Jan. 7, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 6

[00:00:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Motion and there's an understanding of what it is that we'd like to see. I'm going to move on then to, if I'm reading this correctly, the EPC vote. Right?

[00:00:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: It has here... it shows here the EPC vote. So I'm going to read the motion. I'm going to do the best I can to try and incorporate the changes that we heard in terms of the retail.

[00:00:27] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: I think in this case we already received the vote in terms of the individual decisions on the stuff? Yeah.

[00:00:33] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Sounds good. And I only bring this up 'cause it says EPC vote, so I might as well... I play it, as you can tell, I'd rather be safe than sorry, so I'll just bring that up. I'm not afraid to be told 'no, that's not the way it is.' It's okay.

[00:00:44] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, so we'll move on to new business, which we don't have any. Oh, actually no we do. 6.1. Election of the Environmental Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2026. So the Chair is going to open up nominations. Are there nominations for the office of Chair?

[00:01:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: Reminder: Any commissioner can nominate themselves.

[00:01:06] Chair José Gutiérrez: And a second is not necessary.

[00:01:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:01:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I nominate Commissioner Nunez to be the new Chair.

[00:01:18] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Uh, I'm just going to ask, don't take this personal. Any other nominations? Okay if not, then because the nomination has been moved by Commissioner Cranston to have Vice Chair Nunez be the next Chair for the EPC of 2026... The nominee then now can either... Well, actually, no. I'm going to ask you: would you be willing, Commissioner or Vice Commissioner... Vice Chair Nunez, to serve in that capacity as Chair of the EPC for 2026?

[00:02:04] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Well, I'll answer in a long-winded fashion. I've had the opportunity to learn behind four Chairs already. Commissioner Cranston has been consistent and attentive to the role. Commissioner Dempsey has instilled the value of, you know, time efficiency and promptness. Commissioner Yin, who isn't here, really instilled the value of cultivating relationships. You yourself, current Chair, acting Chair, whatever it is that you're currently in is, you know, that that emphasis on team. And so I'd love to kind of put that forward and accept and add my spin to that. I know that, you know, when it comes to the commitment, it's also a commitment to staff and so I know that, you know, I kind of relied a little bit too much on Commissioner Gutierrez at the end there in terms of just trusting that he would be in these meetings but, um, yeah I commit to making sure that I make the time for the meetings as well. So, if I couldn't commit to that I wouldn't accept the nomination. And so, thank you. I accept.

Segment 1

[00:02:30] Chair José Gutiérrez: At 7:00, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of January 7th, 2026. We will now call this meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

[00:02:41] Chair José Gutiérrez: For those joining us in person, please note that due to a hybrid environment, audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lectern. Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a meeting should be directed to epc@mountainview.gov by 4:30 PM on the meeting date.

[00:02:58] Chair José Gutiérrez: Additionally, due to a hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card. Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak.

[00:03:16] Chair José Gutiérrez: Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them into the EPC Clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you are speaking on. Instructions for addressing the Commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda.

Segment 6

[00:03:19] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. You could have just said 'yes' but that's okay. I'm just joking with you, Alex. I really... I rarely joke with you, buddy. I mean, come on.

[00:03:27] Chair José Gutiérrez: All right. So then based on the form here it also says 'Chair requests further nominations'. Are there further nominations for the office of Chair?

Segment 1

[00:03:33] Chair José Gutiérrez: Before we start today's meeting, I'd like to welcome our new commissioner, I'm going to try my best to say your last name here, Subramanian to the Planning Commission. Welcome.

Segment 6

[00:03:34] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, I see none. Um, and because of that, nominations for the office of Chair are closed. A motion to close is not necessary. Okay, whatever.

[00:03:46] Chair José Gutiérrez: Public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. The EPC Clerk will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. And please if there are speakers let me know how many there are.

Segment 1

[00:03:53] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you.

[00:03:56] Chair José Gutiérrez: Now I will ask the EPC Clerk to proceed with roll call.

[00:04:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay, we'll do a manual roll call. Commissioner Subramanian?

[00:04:05] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Present.

[00:04:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Pham?

[00:04:08] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

Segment 6

[00:04:08] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: There are no speakers.

Segment 1

[00:04:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Nunez?

Segment 6

[00:04:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: There's 10 speakers? No. Oh my god. Oh my god. Okay. So let's take a roll call vote on the nomination of Chair for 2026 EPC, Alex Nunez.

Segment 1

[00:04:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:04:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Chair Gutierrez?

[00:04:14] Chair José Gutiérrez: Here.

[00:04:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Donahue?

[00:04:17] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:04:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:04:20] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:04:21] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston?

[00:04:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:04:23] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All commissioners are present.

Segment 6

[00:04:23] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Subramanian?

Segment 1

[00:04:25] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, thank you, Clerk. Seeing that we don't have any meeting minutes to approve, we'll skip over Section 3 and we'll go to Section 4, Oral Communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda.

Segment 6

[00:04:25] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Aye.

[00:04:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Pham?

[00:04:27] Commissioner Tina Pham: Aye.

[00:04:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Nunez?

[00:04:31] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes.

[00:04:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Gutierrez?

[00:04:33] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yes.

[00:04:34] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Donahue?

[00:04:36] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yes.

[00:04:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:04:39] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Aye.

[00:04:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston?

Segment 1

[00:04:41] Chair José Gutiérrez: Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items. If anyone is in attendance would like to provide comments on non-agenda items, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk.

Segment 6

[00:04:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yes.

[00:04:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion passes all in favor.

[00:04:46] Chair José Gutiérrez: Awesome. Congratulations.

[00:04:51] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, now we're going to move on to... Oh, it says here 'the previous Chair may keep their position for the remainder of the meeting'. This is... You didn't have to write that, but that's cool. Okay. Um, now let's open up nominations for the Vice Chair. Are there nominations for the office of Vice Chair?

Segment 1

[00:04:58] Chair José Gutiérrez: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Do we have anyone?

Segment 6

[00:05:07] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:05:09] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I nominate Commissioner Donahue.

Segment 1

[00:05:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No speakers at this time.

Segment 6

[00:05:14] Chair José Gutiérrez: No other nominations? Right on. Okay. Commissioner Donahue, would you be willing to serve in that capacity?

Segment 1

[00:05:16] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Okay. Moving on to New Business, 5.1, R3 Zoning District Update, Development Standards and Strategies Recommendation.

Segment 6

[00:05:21] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yes.

[00:05:23] Chair José Gutiérrez: Oh boy. Okay. Uh, great. Um, again, are there further nominations for the office of Vice Chair?

Segment 1

[00:05:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: We will take this item through a special deliberation process due to Commissioner conflicts of interest. First, we will have a staff presentation, then public comment. At the closure of public comment, the commission will have an opportunity to ask general questions, then discuss individual topics, including any questions about those topics.

Segment 6

[00:05:35] Chair José Gutiérrez: No. Okay, great. Um, nominations for the office of Vice Chair are closed.

[00:05:43] Chair José Gutiérrez: Public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. The EPC Clerk will start the timer and let you know when your time is up.

Segment 1

[00:05:48] Chair José Gutiérrez: Let's begin with a staff presentation from Planning Manager Eric Anderson.

Segment 6

[00:06:00] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: No speakers.

[00:06:01] Chair José Gutiérrez: No speakers. Okay. All right. Sounds good. Uh, so let's do a roll call vote for the position of Vice Chair for the EPC 2026 regarding Paul Donahue. Commissioner Donahue.

Segment 1

[00:06:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay, looking good. Thank you so much, Commission, Chair Gutierrez. This item is regarding the zoning district update, the R3 Zoning District Update. My name is Eric Anderson, I'm the Planning Manager and I'm joined by the Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski, Community Development Director Christian Murdock.

Segment 6

[00:06:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Subramanian?

[00:06:19] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Aye.

[00:06:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Pham?

[00:06:21] Commissioner Tina Pham: Aye.

[00:06:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Nunez?

[00:06:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes.

[00:06:25] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Gutierrez?

[00:06:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yes.

[00:06:27] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Donahue?

[00:06:28] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yes.

[00:06:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey?

Segment 1

[00:06:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This project started back in 2020. Since then, it's gone through several rounds of outreach and study sessions. In addition, the project has been put on hold several times to address other city priorities such as the Displacement Response Strategy and the Housing Element. Most recently, Council provided direction on the project's densities in March and June of last year.

Segment 6

[00:06:31] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Aye.

[00:06:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston?

[00:06:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Aye.

[00:06:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion passes all in favor.

[00:06:37] Chair José Gutiérrez: Congratulations, Vice Chair Donahue.

[00:06:41] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. So, lastly. I want to welcome the the new Chair and the Vice Chair to the EPC in your leadership positions. I know you guys are going to do great. And just remember that we're always here to try and help one another out whether we agree or not. It's okay. We can just move forward all the time and we look forward to your leadership and what you bring to the table. Having said that, thanks everyone for being here at this meeting.

Segment 1

[00:06:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This slide provides an overview of the topics we're discussing tonight: General Plan designations, draft R3 standards, the retail and live-work approach, parking, incentives for lot consolidation, nonconforming ordinance approach, and the inclusion of R4 into the project.

Segment 6

[00:07:05] Chair José Gutiérrez: For number seven... Oh, go ahead.

[00:07:08] Chair José Gutiérrez: For number seven, we we have Commission Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests and Committee Reports.

[00:07:15] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So, I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank Chair Gutierrez for all your work and leadership, uh, in managing the EPC meetings and coordinating with staff on that. I think it has been, you know, we're really appreciative of all the efforts that you've brought to the to the commission as well.

Segment 1

[00:07:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The first topic is regarding the General Plan designations. The General Plan must be updated to accommodate the new densities of the R3 zone. These changes include updating designation names, removing the previous ranges of maximum densities, and adding allowances for commercial uses where they would be allowed in the R3-D zoning district. This slide shows staff's recommended General Plan designations.

Segment 6

[00:07:36] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Thank you.

[00:07:38] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Building off of Principal Planner Pancholi, um, to former Vice Chair Nunez, uh, or soon to be Chair Nunez. Um, you know, being a Commissioner in general is a significant commitment to the community. Being an officer on the Commission in the Chair and Vice Chair role all the more so. And so, thank you for your commitment and your role over the last year in doing so and stepping in to chair the meetings when, uh, Chair Gutierrez wasn't able to make it and all of the other time you've put in outside of these meetings as well in your role as Vice Chair. Thank you so much.

Segment 1

[00:07:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The next topic is the draft R3 standards, which were generated based on outreach, Council goals, Housing Element direction, and the need for more clarity and objectivity in standards and design outcomes. Attachment 4 to the report, the Design Handbook, was prepared to communicate and confirm the general approach to the development standards.

Segment 6

[00:08:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Thank you everyone. And... uh, let's see here. The meeting is adjourned at... We don't have a next meeting. It's not it's not it doesn't show here. It doesn't there's nothing here. Okay. Question: when is the next meeting? Please.

Segment 1

[00:08:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This document provides a clear visual of the outcomes of the standards are intended to achieve. It should be noted that the handbook illustrates the standards as written and not necessarily the outcome of any project that may use State Density Bonus or other statute that supersedes the City's development standards.

[00:08:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This slide shows the staff recommended major development standards, illustrating how they would change the existing standards. These standards are updated to improve the feasibility of development, especially by providing the ability to build more habitable floor area on a given area of land. For example, heights and FARs would be increased, and setbacks and open area would be decreased.

Segment 6

[00:08:38] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: The 21st.

[00:08:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: The 21st of this month?

[00:08:40] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yes.

[00:08:41] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Right on. So the next meeting for the EPC is the 21st of this month. And at, uh, let's see here, 10:51, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone.

Segment 1

[00:09:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: These standards would ensure that development is able to physically accommodate the number of units that they are allowed. Note that R3-A is an update to the R2 zoning district, so may not be more permissive than current R3 zone.

[00:09:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff recommends adopting minimum density standards to help ensure that projects build close to the number of units that they are allowed and do not simply build large, low-density units. These recommended standards are based on the intended character of the districts.

[00:09:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The percent for the R3-D zone is 50% instead of the 66% for other zones. This would still tend to generate stacked units while allowing for larger units within the construction type and building envelope studied in the feasibility analysis.

[00:10:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: In addition, various new standards are recommended. These standards implement various Council goals, outreach, and other issues that frequently arise in the development review process. The Habitable Ground Floor Space standard requires buildings to have units, lobbies, or other habitable space facing the street.

[00:10:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Parking Placement standards limit the location of parking to the rear of the lot. Building Footprint standards set the maximum depth and width of buildings. New standards create on-site circulation and open area requirements, and other standards address various aesthetic and other impact issues. The standards also include an exceptions section which allows developments to reduce standards based on existing conditions such as the presence of heritage trees.

[00:11:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: In addition to typical development standards that control the building envelope, the project team has developed design standards that control the shape and variation of building facades. These standards regulate entry types, bay composition, which is the pattern of windows on a facade, base-middle-top design, and massing features like tower elements and recesses.

[00:11:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The next major topic is regarding the approach to including ground floor commercial and live-work units in the R3 zoning district. Live-work is a type of unit that fills a gap between home occupations and dedicated commercial tenant spaces. Typically, they are dwelling units that also contain a flexible area that can be used for various commercial activities, storefront, and the opportunity for signage.

[00:12:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: These factors make them more visible than home occupations. Staff recommends allowing live-work throughout the R3, but limiting dedicated commercial spaces to the R3-D zone. This will support more commercial viability in the R3-D zone by locating it where the highest densities are allowed.

[00:12:27] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It also helps to reduce the impact of, you know, various incompatibilities with commercial uses such as trash and trips and parking to areas where higher density housing is more consistent with those factors. In addition, the R3 standards address various nuisance issues and consider best practices for the dimensions to accommodate successful commercial uses.

[00:12:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: One development standard with a major effect on development feasibility is parking. Staff recommends updating the multifamily minimum parking standards to address feasibility, consistency with the State Density Bonus Law which frequently supersedes the City's standards, and typical developer provision of parking.

[00:13:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: If directed by City Council, these standards would not be limited to the R3 zoning district. They would be updated for multifamily district in all standard zoning districts or precise plans that utilize the City code. The standards would only apply to multifamily and not to rowhouses, single-family, or other uses or precise plans with their own parking standards.

[00:13:47] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The next topic is regarding a Council goal for this project: to create an incentive for the consolidation of small lots. The R3-D subdistrict is where lot consolidation is most critical. The higher densities in R3-D are most feasibly developed on larger sites. Staff recommends focusing on parcels less than 20,000 square feet in the R3-D subdistrict and only allowing them to reach their maximum density if they combine with an adjacent site.

[00:14:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This incentive has not yet been drafted, and if Council agrees with this approach, will be integrated into the R3 standards.

[00:14:27] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The Housing Element requires the City to update its nonconforming standards to allow the redevelopment of sites with nonconforming density. In addition, the City's nonconforming ordinance is poorly organized and difficult to understand and can be updated for consistency with several state laws.

[00:14:47] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This update will focus on existing residential uses, and staff recommends it to cover the topics shown on the slide here. These recommendations increase the permissiveness of our nonconforming code in several ways beyond the Housing Element.

[00:15:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The last topic is regarding the inclusion of the R4 zone. If the R3 zone is adopted with the current draft densities, it will include densities both below and above the allowed densities in the R4 zone. Therefore, staff recommends integrating the R4 zone into the R3 project.

[00:15:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: An upcoming City Council meeting will review the EPC recommendations on these topics and provide direction to staff to finalize the project. In addition, we will continue to develop other code sections for the R3 zone, state laws, and R2 amendments per the Housing Element. In addition, a Draft EIR will be available for public review shortly.

[00:15:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And finally, here's the summary of the staff recommendation. And this concludes our presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions you might have. Also joining us tonight are representatives from our consultant team, Opticos and Lisa Wise Consulting. We have Cecilia Kim from Opticos and David Bergman from Lisa Wise Consulting. Thank you for coming.

[00:16:18] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you for the presentation. Let's move forward with public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

[00:16:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: There are a few speakers online. First speaker, James Kuszmaul. You should be able to talk now.

[00:16:53] James Kuszmaul: Good evening. My name is James Kuszmaul. I am speaking partially to the Mountain View YIMBY letter, partially just for myself. I want to say I do like a lot of aspects of the R3 updates. Personally, I live in an apartment complex that was built a bit over 60 years ago, is not earthquake safe, and I would love if it were feasible for it to be redeveloped as a more dense complex while still providing displacement protections for the tenants.

[00:17:19] James Kuszmaul: With that said, there's a lot of good updates to the standards here. There are still some of the standards that should be adjusted to make more things feasible and more housing get built in the city. I wanted to call out a couple ones. First off, it seems weird that we are only going to allow commercial in the R3-D zone. Yes, it's unlikely to be viable on many of the other sites; that doesn't mean we need to forbid it.

[00:17:45] James Kuszmaul: Along a similar note, it seems silly to continue requiring having minimum parking standards. Just like, yes, most places will still build off-street parking because they will consider it necessary for the viability of the project. That doesn't mean we need to require it. Also, a lot of the R3 zones are in regions that have at this point had minimum parking standards barred by the state anyways.

[00:18:12] James Kuszmaul: The mass breakings... the breaking up of the massing standards in the proposed design standards seem a bit arbitrary. They presumably are theorized to improve the aesthetics of the buildings, but personally I haven't seen that produce any good and just makes the buildings significantly more expensive.

[00:18:30] James Kuszmaul: The proposed setbacks, especially the front setbacks, seem arbitrarily high and needlessly reduce the footprint of the site while making it less walkable because the retail sites in particular will have to be farther back from the street. That includes setbacks from any pedestrian or bicycle easements to the building footprint, which is a separate section of the design standards.

[00:18:53] James Kuszmaul: It is good that the proposed standards include provisions to ensure that we improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation when projects on certain lots are built. That's just a good thing, I don't have additional stuff there. I also like the fact that we have standards around maximum number of driveways corresponding to the amount of street frontage and that the driveways are encouraged to be on off streets. Those are both good things.

[00:19:22] James Kuszmaul: And I think there were a few other things going on, but those are mostly called out in the letter. And the other comment I would provide is, more broadly, I would love if we were seeing more density in all the R3 zones. I think it's silly that we assume that there can't be tall buildings next to R1 zones, but that is not as much in scope for this meeting, so I won't emphasize it quite as much. Thank you.

[00:19:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Thank you. Next speaker is Leslie Freedman, followed by Isaac S. Leslie, you should be able to speak now.

[00:19:55] Leslie Freedman: Hello, my name is Leslie Freedman. I am a long time resident of Mountain View, more than 20 years. Well, I was about five years old if you would imagine. I am a member of the Livable Mountain View organization and also GreenSpaces Mountain View.

[00:20:15] Leslie Freedman: I'm just speaking today to say that I support the staff recommendation for these issues. I think it is an rational usage and I thank you very much.

[00:20:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: So our next speaker is Isaac. Isaac, you'll be able to speak now.

[00:20:53] Isaac S: Okay. This should be working now. Hello. Yes, I am, for the most part, very happy with the staff recommendation, the proposal. I want to share just a couple of things. My I guess concern is that some of these standards... there's a lot of them. This is about by word count six times as long as the existing R3.

[00:21:23] Isaac S: And so my worry is that some of these standards may be accidentally a little more restrictive and therefore prevent otherwise good projects. The examples I'm going to give, where I live is slated to become R3-D. I like the apartments that I live in, but they would be non-compliant under the R3-D standard because of the space between the buildings on site is less than the 40 foot that is for R3-D in the standard.

[00:21:55] Isaac S: But I like how they're set out. It makes a nice courtyard field, a bunch of small buildings around a large courtyard. So I think, you know, that wouldn't... where I live wouldn't be able to be built under the new standards, but I think it's a really nice place to live.

[00:22:11] Isaac S: And across the street is another parcel that's going to be slated R3-B. It is also courtyard apartments, but unlike these ones, it's a single building with a courtyard in the middle. And under R3-B, it would also be non-compliant because of the footprint, width, and height/depth restrictions, new restrictions.

[00:22:38] Isaac S: So I guess, I love the spirit of adding a lot of rules, you have to be careful, and less is usually more. So I guess be very thoughtful about what the new restrictions are and what potential things might be restricted by these restrictions that we are not necessarily thinking about. Yeah. Thanks.

[00:23:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay, so our next speaker is Robert Cox. Robert, can you hear us?

[00:23:15] Robert Cox: Yes, can you hear me?

[00:23:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes.

[00:23:18] Robert Cox: Hi there. I'm Robert Cox. I'm a member of the steering committee of Livable Mountain View. And I wanted to say that I largely support the staff recommendation. In particular, I can see that there is a lot of work that has gone into this and a lot of considerations have been voiced out in the staff report and detailed in a way to try to navigate this part of the R3 issue well.

[00:23:43] Robert Cox: I want to say in particular, the issue on the transitions is an important one to us and we thank you that for recognizing the idea that we need transitional areas in the R3 upzone areas that are going to be adjacent to single family homes.

[00:24:02] Robert Cox: I want to underline that I do believe that there still needs to be some parking standards because no parking standard often leads a developer to just push the need for parking out onto the streets and make it a less livable place for everybody who is adjacent to new developments.

[00:24:21] Robert Cox: And I'm hoping in this discussion that somebody on the commission will raise the issue and talk about, you know, the minimum densities. I understand that it would be useful if it could encourage the building of, you know, stacked flats as opposed to townhomes. My concern is whether or not it would just make all redevelopment infeasible.

[00:24:43] Robert Cox: And so I would like to hear some more from the staff and the commission on what was used to set those minimum standards where they are. So other than that, I'm hoping for not major deviations from what's being proposed. So thank you for letting me speak my mind.

[00:25:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Our next speaker is Hala.

[00:25:06] Hala Alshewani: Yes. Can you hear me okay?

[00:25:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes.

[00:25:09] Hala Alshewani: Okay, great. Good evening EPC commissioners and City Staff. My name is Hala Alshewani. I'm a long time resident of Mountain View and a member of Livable Mountain View group. I wanted to thank and commend the staff for their detailed report on updating R3 zoning code.

[00:25:28] Hala Alshewani: The staff has used City Council goals that were based on community input that has gone on for the last few years since 2020 in meetings. And those goals were, first is pedestrian and friendly neighborhoods. And the second was respectable transitions. And the third was increased in tree canopy and landscaping.

[00:25:50] Hala Alshewani: I thank the staff for following these goals in proposing the updates for the standards for R3. They have observed the minimum setbacks, minimum distance between structures, FAR standards, allowing commercial with retail was really important input from the community on, you know, five plus story buildings. So it's great to see that in there.

[00:26:16] Hala Alshewani: I also really liked some of the new development standards that were proposed in the staff report: the habitable space in the frontage area of these buildings; parking placement appropriately so that it would reduce parking on the streets; having footprints for each building so that there are opportunities for landscaping and viewing; requiring large sites to provide publicly access spaces, that's a great one, I hope it gets implemented.

[00:26:43] Hala Alshewani: There are other guidelines for vehicle access, rooftop decks, utilities, public improvements. All of these are really essential to have a livable and good quality of life for the residents of Mountain View.

[00:26:56] Hala Alshewani: I also like the point where the staff gave exceptions to the applicants, to the developers, if their request is reasonable to reduce some of these requirements. So it's great to see that flexibility as well. So I really thank the staff again and I hope the EPC members will accept the staff recommendations. Thank you very much.

[00:27:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The next speaker is Daniel, and after Daniel it's going to be Alex Brown. Daniel, you can speak now.

[00:27:28] Daniel: Hi, can you hear me?

[00:27:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes.

[00:27:31] Daniel: Okay. So this is a very complicated document, so apologies if my comment just sounds like a bunch of random thoughts. But there are a lot of I think technical things that I want to comment on here. So here I will go.

[00:27:48] Daniel: I think overall, you know, the vibes of this document are kind of tremendous. You know, you've got support for more growth, more building in our community, support for pedestrianization and building types that support a more pedestrian oriented neighborhood and streetscape. That's all great. And there's a lot of very specific standards that help realize that in the standards. So appreciation for all of that from me.

[00:28:28] Daniel: So that's one thing overall. Another thought I have here is, in the memo, it calls out two places where the city should ask for pedestrian cut-throughs and rights-of-ways where maybe, you know, we should have pathways for people that go through R3 zones. And I think it's a very good idea. These two places are a very good idea.

[00:28:55] Daniel: I think we should do this in a more systematic process though throughout the city because I, off the top of my head, can think of many more places that could benefit from pedestrian cut-throughs, such as providing access to Stevens Creek Trail, building on SFPUC right-of-way, building so that we can extend the Permanente Creek Trail, providing access to some of our schools.

[00:29:21] Daniel: So I think a more rigorous process involving active transportation staff as well as, you know, the cycling community would be really appreciated in terms of figuring out where all of the opportunities for that are. Okay, so a third thought I have. I'm not sure really, you know, if you Google 'break up the massing', there's actually a lot of people who don't really think that breaking up the massing works in terms of making like more aesthetically pleasing buildings, which I think is the goal.

[00:29:53] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you for sharing your opinion. You've reached the time limit unfortunately. So whatever extra comments you may have, please feel free by all means to send us an email and we will do our best to read that email to hear the suggested comments that you have as well. Sorry about that.

[00:30:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: Clerk, how many more speakers do we have in total?

[00:30:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We have four.

[00:30:13] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. It's good to know ahead of time so that we can try and regulate the time for everyone. In that case, I would have been able to limit it to two as opposed to three minutes. Just for reference sake. Thank you.

[00:30:23] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Alex Brown.

[00:30:31] Alex Brown: Hi, friends. Yeah, and also welcome Shweta. I would agree with commenters who were asking for universal ground floor retail. I would also agree that there should... we should be simplifying the standards and rules instead of applying overlapping but semi-orthogonal standards like dwelling units per acre, FAR, height limits, and form-based requirements like massing breaks.

[00:30:51] Alex Brown: I think that a cleaner code would help everyone involved in both the creation and evaluation of development proposals. Finally, as I've said pretty much every time this has come to committees, Council, and community groups, I think we should have D everywhere, all D, all day, incorporating R4 as R3-D. More D, more better, let's do it. I look forward to continuing to comment on this project through the rest of the decade. Thank you.

[00:31:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The next speaker is Matthew Marting, and then followed by Manuel Salazar. Matthew, you can speak now.

[00:31:28] Matthew Marting: Hey, can you hear me?

[00:31:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes.

[00:31:31] Matthew Marting: Great. So a couple of things. One, I'm kind of concerned about the lot consolidation incentive. So I understand that higher density works better with a larger lot, but I think that that fact alone can act as enough of an incentive. And if a developer is still not able to consolidate with a neighboring lot for whatever reason, it would be better not to limit their density.

[00:32:08] Matthew Marting: Because, you know, we could end up with... they're basically... the R3-D turns into an R3-C if they're not able to consolidate that lot. And so we could end up with trying to incentivize more density and we actually end up with less density because of that.

[00:32:26] Matthew Marting: And then the other thing, I'm really glad that this has some provisions for like pedestrian cut-throughs. I actually live closer to the San Antonio Caltrain Station than Mountain View Caltrain Station, but it's actually quite difficult for me to walk to the San Antonio Caltrain Station. So that's a really good thing.

[00:32:48] Matthew Marting: I'm just kind of concerned with the setbacks. Having a 15-foot setback seems kind of large, and I believe that that would also apply to any pedestrian cut-throughs. So, you know, it seems more appropriate to have, you know, something more like a five-foot setback, especially, you know, if you've got like a pedestrian walkway maybe between some of your buildings, having to have 15 feet separation from that to your building seems a bit excessive. But that's all. Thank you.

[00:33:25] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Manuel Salazar? You're next.

[00:33:33] Manuel Salazar: Hi, good evening, commissioners. My name is Manuel Salazar and I'll be speaking tonight on behalf of SV@Home. We are a nonprofit affordable housing policy organization that works all around Santa Clara County. So first off, I really wanted to thank City Staff and Council and honestly a lot of the community members who have engaged in this process.

[00:33:53] Manuel Salazar: It's been very long, it's taken multiple years, but you know, organizations like, you know, Mountain View YIMBY have really helped and I think helped to bring forward some really wonderful policy. We're really happy to see that the current R3 proposal kind of reflects a lot of what we've been advocating for. You know, it expands housing capacity in the right places, near transit and jobs. It introduces more flexible modern zoning approach that, you know, really supports infill development.

[00:34:18] Manuel Salazar: And it moves toward, you know, clearer more objective standards which helps reduce delays and make things honestly more predictable for everyone. You know, less issues on staff, less issues on the developers, et cetera. Notably what I really like about this is also the fact that they paired it with some really strong tenant protections so we're not just, you know, building more homes, we're doing it in a way that minimizes displacement. And that's a really big deal.

[00:34:41] Manuel Salazar: That said, we do have kind of a couple concerns. Mountain View YIMBY has raised some wonderful points so I'd really recommend and highlight some of the things that they've discussed. One thing we have some concern around and it doesn't have to be addressed here, it could be addressed maybe at Council at a later date, but we would like to see some alignment with some of the recent state policies like SB 79 and SB 684 just because of the fact that it's better to be proactive working on these things now rather than having to have staff revise and review things later on is just gonna, you know, free up a lot of staff time and we think it's just general best practice. So thank you again for your time and due diligence on this item and we hope that it will continue to move forward. Thank you.

[00:35:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: So David, would you like to speak in person? Okay. We have one in person speaker, David Watson.

[00:35:39] David Watson: Hi, I'm David Watson. I'm the one who sent the letter from Mountain View YIMBY and I don't know, it's kind of dense, I was going to go over some highlights from it here.

[00:35:54] David Watson: We were, right off the top, the one of the goals of the R3 update is to move towards a more form-based code. And along those lines, it seemed like we probably shouldn't have density limits. The point of a form-based code is to have the code be based on the shape, the form of the building. And so we have other precise plans that do not use a unit per acre limit and it seems like we should be able to do that with R3 as well.

[00:36:27] David Watson: We would recommend increasing the FAR in R3-B. We'd like to recommend replacing the lot consolidation incentive with something else because right now it is actually more of a stick than a carrot. And for smaller lots that are going to probably be the hardest to develop with R3, it applies really a disincentive and it seems that we should at least not do that if not help them develop.

[00:37:01] David Watson: We also, I think one of the other commenters mentioned it, but we recommend reducing the front setbacks. I think 15 feet is more the kind of thing you expect for a single family home with a lawn in front of it. Especially with the requests for commercial and the fact that we're aiming to not have the parking be in front of the building, it's wasted space.

[00:37:24] David Watson: If you read about, you know, good urban design for walkability, they do not recommend having a large space between the sidewalk and the building itself. And I remind you the sidewalk is not part of the setback. So if we went to a zero setback, there would still be a sidewalk and that's a separate item. Okay.

[00:37:49] David Watson: We also would suggest replacing the massing breaks with better design tools or offering other design tools as an alternative. Massing breaks are part of the reason why buildings look a way that people find unattractive in modern design. And there are other options that are also less expensive. So I suggest looking into, I'm not sure I gave it here, but Berkeley has some of its codes offer massing break alternatives that are based on ornamentation that I'd suggest you consider.

[00:38:27] David Watson: We would recommend allowing retail everywhere. And we'd also recommend allowing height exceptions as another thing as an option for developers who, you know for instance, are preserving heritage trees, so things like that. And exceptions for community benefits. Thank you.

[00:38:54] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you. No more speakers? Okay. Great. Let's move on to EPC general questions. Who would like to start? Commissioner Cranston. Thank you for stepping up.

[00:39:38] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So a few different things. It wasn't entirely clear to me as I read through the design standards how shared passages between buildings would be handled. It sounded to me, looked to me, like it would be... we had this seven foot setback from the side of the property, but it was kind of encouraging those to be with the property next door, but it still allowed a fence to be put up in between the properties.

[00:40:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So you end up with two seven foot things on the side that can't be connected to make a single passage. Is that... can that be looked at? Is that... am I misreading that? Because in the examples of pedestrian cut-throughs, it tended to be more along the edge of a property rather than through the middle of a property. And I just was... 15 feet or 14 feet with seven and seven works, but two seven foot with a fence in between doesn't work. So was that considered and how would you address that?

[00:40:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Do you have a draft code section or paragraph that you're referencing there for the fence? I think the intent is that if a property redevelops and is required to have one of these ped cut-throughs along its property line... and what we found in our experience is that developers are much more willing to build these ped cut-throughs on the edges of their properties than right through the middle of their properties, and that's why they're shown on the edges of properties in the draft standards.

[00:41:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, and we've actually implemented this a number of times with approved projects in the East Whisman Precise Plan, although none obviously as you know have been built yet in the East Whisman Precise Plan. But the vision here is whichever property on either side of this property line builds first, they would need to provide an easement and a path. The path is along the property line, the easement goes in a little bit from the path.

[00:41:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That ensures that there's a small setback between the path and the building. It also allows for some landscaping including tree canopy and potentially amenities in that space. One of the provisions of the easement is to allow for access not just from the public, like the adjacent public right-of-way, but allow for access from the adjacent property.

[00:42:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So there would not... there could theoretically be a fence in the short term before that adjacent property redevelops that would follow along the property line, right along that kind of half built path. But once that other property redevelops, they would need to offer access to the adjacent property as well. So that would essentially remove that fence and you'd have a double width size path that goes up the property line.

[00:42:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That's good. I guess as I read it that was not clear to me, so just... The staff report and the documents mention only two of the cut-throughs. In all the meetings with the community, getting more of these cut-throughs through particularly large blocks was something that came up over and over. Are the two that are listed simply examples or are they the only two that would be required?

[00:43:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So there are two different standards. One is a standard that applies broadly across all sites over I think five acres. So there are properties over five acres all over the city. So those would be required to go through a planning process to break up those sites with new potentially streets but also just public paths through the site.

[00:43:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And there are standards for determining where those paths would be, objective standards determining maximum block size, and you know they'd have to design around those standards. There are two cases where the lots are smaller than five acres but they are in R3-D areas, so there's kind of an opportunity for redevelopment that's happening there and increased demand for those pedestrian areas where staff felt there's a higher level value to getting those ped cut-throughs.

[00:44:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And that's connecting these large block areas to Rengstorff Park where you have these super huge long blocks, almost a quarter mile long, and you have to go around the block in order to get to Rengstorff Park from Latham Street or California Street. And then the other is a case where you have a very large block in order to get access to the San Antonio Caltrain Station from what is actually very close to the Caltrain Station, you just have to walk a very long way around the block to get there.

[00:44:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There may be other opportunities and we did receive a public comment highlighting other opportunities like access to the Stevens Creek Trail or Permanente Creek Trail, but those are kind of the two most obvious ones that we could map in an objective way.

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff in this process focused on the R3D areas for reasons that I mentioned, higher demand, more likelihood of redevelopment, but if there are other areas that Council and EPC want us to study, we can do so.

[00:45:17] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So it's not limited to those two. At this point, in the East Whisman precise plan, we actually had very late, we'd like these connections to go. Have you looked at that or considered that more broadly in the R3D areas? Because what you could end up with is a large block that faces say California and a different large block that faces Latham and they don't align, which would be a missed opportunity. So is it going to be just, has there been any consideration of a broader cut-through plan or is it just going to have, right now the assumption it's going to be case by case?

[00:46:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So for the large sites it's going to be case by case. For the two that are identified and potentially more if directed by Council, it would be, we will draw the lines in the code and you will be required to provide those paths in the code. It is significantly harder in a citywide standard zoning district to do the circulation planning that we did for the North Bayshore precise plan and the East Whisman precise plan.

[00:46:39] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Next question. One of the letters we received referenced, it was SB or I don't know, HR 684 or SB 684. It wasn't something that I was familiar with, but how was that, how would that be accommodated within? It seemed like something that would be a good thing potentially, but it wasn't, I've never heard of it and have you looked at that?

[00:47:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, we are, we've looked a lot into it. It's SB 684. It's been updated by SB 1123. It's called the Starter Home Revitalization Act or something like that. And the purpose is to, I think of it as, you may remember SB 9 from a few years ago, which basically allowed increased densities and, you know, a lack of discretion, ministerial approval for cities to approve those increased densities across all single-family zones up to four units. This does very much the same thing in multi-family zones up to 10 units. And it's specifically for ownership units. So it sets specific standards that the city cannot enforce more than. So it sets specific standards for setbacks, densities, minimum densities, and a number of other standards. It also says that the city really can't enforce standards that would preclude the development at the densities that are allowed in the statute. So our zoning code has one set of standards for R1 and another set of policies and standards that implement SB 9. Likewise, we can do the same thing in R3 where we have a set of standards that apply across R3, and then we are also working on a specific section of the code that specifically implements SB 684 and SB 1123 if somebody is interested in developing one of these projects that the statute intends.

[00:48:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So that would come to us at a future date?

[00:48:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes. The statute is very prescriptive so there's not a lot of discretion in what we can include in that statute. So we really wanted to prioritize with this meeting some of the things that there's discretion and discussion opportunity around and we'll bring back with the final adoption hearing those things that the state is just telling us, you know, we have to do.

[00:49:25] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Next question. The comment, there was a comment I think is on page 21 of the staff report about how these rules would be applied for properties in non-compliance. And it specifically talked about townhomes. And what I was left with is a question. So the, one of the objectives when we first started talking about R3 was to deal with the unintended consequence of the rent control ordinance that fortunately SB 330 started to take care of so we didn't just see that going forward. But it was never my expectation that we would do anything in the, the goal here in my mind has always been to expand opportunities, not to limit opportunities. And I came away wondering if the minimum standards and this requirement that you have to hit that would basically mean that townhomes and row homes would have actually no longer be an option in the city. Do we effectively cut off townhomes? I don't think that was ever my expectation, but as I looked at the minimum standards, I was like, okay, can you actually, if you're a market rate townhome or row home or apartment, can you still develop the way it was before or not? And I came away thinking it was not, which means we're actually taking away an option. I want to add options. I want carrots. I'm not necessarily looking for... So can you, is that, am I interpreting that correctly or?

[00:51:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, and it depends on the sub-district that we're talking about. You know, there, the R3B sub-district and the R3A sub-district. So the R3B sub-district, it's not identified as a change part of the R3 zone. And so similar standards apply to what the current R3 zone is today. Especially for row houses. It's a similar density to row house type development. The R3A zone is actually we're increasing densities to the kind of row house sweet spot in the R3A zone. So we're providing more opportunities for row houses in that zone. The, but in the C and D zones, those are and have always been, or like the C zone has always been the areas where the city has prioritized multi-family. So these are areas like, you know, this General Plan designation has historically covered the areas around Latham and Rengstorff and other areas that were kind of that medium-high density residential in the city. And that's the equivalent of the R3C zone today. In addition, the, one of the goals of the R3D zone is to really provide those opportunities for very high densities. And there is some concern that the balance of profitability continues to lean towards row houses unless you provide that additional stick, if you will, to say, no, we really do expect more density. We want to provide this additional opportunity for housing in the city and we expect property owners and developers to, you know, execute and make that density happen. So that's really the goal of the minimum density standard and it, like I said, it really is, it's focused higher than row house densities in a couple of those sub-districts.

[00:53:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Say that again.

[00:53:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the R3C and the R3D sub-districts, that minimum density is set higher than row house densities. But in the R3A and R3B sub-districts, it's set lower than the row house densities.

[00:53:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: At or lower.

[00:53:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: At or lower, yeah. And the, I will also add that the statute that we were talking about, the Starter Home Revitalization Act, also provides densities at which row houses work. And so that would actually expand opportunities for row houses to the R2 zone and potentially in some cases even the R1 zone.

[00:53:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So if I understood it right, row homes and townhomes would still be financially viable options within R3A and R3B, but they would not necessarily be in R3C or D.

[00:54:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's right.

[00:54:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So, then do we need the minimum standards in R3A and B? What's the purpose of them? I'm a fan of simpler rather than more complicated and so the more we add, the more complicated it gets.

[00:54:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, if we don't have them, we run the risk that people will do larger lot single-family developments, which still has a lot of value in this community. There is a very strong incentive for that as well. And so this would encourage more development closer to what the density that's envisioned by those zones as opposed to, you know, monster homes on large lots.

[00:54:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um, the, I read the analysis on the retail and R3D. Said it was most viable in R3D. Is it not viable in R3C or B and A? I was, I was not expecting the cutoff at R3D myself. I was, I get, you know, putting retail in the middle of a row home doesn't necessarily make sense, but I was surprised that R3C at least wasn't included. Can you comment on that as to was it really not feasible or was it borderline?

[00:55:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The analysis focused on where are we expecting population change. So the R3C areas are really consistent with the existing densities that are there today. So we're not expecting very much population change. And part of the goal of the analysis that Lisa Wise Consulting did was to show that the population change that we're getting out of the R3D areas can really support vibrant and successful commercial uses. And they did show that. So the viability question is a question around what areas are we going to get new development that can actually create those opportunities for commercial and where can that commercial be most successful because it's going to be associated with new populations. And that's really limited to those R3D areas. If there are other considerations, that's direction we can take and update our standards.

[00:56:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um, now last question I had, and this is, everybody probably already knows this, but in some of the design standards, it showed parks in the middle of a big development. I don't recall the how developers get credit for publicly, private but available open space. If a park is located in the middle of a big cluster, do they get credit for that as public open space?

[00:57:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Currently the POPA standards, POPA stands for Privately Owned Publicly Accessible open area, and that's our provisions to allow developers to get credit to our parkland requirements if they provide publicly accessible but privately owned open areas. So our POPA standards currently have a provision that says that the space needs to be visible and accessible from the public. Like it needs to be, like you need to be able to know that it's there from the street. I don't know all the details about how that's implemented. It's not implemented by planning staff, but there's a distinction here between the open area requirements in the zoning code, which are primarily intended to be utilized by the development itself, right? It's providing that quality of life, open area and breaks between buildings that are utilized by the development itself versus public open space which is regulated by, I think it's Chapter 41 of the City Code that requires parkland dedication from new development. We're not talking at all in this plan about new public parks or publicly accessible open spaces in the R3 code.

[00:58:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. I guess the reason it came as a question in my mind was it was on one of those areas where, I don't remember which of the two it was in, but it showed a pathway and it was going past one of these little tiny parks inside of a development. And if it's now a, you know, public pathway, a cut-through, does that mean that this tiny little park buried in the middle of a development all of a sudden becomes something that they get credit for when nobody else other than people who happen to be walking on that get credit for it? And my reaction was, huh, that doesn't make any sense. So I was, that's, I don't know if you have to have an answer right now, but I was, I was worried that burying a tiny little park on a middle of a pathway that maybe goes from the street to nothing at this point would be treated as public open space. So maybe I'm the only one who cares, but it was, I was, it was a question that I had on how that worked.

[00:59:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. Are you referring to this diagram?

[00:59:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Uh, yeah. It's the one, the little park at the top. It's like a little A thing there. It's like an open space and I'm like, that's not public so they don't get... So I was, that's what I was worried about. I, I want, I like the, you know, the Prometheus project, uh, you know, the Flower Mart project has a park right on Evelyn. The Dean has a park right on... whatever's close... Fayette, that's it. The, in the open space along the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way at the Merlon Geier project, those are accessible, they're used by people. That's a good thing. I'm just, I just want to make sure that however it's set up, it's clear. So if that could be clarified in the future if that's part of it or not, that would be good to know.

[01:00:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Absolutely. And just to, you know, for the benefit of the public, we're looking at images on page 21 of the draft code where it has diagrams of common usable open areas associated with internal circulation. In the plan, common usable open areas are intended to be usable by the development, not intended to be publicly accessible open areas.

[01:01:05] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Commissioners. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Also for clarity and for the public's benefit, the city's POPA standards do require the size to be at least 0.4 acres. I believe there's a 100-foot minimum dimension across the POPA. And it also requires that the POPA be located on a public street, the frontage of a public street or with a prominent and highly visible entrance.

[01:01:40] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston, I've been able to hear you and I'm sure the city staff has understood your questions. And more importantly, I believe City Council representatives Lucas Ramirez and Emily Ramos understand your perspective as well. Thank you for being here by the way. Just wanted to bring that up. Do you have any further questions, sir?

[01:02:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay.

[01:02:10] Chair José Gutiérrez: Well, thank you. Moving on to Commissioner Pham. The floor is yours.

[01:02:14] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you. I believe some of my questions have been answered with Commissioner Cranston asking them. So thank you for that. So I'll skip over some of my questions. I was really interested in the Retail/Live-Work approach section. It seemed like from the staff report, community outreach indicated broad support, which was interesting. So my first question is, are there any existing neighborhoods or buildings in Mountain View that would align with this approach described?

[01:02:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So Live-Work developments are not common. And I'm not actually aware of any in the city. There are a few in San Jose. There's one that I always think of near downtown Campbell. But the idea is that it's a facade that could be either residential or commercial. So, you know, you close the blinds and it's residential. You open the blinds, it's commercial. It's that kind of space. And so it really is intended to be very flexible to allow a small business that is also operated by the resident of that tenant space. So, yeah, I don't know of any in Mountain View, but there are a few others around the South Bay.

[01:03:40] Commissioner Tina Pham: Got it. And then the staff report also mentioned Sunnyvale standards. I wanted to ask about those standards and any lessons learned from their implementation.

[01:03:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, and fortunately we have a few people that previously worked at Sunnyvale that can help us with that. You know, one of the positives that we heard about using Sunnyvale standards is that they are specific about the uses that are allowed and about the operations that are allowed. So it really is, you know, specific, objective standards that can be clearly implemented. I think there are going to need to be some tweaks for Mountain View context and consistency with Mountain View code, but it does provide a good framework to start from.

[01:04:28] Commissioner Tina Pham: Any idea of what those tweaks may be?

[01:04:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, we're going to have to modify references to permits. We're, you know, I, it's been a while since I looked at it, so I, I don't, I could probably look right now and get you a better answer, but mostly references to other sections of the code, sections to permits, procedural requirements, things like that.

[01:04:54] Commissioner Tina Pham: Got it. And one question I have is right now the staff report recommends allowing this type of approach throughout all of R3 zoning. Has staff thought about whether that could be, you know, more targeted or do you really think that that could be best for the entire R3 zoning districts?

[01:05:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I think, you know, the Live-Work units that I've seen actually implemented tend to be residential 90% of the time. And so it is a fairly innocuous use type that really just provides that additional opportunity for a visible business that can benefit from pedestrians walking by. It can add to some kind of neighborhood character and can kind of help support small businesses in the area. So we don't see a strong downside to allowing it throughout the R3 zone, especially since like I said, 90% of the time it's just going to be occupied as a unit.

[01:06:09] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Um, one of the last bullets of that section talked about targeted operational standards. Could you talk a little bit more about that and how they could be implemented or enforced?

[01:06:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, let me get my notes up from that. If you have another question, I will, I can answer that as I get this up.

[01:06:30] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Um, another question I had was related to incentives for lot consolidation. I know that Commissioner Cranston asked some of the questions related to that. I was just curious what other Bay Area cities do for that? It seemed like a tough issue to try to work around.

[01:06:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I mean a lot of other cities do offer bonus density, so as opposed to, you know, limiting the density on the sites that are smaller, they say, well, if you do the consolidation you get some extra units. There's a challenge with that in that it's not clear how that aligns with state density bonus law. And it's also not fully consistent with the project that we've defined in terms of the densities and the locations in the city. Small lots, you know, are concentrated in some areas and we'd have to look at that and see whether bonus density would add significantly to the unit count if they do decide to consolidate that we're studying in our CEQA process. I would also add, the densities that we're allowing in these R3D areas really, really do maximize what you can build in the Type 5 building type, which is what we are seeing in most multi-family development. We are seeing very little Type 1 construction, which is the high-rise type construction, and to get there you would need a significant amount of additional height and possibly density in order to make that pencil out. You know, that's the type of thing that you see in the downtown San Francisco, downtown San Diego kind of environments. Very rarely do you see that in these more suburban transitional environments. That being said, adding additional density or additional unit opportunities to these R3D areas may not provide much of an additional incentive because we are allowing so much density in these areas already.

[01:08:45] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thanks for the discussion. I know that that seemed like a challenging goal to try to work toward. Um, I have one more question about the draft non-conforming ordinance approach. Um, reading this section, it kind of jogged my memory that we talked recently about Historical Preservation Ordinance. Is there any conflict or is there any sort of intersection between the two ordinances that we need to be concerned about?

[01:09:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so that's a very good question. Currently the Historic Preservation Ordinance does reference the non-conforming code and allows historic buildings further exemptions from any limitations prescribed by the non-conforming code. So you are allowed more flexibility if you are non-conforming under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. I don't foresee inconsistencies in these two projects. We can still provide that additional flexibility to historic buildings, which I think is very appropriate, but the delta between what's allowed under our non-conforming code and what's allowed for those historic properties may shrink, right? Because we are being more permissive under our standard non-conforming code. But I don't see the potential for any inconsistencies.

[01:10:20] Commissioner Tina Pham: Got it. Okay. I think that's it for my questions. Thank you.

[01:10:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay. I wanted to get back to you about your question around operational standards. So let me...

[01:10:35] Commissioner Tina Pham: For the retail live-work approach?

[01:10:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, for the... Now, are you asking about live-work operational standards specifically or are you asking about the operational standards for stand-alone commercial tenants?

[01:10:48] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, for the live-work, as it was part of that section.

[01:10:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. Um, so we have, you know, just looking at some of the materials that Sunnyvale talks about, you know, intended for the use by fairly specific occupations. Intended to be occupied by the same tenant as the residence, that's part of the definition. Kind of access standards, you know, ensuring that there is access for the public since it is intended to be a live-work unit and you don't want customers kind of going through the middle of a building or anything like that to get to those units. Some signage standards that would be small but appropriate to a mixed residential commercial environment. Let's see. Some limitation on the number of customers and deliveries per day. This is often difficult to enforce at a planning level, but it does allow us to, you know, monitor and maybe put some additional conditions on outlier cases that may come up. Numbers of employees. Shall not generate external noise, odor, glare, vibration, electrical interference. No explosive, toxic, combustible, flammable materials, things like that. No entertainment, drinking, things like that. No bars. No animal grooming or boarding, things like that.

[01:12:48] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Thank you. That was helpful.

[01:12:54] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you. We'll move on to our newest member of the team, Commissioner Subramanian.

[01:12:59] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you, Chair. And thank you to my colleagues, Commissioner Cranston and Commissioner Pham for your questions. I want to focus a little bit more on some of the density minimums that are being proposed across the R3 designations that staff is proposing. And specifically, I would like to understand it from a standpoint of the different R zones, you know, and transitioning from R1, R2, and the idea of introducing the R3A as being the next transition zone. And this is particularly with reference to the preferred alternate zoning district update map that staff provided. And bear with me here, I tried to catch up on a lot of the R3 history, which you have years on me. But I did understand from some of the past discussions that the strategy was being crafted to allow for proper transitions from the single-family housing designation zones to creating the proper transitions to more dense housing. So could you, particularly with respect to that, talk through your strategy of how you arrived at these four designations and the densities being proposed?

[01:14:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, sure. So the minimum densities were later in the process. Those were most recently, and based on the maximum densities identified through this iterative process that we've been working on. The current R3 zone really applies to two, kind of three General Plan designations or three densities. A 25 unit per acre density, a 35 unit per acre density, and occasionally an 80 unit per acre density. We also have an R2 zone that is typically around 12 units per acre. And that is intended to continue being an R2 zone. So the first thing that I'll talk about is the housing element, which identified a program to take some R2 sites and integrate them into the R3 zone. Recognizing that R2 sites are already kind of a transition zone between single-family and multi-family, they're also a kind of a small multi-family opportunity that fits into the design and character of established single-family neighborhoods. So you'll see in a lot of areas we have R2 zones that are completely surrounded by R1 neighborhoods. And so continuing with that consideration, we developed a new density level and a new set of standards between the previous R2 and R3 zones and that's the 20 unit per acre zone for R3A. It's intended to provide a gradual step up for existing duplex sites to provide a little bit more density, things like row houses or other small apartments, that would continue to not be out of place in a largely single-family neighborhood. Then in the, on the R3 side, we went through a process of identifying areas for growth in the R3 zone. And so that map shows those R3D areas as those areas that are opportunities for growth. That was based on a range of criteria as set by the City Council. And ultimately they directed us to assign certain areas for that, for those high growth areas. There were two different potential densification designations that we teed up to the City Council. One was a designation that could reach feasibility through the assumption that they would ask for State Density Bonus, and we did this analysis of feasibility assuming that they need to replace all the existing rent stabilized apartments with below market rate housing, which is going to be very, very expensive on a developer. And so we need to get enough density that that makes sense for the developer. And so the analysis that we presented said, well you need this certain amount of density to do that. Here's an option that sets the base density at a point where somebody is going to be asking for State Density Bonus and gets to that feasibility level. And here's an option that sets that density where it's already feasible. And that's the 65 and the 110 that we're adding. The 50 is an existing designation that already applies to just one site in the city. They created that designation because there was this kind of hole between 35 and 80 that we needed to fill with another designation. And then the 80 is the current R4 designation. So that's the all of the designations about where they are and where they all came from. Again, planning is a very iterative process. We're dealing with a lot of stuff that we're receiving from older codes and older plans and making iterative changes as we go, both through this process of decision making but also from areas that are changing and areas that aren't changing.

[01:19:09] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. As a follow up to that, can you talk about the potential impacts of the SB 79 density boosts that are coming down the road and how that might impact the R3 designated zones and what some of the thinking is around incorporating that within the R3 standards?

[01:19:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, unfortunately I can't speak too much to SB 79, we're still digesting it. It's a very complex law. But what I can say is that many R3 sites are actually exempt from SB 79 because it does exempt properties that are subject to rent stabilization, and many R3 properties are subject to rent stabilization. Also it only affects properties within a half mile of the major transit stops in the city so that there are large swaths of R3 that are outside those radii. For the areas that are within those buffers and that do not include rent stabilized units, some areas are consistent with the R3D designation and there is reasonable alignment between that R3D designation and some of the densities that are stipulated in SB 79. It's not perfect alignment, but there is fairly good alignment between some of those areas. There are other areas where SB 79 for projects that utilize it would supersede these R3 standards and the densities that we are studying in this R3 code update.

[01:21:10] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So just to clarify a point there, for some of the R3 designated sites which are across from the downtown Mountain View transit center, are those going to be exempt from the SB 79 because of rent stabilization prevailing conditions or is that something that needs further study?

[01:21:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well I will say that we are bringing to the City Council in a couple of weeks here, towards the end of the month, we're going to be bringing a study session to discuss how Council wants to proceed with SB 79. So we'll have more data at that time. Right now I can't speak to exactly where rent stabilized buildings are in the city and their exact configuration or anything like that. We probably won't even have that data for late January exactly, but we'll have a rough idea of where they are and which properties are likely exempt.

[01:22:20] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. A few more questions to clarify on some of the building standards being proposed. Could you speak to the intent of the habitable ground floor space and the depths being proposed across the different R3 zones?

[01:22:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure, I can talk to the intent, but then I'll probably ask one of our representatives from Opticos about some of their analysis for how those exact numbers were generated. The intent is to support active ground floor and pedestrian accessible space. So we're trying to avoid buildings that are simply units built on top of parking and the only thing that is accessible at the ground floor is a level of parking. And so there's this expectation that there be a certain amount of habitable space in the ground floor, whether it be a lobby or a unit or a commercial space, and that needs to be adequate space for a livable unit or some activity. So there is a minimum depth there. So I'll defer to Cecilia Kim from Opticos to talk maybe a little more if she can about how those specific standards were generated.

[01:23:45] Cecilia Kim: Sure. Good evening Commissioners. Thank you for that question. Cecilia Kim from Opticos Design. So habitable ground floor depth is based on the potential use that building can accommodate. And two variables are in the standards for that. One is that depth for the ground floor habitable use as well as the parking setback. So that parking is behind that use as well. Sometimes if you don't have the habitable depth specified, even with the parking setback, sometimes the space there can be non-usable space, like just storage space or something, so that the front of the building actually does not have that active component to it. And so that's where we want to set a depth that is, as Eric was saying, very usable and habitable and occupiable. Typically for residential uses that is about 20 feet, sometimes it could be a little bit less than that, 15 to 20 if desired, but usually 15 to 20 is a good space to be usable for residential uses. For commercial or non-residential uses, typically 20 or more, up to 30 is a good depth for that because they have other components that they need to be able to use that space for a very usable retail or commercial space.

[01:24:59] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. Another quick clarification on the point. It talks about the depth but does not talk about the percentage of the frontage that needs to have that depth of habitable space. So is the consideration to have that standard be different across the different R3 densities, particularly when you get to larger buildings with larger frontages? Could you clarify that point?

[01:25:25] Cecilia Kim: So to ask a clarifying question, are you asking about the width of that space and not the depth of it for a building?

[01:25:35] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Right. So you spoke to the depth of it earlier. And I want to clarify if there is a width standard that also applies along with the depth.

[01:25:45] Cecilia Kim: We don't actually specify the width standard to that because the parking again, another variable for that is also included in the standards. Typically the width goes along with the building form, the building width, where a portion of that building width is usually used for the building entry space and then what remains of the rest of that building width becomes part of that space that is occupiable or habitable.

[01:26:10] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. One last question about the exceptions to the standards. Could you talk about why a height variation wasn't included in the exceptions?

[01:26:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well we have a height exception for open space and provision of public open space and for ground floor. Height exceptions can be much larger than the actual need created by the exception or whatever. So if you imagine that you're cutting out a corner of the building for a heritage tree or something like that. Well, if you get an extra story, that's a lot more than the corner of the building that you've lost. So we wanted to be at least somewhat proportional to what the exceptions are asking for. Now that's not to say that there aren't opportunities to add to these exceptions. So hearing your feedback on that would be great, but also, you know, we do need to recognize that nine times out of ten, projects are going to be coming in with State Density Bonus. And the first waiver that anybody ever asks for in State Density Bonus is always going to be height. And that's going to be unrestricted, waivers are unlimited, right? We cannot set limits on those waivers. So in many cases it may be moot for a height standard.

[01:27:59] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you.

[01:28:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you. Commissioner Dempsey.

[01:28:05] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Mr. Chairman. So basic data question up front. For the total acreage of R3 across the city, what's the relative share A, B, C, and D? Is it quarter, quarter, quarter, quarter? Is it some other share? What?

[01:28:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I have that data. I just need to bring it up real quick. Go ahead and ask your next question.

[01:28:30] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Sure. That's, to me I've been wondering that for kind of a long time. So good thing to throw into the memo when you publish it again. So I have questions about the density bonus law. So for the last couple of years, how many of the permitted R3 developments that we've seen utilized the density bonus law? I know in the memo you said most. Can you tell me is that 55%? Is it 95%? How often are we seeing density bonus used in R3 last couple years?

[01:29:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well I will say that most of the development in R3, at least until the adoption of SB 330, has been row house development. And those tend not to be density bonus projects because there's not much benefit that you get to additional units. You're more constrained by the area of the lot because you're not stacking any units. We also updated our BMR requirements for row houses probably five or six years ago. And so any row house projects that came in before that had a much lower BMR requirement and so they really had no incentive to do State Density Bonus. So that's why we saw a lot of row house projects that did not ask for State Density Bonus.

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Since all of that, I would say I I can't think of a project, honestly, that's come in not using state density bonus. Um, there have been maybe a couple of very small single-family subdivisions uh that maybe would not qualify just on the basis of number of units. Um, my principal planner over there said there's may have been one project.

[01:30:33] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Just one project which was our three straight R3 without density bonus.

[01:30:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So so darn near all.

[01:30:37] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Do we expect that trend to continue?

[01:30:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, I think that with uh seems like...

[01:30:43] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Maybe I'll just add one other piece of that to the darn near all. Um, that holistically with the, you know, all of our zoning districts and precise plans, there's I think only been one that I've seen of all the projects that have come, you know, to you all or to the council or just to the ZA. Um, so it's a it's it's very widely used. And I and most people are going to take advantage of that because of the waive the unlimited waivers.

[01:31:54] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And and again we see no reason to think that's going to change. We should expect that nearly all of the R3 projects going forward, even, you know, once once this gets done and gets into code, we expect we'll continue to see most of the almost all of those projects, they're going to want some sort of density bonus law uh exception whether it's height or or all the various things that people ask for. So if if you would remind me, 'cause I forget exactly how it works, if you would remind me what you're allowed to waive and what you're not allowed to waive that we are talking about in these R3 changes. Is everything on the table to go out the window or or how how is that going to work in practice if nearly all of them are going to start are going to play the density bonus card?

[01:33:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right. Yeah, so dwelling units per acre can't be waived. 'Cause that's the basis of how density bonus is calculated. Um, there may be other standards that could have a relationship to safety or anything like that that most zoning development standards don't. Um, but we can always make a waiver justification based on safety. It doesn't happen very often uh because you can usually design a building to to uh be as safe as you need it to be. Um, but the reality is that developers work with us, right? They most of the time they are trying to meet as many standards as they can. It is a little bit of a uh, you know, extra paperwork exercise for them to go in and justify all the waivers that they need to to uh to um to do. The the other definition of waiver that I should make really clear is that the intent of waivers is to allow flexibility for standards that physically constrain a project. So there may be standards that don't physically constrain a project like um, you know, the requirement for an access easement. May not physically constrain a project if that project is already providing that area open, right? There's there's not already a building there, right? Um, likewise um uh you can't have you can't waive fees, you can't waive dedication requirements. Uh, so those are uh some things that are off the table for uh for state density bonus.

[01:35:54] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: But a great many things remain on the table.

[01:35:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Absolutely.

[01:35:59] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: One of the...

[01:36:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you Chair, Commissioners. Uh the other thing I'd add is uh the concessions part of State Density Bonus Law. And so uh as Planning Manager Anderson indicated, uh the waivers that are unlimited for these projects apply to those things that would somehow physically preclude the construction of the project at the density proposed. Um there's a second component to State Density Bonus Law that's very powerful but it's more limited and it relates to concessions. And those are things that may not be covered by a waiver but that have identifiable and actual cost reductions for the project. So some of those aspects of the R3 standards that we're talking about that maybe are more design-oriented that maybe are not going to physically preclude the construction at a given density could add cost and could be subject to use of a concession. Uh those tend to be more limited. Most projects get one or two, occasionally they'll get more than that, typically up to five maybe for a 100% affordable housing project. So they're very powerful. They're they're not always used because the waivers take care of so much and those limitations on use of concessions sometimes aren't needed or or can't be applied. But in this case where we have many many more standards, some of which again are more design-oriented, you can imagine that in some circumstances concessions could be used as well.

[01:37:58] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. And and I don't want to rabbit hole too much on the point. I am again perhaps this is because I am I am not as familiar with it as I should be, what the level of, I don't want to I'm tempted to say evidentiary standard, but that's probably a little bit too formal to describe this. I'm trying to understand uh where on the spectrum between 'I just have to claim it' and on the other end of the spectrum 'I have to prove it.' Does that uh what where where does the line fall where you say, 'Okay, you get it?'

[01:38:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, well that's changed actually a lot in the last few years. Uh there's been um court cases that have pushed that line very far towards developers. Uh where um essentially all they need to do is say this is the project that I want to build and this waiver is inconsistent with this project that I want to build. Um.

[01:39:11] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: The standard.

[01:39:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, the standard is inconsistent with the project that I want to build. So that is um a very powerful precedent uh court precedent that is currently, you know, the law of the land that we have to respect. Um and uh developers have uh continued to use waivers more aggressively after that court case.

[01:39:34] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Um I I know this isn't comment period although maybe I'll save my comments to the end. I do want to however commend staff for the section that you put up front where you discuss state law and you kind of you call this out that this there is um things that can come in and supersede the work that we're doing with R3 here. So anyway I I admire the fact that you called that out. I think some of this discussion could even be expanded but I'm really glad you did what you did in the staff report and I commend you for it. Um I've taken up lots of time. I guess...

[01:40:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I do have those acreages.

[01:40:04] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yes please.

[01:40:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh so um unfortunately I don't have it broken out by percent, but uh by far the largest is R3-B. That has 564 acres. Um C, D, the lower D, D, the D1 and the D2, are all very similar. C is 134, D1 is 138, and D2 is 138. Interesting. So it's coincidence there that they're all very similar. And um A is about half of that, so 61.

[01:40:41] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Really? Okay. That I think that would be really interesting data to include in the in the memo going forward because I kind of assumed that it was 25 25 25 25 and I was clearly way off on that. And I think that does matter if we're having conversations as as Commissioner Cranston raised, why would you maybe exclude ground floor commercial in a C, right? And we need to know how many, you know, how big of a chunk of R3 are we talking about when we're talking about that 'cause I had I had the same question, he just asked it better. Uh anyway I'll I'll stop there. My my thanks to staff, those are that's all very helpful. And I return it uh back to you Mr. Chair.

[01:41:17] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Dempsey. Appreciate your candor and uh use of evidentiary standards. I think it's very applicable. Duly noted. Okay we'll move on to Commissioner Nunez or Vice Chair Nunez.

[01:41:30] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Also, uh I'll I'll just kind of jump off that last starting point um that uh Commissioner Dempsey uh touched on with regards to that uh that paragraph around state laws. Um I guess very general and broad question um to with regards to that last um I guess sentence in particular uh the one on page 3 of the staff report where it says uh the city should anticipate that projects may be proposed following adoption of the R3 zoning update that deviate from the established standards um as allowed by State Density Bonus Law. I guess like um for our purposes, how how should we be interpreting that statement as regards to um the the the requirements that are being put forward in the staff recommendation. Um are we to interpret that statement as saying it's almost likely that developers would go with the state density stuff anyway and so this is almost in a way like a on paper thing that's not really in practice gonna be used or um is it just saying that like um if we're not mindful of um, you know, how we craft uh these uh, you know, uh standards in the recommendation that that's a a risk that we are um running up against? Like can can you just help um contextualize that for me in terms of how I should be interpreting that statement?

[01:43:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, I think it's uh it's a really important question um and I think it's one that has multiple different answers. Um I think first and foremost um, you know, with the city's zoning we should be trying to put in place the best standards that we can and ones that reflect the community's vision for how development should uh be constructed and materialize and the community that it will form, right, in the urban form and context. Um the reality of the law today is that uh in many cases developers can use this tool, State Density Bonus Law, to modify or eliminate many of these standards. And so I think maybe one of the most important things that these standards will do is communicate an intent uh and a desire on the part of the city. Uh and many developers uh really strive to meet as many of the standards that cities adopt as possible. Um there are irresponsible developers but many of them are are quite responsible and really do uh try to work with staff and we also try to work with those that maybe are less inclined. Um in any case um trying to meet in the middle uh with as many of the standards uh being met as possible is really the goal of our process, recognizing again the limitations of State Density Bonus Law. So I think the counsel I would give you is um to do your best to communicate a vision that's appropriate and responsible and recognize that we're not gonna get it right in every case and even if we try to there will be instances in which um different standards or or I guess different uh metrics and dimensions and and outcomes will occur. So um I wouldn't uh torture yourself over getting it perfect uh for a variety of reasons uh not least of which State Density Bonus Law will I think call into question the the ultimate outcomes of many of these projects.

[01:44:41] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, I I'm not feeling tortured. I'm I guess like what I'm really trying to understand is um actually the vision of the staff recommendation. And if um the staff recommendation was written with uh this envisionment of um almost like uh a default uh kind of view on uh uh just kind of like stepping back and enabling the state statutes to kind of like come to uh the fore in terms of how these parcels get uh developed or more as us really taking the reins on how we want to um to craft that.

[01:45:20] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I think very much the latter. Um the team has worked very hard to be thoughtful, use best practice, look at examples of good development across the state and beyond to really pull together examples and standards that uh we think would meet the needs uh and that the Mountain View community should be proud of. Um there are a variety of different site sizes, shapes, locations, contexts, existing development, etcetera that make it impossible for any standards to be exactly right, you know, in every instance. Uh and that's just an unrealistic expectation of a process like this across the planning area in question, right? As broad as the R3 uh scope is. Um but what this does is reflect really uh a thoughtful effort and one that's has had a lot of attention uh and and care uh and not one that just sort of, you know, threw down uh, you know, and gave up uh over the fact that State Density Bonus Law could take away our control. No, we tried to put um standards in place wherever we could that were were the best that we could come up with.

[01:46:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, thank you. Um and I think in in following up on that, right, 'cause a lot of this does have to it um intrinsically relates to both like what the state has in their own laws and also even some of the requirements like and commitments we've made through for example like the Housing Element, right? Um and I think the Housing Element does get cited uh several times in the staff report um, you know, around kind of like I I think in particular Program 1.3, right, around like economic feasibility. Um I think there's a there's a uh a key phrase there as well that I'm also trying to understand um around allowed density. I think it's on page 7 so it says um the city will revise multi-family development standards, major districts, blah blah, to ensure projects at minimum meet their allowed density. Um is that allowed density uh or I guess like can you expound on that allowed density in under what allowance?

[01:47:20] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I think Planning Manager Anderson can talk about some of the background where I think our experience with the existing R3 standards um has presented complications with achieving densities already allowed uh some of which would be higher under this current um proposal.

[01:47:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure, yeah, I mean just to speak specifically about some of those standards. I mean we did quite a bit of analysis on this early in this project showing that the open area standards, these setbacks that are dependent on the height of the building, um the uh the overall height standards really do make it impossible to build the densities that are allowed in the general plan for most projects. And uh so that was really the intent behind the the Housing Element uh language is to say look we got to rewrite these standards so that at the very least somebody can build what they're allowed under these standards.

[01:48:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Great. So when it says allowed density that's the city's standards not as would be granted under some State Density Bonus or anything like that. Is that is that correct?

[01:48:25] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes, that's correct.

[01:48:26] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay.

[01:48:27] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, and if you'd allow me to just add to that, I think that's a scenario in which you do throw in the towel and recognize State Density Bonus Law is gonna come and design the project the way that the developer wants rather than having intentionality and communicating an intent intent that's actually feasible to construct.

[01:48:44] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds good. So then so then that allowed density is in reference to what's currently in the general plan because the current R3 development standards wouldn't even allow us to have development that delivers what's in the general plan currently. Am I hearing that correctly?

[01:48:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes that's correct, but uh at the time there was still a lot of um uncertainty on staff's part about the potential direction that the R3 project could take. So we wrote the Housing Element to be uh agnostic to what that allowed density is. Like you know like ultimately council said let's increase densities. So let's develop standards where those increased densities can be built.

[01:49:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Got it. So along those lines is um in the I I should have looked into this myself earlier I'm so sorry I didn't. Um but just um quick yes or no. Is is FAR currently a standard for development uh that's in our R3 standard or is it only dwelling units per acre?

[01:49:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, R3 currently limits FAR to 1.05.

[01:49:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay so it's a limit, okay. Um and is that um like I guess it it is just R3. Okay. All right that makes sense. Um so then along those lines um I guess like one thing I'm also trying to understand because I think there's somewhere in one of the footnotes um there's this concept of like a deemed density um oh my god did I lose it. It said something like there was like some division equation there it said like deemed density is based on 110 divided by 3 or something like that. Sorry I'm coming off of sickness. Um can you help me understand, I know get away from me. Um can you help me understand what like deemed density is? Is is that because um you know is that in reference to uh areas where there is no uh dwelling unit per acreage uh requirement and it's only off of like uh floor area ratio and so therefore you have to kind of like create a deemed density that the state can or or developers can use to calculate um state uh density bonus against?

[01:51:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh so I think you're referring to the way the R3-D zone sets maximum FAR.

[01:51:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I think it's footnote 5 on the bottom of staff report page 9.

[01:51:34] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: It's at least one mention of that.

[01:51:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah.

[01:51:39] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah it says like for example where the general plan allows 110 units per acre the maximum FAR would be 110 divided by, so yeah. And then I guess I'm wondering if that goes in reverse where you can for example say like, hey, here's the FAR and the deemed density in terms of units per acre is X.

[01:51:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, it only goes in the one direction. So the the the the standard is written such that, you know, this R3-D zone can can accommodate a range of allowed maximum densities. And so the allowed FAR, if the maximum density is 110, uh the allowed FAR would be uh 3.67 which is uh more than adequate for 110 units per acre. Uh I think if you look at the, you know, one one basis for looking at this is is the uh recently adopted SB 79 that also sets rough equivalences between uh densities and um uh and uh uh FARs and those it's it's in good alignment with that as well.

[01:53:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, thank you. Um so then along those lines uh and I appreciate that I was just wanted to make sure I was understanding the relationship um between kind of like state and kind of like current standards what's proposed um density bonus um all of that. Uh I am curious though about the um that lot consolidation component. Um I'm I'm just kind of curious about it because uh if I if I've read it correctly if I remember correctly it said something to the effect of um those smaller R3-D units uh or lots I should say or parcels or what have you, um the staff recommendation says that it's uh that they are it's it's typically or um generally harder to build to the allowed or to to a maximum density there. Um and so then I guess I'm just kind of curious about that uh because uh it seemed like the original um for the R3-D was 65 dwelling units per acre but then I think the uh staff is proposing that um those get cut down uh in those kind of like smaller R3-D lots um that uh that gets cut down to about like 33 or 35 or something like that. Um so I guess I'm just like curious because if it's if it's inherently more difficult to build density on those lots um then why would it be more economically viable to cut the allowable density for those lots? Like how how does that make it more economically viable for development to take place?

[01:55:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It it doesn't make it more economically viable. What it does is it communicates as an incentive that you will get more economic viability by consolidating your lots.

[01:55:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, like how and why? Can you help us understand why cutting it will incentivize consolidation?

[01:55:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh it it communicates to those property owners that they would be able to achieve the full um benefits of being in the R3-D zone only through the um cooperation with their adjacent property owners.

[01:55:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Mhm. Okay. Um but what if like someone just wanted like because I guess I'm also curious it's it's just the the that through line right there it said it just says um it's generally more difficult to build higher density on lots of this size but it doesn't really say why. It's just kind of like it just says it and I'm assume I'm supposed to take it as given. So like can can we get specific reasons why? Because as of right now it's just hard for me to really process how saying and we're going to then therefore cut your allowable density in half is gonna make things better for anyone if our goals are to actually um, you know, support the development of the housing.

[01:56:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so there are a number of factors that make it a lot harder to build densely on small lots. Uh one of them is the uh flexibility and efficiency of development. So um, you know, the the most efficient multi-family development is units along both sides of a um of a uh um what do you call it? A hallway, right? Uh and that stacked up. On small lots you may not be able to do that or do that very much across the lot. Uh and so you get a lot more unleasable space compared to the amount of leasable space or sellable space on the lot. So the building is just less efficient in and more expensive to build. Another big reason why smaller lots don't result in um more successful higher density projects is because of parking. Now we are lowering minimum parking standards and in many cases minimum parking standards don't even apply, but that does not mean that new market rate developers don't have a strong incentive to offer parking to their market rate paying tenants and new owners. And so uh parking is one of those things that only works in these very large increments of land. And if you are trying to build densely on a very small lot, you simply can't fit those very large increments of land that you need in order to build an efficient parking lot or potentially even multiple levels of parking which is also often necessary to build higher density projects. Uh so those are a couple of things that really stack up against building at higher densities in on these smaller lots. And there um somewhat technical in nature and it may assist a property owner to understand from the outset, oh this is something that I can't do or I should be encouraged to work with my neighboring property owners rather than going down this path of uh trying to hire architects and figuring all this stuff out and figuring out that what they want to do doesn't pencil anyway.

[01:58:53] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, so it sounds like there's a lot of natural um barriers toward building density in these uh kind of lot sizes uh that I'm hearing uh Mr. Anderson kind of like speak to. So I guess like I'm still then curious um if there are these natural barriers that I would assume a rational developer would encounter and be able to, you know, through their own expertise in in this field and, you know, the construction of housing, the planning of it all, um within these lots. Um I'm still trying to I guess like grapple and understand with um how um what might be, I'm not saying it was arbitrary um but, you know, to some uh, you know, still undefined, just halving it, right? And why we would then suggest we're going to cut it in half at the start rather than just accepting hey, like if there are constraints um and a developer can't get to the maximum 65 then I guess like um I'm still trying to understand the rationale for why then saying, hey, we're just going to cut their opportunity to get to 40 to 45 to 50 whatever that is based on their own understanding of their property. Um I'm still trying to rationalize how um just cutting it in half is gonna um support the goals of um the R3 work item which is one of the key ones is to stimulate the the housing growth.

[02:00:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Sorry, was that a question?

[02:00:37] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um no I just wanted to make sure I kind of like contextualized my question. Um uh but then last kind of questions here, um I am also trying to uh gather uh similarly along the kind of like um implementation of um uh kind of like preclusions almost around uh the uh ground floor retail. And kind of like um I guess I'm just trying to get um in in a more simple uh uh if that's okay kind of like verbal understanding of like um how it yeah like what's the rationale there in terms of um precluding um, you know, from developers the ability to have ground floor retail um instead of just kind of like enabling them to um, you know, across the district be able to understand that ground floor retail would or wouldn't work in a certain site, right? Um because when you look at a little market like the one over there on Mariposa Avenue, right, like I mean it's such a quality of life amenity that to kind of like just um carte blanche or I don't know if that's the right phrase here but uh just say hey we're going to disallow it here or over there I think there's a lot of opportunity getting taken away. And as Commissioner Cranston said earlier um, you know, I guess I'm curious like uh with with the uh, you know, view toward maximizing opportunity like how how does that restriction maximize or or or improve the city's ability to give these opportunities to residents to have these like quality of life amenities?

[02:02:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well the the allowance for ground floor commercial even in the R3-D zone and live-work throughout the R3 zone really does improve the opportunity for accessing these ground floor commercial uh these these business opportunities uh and creating that vibrancy that you're talking about. Uh it's a question of degree. You know, we're posing uh um a recommended approach that limits it to R3-D. Uh and that increases that access opportunity by a certain degree. Uh there may be opportunities to increase it by additional degrees based on Council direction. Um but our uh approach uh really is focused on this idea of change areas and areas that where where change is more limited. And adding commercial uses uh is and can be a pretty significant change to areas where we our our our argument to the community was that some of these areas would have more limited change. Um and so the uh uh that's a uh I think a trade-off that I would encourage the Commission to consider uh as well as the other point that I made which is really development opportunities are highest in R3-D, customer base is highest in R3-D, and um the overall character is more consistent with a mixed use um uh uh uh mixed use neighborhood uh for R3-D.

[02:04:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Got it, thank you. So last question just um if I'm hearing you that correctly, uh the decision to limit ground floor retail to R3-D uh just coming from my understanding if I'm hearing right is more around um managing change um in kind of like character um across the city rather than the maximization of opportunity. It's the trade-off that you're saying that the Commission should consider if I'm hearing that correct.

[02:04:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Exactly. Yes.

[02:04:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you.

[02:04:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay quick question. Swetha, it shows here that you're still interested... Okay. And Bill Cranston, Commissioner Cranston, are you still interested in asking questions or... you have follow-up questions. Okay. All right, sounds good. Commissioner Donahue.

[02:04:54] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So most of my questions have been been asked. One one question that actually has been asked but I still I still don't quite get. Um on the the lot consolidation I know several people have asked about this. But if the most efficient uh construction is a hallway with units on both sides and you have a small lot so you can only have a a hallway with units on one side say, um wouldn't there naturally be an incentive to consolidate with the the neighbor next door and double the lot size and then be able to to build in both directions from the hallway? Uh whereas cutting the the density in half would just allow them to build um the existing thing that they uh that that the thing on the one side doesn't it actually cutting the density in half disincentivizes the lot consolidation in in my mind so what what are your thoughts?

[02:06:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, well first of all I want to clarify that you know the the density in the zone is still going to be up to 65 units per acre, 110 units per acre. We're we're not cutting the maximum density that can be achieved on these lots. Um you know we envision that these this this incentive can be carried out. And in fact one of the ways that it may be carried out is by maybe encouraging some property owners to maintain their properties in a current state until surrounding properties are are in are interested in redeveloping and thereby creating that that um uh kind of mutually beneficial um lot consolidation opportunity. Um so I think there's uh there's still opportunities and the intent, the design intent and the standards are intended to to achieve those higher densities. Um and so I want to make that clarification. Um thank you for submitting this question ahead of time. I'm going to kind of read what I wrote ahead of time here. Um if properties have additional value with additional allowed density especially if that opportunity comes with consolidation, um we're creating an incentive by allowing more density with consolidation, right? We're we're creating that value through consolidation, right? Um rather than creating a scenario where somebody develops at a lower value point trying to develop at that higher density on the smaller lot. So the decision really is should I develop at a lower value point trying to develop at a higher density on this this lot or should I you know try to work with my surrounding property owners and and develop at a higher value point at a higher density.

[02:08:04] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I mean I I I understand that's the goal but I don't understand how the staff recommendation achieves that goal by by cutting the density.

[02:08:21] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: So I think it's I just want us to be careful in the words that we're using because we're not cutting anything. These these properties are being uh upzoned, right? Um and so you know it's a it's a tool that, you know, staff thought could be valuable based on, you know, creating um kind of good development. Um it can definitely be something that you, you know, you all don't agree with, right? And and I think that is it could be a part of the recommendation. I think what we're trying to illustrate is, you know, these properties are being upzoned. Um however it's difficult to, you know, maybe get that R3-D level of density onto a smaller site. Therefore it could lead to natural lot consolidation which that happens in a lot of areas of the city. Um but this is a a thought that we had in in a way to incentivize to get that kind of bigger lot that is just a better suited lot for that highest level of of density allowance or or dwelling units an acre.

[02:09:29] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay yeah, and by cut I meant relative to or I mean it's yes it's not a cut but it's it's lower than the others. It's just a different zoning district, you know, a different zoning category. But but it it would be lower than the other uh larger lots in the same district. Yes. Um if if it's feasible to develop a 3 acre parcel at a particular density uh and the a half acre parcel is is uh has similar density, I agree that it that they can't probably achieve that with setbacks and things that would be would be uniform across uh regardless of the of the lot size. But it seems that if you consolidate six of these half acre things, you get to the 3 acres, you can do the same thing as the others. And and that that would just naturally happen whereas allowing them to or or you know specifying a lower density means that you're just going to get fewer lot consolidations. You're only going to get you know two of those lots. And I and I appreciate that it's harder, you know, getting six lots together is probably quite difficult. I um is that maybe what the problem is or I I just I I'm not quite getting it I guess.

[02:11:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um I think what we are trying to, one of the things we're trying to preclude here is a development that is um maybe not as successful because it is trying to fit 10 lbs of flour in a 5 lb sack. Um and it may not be as successful as it could be for any number of reasons. It may make the property owner less money. It may um uh result in um, you know, strange designs that don't fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. It may uh force waivers or concessions that we um we really wouldn't want or force the removal of heritage trees that we really wouldn't want. Uh so that I think is one of the overarching goals of this program is to try to encourage people to develop uh in ways that is um in ways that are uh um kind of beneficial for the overall planning of the city. And part of that is encouraging lot consolidation but part of it is also encouraging the right kind of development in the right kinds of sites.

[02:12:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right, and I think I would imagine right as a profit driven developer if if I know I'm allowed to build, you know, 65 to 110 units per acre, it's hard to let that go, right? And I may be incentivized to act irresponsibly to fit the 10 lbs of flour in the 5 lb sack and do all of those things that the Planning Manager just described. Whereas if I realize I'm only allowed to build 35 units per acre and and my potential profit and upside is limited because my site's less than 20,000 square feet, I may design a smaller project that I can do responsibly within the standards that are there and and that's fine. Or I may say gosh if I get that lot next door and I go from 12,000 to 22,000 square feet, I could triple my potential profit in terms of the development. So I think that can be a powerful incentive right if we can craft it effectively. So I think that's the that's the thinking from the staff side. Um will it pan out? Hard to say. Um are there other ways to do it? Possibly. I think we struggled to find likely functional uh incentives of this sort.

[02:14:18] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. And and but these things should still be R3-D as opposed to R3-C which uh has the lower density? Um.

[02:14:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I mean that that's our current intent. I think we have a little more research that we need to do about um maybe how precisely to craft that uh to um to kind of avoid the default density being the higher density under State Density Bonus, but um we think that that language can be crafted. Uh but we want direction on the overall intent of the program at this point before we go down that path of uh trying to um craft what could be some fairly um, you know, a little bit of work to to craft the right language in the right way.

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: was being told by members of the community. Why build, build, build, but yet you have less places to park? Do they not know that the people who are renting those places for the most part are going to be non-families, members of the community that are sharing rental units because they're at market rate levels and they're luxury apartments? Not affordable housing. There's some BMR units there, but... And so each folk, or for the most part all folks will have one car or one vehicle? They're not going to be riding their bike. Why? Because the jobs are not located in Mountain View. The jobs are located outside of Mountain View. So my question is, why the minimum? Being lessened from 1.5 to 1 and 2 to 1.5 for parking.

Segment 3

[02:15:13] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And I think the concern is then we would potentially be confronting a number of zoning changes that would either be gatekeeper applications by the developers or city initiated rezonings when we learned of these lot consolidations. It's a little clumsier to administer than just having an upfront provision knowing the objective of this process is to get these higher densities. Let's rezone it but then have a performance requirement to maximize the allowable density on the site.

[02:15:39] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. Um another question I had was uh one thing that uh there there was one public comment uh that mentioned this uh and it's something that we've talked about in in various uh projects uh was like uh deliveries and things like that. So is are the these parking courts meant to to deal with that and uh I mean it it seems as though that's that the parking courts are meant to deal with that. How uh do you think that that will be utilized widely, the the parking courts?

Segment 4

[02:15:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, I think one of the, one of the primary reasons is development feasibility. You know, we have a good idea now of the number of parking spaces that market rate developers want to build in order to serve their, um, their new residents. You know, we've seen a number of examples of projects, for example, in East Whisman, where there's very little available street parking in East Whisman. Middlefield Road doesn't have street parking. Ellis doesn't have street parking. So these developers are going in knowing that they can't push off the parking demand onto public streets.

Segment 3

[02:16:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It it's hard to know um whether developers will choose to to build them. Um what I will say is that we have this project on the east side of the city um the that was built in the last uh few years uh on Evelyn Avenue right on the border of Sunnyvale. And it has no uh clear visible parking. It Evelyn Avenue is also a major bike thoroughfare. And so we are dealing with some conflicts there where people are just pulling into the bike lane for deliveries and there's no it's very difficult to enforce that and it's also very unsafe for bicyclists. And so providing this opportunity I think is uh in the code despite the fact that we're trying to avoid a whole lot of visible parking, if we can put some limits on it, um I think it will provide um a lot of good relief to our public rights-of-way and our public infrastructure um on that new trend that we're seeing that everything is deliveries all the time. Yeah. Okay. That sounds good. And also, you know, the standards are set to make these parking courts as innocuous as possible. They can be designed with plenty of screening landscaping, they can be designed with um, you know, buildings that um still orient to the street. Uh and so um there are some good examples that uh we know of that we can that you know we've modeled the the standards off of. Uh and so we think it's a a good design idea. It's hard to know how many developers will actually choose to take advantage of it.

Segment 4

[02:16:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: They have to incorporate their expected parking demand into their projects. East Whisman doesn't have a minimum parking standard. And so we see from these projects that have been approved, that have been proposed, how much, how many parking spaces in those kinds of environments developers want to build. I think that's a strong signal of what is a responsible number of parking spaces as opposed to what is an irresponsible number of parking spaces where you have a developer who is saying, 'Oh, I know there's street parking, I know it's full sometimes, but I can get away with having my tenants rely on that as opposed to me shelling out the money to build it myself.' So that's one major factor in setting the parking standards where they are. And that these parking standards are consistent with what we're seeing developers voluntarily build.

[02:17:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's also a feasibility question because we know that developers are voluntarily providing this, so it, it serves into that feasibility question, right? Because they're voluntarily providing it, it probably has a strong relationship to feasibility. We also assumed these parking numbers in the feasibility analysis that we did last year when we proposed prototypes for setting the densities in these projects. The other big factor here in setting these parking ratios where they are is that a lot of it is state driven. The state density bonus says that you default to these parking standards if you are requesting state density bonus.

Segment 3

[02:17:48] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. I think that all the rest of my questions were asked. Thank you.

[02:17:52] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, thank you Commissioner Donahue. All right so I'm going to go ahead and ask just a couple questions. Since everyone else who's asking to speak has already asked and they're going out with follow-ups. And just a friendly reminder, it's 9:10 p.m. um so let's try and deliberate with efficiency. And I understand that everyone has questions and are intrigued about this process and it's totally understandable as to as to why. It's just a friendly reminder so that we can just be a little bit more concise if we have to and uh go from there. So when I looked at this uh the recommendations of the history of the project, I was like, okay, well that still sounds familiar. I remember discussing this or this having been brought up to the commission before or City Council and or if not both. And then having heard other members of the community who are not members of the commission or City Council folks speak about these topics as well. And the one thing that always comes into mind in in my in my hearing of these voices out there um that are concerned about what's going on with the city and development is the issue about parking. It revolves around parking. Parking, public use space availability, in other words parks or lack of within neighborhoods, and then uh preserving affordable housing that's covered by rent control within these areas. And a commissioner earlier had mentioned, well where are these places? Well there are a lot of these places are in the middle where these things are where I live, right? Uh California and Latham. There's huge amounts of potential there for rezoning. So, you know, that's something to consider too, right? But so when I looked on page 6 about parking when it came over with the um R3 Zoning District update, this document here, I was surprised to see existing minimum one bedroom and smaller 1.5 stalls per unit, two bedrooms and larger two stalls per unit. But the proposed minimum now is one stall per unit for a one bedroom and smaller and 1.5 stalls per unit for two bedroom and larger. And I'm thinking this goes straight to what...

Segment 4

[02:18:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, in most cases, you know, us requiring a higher number of parking spaces is not even going to be enforceable. And this is different than waivers. This is a, the state saying this is the default standard. It's not even a waiver in state density bonus. It's a completely different section of the state density bonus. So, um, being completely superseded by the state in, in these cases, uh, as well as the feasibility analysis that we've done, uh, this is a, um, that's, that's where this recommendation for the, the reduced parking, um, comes from.

[02:18:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And I will also add, um, you know, I have been watching the, you know, census data over time and the kind of number of, the expected population in, in multifamily development. And it has been trending downward. So we are seeing more and more single person units in multifamily housing. Uh, we are seeing more and more, uh, units, uh, that are, um, you know, smaller, smaller households. And so there is less parking demand from those, um, from that trend as well.

[02:19:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. I don't know where they're at, but okay. I, I hear you. Um, I know with a lot of the issues that came up with this, it's also because of the Builder's Remedy projects where sometimes things were allowed for them, the developers, to be able to build at a certain dens, density level and then parking space was a huge issue. Um, and those are the challenges that you have. So I understand that you're trying to then do what you can to provide some sort of guidance in terms of a minimum requirement for them to meet so that we can then work with them to try and establish some sort of partnership for adherence to standards.

[02:20:20] Chair José Gutiérrez: So my other question would then be, pretty simple. When you have these standards being developed now for R3 zoning and what we're discussing right now, that's great. In the end, I understand that whatever, um, law there is that supersedes a local ordinance, will probably null and void whatever it is that we're trying to seek. Maybe, maybe not. It depends. We don't know how that relationship is going to happen or how it's going to look like when there's a conflict with, let's say something that may be related to SB 79.

[02:20:54] Chair José Gutiérrez: So I'm wondering, at this point in time, it sounds like to me that we're going to do what we can now to create the norms for building here in, in Mountain View, so that we can have as most control as we can over the project with our input as to what we value. Fine. No problem. So this is going to be different, a different process altogether for when eventually SB 79 is presented earlier this month or sometime in January was my understanding the City Council was going to get some sort of presentation or study session on that. And so then when that happens and there's a discussion of possibly doing what Palo Alto is doing, which is developing a alternative plan, that's going to be very different from what we have here. Or it may be similar. We don't know yet.

[02:21:48] Chair José Gutiérrez: And so then in the end, we're doing what we can to protect R3 right now. That's it. The next step for the other issues that come along will have their own process. And I'm trying to just explain that out loud here so that folks who are paying attention or the Mountain View Voice can understand that we're looking at this on a step-by-step basis. So that they know that it's not just that, oh, on a whim, let's just do this now for these groups of properties. No, it's a deliberate attack on how you understand development to be with R3 only. And then eventually we'll do the same hopefully with SB 79, and then eventually you all will guide us and City Council with, if there are conflicts between state laws or mandates versus our local ordinances, we'll be able to then figure out, one, what are those local ordinances look like from our vantage point that are in conflict with those other ones that at the state level mandate, uh, perspective. And then how we can work around to just build as what we can get the most out of that site.

[02:22:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: But my problem that I have with all this is, sometimes we move a little bit too slow. And sometimes we move a little bit too fast. There's no perfect approach. And that's why I appreciate that you were able to come up with a design handbook, right? Suggestions for standards for, uh, parking, uh, walkways, shared walkways between properties. So my question then is, while you went through this exercise with your team, it looks like you were able to better lay a foundation for what we can and can't do and what we would want to ask developers to meet. Do you believe that this is just a first step and that we'll be able to meet that deadline that we have with the timeline where City Council will then deliberate and we'll get something to them by February and then afterwards be approved a little thereafter? Do you think the timeline is feasible?

[02:23:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Do you mean to complete R3 or to integrate some SB 79?

[02:23:46] Chair José Gutiérrez: R3.

[02:23:47] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, R3 we are, we are working feverishly to get this, uh, done, you know, this year. And, uh, you know, in the next, you know, six months or so. And so we, uh, we are, are planned very much to, to achieve that goal. Um, the, uh, you know, SB 79 does add complexity to all of our, uh, in-process projects, uh, in the city. Uh, and so that's the purpose of the conversation with Council is to get their direction on priorities, uh, for addressing SB 79.

[02:24:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. So are we still having an SB 79 discussion at the Council study session this month or?

[02:24:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes. Yes. That's the plan.

[02:24:34] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great.

[02:24:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: January 27th.

[02:24:36] Chair José Gutiérrez: Awesome. Thank you. That's it for me. Let's move on to Commissioner Cranston.

[02:24:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thanks. Um, so, follow up on some of the answers you gave other commissioners. Um, what prevails? The General Plan or the zoning?

[02:24:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, if you, if a developer is requesting state density bonus, it's the higher of the two, uh, for density. If the, um, if they are not requesting a state density bonus, then it's the zoning.

[02:25:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And your consolidation, your consolidation proposal, um, you've got within R3D, you've got Residential-50, 65, 80, and 110. Is your intention on a small lot to change the General Plan designation to 50? And a larger lot change it to 100? Or are they all going to be at the same level? How would you, how will you decide what you, what General Plan designation you give to a small lot?

[02:25:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Our current intent is to not change the General Plan designations from what the preferred alternative is that Council directed us to study back in June of last year. Uh, but as I said, there's some language that we need to develop, possibly in both the General Plan and the zoning, in order to address that issue that you're alluding to.

[02:26:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. I guess what I'm, what I thought I heard you saying was small lot gets a lower General Plan designation so that, and the way they get to the, if they get the, they consolidate, then they get, I don't know whether it's with a ZA, says you can now become Residential-65 or Residential-80 or 110, or is it... I'm, I'm, this, this consolidation incentive is getting messier as I hear more about it. And I'm just trying to understand.

[02:26:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. Our, our current intent is to have them be in the General Plan designation that allows the, the density for even the larger lots at, at the higher density. So, you know, the, if it's in the, the 110 unit per acre designation, it could stay in that 110 unit per acre designation, but that there would be clarifying language in both the zoning ordinance and the General Plan limiting that density increase, uh, or limiting that the density provision because the lot is small. Now that's language that we have to develop. Uh, we, you know, it's, it will take some work and some research and some legal analysis to develop that language and, and to ensure that that approach can withstand the state density bonus, which as I said, defaults to the higher of General Plan or zoning, uh, for density. But, uh, that's something that, like what, what we're trying to get from the EPC right now is this, this overall concept of using, um, a, a lower density on smaller sites unless you consolidate, uh, as an incentive. Is that an appropriate approach to take? If it's not, then we don't have to worry about that language. We, we won't even develop it. But if, we, we would like this direction before we go down this path.

[02:28:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Have you tested this question with the state?

[02:28:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, we are, um, we are pursuing the legal question now and we will further pursue it upon positive direction from the City Council.

[02:28:29] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay.

[02:28:30] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. So my follow up question, this is what I was leading to with sometimes we go at a certain pace fast and others slow. So if this were to be approved legally because you're getting advice of Council, okay, great. How soon do you expect for the language to then be changed at the citywide level with Council approval for the General Plan to reflect that type of edits to the codes in general for the city? Is this within the same year? Or do you think it will take longer?

[02:29:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, it would, would all have to happen with this R3 project.

[02:29:07] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Thank you. That helps me to understand the timeline a little bit better too. Cool. Yes. We reached the point of the meeting where we have no more questions. So, we will now move on to EPC deliberation and action. We will segment the EPC deliberation and action into two parts. And if you all have questions about this, so do I. So, you know, don't feel free, don't, don't feel like you're the only one. Number one, the first part will include commissioner recusals and we'll focus first on discussion about the R3-A subdistrict and the Residential-20 General Plan designation. I'm sure these will then also be presented on the monitors above us and around the, the council chambers here so that we're familiarized with what they're referring to. Then on Residential-12 General Plan designation. Point 2. After the commissioner's recusal, we will discuss the remaining topics, including all other General Plan designations, draft R3 development standards, and draft approaches for retail/live-work, parking, non-conforming residential developments, incentive for lot consolidation, and alignment with the R4 zoning district. I will now ask the commissioners with conflict of interest to make their recusal statements. We'll start with Commissioner Donahue.

[02:30:23] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I am recusing myself from discussion of the R3-A subdistrict and the Residential-12 and the Residential-20 General Plan designations due to the proximity of my personal residence to properties identified for these designations.

[02:30:41] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, sir. And now we'll be moving on to Commissioner Dempsey.

[02:30:45] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Mr. Chair, I am recusing myself from discussion of the Residential-12 General Plan designation due to the proximity of my personal residence to properties identified for this designation.

[02:30:57] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, sir. Move one down. Just like my hairline. Okay. There's just four of us. Okay. Great. Oh. Oh yeah. Oh, that's right. That's right. So there's five. Okay. Great. EPC questions, deliberation, and action regarding the Residential-12 General Plan designation. The EPC should make a motion and vote on any recommendations they provide on these topics. And I will do my best to jot down whatever suggestions there are that are outside of the norm of what was proposed to us by staff. And I'm sure our city team staff will also do the same. And just so you know, Alex, I, I sound stuffy but not because I'm sick, it's just bad allergies. Okay. Who would like to start with questions, deliberations, perspectives? I'll, I'll start with one clear comment here if you all don't mind. I'm still struggling to figure out what this means in terms of lot consolidation, right? I, I get the premise, I get the idea, uh, but I also feel like it's mostly out of our hands because it's a market driven, um, action. And I'll give you a quick example because I don't want to blab here. It's already 9:30. Not that I do that intentionally either.

[02:31:55] Chair José Gutiérrez: So in, at Santa Clara University, where I went to school, I'm an alumni from there as is, uh, uh, my friend, um, um, Lucas Ramirez. Across the street from the campus there's like a Safeway shopping center and a Taco Bell and some other little place, a Round Table Pizza. And at the very edge of that there's this corner, like a pyramid shaped property. Really small. Used to have like an oil well back in the day. And it's been vacant for like over 30 years, right? And it couldn't get developed, right? Because you had to do cleanup and this and that and blah blah. But there was nothing adjacent to it where they would be able to be incentivized to partner up with someone or an, another entity. Safeway didn't want to do it. The owners of the commercial property didn't want to do it to expand and, and grow. Well, lo and behold, the property went on sale for $1 million. And that's how it got developed. Because at that time the price was so darn cheap a little while ago. Alumni from Santa Clara, this person who has an undergrad and a JD said, 'Hey, I'm, I'm going to, I'm going to buy this.' They bought it. They went through the whole motion of submitting proposals to the City of Santa Clara and now they're going to build about 34 to 38 apartments there and about 34 to 30 something, um, parking units underground. And it's a tiny little small space.

[02:33:07] Chair José Gutiérrez: So the way I look at is like, okay, by sheer dumb luck because of the price of that property, that development was be, was, was able to come to fruition. And I'm thinking that what Eric and the team is trying to do is exactly that. To have those small units just or small lots just be developed. So if to incentivize it that way, then I'm thinking, okay, the owners of the properties will then speak to each other to try and come up with something bigger. And who knows? They may not necessarily sell to one another. They could be bought out by a larger entity, like a Greystar or a, or some one like that, right? And then that's where I look at the business opportunity then for those companies to come in and then try and see if they can buy one lot, two lot, three lot, four, right? Um, and that's the only way I can make sense of it. Um, because other than that, I, I don't know. I, I'm, I'm not sold on that idea. Um, in terms of the staff suggestions in general, I, I like where we're at. I, I know that we'll get the first chance to try and come up with just a draft language or whatever that means too because that's my other question for, for the, for the, for the team, Diana. When you, when I looked at the, at the, um, recommendation, it's kind of general in terms of like draft, draft this, draft that.

[02:34:36] Commissioner Tina Pham: Chair, I have a question. Are we supposed to be deliberating just on Residential-12 right now? Um, and then waiting to talk about, uh, lot consolidation when everyone comes back?

[02:34:50] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yeah. But I jumped the gun. So, but my question here is for the draft, um, resolution, is it just right now for this, uh, for what you presented exactly on paper? Is, is that the resolution? Just draft? Draft language for this or draft language for that? Or did you want us to be more specific with the draft language for whatever issues we were talking about in general?

[02:35:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Chair Gutierrez, I think what, what we're looking for right now is, um, a response to the staff recommendation, which in some level, uh, um, some ways is, is high level, in some cases is more detailed. But the response, uh, should be at a high level at a policy level given the EPC's role. So, um, given that we're talking about General Plan designations right now, uh, specifically the General Plan designation that's equivalent to the R2 zone, the Residential-12 General Plan designation. Um, you know, I don't want to put words into the commission's mouth, but, uh, you know, direction to staff could be about, uh, some of the content of that designation, the intended density, um, the, uh, anything else that we're presenting relating to that particular, uh, land use designation.

[02:36:14] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Understood. So then.

[02:36:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And I will, I do want to emphasize that this is an existing land use designation at an existing density, which is not proposed to be changed as part of this project. Some of the language associated with the designation is proposed to be changed, but not, not language that would have any real effect on the implementation of the designation.

[02:36:36] Chair José Gutiérrez: Understood. That makes sense to me now. Okay. And I hope the rest of the commissions picked up on that too. All right. So our first discussion about R3-A subdistrict and the Residential-20 General Plan designation plus Residential-12?

[02:36:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, Chair, it's, uh, just the Residential-12 designation.

[02:36:54] Chair José Gutiérrez: Just the Residential-12? Okay.

[02:36:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, Commissioner Dempsey can return for the R3-A discussion.

[02:36:58] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. So then can we have the Residential-12 be presented on the screen somewhere?

[02:37:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sorry, it would be the second row there of this table.

[02:37:06] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Vice Chair Nunez.

[02:37:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh, it's my understanding is that this is, uh, already in place, not really a target of the key changes if I'm hearing correctly of, of, of what we're looking at. Um, you know, targeting in terms of the, um, the upzoning, the standard changes, etc. I, I think this is, uh, from what I'm gathering, um, kind of something that we need to formally just, uh, have reviewed so that we can also in, in light of the conflicts of interest so that we can then, um, also discuss some the more substantive, uh, target changes if I'm understanding that correctly. So, I mean, I'm, I'm, I have no problem with supporting that. I, so, yeah.

[02:38:01] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Thank you. Commissioner Cranston.

[02:38:03] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Make the change.

[02:38:04] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Agreed. Anyone else? Nope. Okay. Great. Yep. No, no. I got it. I got you. All right. So, and, and do we have any, is that the same sentiment for Residential-20 and R3-A subdistrict?

[02:38:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, I believe we should ask Chair, uh, Commissioner Dempsey to return for that discussion.

[02:38:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. So then right now we have it just for, uh, Residential-12. Great.

[02:38:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so we can get Commissioner Dempsey then.

[02:38:33] Chair José Gutiérrez: So now we will have if someone can please. Yeah. That's why I was asking those questions about the draft language and all this other stuff because at, up to a point we could really weed into it and. Great. So now we'll be able to deliberate regarding the R3-A subdistricts and Residential-20 General Plan designation. Who would like to start?

[02:39:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, it, it's just the Residential-20 designation. Um, I, uh, if I can make a suggestion about how to carry out this discussion. Uh, you can start by discussing the, the General Plan designation. That would be the third row in this table, just the Residential-20 designation. Uh, and then, uh, you can talk about the development standards proposed for the R3-A zone.

[02:39:46] Chair José Gutiérrez: Awesome. Who would like to start? Let's go with Commissioner Cranston.

[02:39:51] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So, should we gonna discuss standards for everyone of the, every single one of these one by one?

[02:39:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, we will need to discuss the Residential-20 zone and the standards applicable to just the R3-A zone, uh, while Commissioner Donahue is out of the room.

[02:40:09] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm okay with 20.

[02:40:11] Chair José Gutiérrez: Vice Chair Nunez?

[02:40:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh, good with that as well.

[02:40:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: For the record so am I. Moving on to Commissioner Subramanian.

[02:40:20] Commissioner Tina Pham: I'm okay with the density regarding the standards in the R3-A. Um, I want to clarify my suggestion for the habitable ground floor space. And this is going to be consistent in the other, uh, zones as well. Um, I think particularly with regards to, uh, that minimum requirement, I think that is too deep to mandate within this zone because there could potentially be footprints that are shallower than the 30 feet. And so, um, stating that as a minimum is prohibitive. And also, um, I would request that there be an inclusion of the, the percentage of frontage that needs to comply with that rather than that being a blanket, uh, request across the entire frontage. I would submit that to my fellow commissioners to consider as a modification to the standard being proposed here. And, um, maybe staff, could you assist us in, um, how that could be modified?

[02:41:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Do we have lots that are less than 30 feet deep?

[02:41:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The standard doesn't apply to lots. The standard says that in a given building, the front 30 feet of the building on the ground floor needs to be habitable space. And the, uh, Commissioner Subramanian is saying that that number should be smaller to provide more flexibility for smaller, uh, units, uh, on the ground floor.

[02:42:05] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So how would that, if it came to a ZA, what would they do? To get a smaller lot? Would they just say you can't do it because your, your lot's too small?

[02:42:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So there, there aren't really any, very many if any lots that are, you know, less than 50 feet deep for example, that wouldn't, wouldn't be able to accommodate the, um, you know, 100% of the ground floor of the building, um, with some setbacks in the front and back. Um, you know, I think in those cases there are exceptions in the, the standards for those very, very small lots. Uh, and most of them would probably be able to develop with a single family home or something like that anyway and use the single family standards.

[02:42:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So those, um, or get variances or other exceptions that may be available. So the lot size is not really a, um, I, I'm not, I'm not sure that the lot size is an issue here. The issue is on any given lot, how much flexibility do you give for the size of the ground floor unit that has to face the street? And giving more flexibility for say parking behind that unit or some other configuration of units, um, say you have a shallow unit and then another row of units behind that if that's how you want to design your configuration of units.

[02:43:44] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I'd be open to something that says, okay, that's what it is, but if it's, if the lot is constrained, then the ZA can use their reasonable judgment to review it and accept the change rather than it be a blanket change. Um, the second thing of the entire frontage has to be, you, we don't require the entire frontage... I'm not in favor of that. I want everything facing the street to be residential or the, or the commercial. I'm not in favor of only having one space be residential myself. So I'm okay with the depth given the ZA some flexibility there, but I, I wouldn't be supportive of the second part.

[02:44:26] Commissioner Tina Pham: Yeah. I would, I would recommend combining the two where in, in this zoning designation, if we do have the desire to maintain a residential frontage, that there be more flexibility to the depth of that frontage so it's not so onerous. Uh, so could you clarify if within the R3-A if the front setback is more aligned with the lower density R1 and R2 or what the thinking was in the particular setback noted here?

[02:45:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. So the R3-A zone is, um, a, a density increase to the current R2 zone. And the R2 zone currently has a 20 foot front setback. That's also what the front setback in the R1 zone. And as I said, you know, the R2 zone exists in a lot of con, contexts that are completely surrounded by R1 districts. And so these, uh, the, part of the goal of the R3-A standards is to more sensitively build, uh, more density in these environments, uh, with similar, uh, kind of frontages, similar character, similar, um, designs as the overall surrounding neighborhood.

[02:45:54] Commissioner Tina Pham: And I have a friendly reminder. We've been told, uh, for our live stream, people are not able to hear everybody. So request to everybody on the commission and staff as well, please speak in the microphone so it can be recorded and people can hear the discussion clearly. Thank you. Thank you for the clarifications. Chair, I'm fine with leaving the standards as stated in the R3-A.

[02:46:17] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Thank you. We'll move on to Residential-20 General Plan designation.

[02:46:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No. Oh, right here I have 20.

[02:46:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Cause I think we just agreed on R3-A, right? Oh. Okay. So then R3-A is next?

[02:46:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so the discussion, the discussion has been generally about R3-A and Residential-20.

[02:46:43] Chair José Gutiérrez: Oh. Yes. So we're done with that now. And we can have Commissioner Donahue come back.

[02:46:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: If, if there are no more comments and the, the commission supports the staff recommendation as a whole, maybe there's a, a nod from commissioners in assent supporting the staff recommendation for Residential-20 and R3-A designation. Okay. Great. Thank you.

[02:47:06] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Great. Thanks. Welcome back, sir. Not having you two guys really throws me off. Okay. So let's, uh, let's move on to EPC questions, deliberation, and action regarding the remaining materials. The staff recommendation is as follows. Any changes from the staff recommendation must be described with the motion. And I quote that the Environmental Planning Commission review and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding draft residential General Plan designations except Residential-20, draft development standards for the R3 zoning district update except standards that pertain only to R3-A, and draft approaches for retail, excuse me, live-work, parking, non-conforming residential developments, incentive for lot consolidation, and alignment with the R4 zoning district. Vice Chair Nunez.

[02:48:07] Chair José Gutiérrez: Did you wish to speak?

[02:48:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Oh no. I'm just in the queue.

[02:48:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: Oh right on. Okay.

[02:48:10] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Um, so, uh, thank you to, uh, uh, Mr. Anderson earlier for, um, his response to, uh, Commissioner Donahue, uh, clarifying a little bit more on the, uh, incentive for the lot consolidation. Um, I, I know why it's so confusing, uh, and why we're kind of like vexed with it now. Um, so if I, I just want to make sure I'm going to confirm, um, with Mr. Anderson, uh, what you were touching on was the idea that, um, we would introduce something, um, kind of like unpleasant for lack of better words, which is to cut the, um, you know, proposed upzoning from like like R3D from that 65 full, uh, down to like the 30 something, um, to then incentivize the consolidation of lots. Right? Or in short. Like, I'm, that's what I heard. Okay.

[02:49:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and, and so I think the problem is that in, in the most technical sense, and, uh, you know, I appreciate that no one on, like, staff is in behavioral psychology, um, but, uh, that's not a, in, in reality, that's not, that's actually not an incentive. Um, so under like reinforcement theory and like operant conditioning, right, you can have, um, you know, of like positive punishment, negative punishment, uh, positive reward, negative reward, right? And, um, like under that concept, like introducing something negative to get something positive is not a behavioral incentive. It's, it's te, it's not actually a, um, it, it's, it's just not even in that framework. If, it's almost like negative coercion, um, and so I think just in terms of why we're kind of like struggling with it, um, I think, um, it's A because it's not an incentive, um, but if I was to say, hey, how could that actually become an incentive, then, um, you know, like, like actually introducing something positive, um, like for example, hey, anyone who wants to consolidate will get expedited review, will get, um, like 10, I don't know, percent higher density or height limit or whatever it is, then you introduce a positive reward, um, and that's a, that's an actual incentive.

[02:50:17] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And so the, um, you know, I, I will put forward that the fallacy is, um, uh, you know, that like in, in terms of like adding something unpleasant, it, it's not going to automatically, um, then like trigger, uh, the desired behavior. And, and that's just like on, on a technical level. And we can ask any psychologist that we know, um, I'm sure they'll back that up. So I'm just putting that forward for the commission, um, in terms of, um, trying to clarify some of that. Um, but along those lines, um, you know, in terms of speaking for myself now, I, I will say, um, under that kind of premise, I, I, I would definitely not, um, you know, be cool with the, uh, lot consolidation incentive under that manner. I'd like to, um, you know, see staff, um, you know, maybe consider, uh, like a positive reward element, um, toward the consolidation, um, because otherwise we're not really, um, you know, uh, kind of stimulating interest, positive interest, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, uh, state. Positive interest in the consolidation behavior that we want, while at the same time, um, precluding or, um, you know, lessening, um, the potential opportunity that we're going to put forward, um, from these standards in terms of what can actually come forward in terms of development, um, density. Um, and then along those lines, also, um, in terms of other general commentary on this, I would love to see the, um, uh, the ground floor retail be something that is extended, um, maybe not across like R3-A or, you know, like, I understand the need to limit change. Um, I'd like to see it in a little bit more places than R3D. Um, and I also appreciate, um, uh, uh, Mr. Anderson kind of clarifying, hey, like actually, um, the, the reasoning is, you know, there's another value that the community holds and that's why, you know, this kind of limitation was introduced. Um, I can't say it's the one I'm the most sensitive toward, but at the same time.

Segment 5

[03:00:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: You know, feel it's fair to just invalidate that out of pocket. So, um, to the extent there is just a little bit more, um, you know, in terms of that ground floor retail element, uh, that can come forward. Um, I I definitely appreciate that. Um, and then just overall in terms of general comments, um, along those lines of kind of like, um, how some of these changes are being put forward, um, you know, I'm seeing a lot of the good ones that kind of like stimulate that, um, you know, like, uh, development and and, you know, ease of economic viability, right? Like reduced parking requirements, um, you know, exceptions for some site constraints. I think you touched on the one with the 30 feet, you know, just now. Um, some reduced setbacks, um, live work, right? Increased FAR. Like those are all like, um, good, uh, you know, ways that I see the staff recommendation, uh, kind of, uh, in in material sense or attempting, uh, to stimulate, um, uh, development and economic viability.

[03:00:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, but, uh, overall, I think there are, uh, quite a few other, uh, recommendations that, um, you know, are hampering that as well. And and I find that, um, overall, I'm I'm concerned that the, and I'll specify in a moment, but I'm concerned that the, um, proposals that would fall under the category of hampering or or introducing less economic, uh, viability, um, like the massing breaks, um, like the, uh, you know, like the, um, uh, minimum density requirements, um, the the lot consolidation also, you know, without going into that again, right? Um, retail only in in R3D, um, as as it is right now. Uh, I I find that those are, um, you know, like, yes, we're reducing, uh, some of these, uh, barriers, but also we're introducing new barriers. And so I don't know where the balance on the whole lies. Um, is the introduction of the new barriers gonna like, um, you know, unnecessarily, um, prevent us from reaching a potential ceiling for for a reason that I'm still not able to fully grasp? Or, um, you know, would it be better for us to just kind of like not have these, um, or or so many of these, uh, kind of new or introduced barriers like the massing, um, like the minimum building depth, etc., that, um, maybe we can just trust that, um, developers, uh, will be able to understand what's right and best for the property that they want to build on? Um, you know, I I see developers all the time. What do they do? They go around to the community. They knock on the doors. They ask people, um, what would you like to see? You know, they don't want to piss people off either. Um, so there is some built-in, um, uh, incentivization. I don't want not to use that word again. It's kind of going driving me crazy. Uh, for them to not like come in and build a giant black cube, um, as well, right? Um, and so I I'm just wondering, um, on the whole, um, is it possible to remove some of these, um, introduced barriers? Um, and so I'll I'll just pause there. I I'm not gonna fully say do I support it yet yes or no outside of the specific ones that I mentioned around the lot consolidation and the, um, uh, the ground floor retail, but overall that's my impression. Um, reduced barriers in certain, uh, avenues, but then new introduced barriers in other ways. Um, so I'd like to just, uh, put that forward to the, uh, to my colleagues and see where you guys, uh, land in terms of your thoughts.

[03:03:35] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[03:03:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So, in general, I'm supportive of the of the staff recommendations. Um, understand that this is all raising the density. Okay, it's all making it more. Things like the massing breaks are part of our existing standards. This is not new. This is something that the DRC reviews today. These are not new barriers that are being introduced. The requirement for residential to be street facing is part of what we get reviewed today. We've seen project after project where that's where the residential is, is right at the right at the street. Um, and so I I don't see those as they're not introducing barriers, we're maintaining something that has worked and has been received well by the community. And so I'm I'm I'm supportive of those.

[03:04:25] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, with respect to the, um, retail. My first ownership property was a stacked flat in a, which was essentially would be like a like an R3A. And a half a block away was a little grocery store called White Hen Pantry. It's like a nicer version of of a 7-Eleven. And in a community where you walk, it was that's where I went to get stuff. If I need milk, I walked over to get it. If I needed, it's like, oh shoot, I'm out of Tide. I could walk over and get a little tiny thing of Tide. I could walk to the supermarket, but it was like five blocks away. Okay. And I'd have to get in my car and find freaking parking over there. That little convenience store was really convenient. So I'm not adverse to the idea of allowing, um, some level of retail in even the RB R3B. I think it should at very least be in R3C. But I think I don't I don't see a reason why we wouldn't allow it to be in R3 R3B as well because there are those small community serving things. And it was a, you know, lifesaver for me on more than once. You know, or I'm watching a movie and damn I wish I had some potato chips. I could go get some. I mean, it's stupid things, but it's there. You could walk to it. And those things are great. So I am in favor of adding more retail.

[03:05:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, I will admit the live work thing confused me because my idea of live work is not what's been described. Um, my experience with live work is up in San Francisco, um, in in the Boston area. It's a building that is been turned into a live work space and it tends to be a, you know, craftsman, artists, you know, in in one in the front of the building and then upstairs is the loft is their is where they live. Okay. That's a live work space. If what you're talking about is something more like a restaurant where they live up above, um, okay, that's fine. But I don't know that it buys us a whole lot, quite frankly. Um, live work spaces in my experience are actually create some culture in the area. Yeah, you you can you can walk into the building but the the one that's closest to me up in San Francisco once a year does a open house and you can go from place to place and see the guy that's making custom paper and the guy that's an artist and the guy that's making different things. So it's a different kind of space. So I'm what you've described as live work is the value is lower to me. I wouldn't necessarily say it's not okay, but I I the value as you've described it to me is less than I would have wanted it to be. So if there's a consideration of making it something allows beyond the and a lot of those spaces, the one in Boston, the one in in Open San Francisco, they don't have any street frontage. Okay. It's there's no sign that says, hey, come here to buy buy your handmade paper. Okay. You need to know that they're in there. So, um, live work I my enthusiasm has waned after what you described you'd be doing there. But I like I like the idea of the retail.

[03:07:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, parking, lower parking standards, I agree with what, uh, staff has said. It makes sense. After hearing lot consolidation, go back and go back to the drawing board. Try again. Okay. This is this doesn't work for me. Um, and non-conforming ordinance once you clarified that, yeah, there's still a lot to be townhouses, that's okay. And based on what you described, R3D is R4, so smash them together. Call them whatever you want. I don't care whether you call it R4 or whether you call it R3D. It's the same darn thing. So why have two different things?

[03:08:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Pham.

[03:08:32] Commissioner Tina Pham: All right. Um, so I agree with a lot of what our my fellow commissioners have already said. And in general I agree with the staff recommendations. I do have some minor points here and there. Um, for the on-site circulation, I had the same question as Commissioner Cranston about the two locations. Um, my recommendation, and I understand that identifying all the locations across the city is a huge lift, but potentially if you're including R4, um, within R3, then you may want to at least identify all the ones in R3 and R4.

[03:09:07] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, and then, uh, I had some thoughts about the retail live work approach. Um, it was very interesting, um, what was described. Um, and I learned a lot from the discussion. I would ask if you're going to bring this forward to council potentially, um, describe more of the targeted operational standards because it is something different and unique. And so if we're going to allow it in all R3, it might be good to have a better explanation of what's allowed and what are some controls, um, in place regarding, you know, this type of space.

[03:09:45] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, next thing I had, um, thoughts on was the incentive for lot consolidation. I felt the same as, um, Commissioner Nunez that the word incentive felt off to me. I think you'd had a really good explanation about why and it was probably more detailed than just my gut feeling. Um, I'm generally okay with the approach if we add, um, carrots as well as what I think of more as a stick. Um, so rather than just scrap it, um, potentially expand it to include actual real incentives may work. Um, and I think that's it for my comments. Thank you.

[03:10:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Swetha.

[03:10:30] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you Chair. Um, so I want to start with some of the building standards. Well, first of all, let me back up and I want to really commend staff on, um, the point that you've arrived at after all these years and developing these form based code standards because I think it is really a huge step in the right direction. And I commend you for trying to simplify those standards and keep them to a minimum. So I hope my comments, uh, further aid in that direction. And with that said, um, I want to make some suggestions for these standards, particularly from a feasibility perspective as well as cost reduction measures in mind. Um, I will start again with the habitable ground floor space, um, starting from the R3B through the C to the D. And I I really encourage you to look at that. First of all, let me step back. So from a light and air perspective, um, the habitable space that is counted within any unit tends to be, um, the living areas, bedroom areas and maybe some open kitchens. And typically the depth of that is at 20 to 25 max. Um, so where it particularly in the R3B where it's still a 30 foot minimum depth, I think that's going to be challenging. Particularly when you get into building frontages that are a hundred feet max. Say a lot allows that and where you have a building footprint with a width of a hundred feet max being allowable, it's going to be challenging to have a hundred percent of that frontage be 30 feet deep habitable across the entire front. So I would like you to look at two considerations which is thinking about particularly as you get into R3B, C and D and you have wider building frontages on lots to have some minimum requirement for what is habitable and to restrict the depth of that habitable space to 20 feet max. So that's one recommendation.

[03:12:30] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: The second point I would like to touch on again, since we've moved on from the transition zone to the single family homes, is to reduce the front setback. Um, in the R3B zone, maybe a 10 foot setback, uh, would work well. But again, I I I think in the R3C and D, if we're really looking for walkable developments which are abutting sidewalks, I think the ideal front setback should be no more than 5 to 10 at the most. Ideally five in the R3 so you have, um, developments that are really creating walkable streets, there's presence on the ground. The five foot setback allows for ground floor retail to have any spill spill out outdoor space, but it feels much more integrated with the street presence than having this huge setback and the building sitting back from that. Um, so that would be my suggestion on the setbacks.

[03:13:28] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Then the third thing I want to point to is, uh, the bay development standards and some of the massing breaks that are being suggested. Um, in addition, I mean, first of all, I want to make a comment that, um, having any setbacks and breaks makes it much more expensive from a construction standpoint. It requires additional surfaces that need waterproofing. That adds to a lot of cost. It requires additional maintenance over time. And particularly when you're looking at structures that are four stories tall, um, I'm not really quite sure why we need the definition of a base, a middle, and a top. If the idea to set in those definitions is to have a better read from the street level, that can be accommodated with other tools which are visual breaks. And I would encourage staff to include more language that permits visual breaks rather than actual setbacks or step backs in massing at these very strictly permitted requirements. Um, this is something that comes up even more when you look at modular construction of housing. And, um, you know, modular works best when there's a typical floor plate that extends all the way up. And if we're trying to incentivize more development that is cheaper to build, then I would really recommend that you include, uh, more visual elements and a language that achieves some of these same, uh, results without requiring actual breaks in massing and setbacks. Um, and you know, some of the ideas could be around allowing for material change, allowing for change in composition of solid versus transparency percentages. And so those could be strategies that create these breaks without actually setting back, uh, actual massing.

[03:15:42] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, so I think that covers a bulk of my, uh, around design standards. Outside of that, I agree with some of the comments being made around inclusion of retail or ground floor commercial space right from the R3B zone because I think there are several instances of, um, those being in current communities. And I think it would also make it easier to make them conforming uses if that's included within the R3B to R3D versus making them non-conforming uses. Um, and then I will say as a resident of Rex Manor where there have been a lot of new townhome developments, it's an absolute retail desert. So I think including retail within the R3B zone allows for opportunities where developers are able to include some commercial retail in those areas.

[03:16:35] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, let's see. With lot consolidation, I I will say a lot has been said and I think, um, there still remains a lot of work to be done. One thing that strikes me, um, I did go back to the notes in the staff reports, um, and you spoke about just 17% of the lots which are small lots within the R3D that you are concerned about not achieving the full density capacities, right? Um, and I think it was also said something around 5,000 square feet of all of our, no, that's not right. 5% of the R3D area is with small lots which you think may not achieve the full density potential. Um, I just wanted to highlight that to share that with my colleagues. So maybe it's not a huge impact and what would help us further understand this is within all the areas that have been demarcated for R3D, if the small lots are existing only in certain parcels and not sprinkled throughout all of the R3D zones. Because then it makes it easier to understand the lot consolidation approach. One of my fears is, particularly when you look at it from a development standpoint, that there might be small lots who are hold outs, um, just to try and achieve maximum value and or even hold out for like historical, you know, wanting to hold on to legacy property or, um, not wanting to part with that. And we've seen many instances of such developments. If people may recall this very famous image of a shoe box, I think it was in Seattle, surrounded by a massive development around it. And so I think we need to really think about strategies that incentivize, uh, lot owners to acquiesce to some sort of lot consolidation process, uh, that makes it truly an incentive. Uh, I wonder if there are prop, you know, there are administrative processes that can be put in place where there's already ways to dissolve parcel boundaries that make it easier for lot owners to submit themselves to a consolidation process. But I do think some work needs to be done there.

[03:19:10] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, with regards to live work units, um, I wondered if when I read this, this was a standard that was prompted as a result of the pandemic and you know, a a a desire to have more spaces that had flexibility. Um, so I wonder if as we're going beyond that and people are returning to work and there's a true separation between work and home, if there's more consideration about where live work would actually benefit within the city and thinking about incentives for developers to actually pursue that. Uh, one comment I'd make around the operation standards being considered is to encourage staff to also include operational hours so some of the retail doesn't extend beyond, you know, residential living standards and to include any sort of noise level limitations so there aren't operations that disturb neighbors. Um, I think I hit all the points and all for consolidating R4 with R3. Thank you.

[03:20:19] Chair José Gutiérrez: Wonderful. Commissioner Donahue.

[03:20:25] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So I'm generally, uh, on board with the staff recommendation. Um, I think actually agree with a lot of what, uh, Commissioner Cranston said, uh, with respect to existing, um, uh, design standards, things like that. Um, as for the the live work, it's interesting, but it's it sounds like 90% of the units are really just live. So I'm not sure how beneficial it is, but sure. I I think it's, um, it's it's, uh, an interesting concept. It it kind of reminds me of, um, painting pottery with my kids over at a house over, I don't know, over here someplace there was there was a it I don't know if it's still there but, um, well the house is, but I don't know if the business is. Um, you know, kind of a they you would go into their house and and they had a a business there where you could paint pottery. Um, so, uh, that that sounds like something to, you know, interesting to pursue further.

[03:21:52] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um, the lot consolidation thing is, you know, obviously something we've talked a lot about this evening and that, uh, is something that concerned me when I read the the staff report and it's something that I am not really on board with the the the proposal. So, um, I think that it is something that should be done. We should we should incentivize lot consolidation, definitely. Uh, I don't think that this is the right approach for to to achieve that goal. Um, I don't have specific suggestions about what would achieve the goal though, so I but hopefully you guys can, uh, come up with something.

[03:22:40] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um, the non-conforming ordinance, uh, that's, uh, as I read the existing, uh, ordinance, uh, the staff report called it confusing and I I actually was pretty confused when I when I read it. So, um, I think kind of cleaning that up would be, uh, useful. And, uh, like Commissioner Cranston said, you know, why do we have R4 and R3 that's kind of the same thing. So or R3D I mean. Um, so, uh, yeah, I think that that consolidating that would make sense. So other I guess basically other than the, um, the lot consolidation, I'm oh, retail. Um, yeah, I I'm not sure that R3B makes sense to me. Um, I could go R3C. Yeah. I think retail in R3C seems, uh, seems reasonable. Um, I would say C and D. But personally. But, uh, but B probably not B. So, thanks.

[03:23:58] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Dempsey.

[03:24:02] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Chair. Mindful of your admonition that it's late. I'll try to be quick. Um, I'm going to be supporting the measure. I think it reflects, you know, years of discussion and thinking and certainly work by staff. Um, wow, I it's it's amazing to go back and imagine this this has been going on for five years and longer than I've even been sitting up here. Um, and so I'm not inclined to to micromanage further. I'd like to just see us get it done.

[03:24:33] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um, I'm not in love with everything in it, but I don't expect that I would be. Um, you know, I'm still concerned about under parking. I live in a part of town that y'all get lots of letters about where under parking is a is a commercial problem. Um, and I remain worried about that, that we're going to under park people and then there's just going to be this Lord of the Flies thing out on the street people looking for parking. Um, I do worry about needless restriction of commercial in some of these larger areas. Uh, Commissioner Subramanian did a great job of of elaborating on that and I found myself nodding along to much of it. Um, I would like to think that the market would solve what's a viable and non-viable, um, uh, place to how much density you need around you to have a viable business. Um, so I don't know why we would need to interject into that if anything below D wouldn't be viable anyway. So that our our involvement as a city didn't make any sense for me there.

[03:25:30] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And then lastly on the point of, uh, lot consolidation, I I go back to market failure again. I don't fully underst- I wish there was a little more data about why we think the market itself is not driving people to consolidate small lots and make bigger buildings with more money for them. I don't get it why. And I'm not saying that that's not true. You y'all may be right. I just would feel better if the case was made to me about why there's a market failure and then the city steps in and fixes only the market failure to get people to do what's Pareto optimal. So I'd love to know what that is.

[03:26:05] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um, you know, lastly, you know, any any misgivings I might have about, you know, what's in this or or how we're doing it really isn't a deficiency of the proposal. I think there's a place where I'm not 100% comfortable with the erosion of local control. I struggle with that. I really do. Um, and I think it's it's an interesting challenge for the city because, you know, we really should be focused on not not activity but impact. And I worry sometimes that what we're doing is we're building sand castles that reality's just going to come and whoop, you know, uh, density bonus law their way right through most of what we're trying to build here. Um, that's not something that any of us here at the city level can do anything about. Um, but I guess my my exhortation to you is, you know, the more we can focus on impact and not activity, the places where we really can drive a different outcome and not just kind of cross our fingers and hope. I think that's time better spent. But, um, again, I support the measure and I really commend staff for years, years of really hard work trying to put this together.

[03:27:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Okay. So, I appreciate the fact that you put in time to be able to describe these incentives, the standards, the design handbook, all things which are needed, um, and then factoring in also the basics, which is okay, once you have this document, yeah, you know what, we should tie in the ordinances so that people are clear as to what it relates to. Because I think that makes sense. It's just see spot run, right? If if I see the book and I see the passage and the index and the table of contents, it's all there for me to understand. And and and we should do that. We should do that with our other forms as well. The the the general plans or any other type of, um, form that's that's out there that says in order to build do the following, and this is why, and here are the codes and the indices and the local standards and it goes on and on and on. So that's great.

[03:28:07] Chair José Gutiérrez: The lot consolidation, I'm not sure. I I get the premise of it, but I'm I mean, how can you intervene in a market forced relation? Well, with incentives. Well, with incentives. Well, what are the incentives? I don't know. Um, but just to do this, I'm not sure. Um, I understand the premise, but I'm just not sure. I'm not gonna micromanage the way you look at setbacks. I think the way it was presented makes total sense to me from an economic perspective and I understand that developers for the most part are in agreement with what we have already as a city for how we regulate all that, which is fine with me. I I don't I haven't really seen a lot of developers just a couple reach out to the community about said projects, but it's not like the norm, at least by what I know and how I've been approached or other folks have told me about certain things that have happened or didn't happen, right? Um, so like when we had the example of the Chase building, that was for me out of the ordinary. It's not the standard from my neck of the woods. Now if other people have had a different experience, more power to you, man.

[03:29:08] Chair José Gutiérrez: Um, so I'm largely in support of what you have here, but with retail, I'd like to see that expanded. Look, I'm not really a NIMBY, to be honest with you. I'm not like that. I like regulation. I like limits. I like to understand what you can and can't do and why. And so for retail, it's opposite because here in the city there's places where there's an abundance of shopping opportunities and others that are just barren or not as much, right? And how do you solve that? Well, how do you make amends to what was poorly planned back then for whatever reason, right? Based on today's standards. You can't. But if you allow retail to be open to these different sites, R3B or R3C or R3D, great. I would spend energy and time with that because as it is when we have development projects come to the commission and to city council, and even the ones that have been previously approved and constructed, to make a long story short, you look at all these opportunities that they have on the ground floor and a lot of them are still vacant and they've been there for a little while now. But I'd like to think that it's because of the economy that we have and because of the pandemic that we suffered. And I'm hoping and I'm praying that as we make the turn to try and have not what we had before because I don't know that we can get there based on how things are right now in general, because there's still a lot of uncertainty. But if you have that built already, then there's an opportunity for the businesses to still come, right? If you build it, they will come. I still believe in that. So I believe in retail expansion in these zones in general, right? That's why I'm really hardcore, uh, uh, pressing you, asking you to just look into that more and to promote that because I think that's something where then you have zones of residential communal living, um, but then also opportunity for commercial shopping. And I think that's key especially when we have limited lots around the city and we don't have as much luxury to pick and choose where businesses can and can't go because as it is we're having a tough time trying to figure out how we can define what a development for our residents looks like in certain areas in the city.

[03:31:08] Chair José Gutiérrez: Um, anyone else? No? Okay. Um. So for these approaches that you have from various commissioners on how they look at retail for R3, R oh oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, and yes, consolidation with R4 and R3, that makes sense to me as well. Um, the non conforming ordinance makes sense. Yes, it was confusing. Thank you, Commissioner Donahue for pointing that out. I I don't know. I don't have to talk about that. You already made the point clear. Um, which is which is great.

[03:31:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: And I agree with what Bill was saying in terms of live work. Um, there's other cities that have what Bill described, which is live work would and and you have that a lot of that also in Europe, right? And even in some parts of Mexico like in the state of Nuevo Leon. So you have a a business entity at the bottom and at the top you got the loft which is basically where the family lives or the person lives, right? Um, the way it was described here was a little different. I I'd like to see more, um, detail on that. What's the vision for that, right? Just like kind of like what's the vision for bicycle lanes and this this this this sharing of the roads with cars from one end of the city to the next and having a a a communal, um, roadway for them, a pathway for them or a walkway for, um, neighborhoods as well, um, between, um, the transition zones of what's a single family residency versus a behemoth of a project of where people live. That needs to be looked at in more detail because there's potential there. But where do you want it and why? Right? You just can't throw it in there. It's like I I want more substance to that because if you can have that, you can define that, then you have the potential to create something a little bit different that we haven't really had, which is maybe an area or small areas of where you have a different type of vibe of artists or craftsmen, right? That that offer a certain different perspective of what we're used to with just seeing what we see with tech and and anything revolving tech. Tech's not everything. It's a part of something but because we're so inundated with it sometimes we lose perspective of what live work could be outside of that vantage point. And I think that's a valuable thing to have. Because then that gives an opportunity for non-traditional businesses to flourish. And if you have that, then you have more of a community setting to be able to then live and breathe in a different type of environment than what you were expecting which adds value to your overall living experience within the area where you're at or just the city as a whole. And then other cities take notice of that and then they go, hey, you know what, that's working there, let's try it here. And it just goes on and on and on. So if we can dedicate more time to what that actually looks like that'd be great. Because it it adds a a um a different option that we didn't have before.

[03:34:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: And other than that I I actually agree with the rest of the recommendations. But at this point, how do you want to deal with these suggestions that were one offs by commissioners because for the most part I heard differences. I didn't I didn't hear similarities at all. Right? I I I did with the consolidation of the R4 and R3. I did with uh the retail expansion into some R3 designated areas, mostly C or D or B, but not like a actual consensus. So what's the next step? Are you guys looking for us to have a consensus for you to move forward with a recommendation or just take our comments?

[03:34:53] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, I'll just say from the staff perspective we are not going to proactively, um, seek the consensus. Uh, if there's a one-off comment and other commissioners don't champion that and give us an indication of majority support, we're considering that as a an individual opinion and not the majority recommendation of the commission. If there's a desire to develop an idea that a commissioner mentions, that's uh for the chair and the commissioners to to do.

[03:35:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. All right. Sounds good. So in this case I'm going to go back to the EPC, to the commissioners. From your suggestions that you've made already here which vary up to a point, where is it that you would like to seek consensus so that we can modify and then add that language to the actual recommendation that's presented to us that was previously read? Uh, Vice Chair Nunez?

[03:36:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, sounded to me like lot consolidation just going back to drawing board. Um, and then uh ground floor retail um in uh with with less restriction if if any. And then um, you know, those seem to be like pretty well consensus. And then, not a word, but um, and then as far as the rest of it um I, you know, I I know that um I also agreed with Commissioner uh Subramanian around the uh um the like mass breaks and and all those kind of like design standards so there was like two people there um on that. Um, but aside from that um I would probably just agree with everything else. So that's that's my position.

[03:37:01] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sure. But what's the language for the mass breaks?

[03:37:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh, uh, Commissioner Subramanian, do you want to?

[03:37:08] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yeah. Um, thank you Chair and Vice Chair. Um, if I could recommend uh that in addition to the massing breaks and the bay compositions that staff has proposed, that we include that we recommend to staff to include um vertical expressions, material changes and composition of solid and transparent surfaces as viable alternates in addition to what they've suggested for compositional breaks.

[03:38:18] Chair José Gutiérrez: So so in this case, I'm sorry to cut you off. So expand compositional materials to what?

[03:38:23] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Sorry. So there were three things I...

[03:38:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yeah. The composition materials at the end I didn't catch that.

[03:38:28] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, oh. Solid and transparent. Uh, percentage of solid and transparency on surfaces. So there were really three things. Visual elements, material changes, and then composition of solid and transparent surfaces.

[03:38:53] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: If I can clarify. Um, just just to clarify on on my point of agreement. Um, uh, I I think my commentary is not on the kind of like specification of material, not that, you know, uh, Commissioner Subramanian's um suggestion isn't a good one or or or has its own merits, but uh for for me it was more around the um uh elimination of uh you know these kind of like mass breaks as a requirement. Um, you know, and yeah, as an overall requirement.

[03:39:28] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I was trying to suggest this additional language to to supplement and give developers more options rather than just eliminating the setbacks and massing breaks.

[03:39:44] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. So for those two points they're distinct and which is different. So I'd like to hear from the commissioners if they're in agreement with this. If not, I'll take your silence as a no. Silence as a no. Okay. Sounds good. Um, based on that do you need any more clarity or are we fine? And would you like me to read out the resolution here?

[03:40:28] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think uh as it relates to that last point of discussion with uh Vice Chair Nunez and uh Commissioner Subramanian, I think we take that as not majority support for those modifications. So continuing with the staff recommendation on on that.

[03:40:43] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Um, all right. So based on the staff recommendation, I did hear consensus on lot consolidation and then also expansion of ground floor retail. Uh, is that what you heard as well? Okay, great. So then...

[03:40:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Just to clarify the the sentiment on lot consolidation is really kind of lack of support for the um the the proposal as recommended by staff, although we did not hear majority sentiment across the commission for necessarily how to improve it or modify it. So you could leave it at that just not supporting staff's recommendation. Uh, um, and that's that's what what I've heard so far from a majority.

[03:41:30] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think what I heard that maybe got close if not to a majority was um find more positive communication and expression of the incentives rather than what the commission perceived as a a punitive um or regressive uh structure uh that staff had recommended. So if that has majority support, I think that gives us enough uh guidance and and contours as to what the commission would would like in its recommendation.

[03:41:56] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston?

[03:41:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I can't hear you Bill. I would agree with that. Carrots, I'm much more in favor of a carrot than a stick.

[03:42:08] Chair José Gutiérrez: Anyone else? No? All right. So, do you need me to read the whole thing out again? No? Okay. Sounds good. Oh boy. Does anyone, before we close this close on this issue though, are we happy with where we're at with what's been communicated here in terms of what's been agreed to? No. Okay. All right. And and I'm sorry. Uh sometimes that's how it goes. You bring up a suggestion and an idea. Sometimes we buy in, sometimes we don't. But in the end we still work like a team and we agree to disagree. Commissioner?

[03:42:44] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Uh, just a quick clarification on the inclusion of retail. Is there clarity or we could you repeat what the final direction is?

[03:42:54] Chair José Gutiérrez: By what I understood Eric, uh when he said what what he said was basically we're now in agreement with how it's been presented but we'd like to see an expansion of that concept in the zoning. But we didn't give any ideas as to how to do that or suggestions of how to get there. That's what I heard.

[03:43:13] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. Which I think I interpret to mean look for opportunities uh to expand beyond just R3D. Um, there was a sense among the commissioners uh that spoke that uh the market should be determining where that commercial goes and we shouldn't be an obstacle with our zoning. Um, given the importance and the value that those kinds of commercial spaces can provide to housing in various neighborhoods across the city.

[03:43:34] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Commissioner Cranston?

[03:43:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I gotta, you need to, um, at least adding R3C and maybe four of seven supporting going down to B. But the other three, not quite sure. That's what I thought I heard.

[03:43:53] Chair José Gutiérrez: I did... Go ahead Eric.

[03:43:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right, I I mean there seems logically to be a progression, right? The association of the mixed use with higher densities typically. Um, so perhaps R3C will be the starting point and then we can yeah, endeavor to figure out ways to maybe make that work as well in R3B or R3A. If that's the recommendation, we may just for the record want to um reflect a recusal uh for Commissioner Donahue on the R3A recommendation if if that's part of the final majority recommendation.

[03:44:25] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Donahue. Was that part of your recommendation? R3A as well for retail?

[03:44:30] Commissioner Paul Donahue: No, I I wasn't. I I was just C. So yeah. I I have no opinion on A whatsoever.

[03:44:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. So then that brings us to our clarity point of what... Okay. Sounds good. Um, and I'm going to just give quickly all of you, I want to thank you because this is my last meeting as chair, thank God. So I I think. I think, right? So you never know. You never know. But but but this example here is how you work with a team, with the city staff, with with all of you as well, to try and figure out how best to present this. Sometimes you do it well, sometimes you don't, but it doesn't mean that you don't try. You just have to keep going forward. So you learn from your mistakes, you move on, you keep going, you keep pitching in. So whoever the chair's going to be next go around, go get them. Um, and having said that, I want to thank the staff for having always pitched in with your ideas and suggestions with corrections to whatever it is that we say or don't say or how we misspoke or how we could better say things in general so that we can have general conceptions and understanding of how things will be in the end with a staff recommendation, right? Um, and and and that's really appreciated. And uh finally, um, during this past year we we've attended uh calls with you all and you've answered all of our questions. You've always been patient with emails or personal uh uh questions one on one. And I just want the community to know that those relationships are of value. They they they mean something because you can start to build a rapport with members of the city team and with that that's how you form a bond to try and get things progressing forward. At least in my vantage point. So thank you for being approachable that way. Not just with me, the chair, or with the vice chair, but with members of the community as well because you also spend time speaking to all these different groups, making time throughout the course of your business days to find out what it is that they're thinking and why they're presenting certain things or or expressing themselves a certain way to try and figure out how best to resolve a particular issue while at the same time trying to get things done for the city. That's not an easy thing to do. Um, especially now when you look at our situation is like what 10:45? Um, and that's that's uh that's something that you should and we should all be proud of that at least we try and work as best as we can to just keep going forward. Um, okay. So, having said that, there's an understanding of the resolution.

• ← Previous
• Next →