Mountain View YIMBY

Re: Agenda item 5.1

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.