Zoning

ZIP program

Summary not yet generated for this topic.

Community sentiment

Supportive (2)Opposed (1)Concerned (1)

At a glance

Public comments
4
Last 30 days
0

Last discussed Jul 16, 2026.

Public comments (5)

OpposedAli ShahidiJul 16, 2026

A 20-year resident who demanded the commission reject ZIP in its current form, study displacement of 1,100+ RSO duplex units, close the R1/R2 fee-out loophole, and prioritize a locally controlled TODAP.

Planning Commission Meeting - Jul 16, 2026 · 17:04 →
ConcernedRuth CislowskiJul 16, 2026

Urged thoughtful deliberation on density in commercial zones, limits on residential-zone impacts, and infrastructure concerns; was redirected to speak under item 12.A.

Planning Commission Meeting - Jul 16, 2026 · 26:46 →
SupportiveRuth CislawskiJul 16, 2026

A nearly 30-year resident who recommended a TODAP overlay to preserve local planning input, urged scrutiny of 'feasibility' claims, and asked for clear, timely public communication.

Planning Commission Meeting - Jul 16, 2026 · 1:15:08 →
OpposedAli ShahidiJul 16, 2026

Urged rejection of ZIP as drafted, a duplex displacement analysis, elimination of the R1/R2 fee-out loophole requiring on-site affordable housing, and a strong locally controlled TODAP.

Planning Commission Meeting - Jul 16, 2026 · 17:04 →
SupportiveMike HoltzmanJul 16, 2026

Supported the city's housing goals but asked the commission to keep growth on commercial corridors, pursue a TODAP now that SB 79 is in effect, and integrate ZIP, TODAP, infrastructure, and environmental review as one effort.

Planning Commission Meeting - Jul 16, 2026 · 1:25:48 →