So this is a very weird position to be in. Usually people buy rentals for cash flow. Obviously, your rental doesn't cash flow - at the 1% rule, a $1.9m house would need to rent for 19k/month. And 50% says you spend half of that on management, maintenance, etc.
Of course, the 1/50% rule falls apart when looking at houses like this - the maintenance is hardly higher than the same house anywhere else. Taxes are a different question...
But you didn't buy the place to cash flow, you bought it as an investment that will appreciate in price. Often inadvisable, but as you said, you're in SV next to tech titans... and when one tech titan falls, three more rise up to take its place. It could turn out well for you, yes. But what you trade for the possible good return is liquidity. In short, you have none.
Difficult position. I don't have much useful advice, other than to understand that a normal-sized house in a ridiculously expensive area like SV doesn't realistically have the 50% rule anymore.
But the 1% rule means that you want to take in gross receipts of 12% of the home value a year, less vacancies. Okay, let's assume for a moment that your expenses are normal for the size of the house, so you can dip below 1%. But... $3.5k is about a fifth of that. There's no way, no how, that $3.5k is a good ROI for you.
Which brings us full circle to the fact that you bought the house for the appreciation you hope it will undergo. That's a hard game to play.