ATT 3 - 2022-2024 Public Input — Mountain View City Council, April 9, 2024

SUMMER 2022 “ROADSHOW” WORKSHOP COMMENTS
Monta Loma/Fa
rley/Rock
• How do you plan for infrastructure for addt'l units? (Interest in infrastructure suppor�ng addi�onal housing)
• Limit height in transi�on zones (not 6-story next to R1 home) • lot of discussion about density bonus and concerns about addi�onal height • R3 (Montecito, Rock) is good quality but is the same
• Like the blue home in R3-A; what would drive developers to build to get this look & feel • R3-B (top image) looks clunky; current rowhome and townhome looks beter than top R3-B picture
• Like predictability of form-based code for the neighborhood • Like trees
• 2020 Approach in par�cular represents large change in density; need integrated planning for necessary infrastructure - schools, retail, etc. Want infrastructure ﬁrst, then building.
• SE quadrant is near Caltrain and seems appropriate (at least lower 1/3) should be more like 2020 approach; it's where density is appropriate and where lower parking requirements would be appropriate.
• Why is seemingly higher density further from trains/transporta�on. Higher density should be closer to transit and other infrastructure. Should not lower parking un�l there is more robust transit/bike infrastructure
• Block scale does not seem to match character of neighborhood; might be appropriate closer to commercial areas.
• 2020 Approach seems to be more atuned to what people actually care about. • Agree with reduced parking and expanded bus routes, with intensity associated with those expanded transit resources.
• 3-stories concerning is too litle. Please increase capacity for development, but already have three-stories.

Attachment 3
• What's the purpose of more density of that's what's allowed • More ﬂexibility and not just townhouses. Allow for more ﬂats • Four-story minimums
• Not hybrid of retail and housing
• Does not do enough to improve housing crisis
• Low-density made it more unlivable for most people
• Beter delinea�on of R4 vs R3
• Are the example all a 5k sq� lot?
• Concern with the possibility of mul�-family denser development • 3 cri�cal topics, parks and open space, reducing setback requirements, and no long range vision currently. The housing to be built will likely be unaﬀordable. There must also be a more holis�c transporta�on plan (bike, public transit, etc.) Who is the housing for?
• R3 should increase the opportunity to make more units. • Addi�onal height may work beter on major corridors or San Antonio area • Buildings don't give character, people give character • Ques�ons about max heights
• Need parks, because we don't have 3 acres per 1,000 residents • Setbacks too small (10 feet)
• Use light planes and 45 degree angles
• No fake shuters
• These pictures do look nicer
• Limit building footprints to 60 x 60
• Have a mixture of building types and heights, heterogeneity Moﬀett/Whisman
• Concern with the DB on top of R3
• Interest in protec�ng mature heritage trees (+1)
• Interest in citywide tree protec�on measures (+1)
• Concern about loss of exis�ng and new small businesses/retail on ground ﬂoor at aﬀordable rental rates
• Should plan for complete neighborhoods (live, work, retail) • Concerns about privacy; interest in transi�ons between adjacent proper�es • All for more aﬀordability
• New approach seems beter
• Pros/Cons to both. Worried about taller buildings/deeper parking lots (underground); water contamina�on
• Moving in the right direc�on
• Massing s�ll comes across less residen�al
• Poten�al to create density/crowding that impacts surrounding neighborhood • 2022 seems beter; need to think about human-scaled buildings • Worried about too much density impac�ng services/infrastructure • Big step forward from 2020
• Start with lower heights to prevent higher intensi�es (heights) • 2022 Approach - Medium house v large-house deﬁni�on vague. Prefer more speciﬁc language
• Concerned with density bonus and impacts to adjacent neighborhoods. If they build more stories, it impacts the way things appear. 2022 Approach diﬃcult to understand • Concerned with star�ng heights of 3-stories.
• Lower height limit needs to be balanced with density bonus. • Having ﬂexibility with building height to cater to project and area. • R3 makes sense when adjacent to R1
• Some discussion around no�ng diﬀerences between 2020 and 2022 • Heights can cast shadows, but also can provide open space. Height may be best near parks. Height should be avoided near sun-hit single-family homes San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio
• Ground ﬂoor space could be used for retail in the 2020 model, more so than the 2022. • Support for sub-districts, creates a balanced approach. it is important to create as many opportuni�es for housing as possible. Add housing stock where possible. • Important to look at market feasibility as well.
• Vibrant ground space and streetscape. Sense of place and mix of income. • The block scale looks fairly dense and lacks open space and greenery. Would the layout prevent walkways or be less safe?
• Higher density along main thoroughfares (ECR and SA, possibly a block in each direc�on). Concern with mass density increase across the area, due to traﬃc impacts. • Consider consistent design and architectural style for beter cohesion • Concerned with overdensity and can't go back to a reduced density. • Miles of block scale buildings with no commercial will have no places to walk to. • Large scale buildings next to small apartments will have a large impact • Medium house scale and large scale can be good.
• Be careful with where large scale buildings are placed. • 6 stories will over burden the neighborhoods
• Concern for increased traﬃc and parking issues
• More housing the beter. likes this approach beter
• Prefers this approach
• This approach is more interes�ng as it allows for diﬀerent types of buildings. • Block housing good on San Antonio and Del Medio
• Disappointed with downsizing these proper�es.
• Consider the block scale which can allow more units like stacked ﬂats. • More ﬂexibility and housing opportuni�es
• Terrible approach. Original R3 update intended to provide more housing opportuni�es. • Keeping to 3 stories will make more aﬀordable housing op�ons infeasible. • Mixed support for the 2020 map amongst the group - some support for the 2020 map, also some support for not increasing intensity/density. • Interest in maintaining 3 story height limits, ﬁnding ways to increase to 3 stories where exis�ng development is 2 stories, less support for taller buildings • Interest in medium house scale (R3-A)
• Interest in accommoda�ng as much density as possible to support more housing in the neighborhood
• Support for more open space and more density
• Need to put "transit close to housing"
• Interest in not adding any addi�onal density
• Pacche� and California project uses transi�ons to step down to related context • Interest in calibra�ng zoning envelope to not rely on the state to set the zoning envelope.
• Design is also going to be key along with the height. Some of R3-C and D have been very boring. Larger buildings should be beter designed and interes�ng, add visual interest.

May be pick a consistent style for an area/ or every neighborhood to create more cohesive development. No fake shuters and fake balconies. • R3-A: 2 stories style is good and seems like has history. • R3-C block scale not appealing design.
• Larger housing styles are preferred.
• The new approach seem appropriate.
• Could go higher in some areas.
• Some complexes that are higher currently in these areas. Some area are already 6 stories. It is not clear where we would set lower limits. -Maybe we can keep R3-D. We can possibly accommodate more density by mass transit. Lets have more people from a commercial support perspec�ve.
• Agree with that there is already exis�ng higher building. El Camino can support more density.
• What type of ameni�es would be available in return for density • Lets not reduce density allow for more height. Similar to 2020. • IF building are being demolished, why not allow for higher density. The building will be here for years to come.
• Maximize allowed units throughout as much as possible. Lets not scale down. • If the vision is to allow for more housing, lets push forward and bring aﬀordability to MV Central Neighborhoods
• Addi�onal informa�on regarding infrastructure, parking, etc. is needed to evaluate which op�on is beter.
• Concern with going up to 6-7 stories in certain neighborhoods (Rengstorﬀ). First stories should not be parking, this is not good urbanism or conducive to good urbanism. • Privacy and tree plan�ng should be considered if buildings are going larger . • Most developers do townhouse/rowhouse because there is a Building Code exemp�on for elevators
• Pro-housing, housing availability should be considered • Ok with larger complexes to provide same amount of previous units. • Think about balancing housing with workforce. ok with tall buildings to provide more housing opportuni�es.
• In favor of doing what it takes to allow people to live here. • S�ll have concerns of scale next to exis�ng neighborhoods. • Not in favor of more density. MV has been ge�ng very dense. The height blocks the sun. • Want as many people as possible to live close to ameni�es. suppor�ve of increased density.
• Concerns that the density bonus and its poten�al is not being clearly described. • Concerns around trying to get the R-3 to create more development when the RHNA is being met elsewhere in the city.
• Concerns that addi�onal development will not result in what is needed - aﬀordable housing
• Concerns that diﬀerences in the diﬀerent subareas will be erased by requests for concessions and waivers
• Diﬀerences in these subareas and how they are objec�vely described should be crystal clear.
• Would like more open space.
• Not suppor�ve of densiﬁca�on as there are impacts on water supply, u�li�es, and concern regarding ﬁre
• Ok with depic�on of R3 developments through 2022 approach. • 4-story and 5-story is not ok. However, appropriate in other loca�ons, but not more in neighborhoods.
• Be mindful of consistency of neighborhood.
• Beter understood the 2020 approach (because it provided more details such as diﬀerent styles - cotage, courtyard, etc.) and feels like the 2022 approach is too vague • Concerns about the use of the word "house" in the R3 framework; others are not confused by because it was explained as form not as units Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis
• Would be okay with taller building heights along certain corridors (ex. ECR) • Makes a lot of sense in terms of scale
• Glad to see we're moving away from taller buildings next to single-story buildings • We need more housing but appropriately scaled for the neighborhood • Need to make sure there is suﬃcient parking provided
• 2022 approach has deﬁnitely improved from 2020.
• Likes the increased setbacks and greenscape buﬀer along frontage. Also maintaining exis�ng tree canopy
• Support addi�onal density to support diverse popula�on in the city. Change is not going to ﬁt the exis�ng character.
• This R3 update is not going to produce aﬀordability.
• 2-story with a�c preferable, but at ECR and Castro, Medium or Large could work. Scales depend on the block.
• Boranda, Bonita and View appears higher, up to Bubb School • Lower-scale more appropriate for neighborhood (2022 Approach). • Higher density at Castro and ECR more appropriate (2020 Approach) • Concerned with higher density in neighborhoods
• Concerned with potable water supply with increased density • Losing popula�on in Bay Area, so is there a need for density? • Suppor�ve of 2022 approach over the 2020, especially when away from ECR, closer to neighborhoods
• Sensi�vity to style
• New 4-6 story buildings along ECR - some surprise about height • Important to maintain ground ﬂoor retail in areas where it's appropriate (e.g. near El Monte)
• Concerns that more height = more popula�on = more strain on infrastructure = more costs on exis�ng residents.
• 5150 project - redevelopment of oﬃce building - concerns about privacy impact on adjacent buildings
• Concerns about transi�ons
• Strongly against 4-6-story buildings
• Wants more ownership units vs. rental.
• If 4-5 stories, make sure to include suﬃcient parking. • Tall buildings are going to add more traﬃc. Bad already along El Camino Real ge�ng on the freeway
• Safety is very important to the residents. generally against high buildings in this area. • Suppor�ve of 2-3 story neighborhood commercial developments that will support the neighborhood needs
• We need more police/ﬁreﬁghters to support addi�onal residen�al growth • 3 stories max is ok
• Should include a residen�al parking plan with developments before permit comes in. • In favor of 6+ stories
Grant/Sylvan Park
• Love the growth
• From 2020 I like the 6-story approach, this wouldn't be an issue next to 3-story buildings • Having more density leads city for more opportuni�es
• Would like City to have more concessions about using the bonuses • In favor of more density like in the R3D (6 stories) to really get more housing • Considera�on to traﬃc needs to take place according to density • From 2022 I like R3B and R3C; its great to make sure we have housing for all and that can be done beau�fully.
• R3 currently allows a 3-story max height.
• I don't like the window's shuters, would like to regulate that somehow • I would really like City to look back to the 2020 approach for large buildings • Currently driving along El Camino doesn't feel friendly, so I would like to see higher density near downtown, not sure about this neighborhood. There is a lot of conges�on • If you're going to do anything to restrict housing, it should be for a speciﬁc purpose • Just because the City updates zoning rules, the built environment will not immediately change
• Higher density should be located near ECR, lower density in other loca�ons • Anywhere along Stevens Creek Trail should be connected into the trail • In general concerned about traﬃc and how the addi�onal density would impact the exis�ng neighborhood.
• Context sensi�ve development is key. More density / intensity near ECR. • R3-2 Medium house style looks good. It is not just looks but also func�onality. • Traﬃc concerns due to more units onto already congested streets • Medium house scale in the picture would ﬁt in the area but concerned about how suppor�ve u�li�es, police and ﬁre services, would be provided with addi�onal density. • Key is to know how to maintain the idea of neighborhood and maintain neighborhood deﬁni�on.

Monta Loma/Farley/Rock
• Want height restric�on (ex: Jackson and Moﬀet) abu�ng backyards (don't want tall buildings blocking or shading backyards)
• Can you limit the window sizes on building walls adjacent to R1/R2? • 2310 Rock Street - concerns about displacement of long-�me residents • Use other areas (Terra Bella, Wyandote)
• Prefer not to have long walls; breakup wall plane
• Consider the building in rela�on to where the sun is so there are appropriate building design in rela�on to open space
• Increased height can provide greater setback and/or open space resources; there are tradeoﬀs.
• Is there a way to work with developers to develop on a larger scale to beter accomplish objec�ves like height and scale transi�ons?
• When there is a larger palete, you'll always get crea�ve/beter solu�ons. Like idea of codifying more op�mal solu�ons and crea�ve opportuni�es that exist for any given parcel(s), so it's clear upfront.
• More recent R3 development seems too close to street with too limited landscaping for privacy and high-quality green spaces/canopy, especially near sidewalks; want more green space near sidewalks
• Like approach of looking at height and scale, so appropriate development occurs next (for example) a single-family home/areas.
• Should look at pu�ng parking underground.
• Important to have stepdowns or stepbacks at boundary - need to be carefully deﬁned to curtail opposi�on
• Terra Bella generated a lot of fear
• Use of trees and landscaping is a plus
• Trees are also helpful for reducing AC load
• Don't prefer setbacks as a strategy
• Can accomplish a lot with upper story setbacks in terms of visual experience

• Concern about limits to building envelope reducing development capacity and hur�ng feasibility
• What happened to ﬂoor area?
• Think of open space rela�onship with height
• Developer should not solve problems for the City.
• State appears to be requiring housing everywhere.
• Before modifying R3 standards how will this be captures and ensure the infrastructure can sustain the growth.
• OK to mix building heights
• Really like balconies (no "facade in your face")
• San Antonio Center is horriﬁc
• California Street at former Safeway site is much beter • Balconies serve func�onal role
• If you have a space, it should be func�onal space between buildings, alleys, paths, etc., e.g., cut through blocks (2 feet may be too small)
• Don't have cut through spaces fenced oﬀ include trees in cut-through spaces Moﬀett/Whisman
• Concerns about visibility from larger buildings into neighbor's yards • Newer developments do not appear to have enough setbacks • Explore opportuni�es to increase side walk/setbacks and landscape/greenscape to so�en streetscape and beter incorporate buildings
• Concerned about canyon-eﬀect. Need to provide adequate ped/bicycle circula�on through site
• Crea�ng a sense of community beneﬁt: trees, landscaping, pedestrian pathways, setbacks
• Have step back requirements so that buildings aren't looming over public ROW/neighboring proper�es.
• Maintain viewsheds
• Prefer staggered heights adjacent to single-story buildings • Prefer seeing lower height limits, with higher heights farther from the single-story.

Break up facade along building length
• Don't like modern architectural styles
• Need to deploy all transi�on standards to R1 and R2, such as heights, landscaping, and setbacks
• Concern about architectural style an massing - blocky, "Minecra�" (ex. Moﬀet + Middleﬁeld) prefer Italian Villa style?
• All of the above: setbacks, stepbacks. Concern about shading from larger buildings • Building code issue: dual-staircase mandate
• Too steep (45 degrees) may want to consider 30 degrees or less with transi�ons • Hard to keep privacy around tall homes and buildings. • Is it possible for those on lower sites to have higher fences for privacy? • Allowing higher fences can help with privacy.
• Interest in ar�cula�on "light and airy" as transi�onal tool • Concerns around transi�ons in height and loss of light adjacent to SF areas • Setbacks and tree canopies, good for new development. Setbacks that can allow trees.

San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio
• Transi�on is important. Should not be about height, but also style (architectural compa�bility)
• More greenery between buildings is important
• Good idea to have taller or denser buildings facing SA and ECR, not California Ave • Avoid parking on the ﬁrst ﬂoor as it creates dead space. Consider alterna�ves, such as underground parking. Addi�onally, ensure parking is suﬃcient to prevent spillover. • Higher density on California could be appropriate.
• Keep buildings of similar sizes together in neighborhoods. • Block style may be appropriate for Ortega. 4+ stories on ECR or SA only. • Discourage big, blocky buildings. Emphasize setbacks, landscaping, tree plan�ngs, privacy, light (speciﬁcally around Latham).
• Consider design standards that create design ar�cula�on, especially for block scale • Traﬃc calming on California Drive is important with added density. • To provide more housing, height is the solu�on.
• Height is ok with appropriate transi�ons to allow for light. • Setbacks and landscaping are helpful
• Setbacks at higher ﬂoors can decrease appearance of height • No increase in height won't solve displacement naturally aﬀordable housing • Transi�ons should be sensi�ve to all adjacent proper�es regardless of housing type or current zone
• Crossings at Mountain View - comments on transi�ons using diﬀerent building types to step down to neighboring development
• Interest in maintaining heights, not stepping down in height but using landscape, etc. to transi�on.
• Concern that mature screening takes �me to develop
• Interest in design ways to adjust building scale e.g. arcades, good architecture • Landscape buﬀers and some transi�on element are preferred. • Restric�ng development on a said parcel because of adjacency to a low scale development (for e.g. SFR) is not advisable. What if the SFR gets redevelop in future. • E.g. Look at new buildings at California /San Antonio for good examples. • E.g. slanted roof vs not slanted roof adjacent to each other doesn't like. • Pro half stories but with cohesive development features ﬁ�ng into the neighborhood. • Look at ways to provide privacy maybe landscape.. Be mindful of the adjacent standards and keep step backs in mind.

Central Neighborhoods
• Prac�ces are generally good architecture, seem like good ideas. • Good way to transi�on R3 to single family.
• If the builder decides to take advantage of density bonus, any of these building will be permited up to 2 addi�onal stories, which will not be compa�ble with R1. • In some cases we seem to be favoring the builder instead of the community. • Maximum sizes of facade length is beneﬁcial.
• Concern where building follows zoning rules but garages can go to PL, which can impact trees.
• Concern for upper ﬂoor balcony privacy impacts.
• Older 1-2 story homes should not hold the City hostage from growing. • Density and height should be allowed more on Castro St • Transi�ons are important between older, exis�ng homes and new construc�on. • Downtown has nice transi�ons with parks: Eagle, Pioneer Park that would be a good transi�on next to block scale housing. Park space from developers would be a helpful transi�on/buﬀer next to neighborhood buildings.
• Transi�ons not so necessary along major streets like Shoreline. • High quality open spaces help decrease the impact of density. • Higher ﬂoors stepped back from the lower ﬂoors so the height is not as no�ceable. • In bad example architectural character does not match, not desirable • Important to look at setbacks from the front and the side • Diﬃcult to get Mountain View developers to create good buildings - standards are important to create that are required, not guidelines
• View street project next to post oﬃce is a good example • Look for transi�ons - top ﬂoor stepbacks, balconies/other elements to transi�on in scale • Consider light planes to establish side yard setbacks, allowances for side yard and rear yard landscaping
• Trees should be sized and have space to get to a reasonable size • Landscaping not enough for privacy
• Does not support imagery. Doesn't do enough for transi�ons • Make developers install more mature trees to ensure appropriate screening • Need greater sensi�vity for transi�ons. Three-stories not appropriate next to single-story home. Have gradual transi�on from two to three-stories. • Really think of neighborhood compa�bility
• Architectural styles should be consistent (Victorians next to contemporary boxes are odd)
• My neighborhood has mul�ple "boxes" and people should be able to choose their own style; it's just Mountain View
• Should priori�ze transi�ons/tapering - where there is an adjacency (ex: taller on Central but shorter closer to other sites)
• Want to see more architectural consistency
• Privacy and scale is important (tall buildings cas�ng shadows is concerning) • Solar access is important so tapering is important to preserve a property owner's right to install solar panels
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis
• Wouldn't be enough of a change. Would like to see less potential for discrepancies in height
• Would be okay with taller buildings in the appropriate areas (ex. ECR), should transition down lower as you get to lower density zones
• Screening is needed when adjacent to R1 or lower density development • Do not see any design details that speak to privacy/windows of taller developments • Volume of people is a primary issue, not necessarily the physical building structure. • Feels the transitions are generally good.
• Horizontal setbacks help
• Front setbacks with yard/green buffer helps reduce visual scale • Avoid blocky designs
• Concerned about the shadow impacts of taller buildings on adjacent R1 properties. • Tall skinny floor plans are not suitable for seniors in larger apartment building. • Encourage single story housing to make it accessible to larger group of people. • Parking and pedestrian connection concerns especially on Bonita opening into to ECR. • Larger setbacks are encouraged. More landscape buffers and pedestrian infrastructure to make it more attractive.
• F&W building (Cascal Restaurants) on Castro street is a great example of additional setbacks and stepbacks. Additional space
• ECR appears to be an alley with more high density housing. • In residential projects we need good architecture, good material and site plan design for a great project. But we don't see that in recent newer developments. • Transition in height important, but also transition in style • Architectural style important for neighborhood compatibility (i.e. use of similar roof lines)
• Consider architectural styles when designing new construction. Should be similar to adjacent neighbors
• Privacy important in transitions
• Break up the third floor roof lines. Have partial third floors. Prefers 50% or less • larger building forms are not very attractive. Buildings near Castro/ECR do a good job of differentiating with paint, texture, setbacks, etc.
• Other projects have less interest and less articulation to make the projects appear less big.
• Concerns about privacy when larger buildings are adjacent to smaller buildings • Likes idea of stepbacks where buildings exceed 3 stories • Strongly against tall buildings next to single-family homes. • Would like greater setbacks. should have more space between small, single-family home and high-rise. Shouldn't block the sun.
• Provide parks or neighborhood commercial between high-rises and single-family homes. • Likes bottom right example with balconies and patios. • Concerned with additional residential units causing impacts to traffic on El Camino Real. • Concerned there will be more noise.
• Should look at alternative forms of transportation. disagrees with minimum parking requirements.
• Supports making sure park in-lieu fees are adequate to support parks and schools Grant/Sylvan Park
• check mark photo
a) Really like the transi�on between the SF home and the mul�unit building • Botom right
a) Ok if styles "match" exis�ng adjacent buildings
• Having tall buildings require large setbacks, this can help to avoid shadows by living next to these tall buildings
• Consider the space between buildings is more important than regula�ng the scale of them. In these voids you can create Paseos
• I don't think exis�ng SF homes should be a concern for the upcoming changes considering larger building footprints
• Things change, we need to adapt to what is needed
• Is very sad to see the homeless situa�on, we need more housing • Top strategy:
2 votes for this version, this can give us the max allowed buildable livable space Ok with pushing back en�re length of building
• Botom strategy:

We need to be aware we are in Mountain View, Ca and not in Montana with large green spaces
• Changes in heights give an interes�ng skyline
• Block scale might be appropriate next to the freeway
• Concern about sightlines - desire to see the ridge of the mountains • (example) New Chevron at Grant and ECR - roof over pumps is much higher than across the street and cuts through the view of ridgeline through the hills. Where possible, consider preserving views.
• Some�mes tall buildings have less of a visual impact than an�cipated. Perhaps views are not a compelling reason to restrict development.
• Wonder if TDRs could be used in the R3 zoning. Not sure how much control City has when reviewing addi�onal densi�es on top of what's proposed here as part of the State Density Bonus law.
• May be taller heights along ECR. But generally proposed development scale should complement the exis�ng neighborhood scale.

Monta Loma/Farley/Rock
• Want mature trees to be planted on day one
• Step-backs for addi�onal heights; break-up with balconies and porches • Break up super blocks with pedestrian walkways (Rock and MF - HOA blocked pedestrian accessway)
• Increase height is ok tradeoﬀ IF you can get the appropriate setback or open space • Fan of architectural arcades on busier streets and means to provide more protected pedestrian zones.
• Strongly support improved/expanded bikeways.
• Want more setbacks and green space/tree canopy next to sidewalks. • Should think about streetscape design from a traﬃc calming perspec�ve and improved bikeways.
• Project is rare chance to add park space.
• Want to transi�on to detached sidewalks (with landscape strips between road and sidewalk), helps to avoid grade issues with driveway aprons.

• More exis�ng areas aren't terribly walkable, but who's going to use if there's nowhere to go to.
• Think about loca�ons where roads could be closed or reduced, allowing improved pedestrian access, open space or (poten�ally) expanded development area. • Need wider sidewalks
• Try to ﬁgure out how things integrate with exis�ng.
• Preference: Street trees at sidewalk. Landscaping with low-intensity water. Narrower ok as long as there's a tree in front. Improves neighborhood • Street tree ordinance for higher density zoning. Not just R1. Trees good. Should be on house side, not street side
• Concerned with maintenance for landscaping/parkways
• Separa�ng sidewalks may not be a good idea
• Permeable surface to capture runoﬀ
• Maintenance may be easier if done with development, not public improvements. • Should be on building side
• Make facade of building more interes�ng. Porches and balconies. Not monolithic building. Frontage types important.
• Building's close to sidewalk are nice and interes�ng. Small setbacks could work as long as there are also trees.
• Encourage bay windows and balconies on buildings
• Take into account it is a unique community in close proximity to exis�ng infrastructure . google campus, Caltrain. How do we get people around, safely and eﬃciently. • Developers should not have to pay for development ameni�es and improvement. • Include trees
• Require greenery between sidewalk and building
• Make places invi�ng and where people want to live
• Like the image with grass and greenery between the porch and sidewalk (less in�mida�ng)
• Architecture is very important
• In MV, we hit a high point with park place (walkability through project) • Now there are some gated developments
• Like pedestrian walkways through developments (helps share informa�on) • Impressed with park space with buildings around it, fosters community and mee�ng spaces
• Buildings are not architecturally interes�ng, looks like a hospital or ins�tu�on • Buildings can create a feeling - help make things open and invi�ng • Make sure that a place is really nice to encourage people to take care of it • Llike the park
• Escondido on Stanford campus also not good, similar, but like the tree and green space • Purpose of Monta Loma neighborhood was to create inexpensive small houses - can we keep doing that?
• Individuality of buildings is important
• No more stories
• OK with more stories, but not blocky
• Loca�on of stories is important about where (not surrounded by small buildings) Moﬀett/Whisman
• Would like wide enough sidewalks (6-8', especially on Moﬀet and Whisman) and landscape buﬀers from roadway
• Maintaining exis�ng mature tree canopy is just as important as new plan�ngs • Want sidewalks where two people can walk side-by-side • Moﬀet should have sidewalks that are walkable like Downtown • Front-facing entries/stoops helpful
• On-street parking a concern as a byproduct of street-facing entries • Doors/windows facing street make it seem more residen�al, interes�ng, walkable • Livable, walkable urban environment. Commercial retail s�ll important to have • Urban greenspace is important for urban cooling
• U�lizing na�ve/drought tolerant species
• Urban greenspace more important than parks in terms of access and equability. • City should look into providing larger parks rather than smaller parks • Make larger sidewalks and setbacks for increased pedestrian ac�vity • Bigger-widths and bike lanes
• Disagree with taller height for public space. Need more parks, but inappropriate adjacent to R1 and R2
• Open space for a taller building does not make sense in the neighborhood except Fairchild. No to 5-stories. Yes to 4-stories
• There should be a greater investment in landscaping and how the building will look. • Projects are beter accepted when they look beter.
• Are stoops being used? Is there something beter that can be done other than a wall with windows?
• Can there be landscaping done which aids in privacy?
• Support for street trees but concerns about drought-tolerant landscaping and species • Interest in frontages, concerns about lack of at-grade entries that are universally accessible
• Desire to think about public improvements in the context of a precise/general plan that can more comprehensively look at this topic
• Likes the idea of new open space
• New open space can serve as a transi�on between taller buildings and sf homes • Accessibility and lower-parking req. to make this possible. Height incen�ve. Dictate where open space is required - it can help with required transi�ons.

San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio
• Underground parking can be beneﬁcial. A lack of parking is a downside. Consider more podiums or UG parking to oﬀset surface parking for commercial uses. Consolidate exis�ng parking into garages to allow for more development opportuni�es on lots with surface parking.
• Concerned about trees disrup�ng the sidewalks. For future planning please plan for deep rooted trees to avoid this impact.
• Pedestrian access and circula�on: sign poles should be planned to ensure safe passage and use of the sidewalks.
• Higher stories near ECR and create more park space as part of the development • It is key that new development blends in the neighborhood • New construc�on near 237 looks appropriate
• Subterranean parking could be key to other improvements such as open space. Support below grade parking in newer developments.

Central Neighborhoods
• Prefer any plan that provides sidewalk and trees that separate sidewalk from the street. • Accessibility has to be addressed in the standards.
• Regula�ons should prohibit parking at the ﬁrst ﬂoor
• If the market says there is a need for taller housing, it should be an op�on • Not opposed to the provision in zoning to allow this. • Prior examples have been disappoin�ng (San Antonio Phase 2 and The Dean). The designs have been too bulky and the open spaces are not compelling. The spaces seem contrived and not an urban place for gathering/people watching. the dog park at San Antonio is eﬀec�ve.
• Form factor needs to be taken into considera�on. MV is a prety small city, so large buildings (like right example) seem out of place.
• Need trees on one side of sidewalk to protect from cars and street noise. • In favor of trees and landscaping in front of the building. • In favor of connec�vity for a walkable path network.
• Trees in parkways near the street help with shade and posi�ve walking experience. • How can we address exis�ng buildings that are providing bad frontage - how can these improve if they are not going to redevelop?
• Public open space should be truly public
• Projects should not be allowed to provide in-lieu fees instead of an amenity (like open space) in exchange for addi�onal height.
• Good to have addi�onal public open, but should not be given in exchange for addi�onal height
• Make streets more walkable. Add sidewalks and landscaping for walkability. Like the four imaged on the right.
• Add more trees!
• Drought-tolerant plants
• Like small blocks and walkability in Central neighborhoods (compared to big blocks on Shoreline)
• Really like the design of Park Place Apartments; works well (+2) • Extended pedestrian access (Park Place); publicly-accessible open space should be properly labeled or signed to clarify the usability (for example, the Castro and Church Wells Fargo courtyard)
• If the park space is provided (especially for addi�onal height) the design of the space should be accessible, visible, and designed to feel like the public's space • If a space is designed to be tenant/homeowner use only, then it should not be designed to look like it's public space because it can be confusing for the general public • In support for communal space for the residents- but should be clearly designed for one (tenant/resident) or the other (general public)
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis
• Landscaping/setbacks can help provide visual buffer
• Step in the right direction
• Creating visual interest helps enliven the area and pedestrian activity • Larger setbacks for taller buildings
• Need drought tolerant planting rather than grass + wider sidewalk areas • Developers need to follow through w/well design open space • Where R3 meets R1-R2 would like to see this strategy implemented • Needs to case-by-case, project-specific
• Open to the idea
• Reasonable strategy
• Good idea. Provides an opportunity to house more people while allowing for more green space.
• Not sure it's very practical
• Relaxing the standards with this R3 update may result in a 5 story building adjacent to the R1 zoned single story building. This should be made to public during the R3 workshops.
• Provide example of where in the neighborhood can there be a development opportunity with this additional density and open space.
• Concerned about change in character, traffic, water usage etc. • Public space type benefit has to come with higher density projects. It should not be an option for developer to provide benefit elsewhere.
• Ped and bike safety should be considered with the new development and even improving existing neighborhood. More attention to ped/ bike facilities. • In general would also need other infrastructure and public transit services improvements to support density. e.g. add more shuttle bus or at increased frequency as we add more density with new projects.
• Likes porch/ stoop frontages on Camille and Bonita
• Like porches/entrances fronting the street. Picture on top right looks good • Porch should be slightly further from pathway. Maybe consider larger setback for privacy
• If no/small setback, use landscaping for privacy
• Consider setback consistency with neighborhood
• Need a big assembly of parcels to allow usable public space • Not appropriate in this neighborhood, except for Castro and El Camino (Chase location) • If allow this, must be truly publicly available. Must be visible and accessible • Additional height for public space not appropriate in residential streets • Support for bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, bike locking stations where highly visible) where new housing is proposed
• Support for improvements to streetscape, helps to soften feeling of taller buildings next to the sidewalk (Santa Clara Sq between 101 and Central, Great America) • Public square in front of city hall is a good public space example • Could work well with mixed-use amenities like coffee shops, restaurants • Support for exchanging add'l height for open space
• Would like large complexes to be publicly accessible to improve walkability. • Should keep old growth trees with great canopy
• New trees like crepe myrtles don't provide enough canopy • Doesn't want this area to look like Downtown MV
• Prefers to include minimum parking requirements and better to be underground so cars will not spill over to residential neighborhoods.
• Supports POPAs. likes open space for additional height Grant/Sylvan Park
• It is very important to consider how people get to neighborhoods, by car or bike. • Mobility is needed, wider sidewalks are great for senior people • Very concerned about narrow sidewalks, and expect people to share it. I would like to see a 3-people wide sidewalk
• Stoop design is not that appropriate for Mountain View, they are not used, the space can be beter designed.
• Eleva�on of GF level and privacy approach in regards to the sidewalk is ﬁne, but the stoop may not be the solu�on
• Ideally, green space in both sides of sidewalks and wider sidewalks • "Top Right
o a)Really like the frontage condi�on having people walking by." • "Botom Le�
o a) Great sidewalk and Frontage type ar�cula�on
o b) Green space on both sides of the sidewalk is great" • I really like this approach. Open Spaces in our communi�es are great beneﬁts • I like the ecology to be considered, so this is a great idea and people to contribute back as a community
• I like people to congregate, allow everybody to gather, or to look out • This should be a requirement regardless if addi�onal height takes place or not • I will say yes to any green space and open space, but I am not sure how the trade will work in terms of number of units. Will there be a loss? • The trade should take place to maximize the open space that is provided • Mindful about the bicycle fatality at Grant and ECR. Priori�ze ped and bike access and connec�vity around these areas.
• Public access should be provided through large projects. • One pro of the "bad" example, the ﬁnished ﬂoor is likely at adjacent grade, which will allow for strollers/bikes/wheelchairs to roll into units. • "Good" examples usually have underground parking with a basement not dug deep enough. This raises the ﬁnished ﬂoor which may impact accessibility • Bike pathways are lacking in MV. At Amy Imai, children have to ride bike through driveway.
• Access to Stevens Creek Trail should be improved
• Underground parking can be beneﬁcial. A lack of parking is a downside. Consider more podiums or UG parking to oﬀset surface parking for commercial uses. Consolidate exis�ng parking into garages to allow for more development opportuni�es on lots with surface parking.
• Concerned about trees disrup�ng the sidewalks. For future planning please plan for deep rooted trees to avoid this impact.
• Pedestrian access and circula�on: sign poles should be planned to ensure safe passage and use of the sidewalks.
• Higher stories near ECR and create more park space as part of the development • It is key that new development blends in the neighborhood • New construc�on near 237 looks appropriate
• Subterranean parking could be key to other improvements such as open space. Support below grade parking in newer developments.

Monta Loma/Farley/Rock
• Places that do not have commercial (ex: Sierra Vista corridor) probably should not have commercial; would change the look and feel
• Interest in seeing more park space than commercial
• Depends on type of commercial (wine bar is diﬀerent than a retail store) • All for small commercial uses in residen�al areas.
• Important to have walkable retail. We have density, but poor retail. • Concerned with adding non-walkable retail, or in loca�ons where parking is challenging.

Want to hear more about how this would be implemented.
• Fan of small neighborhood shops that serve nearby residents who wouldn't need/want to park there, and should not have parking.
• Concept of garage businesses and home businesses seem like opportuni�es - could look at more holis�cally. Envision these as small, community-oriented shops (cafes, corner markets, etc.).
• Need more variety, not just big retail. Walkable and accessible to range of income levels.

Need to support small businesses.
• Supports more commercial
• Mixed-use development with a 5 + 1 model can improve walkability and make communi�es more livable.
• Zoning uses should be expanded
• Retail is a good experience.
• Bodegas, bakeries, coﬀee shops. Or daycare centers would be great if regula�on allows. • Commercial allowed, but not required to allow neighborhood corners. • No commercial if at expense of housing
• Be careful of a�er hours noise. Everything should be allowed (professional service/medical/consul�ng/retail)
• Two areas R-3 by Safeway and another site by google x campus, Put R zone in that area.

In Safeway parcel, you can put open space in that area.

• Exis�ng retail op�ons available are good. Preserve the grocery store and the limited traﬃc.
• Requirements can be more general allowing in all areas or some areas in the R-3 to allow commercial.
• The whole neighborhood should stay residen�al.
• Apartment at Whitney and Marshall. that are may accommodate more development • Monta Loma area has commercial uses that work for the neighborhood. • Concern that it would be infeasible, would like some variety and mixed-use • If you have a neighborhood where there isn't anything in walking distance - coﬀee, bagels, juice, etc. could be successful
• Would deﬁnitely want something nearby or downstairs
• Need to allow it ﬁrst, give it a chance to grow
• Tie together with func�onal pedestrian connec�ons
• Overlap with the Economic Vitality Strategy - provide incen�ves/partnerships • Small businesses may be more expensive
• Starbucks in Safeway near Stanford has trees, landscaping, and is atrac�ve and comfortable
Moﬀett/Whisman
• Want to preserve small commercial uses and add to the inventory of small business tenant spaces (e.g. small business lease protec�ons)
• Good loca�ons for small retail: Central and Moﬀet
• Maintain retail at the shopping center (Cypress/Moﬀet t-intersec�on) • Interest in keeping speciﬁc businesses (types of retail/services like bike shops) • Neighborhood serving commercial is always nice to have • Grocery op�ons are important and help foster community engagement • Ground-ﬂoor commercial/retail can be great IF it's in the right loca�on • Likes small neighborhood commercial uses
• Makes neighborhoods more walkable. Improves traﬃc if clustered in neighborhoods • Exis�ng commercial areas (Leong) help walkability. Would be nice to have more • Should have accessible restrooms available to the public • If adding density, supports coﬀee shop/commercial areas • Businesses should be targeted to neighborhood to address parking issues. Don't build parking for the commercial uses.
• Make commercial uses atrac�ve. Not like old strip malls on Leong. • Suppor�ve of having more commercial integra�on throughout community. Will need to be accompanied by density to support commercial business. • Suppor�ve of integra�ng more grocery stores throughout. • No as many commercials businesses as some would like to see. • Interest in small-scaled retail opportuni�es that can func�on as main-street services for neighborhoods that are walkable
• Concern that standards that require retail will result in vacant or underu�lized spaces • Likes for the idea of mixed-use everywhere
• Support for retail/services but not at the expense of housing • Retail/services can be designed with space for outdoor sea�ng & gathering • Behind grocery outlet on Alma in PA - park with tables is good precedent • Could let on-street parking be removed to make space for wider sidewalks, public space in select loca�ons
• Concerns about limited parking and situa�ons where retail/services will increase parking demand and make it diﬃcult to park
• Ok with housing above + retail ground ﬂoor. Along major roads. Mom and pop shops.

Retail can be diﬃcult to deal with - idea to get retail in the middle and allow ﬂexible uses for start up. Mixed-use with retail-oﬃce-res in Palo Alto (Middleﬁeld and El Camino).

Commercial along open spaces- and tables. Widening sidewalks.

San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio
• Small scale, connected retail could facilitate walkability. • Empty retail spaces would not be beneﬁcial. Adding new retail spaces will not necessarily generate more demand.
• We have a large commercial area between Ortega and San Antonio (SAPP). There may not be need for retail around San Antonio, but it could be beneﬁcial in certain areas around ECR and California.
• Reasonable to allow, but not require, neighborhood-scale retail. Uses should be compa�ble with residen�al uses.
• Support for a bike shop and uses for youth.
• Consider how retail/cafe spaces can be "cute", invi�ng, gathering spaces. Consider indoor/outdoor spaces.
• Le� op�on is friendly, warm, welcoming. Right may be too modern. • Should not be picky about select loca�ons. small retail, barbershop, should be allowed anywhere in the neighborhoods.
• Increasing density allows opportuni�es to allow small commercial. • Developers may need to subsidize small commercial at ﬁrst. • Small commercial shouldn't have parking minimums and be allowed to build to sidewalk • Retail should be a requirement within R3 so there are places to walk to. • Parking could be provided underground.
• Commercial in block scale makes sense.
• Commercial in smaller neighborhoods might cause infrastructure issues. • San Antonio and El Camino should include retail with the residen�al. • Could be in neighborhoods but be careful of parking issues or other nega�ve impacts. • Smaller stores selling food are a beneﬁt limit food deserts and make food more accessible to residents. "food distribu�on" concern over alcohol more of these are not needed in neighborhoods.
• Some support to allow this everywhere and let builders choose to put this in. • Some support for mixed-use; don't want separate buildings for commercial • Interest in community space (mee�ngs, events) incorporated into buildings. • Supermarkets are limited and providing addi�onal opportuni�es for food businesses in the neighborhood are beneﬁcial. Other services (coﬀee shops, dry cleaners, etc.) • Could set a maximum size (footprint) for ground ﬂoor development e.g. "no more than 5%"
• Density of diverse places to go to is preferred. For e.g. book store, cafe etc. which are at human scale and small businesses like avas downtown.
• Mul�ple shops next to each other would be good with colloca�on. • In favor of small commercial uses. Should be locally focused. allowing small commercial at reduced parking. Placing commercial in areas that are walkable. Move away from only allowing commercial in El Camino
• Be ﬂexible, do not mandate commercial but allow it. if the developer wants. • Some building may be more amendable to commercial. Commercial is okay, if not at the loss of housing.
• Allow commercial and incen�vize commercial in return for possibility more units.

Central Neighborhoods
• Support neighborhood serving and not venture capitalist office space. Consider rent affordability for small businesses.
• Calderon and Church, California and Mariposa
• Bike shops displaced due to affordability
• Number one use case in convenience stores to eliminate unneeded car trips to grocery store
• Small cafes like in Paris would be good.
• Nice to have corner, neighborhood commercial uses that can be walkable in the neighborhood.
• Supportive of neighborhood commercial that is walkable in the neighborhood. • Likes idea of small commercial uses. Brings more services to people. • Place in heavily trafficked streets (Escuela, California) • Ground floor retail would be good concept
• What's the city's control about what type of use goes into these retail spaces? If limited control, then would tread cautiously about locating commercial • Neighborhood uses (cafes, corner stores)
• Love small commercial (Church and Calderon); would want them to close by 8pm • Would like empanada store or tailor but not an auto body or gun shop • California and Shoreline should have more commercial because having an activity center adds to community/public communal spaces
• Rowhomes + retail work better together than multi-family • No offices/industrial
• Smaller tenant spaces to encourage small tenants
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis
• Does not fit in this neighborhood. Good Density provided by existing shopping centers at the corners. Distributing the businesses in stand alone buildings would not be a good reason and would not survive.
• Not sure how these commercial spaces can be affordable in a neighborhood like this.

Provide us/ council some images on how can this idea work. • Loss of existing shopping center in the area would be a huge loss. • Not next door to existing residential streets
• Appropriate on El Camino
• Ok with small commercial uses.
• Keep vehicular access for alleys
• Concern about infrastructure, water, PG&E, etc. and impact of new development • Support for ground floor retail providing services to the neighborhood • Castro/Miramonte would be a great location for neighborhood commercial • Would like ground floor retail as part of residential developments. • Would like ground floor retail in exchange for greater height. • Ground floor restaurants or coffee shop.
• Need more large grocery stores to support the additional residential • Large 5-6 story developments should include ground floor retail or grocery markets • City should plan ahead to make sure enough public facilities like schools, parks, police/fire for additional population
Grant/Sylvan Park
• Yes! Very much. This brings more walkable opportuni�es to the community. Easy access to services is great.
• Loca�ons? Slightly oﬀ El Camino (South) at Grape St
• If there is enough housing to support small business, this idea is great. • It will be great if this approach comes along with sea�ng areas/open space like in the right picture
• I really like the idea of having small-locally-owned businesses • Uses should take into considera�on local businesses, like tailors, musicians, shoe repairs.

Unfortunately, anything that can pay rent a space here is Starbucks, Walgreens, etc. • Diversity in business is needed
• Perks for increased density is a plus
• Boba shop!
• Increased ﬂexibility to allow ground ﬂoor retail would be beneﬁcial. There should be fewer roadblocks (such as parking). Parking may not be needed if there are supposed to be walkable.
• Allow opportuni�es to arise for small business owners. • Rowhomes have inward facing garages. Perhaps these garages could be converted into storefronts if residents desired.
• If we are require larger (higher story or block buildings), the commercial spaces should be aﬀordable for businesses as well as residents.
• Distributed retail that residents can access could help. • Higher densi�es along with commercial would be a good combina�on. • May require lower parking ra�o near commercial.
• Such retail/ commercial could be envisioned along ECR but diﬃcult to envision in other SFR neighborhoods.
• Such retail/ commercial could be seen in Sylvan Park neighborhood with a coﬀee shop could work.

Monta Loma/Farley/Rock
• Sierra Vista/Farley - no commercial- would not want addi�onal height in these areas • Railroad tracks are a big barrier; Rengstorﬀ is a dangerous crossing (grade separa�on could help); San Antonio overpass has no provisions for ped/bike; no sidewalks or bike lanes
• Higher density is most appropriate closer to Caltrain. • Favor 2022 approach; it's more what this area could support, but want buildings to be done well.

• Big fan of form-based zoning style, and density/height bonus for providing commercial in commercial deﬁcient areas.
• Like 2022 approach - seems very reasonable.
• Disappointed there's no op�ons for 4-stories. Does not give much variability or increase overall density. W. Middleﬁeld, Rengstorﬀ, near Old Middleﬁeld could be 4-stories. More poten�al near 101.
• Focused development opportuni�es missed in new map (Shoreline, Middleﬁeld, Rengstorﬀ, Wright Ave, and 101). Interior parts of zone don't need to be denser • 2022 Map missed opportuni�es
• Needs to be expansion of R3-C Block Scale
• Central could also have R3-C, plus other street listed above. • Southeast corner along Shoreline and northern parts of 101 should be larger density. • Prefer old map
• Light pink between Farley and Rengstorﬀ already townhomes, but ﬁnd 2022 map makes no changes
• Upzone R1 +R2
• Rengstorﬀ and Central Expressway should be upzoned and mixed-use • Take into considera�on people are making minimum wage and there is a need for housing. However, taking buildings that are older and less dense, become bigger more luxurious apartments that become unaﬀordable (been displaced 2 �mes in 15 years).

Think about the vulnerable popula�ons.
• Priori�ze ped and bike users everywhere
• Agree that anything we can do to encourage walking and biking is good • Make it accessible to people who are more limited in mobility • Good to restrict cars from traveling through on some streets • Consider 1-story duplexes or 4-plexes (more dense, aﬀordable) - maybe in R1? • Keep small houses as inexpensive litle bungalows
• But now they aren't aﬀordable anymore
• Push back against maximizing developer proﬁt
• Make sure to consider quality of life

Moﬀett/Whisman
• Moﬀet is a good place for density (walkable to downtown); concern that the unilateral reduc�on in height/density does not consider areas that could support density/not near R1 zones
• Supports 2022 approach appears to accommodate exis�ng neighborhoods • There should be a smaller house scale in R3
• Moﬀet/Middleﬁeld increased density will increase traﬃc problem • More intensity near Caltrain sta�on
• 2022 Map is an improvement. If can't get rid of three-story, use other transi�ons to reduce impact on R1 and R2
• If Moﬀet Precise Plan moving forward, good to include other R3 in that • Low density apartments next to single story home, should match heights in zoning • Parts closest to public transporta�on can have as much density as possible. • Diﬃcult to know what zoning to follow due to the vast diﬀerent types of buildings next to each other.
• There are areas that might be able to sustain a higher density than what is being men�oned.
• Centralizing access points.
• Is there a beter map to compliment the East Whisman area? • Not enough being done to support businesses.
• Wonder if there could be (more) R3-C closer to transit • Areas adjacent to R1/R2 e.g. Walker Drive that back onto the park could be good opportuni�es for addi�onal height; on the S. side transi�ons would be important to transi�on to lower intensity
• Could consider more intensity to accommodate fair housing condi�ons in this neighborhood
• Could consider addi�onal intensity around Easy Street in vicinity of Creekside Park • Like map 2022- worry about density bonuses. R3 zoning should have more precise plans for carefully placed tall buildings.

San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio
• Example of mixed use like the crossings is a good example, incudes a salon, boba shop and pastry shop with the residen�al use.
• Scatering small commercial throughout R3 would be good • Would be nice if the Hetch Hetchy pass could be more useable like with a bike path • Interest in restric�ng addi�onal intensity to San Antonio and El Camino Real • Support for the 2020 map, more R3-D, less in way of speciﬁcs • R3-D would be good to have.
• A mixture of 2020 and 2022 may be the best approach.
• Allow higher density along mass transit and accommodate a middle point vision. • Not a fan of the block scale. may not ﬁt

Central Neighborhoods
• Why did the Evelyn block drop to large house scale?
• wish there was more R3 in the neighborhood and close to transit. Frequent Caltrain stop nearby. Especially near Castro and California. A lot of retail on Castro that would benefit from more housing.

• would like to see more R1 zones rezoned to R3 or medium density. • put block housing R3C along central expwy along the Caltrain line. • Area between Shoreline and Castro should include more density. close proximity to Caltrain so it is walkable
• Mariposa Ave could have larger scale buildings rather than medium • large buildings ok along large streets like Shoreline. • Please clarify parcel at corner of Castro Street and Church Street - is this included in R-3 or is this part of the El Camino Precise Plan?
• Concerned with density bonus and allowing additional stories • concern about scale between housing; wants transitions flow so that you don't have a 5- story unit next to a single-story
• likes rowhomes because the form (small block width) seems to fit single-family neighborhoods
• Area by Central Exp. would make the most sense as denser; why did it drop from R3-C to R3-B?
• Calderon/237 should be R3-C because they are already larger block scale (look like rowhomes) so reducing it to R3-B seems like it would be changing the current character • likes that density has gone down because it is abutting the Creek Trail (perhaps height could be higher to street but not affect wildlife and walkability of the trail) • bird-safe glass

Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis
• Not clear on what is the rationale for application of R3-A and R3-B. • Minor setbacks may not mean much when a developer comes in with a State Density Bonus project adding additional height on top of 3 stories allowed under R3. • Like 2022 Approach on Boranda
• Prefer scaled back approach in 2022 vs 2020
• Boranda should not have larger densities

• Chase location can be mixed-use
• Would prefer to avoid additional intensity in the R3
• If there are opportunities to improve on the current R3 zoning, support it (e.g. privacy, setbacks, etc.)
• Concern about displacement impacts of redevelopment
• More open space would be good for a better ecosystem- and people will appreciate the nature
• Would like to see Blossom Hill center be a residential R3 option. Miramonte/Castro as well.

Grant/Sylvan Park
• Nob Hill (El Camino and Grand), not included in the R3 update • Areas appropriate for higher density can be Downtown, but do not see this happening in this neighborhood. This leads to more traﬃc, crime, etc. • Clariﬁca�on: R1 and R2 (Conversion of SF homes) not part of the R3 update • R3 proper�es right next to the Stevens Creek trail - connec�vity should be priori�zed. • If we can get the parking, trails, parks, etc. we need, more density might be a good tradeoﬀ (or bonus)
• Can the roads be expanded to relive traﬃc concerns from addi�onal units being added with this update.
• R3-A with commercial incorporated in the area near best buy (exis�ng Americana Apartments) would be appropriate.

Final Ques�ons:

Monta Loma/Farley/Rock Street
• PCT should be priori�zed and built out further. PCT connec�on to area north of Old Middleﬁeld doesn't hook up correctly; really scary next to cars ramping onto 101. Colony Dr. might be beter/alternate pathway. Big fan of form based zoning.

• More safe bike paths N-S and along Central and access to Downtown. Don't support POPAs - need access to large open spaces with fewer limita�ons on public access. • Bike lanes are lower priority; fewer people bike vs. drive. Density should not create eﬀec�ve freeways on large roads.
• Parking: Survey exis�ng proper�es and see how many are used. New R3 should then be less than that. Mandate enough parking or less. Societal trends are showing fewer cars per adult.
• Con�nue working on safe pedestrian and bicycle routes. Improve access. Have cut- through paths publicly accessible throughout developments • Should not be gated communi�es, especially block scale developments • Zoning Code should have secure bike parking
• Pedestrians and bicyclists should be priori�zed
• Reduced automobile use should result in increased shutle routes • Should be ﬂexible with parking requirements. Don't build it if you don't need it • Oﬀer unbundled parking spaces
• Shortage of public spaces for people to meet. Allow public community room in new development. Incen�ves for public indoor space or makers space. • Reduce some streets to two lanes and make lineal park, especially if there's litle traﬃc. • Purchase vacant lots for new open space.
• City should build more small parks
• More open space and not so many windows as they decrease privacy. Create more open space within the denser projects.. Think about seniors, think about children, and families.
• Where is the R3 process (should be highlighted to help people make beter comments)? • Not convinced the city has looked into the en�re plan and input that is missing. New stock housing that comes in will likely be more expensive. • No comments on the infrastructure needs
• What to do for displacement, open space, walkable access.

Moﬀett/Whisman
• Having bike boulevards are a wonderful thing. Having a connected network of bike boulevards is a community beneﬁt. City should start thinking of new/addi�onal connec�on points
• Bike friendly environments
• In favor of higher density than what we have with aﬀordable units incorporated. • Architecture on Whisman, Fairchild, and Evandale are good examples of atrac�ve facades. Break up block
• Incorporate common open space. Makes it more atrac�ve • Commercial uses appropriate at higher-density traﬃc corridors (Middleﬁeld, Whisman, Fairchild. Not Tyrella)
• Buildings should blend in the Quads (Google Campus) or be a Mediterranean architecture
• Higher-stories/densi�es at Caltrain sta�ons to promote use of transit. • Appreciate public input is being gathered.
• Support for small neighborhood serving commercial where they currently are and are surviving, should be clustered
• Priori�ze ped and bike users along and around Moﬀet Boulevard, also on Middleﬁeld crossing 85 where sidewalk is on only 1 side
• Support for the new map, concerns about density bonuses, could there be more precise planning to make sure that neighborhood is context sensi�ve and well-designed • Make sure transi�ons/thoughts are considered between R-3 and surrounding R-1/R-2 areas, want to make sure that addi�onal intensity can be allowed when adjacencies are not an issue.

San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio
• Some support for the 2022 map
• Some support for the 2020 map, concerns about aesthe�cs, look of buildings • Interes�ng examples of beter architecture in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, are there opportuni�es for beter architectural design in Mountain View? • Should pursue both quan�ty and quality
• Can parking requirements be changed? future development paterns may be able to reduce parking requirements
• Would like transit to come where people live - beter rela�onship between housing and transit, city can also do something that is independent of VTA • Parking requirements have an impact on aﬀordability
• 2020 map seemed more granular and had R3-D op�on. priori�ze pedestrian and bike improvements throughout but with special focus on these as transporta�on to get to places and go around in the area.
• SA PP parking lots between developments such as Walmart, traders Joe, kohls are not pedestrian friendly.
• Would be beter if City could own some of the commercial uses and control programming of the area and uses.

Central Neighborhoods
• Concerns about new developments creating off-street parking demand and requirements not in place to ban vehicle registration in places where development has been allowed with low/no parking requirement
• Parking should be undergrounded.
• Doesn't like the job-housing balance
• MV should do more to limit job growth
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis
• Like existing Ped and Bike access to parks and schools • Ped/Bike access to Nob Hill should be improved
• People need to bike on sidewalks. Bike safety needs to be improved • Worried about 1 space/unit. Want sufficient parking on-site. Developments need more than 1 parking space/unit. Should be closer to 2 parking space/unit • Does not support more parking on streets.
• Likes underground parking
• Concerned with impacts to schools and other infrastructure • Concerns about infrastructure capacity and the needs that new development may create, how it will be paid for
Grant/Sylvan Park
• Pros to not requiring or requiring reduced parking might include: fewer cars as density increases, reduce cost of units
• Need to consider spillover parking to the street and parking needs of residents and visitors.
• If street parking is not free, spillover parking may be reduced. This would allow visitors to pay metered parking.
• Per census 10% of MV households are already car-free
• However, transporta�on infrastructure needs to be improved to facilitate transit oriented development. The City needs to provide viable alterna�ves to driving before making driving more diﬃcult.
• In general more housing and a variety of housing op�ons should be encouraged.

Encourage mul�-family, smaller units, higher density
• Sustainability should be considered in new developments and R3 • More people should be able to live in Mountain View in modern, comfortable buildings.

Anything else is "small potatoes"
• Architectural design should be priori�zed

Central Neighborhoods – 2020 and 2022 R3 Maps

Numbered Map Comments

1. R3C would be compa�ble here because of scale of Hwy 85 (Agree: 2)

2. Just a note that the only outlet of this property is Mercy Street and Mercy is (at present) not well designed for the speeding cars that o�en go back and forth. I support increased density here (would even support R3-B), but only if it comes with upgrades to pedestrian crossings, protected bike/scooter, etc.

3. This can and should be R3-C. Close to Stevens Creek Trail, close to Caltrain and light rail, easy access to 85 and other places via Evelyn. Evelyn and Calderon both need upgrades for pedestrian and bike/scooter safety, but this loca�on needs to be R3-C. (Agree: 1)

4. There's a city owned "park" at the end of Eldora that should be rezoned R3-A and sold.

5. Corner of Church and Calderon should be rezoned to R3-C or higher. Placing a park at this loca�on during a climate crisis is bewildering. All corners should be R3-C.

6. I like that this map has more denser, R3-B zoning near Castro street and the Caltrain sta�on. (Agree: 2)

7. All these downtown R3-Bs need to be R3-Cs. We're in a climate crisis. Crisis! These decisions last many decades. Make the hard call. (Plus, greater density will mean greater/beter ameni�es for all of us R1 homeowners.) (Agree: 1)

8. Why not have everything around this intersec�on R3-C? Close to public transit, downtown, police, ﬁre, parks - perfect for dense development.

9. These lots on the corner of Villa and Mountain View Avenue are very close to the Caltrain sta�on and downtown. They are close enough that a vehicle is not necessary. I like that this area is zoned for R3-B. Denser housing near transit is important. (Agree: 2)

10. Not suitable for R3B - these are rela�vely new small lot subdivisions

11. All blocks between Bryant and Shoreline should be R3 to encourage denser development near downtown and transit. There are several mul�-family lots in this area that if replaced should be replaced with more housing units not less.

12. 2020 maps was beter - this are should be R3A. Anything larger would require lot assembly.

13. This area should be R3-C.

14. This en�re area should be rezoned to R2 to make it consistent with state law. (Agree: 2)

15. Bordered by El Camino Real, Eagle Park, and Park Place apartments = ideal loca�on for R3-C near downtown.

16. Shoreline should be reduced from 8 lanes to 4 and the excess land should be rezoned to R3-D, including the odd thoroughfare in this block. The current layout is a waste of centrally located, high value land with proximity to downtown and public transporta�on. (Agree: 1)

17. All four corners would be suitable for small scale commercial at Mariposa and California

18. I liked that the 2020 map had R3-D zoning. Permi�ng construc�on up to 6 stories really boosts the density. Ul�mately, denser housing is needed to lower housing costs.

19. This is too intense. Like 2022 version beter

20. Too large next to Castro School

21. I like that this area is zoned for up to 4 stories. I am disappointed that it is zoned for fewer stories in the newer 2022 map.

22. I like that this map has R3-C zoning in this area. This area already doesn't have single family zoning and has large parking lots. I think these features make it a prime candidate for R3-C block style buildings or R3-D zoning. (Agree: 1) Where is private parking most important? least important? • "Parking is most important along blocks that are en�rely R3 - such as Mariposa. • Smaller scale, more limited size R3 designa�ons are less likely to overburden neighborhood street parking." • "This is a bit of a 'cart before the horse' problem. If the city bothered to make cycling/walking/alterna�ve modes *truly* safe and ubiquitous, we'd need *a lot less* private parking.
• In Old Mountain View we're easily within biking/scooter/walking distance of lots of shops and public transit. Private parking is important the farther away people are from safe, accessible alterna�ves. *BUT BUILD OUT THE SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE ALTERNATIVES PLZ.*" • Private parking is least important in essen�ally this en�re neighborhood but especially near downtown/transit.

Where would diﬀerent building types be most appropriate? • There should be more high-density housing combined with commercial use right next to the train sta�on (the parking lot there is a huge waste of valuable space). If we want to eliminate parking requirements (which we should!), then it ought to be possible to get to everything you need just by taking the train around. • Limit intensity increases to one increment more than the adjacent property, unless located along a transit-rich corridor or major street. • This is a vague ques�on. Big buildings are appropriate near alterna�ve transit, shops, etc. This map, overall, is too conserva�ve. It also seems odd to address only R3 and not R1 and R2. There should basically be zero R1 in Old Mountain View, given that we are in a climate crisis. I say that as an R1 homeowner. We can't keep op�mizing to preserve the nice backyards of a handful of rich people. The bill has come due for the whole planet. Step up, folks. • Taller buildings would be most appropriate near downtown and major roadways (e.g. Shoreline, El Camino Real, Central Expy, 85) where height is unlikely to bother neighbors.

Where are adjacencies to other proper�es most important? • Along the north side of buildings where adjacent proper�es could be completely shaded. • It would be good to have some transi�ons from R3 to R1 so the diﬀerence in scale is not so dras�c. This would apply as you go into the R1 neighborhoods Where could neighborhood-serving commercial be appropriate? • Everywhere!
• All 4 corners at Mariposa / California and Calderon / Church. Most corners along California. • Evelyn and Calderon, Church and Calderon (REZONE PLZ) • Near downtown.

Where should pedestrian and bicycle users be priori�zed? • Everywhere!
• "The whole Central Neighborhood area should be priori�zed for pedestrian and bicycle users. This is the most walkable part of the City. • Also need improved pedestrian and bicycle crossings of major streets - El Camino, Shoreline, Central. Pay par�cular aten�on to improving pedestrian and bicycle connec�ons to Graham Middle School."
• "Mercy to Calderon, all of Calderon, Evelyn, Church
• (paths to Stevens Creek Trail, paths to downtown/library, paths to Caltrain/light rail, paths to farmers market)” • This en�re neighborhood should priori�ze pedestrian and bicycle users as every property is within walking/biking distance of public transporta�on, downtown, and parks. Parking and vehicle priori�za�on does not help people who live in this neighborhood.

Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis Neighborhoods – 2020 and 2022 R3 Maps

Numbered Map Comments

1. Street parking is already maxed out in this en�re area, so any new units need to have ample parking for residents and guests. 1 parking space per unit isn't enough, 2 might be more reasonable.

2. Ques�on about the area of Hans that is now R2 duplexes -- does it become R3A like along Boranda and Bonita? If one of the duplex units were sold what sort of development could replace one duplex? How about if two adjacent ones were sold could a larger development replace them both? 1184 Bonita -- one of the larger one-story apartment building lots just behind some of the Hans duplexes recently sold. What could be built on that lot and how would it take into considera�on the neighboring duplexes? It is adjacent to those lots back fences. The 8-unit one-story apartment building next to 1191 Boranda also sold a while ago -- what could be built to replace those apartments? And if 1191 Boranda sold, what could be built on that lot?

3. The 2022 map is much beter here.

4. I deﬁnitely like this beter but I s�ll worry about pu�ng so much density on one small street. With one right turn only out onto El Camino and so much school traﬃc going to Bubb and Graham I just don't see how you can put so much density here. How do people get out. It doesn't seem safe for kids biking and walking to school, doesn't seem safe if there is an emergency situa�on and it feels like it's a big pain for just daily commu�ng. Also parking is already at a max on this street. One parking lot per unit is not enough. Many people have two cars and then they have visitors. My last concern is privacy. You've got a poten�al of 3 stories next to a lot of one story homes. (Disagree: 1)

5. As a star�ng point, this en�re area should be rezoned as R2 to make it consistent with state law.

6. I do not understand why Mountain View is decreasing poten�al density during a housing and climate crisis. R3 sub-zones should be returned to the 2020 version.

7. The city should explore op�ons to narrow Cuesta Dr and repurpose space for housing development, including for R3 development.

8. I GREATLY prefer not having 4 stories unlike the 2020 plan. You are pu�ng 4 stories next to R1s that are 90%+ 1 stories. You're basically smothring them.

9. Thank god you got rid of this. IN this respect, the 2022 plan is superior.

Where is private parking most important? least important? • Parking is already a big deal on Bonita and I don't think the plan has enough parking included. Many residents have 2 cars and then there are guests. It's already dangerous walking this street with so many cars pulling out and cars blocking line of site. • Private parking is not important. Remove parking mandates.

Where would diﬀerent building types be most appropriate? • I want more housing but I think we have to do this smart. These big buildings for a small street concern me. • Higher density buildings are appropriate throughout the neighborhood.

Where are adjacencies to other proper�es most important? • I personally worry about the privacy of my home with big buildings looking down on my litle one story. • They are not important at all.

Where could neighborhood-serving commercial be appropriate? • Commercial would be nice to make the neighborhood more walkable but parking might be an issue. If they served the neighborhood people could walk to them which would be nice.
• Everywhere in the neighborhood, including residen�al areas.

Where should pedestrian and bicycle users be priori�zed? • I worry about how many buildings you're pu�ng on Bonita. This is a �ny road with an only right outlet on El Camino. That forces traﬃc towards the Elementary school or through Phyllis which is already backed up from all the other housing. My kids bike and walk to Graham and Bubb. I'm not going to feel comfortable with them doing that with all this traﬃc which means I'll drive them...another car on the road. • Throughout, stop priori�zing cars for everything.

Numbered Map Comments

1. I know this is out of bounds of this discussion, but it's too bad everywhere around Monte Loma Elementary School and park is zoned R1. If it were R2 or R3, more teachers would be able to aﬀord to live in the community they serve, and more families would be walking distance to school. (Agree: 1)

2. Prefer at least R3C in these areas as other commenters describe. The big challenge for this area is providing more park space. This neighborhood desperately needs a full size (4-5 acre) neighborhood park, which will only be possible with higher development intensity. Another major need is tree canopy - along streets as well as private property

3. This area is a 15 min walk to Caltrain, near a major street and a commercial plaza. It is a huge wasted opportunity to reduce the allowed density this much. There are only 3 Caltrain sta�ons in MV and only 1 is also near downtown. This area is unique in all of Mountain View in the capacity of Housing it can take without increasing vehicle miles traveled. Please reconsider. (Agree: 2)

4. This area is very near jobs in North Bayshore, and 101. There is a middle school and daycare center walking distance. An elementary school is not too far oﬀ. And there are no single family homes nearby. This is another big waste of opportunity to address climate change and housing shortage. Please reconsider. (Agree: 2)

5. Even though this area is “adjacent” to R1 the very middle of blocks on all those streets could be zoned higher density and be sandwiched in lower density R3. Also much of this area is already redeveloping fast into townhomes. None of those sites are going to redevelop for years and years. Whatever increase in zoning capacity will only be realized 20-30 years from now so we need to make sure the extra capacity created is ambi�ous in order to last that long. (Agree: 2)

6. I live at Rengstorﬀ and Middleﬁeld. I think having 6 stories on my block would be a great idea. If we had more customers in walking distance, my two favorite restaurants in Monte Loma Plaza (Taqueria La Bamba and Chang'an Ar�san Noodle) might have stayed in business. (Agree: 1)

Where is private parking most important? least important? • We are in a climate emergency and a housing aﬀordability crisis. Private parking for individual vehicles is a luxury, not a priority.

Where would diﬀerent building types be most appropriate? • I think diﬀerent building types are appropriate anywhere. It's good to have people in walking distances to services and transit. But I reject the implicit assump�on that mul�-family housing is some kind of environmental toxin that "real people" (those fortunate enough to live in detached single-family homes) need to be protected from. A note about equity: In as much as there are downsides to living on busy roads (noise and par�culate pollu�on), it is inequitable to always put R1 zoning away from busy roads and R3 zoning next to busy roads. Mul�-family residents (who tend to be less aﬄuent) deserve the op�on to live in "quiet" neighborhoods too.

Where are adjacencies to other proper�es most important? Where could neighborhood-serving commercial be appropriate? • Anywhere!
Where should pedestrian and bicycle users be priori�zed? • Everywhere! Cars are the #2 cause of death of young Americans. We are in a climate emergency and an obesity epidemic. Human-powered travel is healthy, clean, safe, quiet, and builds community. Cars are noisy, dirty, dangerous, take up valuable real estate, and isolate us from each other.

Numbered Map Comments

1. The R2 and R3-A zoning around the "Village Center" of the East Whisman Precise plan seems inconsistent with the inten�ons of developing and suppor�ng vibrant businesses in that area. Businesses, such as a larger grocery store will struggle to maintain themselves in this area without signiﬁcant density within walking distance.

The churn for the grocery store at Leong and Evandale is a testament to this. I generally think that R3-A should be a minimum and R3-B should be considered for proper�es within walking distance of (0.5 miles) the Village Center area.

2. Leaving this sec�on of the neighborhood as R2 seems like it would create an inconsistent feel throughout the neighborhood, by leaving a patch of smaller duplexes between new R3 and exis�ng two story townhomes. My home, at 507 Easy, down the street from this sec�on, is being changed to R3-A, which I'm suppor�ve of.

There does not be signiﬁcant ra�onale for why 507 Easy is R3, but 527 Easy is not, given that both are of the same construc�on, same street, and same neighboring construc�on. I believe the neighborhood would be beter served by all of the 500 block of easy being at least R3-A, along with the 500 block of Keller.

3. Would this site be suitable for R3C?

4. This corridor between Easy St. and 85 is a place where high density housing can be allowed without signiﬁcant impact on the remainder of the neighborhood. It provides ready access to transit (Caltrain via the Steven's Creek Trail) and freeways (par�cularly 85 via the on-ramp and 101). Traﬃc noise is a more of a concern in this area and larger developments in this corridor can actually help with this problem.

5. This sec�on between Walker and Whisman park sits on an island in the Whisman neighborhood, in that building denser housing here would have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood and would allow for those in higher density housing to take advantage of Whisman park as well as the Steven's Creek Trail (and the access it provides to Caltrain)

6. I think this is generally an improvement with slightly higher density near caltrain corridor. I do think that R3-D or similar should be reconsidered to be allowed for larger sites close to caltrain corridor for example. The R3 rezoning is a tool to help shape how mountain view allocates new housing. There is no ability to slow down the housing growth. We want high density housing close (walking distance) to transit, good walking infrastructure , etc. We do not want to allow or push high density to the outskirts of the city where it will just make all car traﬃc much worse. We have an opportunity to shape mountain views future in a posi�ve way lets push through the R3 rezoning and have council ﬁgure out how to upzone other areas of MV into R3-A and R3-B which are close to transit corridors, thats the MV we want. (Agree: 3)

7. This parcel's loca�on close to a u�lity corridor, in addi�on to public transit and the Steven's Creek Trail would make it much beter suited for R3-B, and would keep consistency in this neighborhood. with the sec�ons between Cypress and Central closer to Moﬀet. This is part important with the larger oﬃce developments that have been made close to the Stephen's Creek Trail recently.

8. I support this sec�on of land between Moﬀet and Horizon being listed as R3-B. This is some of the more transit-accessible land in Mountain View, while not overburdening traﬃc in the Castro area. This sec�on has a mixed industrial/commercial feel, and is located near the larger condo complexes to the north, so R3-B seems quite consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Given that nearly all of the area from Horizon to Orchard is within half a mile of Caltrain, and abuts condo complexes to the north, I think it would be appropriate, and in character, for most or all of the lots between Central and Willowgate to be R3-A or higher. This would take beter advantage of underu�lized sec�ons such as 630-638 Willowgate, while providing more and sustainable housing.

9. Seems like this parcel is suited to R3C (Agree: 1)

10. In the comparison provided here between the 2020 and 2022 maps (blue "i" buton at le� of maps), you state that the 2022 map "considers adjacencies to exis�ng R1/R2 neighborhoods." This is not the case regarding the proposed upzoning of Santa Rosa Avenue. Santa Rosa is in fact adjacent to an R1 area (Corto/Santa Clara). In its present character, Santa Rosa is an extension of that R1 neighborhood. Upzoning to the 2022 version of R3-B would allow 5 stories (considering the state density bonus) in a neighborhood that is presently 1- and 2-story residences. I don't feel that Santa Rosa has a "commercial/industrial" character. One side of the street does have back entrances for some small businesses on Moﬀet Blvd. (ﬂower shop, yoga studio, small oﬃces, day care), but that can't jus�fy a destruc�ve upzoning of this neighborhood. The 2020 designa�on of R3-A (3 stories, allowing for density bonus) is fairly acceptable. The proposed 2022 upzoning is not.

11. The 2020 maps seem to be more consistent with the general feel of this area of the neighborhood. Middleﬁeld is a fairly major thoroughfare, and there are signiﬁcant apartment complexes being developed around this sec�on. A R3-B designa�on would allow for beter handling of traﬃc (pu�ng more parking underground through fewer driveways, and pulling it oﬀ the street). It would also allow for more ver�cal growth so there is less pressure for small setbacks. Having taller buildings with larger setbacks that can provide trees and preserve the green character of Middleﬁeld would be advantageous. The Verano townhomes at 1555 W . Middleﬁeld Road are an example of where this could have been done beter had there been allowable space to take advantage of the lot more fully.

12. I am not a fan of the removal of zoning for 4+ story buildings in the 2022 maps. Spaces that are not R1/R2 should be op�mized as much as possible for height and eﬃcient alloca�on of units, since they are among the only spaces where we can currently develop signiﬁcantly more housing. With suﬃcient stepbacks, the zones previously marked for R3-C and R3-D can support signiﬁcant developments even without cas�ng large shadows. These are 4-6 story buildings, not skyscrapers. In par�cular, several of the zones marked for R3-D are far enough away from R1/R2 zoning that it is a terrible concession to halve their heights.

13. Regarding proposed R3B zoning for Santa Rosa Ave. as shown on your 2022 map - I feel that this is a very poor idea, that would damage the neighborhood. Please consider changing this proposal to R3A instead (2020 deﬁni�on). Here’s why: Although Santa Rosa is presently zoned R3-1, it is right now in fact a single-family neighborhood with a few duplexes. Most houses are one story. Some have been recently renovated or expanded. With the exis�ng long-�me R3-1 zoning, Planning seems to have assumed over the years that proper�es on Santa Rosa would be eventually consolidated and redeveloped with greater density. It hasn’t happened that way, in the 35 years that we have lived here. Most homeowners are not interested in selling/consolida�ng. We can be certain that if any proper�es on Santa Rosa are redeveloped under the new R3B, the density bonus will be exploited. This would result in 5- or 6-story buildings, with 0.5 parking spaces per unit. Not only would this destroy the character of the neighborhood, but it would also make an already-�ght parking situa�on into a disastrous one. I realize that state law requires that this street must remain R3. However, Santa Rosa really must be rezoned R3A in this update, to reduce destruc�ve poten�al. Under the 2022 deﬁni�on, this would s�ll allow 4 stories with the density bonus - s�ll a poor outlook for the street. To truly respect the neighborhood, you could bring back the 2020 concept of R3A for this street (as in the 2020 map) - this would s�ll allow 3 stories using the density bonus, and we would s�ll be stuck with 0.5 spaces per unit. Please note that I say all this as a property owner, who likely would see a higher property value if greater density were allowed. But for the sake of the neighborhood, we don’t want the new R3B zoning. (Disagree: 1)
Where is private parking most important? least important? • Parking in general is a huge issue with the Density Bonus. 0.5 parking spaces per unit is out of touch with reality. Residents will generally want to own cars, even if they are able to use transit to get to work. 0.5 spaces will push many people into street parking, which will predictably become congested. Planning may be faced with a non-solvable problem. Can you see any way to mi�gate this completely predictable problem? • Not on the streets of my subdivision, which is where we all know it will end up once 7 story buildings ﬁll up and they charge the new residents for parking. The city's pretending to believe that new residents will not have cars, and they will not park them on adjacent streets is not fooling anyone. • Parking will be an issue in all new developments, but will be especially problema�c in new developments near transit, where developers will surely exploit the density bonus and reduced parking requirements, with 0.5 spaces per unit. This is state-mandated, but poten�ally destruc�ve. The R3 update must take this into account. To be clear: If you promise us that ”R3A” will be 4 stories, this will not actually be true for developments within .5 miles of transit.

Where would diﬀerent building types be most appropriate?

• On my own street, Santa Rosa, we need to bring back the 2020 concept of R3A. I have le� a more detailed comment explaining why. • Not in my subdivision. We now have predominantly 1 story houses. Adding 7 story apartments will greatly change the subdivision and traﬃc ﬂow. I would like to know how this is supposed to beneﬁt the residents of the subdivision. I suppose that this is considered by the city to be "making sacriﬁces for the beneﬁt of others." Perhaps no addi�onal parks is part of that sacriﬁce.
• Where there are presently R3-zoned streets that have not actually been developed to that degree, such as Santa Rosa Avenue, the building types for new developments will need to be compa�ble with the exis�ng proper�es. In other words, if an exis�ng neighborhood is presently 1- or 2-story houses, it would be highly inappropriate to allow new developments that are 4 or 6 stories.

Where are adjacencies to other proper�es most important?

• On my own street, Santa Rosa, the 2022 proposal could result in 5- or 6- story buildings next to 1-story residences. Please bring back the 2020 R3A for this street, as shown on the 2020 map.
• See answer to previous ques�on.

Where could neighborhood-serving commercial be appropriate? • Although street-level small businesses sounds atrac�ve, I do not think it is generally a good idea. To be viable, these businesses would need traﬃc from outside the neighborhood, and would use up street parking. This would be a problem in any dense development, but especially in areas where new development uses the density bonus and reduced parking requirements (poten�ally 0.5 spaces per unit). • Neighborhood-serving commercial would be OK in situa�ons where the new businesses do not depend too much on outside car traﬃc (= parking pressure).

Unacceptable uses would also include anything that generates noise, smells, or atracts pests (= food garbage).

Where should pedestrian and bicycle users be priori�zed? • In my neighborhood, I would like to see a dedicated bike route on Willowgate (not on Central Ave.), where it would not so much conﬂict with street parking. Central Avenue is going to need street parking, as Shoreline Village (built in 1960) is likely to be redeveloped with a density bonus and reduced parking, which will push residents to park in the street. Bike lanes going past parked cars create a hazard to bike riders of being "doored." • Bike/Ped should be encouraged everywhere. But please be realis�c and understand that even new residents who bike to work are likely to also own cars, and will need places to park. Parking ra�os of 0.5 spaces per unit are going to prove inadequate. Street parking will not be suﬃcient.

San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio Neighborhoods– 2020 and 2022 R3 Maps

Numbered Map Comments

1. Need to make sure there is space for addi�onal tree canopy in this neighborhood - along streets and on private property

2. This R1 area s�cks out in this neighborhood, unfortunate as it would be nicer to allow more people to be more closer to Rengstorﬀ Park and La Plaza. As such, I don't think the neighboring areas have to be automa�cally set to the lowest subzone.

3. Disappointed with how much less dense this map is than the 2020 one. The 2020 was barely dense enough already. There is an extreme shortage of housing in the area and the 2022 map is barely upzoned from the status quo. We are decades behind in home building. Don't be shy with the upzoning. 6 story buildings aren't going to pop up overnight, we will have �me to adapt. Please consider raising densi�es in this map. (Agree: 1)

4. I no�ced this zone allows 1 more story v. the 2020 map. I like that, thanks. But don't trade it for reduced density in other neighborhoods, please. (Agree: 1)

5. I am disappointed in the scaling back of the proposal. I prefer the 2020 proposal because of the addi�onal height and housing allowed. Addi�onal capacity is needed to allow this city to grow and keep up with housing demand. Addi�onally, there are many older apartments that should be redeveloped. With the displacement measures that exist in sb 330 this would allow exis�ng tenants to live in an improved place while maintaining the same aﬀordable rent. For this to happen we need signiﬁcant upzoning and I don't believe that the 2022 map will accomplish that. (Agree: 2)

6. This is a major reversal from the old proposal, and is counter to the original intent of trying to encourage denser projects rather than ones that had actually reduced the total number of units in the city. We perhaps might ﬁnd that laws like AB2011 somehow lead the non-residen�al parts of the city to be more favorable to housing developments than base R3. The ﬁnancial feasibility studies are likely going to sour on the new itera�on, especially in these economic condi�ons.

7. The intensiﬁca�on as shown on the 2020 map, while desirable in terms of helping local workers to reside locally, also raises major issues around insuﬃcient parks and schools. We really need to designate sites for these important uses.

Where is private parking most important? least important? • The city should not be in the business of telling people when they need to pay private parking. My rent is higher because of your policies - I don't drive but because of city hall's parking mandates, I have to pay for this useless car port. Thanks! Where would diﬀerent building types be most appropriate? • The 2020 R3-D should be near transit, protected bike lanes that are planned or built, and within half a mile of grocery stores. In contrast, there is no place in Mountain View where low density zoning is appropriate.

Where are adjacencies to other proper�es most important? • This is a bad policy goal. The city has mistakenly placed low density zones near transit for decades, and your concern about 'adjacencies' (which seem to only go in one way of maintaining exclusionary zoning....) will entrench car-dependency.

Where could neighborhood-serving commercial be appropriate?

• It's appropriate everywhere as long as it's op�onal.

Where should pedestrian and bicycle users be priori�zed? • Priori�ze us by removing your expensive parking mandates.

NOTE: No adjacency tools comments were received in Monta Loma/Farley/Rock neighborhood Central Neighborhoods – Adjacencies to R1 and R2

Numbered Comments

1. This tool makes sense for narrow streets within neighborhoods but should not be applicable for major roadways such as Shoreline, Central Expy, etc.

2. These are both great transi�on principles

3. To the extent that adjacent R1 or R2 zones are likely to be upzoned (they should be), these tools should be relaxed or removed. But these tools are reasonable. (Agree: 1)

4. Concerns about north-side building height in terms of hypothe�cal solar on shorter R1/R2 buildings are unfounded. No amount of R1/R2 solar would come close to the emissions reduc�ons provided by increased density (height). (Agree: 1)

5. Need to consider the shadows cast on the north side of tall buildings, especially rela�ve to the opportunity to generate solar power on adjacent lots.

6. Need to require the plan�ng of canopy trees within the transi�on to lower intensity zones
What other adjacencies are you concerned about?
• Damage to exis�ng tree roots on adjacent proper�es
• Increased density is good, but should be coupled with well- designed waste management. Poorly designed waste
management can have dumpsters which are hard to
use/access (thus promo�ng people leaving garbage
alongside/outside and piling up) and are placed alongside adjacent property lines. Again, no objec�on to density, but pay aten�on to the waste management design.

What other tools do you think are necessary?
• Outdoor ac�ve use areas in new developments need to
consider noise for adjacent homes

Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis Neighborhoods – Adjacencies to R1 and R2

Numbered Comments

1. none of these examples show driveways? A poor misrepresenta�on of reality.

2. Beter Setbacks

3. good use of veranda porch to create visual spacing

4. You're also not property represen�ng shade in a low December Sunset, especially when there are four stories. The shadow can extend up to 60 feet, basically covering an en�re lot nextdoor.

5. This is a horrible repreesnta�on of our area and of Mountain View generally. Very few R1s are two stories and if they are, they are not these blocky types of R1 or R2s. Put a real R1 like on Nilda Avenue next to your White example. Then that would be more realis�c example. r2s in Mountain View also tend be large and blocky (since made cheaply) and not varied in depth like what you show.

6. I am comfortable with whatever approach provides the highest density of units.Need to require the plan�ng of canopy trees within the transi�on to lower intensity zones What other adjacencies are you concerned
about?
• I'm concerned that there aren't
enough new buildings adjacent to
others.

What other tools do you think are necessary?
• I think these tools are unnecessary.

Please remove.

Moﬀet/Whisman Road Neighborhoods – Adjacencies to R1 and R2

Numbered Comments

1. Areas that are already zoned for R1 or R2 should have severely limited, if any, inﬂuence on areas outside of them, even if they are adjacent. I am opposed to height and width restric�ons on buildings that are already meant to be zoned diﬀerently from R1/R2, as this simply slows down progress.

2. Just make a general concession to make top ﬂoor(s) setback a certain distance for all proper�es 4 stories and above. Also allow more buildings 4 stories and above. Firstly R1 and R2 zoning should be abolished in this city eventually as it is too restric�ve and discrminitory forcing housing price inﬂa�on and not enough supply. Why bother stepping down if most of these zones will be stepped up eventually. Secondly, In other ci�es where they try to stepdown hights close to other zones its an untenable challenge to architect sites for, leading to higher costs and weird skylines which rise and fall awkwardly to facilitate a lower density zone outcropping, it will be hard to administer and will lead to awkward results. The stepback of the top ﬂoor(s) in general 4 stories and above is clear concession, easy to architect, will look nice and less imposing and equal to all, go for that instead.

What other adjacencies are you concerned
about?

What other tools do you think are necessary?
• Tools to counts cars. The terrible new
state law considers traﬃc ﬂow beter the
more cars there are and the slower traﬃc
moves. Mountain View, unfortunately,
already tries to make traﬃc ﬂow as
poorly as possible. My subdivision is
surrounded by roads that don't move in
the morning. the no�on that new
homeowners won't own cars seems very
naive, undoubtedly purposefully so.

San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio Neighborhoods – Adjacencies to R1 and R2

Numbered Comments

1. Why don't we require the lower-density zones to step up to the higher-density zones. Why are we so afraid of housing density here? The implicit bias against housing is clear and comical. (Agree: 1)

2. Are we aﬃrma�vely furthering fair housing by adding condi�ons on mul�family housing because rela�vely aesthe�cs concerns of those living in mul�-million dollar single family (or the rare duplex) homes in a housing crisis? Land is expensive enough; we need to be beter at using it.

What other adjacencies are you concerned
about?

What other tools do you think are necessary?
• This is a bad policy goal that will make
housing more expensive during a housing
crisis. Reconsider this.

Monta Loma/Farley/Rock Street – Commercial Uses in Select Loca�ons

Numbered Comments

1. I believe commercial should be
allowed liberally throughout our
residen�al neighborhoods, including
R1 and R2 but NOT REQUIRED.

Flexibility is desirable. Let the market
take care of demand where it is
available. We’re not going to be good
at predic�ng what is needed where as
well as someone whose ﬁnancial
livelihood depends on it.

Moﬀet/Whisman Road Neighborhoods – Commercial Uses in Select Loca�ons

Numbered Comments

1. Please do not be too quick to approve
or require ground ﬂoor commercial.

To be viable, these businesses would
need traﬃc from outside the
neighborhood, which would add to
pressure on street parking, especially
where developments exploit the
density bonus along with state-
mandated reduced parking
requirements.

2. Strong yes to all of this. im not sure
what the size limit of shops would be
based on it seems complicated from a
planning and zoning perspec�ve.

3. The limit size of shops should be more
clearly speciﬁed, but in general this is
a good idea. Street corners are great
and I am in support of them. I am
strongly in favor of allowing mixed
ground ﬂoor use. I would also like
clearer speciﬁca�on on the sizes for
large-site developments. I would also
encourage limita�ons on parking
spaces, or at the very least, hiding
them underground and allowing the
construc�on of both of residen�al
and commercial spaces on top of
parking spaces.

Central Neighborhoods – Small Commercial Uses in Select Loca�ons

Numbered Comments

1. No signage is shown – need to
keep it pedestrian scale

2. And make op�onal for smaller
developments (rather than
prohibit)

3. I like these ideas and the styles of
each.

4. Flexible ground ﬂoor use is great!

Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis Neighborhoods – Small Commercial Uses in Select Loca�ons

Numbered Comments

1. Terrible idea in our
neighborhood. The density
barely supports businesses on El
Camino, why would there be
enough traﬃc to drive thriving
businesses deep into the Cuesta
Park Neighborhood? It's a
complete mismatch for the quiet
demeanor of our residence.

Imagine if 50% of this business'
clients had to drive. Let's say it's
a nail salon or barbershop.

Where are they going to park?

2. Given the retail apocalypse
ongoing, it may be wise to aim
for ﬂexible rather than
dedicated space.

San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio Neighborhoods – Commercial Uses in Select Loca�ons

Numbered Comments

1. San Jose got rid of their requirement for this in
aﬀordable housing projects because it was found to
be impediment to produc�on -
htps://sanjosespotlight. com/san-jose-considers-
removing-commercial-requirements-for-aﬀordable-
housing/ . If we want to encourage small scale
commercial, do it in terms of incen�ves (e.g. higher
height/FAR,business assistance, etc)

2. Ensure that there's minimal parking requirements,
given the
ir cost can provide a burden in terms of
commercial rent and original ﬁnancial feasibility to
construct.

3. I don't think commercial space should be required
but allowed when there is a market for it. Any r3
property should allow commercial usage within the
ground ﬂoor but not required. (Agree: 3)
- I agree. You don't want to end up with a dead
street with empty retail in places where it isn't
needed. I feel like this is the case with the san
antonio village right now. I think ﬂexibility is key
here. In amsterdam, they are always cover�ng
ground ﬂoor housing to retail and back when
needed and it works great. It's not to hard to
build a ﬂexible space when it is allowed. It is
even easier when encouraged. (Agree : 1)

4. I favor small commercial developments within
residen�al proper�es. Maybe 5% of total residen�al
space? (What do other jurisdic�ons allow?)
Restricted use only - no bars or nightclubs.

Preferably cafes or coﬀee shops, cleaners, food
mart. Thank you (Agree: 1)
- I think bars would be ﬁne, but I agree with no
nightclubs. Honestly, as long as the tenant
follows a noise ordinance not to disturb the
neighbors a�er a certain hour, I think that
achieves the goal.

5. Flexibility is key. It allows buildings to adapt uses based on what the community needs at any given
�me. It diversiﬁes the investment for the city. Is the
market short on housing? convert the ground ﬂoor
to housing. Is the market short on retail space? do
the opposite. (Agree: 1)

Central Neighborhoods – Focus Subdistricts on Diﬀerences in Scale and Character

Numbered Comments

1. I like that Block Scale buildings allow for denser buildings. I would like to see a litle more setback in this example. (Agree: 1)

2. Since the facade is quite monolithic, I would like to see more setback and tree plan�ng

3. Sidewalk is too small, too close to the street, and too close to the building.

4. It's a shame that the height is limited to only three stories. There are so many more neighbors who could enrich our community if we would just allow homes to be built for them.

5. I like that there's no setback from the street, so all the space is put to produc�ve use.

6. I feel that the building is too close to the street for the overall massing, resul�ng in very litle space for tree plan�ng and overwhelming a pedestrian walking by. That said, the building is well ar�culated and detailed, and appears compa�ble with an historic se�ng

7. This facade is much more broken up than the other two, which helps to break down the ins�tu�onal look of the large facade. (Agree: 1)

8. This photo does not show a clear entrance along the street, which reduces it's compa�bility with a lower density se�ng

9. The implied height limit of three stories is not enough. We need to increase density near transit/employment. We're in a climate crisis.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any mixed-use ground ﬂoor retail in these images (think micro coﬀee or ﬂower shop, etc.) and there should be. (Agree: 1)

10. I like how this building creates space at the corner, which would make it more compa�ble with a lower density se�ng

11. All of these examples are for scale, but none of them besides the lower middle really look like something that would ﬁt with the character of Mountain View.

12. It's really unfortunate that the ground-ﬂoor façade is wasted on garages. Those could be cafes or other small shops or oﬃces that are an asset to the whole community.

13. The block scale buildings would only be appropriate in denser se�ngs

14. The scale of the stoop and the full story eleva�on of the entry is not reﬂec�ve of the general Mountain View design ethos. That said, I think this building is an appropriate "medium" scale and is richly detailed in a way that would make it compa�ble with a lower density se�ng

15. These are welcome examples, apart from the aesthe�cs - the style of the 1st and 3rd image aren't typically seen in Mountain View.

Are there any buildings in the community that you think are good examples of development? • 100 Moﬀet and135 Franklin are good examples of large block scale development. The �llery Apartments along Villa Street are shaping up to be well designed, but that was a huge eﬀort - diﬀerent standards would have helped. • Many of the new row house developments on Sierra Vista and Montecito are well designed. • I cannot think of any medium scale house examples that I would consider well designed - most are 50's and 60's 6-pack development that is poorly built and maintained (but aﬀordable).
• I think we need far more density than Mountain View currently allows. I'd like to see walkable (ideally car-free) mixed-use neighborhoods with no setbacks and no height or FAR limits.
• 238 View St, Mountain View, California but taller
• 445 Calderon Ave, Mountain View, CA 94041
• 1030 Castro St, Mountain View, CA 94040 but taller
• Yes, Park Place
• Condo/townhome buildings along Bryant St, condos along View St between Dana and Villa, townhomes at Church and Hope, Madera apartments (Evelyn), Park Place apartments.

Are these building types something you could support near where you live? • Yes!
• Within the Central Neighborhoods, the large block scale development would generally only be compa�ble in the El Camino Real or Downtown Precise Plan areas, and maybe along California Street and the CalTrain corridor. • The medium house scale would work well in the Central neighborhoods - in fact, the older 6-pack style mul�-family development is already well integrated (but are in poor condi�on).
• The large house scale would need to be carefully located and designed to ﬁt in the Central Neighborhoods. • I think this ques�on bespeaks a really an�-societal worldview. Exis�ng residents shouldn't have a veto on (or really any say about) which or how many new neighbors can join our community, or how neighbors build upon their land. • Yes
• yes
What do you like most about the building types?
• They provide dense housing with ample space for walking, and a nice environment (trees, setbacks) to walk past. • 1. More housing units will give renters more op�ons and more market power, reducing rents and the cost of living here. • 2. Everyone beneﬁts from the presence of more neighbors in our community. We need more density to allow more neighbors to move here. • 3. Walkability is great for healthy, happy, community-oriented neighborhoods. • 4. Setbacks, height limits, and FAR limits destroy walkability. • Increased density with the opportunity to have small shops. More density means more awesome neighbors, a more vibrant community, more walking/biking, and less emissions.
• Density
Which building do you like the most?
• R3-C #2
• Block

Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis Neighborhoods – Focus Subdistricts on Diﬀerences in Scale and Character

Numbered Comments

1. Probably the best design of all of these poor designs. Windows and doors at pedestrian eye-level. Visual elements at street-level. diﬀeren�ated design on various ﬂoors.

2. incredibly terrible ground level experience while walking down the sidewalk. This is incongruent with the neighborhood.

3. Ra�o of Window to wall is terrible. also ﬂat and bland facade with zero setback.

4. Curious about the ﬂat roof -- could this provide useable recrea�on space?

5. Wow. Let me walk down the street and stare a brickwall. There is nothing visually appealing to our very pedestrian neighborhood.

Furthermore, also set closely to the sidewalk. I do like it at two stories. but I'd imiagine you are going to build at 4 stories.

6. I wonder if showing examples of stepping back may make the rela�ve height of these examples more acceptable to some segments of Mountain View's popula�on.

7. Setback is too small from sidewalk. ﬂat, imposing design with very litle depth to the home. For example, there are no awnings.

8. More human elements at street-level. However, modern design inside of brick is incongruent and does not meet style of our neighborhood or area.

9. Repea�ng architectural elements with litle diﬀeren�a�on. Flat and bland windows. Beter setbacks with plants breaking up design.

10. Why are there no 4 story bonus representa�ons?

11. Beter setback, but half of the setback is for an imposing starwell.

There are zero proper�es with this type of facade. And of course, no one is going to build a porch in our neighborhood. This is a false representa�on of a poten�al home. The land is too valuable and sq � too expensive to waste hundreds of square feet on wrap around porches. This is great in Mississippi, but not here.

12. I'm happy with these. I'm also happy if there are more contemporary op�ons. Adding more ﬂats/condos to the housing mix - par�cularly ones that change the idea that condos are the least desirable form of housing (condos, townhomes, detached single-family homes) - may help change percep�ons that are held by people who currently are detached single-family homeowners that seem to be dispropor�onately opposed to density. See Nabr as an example. This may help lower income/net worth households to aﬀord a home since it will add more housing reducing the job - housing imbalance Mountain View currently sees.

13. Staircase reduces accessibility to sidewalk, and for the mobility challenged.

Are there any buildings in the community that you think are good examples of development? • Good examples of development are the ones that get built. If the city wants to dictate the form of buildings, it should publish a set of plans or designs that will be approved by-right.

Are these building types something you could support near where you live? • Yes, absolutely. We need many more of these in my neighborhood! What do you like most about the building types?
• They add so many new homes and will provide me with a diverse set of new neighbors.

Which building do you like the most?
• The one with the most homes!

Monta Loma/Farley/Rock Street – Focus Subdistricts on Diﬀerences in Scale and Character

Numbered Comments

1. I really like the look of this building. It reminds
me of classic brownstones and other row
houses in great ci�es throughout the US. I know
there's a trend to obsess over breaking up
building massing with lots of diﬀerent shapes
and protuberances. I've never been bothered
by large con�guous massing. But I think a
tasteful way to break up a large building is with
color changes like this building has.

2. The setback here is not very func�onal. Could
we get some secure bike parking? I've had
mul�ple bikes stolen in my years in Mountain
View, and lack of secure parking is one of the
things holding me back from replacing one of
my family's two cars with an electric cargo bike.

3. In R3-C, these *almost* have arcades, if you
just went a step further and included arcades,
that would be great. (Agree: 1)

4. Everything here looks ﬁne to me. My comment
is that we should allow everything and let the
market decide which is feasible rather than
dicta�ng building or block size only! Also these
buildings are all too short to deal with our
housing shortage. (Agree: 1)

Are there any buildings in the community that you think are good examples of development? • I love the condo complex I live in, Magnolia Square HOA at 2040 W . Middleﬁeld Rd. It has four buildings. Each building is three stories with six units -- three ground- ﬂoor 2BR units, and three two-story 3BR units above them. I like the "wide" units as opposed to the "narrow" 3-story townhouse units you ﬁnd in so many Mountain View condos being built right now. I also like the apartment building "Studio 819" (819 N Rengstorﬀ Ave) because it has a ground-ﬂoor restaurant that I can walk to.

Are these building types something you could support near where you live? • Yes, I support large form buildings on my street. I would like to see some 5-over-1 or 5-over-2 buildings with ground ﬂoor ameni�es, not just 3-story buildings.

What do you like most about the building types?
• Buildings with more units are the most energy eﬃcient (shared walls = lower hea�ng and cooling costs) and most aﬀordable (taking up less space per unit).

Which building do you like the most?
• I like the R3-C "block scale" building type. I like the look of long, shared-wall mul�-family buildings. They look more invi�ng and cohesive to me than separate "house- sized" buildings. I'd have no problem with 6 stories though.

San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio Neighborhoods – Focus Subdistricts on Diﬀerences in Scale and Character

Numbered Comments

1. 3 ﬂoors is not enough!!! (Agree: 3)

2. We have to think carefully about the architecture
of the buildings considered since they will stay
here for decades. Most buildings on these pictures
are not par�cularly bad, but they are not great. We
used to have much more aesthe�cally pleasing
buildings in Mountain View. The examples are 362
Bryant St or119 Franklin St. Why the buildings like
these are no longer considered? They would ﬁt
perfectly in suggested R3-B and R3-C categories.

3. These terms are s�ll incredibly vague. The last
picture of R3-A and the 2nd picture of R3-B could
be iden�cal, perhaps rotated to a deeper lot in the
later. The only main diﬀerence in these pictures is
that R3-A/B are detached. Otherwise, they're
func�onally very close in intensity, which was
perhaps not the original inten�on with sub-zoning.

4. Is there going to be an opportunity for mixed use
on the ground ﬂoor? Retail would bring life to the
street on the ground ﬂoor and make a beter, more
economically diverse, walkable, bikeable, transit-
oriented neighborhood. I think we should be
pulling examples from European ci�es of similar
size here. (Agree: 1)

5. I hate the size of the setbacks here. I think it wastes a lot of lot space that could be beter used for
housing. (Agree: 1)

6. Please build higher!!! (Agree: 3)

7. I like this building style the most. It keeps the block scale visually interes�ng and invi�ng. It could use
an extra 3 stories though. (Agree: 1)

8. These look nice, but I feel it's quite silly to not build even higher than this given the housing situa�on in
our city! (Agree: 3)

9. It is peculiar to build new developments if we're
not going to build higher. (Agree: 3)
- I agree with this. There is so much latent
demand for housing in the area and in
mountain view in par�cular. 3-4 story building is
going to generate high-priced housing. We must
build the number of ﬂoors for op�mal
aﬀordability which is closer to Paris density of
5-7 ﬂoors. (Agree: 1)

Are there any buildings in the community that you think are good examples of development?

Are these building types something you could support near where you live? • These buildings are not nearly large enough. What is the point of this exercise if you're going to prevent people from choosing housing that'd actually meet the community's needs.

What do you like most about the building types?

Which building do you like the most?

Central Neighborhoods – Streetscape Design

Numbered Comments

1. Building step-backs help make addi�onal stories not seem so imposing at the street level. Commercial building on SE corner of California and Bryant is a good example of this.

2. Requiring more mature trees is beter than plan�ng saplings that take 10-15 years to provide any real canopy.

3. These examples are good/invi�ng, but the street is clearly priori�zing cars. So, good for pedestrians but not a lot of evidence this is good for bikes/scooters. Would like to see addi�onal aten�on to that (but realize maybe not same problem).

4. Provision for ground-ﬂoor retail/shops would be good for the block structures. Not evident in these examples.

5. I like the wide sidewalk in this image and the trees. I also like the spacing between the front of the building from the road. It makes the sidewalk feel less narrow. (Agree: 1)

6. This is a good standard. Trees, landscaping, stoops, etc. all help buildings feel part of the streetscape rather than in conﬂict with pedestrian/other uses of the space.

How deep should front setbacks be?
• The setbacks in these photos seem good.
• Deep enough to allow for a planted parkway at least 6 feet wide, a 6 foot sidewalk, and an 8 foot planted zone - that's 20 feet. Need to allow suﬃcient room for growth of a signiﬁcant tree canopy.
• Suﬃcient to provide accessible space for pedestrians, occasional trees, and protect bike/scooter lanes, and no more. Lower the width of the street if necessary rather than shrink the footprint of the building.

Should there be private yards? Unit entrances?
• Unit entries facing the street create a friendly, neighborly environment. Private yards are not necessary, but outdoor storage, decks or porches seem like the minimum.
• It depends on the medium vs block dimensions, but generally "no" for private yards. Small landscaped areas seem reasonable. Unit entrances are ﬁne.

How else should the building relate to the street?
• Windows facing the street.
• good, eﬃcient ligh�ng; ligh�ng necessary for the pedestrian/bike areas that doesn't shine brightly into adjacent (shorter) buildings • overall good architecture, massing, and aesthe�cs (where "good" is recognized as such by architects/designers with exper�se and not neighbors or city councils)
What else would you like to see along project frontages? • You men�oned this in the presenta�on, but I'd love to see commercial usage integrated with residen�al. • Plan�ng strips rather than monolithic curb and sidewalk. • bike locking installa�ons in some places
• maybe benches/sea�ng
• just overall good public space investment
• protected bike/scooter lanes
What would you not like to see along project frontages? • Flat walls or buildings extremely close to the sidewalk. • Dumpsters and parking lots
• lots of wasted space that could have gone to support more people Are the streetscapes something you could support?
• I'm not sure exactly what that means, but probably!
• Yes, all the images are appealing
• yes, with the above caveats
• grudgingly yes, without the caveats

Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis Neighborhoods – Streetscape Design

Numbered Comments

1. Too large of a setback from the street.

2. Much beter, with reasonable spacing, however, no one is going to plant grass anymore.

3. Porches with a reduced setback from the street provides a posi�ve community space.

4. This doesn't work in Mountain view unless you mandate irriga�on.

5. Facades are too ﬂat against sidewalk, genera�ng a large city feel. Also, none of these photos have driveways!!!! We do not have alleyways, which all of the homes you're showing do.

How deep should front setbacks be?
• As shallow as possible. Create wide sidewalks, but allow buildings to go right up to the sidewalk.

Should there be private yards? Unit entrances?
• The city shouldn't really be forcing this constraint upon people. Allow private yards if people want them, allow unit entrances if they want them.

How else should the building relate to the street?
• Wide sidewalks.

What else would you like to see along project frontages? • Wide sidewalks.

What would you not like to see along project frontages? • Front yards.

Are the streetscapes something you could support?
• Sidewalks aren't wide enough.

Moﬀet/Whisman Road Neighborhoods – Streetscape Design

Numbered Comments

1. I am a big fan of making sure new construc�ons are all suﬃciently connected to sidewalks. There should not be roads in this town which lack sidewalks. Greenspace should also exist alongside these new construc�ons, although it should not lead to unnecessarily large yards that use land ineﬃciently.

2. To further my previous point about walkability, please have council review current walkway right of way infrastructure in these areas. its horrible. manda�ng new builds having new side walks is great but if the appear and disappear randomly that is not useful, accessible or acceptable . Make property owners come into compliance with pedestrian infrastructure, its so bad currently to go from path to road to path to dirt to gravel in a 100 � span, its crazy. you cannot use wheelchairs or strollers or anything in this town the way it is.

3. These all generally look ﬁne. Wide sidewalks in new high density areas should be mandatory. 3 � sidewalks that are used throughout MV are not appropriate for its density. I'm not sure the proper width, maybe 5 � or something. Figure it out with a right-of-way study but the city needs to take concessions to cars in order to build a more livable higher density neighborhood and build beter pedestrian infrastructure. Two people passing each other on the sidewalks should not require having to step into a bush or onto the car right-of-way to pass each other as that puts everyone at more risk.

More pedestrian infrastructure please.

No responses to the following questions
How deep should front setbacks be? Should there be private yards? Unit entrances? How else should the building relate to the street? What else would you like to see along project frontages? What would you not like to see along project frontages? Are the streetscapes something you could support?

San Antonio/Rengstorﬀ/Del Medio Neighborhoods – Streetscape Design

Numbered Comments

1. Setback feels too big here. The sidewalk too small. Housing is visually interes�ng. It reminds me of Chicago. (Agree: 1)

2. Perhaps encourage slopes rather than stairs, in order to further Universal Design Principles.

3. I wish these examples included ground ﬂoor retail. Something has to draw pedestrians here. There is a reason this sidewalk is empty. People are shopping at the local car-oriented strip mall... (Agree: 1)

4. Here's what we need to foster pedestrian street life. 1. Build dense. 2. Discourage or ban surface level parking i.e. remove parking minimums altogether. 3. Add shade and art for a pleasant pedestrian experience. 4. Limit auto access on pedistrian-oriented streets and eliminate curb cuts for autos. 5. Encourage ground ﬂoor commercial uses in pedistrian-oriented areas. 6. make the sidewalk comfortable large for walking six abreast. (Agree:
1)
No responses to the following questions
How deep should front setbacks be? Should there be private yards? Unit entrances? How else should the building relate to the street? What else would you like to see along project frontages? What would you not like to see along project frontages? Are the streetscapes something you could support?

December 11, 2023, Tenants Community Mee�ng

1. What feedback do you have on the challenges and opportunities in the R3 Zone? Challenges
• Housing costs
• Redevelopment/displacement
• Existing neighborhood character
• Parking demand
• Privacy
• Growth impacts – infrastructure, schools,
parks, etc
• New State laws
• Others?
Opportunities
• Increased supply
• Lower development costs
• More ownership opportunities
• Small business opportunities
• Improved pedestrian/bike access to jobs,
transit, schools, services, etc
• Improved walking/biking environment
• Clearer requirements and outcomes
• Others?

• Teacher housing – make additional density contingent on providing BMR/teacher housing
• Property owners are splitting utility (eg, water) bills with uncertainty, especially when tenants leave – fluctuating costs
• Need to be able to stay in unit as they age and income decreases • Challenge – can the City control anything with State Density Bonus? • Feasibility is an issue with the City’s proposed replacement policy • Challenge – Diversity of R3 within and between areas—hard to zone for in one zoning district and one size fits all is not the way
• Opportunity – putting housing with employment
• Don’t need as much parking with higher density near jobs • However, transit is not convenient for everyone
• Live-work opportunity on first floor
• Ensure replacement units are still affordable to displaced residents • Stacked flats opportunity for taller buildings and one level units • Need for deeply affordable housing
• Challenge or goal: diversity in housing types and affordability levels, rental, ownership, entry level, unit sizes, etc
• Challenge: displacement
• Program option to allow BMR ownership units to be inherited within a family • BMR units may still be too expensive for some working poor, need deeper affordability levels
• Lots of studio and 1-bedroom. Challenge is need for more family housing • Increase walkability – need lighting to make spaces feel safe • Open to and interested in small businesses (opportunity) • Challenge or opportunity: some need to be sensitive to neighboring conditions, in particular where taller buildings might abut single family or single story • Older structures lack many of the moder day amenities and placement of new units should be near transit.
• Stack flats sounds like they would be more affordable and more affordable options should be provided to make it easier for people to access housing. • Many of the existing units in the R3 zone are older. We should not see the existing architectural style as the norm, we should allow buildings/apartments with modern architecture styles. This may help reduce cost and allow for projects to be more affordable.
• Agree with existing neighborhood character, parking demands, privacy, and growth impacts. Concern of multi-story buildings next to single-story buildings – changes character. Fear over displacement. Doesn’t know if it increases supply for people being displaced. Appreciates small business opportunities, pedestrian and bike access. • Believes neighborhoods should be changing character, and that diversity is a valued quality in a community, and the opportunity for higher density and small businesses are good conditions for living.
• Main concern is displacement.
• Believes in people first planning, and more concern over the displacement.

2. What feedback do you have about where to increase density in the R3 Zone? Considerations
• Near transit, services, etc.
• Near existing higher density areas & away from low density areas • Development opportunities without displacement
• Where existing buildings are in poor condition
• Where development can provide beneﬁts (like new parks) • Everywhere/Nowhere
• Others?

• Density is less important than unit size and livability • Maintain semblance of existing neighborhoods, don’t do ECR everywhere • Need enough parking
• More density is more traffic
• Need to have large parks to ser ve new density
• New construction needs greenery and trees
• Don’t put all the density in one area – make it equitable • No major disagreement with considerations in 2
• More density in “core” areas, allow for more affordability, larger blocks – Sierra Vista, California, Del Medio
• Concern about the design of buildings, make them livable/humane • Concern about existing buildings in need of repair and adding density, but concern about displacement
• Nonprofit acquisition and rehabilitation of existing for 100% affordable – create bonus for 100% affordable (overlay)
• Create right of return
• Relocation assistance – but help with location, not just money • Additional density for public park space, including a reduction in common private amenity area
• Bonus density where nonprofit space is provided
• Wording such as keep high density away from low density makes it sounds like high density is a bad thing. High density and low density may work, and the mixing may be appropriate. High density is not necessarily bad if designed appropriately and mindfully. • Some areas in the R3 Zone do not have adequate sidewalks and has narrow streets.

Density may further impact existing smaller streets. Evaluate higher density on wider streets.
• R3 developments can contribute to upgrades in areas that for example may not have sidewalks (developer updates). Mindful density on smaller side streets may also be a nice to have. If only one option is available density should be place near transit. But higher density should be allowed in all R3 zones.
• The goal should be to create more homes. The San Antonio area may be the areas that is (politically) acceptable to density. But overall, there is competing factors depending on the members of the public providing the input. Density on bigger wider streets usually leads to noisier units. So, it may be appropriate to develop on smaller side streets.
• Rents for new units seem to be high. How would updates to the R3 zone contribute to affordable housing?
• A possible benefit of constructing new units can be people living in older units (which are naturally affordable) would move into new homes. This can contribute to a higher availability of older more affordable units.
• Increased density around transit makes sense. In favor of congregated density (putting it together away from low density areas), with an eye for displacement avoid displacement.
• Near transit is supported. Around parks is also tentatively supported. • Near a shopping center where the community could walk to. • Concern regarding increasing density -> a higher demand for transit, and some hesitancy that the transit demand can be met. Believes that density must be increased, and that we must always consider displacement.
• Supports everywhere to be increased density, but if it has to be concentrated around existing amenities and transit.

3. What feedback do you have about where to allow small businesses in the R3 Zone? Considerations
• Near transit, services, etc.
• Near existing higher density areas & away from low density areas • Along major streets or at intersections
• Areas far from existing commercial
• Everywhere/Nowhere
• Others?

• Try to create complete neighborhoods with businesses, but still need access to large facilities (like hospitals)
• Day care as live-work
• Convenience stores can be more expensive
• Near high density to be successful
• Ground floor uses tend not to be traditional retail
• Retail will need support to be sustained
• Include laundromats, grocery stores, other daily needs, but they should maintain lower prices
• Commercial should go where it would be viable and successful • Locations for some parking – concern about parking in the bike lane • Like storefronts integrated in mixed-use, parking tucked behind, integrate with outdoor space to support community interaction
• Smaller businesses seem to fail at a high rate. It would likely work best to be permissive and allow it in most (maybe all R3) areas to provide the greatest opportunity for success.
• Flexibility on the allowed uses and locations should be the leading point. Do not force businesses near other businesses, allow them in areas that currently lack commercial etc.
• Flexibility is important and predicting commercial trends can be hard. Mindful strategies should include flexibility around uses that will not be a nuisance (odor, noise, etc.) that may negatively impact the area.
• Retail seems to be the preference for jurisdictions, but it may not always work. Be cautious about the uses near homes, this is not to say that it can not be done. But look at benchmarks from other cities with successful mixing of residential/ businesses. • Allow for a mix of uses for example, allow bookstores, and other forms of retail. Be open to all uses that may be successful, be cautious but not overly cautious to where we precluded entrepreneurship.
• Small businesses, as long as there is parking access and minimal community impacts (pollution/pollutants) should be allowed to exist anywhere. • Supports small business next to all the listed option, but also believes in being aware of the appropriateness of the small business (“paraphernalia store near family communities should not be allowed”).
• A focus on appropriate businesses should be allowed anywhere. • Small businesses should be “everywhere and abundant”, while pointing out the businesses get their own say in where they want to go unless the city has incentive programs for placement.

Stakeholder and Neighborhood Group Mee�ngs

MV YIMBY – January 28, 2022
• likes density, concern about evictions
• people move out because they can't afford, more homes is the solution • people leaving is bad for cities that want be vibrant • lived at NOVO, discouraging to see region lose so many people • Concern about reducing total number of homes with rowhomes in R3 • Loss of naturally affordable units
• Precise Plan processes were discretionary - R3 was supposed to be more by-right and faster • Why delay?
• R1 next to Caltrain, draft had lower R3 because it was next to R1, obvious solution to have more density next to Caltrain - R3 address that, be more transit sensitive • Amenities near Rengstorff makes it a good place for R3D • wants to see more R3D, especially near transit and services • Remove parking minimums
• How do you keep from staying with the status quo? How do you weigh between both sides • Choose between A & B - diversity of neighbors vs. lots of cars? So people understand that there are real tradeoffs
• We aren't an interest group, none of us are paid, we are losing friends • Meetings are not accessible to everyone, and there is an age bias at meetings • Other people say that pro-growth are not members of the community • Likes arcades

Coali�on for Sustainable Planning and Greenspaces MV – Februar y 9, 2022 • Confused - a lot of rumors
• What is the status?
• What are the objectives? Is it "resident-neutral"?
• Communities are terrified, it will have a bigger impact • Housing isn't necessarily the issue, infrastructure is (schools, parks) • Interest and concern about infrastructure
• Concern about the mock-up drawings, new renderings
• Related to Housing Element? RHNA targets?
• Opticos presentation about form-based codes - received pretty well • 555 Middlefield - concerns about air quality during construction - how will MV get past this- not unique
• Water supply?
• R3 areas have a deficit of infrastructure - huge catch-up we need to do • We should have thought more about infrastructure during GP update • Need to update GP for RHNA
• Need holistic approach to address growth
• People leaving all the time. Cannot put down roots. Unaffordable. Going to have to step on toes to make things happens. Need to change things.
• Trying to create policy for people who are coming and they don't have a voice compared to people who are already here.
• 100 Moffett should have been larger
• No objectives to growth and change in character, don't want to see deterioration of quality of life
• Make MV too wonderful and prices will go up - need to find the balance among all these interests
• Siloing of how things are done among City departments • 100 Moffett didn't have good connectivity to surrounding areas • Individual projects need to add up to the vision, stuck with project-by-project approach hoping it adds up to something
• Groups and depts seem to work independently, balkanized • Does City structure need to change based on changing conditions? • Open Space is discussed on a city-wide level
• Have neighborhood meetings
• Street character - sidewalk/street issues
• Bulb-outs - California/Latham project?
• Siloing streets from developments, don't seem to be considering things comprehensively • Obstacles to building more and cheaper housing
• How to ensure that they can be approved/built faster
• If things are approved too fast, then the community may not be able to respond and have their concerns addressed
• It’s a matter of balance
• Latham/Escuela has always had a lot of bikes, cars, peds, families • New bills from State limit whether we can have setbacks and trees - that is a detail that is really important for how people live
• ECR - trees in the sidewalks are dead. Someone has to be responsible to take care of them • By addressing these, we can reduce the staff workload, because they always come up. Make them known up front
• R3 is a marketing issue - people don't care about focusing on form or speed of approval • Instead focus on being able to walk to your local coffee shop or other community benefits; density supports that
• Lots of agreement - add commercial into these neighborhoods and the density to support it? • Incentivize more parks, parklets, etc that arise from growth. Increased density is secondary to these benefits
• Everyone wants to live in a diverse community with different socioeconomic levels • Focus on making it a better place to live, build community • What makes Silicon Valley so dynamic? Cities grow or die • Economic arguments? If new units are built, would housing costs go down?

R3 Concern Group – February
10, 2022
• Presentation:
o Picture of Moffett Blvd
o Hope: Moderate Growth that maintains quality of life for existing residents o Concerns about existing project:
 Max building heights (6 stories)
 Minimal setbacks
 Loss of privacy, greenspace, and street parking
 Increase in traffic, anonymity
o Outreach has been "checking the box"
o Surveys have leading questions
o Writeups highlight high-density advocates
o Highlight new housing types, ignore higher buidlings and minimal setbacks o Staff does not mention downsides
o Staff does not mention Density Bonus
o Feels like a setup
o Questions:
 Timeline of outreach, Council consideration
 Infrastructure?
o Recommend:
 Focus on compatibility with existing neighborhoods
 Respect "Change Area" direction in GP
 Consider different options
• Use Precise Plans
• Consider options for intensity
• Consider compatibility with GP and neighborhoods
 Precise Plans are the key
 Scale of project is too big, imprudent to do all at once  Not necessary for RHNA

• Invite whole city to each outreach meeting? Will it be biased? • When doing the outreach, make sure to represent who is providing the input. Are they MV voters?
• Provide summaries of meetings, what’s going on, who was involved, more transparent process • Last outreach 98% had never heard anything about R3. Nobody is aware of it. • CNC meetings have sign boards and other advertisement. Utilize neighborhood groups. • Landscaping and setbacks that scale with building heights, don't negotiate or give it away. • Concern about rear setbacks as well
• 45 degree angle is not enough to preserve privacy
• Back yard is an extension of the home, 6 stories ruins that • Council needs education - they have a lot of questions • Displacement: what about displacement of residents in nearby single family homes • Is there an approach to RHNA where we reduce the employment in the City?

Livable Mountain View – February 17, 2022
• Initial discussion was "more consistent", form-based, more variety of housing types, avoid projects that put vulnerable populations at risk
• What we got was super-high density, reduction in open and green spaces, reduction in parking • Further from condo projects than where we were
• Displacement is big concern for Livable MV
• Rowhomes were displacing, until 2030 (SB330)
• Displacement ordinance needed, but not urgent
• Proposals to build at 2-3 times to make redevelopment feasible o Families will leave MV and never return
• Might be needed for HEU, but staff has shown we don't need it • Will there actually be more subsidized units if R3 redevelops? • Raise land costs
• 555 Middlefield - infill construction, no displacement o Will still make displacement happen regardless
o Construction air quality is an issue
o Hala's mom lives there and may need to move
• 15% affordability - 555 Middlefield is the first project? • How to get RHNA affordable housing?
• Almost half of City is within R3, bigger change than GP update • Massive rezoning in a single action; comprehensive community outreach is ineffective • Nobody has heard of R3
• Use underutilized areas for our housing, instead of intensifying R3 • Why not through a Precise Plan? They would address specific neighborhood issues in a better way
• How to add more schools?
• Community Benefits - will developers have right to upzoning without community benefits? • Can't downzone - SB330
• Effect on adjacent SFR neighborhoods
• Loss of access to light and solar
• Loss of neighborhood character
• Parking impacts, street safety, traffic, etc.
• Retail dead zone is a concern and a result of big businesses and tenant spaces • Precise Plans provide a better way
o Neighborhood focused outreach
o Community benefits have to be part of the discussion
o North Bayshore had more iterations than this, not even residential o Precise Plans allow more level of detail
o Precise Plans have transparency and public trust
• MV should keep some rezoning capacity for use in future RHNAs • Total capacity is not discussed and we don't have data • Fantasy that we will exceed housing demand and prices will go down • Mission - want to keep the City a livable, enjoyable place to live, with a balance and a plan, transparency, trust
• Preserve light for solar panels
• School safety, kids are really vulnerable on the streets, across ECR and Castro - school needs to be a stakeholder on this
• Wish there was more outreach to condo and townhouse population • Neighbor said someone was going to buy Cypress point lakes and rebuild • City website is terrible (Transit Center)
• Public trust
• Noticing issue was posed as "expensive" but it wasn't • We have lost thousands of heritage trees and other sustainability issues • Have chief sustainability officer involved in the development process • Have we looked at additional carbon footprint of taller buildings?

Shoreline West Associa�on of Neighbors – February 25 , 2022 • Not aware of deep neighborhood familiarity or concern • People aren't familiar with zoning
• We have to write for Council who have a level of knowledge, but the public don't have that expertise
• Make sure to have pictures
• Current pictures are buried
• Online survey is good
• Latham/Escuela letter
o increasing density on edge of neighborhood, mix of use OK o How to do it sensitively to existing context?
o City staff didn't understand the site well with respect to where the driveway was • R3 will run into same issue - parking garage access, traffic, bike/ped access and safety • People aren't happy with Villa right now
• Departments (PW and Planning) don't seem to work together • One-off projects aren't planned comprehensively
• Where are the safe routes to schools?
• Precise Plan level of detail is necessary for the highest density - need that level of attention to site
• Needs direction for transportation and parks/open space • Concern about turnover and gentrification in the lowest income areas if prompted by higher density
• Displacement measures don't really support return
• Concern about over-technical nature of comments and rationale • Especially for Spanish speakers
• Provide slides, and have them appropriate for a range of reading levels • Displacement requires preparation and knowledge
• Put out a more specific plan for public input

District English Language Advisory Committee & Community in Action Team – February 28, 2022 • Concern about housing for the teachers; a lot of staff have difficulty finding housing; is there housing for teachers? Collaborate with the district
• Will there be more parks? Want more trees to replace the ones cut down. • Concerns about expensive housing
• What is the plan for traffic and schools?
• Plan may sound wonderful, but we do all the difficult jobs and our rent will increase. As the workforce, there isn't a plan for us, we will be displaced, no affordable housing. Community needs to be rescued, needs to be first.
• How will this be a plan that will make my home affordable • We want to be part of the picture
• The main point is to have a house here; people have lost their jobs and trying to survive. • Importance of housing security, stress to families and children • Green spaces are also important
• On California and Escuela, there is a big potential for displacement • Keep in mind community opportunity purchase act (COPA) • Agree with previous comments about affordability; people have to leave MV due to the requirements; build affordable homes for people who cannot qualify for BMR • Families have to spend 70-80% of income on housing
• People stay so their children can go to schools.
• It is very difficult

Wagon Wheel Neighborhood – March 1, 2022
• Response from neighbors wasn't as vocal as she thought • Goes over people's heads
• Neighbors were focused on 282 Middlefield
• Support new development that would fit with the neighborhood • Want an asset, not something that will be a skyscraper next to 1-story • Concern about traffic and parking
• Hate to see loss of trees, greenspace, setbacks, trees • Changes the flavor of neighborhood, reducing amenities • Concerns about infrastructure, needs to be designed ahead of time • Do we have enough schools
• Need to plan ahead before we talk about the rezoning
• Not NIMBY, but how do we maintain the way of life?
• Build housing first but infrastructure later? Doesn't seem right • Traffic and parking
• Instead of doing R3 everywhere, could we use Precise Plans? • Think about Citywide infrastructure and planning
• Houses are getting bigger near Los Altos
• Traffic, infrastructure
• MV is being asked to take on regional and state-wide issues • We are just one small city
• Advocates have been hostile to Single Family home-owners • Advocates have been accusatory
• Council has said this is an emergency, but that is wrong • Once we change this, we are stuck
• We want to be thoughtful and strategic
• Wagon wheel isn't just worried about wagon wheel
• These changes affect us City-wide
• Try to improve infrastructure first, before planning for growth • Need to build roads & transit first
• Here, transit is not that reliable
• Whisman area has been short on parks - are parks in the plan for R3 • No community benefit in our area
• Community benefit has to be part of the discussion for R3 • Adjust the setbacks to be realistic about transitions to neighborhoods • Transitions should be blocks instead of feet
• People are disturbed by large buildings next to SFRs
• How can R3 have more teeth that would help in the 282 Middlefield situation • Be clear about community benefits, parks, etc
• Plan comprehensively for how the whole City looks
• Precise Plans had support and more community input
• Branding - call it something about density
• Housing, affordability, quality of life and vibrancy
• Greater emphasis on quality of life
• Past outreach, but it was hard to have a moderate voice heard • A lot of housing advocates, need a strong moderator
• Just got a card, but didn't attend
• Use Next Door

Canopy – June 22, 2022
• Concern about level of intensity proposed
• Lower park fee is also a big concern
• Concern about loss of mature tree canopy
• Want a design handbook that will take trees and nature into consideration, including objective standards
• Planting standards for maximum growth
• Tree data - how are we doing? Adding canopy? Losing canopy? • Stronger replacement requirement- both # and species (climate-resilient) • Make the street more park-like - larger planter strip, bulb-out • Look at other cities that have gone through densification and see what we can learn • Transit-oriented design? What about park-oriented design? • Reduce parking - TDM (offer zip car and other shared vehicles), free up space for open space • Green roof and landscape screening of parking lots
• Innovations - trees planting in balconies, elevator cores, atriums • Better protect trees during construction - seeing tree protection not being done - need to enforce better
• Increase canopy replacement requirement - also require that replacement trees be of similar size (also species and health)
• We don't need more lawns

Cafecito and Community in Ac�on Team – November 2023
• Will there be requirements for larger units?
• Why are units so tall with so many stairs? Little access to open space? • What does it mean for housing affordability?
• What are the issues related to parking?
• Concern about management of Evelyn Family Apartments
• How would this affect people?
• Concern is about demolition and rebuilding - seems like the buildings would be built for middle class. What happens to working class when redeveloped? • Worry about what will happen with working class, preserve what is already built as it will be less expensive
• City should be focused on a permanent housing solution for the working class, COPA/TOPA will take time
• BMR process is difficult and doesn't serve the working community • Important to preserve the units that we have
• Current programs are not adequate for the working class, extremely low income • There are many families that are working 2-3 jobs, but cannot meet eligibility for low income • Process is extremely challenging
• Priority is to create units that are affordable
• Build near where the community already lives, and near schools • Strongly believe in preserving the homes where communities are • Worry about social justice and inclusion
• Maintain diversity and homes we already have

Mountain View Tenants Coali�on – March 5, 2024
• How would new development address displacement?
• How do you know commenters are residents?
• Who are the intended incomes of the buildings?
• Was this part of the Housing Element?
• It seems like it may be counter to our goals of letting people stay in their homes • Is this just a report or are we providing input?
• Redevelopment would result in a change in demographics and changes in services, but more work
• New units should be rent-stabilized or affordable, and should be guaranteed to be safe and healthy
• Tenants are afraid to request inspections
• Can new units be rent-controlled under Costa-Hawkins? • In the list of priorities, some people want to make sure people can live in the City • More production won't solve the issue, it’s the cost of the housing • Who helps tenants relocate, and are there moving costs? • Role of Staff and Council in setting direction is not clear • Are there opportunities specifically for renters?
• How can this project provide more ownership opportunities? • Need subsidies to make sure that vacant apartments are used, and to deal with the cost of living • Don't just put density in one part of the City, have it throughout • When people come back to the units, will it be at the same rent? • "SOL" - "Stewards Of the Land" a vision for people to work/live together in their homes/neighborhood - can R3 help?
• Prioritize local businesses in new commercial spaces
• In favor of strengthening community with businesses that complement and work with community
• Support live-work, having small businesses operated by the resident

CORRESPONDENCE DURING 2022 SUMMER OUTREACH
September 25, 2022
Re: R3 Zoning Update Community Outreach Concerns
Dear Mayor Ramirez and Members of the City Council:

The LWV believes that democratic government depends upon informed and active participation at all levels of government.

As such, we share the concerns brought up by Mountain View YIMBY on the skewed participation in the recent R3 Zoning Update workshops, especially missing the original communities whose displacement partially triggered the update. As staff continues on with further work on community engagement, we have some suggestions on how the process could be improved:
● Some meetings should be done in-person. Not everyone has access to technology to reach the online material, and some discussions are better facilitated with face-to-face conversations.
○ For meetings done in-person, childcare should be provided given that parenting demands may prevent interested people from participating in the lengthy meetings.
● While we commend staff for providing translators at the workshops, the written materials are still in English and the website only provides machine translation. At minimums, materials should be fully translated into different languages. Where possible, there should be separate meetings targeted towards each language group. ● Workshops should be targeted to key stakeholders rather than by neighborhoods. Groups like CLSEPA or the Day Workers Center provide a starting point to be able to reach renter and non-English-speaking communities. Doing it by neighborhood may lead to a myopic framing of what is a citywide topic.
(Please send any questions about this email to Kevin Ma at ) Thank you for considering our input.

Karin Bricker, President of the LWV of Los Altos-Mountain View cc: Kimbra McCarthy Aarti Shrivastava Eric Anderson

Re: Concerns on the R3 Zoning Update Process
To Advanced Planning Manager Anderson:

Mountain View YIMBY strongly supports ensuring that R3 zoning is reformed to allow for more homes to be built. However, we would like to share with the Council some concerns about the ongoing process, specifically concerning two items: the structure of the recent workshops and the revised plan presented therein.

The structure of the community workshops failed to honor the city’s statutory responsibility1 to affirmatively further fair housing. We participated in all six of the recent neighborhood workshops and noted that attendance at these workshops (see Appendix) was not representative of the city. The demographic surveys conducted in the meetings all show renters being a clear minority, despite being a majority in Mountain View. Additionally, while staff did provide Spanish and Chinese translation services, they were little used, indicating a lack of meaningful feedback from these populations. We recommend that the city rectify the deficiency of public input by conducting proactive outreach to tenant and ethnic minority groups.

A biased process has consequences. One key factor driving the R3 Update was concern about the displacement of tenants at properties such as 2310 Rock Street and 1555 W Middlefield Road. Indeed, Mountain View YIMBY believes that restrictions in the current R3 zoning encourage tenant-displacing projects such as these, and that R3 reform is needed to protect tenants. However, this concern was muted at the recent meetings. Instead, running themes of public comment have included undermining the density bonus or complaining about the prohibition of downzoning. These workshops do not seem to be forming the community understanding and consensus that the Council desired.

In the R3 neighborhood workshops, staff states that their 2022 revised plans were a result of community feedback from the 2020 set of workshops. As participants in the 2020 iteration of the update, we observed a mostly pro-housing stance from fellow attendees; council was also broadly supportive of that iteration. We have not seen the kind of feedback that would shift plans so drastically from considering a range of height extensions to merely changing the building design while keeping the three story limit. Staff has mentioned in the recent workshops that there was informal feedback that led them to consider alternatives; if this is the case, then it implies a deprioritization of the formal public comment.

The 2022 version of the R3 update ignores economic feasibility; the city will not meet the goal of “an increase in the quantity and diversity of housing” as stated on the R3 Update website if all desired forms of housing are economically infeasible. The feasibility studies from 2020point out several limiting factors in R3, particularly height limits and open space requirements. 4-to-5 story minimums were needed for viability of projects not already made unviable by other requirements. The Open Space requirement makes small-lot development unviable, yet the recent set of workshops only obliquely touches upon this with a question on additional heights for public open space. If the end result continues to make development infeasible, none of the time and effort spent on this update will matter, while tenants will continue to be displaced by attrition.

On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY,
Pardis Beikzadeh
1 Government Code 8899.50(b)(1): “A public agency shall administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”

Appendix: Workshop attendee surveys

Mayor Ramirez,
As someone who I know is concerned about the displacement of Mountain View’s working middle class, the congestion in the City, and dearth of parks, I am writing to you to express my reactions to this week’s neighborhood R3 zoning presentation.

The presentation I attended was for the Farley/Rock Street/Monta Loma neighborhood.

Having lived in this part of the City for over 35 years. I worked in the North of Bayshore area of Mountain View for more than 25 of these years. I am thus familiar with the history of the area and with the problems it faces today.

As I see it four of the major problems faced by the Northeast quadrant of the City are, 1- Increased congestion- Prior to the pandemic I sometimes could walk the 1.2 miles from my home in Monta Loma, to my office North of Bayshore, faster than I could make the drive.

While the pandemic greatly eased the morning and evening backups at the City’s 101 crossings, Google reopening continuing to expand, and with the City’s population predicted to increase by 50% over the next decade, I wonder how long this reprieve from gridlock is going last

2- Affordable housing- In 2011, small, detached units on the corner of Rengstorff and Middlefield were offered for $459,000.

I have no doubt, that if people saw these signs posted today, they would assume that it was a misprint, and that a “1” at the front of the price had been inadvertently omitted.

It is no secret that the lack of affordable Mountain View housing is creating a situation whereby our children, elderly, many members of our ethnic communities, and those in the working middle class can no longer afford to live here.

Many are being displaced.

As I see it, the R3 proposals submitted to the public last month do nothing to address this. this.

3- Displacement of long-time residents- From my perspective, the most impactful contribution to the focus group I attended was from a Spanish speaker who, related, through an interpreter, that in the past two years she and her two boys have been forced to move twice because of R3 conversions. She spoke of how she currently needed to work two jobs just to afford her current rent.

She was panic stricken that the rezoning of her current unit in the Farley area to R3 would once again displace her and leave her and her boys with diminishing options for local housing.

While the City promised assistance for those displaced at this meeting, specific proposals, and their costs were not shared.

4- Lack of park space, bike trails, and greenspace- With the MVWSD’s annexation of Monta Loma Park, Stevenson Park, and Crittenden Field, and in the absence of any new JUA between the City and the MVWSD that might provide meaningful public access to these and other school properties in the proposed rezoned area, the area under consideration now has less than 20% of the park space required by the State’s Quimby Act.

The area in Northeast Mountain View under R3 designation, currently contains no City owned fields large enough for a baseball, or soccer field, or even big enough to comfortably toss a baseball or frisbee.

Many members of my focus group reported that the lack of park space negatively affects their quality of life. Many were of the opinion that the R3 plans presented were likely to do nothing but exacerbate the current problems.

General Concern:

I thought one speaker on Tuesday hit the nail on the head. He asked, “which of the problems facing the NE quadrant of Mountain View is the current R3 zoning proposal supposed to fix?” A little thought has led me to the conclusion that the answer to this rhetorical question is “NONE Of THE ABOVE”,

Specific Questions and Concerns:

How does the current R3 Proposal address the specific needs of the area surrounding Google? - Almost the entire Northeast quadrant of the City is within walking (and is certainly within easy biking distance of Google. (The area proximate to Plymouth Street is only yards away from the Googleplex if another bikeway, aerial tram, or autonomous vehicle track were constructed over 101, and only about 3/4 of a mile distant if the area were connected to the Rock Street pedestrian/bike crossing),.

Why doesn’t the City look at this land’s proximity to Google as an opportunity to ease congestion Citywide? Why isn’t the City considering allowing construction of much denser housing in commercial areas proximate to
Google?
Wouldn’t many more, smaller, market-based units, on a smaller footprint, produce higher in lieu fees, room for parks, and more market priced affordable housing? “How Much Housing Does the New R3 Plan actually produce?”, For whom?, or the corollary “Who will be displaced by the new R3 proposal? and What will happen to these former residents?”- It is no secret that the cost of land in the area surrounding Google area often exceeds $10,000,000/acre. At this price the cost of just the land under an R3 condominium exceeds $500,000. With these as base costs, and with developers also incurring the significant development costs, new infrastructure fees, and planning, and interest costs while a project is debated, lacking a market driven solution, it is hard to see how under the existing R3 proposal, significant new market priced housing can be developed for those being displaced.

While a handful of units might be earmarked for lower income purchasers, or subsidized by the City, it seems that under the current R3 plan, the bulk of an R3 project’s units will need to be focused at the highest end of the housing market.

Simple mathematics illustrates this. For example, a condominium on Montecito, has a price tag of $1.8M. With current interest rates at 5.8%, the purchaser of this property with a 30-year mortgage, would need to be able to allocate ($8,700/month for interest, $1,800/month for taxes, and another $1,000/month to amortize the note.) How many “middle income” people I have $12,500/month after tax dollars in their housing budget?
Parks and greenspace- In the meeting Tuesday it was revealed that if developers can meet state defined “density bonuses” that allow them to avoid setback requirements, and height limitations. We learned that under SB-9 there is nothing the City can do about the shrinkage of setbacks or to prevent the addition of extra height to the plans.

In the course of the meeting, we heard that that all developers should be expected to take advantage of these provision and should be expected to build wider and higher, thus exacerbating the City’s greenspace, congestion, and lack of parks pace issues.

Tuesday, the Staff representative for the City opined that he hoped that the park in lieu fees generated from new R3 projects in this area would address the area’s accumulated 10-acres of parks deficit in this area.

To me the City’s assertion is nonsensical. How is it reasonable that a developer should be forced to pay for the City’s decades long lack of funding for City parks in this area, while also paying and integrating into his unit cost structure, the high price of providing parks and infrastructure to the new residents for its own projects?
Even if it were possible for developers to provide sufficient park fees to erase the City’s park deficit, the magnitude of these “make up infrastructure fees” would set the cost of any new unit at a level beyond the means of almost everyone displaced. As I see it, these fees will make it impossible for the City to meet its housing targets.

In Conclusion-
Meeting Mountain View’s State mandated Housing targets should not mean resigning the residents of Mountain View to a future of decreasing affordability, increasing congestion, few parks, and little greenspace.

There is no doubt that the City needs more affordable housing, a better transportation, infrastructure, more parks (especially north of Central). It seems inevitable that the current R3 plan will demolish more low-income housing than it will produce, add no new parks, and will leave little room for canopy, and greenspace.

As I see it, to proceed on autopilot with the current R3 plan on auto pilot, is to blindly ignore the perils that lie just ahead,
With Staff overwhelmed, Council becomes the backstop for providing vision for the future of the City.

It is from this perspective that I’m very much hoping that Council rises to the great challenge facing the City today.

Sincerely,

Jim Zaorski

From: , Planning Division
To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: FW: Input for R3 Moffett Whisman Neighborhood
Date: Friday, September 2, 2022 11:48:44 AM

From: Hala Alshahwany
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 11:47 AM
To: , City Manager <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; , Planning Division <[email protected]>
Subject: Input for R3 Moffett Whisman Neighborhood

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Council Members and City Staff,

I attended R3 workshops for both Cuesta Park and Moffett/Whisman neighborhoods since I live in the former and own property in the latter.

One input I had which was outside the workshop discussion (and the city comments link would not allow input outside workshop topics, so I couldn’t use it), is the importance of having a precise plan in residential area of Moffett neighborhood prior to any R3 updates.

As you’re aware, precise plans ensure that growth in population and residential units are considered along with the needs for (just to name a few) water, energy, utilities, schools, retention of green canopy, adequate open space, parks, traffic and pedestrian safety. Without this thorough planning, this very desired, near transit neighborhood, will be hugely impacted and very negatively, resulting in unbalanced and unsustainable and unsafe growth.

The community in that neighborhood was greatly affected by the lack of precise plans when the controversial 555 W. Middlefield project was approved last May of this year, 2022. No one living in that neighborhood wants to see this type of process continue because of deficiency in forward planning.

Please ensure precise plans are established for Moffett area before any updates to zoning.

Thank you for your consideration and representation of MV residents.

Hala Alshahwany

From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: Fwd: Blossom Valley
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 3:22:12 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi Eric.

It’s Tracy HOVDA again.

I just got my post card announcing the community meeting regarding the r3 zoning update for the Springer/Cuesta area. I hope you will forward my letters to the planning people you meet with regarding upcoming changes.

As I said before, there is a ton of housing going up all over our city and I’m guessing none of it is actually “affordable.” You folks need to adjust your definition of affordable so the restaurant workers, home health care workers, housekeepers, store employees, etc, can AFFORD a place to live. I’m sure you know the greedy developers have no idea what affordable actually is. Really Eric, you are smart and educated- help stick up for the young and less wealthy members of our town who work so hard.

Tracy Hovda

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Tracy Hovda
Date: May 23, 2022 at 9:13:20 AM PDT
To: "Anderson, Eric B." <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Blossom Valley
Hi.

We must be meeting those state mandates by now. There is building going on all over the place.

We need for people like you in government to fight for us. I’ve been to plenty of planning meetings and arguments over turning a house in the neighborhood to daycare etc. etc. and those in general don’t go very far. You are supposed to be standing up for our beautiful city. These small shopping centers are really important to us. They keep us from having to travel miles and miles further to get groceries and dry cleaning and all the other stuff that a person gets at their local shopping center. Can you do this for us?
Tracy

Sent from my iPhone
On May 23, 2022, at 8:11 AM, Anderson, Eric B.
<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Ms. Hovda,
Thanks so much for your input. As you may know these proposed actions are part of the State-mandated Housing Element process. I encourage you to tune in to the Council meeting on June 14 to get more information and to provide your input to Council on these issues.

Council reports, instructions for attending meetings, and other information will be available here the Friday before the meeting:
https://mountainview.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
We will forward your comment to Council in the meeting packet.

Thanks again!
-Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy Hovda
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 3:32 PM
To: Anderson, Eric B. <[email protected]> Subject: Blossom Valley
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email
before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Mr. Anderson,
I read in the Voice about the possibility of turning our great small shopping centers (Blossom Valley and Grant Park Plaza)over to greedy developers once again. Housing is already going up all over the place and up and down El Camino. I understand the need for more housing but, the developers aren’t giving up enough units to “affordable“ options as it is. The city of Mountain View administrators are sissies (couldn’t think of another word) when it comes to standing up to developers. These wealthy, greedy companies run all over us. Affordable housing should be AFFORDABLE. If the folks that work in our dry cleaners, grocery stores, etc, could live here, then you could use the word, “affordable.” Who does the city think they’re fooling?
Stay away from our nice, friendly, convenient grocery stores, nail salons, bagel shops, etc. We are all sick of the greed and the congestion. Enough already.

Tracy Hovda, lover of Mountain View for 25 years.

Sent from my iPhone

From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Affecting Monta Loma and Farley Date: Thursday, July 21, 2022 4:29:00 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Mr. Anderson,
Thank you so much for the Community input meeting of July 19. I found it interesting. I think you may know that the community of Monta Loma is very concerned about the limited park space and are concerned about the
proposal to build even more housing for multi families. In fact, many people have signs in their gardens " Save our Park'.

I have been reading the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan for the Rengstorff area. It points out "
The Rengstorff Planning Area is served by 2.02 acres of open space, the least amount of open space per 1,000 residents of all the planning areas. The Planning Area is in need of 17.71 acres of open space to meet the City’s goal of 3.0 acres of open space per 1,000 residents." "It is the least amount of open space per 1000 residents of all planning areas" Park acreage of .31 acres is below the City's overall standard of 3 acres per 1000 residents.".

I hope that in plans for further development , especially the idea that there should be R3 housing,
we should make sure that the Rengstorff meets the city requirement of 3 acres per 1000 residents. This does not mean to build higher buildings rather it suggests reducing the number of people who come to live in this area and to find the money to create a park .

I would also hope that the two areas in Monta Loma that are currently zoned for R 3 should be rezoned for single family houses , in keeping with the rest of the Monta Loma community.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Olga Bright

From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: Proposed Changes to R3 Multifamily Housing
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 2:44:05 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi Eric,
I live in the Central Neighborhoods in Mountain View in a predominantly single family neighborhood and recently saw proposed changes to the R3 zoning:
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/r3update.asp I am unable to attend the online workshop, but would like to express that I am strongly in support of denser housing and allowing a greater variety of housing types in the R3 zones (and really all of Mountain View). I am also excited that the city is considering the adoption of form based zoning, and I support its adoption. Housing affordability is one of the greatest challenges facing Mountain View, and any steps to address it with greater density is much appreciated.

Thanks,
Tim

From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: R3 Zoning Meeting, July 25
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 1:23:40 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Eric,
I live in the Willow Gate district and would very much like to attend the July 25 meeting regarding R3 housing. Unfortunately, I have a prior commitment, so I am not able to make the meeting. I would appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the presentation that will be delivered by the Planning Department.

Although City Council has voted on developing a Precise Plan for our District, to date none has been presented to the residents. I am confused as why a R3 plan is being presented to the community before the Precise Plan has been developed. This is putting the cart before the horse in my opinion. The City has started on a hodgepodge approach to development in our District and it looks like it is continuing down this path, which is leading to a decrease in livability in our neighborhood.

It is imperative that the City develop a comprehensive plan as requested by the residents that includes:

traffic plans for the Central, Moffett, and Middlefield corridors, street parking plans, bicycle paths, the retention of retail, the protection of heritage trees, planning for additional schools and land reserved for these schools, planning for actual recreational parks and not mere postage stamp parks which do not serve the community well.

A Precise Plan for the Willow Gate community is the most critical work the Planning Department should be doing to ensure the livability of our community.

Sincerely,
Diane Gazzano

From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: R3 zoning update
Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 11:21:56 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

The R3 Update Workshop for the Central Neighborhoods is the night before the first day of school, so I won’t be able to attend. Instead I’m writing in support of the R3 update. I’m a homeowner in Shoreline West, and I used to rent a townhouse in Whisman Station.

My family bikes and walks around Mountain View as our primary forms of transportation. So walkability, bike access, and interspersed small commercial usage, are all very important to me. Mountain View needs a lot more multifamily housing, but what we don’t need is soulless apartment blocks. We need homes with porches and balconies so that residents can be a visible part of their neighborhoods and for larger buildings to have destination businesses on the ground floor. That will keep people on foot rather than having to resort to cars because everything is so far away.

I think adding a floor or two of apartments above businesses on and near Castro Street would add to the vibrancy of the downtown district without taking anything away from it. I am in favor of mixed use neighborhoods and would welcome that sort of thing in my own neighborhood.

Thanks so much,
Jenn Bernat

From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: Re: Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Affecting Monta Loma and Farley Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 11:48:38 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Mr. Anderson,
Thank you so much for your reply. Unfortunately I am out of the country at the time of the up coming meetings about Monta Loma R3 development. I am very disappointed that I will be unable to attend. I very much hope that in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Strategic Planners a new park will be created and the single family housing will be constructed. I would like to see the neighborhood of Monta Loma retain its community character and its integral
integrity. We are an active community with regular Block Parties, an Ice Cream social event, a yearly garage sale and other events. I believe that adding large numbers of town homes will change the essential character of the neighborhood. I hope that you will be willing to mention my views at the upcoming meetings.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Olga Bright
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 8:48 AM Anderson, Eric B. <[email protected] >
wrote:

Olga,
Thanks very much for the message. We will include your note in our analysis and reporting to Council.

Please stay engaged!

Have a good one,
-Eric

From: Olga Bright
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 4:29 PM
To: Anderson, Eric B. <[email protected]> Subject: Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Affecting Monta Loma and Farley

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Mr. Anderson,
Thank you so much for the Community input meeting of July 19. I found it interesting. I think you may know that the community of Monta Loma is very concerned about the limited park space and are concerned about the proposal to build even more housing for multi families. In fact, many people have signs in their gardens " Save our Park'.

17.71 acres of open space to meet the City’s goal of 3.0 acres of open space per 1,000 residents."
"It is the least amount of open space per 1000 residents of all planning areas" Park acreage of .31 acres is below the City's overall standard of 3 acres per 1000 residents.".

I hope that in plans for further development , especially the idea that there should be R3 housing, we should make sure that the Rengstorff meets the city requirement of 3 acres per 1000 residents. This does not mean to build higher buildings rather it suggests reducing the number of people who come to live in this area and to find the money to create a park .

I would also hope that the two areas in Monta Loma that are currently zoned for R 3 should be rezoned for single family houses , in keeping with the rest of the Monta Loma community.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Olga Bright
From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: Re: R3 update question
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 12:54:18 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Eric,
Thanks very much for your quick reply. The idea of developers piggybacking the state density bonus on top of new City standards that allow greater density is extremely problematic.

You can assume that developers will seek to maximize density, and will exploit the state law.

That is a given.

In my own neighborhood, Willowgate/Central Avenue, I can easily see how the Shoreline Apartments at 505 Central Avenue could be rezoned by MV for greater density, whereupon a developer would come in with a proposal to go 2 stories higher, with 0.5 parking spaces per unit. You would have no choice but to approve it, to the detriment of the neighborhood.

I hope Planning can find a way to prevent this totally forseeable kind of situation.

Thanks,
Peter
On Jul 18, 2022, at 11:32 AM, Anderson, Eric B.
<[email protected]
> wrote:

Peter,
I am sorry to hear you will not be able to attend. We will have a website for people to provide additional comments after the workshop, and I encourage you to weigh in using the website.

Please checkwww.mountainview.gov/r3zoningupdate the day after the workshop to find the link to where you can provide additional comments.

To answer your question: State Density Bonus applies today and it would apply to any future standards or density we would adopt.

We are considering ways to make State
Density Bonus more transparent, such as by better calibrating standards with each other, but we cannot preclude State Density Bonus through the R3 update.

Please let me know if you have any other questions,
-Eric

From: Peter Spitzer <
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 6:28 PM

To: Anderson, Eric B. <[email protected]> Subject: R3 update question

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Eric,

I just received a card announcing the R3 update meeting tomorrow. I won’t be able to attend, but I have concerns. Right now I’d just like to ask you one question: In the new standards, would developers be able to piggyback the State density bonus law on top of new City R3 requirements?

If R3 standards are relaxed to encourage density, it seems to me that developers would exploit both the new reduced City R3 requirements, and then
on top of that exploit the state Density Bonus. That
really worries me.

Any new City R3 standards will have to be written to prevent this.

Has this issue been addressed yet?

Thanks,
Peter Spitzer

OTHER CORRESPONDENCE
From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: Please protect character of Old Mountain View downtown residences Date: Thursday, February 29, 2024 2:44:24 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Eric,
We just spoke on the phone. I am setting this email to get my request on record.

Please protect the character of Old Mountain View downtown residences, especially the R-1 low density and the single family homes.

Thank you,
Jennifer Bullard

From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: Question re R3 status for Santa Rosa Ave.

Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 4:07:07 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Eric,
I have some questions regarding the R3 update and how it will affect Santa Rosa Ave., my neighborhood. I also have some comments, which I hope you will consider.

First, my questions:
1) What exact R3 classification is currently being considered for Santa Rosa Avenue? 2) In the R3 Update website, a 2020 map defined R3-A and R3-B in terms of “stories,” while the 2022 map defines R3-A and R3-B in terms of “medium house scale” and “large house scale.” An article in the Nov. 16 MV Voice about a proposed Moffett Blvd. Precise Plan had a Planning graphic showing Santa Rosa as “High Density Residential (36 to 50 DU/acre). Thus, I am seeing 3 different terms used. How do these terms relate, specifically in regard to permitted density?
Next, I hope you will consider these comments:

Although Santa Rosa is zoned R3, it is currently seven single-family homes, and four properties with duplexes. All are one-story except for one or possibly two houses.

I am concerned that we could see one or more developments along Santa Rosa that, with state- mandated density bonus and parking reduction, could be 5 stories, with little or no parking.

The development that has been approved at 730 Moffett is a case in point. Obviously, this would negate any idea of “step-down” in height. I have the same concern about the proposed Moffett Precise Plan - what sort of development would we see on the opposite side of Santa Rosa, the side that also fronts on Moffett, and which would be part of the Precise Plan? I see that Corto Ave. and Santa Clara Ave. are slated to remain R-1. Santa Rosa has the same character, but unfortunately has long been R-3. I understand that state law prohibits downzoning, and I understand that it preempts local zoning.

Nevertheless, I believe that upzoning Santa Rosa in any way, by the City, would be extremely detrimental to the neighborhood.

Thanks for your attention and understanding. I hope you can answer my questions, and I’d appreciate any input regarding my comments.

Peter Spitzer

On Jul 29, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Anderson, Eric B.
<[email protected]> wrote:

Peter,
Thanks so much for the feedback. The purpose of the meetings is to give individual neighborhoods a chance to hear some of the opportunities and constraints, before diving into the details.

The outreach, including opportunities to provide input and get into the details, will continue on for a few months. You can see the maps of the neighborhoods we have discussed at https://mountainview.konveio.com/. In addition, the slides are available after each meeting at www.mountainview.gov/r3zoningupdate

We are not proposing to change any of the R3 locations. You can find a map of the R3 zone at www.mountainview.gov/zoning (all the orange areas).

Thanks,
-Eric

From: Peter Spitzer <
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 4:47 PM
To: Anderson, Eric B. <[email protected]> Subject: Re: R3 update question

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Eric,

I am having problems finding specifics on the proposed R3 update. Could you please send me a link or PDF with a map showing the present zones and the proposed zones? I’m interested in the proposal city-wide, but specifically Moffett/Whisman, where I live.

I did watch the YouTube video of the Monta Loma meeting. If I recall correctly, a map was briefly presented, but only of that neighborhood.

If I may offer a comment, transparency would be much better served if the specifics of the proposal were made publicly available - for all neighborhoods, and before the meetings.

Thanks,

Peter

On Jul 18, 2022, at 11:32 AM, Anderson, Eric B.
<[email protected]
> wrote:

Peter,
I am sorry to hear you will not be able to attend.

We will have a website
for people to provide additional comments after the workshop, and I encourage you to weigh in using the website.

Please
checkwww.mountainview.gov/r3zoningupdate the day after the workshop to find the link to where you can provide additional comments.

To answer your question: State Density Bonus applies today and it would apply to any future standards or density we would adopt.

We are
considering ways to make State Density Bonus more transparent, such as by better calibrating standards with each other, but we cannot preclude State Density Bonus through the R3 update.

Please let me know if you have any other questions,
-Eric

From: Peter Spitzer <
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 6:28 PM
To: Anderson, Eric B. <[email protected]> Subject: R3 update question

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Eric,

If R3 standards are relaxed to encourage density, it seems to me that developers would exploit both the new reduced City R3 requirements, and then on top of that
exploit the state Density Bonus. That really worries me.

Any new City R3 standards will have to be written to prevent this.

Has this issue been addressed yet?

Thanks,
Peter Spitzer
From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: R3 update issues, Santa Rosa Ave.

Date: Saturday, November 19, 2022 12:35:26 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Eric,
I’d like to offer some comments on the R3 update as it would affect my neighborhood. I live on Santa Rosa Avenue.

I have read the proposal that is posted on the R3 Update website. I want to thank you for making this information available, and giving residents a chance to submit input, though I was disappointed that so few people submitted comments.

But to get right to the point, I have some very serious concerns about the proposed update for Santa Rosa Avenue.

1) We can assume, without any doubt, that future developers will exploit the density bonus. A case in point is the project at 730 Central Avenue, which asked for and received a 42.5% density bonus. Thus the R3B zoning, presented in the 2022 update proposal as 3-4 stories, would actually result in 5-6 stories in neighborhoods like mine. We should be clear about this. 2)
As you know, California law now abolishes any parking requirements for new developments within 0.5 miles of transit. Obviously, the Santa Rosa neighborhood is within

0.5 miles of transit. The 730 Central project allows only 0.5 parking spaces per apartment. But now, as I understand it,
California law would allow as little as zero spaces per apartment.

Common sense should tell us that many or most apartment residents will still want to own a car, and will be forced into street parking if projects offer inadequate parking. Parking is already tight on Santa Rosa. I think the new California law is ill-advised, and has real destructive potential, but I realize that Planning has no leeway on this issue.

I also understand that cities are prohibited from downzoning. Santa Rosa Avenue was long ago zoned R3-1. Presumably, the original intention was that lots would be consolidated, and developments like the Shoreline Apartments (505 Central Avenue) would result. But this never happened. Santa Rosa Avenue has entirely single-family or duplex residences, most of them 1-story, as do the adjoining Corto and Santa Clara streets.

I would hope that Planning
could respect the character of the neighborhood, and give us a minimally destructive rezoning.

The 2020 R3 Update proposal, as shown on the website, assigns an R3A zoning to Santa Rosa Avenue. Although this designation is presented as 2 stories, if we apply the inevitable density bonus, we would have 3-4 stories, with minimal parking - potentially none at all. This is a gloomy prospect, but perhaps the best you can do.

In contrast, the 2022 R3 Update proposal, as shown on the website, assigns Santa Rosa a new R3B zoning. Although this is presented as 3-4 stories, applying the density bonus would

actually result in 5-6 stories, in a neighborhood that is presently 1-2 stories. And of course, such a project would have as little parking as the developer chose to provide - potentially zero.

The 2022 proposal offers a poor future for our neighborhood.

To sum up, I truly hope that Planning will understand our situation, and that the version of the R3 Update that you submit to Council will use the 2020 version of R3A for our street.

Thanks for your consideration! Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything about the 2020 and 2022 proposals, or about California law.

Best,
Peter Spitzer

From:

To: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: R3 Zoning Feedback
Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 10:08:03 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Eric,
I've lived in Mountain View for a few years now and look forward to its future! I love the idea of densifying wherever possible. I am currently a renter and increasing the housing supply will only help get me closer to being able to buy a house or condo of my own. I support anything you can do to increase density in Mountain View. I currently live near downtown, and love the amount of stores and shops that are walkable to me. Allowing business, restaurants and corner stores to exist in the R3 zone would also be wonderful. I cannot imagine living here and without a small business nearby.

Thanks for reading my feedback!
Ryan

From: , Planning Division
To: Faul, Madelyn
Cc: Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: RE: R3 Zoning update
Date: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:05:01 AM
Maddy,
This came in on Friday.

Nancy Woo-Garcia
Office Assistant /CDD-Planning
Main 650-903-6306

From: Gabriella Lahti
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 8:45 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: R3 Zoning update

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello there,

I am a new resident of Mountain View and trying to keep aware of happenings in my neighborhood. I am excited for the R3 discussions because affordable multi-family dwellings is important to me as not only to provide homes for everyone, but also in terms of sustainability and beauty. Concrete jungles and suburban sprawl are not the ideals we should be aiming for, so the only natural solution is densifying human dwellings to minimize our impact on the natural world, of course within reason to ensure everyone is comfortable and has a quiet beautiful home to return to.

I am curious about any discussions regarding *cars* and their parking spots for any future multiple family dwellings. There is a huge opportunity here to not sacrifice surface land to parking lots and cars. Many great apartments have underground parking garages, and I hope Mountain View pursues this and other solutions for future projects. This other article below also suggests not providing one car spot per apartment, and encouraging people to share cars or use public transit or walk. Dense cities require less driving around, generally. Mountain View’s core attraction is being a walkable city close to public transit, in my opinion. It is the main reason I moved here, to avoid ever having to drive my car.

I would be eager to hear of EPC’s plans for the cars of any future R3 dwellings, and hope cars can be hidden off surface streets if not lightly discouraged in future planning.

Best,
Gabriella

https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2023/10/11/cut-carbon-put-down-parking- lot#:~:text=Over%2070%20percent%20of%20the,lowering%20emissions%20caused%20by%20trans port.

Mountain View City CouncilApril 9, 2024

Mountain View City Council
April 9, 2024