No voting took place at the 5/2 EPC meeting. The meeting was primarily spent discussing the Council’s recent direction on the General Plan. Council’s decision to allow greater flexibility in the focus areas when developers provided community benefits, and council’s decision to nix mixed use development in the North Bayshore neighborhood were the two main topics of conversation.
Eric Anderson was not there.
Rachel Grossman was very expressed great disappointment over Council’s decision about no residential development at North Bayshore. She made the point that Council has concerns about traffic on Shoreline and yet is unwilling or interested in one of the things that could present a solution to this problem; putting homes close to jobs.
Chris Clark - also expressed disappointment about North Bayshore.
Kathy Trontell – Kathy felt that there had been general, city-wide support for a vision of North Bayshore with housing. Everyone, including the Council seemed to be willing to work toward this vision but then somewhere along the way, something broke down and the Council lost the will to realize this vision. Kathy seemed to see this as a missed opportunity and failure to make something happen. She seemed disappointed but also resigned to the finality of the decision.
Todd Fernandez – Todd also seemed resigned to the finality of the decision. He expressed some disappointment over the decision but he also indicated that he shared some of Council’s reservations.
Lisa M. & John M. were very vocally opposed to housing in N. Bayshore.
Flexibility in the Focus Areas of the General Plan
The flexibility concept had general support from the majority of the EPC. There was no vote on the topic but multiple members of the EPC expressed support for the idea, especially as applied to the the San Antonio Center and El Camino Real. They asked staff to clarify exactly what this would mean for the zoning code.
To state the flexibility concept in another way; the direction that the EPC received from Council regarded flexibility on El Camino Real said that any proposed projects with a FAR between 1.85 FAR – 3 FAR is eligible for density bonuses, if the project is in a key location and the developer offers the community significant amenities (i.e. open space, affordable housing). This basically puts a policy in the General Plan that says future, conscientious variances are acceptable.