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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.