Thread by @aceckhouse

the process for revising the standards for a single zone (R3)

half of the timeline is CEQA

"area lacks clear physical context" is actually the most savage burn possible in plannerese #mvmtg

I remain astonished & rather dismayed at what exactly constitutes a "small" lot in modern parlance #mvmtg

arbitrary density limits are a huge barrier to producing enough homes, even within districts with other limits on building scale #mvmtg

the rent is too damn high & the allowed FAR is too damn low #mvmtg

1.5-2 parking spaces per dwelling unit + extra guest spaces 😳
#mvmtg

*55*% open space requirement! even Large lots can't accommodate that much on site

(darkly funny how Mountain View kills housing with both excessive public park fees & excessive private open space requirements) #mvmtg

on a "small" (normal sized) lot, R3 would allow only 2 new homes/10 du per acre

a 3-story 8plex would be feasible (example is from Berkeley) #mvmtg

interesting to me that larger lots require larger structures & greater FAR/densities to produce feasible development #mvmtg

the Parks Impact Fee is nearly 50% of all soft costs for new development in Mountain View, dear lord #mvmtg

feels like a problem that non-podium construction is unlikely to be viable in a zone (R3) that, as I understand it, is meant for small-scale multifamily housing #mvmtg

I asked about parking #mvmtg

the response: "beyond 1 parking space per dwelling unit, almost nothing is feasible… the more space you provide for parking, the less space there is for everything else"

We have someone asking about the purpose of setback requirements! "Why not allow zero setback construction?"

not caring for this defense of setbacks from Opticos tbh (blah blah "detached character" blah blah)

I do enjoy the takedown of lot coverage limits #mvmtg

"the city needs to expand the roads… deal with the potential for crime & insecurity" #mvmtg

analysis of the "character areas" of R-3: mostly house-scale vs mostly block-scale

it's a mix #mvmtg

coming to hate the word "adjacencies" (it's not enough to have single family exclusive zones, the baleful influence must extend to multifamily zones adjacent to R1) #mvmtg

2/3 of respondents think the types of changes necessary to make development feasible in R3 are generally acceptable! #mvmtg

this just feels like teeball for NIMBYs #mvmtg

most respondents support reducing minimum parking requirements #mvmtg

uuuuuggggghhhhhhhhh we are talking about "breaking up the massing" #mvmtg

we were supposed to have Zoom breakout rooms at #mvmtg, but nobody seems to know how to make that happen, so…

“all of this is subject to development review… a lot of projects will go to Council” #mvmtg

“we had a spirited discussion about parking” #mvmtg

heard support for corner stores & cafes from another group