a
couple
of
things
that
are
mentioned
here-
45-degree
daylight
plane
is
just
one,
but
there
is
a
whole
section
or
a
bullet
point
which
actually
talks
about
landscaping
and
screening
whether
he
talks
about
view
studies,
step,
backs
setbacks
from
the
property
line
adjacent
to
single-family
homes.
That
is
the
exact
reason
why
we
created
that
second
bullet
point
regarding
residential
neighborhood
transition
areas.
G
Making
sure
that
the
the
height
of
the
buildings
that
are
that
are
used
as
guidelines
are
reduced
just
overall
I
mean
I'm
looking
at
office
in
residential,
going
from
three
to
five
to
seven
storeys
and
I.
Just
think
that
that
should
be
removed
from
the
vision
plan.
I
think
I
think
we've.
You
know
we
talked
about
three
to
four
stories
and
I
would
suggest
that
we
need
to.
G
G
Yeah
I
think
I
think
that
would
make
sense.
Yes,
because
you
you
know,
there's
you
know
several
of
several
of
the
neighbors
have
pointed
out
where
they
live
and
they
are
concerned
about
the
building's
imposing
into
their
property
and
so
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
that
and
someone
else
you
know
made
a
comment
about,
and
this
is
an
aside
excuse
me
moving
the
retail
off
of
shoreline
because
of
the
impact
that
it
might
have
on
on
the
traffic.
G
E
That
I
would
just
like
to
remind
that
how
we
started
with
this
process,
when
we
initially
came
in
staff
presented
a
couple
of
alternatives
which
was
a
very
low
alternative,
medium
intensity,
alternative
and
a
high-intensity
alternative
after
going
back
and
forth
and
getting
input
from
EPC
and
then
getting
endorsement
or
modification
of
the
recommendation
from
City
Council.
This
is
where
we
have
landed
this
land-use
plan,
including
the
hides,
if
I
will
just
give
you
an
example
of
just
a
mixed
use
with
Rito.
E
That
was
a
specific
recommendation
by
the
City
Council
last
time
around
and
that's
why
you
see
the
seventh
storey
five-story
mixed-use
retail,
along
shoreline.
The
previous
land-use
visions
that
we
had
presented
actually
had
these
retail
areas
in
other
areas.
But
then
they
were
shifted
along
a
shoreline
based
on
council
recommendation.
E
A
I'm
reluctant
to
throw
the
whole
thing
out,
which
is
I,
think
what
we
would
be
doing
if
we
were
to
limp,
reduce
everything
down
we've.
As
Diana
said,
we
had
11
input
and
a
lot
of
community
engagement
and
so
I'm
reluctant
to
just
throw
the
whole
thing
out
and
start
all
over
again
and
do
I
have
any
other
comments
from
commissioners
about
how
or
if
we
would
want
to
modify
some
of
these
heights
or
transitions.
H
I'm
I'm,
gonna
put
forward
potentially
another
way
to
look
at
it,
and
that
is
if
we've
got
certain
minimums
which,
in
the
bullet
points
today
and
I
had
mentioned.
There's
no
building
greater
than
35
feet
in
height,
located
with
a
90
feet
of
the
property.
I
mean
I
was
all
for
having
to
story
transition,
but
that
didn't
seem
to
be
the
way
we
went.
H
So
if
we
do
have
a
35
foot
building
within
90
feet,
if
you
could
just
take
the
eye
height
of
a
person
at
the
edge
of
their
property
line
and
look
up
and
see
the
roof
of
that
35
foot
height
building,
and
then
from
that
angle,
that's
a
shallower
angle
than
the
45
you'll
see
where
the
five
storey
height
building
could
be
placed
without
it
being
in
that
site,
because
the
roof
of
the
three-story
will
be
in
the
way.
The
farther
away.
H
A
H
H
The
same
information,
but
it
it
would
be
a
different
diagram
showing
this
new
constraint,
which
is
to
take
a
person
at
their
rear
property
line
and
look
at
what
that
three-story
or
two-and-a-half
story
building
might
be,
and
then
from
the
rooftop
that
is
gonna
limit.
What
they
can
see
from
behind
does
that
make
sense
so.
A
H
C
If
you
change
the
density
down
to
the
level
where
it
can't
be
anything
more
than
a
three-story
we've
already
heard
from
developers,
that
simple
is
simple.
You
know:
townhomes
are
kind
of
off
the
table
now,
with
the
change
in
the
BMR
ordinance.
So
I
I
would
argue
that
if
you
really
want
residential
in
that
area,
there
has
to
be
something
that
makes
it
attractive
for
a
developer
to
do
it.
C
F
I
want
to
respond
to
commissioner
Cranston's
comment
about,
doesn't
look
like
we're
getting
married,
I
mean
my
one
of
the
things
I
do
like
about
the
staff
proposal.
Is
that
there's
several
things?
Okay,
one
is
that
it
talks
about
the
idea
of
a
master
plan
for
the
west
side
and
for
the
east
side-
and
you
know,
I
mean
I'm.
F
Looking
at
these,
you
know
what's
being
drawn
here,
as
you
know,
kind
of
like
desired
desirable
outcomes,
but
I've
seen
enough
of
this
happen
that
to
know
that
things
don't
come
out
exactly
as
you
would
see
in
a
vision
diagram,
particularly
if
you've
got
a
property
owner.
That
is
a
real,
strong
desire
not
to
participate
in
it.
Okay
and
so,
but
I
mean
you
know,
it's
still
in
principle.
You
might
be
able
to
come
up
with
something
something
similar
I
mean
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
how
it
work.
F
Maybe
that
residential,
where,
where
it
is
up
against
the
fence,
saying
you
know,
ends
up
being
light
industrial
and
you
end
up.
You
know
maybe
around
Terra
Bella
trying
to
build
the
residential
and
it's
further
back
and
that's
more
desirable
for
the
people
who
live
there
and
you
know,
and
it
ends
up
being
condominiums
because,
as
commissioner
Cranston
pointed
out,
you
know
we
got
a
25
percent
BMR
load
on
the
townhomes
now,
which
may
some
tough
to
do
so.
F
So
you
know
I
mean
I,
like
the
colors
there,
but
I'm
being
realistic
and
saying
that
I
I
don't
think
it
would
necessarily
be
the
way
a
company
came
out
and
to
put
it
in
mist,
Commissioner
Cranston
terms
before
my
wife
and
I
got
married.
We
talked
about
what
it
would
be
like
and-
and
you
know
we
had
some
ideas
in
our
minds
and
I-
think
we're
pretty
honest
about
that.
Things
did
turn
out
a
little
bit
differently.
F
M
F
Is
cast
in
whatever
current
building
materials
we
use,
and
you
know,
I
think
we
need
to
move
forward,
but
I
would
just
like
some
I
mean
I
I
would
like
more
sensitivity
on
the
transitions.
I,
don't
know
quite
how
to
encode
what
Commissioner
Jim
is
saying,
even
though
I
know,
as
a
you
know,
experienced
architect,
she
has
a
good
idea
of
and
what
we
should
be
doing,
I
think
at
least
we
could
put
down
the
idea
that
we're
looking
for
somehow
a
more
shallow
angle.
F
Okay-
and
you
know,
staff
can
work
out
some
ways
of
saying
that,
but
and
so
I
would
support
a
more
shallow
angle,
but
in
more
sensitive
transitions
and
screening
and
I'm
willing
to
write
those
into
recommendations
going
back,
because
we
really
want
people
to
feel
comfortable
with.
What's
going
to
be
next
to
them.
On
the
other
hand,
I
do
want
to
move
forward
with
something
and
that's
kind
of
where
I
am.
A
What
are
we
going
to
do
with
this
big
section
of
land
in
our
city,
and
so
I
would
be
willing
to
go
with
the
transitions
that
the
city
has
in
the
in
the
vision,
but
that
we
really
emphasize
that
we
need
to
have
careful
consideration
on
the
neighborhood's.
Maybe
we
need
to
have
this
setback.
I
mean
the
transitions,
be
a
little
more
careful
but
I'm
not
willing
to
throw
the
whole
thing
out
and
start
all
over
again.
So
do
we
have
I
think
we
have
sort
of
a
marginal.
F
A
A
F
A
F
Because
that's
not
in
here
I
mean
this
is
just
saying
these
are
things
you
can
do
and
I'm
looking
for
something
stronger
to
say
that
you
know
I
mean
like
at
least
a
recommendation
that
you
know
what
we
want
is
we
want
screening
in
there
so
that,
yes,
so
you
medium
or
large,
trees?
Okay,
that's
that
that
would
do
it
because
we're
talking
30
to
45
feet,
then
you
know
so
I.
E
We
can
definitely
consider
some
language
like
that
again,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
staff
response,
it
really
depends
upon
the
tree
species
and
the
location
where
we
are
planting
it
so
far.
The
kind
of
guidelines
that
we
have
in
the
city
through
our
tree
master
plan
is
you
know,
36
inch
box
tree
24
inch
box
tree
because
it
totally
depends
upon
the
type
of
species
that
you
put
on
the
tree
species
that
you
plant
in
ground.
E
F
A
F
Okay,
so
here's
my
hope
for
the
traffic.
Okay,
there's
a
couple
things
going
on
right
now:
I
mean
one
of
them
is
and
we're
going
to
have
this
study
session
after
this
meeting
talking
about
VMT
replacing
a
lot
of
those
service-
and
you
know
I
mean
I
I
saw
a
comment
in
there
that
worried
me
a
little
bit
and
they
were
saying
like.
Oh,
these
traffic
studies
are
quite
expensive
and
everything
like
that
we
go
to
be
empty.
We
want
to
do
these.
F
Try
expensive
traffic
studies,
you
know
and
the
state
is
not
going
to
require
us
to
do.
You
know
traditional
traffic
studies.
You
know
that
are
like
level
of
service
after
June
I
mean
I,
really
think
it's
in
our
interest
to
do
them
anyway,
and-
and
the
reason
I
do
is
because
if
you
don't
do
them
and
it's
an
important
impact,
I
mean
all
we're.
Gonna
have
is
what
Albert's
got
do
you'll
come
up
and
you'll
do
them?
F
He'll
show
them
to
us,
and-
and
you
know,
that's
all-
we
have
to
believe
okay,
so
so
I
think
that
the
city
ought
to
have
a
position.
You
know
so
that
we
have
something
to
compare.
So
that's
that's
my
thought
on
that
now
another
thing
I
like
what
you're
saying
about
no
new
net
drips
and
I,
like
that
you're
saying
that
they're
going
to
be.
F
You
know
we're
talking
about
in
this
area.
Not
just
you
know,
there'll
be
fewer
people
driving
from
Tracy
and
Pleasanton,
and
so
those
are
fewer
trips.
Okay,
I
mean
you
know
we're
talking
locally
and
you
know
Albert's
showed
that
that
you
know
if
you
got
five
hundred
more
cars,
you
know
I
added
to
that
I
mean
you
know
it
negates.
You
know
the
improvements
that
we're
gonna
get
from
some
other
things
that
we're
doing
in
North,
Bay
Shore
right
and
that's
not
what
we
want
so
I
want.
J
F
F
A
Okay
and
I
guess
I'll,
say
something
and
then
maybe
somebody
else
would
like
to
also
chime
in
I
agree
that
the
idea
of
no
new
net
traffic
whenever
that
gets
determined
I
think
is
a
good
measure
and
the
probably
the
best
that
we
can
do
again.
I
agree
with
vice-chair
Cox
if
we
can
get
more
people
living
in
this
area
where
they
can
bike,
I
live
at
the
corner
of
Rock
and
independence,
and
it's
amazing
how
many
people
buy
down
our
street
now
that
we
have
that
across
signalized
crosswalk
at
the
middle
field.
A
So
there
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
live
in
the
model,
know
my
neighborhood,
who
travel,
who
to
bike
over
to
North
Shore
line
and
in
our
neighborhood
as
well.
So
I
think
that
if
we
can
get
more
residential
in
this
area,
I
think
that
we
will
see
a
large
number
of
people
who
are
working
over
at
North,
Bay,
Shore
and
biking
or
walking.
So
I
agree
with
the
assessment
that
we
should
have
no
new
net
traffic.
Anyone
else
want
to
have
any.
G
Commissioner
Ellis
I
think
that
certainly
goal
that
we
need
to
strive
to
and
I
think
with
a
number
of
changes
in
the
way
people
move
around.
It
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
have
that
as
a
goal
that
we,
you
know,
strive
for
and
I
think
the
requirements
for
the
developers
to
join
in
with
TDM
program
and
the
you
know
the
whole
promotion
of
using
the
transportation
we
have
in
you
know,
biking
and
walking,
and
that
sort
of
thing
it
just
makes
sense
to
me
that
that
needs
to
be
a
part
of
it
and
I.
G
Actually
on
I,
quite
like
the
the
the
image
on
page
55,
you
know
kind
of
give
you
an
idea
of
what
what
that
might
look
like
in
in
you
know
in
the
in
division,
because
you
know
the
idea
of
having
and
you
know,
maybe
a
bicyclist
would
be
better
to
choose
one
or
the
other
as
far
as
safety
concerns.
But
you
know
I
think
that
that
that
type
of
vision
of
what
we
want
to
see
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
As
far
as
what
do
we
do
with
the
traffic-
and
you
know.
K
E
E
They
will
have
to
follow
the
city's
TDM
guidelines
because
we
do
have
a
plan
in
place
to
start
work
on
our
TDM
ordinance,
whatever
the
measures
that
come
out
of
that
the
residential
and
other
uses
which
are
not
employment
generating
users
will
follow
that
procedure.
That
has
been
the
baseline
for
the
vision
plan.
F
I
mean
when
I
heard
no
new
tat,
no
new
net
drips,
I
didn't
hear
the
asterisk,
and
you
know
I
mean
honestly
I
believe
in
no
new
in
that
trips
I
bet,
there
might
be
some
small
number
that
we
could
add,
but
not
what
we
saw
in
the
diagram
that
and
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out.
You
know
what's
acceptable
at
the
time
when
this
comes
up
so
that
you
know
we
don't
end
up
with
an
entire
report
traffic
situation.
F
I,
don't
think
we
have
to
encode
that
right
now,
but
I
really
want
to
give
a
strong
sense
that
you
know
people
being
able
to
live
in
a
reasonable
way,
meaning
and
that
means
being
able
to
get
places
that
they
normally
can
get
to
today
in
a
reasonable
amount
of
time.
Without
you
know
backup,
that's
that's
a
reasonable
concern,
so
so
I
guess
I
want
to
make
a
statement
to
that
effect.
Then,
on
the
traffic
that
that's
an
important
consideration.
E
If
I
may
just
explain
this
a
little
bit
more
last
time
around
when
staff
talked
about
need
for
a
precise
plan,
this
is
specifically
what
we
talked
about,
that
we
need
to
do
more
in-depth
study
for
organized
development
to
know
what
is
the
real
potential
with
the
sequin
alysus
as
well,
and
to
moistur
Cox's
comment
about
expensive
studies
that
are
required
when
we
do
our
precise
plans,
that
is
a
City,
led
project
and
an
effort.
We
do
those
expensive
studies
because
it
is
being
done
by
the
city.
E
We
are
doing
it
for
a
larger
area,
whereas
when
we
look
at
gatekeeper
projects
on
a
one-off
basis,
we
really
can't
ask
the
developer
to
do
such
expensive
studies
in
order
to
so
I
see
the
impacts
that
might
be
coming
from
others
and
not
just
their
project
and
in
in
purview
of
the
amount
of
assessment
that
we
have
done
without
doing
any
technical
assessment.
What
staff
has
proposed
in
the
vision
plan
is
the
best
foot
forward
of
what
we
can
achieve
practically
looking
at
today's
standards.
E
A
One
question
I
would
have,
and
maybe
I've
run
through
this
area
occasionally
and
of
course,
I'm
doing
it
eight
o'clock
in
the
morning
so
but
I
I
run
through
the
the
office
parks
just
to
kind
of
see
what
what
happens
and
there
aren't
very
many
cars
there
at
8
a.m.
in
the
morning.
So
it
looks
to
me
like
some
of
these
office
buildings
or
the
parking
lots
of
empty.
A
So
if
a
traffic
study
is
done,
it
certain
point
and
the
buildings
are
sort
of
underutilized
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
employees
that
could
be
there
or
would
would
have
been
there
ten
years
ago,
when
the
office
like
manufacturing
was
done.
So
how
do
I
get
something
like
what
question
is
and
my
concern
is
you
know
how
do
we?
How
do
we
measure
what
the
existing
is
if
the
office
parks
are
sort
of
underutilized
in
terms
of
we.
F
I
just
want
to
clarify
back
to
the
planner
piccoli
and
that
it
is
not
that
I'm
saying
that
we
should
do
additional
traffic
analyses
that
we
haven't
done
in
the
past.
Just
that
my
concern
was
with
dropping
things
that
we
have
done
as
a
matter
of
course,
just
just
simply
because
the
state
doesn't
require
us
and
we
could
save
some
money.
A
G
So
it's
not
throwing
it
out,
because
a
lot
of
work
has
been
done
on
this
and
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
good
guidelines
but
I
think
in
general.
We
could
use
this,
as
you
know,
certainly
a
good
good
start
and
a
good
from
all
the
precise
plans
that
I
have
seen.
It
would
certainly
help
because
I
think
that
that
would
you
know
when
we
want
to
not
just
look
at
the
traffic
in
this
area.
G
A
K
H
V
C
Stirring
this
up
and
I
want
to
clarify:
that's
not
what
I've
been
advocating
the
decision
by
Council
to
not
do
the
precise
plan
during
this
work
session
was
based
on
workload
and
other
priorities.
It
wasn't
a
vote
at
least
what
I
heard
wasn't
a
vote
to
say
we
will
never
do
a
precise
plan.
It
was.
We
don't
have
time
in
the
1920
work
plan
cycle
to
do
this.
C
I
think
this
is
a
good
basis
for
I
doing
a
precise
plan
and
that
I
would
advocate
that
this
be
something
it's
not
thrown
out
that
it's
shelved
and
then
picked
up
as
part
of
a
sighs
plan.
That's
done
during
the
2122
Council
goal
setting
and
work
session.
I
would
not
throw
this
away.
There's
been
a
lot
of
thought.
There's
been
a
lot
of
input,
that's
going
to
it.
So
I,
just
I
want
to
clarify
that.
That's
I'm
not
advocating
thrown
away
I'm
saying
you
get
the
pause
button
until
the
staff
has
the
time.
A
E
E
C
Certainly,
given
the
the
the
feedback
from
staff,
there
could
be
no,
there
can
be
no
gatekeepers
even
considered
until
next
year.
So
I
don't
know
that
there's
even
bandwidth
from
staff
to
even
look
at
a
gatekeeper
before
the
timeframe
that
we'd
be
working
on
this
I
hadn't,
given
any
specific
thought
is
to
say
ideas
or
a
moratorium
on
gatekeepers
until
that
until
we
do
that,
I
have
to
think
about
that
small.
H
E
H
E
F
C
Master
plan
is
a
strong
to
me
as
a
precise
plan.
It
requires
a
sequin
alysus.
It
requires
the
traffic
analysis.
It
requires
understanding
the
impact
of
what's
being
proposed.
This
does
not
so
I'm
asked
if
somebody
came
in
said:
I
want
to
do
a
master
plan
for
West
Arabella
I'm,
all
in
okay,
I,
listen
as
well,
but
I'm
because
of
the
very
large
number
of
small
parcels,
I'm
a
little
more
skeptical
of
whether
one
could
be
accomplished.
C
F
F
A
A
Okay,
so
in
agreement
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
staff
report
notes
that
we
are
concerned
about
the
traffic
considerations:
okay,
okay,
so
let's
take
a
straw
poll
on
that
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
recommendation
is
made
to
City
Council,
all
those
in
favor.
Okay,
great!
Thank
you
all
right!
Then
I
wrote
down
that
there
was
some
concern
about
small
parcel
owners,
I'm,
not
sure
how
we
would
address
this
per
se,
but
maybe
somebody
has
a
better
idea.
G
Commissioner
Ellis
I
think
that
is
again
on
page
8
under
7,
small
business
preservation
and
I.
Think
that
that's
you
know
we're
taking
that
into
consideration
and
that
would
include
what
land
their
own
and
you
know,
I
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
place
here
that
was
mentioned
that
the
city
was
going
to
take
over
their
land
to
put
in
bike
in
pedestrian
I
mean
I.
Didn't
read
that
in
this
report
so
I,
you
know
I,
think
that
we
we've
addressed
that
here.
Unless
other
commissioners
feel
like
it
should
be
stronger.
I.
A
F
I
mean
and
I'm
gonna
echo,
you
know
that
and
expand
a
little
bit.
I
mean
when
I
hear
a
property
owner.
That's
you
know,
owns
property
next
to
the
single-family
home
area
and
they're
saying
well,
you
know
I'm,
not
sure
I
want
to
redevelop
that
I
mean
you
know
even
sounds
like
you
know:
people
can
just
have
a
preference
right.
It's
not
everything
in
life
is
about
money,
I
mean
you
know.
F
If
people
are
comfortable
with
what
they've
got
you
know,
they
may
want
to
stay
with
that,
and
so,
but
you
know
that
the
the
issue
is.
Is
that
and
that's
why
honestly
I
think
the
vision
plan
is
the
better
tool
in
this
case,
because
it's
it's
an
idea,
but
not
it
doesn't
compel
anything.
I
mean
when
we
put
together
the
the
that
precise
plan
that
I
live
in
the
Evelyn
Avenue
corridor.
Rose
precise
plan
I
mean
it
was
much
stricter.
It
was
like
these
are.
F
What
are
these
are
grandfathered
uses,
and
so
what
it
means
is
that
you
know
you
can
sell
the
property
to
somebody
else
and
have
them
do
the
same
use
on
it.
I
mean
you
know,
I
mean
they
have
to.
They
have
to
go
with.
What's
in
the
precise
plan
at
that
point,
and
you
know,
and
that
is
what
happened
at
Minton's
and
so
I
mean
you
know,
I
think
that
the
vision
plan
gives
property
owners
greater
flexibility
because
nothing
happens
without
their
consent.
So
that's
why
I'm
leaning
that
way.
A
Okay,
any
other
commissioners
want
to
weigh
in
on
that
again.
I
think
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
small
businesses
are
are
protected
and
and
as
I
think
it
does
stated
as
a
stated
goal,
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
do
protect
those
small
businesses.
Okay,
that
parking
was
the
last
thing
that
we
decided
that
we
wanted
to
discuss
and
let's
look
at
the
goals.
Why
we
have
that
page,
open
and
number
two
is
traffic
and
parking.
F
F
E
Can
propose
that
the
way
our
residential
parking
permit
program
has
been
implemented
and
codified?
It
is.
There
are
some
basic
considerations
that
minimum
these
many
number
of
neighbors
should
come
in
and
sign
for
it,
and
then
we
look
into
that.
If
there
is
a
mutual
agreement
between
the
neighbors
and
the
developer,
something
like
this
can
be
a
possibility,
so
yeah,
okay,
I.
F
Mean
you
know,
I
mean
I'm,
saying
that
you
know
that
the
neighbors
would
have
to
assent
to
it
by
either
the
existing
process
or
the
council
was
talking
about
revisions
to
it.
Whatever
rules
we
would
have
in
place
and
the
only
concern
from
the
residents
would
be
the
funding
of
it.
Okay,
if
a
developer
would
propose
he
wants
to
fund
this
I
mean
you
know
that
there
isn't
any
legal
impediment
to
get
the
council.
Considering
that
that's
right,
you're.
E
Absolutely
right
either
it
will
have
to
be.
You
know,
neighbors
agreeing
and
working
with
the
developers
to
sign
the
existing
residential
parking
permit
application
on
their
own
behalf,
but
getting
funding
from
some
other
sources
as
part
of
community
benefit,
but
the
straightforward
way
of
doing
this.
Another
way
of
doing
this
could
also
be
recommending
to
council
modifications
to
the
existing
procedures.
F
H
I
think
residential
parking
zones
help
a
lot
it
sort
of
fills
in
a
gap
because
you're
relying
on
the
developers,
TDM
or
the
City
TDM
program,
but
I
know
that
you
want
to
ensure
that
you'll
still
be
able
to
park
in
your
neighborhood
if
possible.
So,
as
vice
commissioner
Cox
mentioned,
that's
something
you
can
bring
up
when
master
plans
come
up.
I
find
it
just
a
little
bit
difficult
to
add
detail
or
make
recommendations,
because
this
is
such
a
broad
vision.
H
Really.
You
have
to
get
to
the
next
step
to
start
talking
more
details
and
it
was
frustrating
for
some
of
the
neighbors.
They
want
to
see
the
details
now,
but
in
a
way,
as
vice
commissioner
Cox
had
mentioned,
you
kind
of
don't
want
to
see
the
details
right
now
until
you
have
more
people
at
the
table
and
if
they're
moving
forward
with
the
master
planning,
that's
a
chance
for
you
to
get
involved
again.
H
I
think
and
really
make
your
statement,
but
then-
and
it
sounds
like
the
city-
is
working
towards
a
citywide
transportation,
demand
management
program
and
so
I
think
we
just
need
to
find
out
more
about
the
details
of
those
larger
scope
programs
before
we
can
implement
details
into
this
one.
That's
just
where,
where
my
head
is
right
now.
A
E
A
Okay,
okay,
so
so
to
give
it
one
last
pass
or
is
there
anything
else
on
page
eight
other
key
considerations
of
the
plan
area
that
we
would
like
to
discuss
or
modify
one
question
I
didn't
ask
staff
earlier:
is
the
daydream
about
the
bike
ped
tunnel
under
85,
Stevens
Creek
Trail
is
right.
On
the
other
side
again,
when
I
was
riding
my
bike
on
Sunday
morning,
there
seems
to
be
a
strip
of
land.
If
you
look
on
Google
Earth,
there's
a
strip
of
land
right
along
85.
That
won't
show
up
really
very
clearly
unless.
I
A
Looking
at
Google
Earth,
okay,
there,
we
are
well
where
it
says:
San,
Leandro,
Avenue
and
you
can
barely
see
on
85.
There
seems
to
be
a
green
strip
along
there.
I
don't
know
how
far
along
the
city
has
gotten
in
evaluating
how
that
crossing
would
be
done,
but
I'm
wondering
if,
if
that
right
away
along
85,
if
that's
something
that
the
city
could
utilize,
because
I
think
one
of
the
alternatives
was
to
go
down
and
clear
down
to
the
off-ramp
at
85,
so
I'm
wondering
how
that
would?
A
E
So
just
trying
to
understand,
if
I'm
understanding
the
question
correctly,
I
will
begin
with
the
fact
that
the
under
crossing
under
85
is
conceptual.
We
have
not
put
in
any
analysis,
no
technical
review
of
that
connection.
That
was
a
community
input
that
we
received
that'll
be
good
to
have
a
connection,
and
that
has
been
shown
as
a
conceptual
connection
for
future
consideration.
Okay,.
A
E
Note
on
page
number
8
under
key
consideration,
we
do
have
number
three
which
is
walking
and
bicycling
conditions
as
a
key
consideration.
When
we
look
at
the
guiding
principles
on
page
number
14,
we
do
have
a
guiding
principle
which
says
improve
pedestrian
and
bicycle
connectivity
and
then,
as
we
move
forward
to
chapter
number,
four
page
number
38,
where
we
have
given
table,
which
shows
possible
community
benefit.
District
improvement
project
list
number
two
row
number
2
is
district
transportation,
improvement
which
says
off-site
pedestrian
bicycle
and
other
roadway
improvements.
E
So
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
that
the
plan
is
trying
to
capturing
this
input
in
various
ways
as
a
concern
as
a
possible
demand
from
the
community
as
a
possible
project
idea
that
you
can
provide
your
community
benefit
when
you
come
in
for
any
kind
of
development
which
does
not
agree
or
is
not
consistent
with
zoning
and
land
use
that
having
this
language
over
here
gives
enough
flexibility
for
a
developer
to
choose
whether
they
want
to
give
affordable
housing.
They
won't
consider
additional
off
site
improvements,
bicycle
improvements.
E
Where
would
they
like
to
provide
the
community
benefit?
These
are
the
preferred
alternative
that
we
can
use,
and
then
staff
uses
that
as
to
see
if
there
is
enough
funding
available,
which
then
can
be
combined
with
the
CIP
to
do
for
their
feasibility
study,
design,
study
and
then
implementation
of
such
improvements.
A
G
If
you
specifically
want
to
emphasize
Stevens
Creek
Trail
I,
don't
think
that
you
know
we're
at
that
point
to
kind
of
get
into
that
detail.
I
think
when
we
have
some
proposals
and
keep
that
in
mind
for
a
community
benefit.
We
definitely
can.
You
know
propose
that
that
you
know
that
would
be
an
excellent
way,
so
I
would
I'm
going
with
what
the
staff
is
proposing
at
this
particular
stage.
A
H
Have
that
crossing
it
just
comes
down
to
the
funding
in
whether
or
not
the
community
development
fees
would
even
pay
for
it.
So
I'm
very
glad
that
it's
listed
in
there
and
I
think.
As
commissioner
Coppola
said,
when
we
get
to
the
point-
and
we
can
do
the
feasibility
studies
we'll
really
know,
if
that's
something
that
we
can
get
done,
I
would.
A
Okay,
it's
three
to
two:
okay,
any
other
comments.
I
think
that
we've
pretty
much
covered
the
key
considerations
and
the
concerns
that
we
heard
from
some
of
the
people
speaking
tonight
is
there
anything
else
that
staff
would
like
us
to
consider
so
I
guess
we
have
to
come
down
to
do
we
have
an
actual
resolution
or
do
we
I,
don't
see
a
resolution.
H
H
V
V
F
I'm
making
a
motion
that
the
PC
recommend
to
the
City
Council
approval,
Terra
Bella
vision
plan
with
the
following
modifications.
Number
one
add
additional
shallow
angle:
diagram
for
better
neighborhood
transitions
along
existing
single-family
home
uses
to
landscape
screening
should
be
used
to
provide
maximum
screening
between
development
and
single-family
residential
uses.
N
A
Okay,
the
motion
passes
was
that
four
to
one
okay,
so
that
concludes
the
this
section
of
our
Planning
Commission
meeting.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
attending.
We
will
take
a
five
minute
break
and
we
will
adjourn
to
the
plaza
room
for
our
next
segment.
Thank
you
again.
Everyone
for
attending
and
we'll
see
you
in
five
minutes.