►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right,
why
don't
we
get
started
then
again?
Thank
you.
So
much
for
coming
a
good
evening.
We're
really
looking
forward
to
you're
helping
us
envision
the
future
of
the
r3
district
here
in
mountain
view.
A
First
off,
let's
get
some
technical
details
out
of
the
way
we
have
interpretation
tonight
available
in
both
spanish
and
chinese.
You
can
find
that
by
pushing
the
interpretation
button
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen.
It'll
show
up
fairly
soon
here,
but
first
I'll
take
a
moment
to
let
our
interpreters
direct
people
to
those
language
channels.
Elena,
if
you
could
please.
B
B
A
So
please
keep
yourself
muted.
During
the
presentation.
We
will
have
an
opportunity
for
q,
a
afterward,
please
we
will,
if
you
are
interested
in
q,
a
click
the
raise
hand
button
which
is
available
on
the
zoom
app.
If
you're
calling
in
you
can
raise
your
hand
with
the
star
nine
after
the
presentation,
we're
going
to
have
group
discussions
to
talk
about
some
key
questions
related
to
the
project.
A
So
I'd
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
introduce
myself
and
the
project
team,
I'm
eric
anderson,
I'm
advanced
planning
manager,
we're
also
joined
by
our
consultants,
opticos
design,
including
stefan
pellegrini
tony
perez,
beth,
sushan,
russell
taller
and
roger
forman.
And
lastly,
we
have
support
from
other
community
development
department
staff,
including
edgar
mata
via
ellen
yao,
rebecca
shapiro
and
krisha
panellia.
You
will
have
a
chance
to
meet
some
of
them
later
on
in
the
evening
in
the
breakout
groups.
A
The
purpose
of
tonight's
meeting
is
to
get
input
on
the
r3
zoning
update.
This
project
is
an
action
in
the
council's
strategic
roadmap
and
part
of
a
priority
to
help
create
housing
options
in
the
city.
This
meeting
is
focused
on
the
mona
loma
farley
rock
street
neighborhood.
Future
workshops
will
focus
on
other
neighborhoods.
A
A
The
r3
zoning
update
is
only
part
of
the
city's
interconnected
housing
programs.
In
addition,
the
city
is
preparing
the
housing
element,
which
is
a
state
requirement
to
plan
for
more
housing
and
to
address
housing.
Equity
council
direction
was
to
not
rely
on
the
r3
update
to
accommodate
those
the
units
required
from
the
housing
element.
A
A
draft
of
the
housing
element
is
under
review
by
the
state
now
and
we
expect
it
to
be
adopted
by
the
end
of
the
year.
We're
also
preparing
a
displacement
response
strategy.
This
could
include
affordable
unit
replacement
and
tenant
relocation
requirements,
as
well
as
preservation
efforts.
The
displacement
response
strategy
is
under
review
would
apply
to
the
r3
zone
with
or
without
this
zoning
update.
A
A
A
It
includes
a
range
of
development
standards,
including
three-story
height
limit
and
limits
on
floor
area
ratio,
setbacks,
minimum
open
area,
the
maximum
density
varies
across
the
district,
but
the
general
standards
of
far
setbacks
in
open
area
and
others
apply
everywhere.
Similarly,
in
the
zone,
recently,
almost
all
development
has
led
to
expensive
row
homes,
a
few
recent
examples
of
which
are
shown
here.
A
So
why
update
the
zoning?
The
city
is
looking
into
a
form-based
approach.
This
means
that
the
standards
focus
on
the
form
of
the
building
rather
than
its
contents.
For
example,
a
building
with
more
small
units
would
be
treated
the
same
as
a
building
with
fewer
large
units.
This
has
several
benefits.
The
current
framework
of
densities,
don't
really
address
neighborhood
conditions.
A
A
Lastly,
with
a
form-based
approach,
and
by
calibrating
standards
to
each
other,
we
can
create
more
flexibility
while
simultaneously
creating
more
predictability
and
streamlining
the
approval
process.
It
also
needs
to
be
noted
that
there
is
a
state
law.
In
effect
that
says,
we
cannot
reduce
residential
density
or
increase
constraints
on
residential
density.
A
A
So
with
that
out
of
the
way,
let's
take
a
quick
poll,
the
purpose
of
this
poll
is
to
get
an
understanding
of
the
stakeholders
at
this
meeting.
This
way
we
can
see
if
we
need
to
target
any
missed
groups
later
on.
A
So
I'm
going
to
stop
sharing,
oh
look,
we
can
see
everybody
and
I'm
going
to
start
this
poll,
so
the
poll
should
be
pretty
straightforward,
but
you
can
respond
to
what
your
relationship
is
to
the
mona
loma
farley
rock
neighborhood.
For
example:
do
you
rent?
Do
you
own
your
home?
Do
you
own
property
but
don't
live
there?
A
All
right,
I
think
that's
plenty
of
time
here
so
it
looks
like
we
have
about.
Sixty
percent
of
you
are
homeowners
in
the
malama
farley
rock
neighborhood.
So
definitely
the
majority
there
about
30,
none
of
the
above
and
about
a
little
less
than
or
16
renters.
A
A
So
now,
let's
get
into
what
we've
heard
so
far
earlier
this
year
we
went
out
and
talked
to
a
few
different
stakeholder
groups
and
heard
a
few
key
messages.
For
example,
some
wanted
more
housing.
Others
were
more
cautious
about
growth,
some
wanted
to
plan
for
growth,
but
within
precise
plans
or
general
plan
updates.
I
we
wanted.
A
I
heard
a
lot
of
ensuring
that
infrastructure
parks
and
schools
can
support
growth,
also
a
desire
to
create
better
access
to
retail
services
and
amenities,
focusing
housing
near
transit,
consider
mobility
and
streetscapes
as
you're
designing
projects
protect
privacy
and
greenery,
especially
trees.
Some
wanted
lower
parking
requirements,
others
wanted
to
minimize
neighborhood
parking
impacts.
A
A
So
in
response
to
that
those
discussions,
we've
prepared
an
alternative
that
seeks
to
address
what
we've
heard
in
those
discussions.
A
This
is
an
alternative
to
what
council
reviewed
back
in
2021
and
we've
got
five
main
ideas
here:
first,
focusing
subdistricts
on
differences
in
scale
and
character.
Rather
than
height
the
2020
approach
that
we
had
in
that
we
presented
to
council
back
in
2021,
we
developed
a
growth
framework
that
essentially
maximized
development
capacity.
A
So
an
alternative
framework
could
have
lower
intensity
districts,
be
more
house
scale
and
higher
intensity
districts
could
be
more
block
scale.
These
are
some
alternative
districts.
So
later
in
the
presentation,
we
can
look
at
a
map
of
where
these
districts
could
go.
A
We've
also
put
some
thought
into
trans
transitions
of
height
and
scale
to
existing
neighborhoods.
These
pictures
show
how
smaller
building
scales,
including
height
width
and
depth,
can
help
buildings
fit
better
into
the
community.
Despite
small
setbacks,
three
or
three
or
four
story
to
one
or
two
story:
transitions.
A
In
addition,
we've
revised
the
proposed
r3
map
and
eliminated
cases
where
higher
intensity
subzones
would
be
added
adjacent
to
lower
density
neighborhoods.
The
lower
intensity
subzones
could
have
new
standards
limiting
scale
both
facing
the
street
and
along
internal
property
lines.
In
addition,
privacy
and
screening
concerns
can.
A
A
A
So,
just
to
orient
you
to
this
map,
you
can
see
the
r3b
area,
which
is
a
little
bit
darker
close
to
downtown,
which
is
in
the
bottom,
the
southeast
corner
of
this
map.
That's
where
the
downtown
transit
center
is
the
maloma
shopping
center
is
here
at
the
corner
of
middlefield
and
rangstorff.
A
The
former
mayfield
google
office
here
is
here
on
this
corner
of
the
map,
so
hopefully
that
helps
orient
you
to
where
key
features
are
in
this
map.
This
is
the
bailey
park
shopping
center
here
at
the
corner
of
montecito
and
shoreline,
which
goes
here
north
along
the
edge
of
the
neighborhood.
B
A
So
that
summarizes
our
alternative
approach
tonight
you'll
have
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
these
ideas
in
your
breakout
groups.
You
can
discuss
these
questions.
What
do
you
like
in
the
examples
of
buildings?
What
don't
you
like?
Where
could
they
be
appropriate?
Where
should
pedestrian
and
bicycle
users
be
prioritized?
A
A
Lastly,
you
may
have
other
ideas
that
we
haven't
thought
of
yet,
but
let's
before,
but
before
we
go
to
our
breakout
groups,
I'm
sure
some
of
you
have
questions
I'd
love
to
take
an
opportunity
to
answer
some
of
those
questions,
maybe
for
the
next
10
minutes
or
so
before,
going
to
the
breakout
group.
So
let
me
stop
sharing
and
we
can
answer
some
questions.
So
if
you
have
questions
go
ahead
and
hit
the
raise
hand
button
on
your
in
your
zoom
and
we'll,
I
believe
beth
will
call
on
you
right.
Beth.
G
I'm
just
wondering
if
consideration
has
been
given
in
terms
of
the
use
of
space
for
commercial
property,
the
changes
in
behavior
because
of
covid
and
whether
we
have
the
ability
to
really
sustain
commercial
property
in
neighborhoods
these
days.
The
way
we
used
to.
A
That's
a
great
question:
I
that
that
is
something
that
we
can
continue
to
study
through
the
through
the
process
through
this
zoning
process.
You
know
we're
really
early
in
the
stages
of
kind
of
brainstorming
alternatives
and
those
are
the
kinds
of
ideas
that
we
can
continue
to
analyze
and
and
bring
forward
to
council
with
in
the
future.
A
So
I
it's
a
it's
an
alternative
framework
for
looking
at
the
r3
zone.
It's
certainly
not
a
plan
at
this
point.
The
the
the
base
number
of
stories
would
be
three
stories
for
all
three
options,
similar
to
what
it
is
today.
A
There
could
be
opportunities
to
increase
that,
based
on
provision
of
commercial
provision
of
open
space,
we
are
limited,
as
I
said,
under
state
law,
reducing
what
what
developers
are
allowed
to
do
from
what
they're
allowed
to
do
today.
So,
for
example,
adding
commercial,
we
couldn't
reduce
the
residential
amount
based
on
the
amount
of
commercial
that
they'll
be
adding
so
and
then,
of
course,
there's
also
density
bonus,
which
is
something
that
we
do
expect
people
to
take
advantage
of
both
today
and
in
the
future.
H
Hi,
I
have
two
questions.
Firstly,
there
was
a
mention
earlier
about
that
that
developers
could
use
like
extra
allocations
for
for
the
height,
if
you
could
explain
that
a
little
more,
if
that
can
be
done
in
any
of
the
zones.
A
Well,
I
think
it
could
be.
I
that's
that's
exactly
the
kind
of
input
that
we'd
want
to
hear
from
you
about
things
like,
where
is
height,
more
of
a
sensitive
issue.
Where
is
it
less
of
a
sensitive
issue
in
terms
of
trade-offs
of
commercial
versus
an
open
space
versus
allowing
additional
height
for
those
those
provisions?
A
Where
is
it
more
important
to
to
limit
heights?
So
I
I
would
say
that
at
this
stage
in
the
process,
it's
nothing
that
we've
we've
set
in
stone
and
those
are
exactly
the
types
of
considerations
that
we
want
to
hear.
Your
input
on.
H
Thanks
and
my
second
question
is,
in
the
context
of
you,
know,
adding
or
updating
these
r3
plans
has
the
city
identified
any
new
park
space
yet
or
where
they,
you
know,
plan
to
put
a
large
park
for
this
planning
area.
A
No,
we
haven't,
although
that
could
be
something
that
we
could
do
through
the
r3
process.
You
know,
we'd
have
to
look
at.
You
know
large
enough
sites
that
could
be
able
to
dedicate
a
park
as
part
of
a
development
or
other
opportunities
for
the
city
to
buy
land.
We
do
have
you
know.
Community
services
department
process
for
that
they're
also
kicking
off
very
soon.
The
parks
and
recreation
strategic
plan
and
a
big
part
of
the
parks
and
recreation
strategic
plan
is
identifying
areas
where
parks
are
necessary
in
the
community.
E
I
Oh,
I
didn't
recognize.
That
was
my
name
yes,
so
my
question
was:
I'm
wondering
if
the
city
has
done
any
sort
of
feasibility,
analysis
or
sort
of
extra
capacity
unlocked
analysis
on
the
new
alternative.
I
know
one
of
the
original
motivations
for
the
r3
update
was
to
not
get
those
you
know.
Net
loss
type
of
projects
where
a
grandfathered
in
apartment
complex
from
long
ago
would
get
replaced
with
a
bunch
of
town
homes
and
with
reduced
total
number
of
homes.
I
A
A
You
know
what
is
going
to
be
feasible
on
any
current
condition
in
r3
we
have
not
done
any
feasibility
analyses
on
any
new
standards.
We
haven't
gone
so
far
as
to
even
develop
standards
again.
This
is
an
opportunity
to
get
community
input
on
what
was
presented
back
in
2021
to
council
and
have
an
option
to
kind
of
compare
it
to.
There
are
plenty
of
ways
that
these
this
direction
can
accommodate
more
overall
units.
A
A
Another
is
by
addressing
some
of
the
standards
that
have
been
shown
to
be
most
constraining
development
standards
like
open
area
and
and
setbacks,
and
so
there
are
ways
that
we
can
add
to
the
overall
number
of
units
that
are
provided
within
a
within.
E
So
to
stick
to
our
10
minute
timeline:
we're
going
to
cap
it
after
these
next
two
questions
so
have
viveco.
Last
and
mr
one,
would
you
be
able
to
go
next.
J
Yeah,
my
name
is
bill.
Lambert,
you
could
change.
The
moderator
could
change
my
name
to
bill
lambert,
I'd
appreciate
it.
I
have
questions
one
both
very
high
level.
What
is
the
overall
objective
of
r3
zoning?
What
is
what
are
we
trying
to
accomplish?
What
problem
is
trying
to
be
solved?
What's
the
goal
here.
A
So
the
goal
for
the
project
is
to
facilitate
more
middle-income
units,
more
diversity
of
unit
types
and
to
update
the
standards
which
really
only
are
which
really
reflect
a
development
type
or
a
series
of
development
types
that
haven't
happened
in
a
long
time
or
really
just
result
in
row
houses
so
either
the
garden
style
apartments
that
you
see
on
california,
street
or
row
houses.
That's
really
what
the
r3
results
in.
A
A
Right
so
it
under
the
scenarios
of
the
alternatives
that
are
shown
today.
If
you
have
a
site,
that's
fairly
built
out
like
it
was,
you
know
it's
built
at
near
the
maximum
of
what
what
is
allowed
today.
There
may
not
be
much
additional
units
that
you
could
build
unless
they're,
you
know
again,
we
haven't
done
the
standards
yet
so
we
don't
know
exactly
you
know.
Is
it
a
doubling
of
units?
We
don't
know
we
it's
it's
too
difficult
to
say
under
the
previous
options,
the
ones
that
went
up
to
eight
stories.
A
There
was
certainly
a
lot
of
potential
capacity
or
went
up
to
six
stories.
There
was
certainly
a
lot
of
potential
capacity,
even
on
sites
that
are
fairly
built
out.
A
A
One
or
two
units
on
the
site-
maybe
three
and
and
allowing
a
kind
of
typical
multi-family
structure
on
those
sites,
could
add
a
significant
number
yeah.
J
A
Yeah
now
that's
a
great
point,
and
certainly,
as
part
of
this
process,
we're
going
to
go
through
a
that
analysis
to
see
how
many
units
might
result
and
what
the
infrastructure
needs
are
for
those
units.
L
Thank
you
so
much
and
I
have
a
two-parter
question,
so
I
saw
the
area
that's
been
marked
as
r3
well
potentially
marked
as
r3,
and
one
of
those
areas
is
where
we
have
our
only
workable
retail,
which
is
the
same
thing.
So
the
first
part
of
the
question
is:
how
do
we
make
sure
that
if
there
is
rt
r3
like
in
r3
or
this
vertical
development
happening
there,
the
the
those
retail
options
are
preserved?
So
that
was
the
first
part.
L
The
second
part
was,
and
I'm
sure
everyone
on
the
planning
side
is
aware
of
that.
The
only
walkable
city-owned
park
is
fattiest
park
for
the
for
the
residents
of
montaluma,
which
is,
I
believe,
0.2
acres,
and
I'm
sure
you
know
folks,
on
the
planning
side
know
what
the
city
guidelines
are
as
well
as
the
state
guidelines.
Are.
You
know
you
know,
as
you
know,
for
for
a
certain
number
of
people.
We
are,
you
know
it's
it's
supposed
to
be
what
three
acres
per
per
thousand
residents.
L
Okay,
you
know
we're
not
even
approaching
that.
So
how
do
you
think
you
know
being
planners
is
it's.
It
is
ethical
to
put
in
additional
density
without
addressing
this
basic
infrastructure,
and
you
know
parts
that
infrastructure
you
know
needs
of
the
community.
Thank
you.
A
Well
I'll
address
the
first
question.
So,
yes,
the
r3
zone
does
ring
the
maloma
shopping
center,
but
it
does
not.
You
know
it
doesn't
encroach
on
the
monolith
shopping
center,
we're
not
proposing
to
re-zone
the
model
in
the
shopping
center
to
r3,
and
so,
if
you
look
at
the
map,
it
is
a
white
spot
in
the
middle
of
the
r3
zone.
So
it's
it's
not
under
consideration
today.
I
think
your
second
point
is,
is,
is
a
great,
you
know
I'll
say
it's
maybe
a
rhetorical
question.
A
I
think
it's
the
type
of
question
or
the
type
of
point
that
we
really
want
to
hear.
You
know
there
are
a
lot
of
different
values
that
can
enter
into
this
discussion
in
terms
of
planning
for
infrastructure
versus
you
know,
addressing
a
current
need
for
housing,
and
we
want
to
hear
where
the
community
lies
on
that
spectrum.
So
certainly
make
that
point
in
your
breakout
rooms
and
we
we
love
to
hear
it
and
and
compile
it
and
present.
All
of
this
input
to
council.
L
So
the
part
you
know
so
I
I
found
your
comment
rather
interesting.
When
you
talk
about
values,
there
are
areas
of
montana
or
of
mountain
view,
which
are
you
know,
which
have
a
severe
deficit
of
park
space
and
guess
what
those
are
the
areas
where
you
are
putting
r3
zoning
and
higher
density.
There
are
areas
of
mountain
view
which
may
not
be
perfect,
which
have
got
like
two
two
acres
per
thousand
residents,
which
are
on
the
other
side
of
the
tracks
and
we're
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
tracks.
A
A
It's
exactly
the
type
of
thing
that
we
want
to
hear
and
report
up
to
council.
So
thank
you.
A
Okay,
so
that
ends
the
questions.
Thank
you
so
much.
I
think
we're
ready
now
to
jump
into
breakout
groups.
It
looks
like
there
are
52
participants
and
I
think
they're,
probably
about
14
or
so
people,
so
that
are
leading
this
thing.
So
that's
about
35.
A
So
I
think
what
we're
gonna
do
is
five
breakout
groups
and
and
just
go
from
there,
so
krisha
go
ahead
and
send
us
into
our
groups
seems
like
people
are
starting
to
come
back.
We
had
some
great
conversations
in
our
in
our
group
hope
everybody
else
did
too.
A
Wait
a
couple
more
minutes
for
people
to
finish
up
their
discussions
and
then
I
think
we'll
have
about
you,
know
15
minutes
or
so
to
share
thoughts
from
each
group.
Maybe
we'll
do
about
three
or
four
minutes
per
group
share
a
couple
of
main
thoughts
that
that
folks
had
in
their
discussions
and
then
we'll
just
kind
of
remind
people
of
the
next
steps
of
the
project
and
we'll
let
you
all
go
go
to
bed.
B
A
I
want
to
thank
everybody
again
for
coming
out
tonight.
You
know
I'm
sure
you're
all
busy,
just
it's
just
great
to
have
so
many
people
engaged
and
and
joining
in
on
this
conversation.
So
thank
you
so
so
much.
A
Well,
it
looks
like
I
think,
everybody's
back
from
the
breakout
rooms.
I
just
want
to
say
thanks
again
for
all
of
your
contributions
and
for
joining
us
tonight.
Why
don't
we
go
through
spend
about
four
minutes
with
each
group
and
and
ask
somebody
from
each
group
to
present
some
of
the
major?
A
M
N
Sure,
thank
you
so
from
group
one,
we
talked
about
the
different
scales.
I
think
a
lot
of
the
concerns
is
that
the
transition
points
between
r1,
r2
and
r3
zones.
People
want
to
ensure
that
there's
enough
setbacks,
especially
if
you're
increasing
height
that
there's
additional
setbacks.
N
N
N
I
wouldn't
want
to
change
the
look
and
feel
of
the
existing,
just
all
residential
neighborhoods
and
then
interest
in
you
know
the
type
of
commercial
that
would
go
in
the
scale
of
the
use
like
a
small
shop
versus
a
larger
retail
space.
N
And
then
for
the
last
one,
I
guess
we
had
kind
of
some
thoughts
on
more
larger
scale,
site
planning,
access
over
the
railroad
tracks
and
to
other
neighborhoods,
so
the
pedestrian
access
ways
would
be
important
to
cross
over
railroads
or
the
larger
streets
like
ringstor,
and
that
concludes
most
of
our
comments.
Unless
tony
has
anything
to
add.
Yeah.
M
Just
one
so
eric
and
everyone
we
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
discussing
how
density
bonus
is
something
the
city
can't
prevent
and
that
this
project,
this
effort
of
updating
the
r3,
is
trying
to
make
things
more
predictable
and
maybe
make
the
density
bonus
not
necessary,
but
all
the
same,
the
density
bonus
cannot
be
prevented,
and
so
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
discussing
that.
So
just
you
know,
for
everyone.
A
Yeah,
thank
you
so
much
so
how
about
russell
and
rebecca's.
F
Group,
so
our
group
had
a
bunch
of
different
priorities.
One
of
the
key
points
of
feedback
we
we
heard
was
general
support
for
the
the
2022
approach
with
you
know,
support
for
higher
intensities
closer
to
caltrain.
F
F
There
was
a
fair
amount
of
discussion
about,
you
know,
improve
pedestrian
connections
and
in
particular,
sort
of
sustainable
and
green
pedestrian
connections.
There
was.
F
A
Awesome.
Thank
you
both
so
much
how
about
roger
and
krisha's
group.
O
All
right,
I
do
a
quick
summary,
so
our
group
found
that
they
supported
the
old
plan,
the
2020
approach,
as
they
wish
that
the
new
approach
did
more
to
increase
density
in
terms
of
the
map
that
was
shown,
they
did
identify
areas
that
they
thought
could
have
more
density
and
those
included
areas
near
shoreline,
middle
field,
ringsdorf
and
one
near
101
as
well
near
the
end.
There
was
also
some
discussion
on
parking.
Our
group
thought
that
the
city
should
incentivize
and
improve
pedestrian
and
bicycle
routes,
so
that
would
result
in
reduced
parking.
D
Yeah,
I
can
summarize
just
feel
free
to
chime
in.
If
I
miss
anything,
let
me
bring
up
my
notes
here.
We
did.
F
D
And
comments
around
where
to
put
more
density,
revolved
around
more
of
the
major
thoroughfares
and
intersections
in
in
the
area
that
may
be
areas
that
can
accommodate
more
of
the
growth,
and
we
did
have
one
comment
highlighting
to
improve
the
opportunity
to
make
more
units
in
general
and
then
also
a
few
comments
about
just
this
is
a
very
unique
community
and
some
members
feel
it
it's
appropriate
as
it
is
currently
and
would
prefer
not
to
see
a
change
martine.
Am
I
missing
anything
on
there.
P
Just
maybe
sort
of
a
few
more
specific
things.
There
was
some
discussion
about
the
appropriateness
of
greater
intensity
in
the
vicinity
of
some
of
the
corridors,
particularly
rangsdorf.
P
There
was
some
discussion
about
whether
the
area
around
plymouth
would
be
appropriate
for
greater
intensity.
There
was
also
a
comment
about
making
sure
that
the
neighborhood
provided
strong
pedestrian
paths
and
connections,
particularly
to
google,
as
sort
of
the
major
job
center
in
the
area,
and
some
discussion
about
whether
or
not
that
could
be
prioritized.
A
Great,
thank
you.
So
much
to
all
three
of
you
for
leading
that
group
sounds
excellent
and
beth
our
group.
We
had
some
great
conversations.
Do
you
think
you
can
summarize
a
little
bit.
E
Definitely
okay,
so
we
were
a
group
that
really
advocated
for
greenery.
So
you'll
hear
that
theme
and
as
well
as
other
items,
so
first
wanted
to
make
sure
that
setbacks
were
large
enough,
especially
in
the
rear,
in
order
that
there
could
be
a
backyard
and
the
need
for
parks
wanted
for
trends.
The
transitions
to
include
balconies,
especially
because
it
can
benefit
livability
and
noted
that
they
did
not
like
the
san
antonio
center.
E
E
And
then
there
were
actually
quite
a
few
opinions
on
increasing
stories
in
exchange
for
open
space,
so
potentially
not
increasing
or
intentionally
relocating
stories,
or
just
allowing
more
stories.
E
And
finally,
we
do
support
bike
access
and
just
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
accessibility
for
people
with
limited
mobility
and
as
a
final
point,
it
would
be
really
nice
if
smaller
buildings
could
also
be
inexpensive,
specifically
bungalows.
A
I
know
that
sounds
great,
I
mean.
Certainly
there
was
a
lot
more
that
came
up
we're
going
to
have
summaries
of
all
of
these
these
groups
and
and
the
notes
that
we
took
you
know
the
themes,
some
of
the
commonalities
and
we're
going
to
be
able
to
kind
of
compile
all
of
those
those
points
and
and
and
put
them
together,
we'll
be
able
to
post
a
lot
of
that
information
on
the
website.
A
A
So,
first
of
all,
the
mountainview.gov
r3
zoning
update
website,
which
I'm
sure
you're
all
aware
of
it,
was
on
all
of
your
postcards
and
on
the
flyer
and
everything
like
that.
That's
our
main
city
website
for
the
r3
zoning
update
in
the
next
couple
of
days
we're
going
to
start
posting
links
to
ways
to
provide
additional
information
on
these
topics
through
through
this
website.
A
So
if
you
feel
like
you
had
more
to
say,
or
if
you
have
a
neighbor
that
couldn't
make
it,
let
them
know
or
please
log
on
to
this
website
and
you'll,
be
able
to
find
a
way
to
navigate
to
a
tool
to
to
provide
comments
on
on
these
topics.
Further
comments
on
these
topics,
so
please
check
that
out
and
then,
after
this
outreach
which
we're
going
to
carry
on,
you
know
we're
going
to
continue
these
neighborhood
workshops
and
we're
going
to
do
more
outreach
via
the
website
through
the
end
of
2022.
A
So
that
concludes
our
presentation
and
again
we're
really
grateful
for
you
to
come
out
tonight
and
hang
out
and
provide
your
viewpoints
and
please
stay
involved
feel
free
to
contact
me
if
you
have
any
other
questions
through
the
website
or
my
email
and
happy
to
to
continue
this
conversation
with
everybody.
A
I
can
hang
out
for
a
few
more
minutes.
If
you
have
any
more
questions,
I
can
maybe
answer
one
question
from
anybody
who
one
question
from
each
person
and
not
not
like
long
conversations
but
for
a
little
bit.
I
can
hang
out
if
there
are
any
lingering
questions
so
again,
thanks
again
and
have
a
great
night.
K
A
So
we
we're
going
to
be
cleaning
them
up.
We're
gonna
have
to
synthesize
these
comments.
These,
let's
see
tony,
has
tony
left.
I
think
tony
has
left
and
stefan
you
know
what
we
will.
The
the
information
will
certainly
be
available
in
one
form
or
another
in
the
next
few
weeks,
whether
it's
going
to
be
these
notes
pages
exactly
as
we
wrote
them
down,
you
know
we
may
have
to
clean
them
up
a
little
bit
clean
up
the
information
a
little
bit.
Okay,
but
the.
K
Robert
yeah,
I'm
just
wondering
you
know
you
used
to
have
that
interactive
map
up
there
and
now
it
looks
like
like
we
saw
mona
loma,
you
know
2020
and
2022..
K
Are
you
coming
up
with
a
2022
interactive
map,
or
are
you
going
to
be
showing
like
the
contrast
between
the
two
by
neighborhood,
and
you
know,
when
will
we
be
able
to
see
this
for
different
neighborhoods
or
are
they
only
going
to
be?
Is
it
going
to
be
kind
of
like
only
a
reveal
in
the
night
of
you
know
the
particular
workshop.
A
So
we
have,
we
are
going
to
be
kind
of
presenting
the
information
each
night
of
the
workshop.
The
idea
is
to
really
kind
of
help
frame
the
information
for
people
as
they're
digesting
the
the
maps.
We
will
have
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments
through
the
website
if
you
want
to
think
about
the
maps
a
little
bit
more
now
that
you've
seen
them
you
want
to.
K
A
K
J
Yeah,
I'm
going
to
be
asking
this
about
all
of
the
plans
that
the
city
is
considering
and
I
don't
know
quite
how
to
put
it,
but
I
I'll
try
to
say
it
as
best
I
can
so
that
is.
We
can
come
up
with
good
plans
about
how
we
want
things
to
go.
R3
zoning.
You
know
various
designs,
trade-offs
and
things
like
that,
but
for
a
lot
of
the
things
I
think
we
want
as
a
community,
the
in-lieu
fees
are
not
going
to
be
sufficient.
J
The
developer
fees,
certainly
not
for
the
affordable
housing
component
and
therefore
there
will
be
need
to
be
some
public
investment
to
make
our
plans
workable
and
livable
are
part
of
the
r3
zoning
plans.
Dealing
with
financing
and
funding
strategies
for
so-called
public
benefits.
A
So
it
it's
not
part
of
our
discussion
right
now,
if
that's
something
that
you
want
to
advocate
for,
including
then
by
all
means.
J
I
would
definitely
advocate
for
including
because
it
puts
boundary
conditions
sort
of
on,
but
I
think
it
helps
the
community
understand
even
more
what
the
trade-offs
are.
I
mean
we
can
want
anything
we
want,
but
if
it's
not
financially
feasible,
you
know
we
have
to.
We
have
to
be
more
creative,
then.
A
Right
so
we
do
have
a
number
of
different
funding
strategies
that
are
part
of,
say
the
you
know,
parks
and
recreation
strategic
plan
where
the
housing
element
has
a
range
of
funding
strategies
in
it,
and
we
have
funding
strategies
associated
with
our
affordable
housing
programs,
so
they're
all
interconnected.
Depending
on
what
the
desired
outcome
is.
You
know
the
r3
project
is
really
focused
on.
A
You
know
nuts
and
bolts
of
zoning,
and
so
in
terms
of
any
other
kind
of
public
public
good
that
you're
interested
in
seeing
how
we're
paying
for
it
by
all
means
us
keep
involved
in
in
those
other
processes.
I'll
write
you
a
letter.
Thank
you.
Yeah.
J
H
Jessica,
oh,
I
just
want
a
second
what
bill
said.
I
thought
that
was
really
thoughtful,
that
you
know
we're
making
these
zoning
updates
under
certain
assumptions.
You
know
we
talked
a
lot
about
bike,
improving
bike
and
transit
paths
and
whatnot,
but
if,
if
planning
for
the
funding
strategies
isn't
done
in
conjunction
with
it,
you
know,
I
hope
we're
not
left
short
or
the
outcome,
isn't
what
we're,
what
we'd
intended
it
to
be,
because
we
hadn't
been
thoughtful
up
front
about
how
we're
going
to
fund
changes
due
to
our
r3
zoning,
so
yeah.
G
Yeah,
so
I
mean
in
some
ways
this
is
a
little
outside
the
scope,
but
in
addition
to
funding
strategies,
so
the
more
density
we
have,
the
worse
traffic
is
going
to
get,
especially
when
we're
building
them
on
the
main
corridors,
and
it's
already
a
nightmare
in
san
antonio.
G
So
if
we
don't
start
if
we
don't
have
a
regional
transit
system
that
really
works
for
people,
we're
going
to
continue
to
have
a
really
serious
problem
with
this
balance
of
traffic,
congestion
and
more
housing,
and
somehow
all
these
plants
have
to
come
together
in
unity
to
make
this
work.
A
Yeah,
well
certainly
transportation's
another
key
issue.
You
know
that
the
city's
working
working
on
through
a
number
of
different
transportation
plans
in
the
public
works
department.
It's
a
great
comment.
You
know,
I
think
we
all
are
frustrated
with
our
regional
public
transit
system.
You
know
it
doesn't
have
very
much
coverage
and
it's
fairly
slow,
and
so
you
know
thinking
there
are.
There
are
regional
programs
going
on?
A
You
know
mpc
plan
bay
area
which
are
identifying
kind
of
moonshot,
improved
public
transit
systems,
and
so
you
know
that's
one
thing
that
you
can
kind
of
look
into
and
certainly
things
that
the
city
is
paying
attention
to
as
well.
But
the
great
great
comment.
I
I
just
wanted
to
add:
I'm
not
sure
if
the
folks
making
comments
about
funding
strategies
for
parks
are
aware
that
any
new
development
has
to
pay
a
park
in
luffy
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up.
But.
J
A
Okay,
well,
this
is
great.
I,
I
love
the
idea
of
people
having
these
conversations
continue
to
have
these
conversations
amongst
yourselves
and
at
these
r3
meetings
again
really
really
appreciate
your
time
tonight.
901
ending
right
on
time
again,
thank
you
so
so
much
and
have
a
great
night,
and
I
hope
to
hear
from
all
you
all
in
the
future
and
continuing
on
so
thanks
again.