From:
To: Anderson, Eric B.
Subject: [email protected] Comment on R3 Multifamily Residential Zoning Update Date: Friday, August 1, 2025 8:50:28 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Please do not just rezone R3 areas, targeting the existing higher density areas of the city.
Please rezone all of Mountain View fairly and help improve the housing situation in the whole region. I am a resident of Mountain View currently, living in one of the areas that is not set for a rezoning. Please reconsider and expand the
rezoning to include all of Mountain View and
improve housing access for everyone.
Thanks,
Joey
Attachment 2
From: Anderson, Eric B.
To: Anderson, Eric B.
Subject: FW: R3 building
Date: Friday, November 21, 2025 10:45:17 PM
From: Leslie Friedman
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 12:17 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: R3 building
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
To: Mountain View City Council members and Mayor, Re: R3 changes c/o Pam at: [email protected]
R3 zoning is controversial. I am not sure why it is being redone, but I am sure that the continual urge to build is fed, behind the curtain, by the profits coming from building apartments.
I know that the state wants more growth. It appears that the fast take over of AI will reduce human employment. There will be bright computer folks learning how to teach AI, and once the robots are even better than now, there will be still fewer humans here. The human species needs to eat and look for health insurance. The AI just plugs in. Who will live there?
When Sacramento spread the word that we have a housing crisis, some representatives talked about citizens with low to moderate incomes needing apartments or homes that could be within their budgets. However, the developments are not aimed at low to moderate rents. The developers offer very few below market rates. A plan for a 100 unit development in Palo Alto includes 3 below market rates apts. And that is only with the promise of additional floors. That means the percentage of below market value is even less. However, larger and taller developments are not looking at places for moderate incomes. So, I regret to say, a lot of what is being discussed is baloney.
How do the builders/developers convince legislators of all levels? Some say that developers help with campaign funds.
Many local voters are anti-SB79. The R3 plans that I have heard at Council meetings have similarities, except the focus on transit locales. The R3 plans will change Mountain View into a high rise, urban setting. It will also chase out owners of single family dwellings or condos, if they are financially able to relocate. Why would someone move? Because having a high rise next door or nearby will drop the home’s property value. It also takes away privacy, sunlight, quiet, and air, but when the dwelling’s value drops – owners cannot sell it for enough to cover a move.
The City and the State are very anti-single family homes. Why is that? Because their hearts are happy when they can house more needy individuals and families? I
don’t think so. The developments are not focusing on those individuals and families. The profits are high. It is not aimed at low-moderate incomes; the very few spaces at below market rate demonstrates that truth.
Mountain View’s new apartments will have no places to park cars. This will cut down on driving, a good health effort. It is a rule that everyone works, goes to school, goes to a grocery store within walking distance from the R3 apartments. Will the train cooperate by having the stops for schools?
New schools will need to replace the current ones. The builders will remember to put in weight lifting gyms to get shoppers ready for walking back from the grocery. IF a grocery is within a half mile from the apartments, everyone could drop in to the grocery daily. There is a little math which the state senators ignored: a half mile walk to schools or grocery stores, turns into one mile on the way back.
Carrying grocery bags, and maybe carrying or leading children there and back with full bags; this is reality.
Another look at reality: Mountain View will be aged-ly cleaned from most individuals over 40 or 45 who do not want to ride a bike in traffic. Since I have never once seen a cyclist stop for a stop sign, perhaps the City will provide insurance for bicycle injuries.
Thank you for your kind attention to my thoughts.
Respectfully yours.
Leslie Friedman
Leslie Friedman, Ph.D., History, Stanford University
Dancer: "with her strong technique and capacity for expression she was simply a joy to watch!"–The Times, London
Author: The Dancer's Garden, "I love it. It is a perfect book, in conception and execution....a marvelous writer..." Diana Ketcham, House & Garden, Editor; Books Editor, The Oakland Tribune (ret) "There is so much delight and poetry and wisdom to be found in the garden and in this book!" Sharon Abe, CA Academy of Sciences (ret)
The Story of Our Butterflies: Mourning Cloaks in Mountain View, "This is a wonderful book. I look forward to sharing it with the rest of our staff here." Joe Melisi, Center for Biological Diversity, (national conservation organization)
"Leslie Friedman is an historian, a dancer and choreographer, and now a perceptive writer about nature...in a second splendid work she takes wing into the world of butterflies...One is grateful for this delightful book, so well written and illustrated." Peter Stansky, Author, Historian, Prof. Stanford Dear Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission,
I am writing to provide some input on the R3 Zoning Update Item. I have many thoughts on this item so I will make this easy for us both and put them in a numbered list:
1. I overall appreciate the thought that was put into this code. Our city’s planning staff deserve a lot of credit for taking on a design task with so many competing interests and priorities. There are parts of the code—like rooftop allowances and allowable setback intrusions—that are downright clever in managing the often conflicting priorities from council as well as the public.
I also very much appreciate the emphasis on pedestrian-oriented streets and all of the different actions this update is taking to improve the pedestrian realm overall. I have some specific feedback on this and the other items in the next sections of this letter, but I wanted to express some appreciation for this thought.
2. I appreciate the inclusion of the two pedestrian pathways—one between Del Medio and San Antonio Circle is near my apartment and already frequently used informally by cyclists. The one connecting Rengstorff park with apartments on the other side of California St additionally has a lot of merit. However, there are more places in the city that could use pedestrian pathways than just these two places. To more comprehensively identify where should be allowances for pedestrian pathways in R3, the city should engage its active transportation staff (are any remaining?) as well as cyclists from throughout the city. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a few more places that could use this sort of allowance:
1. The parcel at the intersection of Middlefield and Easy Street, where there is currently no Stevens Creek Trail entrance.
2. The parcel at the corner of Dana and 84, where the entrance to Stevens Creek trail is sidewalk width, creating bike/ped conflicts
3. Along/over the SFPUC right of way, such that the SFPUC trail can be extended. Note that the SFPUC ROW crosses Central Expressway at Permanente Creek, where a future pedestrian crossing is already planned.
4. To enable extension of the Permanente Creek trail next to Permanente Creek (as opposed to transitioning into a bike boulevard as it does now)
5. To improve bike/pedestrian access to Crittenden School
6. To improve bike/pedestrian access to Graham and Bubb Middle Schools
7. To improve connectivity to Stevens Creek trail at the Dale Avenue crossing
8. To enable Pedestrian routes in Del Medio to Miller Ave and Monroe Drive, enabling peds to avoid high-traffic streets like Del Medio and California St.
3. Requiring developers to artificially break up the massing is bad. Generally, “breaking up the massing” is meant to improve building aesthetics, something that it almost always fails at. The goal is to avoid the “commie block” look of large, monolithic buildings but the effect is to replace the stately, simple forms of simple geometric shapes with extremely complicated- looking blobs. However, simply requiring that buildings look more complicated doesn’t actually make them look better. We’re better off just demanding some ornamentation—a solution to this problem that goes back hundreds of years. To provide a basic comparison:
“Commie Block” “Break up the massing” Ornamented building Features:
- Cheap to construct
- Easy to maintain
- Clean, stately forms
Features:
- Expensive to construct
- Increased number of building
seams makes building more
Features:
- Not as expensive as massing
breaks
- Structure and envelope of
likely to develop leaks
- Ugly and fake looking
building is still simple and less
likely to develop issues
- Beautiful, to the point that
people want to preserve these
buildings for future generations
4. The front setbacks are too wide, especially 25 feet in R3-D. Given that setbacks are almost totally wasted space that accomplishes no function for anyone, these should be reduced to 5-10 feet in the front at most. Wider setbacks should only be kept when the city wishes to use the setback area for bike infrastructure (e.g., on narrow streets with no room for bike lanes). There should also be more exceptions for what can go into the front setback area, and items like porches that are allowed intrusions should be possible to build on top of.
5. The zoning update map, as it stands, has a lot of weird exceptions that don’t seem to pass muster. For example, as a resident of the Del Medio neighborhood, it’s not clear why the buildings on Miller Ave are set to be R3-C while the buildings that surround them are set to be R3-D. Given that point of zoning is supposed to be that the city is not “micromanaging” these properties, so why are they given a different designation? The city should paint a more uniform, consistent, brush with zoning rather than just try to keep things the way they are because they are already that way.
Thank you your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hulse
P.S. Whoever wrote the analysis (Attachment 5) on “Retail Support and Live Work Standards” confused our heavy rail stations (San Antonio/Mountain View) and line (Caltrain) with light rail. I am not sure what the implications of this were, but please prompt the consultant to correct their error. In the future, the public record for this sort of analysis would also be improved by providing a map of the Change Areas—which was surely used to conduct the analysis—rather than just descriptions of these areas.
Sincerely,
Lada Adamic
(Mountain View resident)
Dear Chair Gutierrez and Commissioners,
Mountain View YIMBY strongly supports efforts to update the R3 Zoning District. We appreciate Staff’s extensive
work
to
transition
toward
objective,
form-based
standards.
This
update
is
a
critical
step
in
fulfilling
the
Housing
Element’s
commitment
to
ensuring
multifamily
projects
are
economically
feasible
and
can
achieve
their
allowed
densities.
To
ensure
these
new
standards
successfully
encourage
diverse
housing
types—particularly
on
smaller
parcels—we
respectfully
submit
the
following
recommendations:
Rely on Standards Other than Density Limits We recommend removing maximum density limits (dwelling units per acre), instead relying on use-neutral standards
like
FAR,
height,
and
setbacks.
The
City
has
various
Precise
Plans
(El
Camino
Real,
San
Antonio,
etc.)
using
FAR
rather
than
du/ac.
This
is
clear
precedent
for
this
approach,
and
extending
it
to
the
R3
district
would
align
with
the
goal
of
creating
a
form-based
code,
addressing
the
physical
size
of
projects.
Increase FAR in R3-B The most recent condo projects in R3 (1919-1933 Gamel, 918 Rich, 1057-1061 El Monte) all used the state density
bonus
to
bring
FAR
up
to
~1.5
(1.64,
1.41,
1.48 respectively).
This
indicates
the
R3-B
FAR
should
be
at
least
1.5 in
order
to
facilitate
stacked
flats
rather
than
townhomes.
Replace the Lot Consolidation “Incentive” We strongly oppose the proposal to "incentivize" lot consolidation by functionally demoting small lots in R3-D to
R3-C.
Small
parcels
already
face
the
hardest
path
to
financial
feasibility.
Artificially
capping
their
density
is
not
an
incentive,
instead
adding
unnecessary
complexity.
Instead, the City should look to examples from Concord, Martinez, Brea, and Saratoga that facilitate consolidation
through
positive
incentives.
We
recommend
waiving
fees
and
expediting
the
Lot
Line
Adjustment
process
,
as
well
as
qualifying
projects
for
the
draft
exemptions
in
Section
36.10.80. This
reduces
the
administrative
burden
of
merging
lots
and
provides
a
meaningful
"carrot"
rather
than
a
punitive
"stick."
Reduce Front Setbacks The proposed setbacks, particularly the 20-foot front setback for R3-A, are out of step with the walkable, urban
neighborhoods
Mountain
View
aims
to
create.
Given
that
the
new
standards
encourage
parking
to
be
located
at
the
rear
of
the
property,
a
deep
front
setback
serves
no
functional
purpose
other
than
to
push
buildings
away
from
the
sidewalk
and
waste
valuable
land.
We recommend reducing front setbacks to 4-5 feet , aligning with pedestrian-friendly neighborhood design and
providing
greater
flexibility.
This
should
include
reducing
front
setbacks
to
any
required
pedestrian/bicycle
easements.
Additionally,
we
support
allowing
upper-story
architectural
features
like
bay
windows
and
balconies
to
project
into
these
setbacks
to
create
visual
interest
and
break
up
massing
naturally,
rather
than
just
exempting
building
entryways.
We also see an opportunity to encourage arcades to improve the pedestrian experience; they should either be
exempt
from
setbacks
or
explicitly
added
to
the
"Building
Entry
Types"
list.
Replace "Massing Breaks" with Better Design Tools We are concerned that the prescriptive "massing break" requirements in the proposed Division 16 may result in
more-expensive,
less-attractive
buildings.
Mandating
arbitrary
separations
often
leads
to
convoluted
floor
plans,
increased
construction
costs,
and
significant
waterproofing
risks,
without
necessarily
improving
aesthetics.
This
also
seems
to
add
greater
work
on
staff
to
ensure
compliance,
at
a
time
when
review
timelines
are
shrinking
significantly.
We recommend replacing this requirement with standards that encourage ornamentation and articulation.
Features
such
as
bay
windows,
balconies,
and
porches
naturally
break
up
a
building's
massing
without
reducing
its
functional
floor
area
or
creating
structural
complexity.
It
also
better
addresses
what
the
community
thinks
of
as
building
design.
If massing break requirements are maintained, they should be satisfiable by projections. The code should
allow
massing
breaks
to
be
achieved
by
elements
that
project
into
the
setbacks
rather
than
cutting
into
the
building
envelope,
ensuring
design
requirements
do
not
penalize
the
project's
feasibility
or
density.
Allow Retail Everywhere The current draft restricts ground-floor retail to the R3-D subzone. We believe this restriction is unnecessary.
Although
mixed-use
may
not
pencil
out
on
every
R3
site
currently,
the
zoning
code
should
not
prohibit
it
outright.
We recognize staff’s concern that it may conflict with the goal of encouraging more housing. However, we believe
that
the
city
should
be
ensuring
that
future
residents'
needs
are
met,
which
includes
proximity
to
amenities.
Otherwise,
we
risk
perpetuating
the
transportation
issues
inherent
in
our
current
segmentation
between
residential
and
commercial
areas.
Allow Height Exceptions We believe that, given Council desires for heritage tree preservation and open space, projects are encouraged to
use
less
of
their
lot.
To
compensate
for
this
loss
of
development
capacity,
the
exception
list
in
Table
36.10.80.A
should
be
updated
to
explicitly
include
height.
Currently,
height
is
excluded
from
the
standards
eligible
for
exceptions.
Grant Exceptions for Community Benefits We support expanding exception applicability from just addressing physical compatibility to also cover projects
that
go
over
and
beyond
in
providing
significant
community
benefits
,
akin
to
Bonus
FAR
programs
already
included
in
various
Precise
Plans.
This
is
intended
not
to
replace
the
state
density
bonus
law,
as
was
previously
framed
for
a
past
Council
decision,
but
it
is
a
nudge
for
developers
who
are
willing
to
closely
follow
the
city’s
procedures
and
desires.
Thank you for your consideration. David Watson on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY To: Mountain View Planning Commission
From: Mosaic Development
Date: 1/7/2026
Subject: R3 and general recommendations in light of the Starter Home Revitalization Act (SHRA) Dear Planning Commissioners, City Council,
My name is Ben Tinklenberg and my family were residents and renters in Mountain View from 2008-2024.
I am a housing developer focused on missing middle housing and have started new housing projects using the SHRA (SB 684/1123) in multiple cities (Santa Monica, San Diego, Los Angeles, etc.). I am writing because I acutely understand Mountain View’s attainable housing crisis and understand how useful the SHRA can be to solve this issue if implemented in good faith with housing production in mind. The SHRA incentivizes and allows developers to build smaller sized starter homes instead of developing larger luxury units. If Mountain View can incentivize the former over the latter, I believe more attainable housing will become available to the community. I would love to build new housing in this city if the law is implemented favorably.
I have analyzed hundreds of properties for the SHRA in Mountain View and at the moment, the most significant barriers to the projects are:
1. The fee burden per unit for missing middle projects
2. Objective standards that make site planning these homes difficult.
I appreciate the city’s efforts to align local zoning with new state laws that support smaller-scale infill housing. However, after reviewing the draft standards, I noticed several areas where local regulations could unintentionally conflict with these state incentives or limit practical implementation.
1. R3-A Building Height (Section 36.10.6-1)
Interpretation: The current section appears to only allow an additional story if the project includes ground-floor commercial or podium parking.
Challenge: In practice, few if any SHRA infill properties could feasibly include commercial space or structured parking, both financially and spatially.
Recommendation: Consider adopting a height standard similar to Santa Monica’s proposed amendment, allowing up to 33 feet and three stories by-right. This modest increase enables one level of at-grade parking with two floors of residential space above, supporting more family-oriented and context-sensitive homes while minimizing massing impacts.
2. R3-B Building Depth Requirement (Table 36.10.70.G)
Interpretation: The standard requires a minimum 30-foot building depth.
Challenge: Many SHRA-optimized designs, such as our first project in San Diego, are approximately 26 feet deep. This layout effectively accommodates a functional first-floor living area and kitchen while maintaining compatibility with small infill lots.
Recommendation: Allow a building depth range of 20–24 feet or remove the minimum depth requirement entirely. The prescriptive minimum creates unnecessary design rigidity and can prevent efficient site planning. For example, limiting the ability to provide rear parking. Even one foot of flexibility can make a substantial diff
erence on smaller lots.
3. Setbacks
The SHRA explicitly allows 0-foot interior lot line setbacks between attached townhomes and establishes a 4-foot minimum set
back from neighboring parcels. In this instance, the state law would take precedence over the new local ordinance, however we like to adhere to local zoning regulations wherever possible. More importantly, the 15-foot front setback poses challenges on shallow lots. Reducing this to 10 feet, matching the side street setback, would better align with small-lot subdivision typologies and improve site utilization without increasing perceived bulk.
4. Application of SHRA within R3 Zones
The SHRA permits developers to override conflicting local standards to achieve state-mandated minimum densities (30 dwelling units per acre in Mountain View) but we want to comply with as many objective local standards as possible to promote a collaborative entitlement process. It may be beneficial to explicitly state that SB684/1123 projects are evaluated under the R3-B framework, incorporating the above flexibility to ensure such projects can move forward efficiently and in good faith with local design goals. Without clarity on what standards should be applied to SHRA projects, it will invite confusion among both planners and developers. Projects will still end up breaking standards through physical preclusion requirements so we find that it would be beneficial to have clarity in the entitlement process by adhering to the R3-B zoning code.
Ultimately, the clarity of entitlement will have a direct relationship with the number of units built.
5. Most Important: Incentivizing attainable housing stock through lower fees One of the most significant barriers to delivering “lower case” affordable housing options to high demand areas like Mountain View is the fee burden associated with building missing middle housing.
With the SHRA, a builder is faced with a choice when building on a vacant lot: Do we build 5-6 small units or one large luxury build? These projects may have similar massing and similar square footage. They may also sell for the same price per square foot.
Example:
One 4,400 single family home selling for $1,200 per square foot = $5.28M sale price Six 730 sf small homes in a cottage court selling for $1,200 per square foot = Six homes selling for $876k each While $876k is not necessarily incredibly affordable, I find it to fall much closer to the attainable range than the other option of a luxury home. Given the acute housing crisis Mountain View is in, this may actually fall into the “starter home” category.
So what’s the issue?
The construction costs will be similar in both cases, but the fee burden is significantly higher for the SHRA project than a luxury rebuild. As I’ve evaluated projects, the typical fee burden for SHRA projects is $250k PER UNIT before considering the loss associated with providing affordable housing through the BMR requirements which is 25% for rowhome and townhome projects. This pushes the total fee burden even higher by and the final fee burden is closer to $360k+ per unit for the projects we analyzed.
When faced with these significant costs, no builder will choose to do a SHRA project when a luxury build is a simpler option with identical r
evenue and millions of dollars less in fee burden.
This is a significant misalignment that must be resolved in order for attainable housing to be delivered in the City. The playing field should at least be leveled, if not tipped in favor of missing middle housing over luxury rebuilds and house flipping.
Thank you for your consideration and for your ongoing work to support infill housing solutions. These modest adjustments would make Mountain View’s zoning more compatible with SB684/1123 projects while continuing to promote thoughtful, family-oriented development patterns.
Wishing you all a happy and healthy new year,
Ben Tinklenberg
Partner | Mosaic Development
From:
To:
Subject: R3 environmental review committee comments for upcoming meeting Date: Friday, January 2, 2026 10:09:31 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Hello,
We own our home at Santa Rosa ave in the proposed r3-c area. In general we are supportive of intensification , more neighbors , future options and evolution for our property and neighborhood.
One comment about setbacks - our property and many others in the area are narrow and long lots , about 45x120 ft. The setbacks for the r3-c seem to have a larger lot development in mind with 10 ft side setbacks , significantly higher than existing 5 ft common setbacks in the area and would be very limiting for subsequent development without gathering several lots which I think takes impact away from the proposed r3 rules.
Id ask for a provision for smaller
or narrower lots (less than 80 ft maybe?) specifically to have reduced side setbacks 5-7 ft in r3-c and 5 ft for r3-b for example. For larger , wider lots the wide side setbacks might make a lot of sense for vehicle access to the rear of the lot or something and pedestrian access for the 7ft r3-b side setbacks but it seems too limiting for small lots of record .
Further to this point for small lot development setbacks the 40ft front parking setback should be modified . Is this for covered or uncovered parking ? We should allow some uncovered parking at the front of the lot like a normal home’s driveway maybe 1 spaces for every 20 ft of
frontage or something with a min of 1 ? This would be similar to many townhomes or stacked townhomes for example . I assume the aim is to shift most of the uncovered parking to the back which is fine but it seems a little overprescribing currently . If you have a split flag lot for example you may not have enough space for any parking with a 40ft front setback for parking which would make a lot likely undevelopable or at least much less valuable. The front parking setback should only apply to uncovered parking. Under-building covered parking with screening will likely be popular for these developments and wouldn’t want to accidentally limit hidden covered parking spaces or shift the useful building envelope to where parking is allowed behind the front parking setback . If the aim is to reduce garage doors fronting the street that’s also maybe a decent goal but maybe that can be limited another way
Vehicle access 36.10.24 might also need some work, one driveway for lots less than 150 ft might seem clean but seems to work against the r3-c 10ft side setbacks and rear parking which would make sense to have a small 10 ft drive way on each side of the building for rear parking ingress and egress .
Lastly , our specific lot has been in a weird place where it was a r3 zoned lot with a legal non- conforming duplex but current r3 requires it is “developed as” r1 due to <7000 sq ft lot. I’ll tell you, having a legal non-confirming structure is a big headache with the city for renovations . This actually forced us to make it a conforming sfh with ADU in the past and it was a legal non-conforming duplex.
Anyway many homes in the area are predominantly
single family home “style “ and setbacks . Making the majority of these exiting structures non-
confirming with the new r3 will be difficult for property owners and a headache for the city .
Id ask that there is no longer a limit to develop smaller r3 lots like r1 but that there is some provision to voluntarily elect to use r1 or perhaps lower intensity r3-x standards when doing remodeling of existing buildings or something. I’m afraid the city will have a steady trickle of small projects in these areas where the structure is
so far from conformance to new standards
that it would be too expensive to fix as it could require moving walls and foundations for setback conformance and will force people to live with the existing structure instead of investing in their properties
I’m sure you’ll hear this elsewhere but the pedestrian infrastructure is spotty with sidewalk gaps and city signage blockages etc everywhere in these neighborhoods and adding a lot more development should have the city focus on a comprehensive improvement plan for
infrastructure to be improved to go along with more people in the area Anyway , just adding our two cents. All the best with the new standards development Best,
Adam Klett
Santa Rosa Ave
From:
To: [email protected]
Cc: Anderson, Eric B.
Subject: re: 01/07/2026 EPC Meeting - Agenda Item 5.1 R3 Standards and Strategies.
Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 10:51:24 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Honorable EPC Members:
We own a Condo (that we rent) on Latham across the 570 South Rengstorff row home/townhouse development (the Amelia). Putting row homes/townhouses on that lot is a waste of space in such a central location. Because of the need for internal alleys to access each unit's garage, the development actually increased the amount of pavement and decreased the amount of greenery from the previous apartment
complexes; generating more heat island
effect in the neighborhood.
I wish the new R3 standards had been in place to encourage (and maybe force) higher density and more compactness on that development.
I think that overall you're on the right track and the handbook is very useful in visualizing the proposed development standards. I have a few comments I'd like to share:
1. Normally upzoning is done via Precise Plans (some Precise Plans in Mountain View are geographically very small). This process allows for a more holistic and collaborative planning (neighborhood meetings/workshops, utilities assessment, streetscape/circulation plans, parks/open space...). While I understand that the R3 upzoning is by nature a City Wide effort, I still think it's unfortunate that the affected neighborhoods don't get the same level of attention and collaboration as other parts of town covered by Precise Plans. It's even more unfortunate when you consider that most of the R3 upzoned areas are in (or near) the poorer US Census blocks in Mountain View.
2. In the absence of Precise Plans, I feel the City should develop some R3 streetscape standards so that there is proper guidance with how to rebuild/reconfigure/reallocate the streets fronting the redevelopments.For instance, the handbook diagrams don't seem to show a single bike or bike lanes, I think that there should be some planning around it. The diagrams also don't show any delivery/pickup/dropoff vehicles, that's an hourly occurence in most of our streets. Likewise there should be some planning for those. The diagrams show tree lined streets, how will the City make it a reality on streets that currently don't have street trees or even have sidewalk gaps.
3. Setbacks. One challenge I foresee is that they should be harmonized with the existing setbacks on the street or on the block. Otherwise the street or the block might look too much like a jigsaw puzzle.
4. Retail/Commercial uses allowed with R3. I strongly support that effort but I'm wondering if medical or professional (lawyers...) practices could also be allowed. I grew up in a far larger city (and lived in Manhattan for a number of years), every doctor (or dentist) I ever visited had
their offices in condo buildings (typically the first or second floors that are less desirable, noise, less privacy...).
I also had two loosely related questions:
1. Are ADUs counted in the Dwelling Unit per Acre limits? Given their name and their size, it seems to me that they should. While SFH zoning shows 6 DUs per acre, if each home has an ADU, shouldn't it be more like 12 DUs per acre? One advantage would be that in comparison the R3 upzoning would seem more modest (double SFH density vs. quadruple).
2. When a developer adds internal alleys/streets that serve as postal addresses, who picks and validates the alley/street names? The Amelia project I mentioned has a Shockley Alley (see image). As you might know, that name is both historical (semi conductor lab) and controversial (linked to eugenics).
Sincerely
Serge Bonte (Mountain View resident)