Public Comments Received on Collaborate Mountain View
R3 Change Areas
The following sections show map comments regarding the R3 Change Areas.
East of Downtown
1. R3 parcels near train stations (Downtown and Moffett) should be zoned at max density under R3 to maximize use of transit and the walkable businesses.
Daniel Hulse
2. Recommend re-allocating density change areas to other parts of the city not next to freeways.
Development should *also* be encouraged in places where tenants *don't* have to huff tire particles.
Daniel Hulse
3. Seems like a decent area, I think there’s a mix of medium sized developments here some may be more interested in redevelopment than others
Adam
4. Consider making the downtown r3 pockets be its own change area Adam
3 2
1 4
5 6
7 8
9 Attachment 2
5. I agree with comments made during the Feb 19 Environmental Planning Commission meeting that areas in the Jackson Park & Willowgate neighborhoods should be considered for R3 zoning due to their proximity to the Caltrain Station. I wish there was denser zoning around the station on the Castro St side of Central Expw as well.
qenoah
6. I hope if this area is developed that they will prioritize the safety of elementary school students and their commute to Landels.
MW
7. All the sides of this selected area are bordered by roads (Ada, Central, Minaret, Whisman Station, N Whisman) or by Vargas and Slater, except the long edge against low density R3 housing (Avellino, Village Glen). Impact on the neighboring housing could be reduced by limiting the building height along this edge.
Patrick
8. The intersection of Minaret and Whisman Station Dr is already hard to negotiate at peak hours, Traffic from Minaret has a stop sign and has to wait a long time for all traffic stored on the turning lare on N Whisman Rd to Whisman Station Dr and on Central Expy to Whisman Station Dr to pass. With higher density at Central Park appts, the traffic from Minaret will significantly increase. Please consider improvement to the Minaret connectivity before increasing density. It's not clear if adding traffic lights at the intersection is even possible due to the short distance to the next lights on both sides.
Patrick
9. As I suggested in the R3 meeting, these areas within a quarter mile of the train station should be given an additional boost to their allowed density and height. R3 should have minimal parking requirements this close to the train station.
David W
Shoreline Blvd/Middlefield Rd Area
1. The intersections (Gemini St/Jackson St, Gemini St/Asbury Way, Gemini St/Washington St) are all surrounded by R3 zones, while this area is R1 zone. what is the process to file for a conversion request ? R1 to R2/R3.
VM
2. Shouldn't this label be Shenandoah Square? The green area shown is currently open space but not a city park.
Albert
3. I question whether a 100 ft wide
transition zone is sufficient to preserve
the privacy of the adjacent single story
homes. I disagree with the current
defacto standard of a 45 degree daylight
plane. I think it should be 30 degrees or
less, so that a buffer of twice the
building's height is used. There are many
examples around the city where the
current transition standards are
insufficient.
Albert
1 2
3 4
4. These areas, near both the train station and the grocery store, are a great example of a place where we should allow density with low parking requirements.
David W
West of Rengstorff Ave
1. I don't understand why change areas 1 and 2 aren't contiguous. This is all one area, leaving these here will create an ugly gap of smaller, older buildings.
Daniel Hulse
2. Extend densification out this way. Recommend placing easements to enable better ped access to San Antonio Station.
Daniel Hulse
3. This is way to close to the caltrain station but to be anything other than max density R3. Why hold things back?
Daniel Hulse
1 2
3 4
5 6
4. There is already a severe shortage of parking for the existing apartment units in this area. What requirements is the City putting in place to ensure developers provide adequate parking for the increased density in units?
Tklm02
5. The city should investigate the proportion of spaces that are used along these densely populated streets and prepare for a standard Shoup performance paid parking program.
David W
6. This area already lacks enough parking. Any new buildings need to account for proper parking space. Also, there is a lack of green space in this neighborhood.
Arjun
South of El Camino Real
1. All of this side of Bonita should be a transition area as they are defined. They back up to R1 properties on Nilda. We also will have huge parking issues if the number of units on Bonita grow (especially with the talked about minimal parking requirements) as the parking for new units will flow around to Nilda and R1 Bonita blocks that already have crowded street parking.
Jess
2. The areas adjacent to El Camino will all face significant parking issues because of the developments happening in the corridor with reduced parking requirements, causing overflow into adjacent streets.
For ex. development at the Chase Bank lot.
Toni
3. Maximize development on the ECR corridor (north and south side) to encourage use of 522 and 22.
Daniel Hulse
4. Upzoning this area to R3 would create serious issues for safety, infrastructure, and neighborhood character. Here’s why: Massive Scale Mismatch – Proposed 4-story buildings will dwarf adjacent 1-story homes. The small 5,500 sq. ft. lots on Nilda mean rear setbacks won’t prevent these structures from overwhelming existing homes. Severe Sunlight & Privacy Loss – Bonita buildings will block all afternoon sun by 2 PM, leaving Nilda backyards in full winter shade. Residents will lose privacy as towering units loom over fences. Traffic & Parking Nightmare – Bonita is already Cuesta Park’s densest SFH street. Adding 100+ units (200+ cars) without parking will lead to extreme congestion. No alternative parking exists—Bonita dead-ends, and Hans & El Camino can’t absorb the overflow. 1 2
3 4
5 6
Loss of Neighborhood Character – This area is a quiet, single-family neighborhood, not a transit hub.
Cramming R3 developments into a low-density street with no overflow options will fundamentally alter the character of Cuesta Park. Conclusion This upzone is misaligned with the city’s stated goals of transit-oriented, well-integrated housing growth. Instead of a blanket R3 designation, the city should consider more appropriate, gradual density increases that respect Cuesta Park’s scale and infrastructure. Would love to discuss this further and explore smart growth alternatives that balance housing needs with livability for current and future residents. Nilda is just a lot of small lots with SFH and is going to be overwhelmed with even one 4-story building (density bonus!) on that east side of Bonita!
andersonsteve
5. If public street parking is indeed nearing capacity on these streets, the city should begin implementation of a performance paid parking program here and on adjacent streets. This will ensure available spaces and help developers price unbundled parking at new developments.
David W
6. As a resident of Boranda Ave, I couldn't be happier to see more opportunities for people to live in our community. The proximity to Graham Athletic Fields and Cuesta Park makes outdoor activities easy (running, ball sports) and I enjoy a leisurely bike commute to the office through the upcoming El Camino Real bike lanes which are finally materializing - and will make it safer for me with the traffic speeds on the ECR. With regards to street parking, this is a great area to cycle from or take the shuttle bus to work (when I don't cycle, I take one of the Big Co. shuttles from El Camino Real, or sometimes Bus 40 from the Caltrain station - our family only has 1 car and we make it work and save on gas + insurance instead). We also spend more money than we probably should at Rose Market and the restaurants of Castro Street. I hope we can maximize the utilization of R3 zoning so that people can call this corner of Mountain View their home and not /have/ to spend half of their disposable income on rent (speaking as an ex-renter) to enjoy and contribute to our little community. It's good to see some progress here. I hope that we can maximize density within the very reasonable density limits proposed here.
Francois
R2 Areas to Include in R3
The following sections show map comments regarding the R2 Areas to Include in R3.
North of Downtown
1. Support conversion to R3 (1) as transit-supporting measure (2) to mesh with Moffett Precise Plan effort and (3) to drive activity downtown
Daniel Hulse
2. This r2 area seems like a good candidate to consider including in r3 at r3a or b. Very close to medium density at central expressway and moffett, near the moffett precise plan change area and future developments
Adam
3. This is near one of the proposed change area and is mostly one development, consider adding to a r3 category ?
Adam
4. Could the City consider rezo Ming the duplexes to R3 so that would allow 2 story four-plexes? Steve M
1 2
3 4
South and East of Downtown
1. This location might seem ideal due to its proximity to R3s, but in reality, it's a terrible choice. The street is already packed with kids biking to Graham, many of whom are regularly doored by parked cars.
Pedestrian traffic is also heavy due to the nearby schools. With parking requirements eliminated, street parking will inevitably increase on both sides, further squeezing space needed for drop-offs, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Adding more volume to an already congested and hazardous block—especially during school drop-off and pick-up times—is a recipe for disaster. I walk this area regularly, and parking is already a chaotic mess.
andersonsteve
2. lol, this is kind of cheating by saying it's not adjacent because it's across the street. andersonsteve
3. 4
3 2
1 5
1. Unsafe for School Traffic (Bikers & Pedestrians) This section of Phyllis Avenue and Pamela Drive is a key route for students biking and walking to Graham Middle School and nearby elementary schools.
The street already experiences frequent "dooring" incidents, where parked cars open their doors into passing cyclists. Pedestrian crossings at Hans Ave, Phyllis Ct, and Pamela Dr are already busy, and more density would further strain these routes. 2. Increased Congestion at School Drop-Off/Pick-Up Graham Middle School's catchment area sends many students through this corridor. Morning and afternoon peak times are already difficult—more density means more cars fighting for space when children are most vulnerable. 3. Parking Will Spiral Out of Control Current street parking is already maxed out. Many of the existing homes rely on street parking. If new multi-family developments don't provide parking, residents will park on both sides of Phyllis Ave and Pamela Dr, further reducing space for bikers, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles. Nearby cul-de-sacs like Katie Ct and Phyllis Ct could also see overflow parking pressure, impacting current residents. 5. Neighborhood Character Mismatch This area consists of single- family homes and townhouses that fit a suburban, family-oriented character. An upzone to R3 could result in bulkier multi-unit buildings that do not match the existing neighborhood scale. andersonsteve
4. Consider making all r2 in central mtv between central expressway and el Camino part of one of the r3 zones. This would align some density with the high amenities area and walkable transir. Maybe r3a for the ones near single family and r3b for the others ?
Adam
5. The upside to including these duplexes upzoned would only be if they were incorporated into a larger parcel for development that removed all of the driveways that cut up Hans. Improved parking and better/safer access to Bubb School and Graham could be accomplished if a larger new development had entry/exits to underground parking from Boranda and/or Bonita rather and no entrances/exits on Hans.
Simply allowing the building of larger units on the specific duplex lots would just add to parking problems by needing to park more cars on the street and having more garbage/recycling take up even more street parking once a week during school drop-off hours. The property facing Boranda just behind these duplexes is in horrible shape with lots of junk and it appears to have many people living there in multiple buildings/sheds and lots of construction vehicles on the property and on Boranda so seems to be a prime lot for redevelopment which could incorporate half of these duplexes on Hans. The property behind the other Hans duplexes is an older one-story apartment building that sold fairly recently and new owners refreshed the original buildings with planters and new exterior paint so it is unclear if that property would be a good target for incorporating the rest of the Hans duplexes into a larger development.
CL
General Comments About R3 Zoning District Update
Joe J.
Please ensure sufficient parking requirements on the new builds to not overly burden the existing neighborhood. Additionally, some thought on solar panels shading on the immediate neighbors should be looked at as well.
Ryan Doherty
Love that we're doing this and I think we should go denser, above 12 stories and remove any parking requirements. Make it all mixed use and have other regulations about noise and pollution keep businesses in check. Density is the #1 way we can improve housing costs, reduce traffic and build a better Mountain View!
Bryan L
I think it's great the city is looking at densifying and reducing barriers to building more/taller/higher. I support of reduced parking requirements and more "walkable" feel -- though I recognize this is hard to do given how car-centric Silicon Valley is. Are there parallel efforts to improve walk/bike-ability and ensure high frequency transit? Is there additional densification possible near the two Caltrain stations?
David W
I’d also echo the comment about more high density residential near the CalTrain stations. Really I can’t imagine any upper limit on height within a 5 or 10 minute walk from a Caltrain station, considering the billions the state is spending on building and improving that infrastructure.
Daniel Hulse
My general comments is that I support the densification effort, but it's not clear why these parcels were chosen for change. As long as we aren't doing a uniform densification you would want, parcels should be densified more in proximity to train stations and high-quality bus routes (ECR, VTA Orange Line, Caltrain).
Right now, it seems like we're fine allocating R3 to areas next to freeways and highways that subject tenants to environmental pollution in the form of tire particulates--exactly the kind of land use conflict that is supposed to avoid. If we're fine subjecting tenants to that, why aren't we also fine with subjecting homeowners in high-resource areas (downtown, south of el camino etc) to living next to tall buildings? Fairness means we shouldn't be exempting certain people from change just because they have more resources to complain. Additionally, the whole point of zoning (as opposed to precise plans) is just letting the chips fall where they may and not having to micromanage development. So overall I support a more uniform densification for the sake of fairness, and especially more density in transit-supporting parcels.
Daniel Hulse
It seems like not very many R2 parcels are being converted to R3. Why not convert the parcels downtown and next to the Caltrain station?
Mt View citizen
I think it's great the city is looking at how to make housing more affordable and I want to share my appreciation for all the time and thought you're putting into this. My big concern is safety and not making parking and traffic worse than it already is. Two of the streets that are chosen- Bonita and Boranda (and I'm sure others I'm not familiar with) are streets elementary and middle school students are crossing to get to school. Putting so much more traffic on those roads that have one main outlet (El Camino) concerns me for their safety. The city should watch one morning or afternoon what this looks like so they understand the number of kids using these routes. Additionally, parking is already an issue on those streets and spills over onto surrounding streets. It's nice to think people won't have a car but I don't believe we're there yet. We don't have a transit system in that area to support that change. So I would proceed cautiously. Try one or two of these in different areas, please don't put a lot of them on one street.
Isaac Stone
I understand it is unlikely condos and rowhome areas will be redeveloped. So it doesn't maybe make sense to count these areas towards RHNA - but I don't see the sense in excluding these areas from higher density zones only for that reason. Zoning changes only happen once in a few decades, after all.
There is a non-zero chance within that time some one or two of these areas will build homes - but only if we let it happen! Anywhere that makes sense should have higher density zoned
Bing Li
Upzoning some of the proposed Cuesta Park Streets to R3 would create serious issues for safety, infrastructure, and neighborhood character. Here’s why: Massive Scale Mismatch – Proposed 4-story buildings (what you get with density bumps) will dwarf adjacent 1-story homes. The small 5,500 sq. ft. lots on Nilda mean rear setbacks won’t prevent these structures from overwhelming existing homes.
Severe Sunlight & Privacy Loss – Bonita buildings will block all afternoon sun by 2 PM, leaving Nilda backyards in full winter shade. Residents will lose privacy as towering units loom over fences. Traffic & Parking Nightmare – Bonita is already Cuesta Park’s densest street. Adding 100+ units (200+ cars) without parking will lead to extreme congestion. No alternative parking exists—Bonita dead-ends, and Hans & El Camino can’t absorb the overflow. Loss of Neighborhood Character – This area is a quiet, single-family neighborhood, not a transit hub. Cramming R3 developments into a low-density street with no overflow options is a real burden on neighbors. This upzone is misaligned with the city’s stated goals of transit-oriented, well-integrated housing growth. Instead of a blanket R3 designation, the city should consider more appropriate, gradual density increases (e.g. one side of Bonita is R3 and the other is R2.5) that respect Cuesta Park’s scale and infrastructure. Would love to discuss this further and explore smart growth alternatives that balance housing needs with livability for current and future residents.
David Watson
If we truly intend to plan for a more sustainable and equitable future, then removing ownership housing from consideration only hinders our ability to adapt. People keep noting that zoning changes don’t happen often. We should take this chance to plan for the decades ahead, rather than assume current uses or ownership structures will remain fixed.
Graham P
Does this project includes the possibility of taking properties such as our single family home through emanate domain or other methods to build denser housing? Can you state definitely that this will not involve taking homes from homeowners? And that the impact of the decisions only applies to new building and development? Since the information is about goal and doesn't identify the tools the city will an will not use it is not clear. It is confusing to me, my family and other home owners in the area if
Aeric
Hi. As an avid (but aging) bike rider, I am appalled by the distances I have to travel and the obstacles I need to negotiate to shop for food, take a yoga or music class, or see a dentist, or eat out. As a result, I drive a lot more than I would *like* to. The issue, of course, is zoning. Granted, heavy industry pollutants should not be next to homes or schools. But there are a world of businesses that can easily coexist with dwelling space, that would make life more convenient for every, and get cars off the road. I'm disappointed to see that this "R3" zoning project does make allowances for anything of the kind--so everyone living there will have to do just much driving as they do now. I'd be happy to be wrong. I haven't read the full proposal, just the summary above. But the idea of "multi-family dwellings" is generally supposed to ease housing pressure. But if everyone has a car, and everyone is driving, those that can afford to will avoid the place. As they're going to drive anyway, they'll opt for lower housing density. But if it were *convenient* to walk to a pub and other utility destinations, they might well opt for that locale--and hob nob with multiple stratas of society in the process, which would benefit us all.
Steve M
Why not rezone the tract between Caltrain and Evelyn Ave and Castro and Steven’s Creek, particularly 100-200 Evelyn Ave to R3 6 stories with Retail/Commercial on the ground floor and Residential above? You could even allow 1 or 2 paring levels above the ground floor to provide more separation from the railroad noise for the resi. Right now these buildings seem to have a lot of vacancy, yet they are in a prime location for transit and pedestrian access to Castro St. The Caltrain parking could also be structured with retail at ground and resi above. I realize that Caltrain may own some or all of this land, but I believe that part of the purpose of the Caltrain JPB is to promote this type of transit oriented development.
From: Anderson, Eric B.
To: Peter Spitzer
Subject: RE: R3 update
Date: Thursday, February 6, 2025 4:39:00 PM
Peter,
Thanks very much for the comments. I can include them in the upcoming EPC and Council packets.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments, or if you would like to discuss any of the materials.
Have a good one,
-Eric
From: Peter Spitzer
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 11:55 AM
To: Anderson, Eric B. <[email protected]> Subject: R3 update
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Hello Eric,
I was unable to to attend the outreach Zoom meeting, but have looked over some of the documents that you discussed.
I want to thank you for not targeting for intensification the block bounded by Central Avenue, Santa Rosa, Horizon, and Willowgate. I have been concerned that even after upzoning, developers would (predictably) apply the density bonus on top of any new
upzoning.
Another rationale, as mentioned in your documents, is that the parcels are generally small, which makes lot consolidation impractical. Not least, from our viewpoint, is the existing single-family character of the neighborhood.
Still, I would respectfully request that the new zoning for our block be designated “Medium-Density," rather than the “Medium High-Density” that the map seems to suggest.
One related suggestion: If the City is considering buying and preserving existing affordable R3 properties, please consider Shoreline Village (in this same block), a “naturally-affordable” development that is close to transit and to downtown.
Thanks again,
Peter Spitzer (Santa Rosa Avenue)
From: Peggy Murphy
To: Anderson, Eric B.
Subject: Re: R3 Zoning District Update
Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 9:19:01 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Yes, please include my email!
And, thank you again.
Peggy Murphy
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2025, at 9:06 AM, Anderson, Eric B.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Peggy,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Would you like me to include this email chain in our EPC and Council reports? The decisions really rest with them.
Would you like
to compose a separate comment email?
Thanks,
-Eric
From: Peggy Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 3:27 PM
To: Anderson, Eric B. <[email protected]> Subject: Re: R3 Zoning District Update
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Thank you so much for your prompt reply!
I do hope Target site will not have more than 3 stories, as it is right behind me. Don’t mean to be a NIMBY, but I already live in dense housing. So I fell I can express my thoughts!
Again, thank you,
Peggy Murphy
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 4, 2025, at 8:48 AM, Anderson, Eric B.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Peggy,
Thanks for the questions! These issues and regulations can be complicated. Your questions are not dense at all, but i appreciate the pun!
is zoned in the San Antonio Precise Plan, which
includes policies, standards, and public improvements in the San Antonio shopping center area. However, the precise plan references the R3 zone for that particular property. So, indirectly, the R3 zone already applies.
Your 3rd question depends on where you are asking about. For example, the Target site is not part of the R3 project (the precise plan sets specific standards for that site, not referencing the R3 zone), and is already allowed more than 3 stories if it redevelops.
The townhomes across Ortega are unlikely to redevelop anytime soon, so they are not included in the draft R3 change areas proposed on the website. Some other properties, like those on the north side of California Street, are included in the change areas. If the city council adopts denser zoning and the property owners choose to redevelop, there could be taller buildings there.
Let me know if you have any other questions,
Eric
Eric Anderson
R3 Zoning District Update - Public Q&A - Public Comments/ Questions February 3, 2025
6:30 p.m. to 8:07 p.m.
Total Attendees: 67
Summary of public questions
Written Questions:
1. Will this cover R2 to R3 zone updates or are there any R1 to R3 as well?
2. Will you be posting the slides on the city webpage?
3. What does R-3 Parcels selected mean?
4. if I’m currently owning a R2 lot. Can I join the r3 rezoning?
5. Do the zones selected for upzoning disproportionately affect specific demographic groups?
6. Will the city make efforts to ensure that these apartments will not all be luxury units, and affordable to families of different income groups?
7. What kind of comment is most useful to you on the website?
8. Is there a reason why responses on the website are public?
9. what is between Del Medio 1 and Del Medio 2 sections? (why not one big area?)
10. R-3 Parcels selected was one of the legends on the map; as was Parcels Not selected.
Selected to what?
11. Is there a blanket R3 rezoning happening across the city or just the sites highlighted?
12. How much notice will be given to tenants living in the rezoning area when this plan actually starts?
13. will any commercial zoned properties be considered
14. Are there any plans to allow more units in smaller R3 lots (with width of 60 feet). Currently development on these lots are restricted to R2 provisions. Thanks
15. The city needs more single level condominium units (not three story townhouses). How will this be accomplished?
16. Can firetrucks navigate in congested areas. I have been in areas where this is questionable.
My husband and daughter are volunteer firepersons.
17. With potentially so many new multi-family developments, I am concerned that most will become rental units, and not ownership opportunities. What, if anything, can the city do to encourage more ownership opportunities, including for lower-income residents?
18. what are the incentives for affordable housing? And what could the incentives look like for low income and extreme low income housing?
19. Will the staff, EPC, and/or council assign specific densities to each of the upzoning areas? When will that be done?
20. Does city have any plan for the willowgate community garden next to the downtown Caltrain station?
21. What is the density represented by R3-D? How many stories before the state density bonus is applied?
22. Are building code changes (like AMMRs) in scope?
23. This might be out rf scope, but is there any way to avoid developers demolishing older lower rent developments and putting in more expensive town homes or other higher rent developments?
24. I just wanted to once again mention that it would be great if we could remove the dual staircase requirement for buildings with sufficient fire control systems to help projects pencil while allowing for more building shape variation.
Questions from Speakers:
1. How will you inform us and council on how many people will be displaced by this?
2. If you are going to have all these compensation for people to have right of return, will city do something for landlords who would try to empty the units in anticipation of this effort and will this increase the housing crisis?
3. Are there any connection to soft story apartment building for owners to do retrofits and ensure safeguard before the next earthquake?
4. Development Feasibility: Previous Opticos (CONSULTANT) presentation showed a density below which it would not pencil out for a developer. Would your analysis show it would cross this threshold for project feasibility?
5. Question on First right of return: Do you have any leverage over which the development in different places would happen? Would you prioritize development which don’t require demolition or displacement first? And provide units for displaced folks first? If demolition/ displacement can be avoided it would be better.
6. In context of previous meetings there were 4-5 different zoning classes, will it be folded into this, from 1-14 which zoning fits the best or discarding the framework council provided earlier, for e.g. R3A, R32 etc.?
7. Does it mean in the upcoming meeting the focus will be on these change area and others will come later?
8. Are you going to ask EPC and Council which areas will get R3D districts?
9. Can we modify the zone to allow higher / denser buildings on r3 parcels close to Caltrain? Seems wasteful to get the relatively short buildings like the one on the corner of Moffett and Central. How large of a radius are you drawing around transit station? (Note this was also in the written questions)
10. Is the development under construction at Shoreline and Montecito an R3 project?
To Chair Gutierrez and the Environmental Planning Commission, The draft Annual Progress Report shows that Mountain View continues to face significant housing production challenges. And with overall supply still lagging behind demand, the intensification of the R3 Zoning District is critical for meeting both the current and future needs of our residents. We strongly support efforts to keep the City on track with its Regional Housing Needs Allocation and create more opportunities to live in our community.
Change Areas
We appreciate that staff are concentrating on large-scale areas to facilitate public amenities such as open space or connections. However, we believe the City could do more to ensure that condominiums, rowhouses, and institutional properties are not automatically excluded, especially if those in high-resource or transit-rich neighborhoods. Zoning updates generally last for decades, and limiting density on parcels that may eventually change hands or see their functional end of life may be shortsighted. Excluding smaller parcels also works against council desire for lot consolidation as sites not “substantially surrounded” would not be able to benefit.
We are concerned by the 20% adjacency metric, which might exclude long or deep sites that abut single-family parcels. We recommend significantly narrowing or removing these “buffers” because R1 already restricts housing within its own boundaries, and it should not additionally restrict development beyond its boundary. In particular, this restriction seems to have eliminated consideration of parcels adjacent to Downtown.
We would like the definition of “contiguous areas” to be broadened to include adjacency across residential streets or other rights of way. For instance, in the hypothetical neighborhood shown in the staff report, this would mean including the 72,000 s.f. apartment property. It seems arbitrary that coordination cannot happen across roads, and not every parcel will dedicate land.
Density Options
Of the options presented, we generally favor Option 1, which sets a higher base density and height of all the options. Allowing robust density from the outset helps ensure development feasibility without needing to invoke tools like State Density Bonus or Gatekeepers. This is
especially important for developments where maintaining affordable units may substantially increase project costs, in addition to the cost uncertainties that grow with size.
R2-to-R3 Sites
We generally agree with a R2-to-R3 rezoning that prioritizes parcels with good access to public transit, schools, and essential services, consistent with the City’s broader goals of affirmatively furthering fair housing and promoting equitable, sustainable growth. In line with access to transportation, we additionally request that all R2 parcels within 0.5mi of the Caltrain and light rail stations should be included for R3 integration, regardless of whether they border R1.
Separately, we would also request that R2 parcels that are substantially surrounded by higher-density zones, such as those in the vicinity of Mountain Shadows, Escuela/Crisanto, Murlagan/Piazza, or Gladys/Tyrella, be included in a rezone in order to simplify the zoning map.
R2/R3-A Densities
When the Housing Element was drafted, SB9 made R1 allow functionally four units, such that R2 could be considered the “least dense” residential zoning district. As such, we see a real opportunity for the City to correct this and ensure that whatever remains R2 fits logically in the continuum between R1 and R3.
Regarding the R3-A approach, we do reiterate that SB684 has functionally set a new baseline, where non-rental properties are allowed to build at 30 du/ac (Mullin Density) in order to get 10 units. As such, we would like to see a bit more density allowed so that our local rules are more attractive to develop under. The staff report is also silent on how economically viable R3-A is.
Thank you for considering our input.
Kind regards,
David Watson
On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY
From:
To: Bill Cranston; Hank Dempsey; Paul Donahue; Jose Gutierrez; Alex Nunez ; Joyce Yin Cc: Anderson, Eric B.; Pancholi, Diana
Subject: FW: Livable Mountain View comment on Item 5.1: R3 zoning district update: Increased densities Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 7:30:32 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Forwarding … I was told not all EPC members got this.
Robert Cox, Steering Committee, Livable Mountain View
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 7:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Livable Mountain View comment on Item 5.1: R3 zoning district update: Increased densities Chair Gutierrez, Vice Chair Nunez, and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on item 5.1, R3 zoning district update:
Increased densities.
While the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View did not initially endorse the R3 zoning district project, we welcome the opportunity comment on the questions posed by staff to the EPC. We also thank staff for providing an honest assessment of how the state density bonus law is likely to be applied by those who seek to redevelop R3 parcels in our city. In particular, we appreciate the recognition that redeveloped R3 parcels are likely to take advantage of the 100% density bonus, with its corresponding allowance for zoning concessions and unlimited zoning waivers.
Thus, areas zoned R3-D1 are likely to be developed at up to eight stories and those zoned at R3-D2 are likely to be zoned at up to twelve stories after the state density bonus is applied.
Question No. 1: Do the identified areas reflect Council’s goals and criteria? Should any areas be reconsidered based on the criteria?
We support recommending precisely the 14 areas identified by staff for high intensity areas (no more and no fewer). While it would be desirable to only have high density areas that are never immediately adjacent to existing ownership housing, and agree that the eight criteria selected by council are good criteria, we understand staff’s comment: “A strict adherence to utilization of all the above criteria would have eliminated every site in the R3 Zoning District.” In particular, the districts selected do support the aggregation of developable sites, hence development feasibility, with less
impact on adjacent ownership housing.
Question No. 2: For the Change Areas selected, what density option should the city study as the R3 Zoning District Update is carried out?
We support Option 2 (R3-D1 Base), with the exception of the Del Medio South Area, for which we recommend Option 1 (R3-D2 Base). This would allow for up to eight stories when the state density bonus is applied in most areas. We support Option1 (R3-D2 Base) for the Del Medio South Area, as the staff report states applying R3-D1 would be a downsizing for the Del Medio South area and “pursuant to SB 330, an equivalent upzoning elsewhere may need to occur if Council selects this option”.
As the staff report notes, “This (staff and consultant) analysis shows and ownership projects at six to seven stories (roughly 75 to 135 dwelling units per acre, depending on unit size) are economically feasible.” There is no point in upzoning to allow higher developments that are not economically feasible due to the increased construction cost for materials and construction methodologies needed for such high-density developments.
We also agree with staff that attempting to construct a local R3 zoning which will be preferable to the state density bonus is not worthwhile. The concessions and waivers imbedded in the state density bonus make it the obvious choice for developers seeking high densities.
Question No. 3: Does the EPC support or recommend modifications to the proposed criteria and density for upzoning R2 properties?
We support modifications in the areas selected by staff provided that the upzoning is not immediately adjacent to single family homes.
Thank you for considering our views on this important project.
Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Peter Spitzer, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Li Zhang, Maureen Blando, Leslie Friedman, Hala Alshahwany, Jerry Steach, and Toni Rath For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
From: Pancholi, Diana
To: Anderson, Eric B.; Murdock, Christian
Cc: Blizinski, Amber
Subject: FW: R3 rezoning feedback (Item 5.1)
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 8:26:20 AM
Good Morning Commissioners,
Please see below comment on Item 5.1. R3 Update
Regards,
Diana
From: Toni R
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 9:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: R3 rezoning feedback (Item 5.1)
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear commissioners,
I would like to thank the city staff for their sensible approach in the R3 rezoning project. With their 14 targeted areas, they have identified large contiguous parcels for higher density that are attractive and feasible for development, while respecting the character of the affected neighborhoods. It is also heartening to see a balance struck between increasing the availability of housing stock and the concerns of homeowners in nearby homes about drastic changes to their surroundings.
I support the selection of areas as recommended in the staff report.
Thank you for your consideration,
Toni Rath, Cuesta Park
From: Peter Spitzer
To: [email protected]
Cc: Anderson, Eric B.
Subject: R3 update at 2/19/25 meeting
Date: Sunday, February 16, 2025 3:57:31 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear EPC Commissioners:
This email concerns my neighborhood on Santa Rosa Avenue. It is zoned R3, although the actual character of my street is mostly single-family residential, on small lots.
At the City Council meeting on 11/19/24, MVYIMBY persuaded Council member Alison Hicks to propose, at the last minute, studying the addition of my block to the Moffett Precise Plan. She presented this to the rest of the Council with an inaccurate, derogatory description of the neighborhood. There was no public warning or opportunity for residents’ input. As a result, we are now more at risk of being targeted for increased density, via the Moffett Precise Plan.
Regarding the present R3 Update, I understand the difficulties that Planning staff has had to confront, in trying to satisfy State of California mandates for density, while also trying to preserve quality of life for existing residents. I have read through the meeting agenda and attachments, and I think Staff has done a good job, under the circumstances. I am thankful that my block was not targeted for upzoning. We are already vulnerable to the Density Bonus, as we are near transit. If the Density Bonus were applied on top of a basic increased density, the result would be destructive for our neighborhood.
I sincerely hope that if MVYIMBY tries any such last-minute changes to Staff’s R3 proposal, regarding our block or any other area, you will see fit to reject them.
Sincerely,
Peter Spitzer
Santa Rosa Avenue
From: Jeff Gilman
To: Anderson, Eric B.
Subject: R3 Zoning District Update - Americana Apartments Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 11:40:40 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Hello Eric,
Thank you for your public presentation and our zoom meeting on this topic.
Although we do not have an active application for any new development at the Americana, we are in favor of the proposed changes to R3.
The Americana fits the study area criteria well. It is close to El Camino, provides walkable access to daily shopping & services as well as the Stevens Creek Trail.
Increased FAR and appropriate zoning criteria (height, etc) would allow for more infill units to be built on-site. (Like our proposal prior to the pandemic, PL-2020-127).
When market factors are more favorable, we will revisit that proposal. These proposed changes to R3 would streamline that entitlement path.
I am happy to continue working with you and the City through this process, helping any way we can.
Please share this with City Council as you see fit.
Thanks again,
Jeff Gilman
Vice President, Real Estate
The Tan Group