March 17, 2021 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:00:48] Chair Cranston: Meeting at 7:01 p.m. Um, this meeting will be conducted in accordance with the State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17th, 2020. All members of the EPC are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountainview.legistar.com, on YouTube at mountainview.gov/youtube or on Comcast Channel 26. As noted in the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period for an item by signing up at mountainview.gov/epc_speakers, emails and voicemail messages received by 5:00 p.m. today were forwarded to the EPC. All votes will be taken by roll call vote. However, I will ask the EPC-- now I will ask the EPC Clerk to proceed with the roll call, please.

[00:02:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Capriles?

[00:02:31] Commissioner Capriles: Here.

[00:02:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:02:35] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:02:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Heymeyre?

[00:02:38] Commissioner Heymeyre: Here.

[00:02:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Schmiesing is absent. Commissioner Yin?

[00:02:44] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Here.

[00:02:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Lo?

[00:02:47] Vice Chair Lo: Here.

[00:02:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Chair Cranston.

[00:02:49] Chair Cranston: Here.

[00:02:57] Chair Cranston: Okay. Um, item two on the agenda is meeting minutes and we have none this evening. Item three is oral communications or is-- sorry, item three is minutes. Item four is oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda this evening. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the commission from acting on any non-agendized items. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on a non-agendized item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Clerk Whitehill will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Clerk Whitehill, please check if there's any attendees wishing to speak at this time.

[00:03:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No attendees wishing to speak.

[00:03:53] Chair Cranston: Okay. Then we close section four. We move on to item five, a study session. The R3 Multiple-Family Residential Zoning District Update. There'll be a staff presentation from Martin Alkire, Advanced Planning Manager. Martin?

[00:04:11] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Thank you. Uh, let me share my screen here. Okay, uh, I hope everyone can see that. Great. Uh, okay, uh, welcome everyone. Uh, good evening. My name is Martin Alkire, uh, a planner with the, uh, Planning Division here at City of Mountain View, and, uh, I'll be presenting an overview of, uh, the R3 project to date, and a, a, with several key questions. Um, my presentation will, will just focus on those three, uh, topics on the screen. Uh, a brief overview of the R3 district. Uh, summaries of recent, uh, community workshops, including a, a City Council meeting. And then diving into the details on the proposed approach and standards, uh, for this work.

[00:05:13] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Just to orient, uh, everyone to why we're here, uh, on the screen, uh, lists the, the City Council goal, which is driving this project. And that is to review and propose revisions to the R3 Zone standards that consider form-based zoning, uh, incentivizing stacked flats, and updated rowhouse guidelines. And that is what, uh, we've been working towards, uh, uh, since we started this project. Uh, just in terms of a, an overview, um, of the R3 district. Uh, on the screen is a map of the city. Uh, in orange are the zones, uh, where, uh, R3 is, uh, applied. Um, there's a wide variety of different residential types in the R3 area. Uh, apartments, rowhouses, townhouses, duplexes. Uh, small lot single-family, a, a really a, a wide variety. Um, and as you can see, they're located throughout the city. Um, most of these R3 zoned properties are, uh, uh, have older, uh, structures on them, mostly built in the 50s to the 70s.

[00:06:44] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, the City Council had a, uh, study session in October. Uh, just to, to check in with the progress to date, the initial work that had, had started. And to provide some, uh, higher-level direction to the project. Uh, on the screen is kind of a brief listing of some of the comments, uh, from that City Council meeting. Um, again, this is not an exhaustive list. The staff report has a lot more of their comments. But, uh, as you can see, um, just, here's several of them in no particular order, but, uh, noting that the R3 standards do not meet community goals. Um, a lot of the projects in these areas exhibit a lot of sameness. Uh, the R3 work should focus on form and neighborhood fit, and less on, less on FAR and density limits. Uh, and as you can see the other, uh, bulleted, uh, points there as well. Again, the staff report has, uh, a more exhaustive list of those City Council comments.

[00:08:03] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, as I noted, we had two, uh, public workshops, uh, on the R3 work to date. Uh, one in October and one in November. Uh, the October, uh, workshop, uh, we provided an overview of the R3 zoning district. We had about 110, uh, folks attend that. Uh, we had a discussion of the R3, and then we had a small group breakouts, uh, where folks talked about some key R3 topics. Um, uh, and as with the Council comments, um, there are a lot more, uh, uh, kind of information from the first workshop in the, uh, staff report in the attachment, but, uh, on the screen are just some of the bullet points, uh, that we heard from the attendees. Support for an increase in density in R3, but concerned about impacts, concern over effect on adjacent neighborhood character, and, uh, several other, uh, comments. And then in November we had the second workshop. Uh, we provided a summary of the first workshop, we had about 130 folks attend that second workshop. Uh, and we dove into some more detail about some of the R3 character areas. And the degree of change that, really, uh, folks might be comfortable with, or wanting to discuss more. Uh, and, uh, they also provided some recommendations for changes in specific areas.

[00:09:48] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So, before I dive into, uh, a lot of the details, uh, with the work to date, I just wanted to step back and, and again just show the map again of the R3 zones throughout the city, and to provide kind of a bigger picture context to this work. And, um, one of the things that we've, uh, wanted to just kind of illustrate on the maps, and it's in the staff report, is just that, um, uh, what we're planning to do is, the whole approach is to break up this, uh, you know, kind of one-size-fits-all R3 zoning district on the screen into smaller sub-zones. As you can see on the screen, sub-zones, we're labeling them R3-A to R3-D from less intense to more intense or less urban to more urban. Um, and as you can see, uh, I'll dive into more details for each of these zones, but in each of these sub-zones there are height, uh, kind of maximums, and then the, the size of the buildings, the medium footprint, uh, large footprint, small, uh, house scale, block scale, and then the bulleted, uh, list under each of those sub-zones the housing types that, um, we would see in those sub-zones. Um, and, uh, the whole approach was to, to look at, uh, kind of these sub-zones and, and think about what would be the best fit, uh, R3-A, B, C or D into each of these existing, uh, neighborhoods. And then really, the, the big picture goal is to provide more housing, variety and types and choices, uh, within the R3.

[00:11:54] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So again, before diving into the details, just a couple kind of stepping back and looking at the larger context of how this all works together, looking at the map citywide, uh, here you can see, uh, the sub-zones, R3-A through D, kind of in purple and, and blue, uh, where they're proposed to be located in proximity to transit. And the transit there on the screen are signified by the, uh, red, uh, dots and that walkable radius around those transit stops. Uh, and that's for the heavy rail, uh, and light rail. And then the aqua, uh, kind of, uh, points are, uh, the El Camino, uh, BRT, VTA BRT service. And this is just kind of showing, um, as we look at providing more housing, variety, and potentially intensifying in some of some of these areas, uh, how close would these areas be to, uh, transit? Again, uh, designing around transit is a key part of planning in Mountain View. It's a key part of our General Plan strategy and overall sustainability framework, so we just wanted to highlight that.

[00:13:48] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, another, uh, context map is the one on the screen here. Again, showing the proposed sub-zones, their locations in purple and blue, and then commercial services shown in red and, and brown and tan. And again, um, another key part of kind of building out the neighborhoods in Mountain View and addressing issues of quality of life, building strong neighborhoods, things that we've heard throughout kind of, uh, these big, um, General Plan updates and Precise Plan updates and all these other plans that we have, uh, is, uh, how close, uh, are, uh, residences located to walkable services? Uh, you know, can they, uh, access daily goods and services by walking and not having to get into their car. So again, just showing that larger context, uh, before we dive into the details.

[00:14:43] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So, I'm going to go through very briefly, each of the sub-zones that, um, we're proposing. Um, and I'll start with R3-A. Uh, as you can see on the screen, uh, the R3-A, we have kind of a couple images of existing neighborhood character, just a sample of, of what that character looks like in terms of its scale and how buildings address the street. And then the map, uh, that accompanies that shows those locations where R3-A is located. Again, those purple, uh, areas. And then the R3-A zone standards, uh, on the screen there, just a listing of those key, uh, key standards, the building types, stack duplex, cottage court, etc. Uh, looking at the building footprint, how, how big of a building we're, buildings we're talking about, house scale, medium, uh, the building height and, uh, uh, setbacks, as well as frontage types. And then a graphic showing kind of what, uh, that could translate into, uh, in terms of massing and location on a lot.

[00:16:17] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, and again, R3-A is the, the least intense, and going R3-D is the more intense. So again, same, same thing with the R3-B, showing just some sampling of kind of the existing neighborhood character and how R3-B might fit in, uh, to that existing character. And then the map, uh, again, breaking out the R3-B, uh, in particular to see, uh, where they're located. And again, we can refer back to these, uh, when we get into the discussion or questions from, uh, Planning Commission. And then again, the same thing, uh, looking at the key development standards in the R3-B, uh, uh, the type of, uh, buildings, neighborhood courtyard, townhouse, multiplex, etc. The building heights, again, going down to building placement, frontage types, etc. And as you can see the graphic on the right, giving you a general sense of, um, maybe a little more intensive development than the R3-A.

[00:17:38] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, again, last two, uh, sub-zones, R3-C. Again, as you can see the images there, uh, the locations on the map in, in dark purple. Um, and then again, going through the R3-C zone proposed standards, uh, core townhouse, core courtyard, multiplex, and maybe I should just pause, uh, here and just, um, note that we di- have had some questions from the public, uh, as well as some commissioners on what do these building types mean? Core townhouse, core courtyard, etc. So we attached to the, uh, EPC, uh, questions and responses that we sent out to the planning commissioners today, kind of a poster from the Opticos team that kind of describe each of those building types, uh, graphically and with, with text, and we will post that information on the website as well. So the general public can understand, uh, with a little more detail what those really mean. Uh, again, key development standards, uh, the heights, uh, frontages, uh, that type of thing. And then as you can see in the image, you know, getting, uh, a lot more, uh, bulk and mass than the R3-A and B.

[00:19:13] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: And then finally, R3-D. Uh, the most intense. Again, uh, existing character and how that might fit in, uh, to that existing, uh, context. Showing the map of where that could be, uh, located. And then the, uh, uh, standards, the core courtyard, the mid-rise, uh, the building heights, etc. And again, the graphic there to help, uh, folks visualize that a little bit better. Uh, so again, we, we can talk more about these as we get into the, the discussion and questions.

[00:20:09] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, one thing I wanted to bring up and we noted in the staff report, is um, uh, this issue of overlay zones and, uh, the R3 district has, uh, several, uh, two overlay zones. And an overlay zone is essentially an additional layer of zoning requirements, I guess you could say, that, that go, that fit on top of the base R3 zoning district. And there's two types. Uh, one addressing height, uh, signified by H on our zoning map. And another one, uh, called special design, signified by SD. So the map that you see here, the locations where the height overlay zones are located within the R3, uh, are shown in blue. Uh, the special design overlay is shown in red. Um, so for the, uh, height, uh, overlay zone areas, um, uh, staff is, is recommending that, or suggesting that we maintain the height limits, uh, within this overlay zone. Uh, the overlay zone restricts height, uh, on future development in the R3, uh, either to one story or two stories. And this is kind of a legacy, uh, overlay zone, where it was established years ago, uh, in response, uh, to, or, uh, concern over how new R3, the heights of new R3 development might impact surrounding properties. So that's the whole purpose why that height overlay, uh, was put, uh, onto some of those properties. So, uh, to respect that, staff is suggesting we maintain those height limits, uh, uh, either one story or two story, but we supplement that with, uh, some of the new R3 standards. That is, allow, uh, a new, uh, greater variety of housing types, um, perhaps reduced setbacks, whatever it is. Um, but still respect that existing height limit.

[00:22:06] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: For the special design overlay, again, those were, um, established, uh, because of concerns over, uh, how surrounding environmental conditions might affect the livability of those properties. And if you look on the screen, the red areas, the special design overlay was established for properties that, uh, were either impacted by noise from freeways, or from rail, or were adjacent to industrial uses, and there might be concern over odor or, uh, operational impacts. So, um, we're suggesting, as outlined in the staff report, that, um, we could kind of replace that SD designation with, with new R3 standards, and the reason is, is that, um, this would provide more flexibility to those property owners in terms of developing it, and with new newer building technologies, soundproofing of windows, newer HVAC technologies, that um, you know, those could uh, one, one idea would be to, uh, uh, they could be mitigated with these newer, newer technologies, and so you wouldn't necessarily need that uh, special design overlay. It hasn't been an actively used um, overlay over the years. Um, it, it's, it's kind of a, again, a legacy um, overlay zone from years ago. But anyways, that's the suggestion that's outlined in the staff report.

[00:23:35] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, in terms of next steps for this project, again, taking it to the City Council on April 13th. Um, uh, once we get that final direction from City Council, we'll begin the environmental review process in the spring and the fall. And then hopefully, uh, bring back uh, adoption hearings uh, in early 2022. Um, so again, just reiterating what's in the staff report, we have a couple questions. Uh, does the EPC agree with the proposed R3 sub-zone approach, uh, including each sub-zone's general location and their key development standards? And then the second question is regarding the approach to the R3 zoning district overlays. Um, that concludes my presentation, but before I uh, wrap up, I just want to introduce the Opticos team that are with us tonight. We have uh, Tony, Stefan, uh, Martine, and Cal. And they've all been doing a tremendous amount of work on this project and are here to help answer any questions that you may have. Uh, that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

[00:24:43] Chair Cranston: Thank you, Mr. Alkire. Um, as a study session, um, rather than doing commission, commission, commission questions first, we go to the public for comment. So I'd like to open that up. Uh, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comments on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Clerk Whitehill will start the timer and let you know what, what, when your time is up. Can I get a feel for how many people would like to speak?

[00:25:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, so far it looks like we have five that are hoping to speak.

[00:25:24] Chair Cranston: Okay, then we'll just do the normal three minutes. Um, so if you could call the first person?

[00:25:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay. Um, I'm just going to get set up really quickly. My apologies. Okay. Sorry, I'm having a little technical difficulty. All right. Bruce England, I'm going to allow you to talk. And you can go ahead.

[00:26:31] Bruce England: Okay, do you hear me okay?

[00:26:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes.

[00:26:33] Chair Cranston: Yep.

[00:26:33] Bruce England: Okay. Hi, um, Bruce England, speaking for Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning and Green Streets MV. Um, this, uh, the changes that you're looking at for R3 look, look really, really good. It's pretty complicated, so I've been trying my best to get my head around all the details. But for our two groups, we are especially interested in taking advantage of the changes to R3 zoning that you're talking about now, to also talk about streetscapes and, um, and greening our, our streetscapes in general. And we're used to the idea that projects are tend to be discussed right at the project sites themselves and just end at the sidewalk or at the street. And, um, for those of you who are in the City Council meeting last night, you know there was a lot of discussion about this idea of greening the streets and, um, increasing park space and open space and all of that. And, um, the idea of creating green streets where people who are walking and biking around our, um, our city are actually in greenery and landscaping instead of having to go to a separate place like a park to experience it. We really like to see that, but it means, um, taking into account for any of these R3 projects what happens all the way out to the street, not just ending at the perimeter of the project site. And we're also, our letter points out our interest in lighting controls, uh, high lighting can affect, uh, wildlife and, and human mental health too. Um, and biodiversity, paying attention to that, and landscaping choices for native drought-tolerant and pollinator-friendly, all of those kind of things. So it's just, in general, if you could think in your, um, designing the R3 zoning codes and regulations, thinking beyond just the perimeter of the project sites, that would be wonderful. Thank you.

[00:28:18] Chair Cranston: Thank you.

[00:28:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Corey Smith.

[00:28:31] Corey Smith: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Corey Smith. I'm an organizer with the Housing Action Coalition. We're a nonprofit that advocates for more homes at all income levels around the entire Bay Area. Uh, we care about building more supportive housing, more subsidized affordable housing, and more market-rate housing. And we are participating in these conversations all over the region. Um, and while there are many questions that I know all of you have, and, and leaders around the entire Bay Area, and frankly the state of California have, um, it is a really important conversation. And when we look at the last, you know, 30, 40 years of Bay Area planning, the situation we're in right now, our affordability and displacement crisis is totally predictable. And it was not one thing that got us into this problem, it's not one thing that will get us out of this problem. Zoning and zoning reform and the idea of, hey, maybe our, our cities and towns can allow for more people is certainly a step in the right direction, and one that we absolutely support, and there's a number of other things that do need to happen in order to, to get the communities that are inclusive, uh, and affordable for everybody.

[00:29:56] Corey Smith: Um, a couple things I just want to highlight about the conversation that I, that I know you're having and, and thinking about, that is really critical. First and foremost, while there is no solution, single solution to our affordability and displacement crisis, no solution exists without adding a lot more housing. So figuring out, uh, and, and I thought the presentation was really fantastic and, and I agree with the previous commenter, how to fit that into Mountain View specifically, um, is, is a totally, uh, I want to say productive and solutions-oriented conversation, uh, and we appreciate you having it. We also know that as we allow for more homes, we're going to see some, some positive impacts in terms of reducing displacement and evictions of low and middle-income residents. All of the data really does support that. Um, and in a lot of cases, the, the types of housing that you're talking about already exist in the community. Zoning was not biblical, it has not been around for thousands of years, and, and many homes around the entire region, you know, currently break existing zoning laws, they're too dense, but, but they are a natural part of our community. Um, last thing I want to say, we are, again, having this conversation across the entire region, and, and we do have, um, developers, architects, attorneys who want to be a resource, so if any of you do have any questions, um, know that we want to be partners. And again, really appreciate you having the conversation. Thank you.

[00:31:37] Chair Cranston: Thank you, Mr. Smith.

[00:31:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All right. Robert Cox, allow to talk.

[00:31:51] Robert Cox: So, can you hear me?

[00:31:52] Chair Cranston: Yes.

[00:31:53] Robert Cox: Thank you. Uh, Chair Cranston, Vice Chair Lo, and Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to address you on the R3 zoning. I am here tonight to say that as long as the bonuses in the staff report account for all potential bonuses, including the state...

[00:32:09] Chair Cranston: Can you get a little closer to your microphone, Mr. Cox?

[00:32:13] Robert Cox: I will get closer. Okay. So, here we go. I'm here to say that as long as the bonuses in the staff report account for all potential bonuses including the state density bonus, I am mostly comfortable with the, uh, four new R3 zoning categories as designated. However, I do have two main concerns. The first is whether this is the right time to grant an upzoning by right immediately on all the parcels at the same time. The shift in the tech industry toward more remote work and the uncertainties surrounding the future of SB 330 and its impact on naturally affordable housing suggests to me we should take a more cautious approach. I would recommend for the moment leaving these designations as recommended upzoning. A developer could propose a project with the recommended upzoning and the Council could evaluate the merits of doing the project the way the project is proposed. While the upzoning could help, um, Mountain View meet its arena numbers for the next arena cycle, I believe we should first assess whether we have already zoned enough parcels to meet the next arena cycle. Once we grant the upzoning, state law will not let us take it back. The second concern is about setbacks, which I believe are too small. I recommend adding a 45 degree rule to rear setbacks, which the EPC applied on P zoned projects proposed for the upcoming El Camino Precise Plan several years ago. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak and I will stand by if you have any questions. Thank you very much.

[00:33:51] Chair Cranston: Thank you, Mr. Cox. Um, Clerk Whitehill, can you make sure that that only the primary person is getting audio because we're getting a lot of background from...

[00:34:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Thank you. All right. My apologies.

[00:35:01] Chair Cranston: Okay. Um, next speaker.

[00:35:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes, so next is Adam Clet.

[00:35:10] Adam Clet: Uh, hello Commissioners and uh, and staff. Uh, thanks for the opportunity to uh, address you today. Um, I just wanted to um, thank staff for uh, giving us this report. I had an opportunity to read over this a little bit before this uh, um, this commission, and um, one thing I just wanted to point out is that uh, some of the uh, densest neighborhoods um, called out in the rezoning are the furthest away from uh, some of the transit hubs. So, you know, we're talking about building a lot of housing here in Mountain View, and I have concerns about um, how these people are going to, to have a good quality of life um, without um, a car-centric lifestyle if they're so far away from these transit hubs. So, certainly get a plan for public transit and bike connections to the rest of the city. Um, obviously the...

[00:36:03] Chair Cranston: Mr. England, can you mute your phone, please? Star six.

[00:36:13] Adam Clet: The uh, the R3 zone is obviously a little bit of a patchwork now, and I, I commend staff on trying to uh, sort of homogenize it. Um, I would say that um, especially towards the downtown area, um, the R3 um, A zoning does seem very low. Um, and I would also, I mean, probably outside of the scope of this, but I'd encourage staff to consider like uh, whether or not um, other properties in that area could opt into some of this more dense zoning to promote uh, transit-centric um, development. Um, I think that is pretty much all I wanted to say. Um, I would say, um, should also consider how the planning department um, is going to deal with all of these development applications. Um, they need to be resourced and um, empowered to, to deal with um, quite a few applications, I would imagine. And um, you know, together I think we can build a really great community in these areas, and um, I thank you guys for uh, looking into this. Uh, I'll yield the rest of my time. Thank you.

[00:37:21] Chair Cranston: Thank you.

[00:37:25] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Thanks, we have uh, Robin Lynn.

[00:37:31] Robin Lynn: Hey there, can you hear me?

[00:37:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes.

[00:37:33] Chair Cranston: Yep.

[00:37:33] Robin Lynn: Oh, great. Hey, thanks so much for the time. Um, yeah, I, I guess I, I'm becoming a lifer on these meetings. Um, I was on the City Council meeting yesterday and was just struck by the public comments, um, talking about, uh, so much about quality of life. And I think, what does it mean to have a quality of life? I think when I, I really appreciate staff's, staff's analysis, uh, I do feel like there is another axis that, um, needs to be looked at, which is just, you have all, you're going to densify in these places, and where will these people go to just walk their dog or, um, take their kids to a playground, you know, is that going to be in walkable distance? Because in the areas that, um, a lot of this R3 zoning is, are in places that are actually park poor. So, the Moffett/Whisman, Monta Loma/Farley/Rock, San Antonio planning areas, theyre actually pretty park poor. And, um, are at least for the Monta Loma/Farley/Rock and Moffett/Whisman pretty dependent on, um, non-city owned park space. And so, I really, I really hope that we can, before pulling the trigger on these changes, or as we think about how we try to densify the city, that we make sure that um, we're looking at quality of life from a green space access, park space access, because I think, you know, you don't grow parks, uh, anymore. Um, once this land is built up, we're not going to get it back, um, or maybe not for another generation, but none of us will care at that point, right?

[00:39:26] Robin Lynn: Um, so I sent, as part of my comments, a map overlaying the R3 zoning on the park space right now. And I think to me it's pretty stark how much we are dependent in the city on non-city owned park space. And to me, it just goes right to the heart of what does it mean to be a, what is Mountain View? What is it, why are we different, why are we special? It's because hopefully we figure out how to densify and yet remain, uh, and yet maintain or even enhance the quality of life for all our residents. So no matter where you live, whatever your housing looks like, however, whatever your, you know, life, um, situation is, that you have access to the same city amenities as any other resident. Um, I'm not sure we're quite there yet. I hope that as we look at densifying, especially in the areas that we're thinking of densifying, which um, are fairly park poor, and also, you know, have already densified quite a bit, that we will think about how do we make sure that if you live near Cuesta Park, or you live in San Antonio, or any of these other places, or Old Mountain View, or, you know, Monta Loma, or in the Rock area, that you have the same quality of life. I think that's what would make Mountain View a really amazing place to live now and into the future. Thank you so much.

[00:41:03] Chair Cranston: Thank you, Ms. Lynn.

[00:41:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All right. April, April Webster.

[00:41:13] April Webster: Hello. Um, I'm a, I'm also a member of MV CSP and Green Spaces Mountain View.

[00:41:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Oh, can you unmute yourself, Ms. Webster?

[00:41:29] Chair Cranston: Yeah.

[00:41:31] April Webster: Sorry. I was, I was busy talking away, I thought I had hit the unmute. Um, I just want to say I'm also a member of Green Spaces Mountain View and MV CSP, and I wanted to key off what um, you know, things that both Robin and Bruce had to say, and you know, just to think a bit more, I guess, when planning our built environment, to think a bit more holistically about the spaces that we live in, um, in the context out, of the environment, out in our community. Um, buildings aren't, don't really exist in isolation, and so how those um, connect us to our green spaces, um, how that connects us to transportation, um, I think is really important to think about, um, when, you know, taking, taking that into account when doing planning. Um, and I just, I would like to emphasize that, is thinking more holistically in an integrated manner when, um, working on this sort of policy. And that's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

[00:42:33] Chair Cranston: Thank you.

[00:42:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All right. Alexander Brown.

[00:42:40] Alexander Brown: Hey all. Uh, yeah. I'm personally all the, all the time, I think the density is fine, I'm not afraid of it. But also, I agree with several previous speakers, I don't have a dog personally, but I would love to put a collar on and walk myself to a park. And the more amenities that I have access to, and that my neighbors have access to, the better. I think that it, it's, they're right. Uh, R3 zoning areas do not have the resources that certain other parts of the cities do. And that's a reason to provide those resources to everyone, to make it more equitable and spread the love. And not a ma-, a means of saying, oh, therefore we shouldn't do stuff here, or we should only do stuff ex-, let's not use this as an excuse to not act or to slow down, or to prevent people from coming and living in Mountain View. But to help more people to take advantage of the things that make life great. Thanks. Oh, also, weird buildings. Make 'em weird. Make 'em look interesting, they're boring right now. Come on.

Segment 2

[00:50:58] Brittany Whitehill: Thank you. Alright. David Watson.

[00:51:03] David Watson: Hi, uh I'm David. I'm a uh a member of Mountain View YIMBY and uh I've been a a resident of Mountain View my my whole life and I uh I also have have two daughters I hope will be able to afford to live here one day. Um I uh I wanted to touch on two uh quick points. One is um uh really a minor thing but uh I I I'm hoping that uh you can you can recommend a a specific um design uh improvement for uh R3 zones which is uh the the option for architectural arcades in the densest uh zones. I think they make for uh more walkable uh more walkable uh sidewalks because uh you get some protection for pedestrians and uh in return we get slightly slightly more uh more units which is uh also a bonus. Um the other thing I wanted to add is sort of to echo kind of what other people have said here but uh it seems like um we're we're not uh having the the the densest uh densest housing closest to the parts of Mountain View that have the the most amenities. Um specifically downtown uh which not only has best transportation but I would say uh the best uh the best places to eat and uh I think some of the best uh park land. Uh maybe maybe outside of North Bayshore some of the best best best park land and I think that's uh pretty clearly a place where if we want green you know we were talking about uh uh options for for green space we should absolutely say uh don't don't put a bunch more people next to the parts where there's no no nearby parks, put the people next to next to where we have a bunch of parks. I would also welcome more uh more density near where I live. Uh I there's three parks in easy walking distance from my house in in Rex Manor and I I think it's it's not fair that uh many of the the new new residents in in Mountain View uh have to live live so far away from that and I I'd be happy to welcome more neighbors here in in Rex Manor. Uh but I also think downtown downtown would be a good place as well. Anyway, uh thank you very much.

[00:53:09] Brittany Whitehill: Thank you. Alright. And Pardis Beikzadeh.

[00:53:16] Pardis Beikzadeh: Um hi, uh I'm Pardis. Uh I also live in Mountain View. Um I also wanted to thank the members of the staff uh for doing the great work that they did on uh the R3 zoning uh workshops and and putting the report together. Um I wanted to reiterate what Salim was mentioning um and I think Mitch as well uh that that this um plan is for a really long time um and it might be hard for us to imagine what Mountain View would look like 30 years from now. But I I think that we should be more aggressive in um the height limits that we set for what is the highest density um zones in the city because I I just um am really worried that we are not going to be able to meet our housing needs in the next 30 to 40 years. Um uh and when when a lot gets developed, you know, this year, it's not going to get redeveloped soon. So I think we should be very efficient with our land use. Um build taller that actually also allows for more free land elsewhere in Mountain View that could be turned to parks um you know and be that green space that that folks also mentioned. So I think it's really important for us to sort of not get stingy here. Um and and also from an environmental global warming standpoint, you know transit development, uh transit-oriented development is really important. So I'm also surprised a little bit to see that right next to downtown and some of the best amenities in the city and uh the Caltrain station we are not being more aggressive with the zoning designations that we're using. Um so those are my comments. Thank you.

[00:55:13] Brittany Whitehill: Thank you. And that wraps up the public commenters in Zoom.

[00:55:21] Chair Cranston: Right, well bring it back to the commission. Um so the um in the staff report they presented us with two questions. But question one is has a lot in it. Uh my thinking was that that perhaps a better approach would be to kind of break that up in - can I get more... can we mute other speakers... miss Whitehill? Thanks. Um so the question reads does the EPC agree with the proposed R3 subzone approach including each subzone, general location, and their key development standards. And my thinking was that perhaps first of all just kind of open up for questions, but then as we go through question one to do first discuss the overall approach. Do we agree with this kind of A, B, C, D? Does that work in general? Um and then drill into each of the subzones. A, you know, what do we like, not like about that... through D. And then also a similar discussion around around location. Uh so that way we get feedback in each of those. Does that work with the commission? Seeing a nod, nod, nod, nod. Okay. Um so first open up for questions uh from the commissioners of uh staff and Opticos.

[00:56:49] Commissioner Heymeyre: Sure, I'll kick us off I mean I think the general theme in public comment was questioning why the greatest densities are furthest away from transit in some cases so sir um can we talk a little bit more about that is it really about lot size or a little bit more understanding of how the densities are further away from the key what I consider the key transit hubs of downtown?

[00:57:15] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Sure. uh and uh actually I'd ask uh uh Brittany if you could maybe also allow uh the Opticos team to be panelists if they wanted to share additional materials uh through their computers. But um there's two two lenses to to how we were approaching this work. Number one was that broader uh neighborhood level uh location to to transit uh just more of a descriptive approach as as we shared with those maps. The core of the work that Opticos did was really looking at those specific um you know really parcel by parcel uh seeing what could be changed within the existing R3 uh to uh you know give that greater neighborhood fit. So their focus was more on the design and and how units could fit on into different neighborhoods. And then uh staff supplemented that with the uh general transit location maps. Um and certainly Opticos can talk a lot more about uh the process they went through uh with um the the actual uh development of the subzones.

[00:58:29] Commissioner Heymeyre: Chair Cranston, if that's possible I'd love to hear a little bit more um I'm intrigued by the form the focus on design and form and in parallel with transit.

[00:58:42] Chair Cranston: Craig Whitehall, can we...

[00:58:46] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Martin, who should that be?

[00:58:48] Tony Perez: I'm happy to answer that.

[00:58:49] Chair Cranston: Oh, great, thanks.

[00:58:51] Tony Perez: Yeah. Um Tony Perez with Opticos Design. Thank you um thank you uh Chair Cranston and and uh EPC Commissioners and everybody on the on the meeting. Uh thank you for your observations and your your um your encouragement to to be more um to to do more with this this R3 zone. And and it's really been on our minds to do that. But what you're seeing um in this pattern of of um people feeling like there's not enough intensity near the transit or near downtown is a combination of factors. One is um certainly existing lot sizes. But the other is what the R3 is across the street from or behind. Or next to. And many and this is in many many cities that we've worked in, this is one of those situations where I think an earlier commenter set it very well, it's a it's a patchwork. The R3 is certainly a patchwork pattern. There really isn't one um flowing pattern to it. It's intertwined with all these different existing zoning districts and and existing physical character that that may not change. So that certainly influenced our thinking uh and and and uh so we erred on the side of being a little more conservative with the types of of subzones that we're recommending here. It doesn't mean it couldn't increase a little bit here and there or or um add another building type as a choice within each zone, but that is you know just in a short short answer, that is that is at the core of our approach. The physical character that exists and likely won't change as much as the R3, and then what what can the R3 actually accommodate physically on the parcels that that we have. And I also want to add to to one of the commenters earlier uh talking about parcel assembly, parcel assembly can happen already, uh it just may may not be really obvious and explicit, but in this approach with different building types, um the building types are are um coordinated to the lot sizes that you would have in the different zoning districts, to different different areas I mean, of the of the R3. And so you can actually already apply a bigger building type than maybe that lot would accommodate by by assembling two lots and putting that bigger building type on it. So that approach is already integrated into our thinking. Uh it's just not super obvious right now. We haven't gotten to that level.

[01:01:28] Chair Cranston: Can I just ask a quick quick follow-up?

[01:01:31] Commissioner Heymeyre: Um, so, can you talk you mentioned some other clients and I think a lot of the public commenters were talking about this is the long haul planning. In your experience working with other cities, once an R3 um zoning ordinances change, like what is the typical how soon have you seen changes uh or requests for new projects? Is it is it pretty gradual? Is it longer term? Do you have any experience that you can share?

[01:02:00] Tony Perez: Oh yeah, you know unfortunately this is a long-term uh uh business that we're all in. Uh however in the Bay Area, you know as compared to the rest of the country, that's accelerated. It's different. Uh of course. But I think that uh you know typically it's it's a little longer term, a couple years, several years before you see anything being applied for. But we get the sense that with the strong interest in Mountain View and the high property values in in Mountain View that it's nearer term than longer term in Mountain View.

[01:02:43] Chair Cranston: Other other questions from commissioners? I have one. Um and I guess this is for for uh Martin and and staff. Um I I think a lot of good work was done here but I will admit that it was it's somewhat different than what I was anticipating seeing. Um part of the original R3 discussion came up um after the passage of the uh rent control ordinance. Um essentially triggered a wave of conversions of uh essentially rent-controlled apartment buildings into townhomes. And that was easy to do because it was all within the R3 zoning without anything special associated with it. Um and we saw a rash of these these take place. Um as staff mentioned in the report, two things, both the the change of the BMR ordinance from 10 to 15 percent, actually I think it's 20 percent for townhomes, and the passage of SB 330 has slowed down has slowed that down. Um so I guess my there's a a lot my question is do you feel and and I I'm really interested in your answer here, do you feel that you have guidance from council to try to re-accelerate that conversion of these um essentially rent-controlled properties into more dense uh properties? Or are we looking at something that's supposed to be kind of neutral? Um and how does the eventual expiration of SB 330 in 2025 affect this?

[01:04:43] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Sure. No, those are all those are all good questions and it's it's definitely as you mentioned, that was a trend that we saw, the the move to rowhouses and how much that was accelerating uh the conversion of existing apartment stock, and that that really to your point really gave genesis to the City Council's desire to see this project and why they made it a a key goal. Um nevertheless, um that issue aside, although it's still obviously a dynamic, um the R3 district just standing alone regardless of those issues, um the R3 codes are are very outdated in terms of their ability to uh really incentivize um kind of a a wider variety of housing types and um choices and variety and density. Um and uh so so the hope is that uh with this new update in these different subzones and all those different types of of housing uh types that we uh outlined in the subzones, that will will provide that long-term greater variety of of housing choices to to really address a whole number of of different housing policy goals. Um so yeah, just to sum up, you know certainly acknowledge your your comment and it's it's valid, but there's also other larger long-term goals that I think uh this project will will realize.

[01:06:16] Chair Cranston: Okay. So it sounds like to to it's kind of related to Commissioner Hehmeyer's question, you don't have you don't have guidance from council that it should be press on the gas fast or let it kind of happen you know let it more happen more gradually over time. You don't have a sense from council as to if they have a preference for the pace of change.

[01:06:43] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: You know at this point we're we're just bringing forward the the analysis and the options for them, uh and certainly we'll we'll hear from them in April uh more direction or comments on on on that issue.

[01:06:57] Chair Cranston: Thanks. Uh Vice Chair Lo.

[01:07:04] Vice Chair Lo: Thank you Chair. Um I want to thank staff and the consultant for the great work they've done. Um I have a couple of questions. One is also um related to timeline of change. Uh specifically timeline uh in relation with the um displacement response strategies to preserve naturally affordable units. Um because I think it's important to balance new development with preservation of naturally affordable uh housing stock um to prevent displacement. So I'm wondering if staff can comment on the timeline of the two projects and how they're coordinated.

[01:07:47] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Sure. Um so uh we have been working, the R3 team uh has been working very closely with the housing division. Um and the housing division is leading the uh work on the uh displacement policies. So we've been coordinating, like I said, very, very closely actually and making sure we're we're working together and are know what other each is doing basically. Um and again we are trying to, through the R3 work, trying to generate uh as I said more variety, more options, more residential uh capacity through new new building types. Uh but we're also very aware of the the need to limit uh impacts and displacement. So uh when we conclude our work with the R3 at that same time uh the displacement uh policies will be brought forward to to the City Council uh and uh again being coordinated uh together and will will be applied uh you know citywide and and that will also address the R3 uh zone work as well.

[01:08:54] Vice Chair Lo: Am I hearing you say that you're the city is intending to implement both around the same time?

[01:09:04] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh yes, I mean there're going to be I don't have the exact timing, but uh we do want um them to be generally coordinated uh so that uh everyone is aware of um you know that we're trying to accomplish two two goals like I said, generate more residential units but also limit displacement. So there will be strategies through the displacement policy work that will apply to to the R3 to to address that issue.

[01:09:34] Vice Chair Lo: Thank you. Um and then with regard to, you know, pace of change, um I was wondering if you can comment on what Mr. Robert Cox brought up about the provisional rezoning approach where um we're not you know uh blanket the changes to all the R3 zones but um do it kind of like as needed basis as developers come forth to you know um apply for projects. Do you have any comments on that?

[01:10:14] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um well I mean certainly you know we hadn't thought of that idea. Um certainly if the commission feels strongly that that uh is an an approach that you'd like to forward to the City Council for their uh consideration and discussion, you know we could certainly do some additional work on that, but it it hasn't been part of our analysis to date.

[01:10:39] Vice Chair Lo: Okay, thank you. That's it for now.

[01:10:44] Chair Cranston: Uh Commissioner Yin.

[01:10:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. Um uh thank you to staff and Opticos. I know this is a complicated project and I can see um how you got to where you did and how difficult it must have been. Uh so kudos to all those efforts. Um I appreciate a lot of what you've done. Um I do in general like the idea of the subzones, having subzones. Um I like that there will be form-based codes potentially. Uh I I would caution against overprescribing those codes. We don't want to have the same building over and over again. Um I I like that we are trying to get the design handbook and the guidelines together making it easier for developers to understand what to expect clearly early on. Um I like that we're trying to get a variety of housing and that we are trying to perhaps get more choices in um housing, housing areas and so on and so forth and to uh work towards more affordable housing. And an important part as others have mentioned is to decrease the displacement. And I had asked a question to staff and I think Martin had touched upon it, um Vice Chair Lo had also touched upon it. But I just wanted to confirm and make it explicit that in the zoning of R3 we don't need to specify anything about tenant displacement. That whatever we're doing through the housing division is going to just absolutely take care of everything we're doing in R3. So it will just apply broadly over and there's nothing we need to do within the the zoning itself. Correct?

[01:12:40] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Yeah I mean we haven't figured out the actual, you know, specific operational uh you know where the policies will will live. I mean it could be citywide um and we could reference it in the R3. Um we haven't really had those detailed discussions, but but rest assured uh it it will be it will be addressed either within the R3 zone or um you know strongly linked to the citywide policy or just well the citywide policy will be very clear about what zones it it uh applies to that kind of thing. There'll be a clear, a clear connection there.

[01:13:18] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, okay, just want to uh allay some fears that the public may have had about that. Um I don't know if now are we going to start discussing or are we just asking questions at start?

[01:13:29] Chair Cranston: Just questions first.

[01:13:33] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize for jumping ahead with comments. Um one question was then well I'll just take uh one moment to ask this question, was uh when the consultants were looking at all these subzones, I know you were looking at market feasibility as a priority, and I was wondering if there was opportunities. I didn't attend the workshops. Um I did see what the comments were. But was there an opportunity to look through the lens of the public realm in terms of what would what one would look at an experience walking down the street? I know it's in the back of your mind, but was that in was that brought forward to the community when they were discussing this to understand that that was a possibility to look at this purely through the form-based and I thought you know the form-based codes was sort of the exciting part of this too, where we can look at the streetscape, we can look at the open space, we can look at the form of the structure and the massing and to be able to do that from the outside, the public realm back inwards. Um and I just didn't get a sense from the the data at least that was presented that that was a priority. It seemed like market feasibility and how was was number one. And I understand you have to have a priority in order to look at something this complicated. Um so if you wouldn't mind just um telling me how in depth we got with the experience of walking down the street.

[01:15:05] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Maybe I can ask Tony or Stefan to to address that from the Opticos view.

[01:15:11] Tony Perez: Yeah, certainly. Thank you Commissioner Yin for that that question. Absolutely, you know, we we haven't talked about it but again it's one of those things that's uh implicit in the in the physical character that we're envisioning when we put those subzones together. Those key standards are leading toward a physical character and then those little diagrams that are on those pages are intended to provide a glimpse of that. So yes, we are very um very aware of the public realm. Every everything that we do is is attaching to it in some way and and creating it or reinforcing it. So so during those workshops what we did is we showed views of what was allowed under existing zoning and how that was or wasn't feasible from a market perspective. And we talked about the physical attributes of it and and whether it was a good physical character given the area or or not. Um maybe it was out of scale, maybe it was under scale. And then we showed what it would take to achieve market feasibility and we we did a model. We modeled on for one lot in different situations and we took one and said here's what is allowed now and this is what it achieves in the market and here's one that is is achieving market feasibility and here is its its intensity on the same lot. And we've done some things to the building and uh assumed some made some assumptions about the public realm but you could very clearly see them uh and in the context of adjacent buildings. So that was very much discussed during the workshops uh and and explained. Um I think that you know over and over we we hear and believe me it's it's on our list to deal with the public realm in this form-based code that that um that is on the list of topics to make sure that gets addressed uh through the standards for every project.

[01:17:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, great. I'm happy to hear that. Thank you.

[01:17:21] Chair Cranston: Commissioner Dempsey.

[01:17:25] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I I think I know the answer to this, but I want to follow along and ask a very similar question to what Commissioner Yin did. I just wanted to confirm that when you did the analysis and you sort of distributed the the various subzones throughout the city as you did, was traffic impact any part of the consideration?

[01:17:48] Tony Perez: Uh that level of analysis isn't there yet. The transportation team will take a look at it, but but we we have uh we have enough experience with the intensities of these types of buildings and and these types of environments to to understand um where parking is likely to be a bigger concern than others, where on-street parking is already stressed and and we need to not rely on it. Um but in terms of traffic generation rates and all of that, no that that has not yet been applied.

[01:18:21] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So what so what we're really seeing then on the map is sort of uh it all comes back to the market feasibility. It's it's what you can fit where, not necessarily what you know would work where.

[01:18:34] Tony Perez: We know that it will work physically. Not just market-wise. So there's a balance there. What you're seeing isn't just what the market says will work. Uh we we straddled that line. We offered people, we offered the choice in each subzone of building types that produce what the market feasibility is telling us as of you know this year and last last fall. And then also building types that are a little underneath that. So let's say the market drops and people want to do a little a little less intense building but it's still more intense than what the R3 currently allows. We each of the zones, that's why it has a at least two building types in there to choose from, so that you can do more intense or less intense, but it's all more intense than the current R3 zone. And I think that's something that I was hoping to get the opportunity to to talk about, uh Commissioner Dempsey, that earlier, you know, there've been a lot of comments a big repeating theme tonight is about uh not enough intensity. And I think when when people look at the most intense subzone that that is in this framework that we're proposing uh for your consideration, I think it's easy to say well it's not all like that, so somehow we're leaving something on the table and not doing as much as we could. But it's a little more subtle than that. Even the R3A, the lower intensity subzone, the least intense subzone of the four, is already more intense than the R3 itself. So you're beginning above what the what the R3 allows. And let me give you an example. So currently on many small parcels, you can't even do two units. But under the new R3A, you could do four, you could do six. Uh that's a huge increase from not being able to do a two at all. And you multiply that across a number of parcels, it so it uh I appreciate, we we all appreciate the concern about intensifying more, and we think that there is opportunity to do that. But intensifying more isn't the same everywhere across the R3 zone. And and I'm not suggesting you were saying that, I just wanted to take that opportunity to follow up on that.

[01:20:53] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And I have one more comment on this, but I'll save it for the end.

[01:20:57] Chair Cranston: Uh Commissioner Capriles.

[01:21:06] Commissioner Capriles: Apologies. Um just to uh clarify where we're looking at uh more of the open space and all of the uh green requirements as well. Is that further down the line as well?

[01:21:25] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, as I was listening to the discussion uh tonight, um certainly I think we can uh add some more uh information on that and that would be would be presented later uh in some fashion, yes.

[01:21:39] Commissioner Capriles: Okay, yeah, I just didn't know if we were at that level yet.

[01:21:47] Chair Cranston: And then just one brief follow up I guess for Tony. Um Mr. Perez, the you mentioned small lots, I guess that had come up in some of the speaker's questions when this was originally presented to council. Um saying that somebody with a I think I remember somebody had like a 7,000 square foot lot and they were and they could couldn't even divide it into couldn't even do a duplex there. Are you suggesting that the our the R3A would allow something like that for people to do essentially duplexes or something like that on smaller properties?

[01:22:21] Tony Perez: Yeah, that's correct Chair Cranston. If you look at the R3A um as as it's currently proposed, uh we're we're proposing fourplexes and pocket neighborhoods and other other types, um and possibly a sixplex we we've been considering something like that in in the R3A um as as the higher end of it. But right now there's there's the possibility to achieve five units, four units, depending on the size of the property uh as compared to one right now. And again it all depends it all depends on the size of the lot. Um so yeah.

[01:23:03] Chair Cranston: And I guess on the flip side of that was one of the comments from council early on was the concern about what we end up with is, you know, thousands of uh studios and one bedrooms and that we don't get anything for families. Um have you considered and how is that is that still something in the future, how do we address that?

[01:23:24] Tony Perez: Yeah, thank you uh Chair Cranston. That that's certainly something that we we intend to address and there are different ways to do that. Um we we don't typically recommend that units unit size be regulated for a lot of reasons, but there there are approaches uh such as the city of Santa Barbara's average unit density size where you can only achieve what the zone allows you as a maximum as the unit size uh decreases. And as you get that variety that that you're talking about. Uh that's that's one approach that that we've seen work, there are others. But yeah it's on the list.

[01:24:02] Chair Cranston: Could you just repeat that slowly one more time? So Santa Barbara has an average...

[01:24:06] Tony Perez: Average unit size average unit size density yes uh Commissioner Heymeyre. Uh yeah, and how it works is if let's say that the the density is is is 30, just for discussion purposes, the only way to achieve the 30 is to get to smaller units. And if you don't and and there's a minimum too, there's a minimum that you have to to um to achieve. But the only way to get the most out of what the zone allows is by decreasing the unit size. So the the the achievable density increases as the unit size decreases.

[01:24:41] Chair Cranston: Actually I think um Council member um Cameron, whichever one it was, actually was more worried that that we wouldn't get any two or three bedroom, not that we worried that all we would get are small units. How do we make sure that we get some you know for families uh and and the like. What you're describing sounds like it would push towards the smaller end.

[01:25:08] Tony Perez: Yeah, that's that's right. Although you know a system could be devised to do that um because that's a that's a big need in in in many places. So we haven't figured out exactly how to do that, but we know that that needs to be addressed. And whether that's a regulation or a policy, we don't know yet. But we are very aware of it.

[01:25:29] Chair Cranston: Okay, thank you. Um Vice Chair Lo, you have another question?

[01:25:35] Vice Chair Lo: Um I have a question related to the design handbook. I see that uh Commissioner Yin also has her hands up. If her question is more related to what we're talking about now, she can go first.

[01:25:50] Commissioner Joyce Yin: No, that's okay, go ahead. I can wait.

[01:25:53] Vice Chair Lo: Okay, thanks. Um yeah, I was excited to see that um the R3 team will be working on a design handbook. I think that will go a long way um in ensuring that we have some really good designs and mitigate some of these sameness complaint. Um the staff report touched upon the city's um limited ability to impose what's called non-objective development guidelines. Um so I'm just wondering how much of the handbook content will be what the city can require versus what the city can recommend. Um can someone say more about that?

[01:26:35] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Sure. Um yes, that's correct from the staff report uh you know based on the recent legislation you know we can't uh you know enforce uh subjective standards. They have to be objective standards. And so um you know we we'll have the objective standards in the in the form-based code uh in the R3 zone code. Uh the handbook will will include uh you know some guidelines and and kind of more subjective standards. Uh and though it won't be necessarily legally enforceable, it will set the expectation kind of for uh developers and for the community uh you know of of what we want to see. Um so again uh hoping that it will be you know both an expectation but also maybe a toolkit that uh developers could could say oh you know let's let's let's use this idea, this could work, we know the community would like to see that. So um again nothing that we can strictly enforce but could still have value in terms of setting that expectation and direction.

[01:27:48] Vice Chair Lo: I would assume the handbook will be developed after the policy is almost there in terms of timeline of the two.

[01:27:59] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Yeah, we're we're going to um start work on that in earnest right after the April 13th uh council meeting. We haven't really spent uh a lot of time on that at all, but yeah, once we get the the basics of the the R3 uh code uh in place, uh then we'll commence work on the the handbook.

[01:28:18] Vice Chair Lo: Thank you.

[01:28:21] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Uh yes, the question I was gonna ask was regarding a parking mundane but important. Um I noticed when the uh answers to the EPC questions came there were some examples and pictures of various unit types or building types and a lot of them were quite attractive and I was wondering in a lot of them there were no parking, there was no parking shown. So I am imagining that they're in back alleys or there's a court somewhere. But then it said if you had a front garden court then you are therefore sort of getting rid of any rear court. So in looking at setbacks and the building heights, building placements, did you also consider the number of parking spaces and how much space that would take and in what style it would be housed?

[01:29:27] Tony Perez: Yeah, thank you Commissioner Yin. Uh certainly. So the way we approach parking is uh that each building is on its lot and it has to satisfy its parking requirement. So if it if it has let's say just again for purposes of discussion, if it has 10 units in it and and the requirement is one and a half spaces per unit, it's going to need 15 spaces. Those 15 spaces need to happen on the lot that is accommodating that building.

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Tony Perez: not somewhere else, not in a big parking lot. The idea is to make lots of buildings that develop a public realm with the parking away from the public realm so the public realm is is showing the building. That's that's one reason maybe you found those those examples attractive is that parking wasn't wasn't in front of them distracting and and and taking away from the public realm, it was the public realm attaching to the front of that building and and its facade. And so the parking is either down the side and in the back, in some cases in a podium depending on the size of the building, or if a developer uh chooses to put it underground, which um you know, is we don't require that but that that may be something they want to do. So yeah, just depends on the building.

[01:30:47] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, cause I was just curious earlier when you guys were talking about the 7,000 square foot lot that could perhaps go to a six unit, I just thought where where is the where's the parking lot? Um I don't know if it could manage it and that prompted the question um and certainly we don't want to see it in the public realm. Um and you know, I was afraid that these little the courtyards would then be a court of parking.

[01:31:12] Tony Perez: Yeah, no, no, um and that's the, you know, there's a lot of, I would I would say, well, I will say, there are a lot of interpretations of the courtyard type that do that and say, oh, there's the courtyard, and it's actually a courtyard for parking. But no, um the way that we propose the standards and that we we write standards for that type, the parking needs to be away from that. And and generally our approach to park the parking location is the same as the building location. So if building placement is important, so is parking placement. Um because it's so it can so easily detract from everything else that you've done that which is great, and all of a sudden now the parking location uh takes it all that away.

[01:31:59] Chair Cranston: Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Dempsey, another question?

[01:32:04] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yeah, this is more of a, maybe just a request for staff. In the in the supplemental data we were provided, there was some really excellent data on um kind of units and acreage in R3 that I actually found really interesting. And I I don't think we saw this for the subzones, but uh and if and if it is in there, forgive me and I missed it and you can point it out to me. But if but if we don't have it, I'd actually be very curious in the next iteration to see, you know, a chart that breaks out for subzone A, subzone B, C and D, how much acreage it takes up, how many uni units it has there currently, and how many we think it could add. Like that kind of data I think would be really really interesting. Um, particularly because we may in the next iteration again want to start talking about, well, do we need a little bit more of A or is do we have too much D? Are we asking D to do too much work? Like that would actually be a really interesting conversation, and I would just love to see that data so staff, um, next go around if we could do that I would find that very useful.

[01:33:08] Chair Cranston: Certainly. That's something the staff can provide. Yep. Okay. Another question, Commissioner Yin?

[01:33:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah, sorry, this is a big topic and so lots of questions just come up even through discussion, um, and because it covers so much of the city and would last so long, it just seems like an important thing. Um, so as many people noted, uh, in public comments, and I had saw myself, I'd seen myself, um, when looking at the sort of the walking radius, the catchment areas that were drawn in relation to the highest density R3C and D, they are away from transit areas. Um, what's your professional take on adding so much density over such a large acreage in areas that are lacking in transit?

[01:34:04] Tony Perez: Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Yin. The approach that we took was in in locating the R3D in particular, is, um, we tried to find locations where that could fit nearest the transit. But the parcel sizes nearest the transit are either too small for those bigger footprint buildings, because that that's part of what, you know, density is is talked about, but the other thing that goes along with density is building size in terms of the footprint that needs to accommodate the bigger buildings. So those bigger buildings have a wider footprint, deeper footprint than the other buildings. And so they, the the parcels that exist that accommodate them more easily, unfortunately are farther away from all the transit areas. That that isn't to say that they couldn't happen closer, but the other thing that, again, we're here for feedback and direction and and so we can certain we we expect to take another look at all these things, but our our thinking so far has been A, those those bigger buildings need bigger parcels and we don't want to um you know map something that needs a bigger bigger parcel and all of a sudden signal to everybody, guess what, you have to assemble your properties to make anything happen. That's the way a lot of codes don't work, is by freezing those properties into speculation, and now people say, oh you need my property to make your building work. So we first looked at all the parcels that exist that are large enough to hold those now, and then secondly, the other thing that moved those R3D areas away from the transit again, not to our liking, but the reality of it as it currently stands is is what all those parcels are existing next to. There's a lot of single family housing in and around all these areas, and we um we feel we have some areas where maybe we went too far, and uh and maybe we need to crank that back, but you know, so if it seems counterintuitive why these R3Ds are farthest away, it's those primarily those two factors right now. But again, um, you know, there's more process to go and maybe um that that needs to be looked at again and differently.

[01:36:27] Commissioner Joyce Yin: No, I appreciate the the difficulty. It's, the reality is the reality, we don't want to change that, that's the assessment and then what we do from there is a different story. But it is good to know what is what. Thank you.

[01:36:43] Chair Cranston: Uh, Commissioner Dempsey, another question?

[01:36:46] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Maybe this just a comment and I'll say it really quick. Um, perhaps one thing at least worth thinking about is if we're, and I agree that there is definitely um a surprising amount of R1 space when I look at the little circles around existing transit, one of the things I think would be really at least worth talking about, at least for bus stops. What if we at least had a little bit of a conversation about moving the bus stop? Instead of trying to put a bunch of buildings next to the bus stop, if there's better places to put those buildings, do we ask about moving the bus stop? Like the one that's out by San Antonio, could we just scooch that half a mile you know, towards Sunnyvale and then it'd be sitting right in front of a huge block of blue, right? And that might be a little cheaper. So anyway, I think it's we shouldn't just assume, for Caltrain you ain't going to move that, but for bus stops, we should at least consider maybe it would be more efficient to actually move a bus stop. That's it.

[01:37:45] Chair Cranston: Right. Um, so the, the first part of of staff's question was on the proposed subzone approach overall. So what staff and Opticos have proposed is essentially a a four-tier structure with uh A being for smaller units and and smaller lots, um, B being a you know essentially giving the four tiers up to D being the highest tier. Can I get feedback from the commissioners on to the length of this approach? Do you have concerns about this approach overall before we then go into the individual categories themselves? Uh, Commissioner Capriles?

[01:38:28] Commissioner Capriles: I think in general at this particular level, this is a good start. But I think as we've had this the many questions and discussions and certainly public comment, it's it's it's so complex that we uh you know need to go down to the next levels to really understand what are what are we actually um making our decisions on. I think that you know, this is a good, like I say, it's a good start at this high level, but I think uh there were some uh areas of public concern and and mine as well, uh, that we we need touched on before we can just say, you know, roll with it. I need to you know, make sure that we are understand, we have clarity around exactly the units, the unit size. Are we just trying to hit numbers? Are we trying to look at what is needed within the community as far as unit size? So those are the, you know, the open questions that I I would um, you know, like to see at the next level of presentation.

[01:39:49] Chair Cranston: Commissioners? Commissioner Yin.

[01:39:55] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Uh, yeah, I had stated it earlier but I'll just do it very quickly now since we're running through it. I I also generally appreciate the the breakdown of subcategories. I think it helps a lot, they're so varied across the city that um, looking at lot sizes I think is a very smart way to do it. Um, but I do think as we move on, we can go with a finer tooth comb and really sort out um sort of the details of what each zone is and we can discuss um the other aspects later. But in general, having subcategories, I generally appreciate.

[01:40:33] Chair Cranston: Okay. Vice Chair Lo?

[01:40:38] Vice Chair Lo: Thanks. Um, yeah, in general, I am supportive of the subzone approach also. I think um the current R3 is just so um, it tries to cover so many different types of um parcels that it's worthwhile diving a, you know, one level down categorizing the different lots um into the four subzones I think makes sense in general. Um but as um my colleagues said before, I think there are a lot of um questions that we still need to answer. Um, and I look forward to more discussion and more details. Thanks.

[01:41:24] Chair Cranston: Thank you. Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[01:41:28] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Sure. I mean, this is a big topic and I really appreciated Figure 1. I think the the concept of a subzone sounds very technical and and the framework at least being able to spell it out and say here's what it could look like, here are the height standards that we're working toward, um, even if if they need refining I think that's why we're having these questions and conversations early on in the process. So supportive of the general approach and maybe want to have discussion within the subzones.

[01:41:59] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I'm with my colleagues. I think that uh this is the right direction, broad brush strokes, I agree with it. A lot to talk about the details, but I think we're headed in the right direction, so I support it.

[01:42:12] Chair Cranston: And uh I also agree with the overall approach. I think my kind of one open question in my mind is kind of a question for council is the uh as and it will touch on across all of these is how aggressive council wants to be on this migration over time to occur. Um, if you took everything that was in the initial feasibility analysis and put all of that in... everyone of those those things that makes it makes it more feasible, we'd see a pretty fast rush forward. And I was uh struck by the fact that there's what 11,700 or 11,800 units in the area, and 11,400 of them are under rent control. I know that falls into the how do we mitigate this, but there's a lot of people in the city, a lot of people in this city that are living in those homes, and if there was a sudden rush forward, um, we'd be displacing a lot of people all at once and we need to be really thoughtful about how that happens. This is um, that's my my biggest concern is, is, is pace overall. So I like the general approach, but at a high level you've got, you know, a lot of people in these CSFRA units that are going to be impacted by how this plays out. Okay. Alright. Um, you're adding on that, this first... Vice Chair Lo, okay.

[01:43:52] Vice Chair Lo: Uh, Chair, I wanted to echo your concern about the pace of, you know, at which we roll out these changes. Um, I am also uh concerned about that too. Um, in addition, the path to economic recovery post-COVID is still kind of unclear in my mind, um, and given that I believe we have, the city has zoned more than enough for RHNA for the next cycle from, at least that's my understanding from looking at the housing elements, um, I am wondering, yeah, how fast do we need to go? What is the right pace? Um, so yes, I I share your concern on that. And also, you know, what SB 330 will look like when it does expire. Um, all those, I think, we need to take into consideration. Thanks.

[01:44:52] Chair Cranston: Any other comments on the overall approach? Okay. Then why don't we step through each of the four, um, and this is the general description that staff has provided. We'll look at the map second, um, but the R3A would be first. Any comments on the on what's being kind of outlined as the high level standards for this particular zone? Everybody's more or less comfortable, obviously want to see more details, is that fair? Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[01:45:40] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Sure. I think it's, we're looking at a continuum right? And so this is the lowest level of it. Um, and so I don't know, I think it'll get more complicated as we get higher.

[01:45:55] Chair Cranston: Yep. As we get further down the alphabet, but generally comfortable.

[01:46:00] Commissioner Hehmeyer: I mean, I think one question that I did see raised, um, and maybe just it was in the response to the commissioner questions, that the density, excuse me, the bonus that's mentioned for the height does include the state density bonus, right? That's the highest height that we could imagine, um, from what I understand from staff. Or um, I think that's how I read the response and what was provided to the commission, because I think in the lowest area, I think above three or four, I think we said it to three... let me just go back to it. Yeah, three stories with bonus, right?

[01:46:41] Tony Perez: Commissioner Hehmeyer, um, yeah, we can respond to that. Um, I'd like to ask uh our principal from Opticos, Stefan Pellegrini to talk to you about density bonus, um, and how we're, we're approaching it here.

[01:46:56] Stefan Pellegrini: Thanks Tony. This is Stefan. Can everybody hear me? Great, thanks, and um, thanks for a great meeting so far. Um, so just with regards to the state density bonus, um, the you know, traditionally uh projects could apply for um up to a 35% bonus. Um, there have been some recent updates to density bonus law allowing uh um projects up to 50% uh density bonus. Uh, and in some cases where there is either 100% affordability or proximity to transit, um, additional height bonuses that can function above that. Um, what we're trying to do with the R3 zoning standards, uh which is, you know, not really reflected in the summary here, uh but something I think for everyone to be aware of is to accommodate both a base condition uh and a bonus condition uh in the zoning, so that uh projects that are applying for the density bonus um can have uh just a greater level of predictability um about um how that actually might be achieved um and what impact uh sort of you know in terms of the physical envelope uh might be presented. Um, and what we're finding is that um in the 35 to 50% range, um, it is absolutely doable um to describe um increases um in the zoning envelope of um, additional height, um, with the clarifications of additional setbacks, etc. um that can accommodate um that bonus.

[01:48:40] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Thank you for clarifying the methodology, that's helpful. So is that fair to say for all of these it's looking at the 35 to 55% um bonus based on the building, the parcel envelope, that's roughly your general approach?

[01:48:59] Stefan Pellegrini: Yes, and there will be some additional locations, particularly that are, you know, within 1,200 feet of um, of uh high quality transit um uh that um where additional increases actually might be allowed. Um, and um we definitely will be looking at that as well as we um craft the zoning standards in detail.

[01:49:24] Commissioner Hehmeyer: And sir for Mountain View the high quality transit is that defined as Bus Rapid Transit, so on El Camino Real and then Caltrain stops?

[01:49:31] Stefan Pellegrini: That's generally correct, yes.

[01:49:35] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Thank you.

[01:49:38] Chair Cranston: Any other feedback on the R3A? I just agree with Commissioner Hehmeyer, I think in my mind the, the with bonus is the, is a number with the density bonus and it shouldn't be shouldn't go past that. Um, R3B. Any feedback on that level?

[01:50:08] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Sure, I can start us off. Um, well, I live right next to one of the pictures that was taken in this, so, um, I feel like I'm very comfortable with R3B, but it this is an area where I do think that we could maybe look a little bit more um in terms of I and I'm not sure, but it seems like so this the the images that were shown on Figure 3, the parcels that I'm familiar with and I don't know all the parcels but they tend to be deeper lots and I don't know if the analysis that Opticos did show that, but it seems like these deeper lots could accommodate more of a a more of a footprint. Um, because with really deep lots, what's so nice about seeing the density in this Wagon Wheel neighborhood is that there are many lots that are hidden and so you can do greater density and it the setback is is less noticeable from the streetscape. So I don't know exactly how to give that feedback except that I think there's more opportunity here um and because I think I'm comfortable with A, I think B can go a little bit more dense and leading towards C and D. Um, so I'm not sure exactly where to articulate um the types of buildings that I see and that I think the neighborhood courtyard, the townhomes, I think the multiplexes potentially are I'd love to see more of those. The images were really helpful, but I think that um, the deeper the lot, the more there is a greater opportunity to to get creative with how much you can fit on that parcel. But I just don't know the parcel analysis all over, Wagon Wheel seems to have really deep lots and so it seems to me like there would be more opportunity here for um a little bit more density. The four-story height is fine.

[01:52:11] Chair Cranston: Okay. Uh, Commissioner Yin?

[01:52:15] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah, I, you know, I was hesitating on commenting on them. Um, the reason I hesitate to comment on it is because I can't help but think about it from the lens of a public realm. To me at this point, we are asking so much of our land that the street are such an asset that I want to make sure that we're going to do it right. You know, we heard a lot of people talk about the greenscape making a nice walkable area with so much area and looking at the streets. Because I don't know where the property lines are when I see the setbacks, it gives me some information, but I really don't know, you know, where the property lines are. Sometimes it's behind the sidewalk, sometimes it's right to the sidewalk, I don't know what the sidewalks are. So it's hard for me to understand what these actually mean. Does that make sense? Um, so generally, it seems reasonable. Uh, it's just maybe it's just more information that's needed, more diagrams, I I don't know, I just don't feel like I have enough information to say yep, this is it. Um, and also, when we're talking about the setbacks, I know there are so many different building types, and those setbacks will be different. Like if you have a courtyard versus not. Um, if you have a rear setback, if you have a front courtyard, I can see why the rear setback gets diminished, but then if you are adjacent to a one-story building to your back, then I worry about the sort of the light and air issue. So I don't want to get into such detail where we're looking lot by lot, but at the same time I feel like we sort of need to run the fine-tooth comb over even the subzones to ensure that we're contextual, which is one of the big comments from the workshops. Um, so I'm not sure how to give feedback on that other than just my concerns.

[01:54:25] Chair Cranston: If I could, can I paraphrase? I think what you're, your your concern is, I want streetscapes that are, that work with the neighborhood, that meet the public realm, and whatever those setbacks are, the number is less important than making sure that whatever's in place addresses the streetscapes, the the walkability, the this being looked for, and then number two, being respectful of transitions to lower neighborhoods or lower, lower units. Is that, I think that's what I...

[01:55:01] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah, that sums it up very well and it's it's the neighbors to the rear, if you're, you know, cutting your rear setback down to 10 feet, um, if you have like let's say a four-story with state bonus, you're going to get a four-story building, if you've got single family neighbors to your rear, then you are going to cut out light and air to their entire property. Does that make sense? Yeah, I know you're looking very carefully at across the street, because you are looking at the public realm. Um, but what about people to the rear? So just light and air. So I know that uh one of the commenters I think um Mr. Cox had mentioned the 45 degree angle, I know certain cities have daylighting angles, I just didn't know if that was something that you guys dealt with at Opticos and incorporating that in when you have contextual issues. And what the standard is for you guys when you're doing this.

[01:56:01] Tony Perez: May I respond to that, Chair Cranston?

[01:56:05] Chair Cranston: Okay.

[01:56:07] Tony Perez: Yes Commissioner Yin. Uh, the rear setback, um, well all the setbacks are are just for the building footprint, like the building that's that's where the building would could be placed, ultimately that's the extent of how how big the building can be. Uh, what isn't yet included in this information that would be included in the form-based code are upper story setbacks. Um, in you know, in most cases, anything above three stories, especially in these kinds of contexts, the fourth story would be pushed back, um, and especially from the rear, um, and sometimes from the front depending on what what's across the street. Um, there's that kind of information. There's also uh requirements in the form-based code that deal with building mass. So how to break down a building let's say is 100 feet long, how do you make it look not 100 feet long. Regardless of the architecture, how do you make those volumes look more house scale than bigger than a house. Um, so all those kinds of nuances and the standards will, will come forward in the form-based code and they're just not, we're not at that level but your, your, your feedback is, is very, um, very helpful uh, the way that you're talking about um, the setbacks and your concerns. Uh, and lastly, given the kinds of of massing standards and um and upper story setback standards, and sometimes let's say that the rear setback in this case might increase to 15, maybe that's what you all land on. But when all those things are incorporated, what we have found is that the daylight plane approach really isn't necessary. Uh, it's helpful when the the setbacks are very tight, but once you start dealing with the upper stories and the way that that we are proposing, again that's not you're not aware of that yet that that information isn't there, but um the way that we practice that approach um tends to make the daylight plane approach not necessary and and still achieve the same effect.

[01:58:16] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. I'm glad you're thinking about it and I just want you to know that we're we're thinking about it as well, or I'm thinking about it as well. I don't want to speak for everyone.

[01:58:24] Chair Cranston: Uh, Commissioner Capriles?

[01:58:28] Commissioner Capriles: Um, I'm I'm uh certainly agreeing with uh Commissioner Yin's concern. But by the same token, I think until we get more information about exactly what the form-based code is going to look at in each one of these subzones, it's not very easy for us to say, yeah, I agree with this particular subzone. So, um, I'm I'm having a a tough time kind of addressing each individual subzone because I feel like there's so much more to it that I I'm not seeing. And so I, you know, I want to take into consideration those uh, you know, different placement, where where is it, and you know, it's easy to look at a map, it's another thing to go actually see that area and try to visualize what is that going to look like in the future. Like so many people said, we're trying to plan for, you know, 50, 60 years out. And so I don't want, and and I'd like to hear what my other commissioners think, um, I'm not sure is that really going to be beneficial to Opticos and and staff for us to go into each particular subzone and make a comment on, because I, you know, not knowing specifically where those places are and really seeing them physically because I'm I'm kind of a visual person... um, I, you know, I'm not really uh prepared to speak to each one of those subzones.

[02:00:11] Chair Cranston: Uh, Commissioner Dempsey?

[02:00:15] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yeah, and this is just kind of a picky union point of presentation, but I would point out that the picture in the lower right corner and this applies I think perhaps to all the different subzones. The picture in the lower right corner of the drawing that says example of intended physical character, to me at least starting with B, that doesn't look anything like the actual photograph that I see in the upper left-hand corner. And I, part of what I'm kind of looking for with these pictures is getting sort of the the out the sense of the outward bound of what we could see there. Right? And if I understand it correctly the like the photographs in the upper left, those don't seem to represent the outward bound of how big something could potentially be under 3B, probably a little bit closer with the drawing in the lower right. So just for my just from as a viewer, as a user, um I wish that those two visual representations kind of matched a little bit better, and perhaps were weighted towards showing us uh how big something might get rather than whatever a comfortable middle point might be. And that's it.

[02:01:17] Tony Perez: Chair Cranston, can I can I respond to that, please?

[02:01:20] Chair Cranston: Sure.

[02:01:22] Tony Perez: Commissioner Dempsey, that's that's a great observation and unfortunately uh there's not enough explanation on it, but basically what you're seeing is yes, the the diagram on the on the bottom right that you're referring to in your packet is not intended to be what the photo in the top left is, and that's because the photo in the top left is showing what exists in the areas where we are proposing to put that intended character that's shown on the bottom right.

[02:01:58] Chair Cranston: Commissioner Dempsey, you have a further question or comments?

[02:02:01] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: No, I my confusion is now cleared up.

[02:02:04] Chair Cranston: Okay. Uh, Vice Chair Lo? Any comments?

[02:02:13] Vice Chair Lo: Um, I kind of share uh Commissioner Capriles's feeling that um it's hard, I find it hard to provide feedback at this level. Um, so, yeah, that's all. Thanks.

[02:02:34] Chair Cranston: Um, and then uh, and looking at the the the photos that were provided in the staff report on the pages 8 and 9, I thought were helpful. Um, looking at the, you know, the R3B, um, and I was, you know, generally comfortable with what those showed as a as kind of a scale and massing associated with those. I do share uh Commissioner Yin's concern to make sure that we're addressing um the public realm, but also transitions to neighborhoods... A lot of the a lot of at least and then we'll get this into the map, but a lot of these R3Bs are closer to single family homes, and so uh those respectful transitions to the to the lower density neighbors uh I think is important. Um, and I mean I don't I'm not I'm not familiar with the sun plane or whatever that is that that you're referring to, but I I do recall a discussion around the uh El Camino Precise Plan and the, you know, that it's a 45 degree angle as you look up, you should be able to see the sky... And uh whatever that whatever that is, you know, that you can uh at the upper floor setbacks, I think that definitely needs to be there. Okay. Um, we'll uh, we'll take a look at R3C and again, if you if you don't have a lot of comments, that's fine. Um, we're providing as much feedback as we can to staff as we go through this. Um, so R3C, any feedback on on that? I think you okay, everybody? I will take silence as consent. Okay. And then R3D. Any comments on R3D? Well I got a comment. I am not ready to go to six stories at all. Um, that seems like a uh a pretty dramatic change. I asked the question in the staff report as to why isn't this R4 and what I was told was R4 doesn't have form-based zoning, and so maybe it's maybe we need to rename R3D R4 or R4 form-based or something, but uh this sure looks and smells like R4 to me. Um, it doesn't feel like something that's in R3 zone. And uh, I'm um I'm even more concerned about the items that Commissioner Yin raised both in streetscape um and and how that how does that how does that work and how does it transition... certainly the fact you've got it clustered helps, uh, but when there is transitions to other neighborhoods, that needs to be taken into account. So I would I would I'm not in favor of going to a um to six stories, up to eight, myself. I think that's too dense for an R3 zoning area. Um, Commissioner Lo?

[02:05:45] Vice Chair Lo: Thanks. Um, what struck me in the map at the top right is the big block of blue along El Camino near I think that's Rengstorff. Um, it's very dense, but it's not near transit. So many of these folks are gonna need to drive unfortunately. Um, and I do like Commissioner Dempsey's idea of moving the bus stop or maybe we need to add a bus stop there.

[02:06:25] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I was gonna comment on both your and Vice Chair Lo's um comments, which is I I agree, I kind of um, the the process for changing uh R3 is fine, I I'm glad to get a little bit more density within R3, a more variety, but once we start surpassing R4 then the question becomes, you know, what is the process from the city's point of view to to allow for higher than R4 when the old plans have already been set and there's no process and discussion over intensifying those areas to that degree. Um, I just feel like maybe this isn't the place to do it, I don't know, it's a question for for staff. Um, so um that was one concern I have as well, and then the other is just the location of this high density. And, you know, Mountain View we're trying very hard to make walkable neighborhoods, service-based neighborhoods, areas where you can work near where you live... And there's this huge chunk over near Rengstorff or east of Rengstorff that is got very little amenities and it is way up north and those folks can't really get south very easily with the train coming and more trains running more often, there's no way to cross that area easily yet, and it's gonna just be more difficult um when that happens... And I just feel almost like if we're going to that kind of density, we need to look at it more holistically, it needs to be like a neighborhood plan, it's going to be like a change area in effect, it's like I almost want a precise plan, I know that sounds ridiculous, but I feel like well we we have to make a neighborhood out of this, it's huge. Um, and you know, where what about the schools, what about the parks... And so it just it just gets me thinking about that kind of thing. I would love if we could get transportation in there and move it around so that it does become something that is transit-oriented if we're going to that density. Uh, I just don't know that we can do it just from the city side, but you know let's get creative, maybe that's a possibility. But before we jump into sort of semi-permanent zoning changes, I would rather ensure that we're at least trying to to look at it more holistically to to make sure we're not creating areas where it's just density for density's sake without any of the amenities for. That's it, sorry.

[02:09:05] Chair Cranston: Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Capriles?

[02:09:09] Commissioner Capriles: Um, I agree with uh Chair Cranston regarding the height. Um, having gone through four different precise plans, um, I think that when we get proposals from developers, if we say four stories, they're going to come in and say, if it's the state bonus, we can go to eight stories if that's what the zoning says. And I I think to Commissioner Yin's point, we aren't going to have density for density sake uh without considering the rest of the the adjacent neighborhoods and the transportation and all that that is involved. So I, you know, I think the, you know, the heights in these particular areas we need to just be quite quite um just uh very questioning as to whether these are the right places for that type of high density... But I do know that when we place a range of densities in a particular zone, I can promise you that the developers are going to ask for the highest. So I, you know, I I think we need to be quite careful in in putting that type of range within that particular zone.

[02:10:39] Chair Cranston: Commissioner Dempsey?

[02:10:42] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yeah, I think I'm finding that I'm very much in alignment with with my colleagues Commissioner Capriles and Commissioner Yin. And, you know, I think that the phrase that that she's used a few times tonight that I really like is talking about the public realm, and and you know transitions with neighborhoods too, but that concept of public realm I think is really important. And so I think there there's a very specific part of the map I want to draw your attention to because it's an area that I know. And it's this specific parcel that for me raises some pretty serious questions about whether we've really thought through where we're putting the greatest density and whether that makes sense. And perhaps it's unfair even to say this when we're, you know, this is really intended to be very high level and I know we're not drilling down given up permits today, so um forgive me if this is if this is also picky you know... But there's a there's a parcel uh between the south end of Castro and Miramonte, it's blue. Uh, it's been labeled here for D4. Um, it's south of uh south of El Camino, it's right across the street from Graham. And right now there's like a 70s style two-story kind of apartment complex there. On the south of it is like a two-story dental office kind of stuff. To the north of it is a single-story R1 neighborhood, and it's very close to El Camino, I'll grant you that. But just remember to the north of it is R1, there's a school to the right, there's a little bit of R3 to the left, but this is a pretty low density neighborhood even though it is close to El Camino. This would put something that's potentially 6 to 8 stories if I'm reading it right, in the middle of that neighborhood. And you know that road, that part of Castro, that's one lane each way with a bunch of traffic calming because of the school. And there's actually a school on the other side too, private school uh on the Miramonte side. So to put something that dense in a space where like I don't even like driving down Castro at 9:00 a.m. in the morning pre-COVID when there's a lot more kids there, because the traffic was so bad. And there's a place where I don't, it this proposal almost doesn't make sense to me that there would be something proposed that dense like literally right next to a bunch of R1. I don't, I guess I I feel like I'm missing something, and so let me just finish with by saying this, I think that conversation about public realm is really really important, and I'm not sure if perhaps that's too much complexity for one study and the next study will talk a little bit more about it, but I think it's really really important. And part of the reason it's important is if we spring that much lack of transition on people, it erodes the public will and the political will to drive for more density. If it really shocks people and it just is totally out of proportion, so I think we have to be careful so that we can make sure that we always have support for more density. So thank you.

[02:13:45] Chair Cranston: Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[02:13:48] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Oh it looks like Tony, did you want to respond to that comment?

[02:13:52] Tony Perez: Yes, thank you Commissioner Hehmeyer. Yes, Commissioner Dempsey, it doesn't make sense because that's an error. I I I saw a comment today about that and I'm sorry that I haven't seen that before, but that's my fault, that's a mapping mistake of that blue area that you're talking about that really should be R3B, not R3D, next to those one-story houses all around, across from the school.

[02:14:17] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: That makes a ton more sense.

[02:14:20] Chair Cranston: Okay. Commissioner Hehmeyer?

[02:14:25] Commissioner Hehmeyer: I think it might be a lone voice here and I think um the biggest transition from AB and C to D is you're going from the house scale to the block scale... And I think I'm really trying to keep that in mind when talking about this, right? I mean 6 stories seems intimidating, 8 stories seems tall, but I think on the block scale um it's a different ball game... I absolutely hear what my colleagues are saying about neighborhood compatibility, but what would fall into the D zone as I understand it, and maybe Chair Cranston you're right there needs to be...

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Commissioner Hehmeyer: ...the larger conversation of whether the D category should be within R3 or R4, but I just urge all of you to keep in mind that we're talking about block-scale development. We're not talking about a single-family one-story home next to six to potentially eight stories. At least that's how I read it, and I know we're early on, but it's not the height that scares me. And I don't, I don't have anxiety about that, but I think I really want to keep the end in mind. And these are the properties that are, that exist in the R3 zones have been there for a long time, they're going to be there for a long time. The change that we're talking about is quite gradual, and so at some point we're going to be past this pandemic, at some point we will not meet our RHNA numbers just because of what we've done in North Bayshore and East Whisman, right? This is a huge opportunity, and I want to make sure that we're, we're evaluating it in every, every lens possible. And so, I just, I hear a lot of density for density's sake and I don't think that's what this is getting at. I think this is really trying to be let's be creative and imagine what is, you know, to Commissioner Dempsey's point, what is the outer bound of what could happen on these parcels? Um, sorry, my headphones. And so that, I just, for me what was really illuminating is thinking about this at the block scale. And I think if we could reorient a little bit, it would feel, um, it would make sense for the longer-term exercise that I think we're embarked on tonight.

[02:16:40] Chair Cranston: Tony, are you looking to respond to Commissioner Hehmeyer or... No. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Yin?

[02:16:47] Commissioner Joyce Yin: No, let Tony go first.

[02:16:50] Chair Cranston: Oh, he said no.

[02:16:51] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, he said no. Okay, sorry about that. Oh, no, I just wanted to say it's not, it's not height that bothers me either, and I understand it's block-scale. For me it's just ensuring that when you get density like that, when you have block-scale development, block after block after block of that type of height and intensity, that we are, by sheer numbers, creating a neighborhood. And right now that neighborhood has nothing but residential. And it just seems like it's not really a neighborhood anymore, that we should take a holistic look at not only the public realm for all of these, but especially for those areas given that they're lacking in so many things. And so, I just want to...

[02:17:34] Commissioner Hehmeyer: But for example, well I just wonder, so I mean SV@Home pointed out Del Medio, and they said hey by the way across the street there's this whole new San Antonio Center. I might disagree that, you know, there should be more areas where there is R3D, but we are building significant services right, right across the street. And so I think that's where I'm trying to figure out like how do we look at this integrated with what could happen over the very long term because the services that exist today are not going to be the ones that exist tomorrow, particularly as population grows. So I, I, that's where I'd love to understand, is the public realm for the people who are here today or who we're building for in the very long term?

[02:18:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: For the people we're building for in the very long term. It seems like right now we're getting, for the amount of density we're increasing, it's so hard to get the public - we're losing space because, well as you know, the school and the city have a joint use program, and you know they're fencing some things off and a lot of neighborhoods are in fact feeling like they're losing their parks. So unless everybody can hike it up to North Bayshore, the very north end of our city, it's not that every neighborhood has a ton of parks and places to go and to benefit and have equitable access to, you know, all the health benefits that come from that, being in a very walkable area. So when you get that many people coming in, and I believe even Opticos said in this area it's not that gradual, it actually will probably happen fairly quickly. That the people we're building for need to have those amenities and I feel like we need to take a holistic look at how we get all those things for these newcomers. A lot of other areas have it. They, you know, somebody mentioned in public comments, you know, Cuesta Park is great. All the people around Cuesta Park are probably very happy with that, it's a high quality of life for them, but if we're going to densify and have blocks and blocks of six-story, that, you know, is a huge chunk up north of Central Avenue. That needs to be a full-on neighborhood, and I just feel like maybe we should just take a step back maybe and consider how we get that to happen, other than just saying okay, go for it, build it out, and then we'll figure it out later because that hasn't worked in the past and we're, we're sort of feeling it, you know.

[02:20:07] Chair Cranston: Okay. We haven't heard from Vice Chair Lo on this, on the R3D?

[02:20:15] Vice Chair Lo: Yeah, um, so I earlier pointed out my concern about the really high-density area near El Camino and Rengstorff. And I certainly do hope that it's built out as, is designed to be a complete neighborhood. To perhaps have a village center, to have really walkable bikeable streets with lots of greeneries, um, so that people who live there in the future, um, can really have a lot of amenities and healthy environment. I hope we can have, you know, creative ways of building high-density areas yet still maintaining high quality of life for people who will live there because it's going to be, you know, a pretty big population growth.

[02:21:17] Chair Cranston: Okay. Um, and then the last part of this was the general locations, we started touching a little bit on it here. Commissioner Hehmeyer mentioned the Del Medio comment, um, Commissioner Yin has been kind of talking about the, the California Street area. Do we want to just quickly are there any comments in general on locations of our R4, R3A areas? Or people generally okay with those? No, not, silence is consent. Head nods. Commissioner Hehmeyer?

[02:21:58] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Chair Lo, what I think I heard the consultants say is that we took a more conservative approach for neighborhood compatibility and that there's the potential for a parcel assembly. So in the areas closer to downtown where there's been a lot of interest in at least allowing for some kind of greater density near really high-quality transit, whether it's along the Caltrain corridor or El Camino Real, that that's possible. It's just the priority in this phase was really looking at compatibility for what's in the existing area. So, um, I, I'm fine with it. I mean I think that yeah, I'll leave it there.

[02:22:37] Chair Cranston: So maybe a little bit more would be okay, but compatibility is okay? Is that what I'm hearing? Okay. Other comments on A? Nope. Okay. Um, locations of B. And, and I may, I guess maybe I'll, maybe change the comment a little bit. Areas where you think B might make sense. Okay? Is there anywhere um, staff and Opticos have placed it, but maybe if is it, does it make sense to you that R3Bs are in those areas and is there someplace else that that should be, kind of be a comment. Should be also could also be valuable. Do you have any feedback on that? Everyone comfortable with R4B? Okay. Um, R4C. Um, I think Vice Chair Lo were you referring in your comments to the area that's kind of like a, shaped like a seven on the, in the north of Central Expressway in the density, or were you referring to the in the R4D the area kind of below Central Expressway, south of Central Expressway? I just wanted to be clear on that.

[02:23:52] Vice Chair Lo: Um, Chair are you, um, talking about R3D? Um...

[02:23:59] Chair Cranston: R3C, I when you were commenting on R3D, the way you were describing it, I in my head you were pointing to the area that's kind of shaped like a seven along Rengstorff between Central and, and, and 101. Is so I just wanted to make sure that's not the area you were referring to.

[02:24:19] Vice Chair Lo: So in R3D page 19 of staff report is that where we are now? Sorry.

[02:24:26] Chair Cranston: I just was, I just we're talking about R3C, I just wanted to make sure that I understood if your comments were about that area in between... uh...

[02:24:36] Vice Chair Lo: I'm sorry. Um, my previous comment was referring to R3D.

[02:24:42] Chair Cranston: Okay. So everyone's generally okay with the placement of R3C? Sounds like. Yes.

[02:24:53] Vice Chair Lo: Yes.

[02:24:55] Chair Cranston: Okay. Alright. R3D. We heard some comments on, um, I guess to if I may respond to some of Commissioner Hehmeyer's comments and actually some of the comments from the community. Um, I'm one of the things that I'm generally disappointed with in this is the, is the lack of proximity to high-quality transit. Um, while I'm not enthusiastic about the R3D, doing an if it is something like an R3D or an R4 in that area of Del Medio, because there is already high density in the area, it's very close to the Caltrain station, it's close to the VTA bus stop, um, that to me seems like a very logical area to have something higher density, whether it's whatever we call it, R3D or R4. Um, the random items that Commissioner Dempsey mentioned, like the one south on on Castro, the the eight-story building at the corner of Middlefield and Easy Street, um, I just don't get. Um, so I, I'm more comfortable with the idea of if we're going to go for higher density, look at it as an area and to use uh my term for Commissioner Yin's holistic is let's do a precise plan on the California Latham corridor, okay. If we're going to look at potentially changing that area from two-story R3 to something that is, you know, more like an R4, that to me needs to be something that's thought about at a much broader level. We're looking at, you know, how do these things all fit together? Where are the amenities that might go into it? Do there need to be parks associated with it? So I'm not necessarily averse long-term to looking at more density in that California Latham corridor, but I don't feel that dropping an R3 zone on top of it is the way to accomplish that. If the, if the, if the intention of the city is to, is to look at that area and say can we make it more dense and how do we do that, then this feels like a much bigger project. We have that area that's in, in blue, is bigger than San Antonio, it's bigger than downtown, it's not quite as big as East Whisman, okay, um, but it's as big as most it'd be like the third or fourth biggest precise plan in the entire city. It's that much area of the city. So I just, I agree with Commissioner Yin that if we're going to do something in that area it needs to be holistic, and holistic to me means precise plan. And I wouldn't put any of the, the only other one that I thought about if you look at the combination of the, the blue blob at the corner of where the Valley Park Safeway is that's surrounded by R3C. If the intention is that that becomes a, a bigger community center, then we ought to be looking at that as well as a, a holistic area. And how does that how does that all fit together. Um, I again I'm reluctant to just drop an R4D on top of what is basically a parking lot and the, um, what's the the church over there the the Buddhist temple. Um, it just seems like a it should be well, more thought out if we're going to look at doing that in that area. So that's my comments on the R4D locations. Uh, Commissioner Dempsey?

[02:28:47] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I, I think you you said very well better than I, perhaps what I was feeling. I'm not really ready, and perhaps that's not what we're doing, but I'm not really ready to commit to kind of the way this map's been put out. I think it needs a lot more thinking, um, and some moving around to pieces. Um, I mean clearly there's some pieces here that that aren't even right yet. But, um, you know, density has it's great because it brings the housing that we desperately need. It also has impacts. And I think there has to be at least a little bit of discussion about sort of the equity impacts of of density and growth, um, because I wouldn't want to see too much of the growth kind of pushed to one place or another, or at least if, if it's going to be really, really concentrated, we're aware and we're thinking about what the impacts for the people who live there are going to be. Um, and that's not something I'm prepared to do today, but maybe we can save that for 2022.

[02:29:43] Chair Cranston: Any other comments on the locations of R4D or R3D? No. Okay. Um, then the last item that staff had asked about was the where these overlays, um, supporting, do we support the the height overlay and the, I'm not quite sure what you call the, um, SB what that actually stands for. Special Requirements Sound Barriers, uh, kind of thing. Uh, that seems, is there any, have a question that that that staff was looking for some feedback on. Uh, Commissioner Dempsey, did you have? Are you supportive of staff's proposal? I see nod, nod, nod. Uh, Vice Chair Lo, yep. Uh, Commissioner Dempsey. Okay, okay, so we're all supportive of of the approach the staff has proposed there. Um, and then any just just uh any other general comments from EPC for guidance for the for staff and Opticos as they go forward here? Martin, do you feel like you've gotten the feedback you need?

[02:31:14] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Yes, very much appreciate the comments and uh this will uh we'll proceed to Council with this information. Thank you.

[02:31:24] Chair Cranston: Okay. Alright. Then we'll close the public comment or discussion. I wanted to just offer, uh...

[02:31:30] Tony Perez: Uh, Chair Cranston, I just wanted to say on behalf of the consulting team, thank you very much for the dialogue and getting to hear what you all are thinking and um your great observations and feedback tonight. We really appreciate it very much. Thank you.

[02:31:46] Chair Cranston: And thank you guys for all the very hard work you've done. It's uh, obviously a lot of thought has already done into this and uh, looking forward to the next steps here. Um, so we'll move on to item six, Commission, staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. Um, Brittany Whitehill, I understand that you have some announcements for us on schedules and...

[02:32:10] Brittany Whitehill: Um, yeah, a couple of announcements. First, wanted to relay from Eric that um, he received the requests from those hoping to attend the Planning Commissioner's Academy and he's going to be in touch with you guys shortly. Um, and just wanted to let you know that on April 7th, um, staff will be bringing forward the annual review of the General Plan Action Plan to EPC. In addition to, we will be um reviewing the Council strategic roadmap process and the goal-setting process. And that's it for staff's announcements.

[02:32:46] Chair Cranston: Announcements from Commissioners? Uh, Vice Chair Lo?

[02:32:54] Vice Chair Lo: Thank you Chair. Um, I wanted to announce that um on March 13th, um, the city's forestry team and Canopy collaborated on an Arbor Week Stevens Creek Trail community tree work day. So um a number of uh volunteers worked a morning shift and planted 10 trees along the uh stretch of Stevens Creek Trail between the Sleeper Trailhead and El Camino. Uh that part of the trail is very close to Highway 85. So um in the afternoon another group of uh volunteers helped uh take care of some of the young trees that were planted there back in 2017. Um, and thank you Commissioner Yin for joining us for that. Uh, Mayor Kamei and Vice Mayor Ramirez were there as well, uh, volunteering for uh part of the work day. And so as these trees grow up, uh they will help mitigate the noise, the pollution, and the sight of the highway, making the trail more uh friendly for users. And of course this was in collaboration with Friends of Stevens Creek Trail as well. So, thank you for all those who came out to help.

[02:34:18] Chair Cranston: Any other announcements? Okay. If not, then we will close the March 17th meeting of the Environmental Planning Commission at 9:34 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for April 7th at 7:00 PM. Thank you everyone.

[02:34:40] Commissioner Capriles: Thank you.

5.1

[00:43:20] Mitch Menken: Yes, hi, can you hear me?

[00:43:22] Chair Bill Cranston: Yes.

[00:43:23] Mitch Menken: Good evening, Commissioners, my name is Mitch Menken and I'm with Silicon Valley at Home, the voice of affordable housing in Silicon Valley. We'd like to encourage the EPC to use the principles in various parts of the code of transit-oriented development.

[00:43:35] Mitch Menken: Um, so we'd like the EPC to consider asking for an increased number of homes allowed in R3 zones near transit. This could be done through a transit-oriented development overlay or simply changing the subzone categories near transit to um to be a higher letter.

[00:43:50] Mitch Menken: And that would create more sustainable development with reduced parking, increased transit ridership, uh and decreased greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention just general increases in quality of life and livability.

[00:44:02] Mitch Menken: We also think that specifically some of the uh areas on the map could be redesignated to hold higher density. Specifically this would be true of the Del Medio area, which is next to the San Antonio precise plan, which already has seven-story buildings, and on the other side is bordering Palo Alto.

[00:44:20] Mitch Menken: And as another example would be the Cuernavaca R3 area is east of Interstate 85 on the Sunnyvale border. Um another possibility we'd like to bring the EPC's uh attention to is um considering allowing the plan planning for the possibility, I should say, of parcel aggregation in R3A subzones to allow for the development of more units.

[00:44:43] Mitch Menken: Um basically how this could work is when multiple property owners nearby each other choose to um or when a property owner say decides to buy up several lots in order to make something that's can support more units and can support more affordability, um that aggregation becomes more difficult if the area is zoned such that um such that they can't build um those developments.

[00:45:10] Mitch Menken: Currently the uh the subzones are based largely on lot size, but if the lot size changes, we think so should the subzone designation. Um so I'm not sure exactly on the mechanism for that, but it's an important tool we've seen used for affordable housing elsewhere in the county.

[00:45:25] Mitch Menken: Um also just wanted to flag since that because there's a lot of different land owners, any redevelopment that results in the new code will progress over the next 40 to 50 years, not the next 5 or 10. So the changes overall will be quite gradual. Um but thank you for your time, and we look forward to seeing how the draft progresses.

[00:45:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Pei-Ying Lee.

[00:45:50] Pei-Ying Lee: Hello?

[00:45:52] Chair Bill Cranston: Hello.

[00:45:53] Pei-Ying Lee: Hi. Okay, hi everyone. I'm Pei-Ying, she/her/hers. Seeing some of you here, and welcome to uh the new commissioners that I have yet to speak or meet with. Really appreciate the work on R3 so far. I'm also speaking on behalf of Green Spaces MV.

[00:46:08] Pei-Ying Lee: Our community group values integrating and promoting urban nature, tree canopy, and native biodiversity in city planning. So I'll echo some of the earlier comments, including thinking how we can be creative or help with improving equitable access to public amenities and green spaces.

[00:46:24] Pei-Ying Lee: So given the dearth of park lands, loss of necessary biodiversity, and the importance of greenery to our health, especially as the city develops, Green Spaces MV actively supports any opportunity to explicitly incorporate green, nature-based, biodiverse-sensitive infrastructure.

[00:46:41] Pei-Ying Lee: We hope to leverage the power and the benefits of urban nature in these new R3 standards and guidelines for future development. The vision is to have nature at our doorsteps. Nearby nature will positively impact our public health and ecosystem health, and really benefit current and future generations of people and wildlife in Mountain View.

[00:47:00] Pei-Ying Lee: Mountain View, our city, has a foundation for walkable, tree-lined streetscapes and ecological preservation. So we do really hope that this foundation inspires design standards for architectural variety, frontages, and landscapes.

[00:47:15] Pei-Ying Lee: And recognizing that, you know, future residents or current residents will be in close proximity, sharing walls, and possibly have less open space, especially in high-density areas, can we possibly manifest the power and benefits of urban nature?

[00:47:30] Pei-Ying Lee: Especially if heritage trees, large trees, mature trees are removed. Uh maybe consider guidelines to include living walls, green roofs, more native trees and native plant screens, and living gardens for privacy and noise buffers. Uh also considerations for dark sky and bird-safe design.

[00:47:48] Pei-Ying Lee: After reading the staff report, which is really great, I'm personally looking forward to the design handbook, and will encourage considerations for guidelines or expectations that promote lighting standards, tree canopy, and native plant options, which is inspired by the North Bayshore native plant palette, and I'm also looking forward to the update in the community tree master plan. Overall, I'm also looking forward to these new subzones for R3. Thank you very much.

[00:48:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Salim Demirci.

[00:48:28] Salim Demirci: Hi, uh I'm Salim. I work in Mountain View, and I'm a member of Mountain View YIMBY. Um though I'm uh not speaking on their behalf tonight. Um so I largely agree with a lot of the comments that have already been made. Um the there are two things I'd like to add.

[00:48:43] Salim Demirci: One is I I really hope that you think long-term about what Mountain View will look like in 30, 50 years. So, you know, the last time R3 zoning was updated was 30 years ago. Uh and also the buildings that will be built under this new zoning, those will last 60 years or so, like so beyond when most of us will be alive.

[00:49:01] Salim Demirci: So, you know, we're really talking about the long-term of Mountain View, not just where we are today. And long-term, there will be many more people in Mountain View, uh housing will be even more in demand than it is today.

[00:49:14] Salim Demirci: Um and one thing I'm concerned about is that the R3 zoning had a feasibility analysis based on current economic conditions, but um we're pretty confident that...

• ← Previous
• Next →