×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

2025 Update Pre-EPC Submittal Spreadsheet

Leave your comments for Planning staff to consider

Review Citywide changes proposed by Planning Staff for submittal to the Environmental Planning Commission in September 2025 for a hearing in October 2025.

  • Where the spreadsheet says "See Exhibit," please review the Redline Draft to see the changes to text.
  • Staff will review these changes at public meetings throughout July and August. 
  • Download an Excel file of the spreadsheet here.

Review the IDO Pre-EPC Redline Draft Exhibit

Learn more about the 2025 Update

Understand the Update Process
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Comment Drag

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment

in reply to Peggy's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 11:29AM on page 1

This approach looks at individual sites by acknowledging that some buildings constructed in MX-FB-UD (only mapped Downtown) prior to the adoption of the IDO may be unable to meet current open space standards given physical site constraints. The in-lieu-of-fee is one of 6 proposed options to allow adaptive reuse of existing buildings when this open space standard cannot be met.
in reply to Westin's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 11:27AM on page 3

We will take this into account as we prepare the submittal draft to the Environmental Planning Commission in early September.
in reply to blank's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 11:25AM on page 7

IDO regulations for EV parking were implemented before the State's Energy Code was updated to address EVs. These changes build off of best practices and feedback received since these regulations were first implemented. These regulations will generally reduce the number of EV spaces required.
in reply to blank's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 11:24AM on page 6

This form does not require a traffic engineer to fill it out. This change does not create a new requirement. It clarifies that if you don't meet the threshold for a full traffic impact analysis, then the form is all that is required. The goal is to ensure consistency with other types of projects regulated by the IDO.
in reply to Peggy's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 10:52AM on page 1

The Exhibit is the Redline draft. See the button above the spreadsheet for the link. See the pin next to this item for a link to the IDO zoning map.
in reply to Patricia's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 10:27AM on page 18

The key regulation that uses "story" is the Nob Hill CPO, which has both story and building height limits, and you have to meet both. So yes, any amount of the story below ground makes that not count as a story, but you'd still need to meet maximum building height.
in reply to Bryan D's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 10:17AM on page 7

See item #40 for parking maximums in Centers & Corridors.
in reply to Patricia's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 9:47AM on page 6

Yes, the intent is to protect Manufactured Home Communities.
in reply to Westin's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 9:46AM on page 5

See reply to similar comment on #28 above.
in reply to Westin's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 9:46AM on page 5

Changing a small mapped area (like the Downtown Neighborhood Area CPO) require a separate application subject to more due process. You can advocate for a change like this with your Councilor, who can apply, or you can organize and submit a petition signed by 51% of property owners in the CPO to make this change.
in reply to Dawn Dewey's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 9:43AM on page 3

2+ acres of composting in an urban area does not seem compatible with surrounding land uses and areas that are intended to be more walkable.
in reply to Carlos Michelen's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 9:42AM on page 2

MX-M has many more auto-related uses and is zoned in many more places in the City. Check out the zoning map to see the difference. Auto-related uses are medium intensity, and the MX-M zone district is intended for areas that are more suburban than the other MX zone districts.
in reply to Dawn Dewey's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 9:39AM on page 2

The potential impact to surrounding properties when this use is over 2 acres makes it a different use subject to different use-specific standards.

Working on your car in your driveway has very different potential impacts on surrounding properties than a large auto repair facility, for example. They are regulated as different uses for that reason.
in reply to Carlos Michelen's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 9:37AM on page 1

This new type of HPO zone is proposed to enable new ones in the future. The advantage of a Frontage HPO is that the City would only regulate the street-facing portions of the lot, so there would be more flexibility to use the rest of the lot for redevelopment.
in reply to Peggy's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 9:33AM on page 1

Please see the Redline draft.
in reply to Peggy's comment

projectteam Aug 1 2025 at 9:32AM on page 1

Please see the Redline draft.

Jane Aug 1 2025 at 6:53AM on page 19

One question and one comment:
This gives the property owner the option to create smaller lot sizes but it is not a requirement to do so?

Contextual standards are one tool the IDO does have to mandate more attractive, cohesive, integrated or desirable design. It serves as a mechanism for balancing the tension between individual property rights and the public good. There is a popular narrative that contextual standards, protection overlays etc. are solely obstacles or impediments to building something. In my view, they serve to protect underserved communities and neighborhood quality and character, IDO Purpose Statements 4 and 5. This is not a concern of the privileged, it is likely a concern of all property owners. In "Your City Is Sick," Siegler repeatedly makes clear that an attractive city is a vibrant city where people want to live, operate a business and contribute to the community.
in reply to blank's comment

Jane Jul 31 2025 at 11:05AM on page 11

Thank you for the clarification. The same argument about adding time to the permitting process was repeatedly raised in the last IDO review in an effort to prevent referrals to Tribal Nations for development in the VPO-2. Reflexive opposition based on inaccurate statements about the language and processes in the IDO are merely that, reflexive opposition, and not thoughtful analysis.

Patricia Jul 28 2025 at 3:10PM on page 1

Is there a map showing the Downtown boundary and the potential non-residential buildings this would apply to?

Peggy Jul 28 2025 at 2:55PM on page 1

One at a time, public site plan reviews for conversions, equality and sanity need to prevail.

Peggy Jul 28 2025 at 2:53PM on page 1

This is not only removing barriers its removing hope.

Peggy Jul 28 2025 at 2:53PM on page 1

So, one can simply pay a fee so that they don't have to have open space? So these are applied across the board - this is just wrong. We need our planning to look at individual sites, not carte blanch give away of our space. We need open space be built back into the city, not written away with huge brush strokes. NOOOOOOO

Peggy Jul 28 2025 at 2:31PM on page 1

Where is the link to the exhibit. Can we make MX-FB-UD a live link so folks understand what you are talking about?

Peggy Jul 28 2025 at 2:20PM on page 1

Suggestion
Need this and above tracked and published so that proper oversight be at least possible.

Peggy Jul 28 2025 at 2:19PM on page 1

Suggestion
Need a way to track this and provide oversight.

Carlos Michelen Jul 26 2025 at 9:39PM on page 5

Great!

Carlos Michelen Jul 26 2025 at 9:38PM on page 5

Good! We should do this and more to make building casitas easier.

Carlos Michelen Jul 26 2025 at 9:32PM on page 4

support!

Carlos Michelen Jul 26 2025 at 9:30PM on page 3

good!

Carlos Michelen Jul 26 2025 at 9:29PM on page 3

good!

Carlos Michelen Jul 26 2025 at 4:24PM on page 2

why MX-L and MX-H but not MX-M?

Carlos Michelen Jul 26 2025 at 4:14PM on page 2

Good idea!

Carlos Michelen Jul 26 2025 at 4:10PM on page 1

What's the reason for adding this new class of overlay if no such area is being added? Or is there a plan to add such and area in a future amendment? The IDO already includes too many overlays, to the point where it really can't be considered a uniform ordinance, it's rather a piecemeal one.

Westin Jul 25 2025 at 4:19PM on page 3

Large composting facilities should be permissive in R-A. Consistent with the intent of that zone district and far less impact on neighboring uses than other permissive uses in R-A.

Dawn Dewey Jul 25 2025 at 3:55PM on page 3

Suggestion
Please include Mixed Use land as permissible for large composting facilities, just like small and medium compost facilities.

Dawn Dewey Jul 25 2025 at 3:55PM on page 2

Suggestion
Please include Mixed Use land as permissible for large composting facilities, just like small and medium compost facilities.

Dawn Dewey Jul 25 2025 at 3:52PM on page 3

Suggestion
Why are small and medium sized compost facilities categorized under Agriculture and Animal-Related, while Large Compost Facilities are categorized under Waste and Recycling? It seems there should be consistency since all facilities are performing the same function regardless of size.

Dawn Dewey Jul 25 2025 at 3:51PM on page 2

Suggestion
Why are small and medium sized compost facilities categorized under Agriculture and Animal-Related, while Large Compost Facilities are categorized under Waste and Recycling? It seems there should be consistency since all facilities are performing the same function regardless of size.

Dawn Dewey Jul 25 2025 at 3:48PM on page 15

Suggestion
Suggest compost facility size be determined by the volume of organics being processed rather than the acreage of the land. Depending on the composting methodology, the size of the operation can vary dramatically on the same size of land. This information would be easily accessible as annual reporting to NMED is required for registered and permitted composting facilities, including information on materials received and managed

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:55PM on page 11

Yes to making it easier to construct housing and reducing requirements and red tape

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:53PM on page 9

As someone who lives right off a MT corridor I would appreciate this change to bring more growth to my neighborhood.

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:52PM on page 8

MT doesn't need more parking, this is a great change

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:50PM on page 7

Suggestion
Could go higher 6 or even 7,000

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:49PM on page 7

Wish this went further to not force parking to be built where it isn't needed. Great step towards reducing parking minimums

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:47PM on page 6

Glad to see we can Protect MX-T from high value single family development to encourage infill and gentle density

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:43PM on page 4

The gas stations that abuts my neighborhood increases traffic and discourages transit use, support!

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:41PM on page 3

Wish this applied to more than just corner lots, but glad to these see options becoming available to my neighbors

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:37PM on page 3

Support!

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:35PM on page 3

Good support for local/small businesses

Bryan D Jul 24 2025 at 2:35PM on page 2

As we see more density in areas of the city will see a higher need for transit and much less need for personal vehicle related businesses
View all