Mountain View City Council
June 14, 2022

City of Mountain View

2023-2031 Housing Element

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

May 6, 2022

Attachment 1

i

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... . 1 Organization of the Housing Element ......................................................................................... 1 Consistency with the General Plan ............................................................................................. 2 Public Participation ...................................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT .................................................................. 6 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ............................................................................... 6 Quantified Objectives ................................................................................................................... 7 Progress in Implementing 2015 to 2023 Housing Element Programs .................................... 7 Effectiveness of the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element ............................................................... 7 Appropriateness of 5th Cycle Programs for Inclusion in 6th Cycle Housing Element Update ... 9 CHAPTER 3: HOUSING PLAN ...................................................................................................... 10 Housing Goals and Policies ...................................................................................................... 10 Housing Programs ..................................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 4: QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 26 Construction .............................................................................................................................. 26 Rehabilitation ............................................................................................................................ 27 Conservation .............................................................................................................................. 27 APPENDIX A: IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF 5TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS .... 28 APPENDIX B: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 39 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 39 Note on Data Sources ............................................................................................................... 40 Population and Household Characteristics ............................................................................. 42 Economic and Employment Characteristics ............................................................................ 49 Housing Stock Characteristics ................................................................................................. 54 Housing Costs and Affordability ............................................................................................... 59 Housing and Special Needs Populations ................................................................................. 75 Assessment of Fair Housing ..................................................................................................... 91 Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors ...................................................................... 171

ii

APPENDIX C: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS ......................................................................... 173 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) .......................................................................... 173 Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households ....................................................... 173 APPENDIX D: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................. 175 Governmental Constraints ...................................................................................................... 175 Non-Governmental Constraints .............................................................................................. 203 Environmental Constraints ..................................................................................................... 206 APPENDIX E: HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS AND INVENTORY ................................................... 208 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 208 Sites Selection Process ....................................................................................................... ... 211 Realistic Capacity Evaluation ................................................................................................. 216 Mixed-Use Areas ...................................................................................................................... 221 Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels ................................................ 221 Sites Inventory ......................................................................................................................... 223 Evaluation of Sites Inventory Through the Lens of AFFH ...................................................... 237 Local Data and Knowledge ..................................................................................................... 238 Summary of Conclusions and Approach to Policies and Programs ..................................... 239 Sites Inventory Spreadsheets ................................................................................................. 241 APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT ............................................................................ 246 APPENDIX G: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING VIOLATION CHECKLIST .. 268 APPENDIX H: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ......................... 272

iii

List of Tables
Table 1: Housing Element Programs ............................................................................................ 14 Table 2: Sixth Cycle Quantified Objectives for New Construction, Rehabilitation, and Conservation ................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 3: Population Growth Trends ............................................................................................... 42 Table 4: Household Growth Trends ............................................................................................... 43 Table 5: Population by Age, 2010-2019 ...................................................................................... 43 Table 6: Tenure by Housing Type ................................................................................................... 46 Table 7: Household Income Level by Tenure ................................................................................ 48 Table 8: Housing Permitting ........................................................................................................... 57 Table 9: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units .......................................................................... 61 Table 10: Monthly Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ..................................................... 63 Table 11: Market-Rate Multifamily Rent Summary, Q3 2021 ..................................................... 64 Table 12: Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing Units, 2021 ................................................ 73 Table 13: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ............................................................................ 74 Table 14: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ..................................................... 82 Table 15: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ......................................... 83 Table 16: Point-In-Time Count, 2015-2019 .................................................................................. 84 Table 17: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness .................................. 87 Table 18: Mountain View Vehicles in Public Right-of-Way (PROW), 2017-2020 ........................ 87 Table 19: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Employment in Mountain View, 2019 ... 89 Table 20: Migrant Worker Student Population ............................................................................. 89 Table 21: FHEO Fair Housing Complaints by Resolution Type, 2013-2020 ............................... 93 Table 22: DFEH Fair Housing Complaints, 2018-2020 ............................................................... 94 Table 23: Mountain View Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 - 2020 ................................ 97 Table 24: Dissimilarity Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020 .................................................. 99 Table 25: Isolation Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020 ...................................................... 100 Table 26: Household Income Distribution and Median Income, 2015-2019 .......................... 129 Table 27: Poverty by Race and Ethnicity, City of Mountain View, 2015-2019 ......................... 137 Table 28: Distribution of Homeowners by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View and San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties .................................................................................................................... 158 Table 29: Housing Problems Rate by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View ...................................... 160 Table 30: Severe Housing Problems Rate by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View ......................... 160 Table 31: Housing Cost Burdens by Income Bracket and Tenure, City of Mountain View ...... 169 Table 32: Regional Housing Needs Allocation ............................................................................ 173 Table 33: Off-Street Parking Requirements ............................................................................... 182 Table 34: Estimated Residential Development Impact Fees .................................................... 187 Table 35: Base and Maximum FAR for Select
Precise Plans .................................................... 191 Table 36: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type ......................................................... 193 Table 37: Recent Multi-family Developments in Mountain View .............................................. 194 Table 38: Mountain View Mobile Home Parks ........................................................................... 198

iv

Table 39: Mountain View’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................. 209 Table 40: Mountain View Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to 6th Cycle RHNA by Income ........................................................................................................................................... 210 Table 41: Precedent Projects List ............................................................................................... 217 Table 42: Realistic Density Assumptions – Non-Rezoning ....................................................... 219 Table 43: Realistic Density Assumptions – Rezoning ............................................................... 220 Table 44: Affordability Assumptions ........................................................................................... 222 Table 45: Lower Income Units on Non-vacant Sites ................................................................... 223 Table 46: Sites Inventory Summary ............................................................................................ 224 Table 47: Pipeline Project Summary by Project Status ............................................................. 227 Table 48: Pipeline Projects Summarized by Neighborhood ...................................................... 227 Table 49: Pipeline Projects Summarized by Precise Plan ......................................................... 228 Table 50: Rezone Sites Summary by Project Address ............................................................... 230 Table 51: Opportunity Sites Summary by Precise Plan ............................................................. 232 Table 52: Rezoned Opportunity Site Summarized by Designation ........................................... 234 Table 53: Accessory Dwelling Units Built in Prior Housing Element Cycle ............................... 235 Table 54: Accessory Dwelling Units Projected Over the Planning Period ................................. 236

v

List of Figures
Figure 1: Population by Race, 2000-2020.................................................................................... 44 Figure 2: Household Tenure ........................................................................................................... 45 Figure 3: Tenure by Housing Type .............................................................................................. ... 46 Figure 4: Households by Household Income Level ....................................................................... 47 Figure 5: Resident Employment by Industry ................................................................................. 49 Figure 6: Jobs in Mountain View .................................................................................................... 51 Figure 7: Ratio of Jobs to Workers, by Wage Group ..................................................................... 52 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio ..................................................................................................... 53 Figure 9: Housing Units by Type, 2010-2020 ............................................................................... 54 Figure 10: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ......................................................................... 55 Figure 11: Vacant Units by Type .................................................................................................... 56 Figure 12: Substandard Housing Issues ....................................................................................... 59 Figure 13: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ................................................................................... 60 Figure 14: Median Contract Rent .................................................................................................. 62 Figure 15: Cost Burden by Income Level ...................................................................................... 65 Figure 16: Cost Burden by Tenure ................................................................................................. 66 Figure 17: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................... 67 Figure 18: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level .................................................. 68 Figure 19: Overcrowding by Severity ............................................................................................. 69 Figure 20: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ......................................................................... 70 Figure 21: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ............................................................... 71 Figure 22: Household Size by Tenure ............................................................................................ 75 Figure 23: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms ...................................................................... 76 Figure 24: Household Type ............................................................................................................ 77 Figure 25: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status .......................................................... 78 Figure 26: Senior Households by Income and Tenure ................................................................. 79 Figure 27: Population by Disability Status .................................................................................... 80 Figure 28: Disability by Type .......................................................................................................... 81 Figure 29: Homelessness by Household Type & Shelter Status, Santa Clara County ............... 85 Figure 30: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County ......................................................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 31: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Santa Clara County ............................ 90 Figure
32: Population with Limited English Proficiency ............................................................... 91 Figure 33: Census Block Groups by% Non-White, Mountain View ............................................ 103 Figure 34: Census Block Groups by% Non-White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ....... 104 Figure 35: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic White, Mountain View ............................. 105 Figure 36: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ...................................................................................................................... .................. 106 Figure 37: Census Block Groups by% Hispanic or Latino, Mountain View ................................ 107

vi

Figure 38: Census Block Groups by% Hispanic or Latino, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ....................................................................................................................................................... 108 Figure 39: Census Block Groups by Non-Hispanic Black, Mountain View ................................ 109 Figure 40: Census Block Groups by Non-Hispanic Black, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ....................................................................................................................................................... 110 Figure 41: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Asian, Mountain View ............................. 111 Figure 42: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Asian, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ....................................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 43: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander, Mountain View ............. 113 Figure 44: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 114 Figure 45: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Native American, Mountain View ........... 115 Figure 46: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Native American, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 116 Figure 47: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Other Race Alone, Mountain View ......... 117 Figure 48: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Other Race Alone, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 118 Figure 49: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Persons of Two or More Races, Mountain View .......................................................................................................................... ..................... 119 Figure 50: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Persons of Two or More Races, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ...................................................................................................... ...... 120 Figure 51: Population with a Disability by Census Tract, Mountain View ................................. 122 Figure 52: Population with a Disability by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ....................................................................................................................................................... 123 Figure 53:% of Children in Married-Couple Households, 2015-2019, Mountain View ............ 125 Figure 54:% of Children in Married-Couple Households, 2015-2019, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 126 Figure 55:% of Children in Single-Female Headed Households, Mountain View ..................... 127 Figure 56:% of Children in Single-Female Headed Households, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ...................................................................................................................... .................. 128 Figure 57: Distribution of Median Household Income by Block Group, Mountain View .......... 130 Figure 58: Distribution of Median Household Income by Block Group, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 131 Figure 59:% of Low to Moderate Income Population by Census Tract, Mountain View ........... 132 Figure 60:% of Low to Moderate Income Population by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 133 Figure 61: Poverty Status by Census Tract, Mountain View....................................................... 134 Figure 62: Poverty Status by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ................. 135 Figure 63: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ...................................................................................................................... .................. 136 Figure 64: 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, Mountain View ..................... 139

vii

Figure 65: 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ...................................................................................................................... .................. 140 Figure 66: School Boundaries Map for the Mountain View Whisman School District ............ 141 Figure 67: Mountain View Elementary School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2020-21 ....................................................................................................................................................... 142 Figure 68: Mountain View Middle and High School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2020-21 ........................................................................................................................................ 143 Figure 69: TCAC Education Domain Score, Mountain View ....................................................... 144 Figure 70: TCAC Education Domain Score, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties .................. 145 Figure 71: Jobs Proximity Index Score, Mountain View .............................................................. 147 Figure 72: Jobs Proximity Index Score, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ......................... 148 Figure 73: VTA System Map ......................................................................................................... 150 Figure 74: Caltrain System Map .................................................................................................. 151 Figure 75: % of Income to Housing + Transportation for a Typical Moderate-Income Household in Mountain View .......................................................................................................................... 153 Figure 76: % of Income to Housing + Transportation for a Typical Moderate-Income Household in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ..................................................................................... 154 Figure 77: Areas of High Pollution in Mountain View ................................................................. 156 Figure 78: Areas of High Pollution in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................ 157 Figure 79: Disposition of Home Loans by Race/Ethnicity in Mountain View, 2020 ............... 159 Figure 80: Overpayment by Renters, Mountain View ................................................................. 162 Figure 81: Overpayment by Homeowners, Mountain View ........................................................ 163 Figure 82: Overpayment by Renters, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................ 164 Figure 83: Overpayment by Homeowners, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ................... 165 Figure 84: Overcrowded Households, Mountain View................................................................ 167 Figure 85: Overcrowded Households, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties .......................... 168 Figure 86: Housing Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View ......................................... 170 Figure 87: Overview of All Housing Site Locations .................................................................... 225 Figure 88 – Pipeline Projects (Rezone Not Required) – Summary of Parcels ......................... 229 Figure 89 – Pipeline Projects (Rezone)– Summary of Parcels .................................................. 231 Figure 90: Opportunity Sites – Summary of Parcels ................................................................. 233

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The City of Mountain View’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element provides a policy framework and implementation plan for addressing housing needs in Mountain View over the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element planning period. The Housing Element is a required component of the City’s General Plan and must be completed in accordance with requirements under State law and is also a reflection of local needs and priorities related to housing.

The City of Mountain View has a strong history of promoting the production and preservation of a range of housing types beyond the minimum requirements of State Housing Element Law. The City has undertaken ambitious rezoning efforts to facilitate housing production and has a long-standing inclusionary ordinance to ensure that new residential developments provide affordable housing in addition to market-rate units. Through a 2016 voter-approved measure, the City established rent stabilization to protect renters from significant rent increases and in October of 2021, the City Council extended rent stabilization benefits to residents of mobile home parks. Mountain View’s elected and appointed officials have a reputation for providing strong support for affordable housing development and the City regularly provides financial support for affordable housing projects. Many members of the community and local advocacy groups are also supportive of both market-rate and affordable housing production.

Mountain View’s Housing Element functions within the context of the broader San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley setting, where a dynamic economy and robust job growth create strong demand for housing, while a constrained supply of land, high construction costs, and other factors constrain the supply of housing. This creates challenges for providing an adequate supply of housing that is accessible to all economic segments of the community.

Organization of the Housing Element
Following this introduction, the Housing Element includes the following major components:

Chapter 2: Review of Prior Housing Element. A review of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, including an analysis of the effectiveness and appropriateness of each program established for the previous housing element planning period.

Chapter 3: Housing Plan. A series of goals, policies, and programs to address the City’s housing needs.

Chapter 4: Quantified Objectives. An estimate of the anticipated and potential housing development during the planning period, including units assisted through programs;

Appendices: A series of appendices containing background details and technical analysis are included at the end of this document. These include:

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 2

 A. Implementation Status of 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs  B. Housing Needs Assessment
 C. Projected Housing Needs
 D. Housing Constraints
 E. Housing Sites Analysis and inventory
 F. Summary of Public Input
 G. City of Mountain View Multi-Family Housing Violation Checklist  H. Economic Analysis of Governmental Constraints
Consistency with the General Plan
State Law requires that General Plan elements be “integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” This implies that all elements have equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and closely coordinated with the Mobility Element of the City’s General Plan, among others. For the 2023-2031 planning period, the City will ensure consistency between the Housing Element and other General Plan Elements as outlined in Program

4.6 of the Housing Plan. Upon adoption of the Housing Element Update, the City of Mountain View will review the other General Plan elements and identify and undertake any updates needed to achieve General Plan consistency.

Public Participation
The process for preparing the City of Mountain View 2023-2031 Housing Element Update included a multifaceted approach to obtain input from the general public, a broad range of stakeholders, and City decision makers. Community engagement opportunities included virtual community meetings, in-person pop-up events, focus groups, solicitation of feedback through a community feedback form, individualized presentations to various community groups, and public meetings with the City’s Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and City Council. The City’s consultant team created a dedicated website for the Housing Element Update and the City also provided updates to the public via social media, and the “City Hall Connection” and “The View” newsletters. The outreach process for the Housing Element Update actively sought input from underrepresented groups. Efforts to make the outreach process inclusive included translation during meetings and translation of written materials to increase accessibility to members of the community with limited English proficiency. In addition, stakeholders that were targeted for focus groups included individuals that work with non- English-speaking populations, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and seniors. The outreach process also included a range of types of activities, including scheduled meetings and workshops, City staff attendance at community events to involve members of the public that might not attend a community meeting, and opportunities to provide extensive feedback online. Providing a wide variety of mechanisms for members of the public to provide input was a key focus in the outreach process, with an emphasis on reaching broad segments of the community.

Input from the public participation process was incorporated into the housing needs assessment, assessment of fair housing, analysis of constraints on housing production, housing plan, and sites inventory portions of Mountain View’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 3

Social Media
The City used social media to publicize information about the Housing Element Update, including information regarding opportunities for the public to provide input. Social media engagement included five Twitter posts, five Facebook posts, and three posts on Nextdoor between April 28, 2021 and March 7, 2022. City staff conducted Spanish-language outreach and outreach to the Latinx community by sharing information on WhatsApp platforms for several groups, including Embajadores Mountain View (62 members), 2021 Academia (18 members), Amigos de Listos (117 members), Padres de Mistral (170 members), Padres de Castro (56 members), and Anuncios Comunitarios (60 members). City staff used this outreach to encourage community members to attend meetings, identify other active groups to engage in the process, create a bridge between existing groups and the community at large, and build trust between the City and the community.

City Hall Connection Newsletter
City Hall Connection is a bimonthly e-newsletter that features updates about City of Mountain View events, news, and information, along with a local COVID-19 briefing. The City began publishing the e- newsletter in March 2021. City Hall Connection has approximately 3,880 current subscribers.

Seven editions of City Hall Connection included articles or upcoming meeting information related to the Housing Element Update between April 28, 2021 and December 22, 2021.

The View Newsletter
The View is Mountain View’s semi-annual publication, which magazine provides news on major projects and plans and initiatives in the community with two editions – one edition for Fall/Winter and the other for Spring/Summer. The View is mailed to all residential addresses and businesses and Mountain View and is available online. Information about the Housing Element Update was included in both 2021 editions of the View newsletter.

Housing Element Website
At the outset of the Housing Element preparation process, the City’s consultant team created a dedicated website for the Housing Element Update at mvhousingelement.org. The website has been continuously updated throughout the update process to provide the public with educational resources along with draft materials for public review. The website also provides information on opportunities for public engagement, allows the public to submit comments via an online comment form, and enables the public to sign up for emails to receive information about important events and other updates related to the Housing Element. The Housing Element website is available in 11 languages. As of March 24, 2022, the website had received 2,500 total visits and 1,700 unique visitors.

Stakeholder Focus Groups
In April and May 2021, the City’s consultant team held a series of virtual focus groups with a broad range of stakeholders to obtain input on the Housing Element Update. The focus group sessions included a brief overview of the Housing Element process, followed by a guided discussion focused on encouraging stakeholders to provide thoughts on housing needs and priorities in Mountain View.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 4
Focus group attendees included affordable housing developers, market-rate housing developers, local service providers, major local employers, and members of community-centered organizations and local advocacy groups. In total, the consultant team held six focus group sessions with a total of 24 attendees. The consultant team and City staff also held individual follow-up calls with some stakeholders who were unable to attend the scheduled focus group dates.

Farmer’s Market Pop-up Events
On August 19, 2021 and September 2, 2021, City staff attended the Thursday Farmer’s Market in downtown Mountain View to pass out event fliers, talk to residents who had questions about the Housing Element Update, and collect input from the public on housing issues and solutions.

Approximately 20 people approached staff at each of the events. In part, the pop-ups were designed to allow the public to provide input in a casual setting without requiring attendance at a public meeting, with the goal of engaging community members that might not otherwise participate in the public process. The pop-ups also provided an in-person venue for the public to provide input despite the challenges associated with in-person community engagement events due to the Covid pandemic.

Individually Requested Group Meetings
During the Housing Element preparation process, City staff attended meetings held by various groups upon request to provide information on the Housing Element Update and encourage community members to participate in the process. City staff attended meetings held by Cafecito, the Mountain View Whisman School District English Language Advisory Committee, the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce Business Issues & Public Policy Committee, the Mountain View Solidarity Fund, and Livable Mountain View.

“Let’s Talk Housing Santa Clara County” Virtual Community Meeting The Santa Clara County Collaborative hosted a series of virtual community meetings to involve residents and interested stakeholders across Santa Clara County. On August 30, 2021, the technical support team for the Collaborative, comprised of Baird + Driskell staff, facilitated this meeting for the cities of Sunnyvale, Milpitas, Santa Clara, and Mountain View. Attendees listened to a general presentation about the Housing Element process and then participated in city-specific breakout rooms. Approximately thirty participants joined the Mountain View breakout room. The event was presented in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese.

Virtual Community Workshop
On September 23, 2021, the City and consultant team held a virtual community workshop to provide general education on the Housing Element Update and obtain input on housing needs, as well as actions that the City can take to address unmet needs. The City initially planned to conduct a similar workshop in an in-person open house setting, but adjusted to a virtual format because of limitations on in-person gatherings due to the Covid pandemic. The workshop included an overview of the Housing Element process and requirements followed by guided small-group discussions in three breakout rooms, with live interpretation in Mandarin. The workshop was attended by 38 members of the public along with several City staff members and members of the consultant team. Both the English and Mandarin translations of the workshop were posted to the Housing Element webpage.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 5

Community Feedback Form
From September 23, 2021 through January 2, 2022, the City collected feedback through an online Community Feedback Form, which asked the public to provide input on critical housing issues and actions that the City can take to address these issues. The feedback form was available in English, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese. The online feedback form was made available on the project website and the survey link was shared at community events (e.g., Monster Bash, Tree Lighting), via social media and community chat groups, published in City publications, and sent to stakeholders and interested parties who signed up for project notifications. A total of 343 responses were received in English, Russian, Spanish, and Chinese.

Environmental Planning Commission Meetings
The City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) addressed the Housing Element Update during meetings on October 20, 2021; February 16, 2022; May 18, 2022; [other dates to be added as scheduled in the future]. During the EPC meetings, City staff and the consultant team provided information to the EPC and the general public on the Housing Element Update process and requirements, presented draft goals and policies, and discussed the draft Housing Element Update. City staff and the consultant team responded to questions and received feedback and direction from the EPC. The EPC meetings also provided an opportunity for the general public to comment on the Housing Element Update. EPC meetings were held in a virtual format due to Covid restrictions.

City Council Meetings
The Mountain View City Council addressed the Housing Element Update during meetings held on November 16, 2021; March 8, 2022; June 14, 2022; [other dates to be added as scheduled in the future]. During the City Council meetings, City staff and the consultant team provided information to the City Council and the general public on the Housing Element Update process and requirements, presented draft goals and policies, and discussed the draft Housing Element Update. City staff and the consultant team responded to questions and received feedback and direction from the Council.

The City Council meetings also provided an opportunity for the general public to comment on the Housing Element Update. City Council meetings were held in a virtual format due to Covid restrictions.

NOP Scoping Meeting
On February 24, 2022, the City of Mountain View held a Public Scoping Meeting to take comments regarding the scope and content of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Element Update. The Scoping Meeting was held in a virtual format due to Covid restrictions.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Review of Prior Housing Element 6 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING

ELEMENT
The City of Mountain View adopted its 5th Cycle Housing Element for the 2015 to 2023 time period on October 14, 2014. The 2015-2023 Housing Element was built around seven goals, as follows:

Goal 1: Support the production of new housing units serving a broad range of household types and incomes.

Goal 2: Provide assistance to households at different income levels to address their housing needs.

Goal 3: Conserve and improve Mountain View’s housing stock.

Goal 4: Address, remove, or mitigate constraints to housing production.

Goal 5: Support fair and equal housing opportunities for all segments of the community.

Goal 6: Promote environmentally sensitive and energy-efficient residential development, remodeling, and rehabilitation.

Goal 7: Maintain an updated Housing Element that is monitored, reviewed, and effectively implemented.

Each goal had a set of supporting policies and corresponding implementation programs.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
In addition to reflecting local needs and priorities, the 2015-2023 Housing Element also incorporated the City’s 5
th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which identified the number of new housing units for which the City was required to provide sufficient sites for construction. The City’s 5th Cycle RHNA was as follows:

Income
Category Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Number of
Units 814 492 527 1,093 2,926

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Review of Prior Housing Element 7 Quantified Objectives
Considering its available resources and the constraints in the local housing market, the City of Mountain View established the following quantified objectives for the construction, rehabilitation, and conservation/preservation of housing units for the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element:

Income
Category
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Construction 75 175 20 45 1,000 1,315
Rehabilitation 60 360 50 0 0 470
Conservation 0 809 497 0 0 1,306

Progress in Implementing 2015 to 2023 Housing Element Programs The City of Mountain View has made good progress in implementing its programs from the 5th Cycle Housing Element. Appendix A contains a summary of the implementation status of each of the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element’s implementation programs, as reported in the City’s 2021 Annual Progress Report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

Effectiveness of the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element
Overall, the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element was effective in guiding achievement of the City of Mountain View’s housing goals and objectives. In particular, the City issued building permits for 4,270 housing units between 2015 and 2021, exceeding not only the total unit count for its quantified objective for new construction (1,315 total units) but also exceeding its overall RHNA (2,926 total units). Following is a breakdown of units permitted between 2015 and 2021:

Income
Category
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Construction
Permits 72 146 196 18 4,060 4,492
% of RHNA
Permitted 26.8% 39.8% 3.4% 371% N/A

Considering below market rate units already permitted and units in the housing development pipeline, the City will likely meet or exceed its quantified construction objectives for all income categories. As of March 2022, a total of 2,712 net new residential units had recently been approved but were not yet under construction and 2,072 net new units were under entitlement review.

Although the effectiveness of the Housing Element is not solely judged by housing production in relation to the City’s RHNA numbers, it is instructive to see that while the City has issued permits for above moderate-income units that were 371.0% of its RHNA for that income category through 2021, the number of permits issued for the other income categories is still significantly below the RHNA numbers. The City has issued permits for very low-income units that is 26.8% of its RHNA, permits

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Review of Prior Housing Element 8 for low-income units that are 39.8% of its RHNA, and permits for moderate-income units that are just

3.4% of its RHNA. The overall production numbers reflect the strong demand for housing in Mountain View and the City’s ability to work with the developer community to deliver new housing units in response to that demand. At the same time, the fact that the permit activity for above moderate-income units (i.e., market rate units) exceeds the RHNA targets and the permit activity for housing units serving moderate incomes and below (i.e., below market rate units) reflects the limited resources available to develop subsidized housing that can meet the needs of moderate- and lower- income households and the fact that the market does not produce affordable housing on its own. As a result, cities are forced to create programs such as fee programs (which generate revenues for the City to finance affordable housing) or BMR programs (which require developers to include affordable housing in their projects). It is notable, but not surprising, that the City has made the least progress on production relative to its RHNA for moderate-income housing, since there are few sources of subsidy for moderate-income housing. Most state, federal, and regional subsidy programs target households at or below the low-income level, and the market price for newly developed units for sale or rent in Mountain View generally is not low enough to be considered affordable to moderate income households.

Progress in Rehabilitation
For housing rehabilitation, the City has also been successful in using federal CDBG and HOME funding to help rehabilitate Tyrella Gardens, Shorebreeze, The Fountains, Ginzton Terrace, and a major rehabilitation of the Sierra Vista I family apartments. In total, these projects include 314 very low-income units and 107 low-income units.

Income
Category
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Rehabilitation 0 314 107 0 0 421

Progress in Preserving Affordable Units
Since the City has not had to act to assist in the preservation of any subsidized housing units that were at-risk of converting to market rates in the 2015 to 2023 planning period, no such conversions occurred during the planning period. Furthermore, the City took steps to protect many households by enacting the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA), which was approved by local voters on November 8, 2016, and the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MHRSO), which the City Council enacted on September 28, 2021. Prior to the implementation of the State Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330; Government Code section 66300), several buildings with rent stabilized units were demolished and replaced with fewer units, mostly for sale units at market rate prices, creating challenges for preserving CSFRA units in Mountain View. Some affordable housing advocates that participated in the initial phases of the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update recommended that the City extend the provisions of SB 330 past its initial expiration date of 2025 by adopting a comparable local ordinance. SB 330 has since been extended by the State until January 1, 2030. In addition, the City continues to regulate the conversion of multifamily rental units to condominiums and also updated its Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO) to expand

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Review of Prior Housing Element 9 assistance to tenants who have household incomes up to $5,000 above 120% of area median income, to expand the types of properties that must comply with the TRAO, and to include First Right of Return benefits to displaced residents. The City has passed the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance in 2021. In 2022, the TRAO was modified again to extend the protections to mobile home tenants.

Appropriateness of 5th Cycle Programs for Inclusion in 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Many of the 5th Cycle Housing Element’s programs were effective and remain relevant as the City moves into the 6th Cycle. Public input during the Housing Element Update process did not call for elimination of any 5th Cycle Housing Element programs. Rather, a streamlined programs list facilitates ongoing implementation, tracking, and reporting. Only a limited number of 5th Cycle Housing Element programs were completely eliminated from the 6th Cycle Housing Element (i.e., not carried over as-is or revised and/or consolidated in 6th Cycle program); however, as noted below, elements of some of these eliminated programs are reflected in 6th Cycle programs.

 The City deleted Program 1.5, Lot Consolidation, because the City determined that there is relatively limited opportunity for lot consolidation to assist with housing production in the 6 th
Cycle and resources should be focused on other programs.

 The City deleted Program 3.3, Opportunities for Rehabilitation, because the City had included rehabilitation activities in its Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for affordable housing during the 5
th Cycle but received no applications and instead is focusing those resources on new housing unit production. Rehabilitation of naturally occurring (i.e., non-regulated) affordable housing is included as part of 6th Cycle Housing Element Program 3.2, Displacement Prevention and Mitigation.

 The City deleted Program 3.6, Preservation of Subsidized Housing Stock, because the City has no subsidized affordable housing units at-risk of conversion to market rate in the next ten years. Preservation of naturally occurring (i.e., non-regulated) affordable housing is included as part of 6
th Cycle Housing Element Program 3.2, Displacement Prevention and Mitigation.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 10 CHAPTER 3: HOUSING PLAN
The Housing Plan is the core of the Mountain View Housing Element, as it lays out the City’s housing goals; the policies that will guide City actions to achieving those goals; and the programs that the City will implement in the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element Planning period to work toward its goals.

Housing Goals and Policies
This section articulates each of Mountain View’s housing goals. A series of supporting policies accompanies each goal. Along with other goals and policies contained in other elements of the General Plan, City decision-makers and City staff will use these goals and policies to guide their work in administering their duties. In particular, housing developments and other projects affecting housing within Mountain View must be consistent with these goals and polices.

Goal 1: An increase in the quantity and diversity of housing options, focusing on active nodes, and walkable neighborhoods with amenities and services.

To achieve this goal, the City will address, remove, or mitigate constraints to housing production, produce new affordable units, and preserve existing housing units.

Policies:

1.1. Ensure that adequate residential land is available to accommodate the City’s RHNA, with special focus on Precise Plan areas near transit, employment centers, and services.

1.2. Encourage a mix of housing types, at a range of densities, that serves a diverse population, including rental and ownership units serving both young and mature families, singles, young professionals, single-parent households, seniors, and both first-time and move-up buyers, at a broad range of incomes, through development policies and City-subsidized affordable housing.

1.3. Maintain or improve the character and quality of neighborhoods through upgrades to existing developments, sensitively designed new developments, improved streetscapes, and better access to schools, parks, goods, services, jobs, transportation, and other needs.

1.4. Maintain and improve housing to meet health, safety, fire, and other applicable codes and standards.

1.5. Periodically evaluate the City’s development standards, review processes and, if necessary, remove unnecessary barriers to quality housing for all income levels.

1.6. Provide incentives, such as reduced parking standards and/or reductions in other development standards and fees, to facilitate the development of housing that is affordable to lower- and moderate-income households.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 11

1.7. Support environmentally sustainable practices in all aspects of residential development, including energy and water efficiency.

1.8. Pursue innovative housing options to better meet the needs of the community, such as land trusts, middle-income housing, shared ownership models, innovative construction, and more.

Goal 2: An inclusive and equitable community with available and accessible housing assistance To achieve this goal, the City will facilitate the development and preservation of affordable housing and support fair and equal opportunities for all segments of the community.

Policies:

2.1. Initiate and maintain programs to assist extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in accessing affordable rental and ownership units

2.2. Continue efforts to develop culturally competent outreach programs to connect residents to anti- displacement programs and affordable housing resources.

2.3. Give priority for affordable housing to persons who live or work in Mountain View whenever legally feasible.

2.4. Continue efforts to communicate effectively on affordable housing efforts so that building an inclusive community is widely championed.

2.5. Support programs to address discrimination and other fair housing issues in the sale, rental, and development of housing.

2.6. Support mediation programs between housing providers and tenants.

2.7. Encourage and support the maintenance/preservation and development of affordable housing that serves low-income households, seniors, individuals with developmental, intellectual, or physical disabilities, the homeless, larger households, historically underserved communities, and other special-needs populations.

Goal 3: A comprehensive suite of housing opportunities and services to prevent, respond to, and address displacement and homelessness
To achieve this goal, the City will seek funding and partnerships to increase resources towards the prevention of displacement and address the housing needs of people experiencing homelessness.

Policies:

3.1. Support a range of housing solutions and assistance, such as congregate shelter, safe parking, interim housing, and permanent housing, along with a pathway for individuals to get the housing they need.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 12

3.2. Provide responsive assistance and referrals for community resources, access, case management, and basic services (food and other items).

3.3. Coordinate with the County, community-based organizations, nonprofits, faith, and intergovernmental partners to assist the homeless.

3.4. Support housing solutions and resources for lower- and moderate-income residents displaced by development, rent increases, and other factors.

3.5. Strive to preserve affordable housing opportunities such as CSFRA units, mobile homes, and deed-restricted units..

3.6. Keep households at risk of homelessness housed such as with emergency rental assistance and fair-housing services.

Goal 4: A City that is an effective steward of housing solutions through funding, advocacy, partnerships, and community outreach and engagement
To achieve this goal, the City will pursue local housing funding, and work with partners to create additional housing opportunities, and otherwise support efforts that help implement the City’s housing goals and policies.

Policies:

4.1. Advocate for additional State, regional, and private funding for affordable housing and affordable housing programs.

4.2. Promote and support State and local programs for energy conservation and renewable energy system installation in existing homes.

4.3 Promote water conservation and stormwater controls, including rainwater capture systems for homes, incentives to promote stormwater control/site design features and water wise landscaping.

4.4. Solicit community and stakeholder feedback on housing issues and the effectiveness of Housing Element program implementation.

4.5. Build partnerships to increase the availability of City resources in producing housing and providing services.

Housing Programs
To work towards achieving the four Goals and implementing the Policies presented above, the Housing Element includes a series of Programs that identify specific actions that the City of Mountain View will take during the Housing Element planning period. These programs include a mixture of programs carried over from the 5
th Cycle Housing Element that were deemed still relevant,

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 13 5th Cycle Programs that have been modified to address current opportunities and challenges, and new programs. The programs are formulated to respond to findings from the Housing Needs Assessment, including the Assessment of Fair Housing (see Appendix B), the Constraints Analysis (see Appendix D), as well as input received from housing stakeholders and the general public, and direction from the Environmental Planning Commission and the City Council.

As detailed in Table 1, each program includes: a statement of its objective(s); a description of the actions the City will take, specific timeframes for implementation within the Housing Element planning cycle; the City department responsible for implementation; and the targeted source of funding to support implementation.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 14 Table 1: Housing Element Programs
Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding
Goal 1: An increase in the quantity and diversity of housing options, focusing on active nodes, and walkable neighborhoods with amenities and services.

1.1: Zoning
Ordinance
Update
Update the Zoning
Ordinance as
needed to fully
accommodate the
City's 6th Cycle RHNA
and make other
amendments as
necessary to address
governmental
constraints as
identified in the
Housing Constraints
Analysis and/or
necessary updates in
compliance with
State law.
a. Add provisions for Low-Barrier
Navigation Centers in compliance
with AB 101 (2019)
b. Add provisions for Employee
Housing in compliance with Health
and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq)
c. Add provisions to allow
mobilehome parks in all residential
zones in compliance with
Government Code 65852.7
d. Complete a review of
development standards in one or
more zoning districts and modify
standards to address feasibility
constraints. Reviewed development
standards could include open area,
parking (including parking for 100%
affordable housing projects), TDM,
and other standards that may create
constraints on development.
 Adopt zoning updates
needed for any sites
included in the sites
inventory and to
address governmental
constraints by
December 31, 2025
 Consider updated
standards by
December 31, 2025.
 Adopt zoning updates
on annually as
necessary to respond
to future changes in
State law
Planning
Division
General
Fund

1.2 Community
Sites for Housing
Allow affordable
housing on non-
profit, religious and
community assembly
sites to increase
housing capacity on
community-minded
sites
Update the Zoning Ordinance to
allow multifamily affordable housing in
the R1 district when constructed in
conjunction with non-profit religious
and community assembly uses on
large sites.

By December 31, 2025 Planning
Division
General
Fund

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 15 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding

1.3 Conservation
of Units
Conserve multi-family
development in R1
and R2 districts
where there is
currently non-
conforming density
of residential units.

Update the Zoning Ordinance to
allow replacement of non-conforming
multifamily development in the R1
and R2 districts.

By December 31, 2025 Planning
Division
General
Fund

1.4: Accessory
Dwelling Units
and Junior
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Monitor and collect
data on ADU and
JADU construction
and provide
resources to
homeowners.
a. Track the number of ADUs/JADUs
proposed and constructed.
b. Develop an ADU/JADU Monitoring
Survey to collect data during the
building permit application process
(e.g. occupancy status and rent
levels at time of occupancy) in order
to accurately report income level for
APRs and/or lead to future process
improvements.
c. Update the ADU webpage with
current resources (e.g. educational
tools and public information).
 Tracking is ongoing
 ADU survey by Jan
2024
 Webpage updates, by
June 2023 and
ongoing
Planning
Division
General
Fund

1.5: Density
Bonus
Review and approve
projects consistent
with the State Density
Bonus Law and its
local provisions
Continue to implement the
requirements in the density bonus
ordinance for Density Bonus projects
that offers bonuses for the provision of
affordable housing, depending on the
amount and type of subsidized
housing provided, consistent with the
revised Government Code 65915.

Ongoing Planning
Division
General
Fund

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 16 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding

1.6: No Net Loss Maintain a list of
opportunity sites that
accommodates the
City's RHNA
Monitor and update the availability of
sites to accommodate the remaining
unmet RHNA in accordance with No
Net Loss rules. If a shortfall is identified
in any income category, identify
necessary replacement sites,
considering, but not limited to "Back
Pocket" areas discussed during
adoption of the Housing Element
Update. Back Pocket areas included:
 Moffett Boulevard Change Area
 Office sites along South Drive
 Neighborhood shopping areas
other than General Plan Village
Centers (such as Bailey Park
Shopping Center, Monta Loma
Shopping Center, and Leong Drive)
 Downtown Transit Center
 Other nonresidential sites south of El
Camino Real
Update the availability of
sites to accommodate
remaining RHNA by
income group annually;
identify additional sites
within six months, if
necessary.

Planning
Division
General
Fund

1.7: Code
Enforcement
Program
Respond to housing
code violations
Maintain the quality of the existing
housing stock by addressing housing
code violations as they are reported.

Ongoing Code
Enforcement
Division
General
Fund

1.8: Multi-family
Housing
Inspection
Program
Inspect and respond
to substandard
conditions in the
City's multifamily
housing stock
Continue annual inspection of multi-
family rental properties throughout the
City to ensure property owners and
management companies comply
with the California Building Code and
the City's Municipal Code.

Ongoing Fire Department General
Fund

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 17 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding

1.9: Sustainable
Housing
Streamline green
building review and
development of
more sustainable
(cost-effective and
energy-efficient)
housing.
a. Implement the City's various
sustainable and green building
requirements, including: the City's
Green Building and Reach Codes,
the Water Conservation in
Landscaping Regulations, Bonus FAR
requirements for more sustainable
buildings, and others.
b. Encourage City Staff to attend
conferences, training sessions, and
other events to learn and stay
informed on new green initiatives and
technologies. Hold in-house training
sessions to facilitate inter-department
cooperation on green building
practices.
 Ongoing
 Training should occur
at least two times
during the planning
cycle
Planning and
Building
Divisions
General
Fund

1.10: Park Land
Ordinance
Update
Review and revise
the parkland
dedication
requirements to
maintain access to
high quality open
space while
reducing the
financial impact to
residential
development.

Complete Phase 2 of the Park Land
Ordinance update and the Parks and
Recreation Strategic Plan.

By June 2024 Community
Services
Department
Park
Land
Develop
ment
Fund

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 18 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding

1.11 BMR
Program Review
Review and revise
the Below-Market-
Rate program
requirements to
reflect community
needs for affordable
and market rate
housing.

Complete the first review of the BMR
Phase 2 program in 2022, and again in
2027.
2022, 2027 Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division and
Planning
Division
Local
Housing
Funds
Goal 2: An inclusive and equitable community with available and accessible housing assistance

2.1: Subsidize
and support
affordable
housing
programs to
meet an array of
housing needs,
with a particular
emphasis on
underserved
populations
Make more housing
available to
households otherwise
left out of the
Mountain View
housing market.
a. Make funding available to support
a range of housing needs including:

1. permanent supportive housing
for unhoused community
members,

2. larger units to serve larger
households,

3. people with special needs,

4. efficiency studios, and

5. homeownership programs for
middle income residents.
b. Explore innovative programs (such
as community land trusts, new
building methods, etc.) as
appropriate to meet gaps.

Ongoing. Make local
housing funds available
for these opportunities
regularly.

Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division
General
Fund and
local
housing
funds

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 19 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding

2.2: Inclusive
and equitable
affordable
housing
application
processes
Remove barriers to
accessing affordable
housing
Review BMR and NOFA application
process for inclusivity for language
access, technological access, and
other barriers and make adjustments
to increase inclusivity.

Annually market
available affordable
housing programs to
underserved
communities and
continue to remove
barriers to accessing
affordable housing
programs by removing
language, technology,
and other barriers.

Evaluate effectiveness of
changes at least once
during the planning
period to ensure
equitable representation
on waitlist and interest
lists.

Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division
Local
housing
funds

2.3: Mediation
and Fair Housing
Programs
Make information
and legal services
available to tenants
and property owners
to support fair
housing, help tenants
and property owners
exercise their rights,
and prevent
eviction.
a. Fund fair housing education,
enforcement, and counseling to
prevent fair housing violations and
help community members
understand and assert their rights.
b. Provide financial support to
mediate housing issues involving City
residents, with a focus on
tenant/property owner mediation
and eviction prevention.

Annually fund fair
housing and mediation
services. Continuously
provide information
about tenant and
landlord rights. Target at
least one annual
outreach/education
event targeted to local
residents and one annual
outreach/education
event targeted to local
property owners and
managers.

Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division
General
Fund and
local
housing
funds

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 20 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding

2.4: Reasonable
Accommodation
Review and approve
requests to modify
development
standards to
reasonably
accommodate
person with
disabilities, including
persons with
developmental
disabilities.

Implement City reasonable
accommodations procedures.

Ongoing Planning
Division
General
Fund

2.5: Affirmatively
Further Fair
Housing
Remove
impediments to fair
housing and provide
equitable access to
housing.

Continue to prepare and update the
City's Assessment of Fair Housing and
implement actions as necessary to
remove barriers to fair housing choice,
as required by HUD and State Housing
Element law.

Update Assessment of
Fair Housing as required
by HUD. Implement
necessary actions
continuously as needed.

Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division
CDBG/H
OME
funds

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 21 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding
Goal 3: A comprehensive suite of housing opportunities and services to prevent, respond to, and address displacement and homelessness

3.1:

Homelessness
Prevention and
Services for the
Unhoused
Prevent households
from becoming
homeless and
provide safety net,
shelter, and housing
services to those who
are unhoused.
a. Develop and implement a strategy
to support those who are unhoused
and prevent people from becoming
unhoused, by:

1. supporting emergency rental
assistance programs to prevent
homelessness

2. supporting pathways to housing,
by providing a range of housing
options, including transitional and
permanent housing

b. Continue to partner with the
Mountain View Los Altos Community
Services Agency (CSA), LifeMoves
and similar agencies that provide
services and/or shelter to the
unhoused community members, by
offering financial support and
advertising available programs to
residents living in the City.

c. Participate in regional homeless
programs that support short-term
shelter and transitional housing
programs that accommodate families
and individuals from Mountain View.

Develop strategy by
December 31, 2023.

Annually support CSA,
LifeMoves and other
partner agencies as part
of Annual Plan. Regularly
support the
development of
permanent housing via
regular NOFA process.

Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division
Local
housing
funds
and
CDBG/H
OME
funds.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 22 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding

3.2:

Displacement
Prevention and
Mitigation
Prevent
displacement
through rent
stabilization, deed
restriction, and
housing preservation
work. Provide
benefits and
relocation assistance
to displaced
residents to partially
mitigate impacts of
displacement.
a) Conserve and improve existing
affordable housing stock.

b) Enforce the Tenant Relocation
Assistance Ordinance, Community
Stabilization and Fair Rent Act
(CSFRA), Mobile Home Rent
Stabilization Ordinance (MHRSO),
Condominium Conversion Ordinance
(CCO), and relevant state tenant
protection laws.

c) Seek opportunities to preserve and
rehabilitate naturally affordable
housing.

Continuously enforce

TRAO, CSFRA, MHRSO,
CCO, and relevant laws.

Continuously monitor
conditions to identify
need for updates to
TRAO. Target
expenditure of funds to
assist in preserving at
least one naturally
occurring affordable
housing project during
the planning period.

Housing and
Neighborhoods
and Planning
Divisions
Local
housing
funds
and
CDBG/H
OME
funds.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 23 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding
Goal 4: A City that is an effective steward of housing solutions through funding and advocacy partnerships and community

4.1 Development
Streamlining and
Processing
Revisions
Streamline
development
processes.
a) Review and update the City's
affordable Housing NOFA process to
improve coordination and
communication internally (e.g.
coordination between Housing and
Planning and internal processes in
Planning) and with applicants.

Encourage affordable housing
developers to work with outside
funding sources to leverage the City's
local funds to the maximum extent
possible.
b) Review development and post-
development processes, timelines,
and approval body levels to
streamline permitting processes.
c) Acquire tools and software that will
improve development review,
monitoring of housing supply,
management of funding, and other
processes involved in housing
development for staff and public use.
a) Review and update
NOFA process by 2024.

b) Ongoing

c) Ongoing
Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division and
Planning
Division
General
Fund and
local
housing
funds

4.2: Federal,
State, and
Regional Policy
Initiatives
State, Federal, and
regional policies that
support efforts to
develop affordable
housing, prevent
displacement, and
remove impediments
to accessing
housing.

Advocate for, propose, and shape
legislation that increases the ability to
develop affordable housing, prevent
displacement, and remove
impediments to accessing housing.

Continuously monitor
federal and State
legislation and submit
support letters as
appropriate. Propose
legislation as
appropriate.

Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division and
Planning
Division
General
Fund and
local
housing
funds

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 24 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding

4.3: Financial
Support for
Subsidized
Housing
Subsidize affordable
housing, especially
housing for lower-
income households,
unhoused, and
families and
effectively steward
housing funds.
a) Examine new revenue sources to
meet extremely low- to moderate-
income housing needs and
periodically consider updates to fees
b) Perform asset management to
ensure loan
repayment
c) Prioritize funding opportunities for
lower-income and special needs
population groups, such as families
and unhoused individuals.

Complete evaluation of
new funding sources by
2025; at least once
during the planning
period conduct an
analysis to update
existing affordable
housing fees.

Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division and
Planning
Division
Local
housing
funds

4.4: Partnerships
to Support
Affordable
Housing
Explore partnerships
with other public
agencies and
external partners to
leverage funds and
increase access to
affordable housing
programs
Work with private sector, philanthropy,
and public agencies to bring in
additional funding sources to support
a range of affordable housing
opportunities in Mountain View.

Continuously develop
relationships with partner
agencies and private
philanthropy to find
opportunities to leverage
additional funding for
affordable housing.

Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division
General
Fund

4.5: Partnerships
with Subsidized
Housing
Developers
Partner with
subsidized housing
developers to further
affordable housing
priorities.

Make City-owned properties available
for affordable housing development.

When appropriate,
partner with affordable
housing developers to
develop affordable
housing on City-owned
sites.

Housing and
Neighborhoods
Division
Local
housing
funds
and
CDBG/H
OME
funds.

4.6: City Council
Goal Setting
Implement major
programs in the
Housing Element
Incorporate Housing Element
programs and recommendations from
the City's annual monitoring and
review process into the City Council's
goal-setting process. Ensure
consistency between the Housing
Element and other General Plan
Elements throughout the planning
period.

Annually Planning
Division
General
Fund

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 25 Program Name Objective Description/Action Timeframe for 2023- 2031 HE Responsibility Potential
Funding

4.7:

Neighborhood
Engagement
Keep the community
informed on
proposed projects to
solicit input and
foster support for
new residential
developments
Encourage housing developers to
communicate and share information
with groups regarding their proposed
projects.

Continuously encourage
housing developers to
communicate and share
information about their
project with the public.

Planning
Division
General
Fund

4.8: School
District
Coordination
Share information on
residential
developments with
school districts
Provide a copy of the Housing
Element to school districts serving the
City. Share information on new
residential developments including
number of units and bedrooms and
demographic information with school
districts.

Share copy housing
element within one
month of adoption.

Share development
information with Districts
annually.

Planning
Division
General
Fund

4.9: Water and
Sewer Service
Coordination
Ensure that Water
and Sewer
connections will be
made available to
address the RHNA
Provide a copy of the Housing
Element to Water and Sewer Utility
staff and ensure that they understand
that priority for connections must be
given to housing developments that
address the City's lower-income
RHNA.

Within one month of
adoption of HEU
Planning
Division
General
Fund

4.10: Annual
Monitoring and
Reporting
Complete and
submit review each
year of the planning
period
Per Government Code Section 65400,
annually review the Housing Element
and submit findings to the Office of
Planning and Research and HCD.

Annually Planning
Division
General
Fund

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Quantifed Objectives 26 CHAPTER 4: QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES

State Housing Element Law requires that each jurisdiction establish quantified objectives for Housing Element planning period. Quantified objectives differ from the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) because they include not only targets for production of new housing units by household income level, but also include targets for rehabilitation of housing units and targets for conservation of housing units. In addition, local jurisdictions set their quantified objectives based on their realistic assessment of what can be achieved during the Housing Element planning period.

Thus, the quantified objectives for housing production may differ from the local jurisdiction’s RHNA for new housing units for the same planning period. The distinction is that the RHNA requires that the City provide sufficient land, appropriately zoned, to accommodate construction of the targeted number of housing units, while the quantified objective for housing production represents the number of housing units that the local jurisdiction expects to be built, rehabilitated, or preserved, considering market conditions, financial resources, and other factors. Table 2 below shows the City of Mountain View’s quantified objectives for the upcoming Housing Element planning period.

Construction
As can be seen in Appendix E, a significant portion of the City’s RHNA is accommodated through already-proposed projects (“Pipeline”). These can be split into two major “timing” groups – Single Projects and Master Plans. The number of units attributed to the Master Plans is across all eight years of the RHNA cycle. However, the City can reasonably expect approximately double the number of Single Projects than what has been proposed at this time – based on the fact that the projects include applications over roughly the last four years. Based on this calculation (Master Plans plus two times Single Projects), the City can reasonably target new construction of approximately 3,700 low-income (LI) units, 750 moderate-income (MI) units and 9,550 above-moderate-income (AMI) units.

Some of the very low income (VLI), LI and MI units anticipated will be included in market rate units under the City’s BMR inclusionary program.

The majority of extremely low income (ELI), VLI and LI units are provided through 100% affordable projects developed by non-profits. The target proportion of ELI, VLI and LI units is based on the current number of such units known in the Pipeline of 100% affordable projects, doubled (as described above).

These units are dependent on subsidies from numerous public and private sources, including the City. The City’s construction objectives for affordable housing are dependent on continued funding

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Quantifed Objectives 27 via existing fees, as well as additional funding sources, which the City will pursue. The Housing Element includes programs that will need to be carried out to acquire this funding, such as:

 1.11 (BMR Program Review)
 4.2 (Federal and State Policy Initiatives)
 4.3 (Financial Support for Subsidized Housing)
 4.4 (Partnerships to Support Affordable Housing)

Rehabilitation
The City hopes to pursue significant preservation activities to conserve naturally affordable housing in the City, some large portion of which would require rehabilitation. This effort will require additional funding sources, however, and thus modest goals are set for rehabilitation, although the need is significantly greater.

Conservation
The City's existing deed-restricted affordable housing stock is not timed to convert to market rate housing in the Housing Element period, and thus no conservation of deed-restricted units are described, although the aforementioned efforts to preserve naturally affordable housing should be noted.

Table 2: Sixth Cycle Quantified Objectives for New Construction, Rehabilitation, and Conservation
Income
Category
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Construction 750 1,700 1,250 750 9,550 14,000
Rehabilitation 25 50 50 25 0 150
Conservation 0 0 0 0 0 0

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix A: Implementation Status of 5th Cycle Programs 28 APPENDIX A: IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF 5TH

CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS

This page intentionally left blank

Jurisdiction Mountain View
Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
123 4
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation Financial Support for
Subsidized Housing
In October 2014 and six years into the planning
period (by 2021), the City Council will
determine whether to increase any of the City's
affordable housing fees. Administer funds, as
they become available, to support housing
development, housing programs, and
rehabilitation activities. Prioritize funding
opportunities for lower income and special
needs population group.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City collects Housing Impact Fees to address the impact on the demand for affordable housing, when new nonresidential uses and market-rate rental apartments are developed. On December 9, 2014, the Council increased the Housing Impact Fee for Office/High-Tech/Industrial Development from $10.26 per net square foot to $25 per net square foot effective February 7, 2015. In 2018, the City ended the Rental Housing Impact Fee and began requiring 15 percent on-site affordable units to achieve more development of affordable units instead of accepting payment of fees. In 2016, the City reserved or appropriated approximately $36 million in City housing funds for three developments at 779 East Evelyn Avenue, 460 North Shoreline Boulevard, and 1701 West El Camino Real, that will account for approximately 233 units serving extremely, low- and very low-income households. A portion of these units are intended for veterans. In 2018, the City reserved $22 million and appropriated an additional $1.7 million for predevelopment costs for 950 West El Camino Real, a 71-unit affordable multi-family rental housing project. The project, and said funding were approved in 2019. In 2019, the City updated its BMR in-lieu fees to $96 per net square foot for rental, $54.50 per net square foot for ownership (other than rowhouses and townhouses), and $125 per net square foot for rowhouses and townhouses effective August 24, 2019. In 2020, the City reserved $15 million for La Avenida Apartments, a 100 unit affordable multi-family rental housing project as well as an initial $1million for the City's Lot 12 affordable housing project. In 2021, the City updated its BMR in-lieu fees to to $100.66 per net square foot for rental, $57.14 per net square foot for ownership (other than rowhouses and townhouses), and $131.06 per net square foot for rowhouses and townhouses. Housing Impact Fees were increased per CPI to $1.60 for the first 25,000 square feet of net new Commercia/Entertainment/Hotel/Retail development, and $3.17 for every foot thereafter and $14.81 for the first 10,000 square feet of net new High-Tech/Industrial/Office development and $29.62 for every square foot thereafter. In 2021 the City reserved $16 million for an 85-unit affordable multi-family rental housing project at 1265 Montecito Ave, and appropriated the funds to the La Avenida Apartments which were previously reserved. The City approved using $3.7 million in CDBG and HOME funds to support the conversion of the Crestview Hotel into multi-family affordable housing. The City also ground-leased the site at 87 E. Evelyn with the intent to purchase the site for future affordable housing. Funding for the Lot 12 project increased to $12.25 million. The LiveMoves-Mountain View Homekey interim housing project to serve unsheltered persons was completed in April 2021, which includes City funding for operations. In addition to funds that the City has reserved, the City has an active affordable housing pipeline that consists of several hundred units and a significant amount of City funding will be considered for these projects.

Extremely Low-Income
Housing
In October 2014 and within five years of
Housing Element adoption (by 2020), the City
will convene meetings with stakeholders to
advance housing for extremely low income
households and at least annually consider
potential opportunities. By 2016, the City will
evaluate reduced development standards, and
other incentives for affordable housing, and
implement, where appropriate within the El
Camino Real and San Antonio Precise Plans.

Ongoing, 2015-2023 and at
least annually consider
potential opportunities
In February 2014, the City released a second NOFA for affordable rental and ownership housing developments. So far, the City has appropriated $21.7 million of the funding to ROEM Development Corporation to construct a 116-unit affordable development at 779 East Evelyn Avenue and $8 million to Palo Alto Housing (PAH) for a 67 studio unit affordable development at 1701 West El Camino Real, including 39 ELI studio units. The City also reserved funding for MidPen Housing’s 50 affordable family units at 460 North Shoreline Boulevard and for Eden's 69 affordable units at La Avenida. The funding reservations for affordable multi-family housing at Lot 12, 1265 Montecito, and the Crestview Hotel also require units forhouseholds with extremely-low incomes. The LifeMoves-Mountain View Homekey project serves ELI households focusing on unsheltered individuals, seniors, and families. The City will continue to explore opportunities to fund affordable housing developments with units for extremely low-income households. This may most likely occur in developments targeted toward housing for the homeless, seniors, or those with special needs, as well as projects with Measure A funding.

Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
(CCR Title 25 §6202)

Partnerships with
Subsidized Housing
Developers
Encourage affordable housing developers to
work with outside funding sources to leverage
the City's local housing funds to the maximum
extent possible. Assess the feasibility of using
available City-owned properties as subsidized
housing sites, when appropriate and feasbile.

Hold meetings to inform developers of the
application procedures and the City's
affordable housing priorities, as part of the
funding selection process.

Ongoing, 2015-2023 and at
least annually consider
potential opportunities.

The City continues to work with affordable housing developers such as ROEM Development Corporation, Palo Alto Housing, MidPen Housing, and First Community Housing. In 2016, the City hosted a developer’s forum to seek feedback on the affordable housing NOFA and RFQ process. In 2021, the City hosted meetings with developers to seek feedback on underwriting guidelines and on development opportunity in Precise Plan areas. The City worked with the County to determine potential opportunities for Measure A funds, with the Housing Authority, and with VTA on its Evelyn Avenue site. The City worked with the County on an agreement with the County (expected to be approved in 2022) to leverage $80 million in County 2016 Measure A funds for various housing sites with permanent supportive and rapid reuhousing units in the City, for up to 200 units. The City also worked with nonprofit developers on various affordable housing projects. As of 2021, there are four projects in the affordable housing development pipeline that intend to partner with the City through the NOFA process in the coming years, leveraging a variety of funding sources that includes tax credits, Federal funds, and local funding, including the City’s housing impact funds. The City worked with the Lot 12 developer on a lease disposition, development, and lease agreement (LDDLA) which neared completion in 2021 and was fully executed in early 2022.

Update Zoning Ordinance
Complete a comprehensive Zoning Code
update by 2017 to ensure consistency with the
2030 General Plan. Review 2030 General Plan
Implementation on an annual basis. Upon
completion of the Zoning Code update, review
on an annual basis for consistency and to
address any changes to State law.

Annual reivew of the 2030
General Plan
implementation; Update
Zoning Code by 2017,
Review annually for
consistency.

The 2030 General Plan implements new land use standards through adoption of major Precise Plans for the San Antonio, El Camino Real, and North Bayshore areas in 2014. The San Antonio and El Camino Real areas contain opportunities for new residential/mixed-use development and the North Bayshore Precise Plan was approved in 2017 and includes up to 9,850 residential units. In 2017, the City updated the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to allow more properties the opportunity to build a second dwelling unit and will be proposing additional updates in 2020 to be compliant with new State laws. In 2019, the City approved the East Whisman Precise Plan and includes up to 5,000 residential units. Additionally, in 2019, the City approved minor zoning code amendments to increase clarity as well as consistency with State law.

Lot Consolidation
Encourage lot consolidation of smaller parcels
to accommodate projects to a density of at
least 30 dwelling units per acre.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The subdivision process has been posted on the City's website to support lot consolidation. In addition, the new El Camino Real Precise Plan includes guiding principles and standards to encourage small parcel aggregation along the corridor. Staff will continue to work with applicants at no cost to encourage lot consolidation. The major developments are either currently going through the approval process or were approved in 2020 for lot consolidation:

Underutilized Sites
Monitor the supply of underutilized sites
throughout the City and within the Housing
Element to ensure opportunities are available
to encourage a variety of housing types.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
City staff continues to promote the redevelopment of underutilized sites through informal meetings with developers and has identified appropriate sites in the Housing Resources section, which is posted on the City website to accommodate development of a variety of housing types. The San Antonio, El Camino Real, North Bayshore, and East Whisman Precise Plans provide opportunities for higher-intensity development which will serve as an incentive for redevelopment of underutilized parcels in those areas. The City is currently reviewing the R3 (Multifamily Residential) zoning standards and considering modifications to increase opportunities for additional housing types.

Density Bonus
Continue to promote the updated density
bonus ordinance that offers bonuses for the
provision of affordable housing, depending on
the amount and type of subsidized housing
provided, consisted with the revised
Government Code 65915.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City continues to promote the use of the State Density Bonus Ordinance that offers bonuses for the provision of affordable housing, depending on the amount and type of subsidized housing provided, consistent with revised Government Code §65915. This information is provided at City Hall and online at the City’s website to promote the application of this ordinance. Between 2014 and 2020, nine projects with a density bonus were approved:
1701 West El Camino Real, 400 San Antonio Road, 1998 Montecito Avenue, 1101 West El Camino Real, 2700 West El Camino Real, 1313 West El Camino Real, 828 Sierra Vista Avenue, 950 West El Camino Real, and 2645 Fayette Drive. In 2021, the City udpated its standards for the State Density Bonus to be consistent with th range of densities and development types int he City.

Federal and State Policy
Initiatives
Monitor legislation regarding financing and
housing development. Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City continuously monitors Federal and State legislation and is supportive of efforts that involve financing options for affordable housing. The City sent support letters on various State bills of California’s 2017 Housing Package, including SB 2, SB 3, and AB 1505. In 2018, the City sent a support letter to the Governor for new homelessness program funding. The City also sent a letter in support of Federal Bill S. 548 to expand the Low-Income Housing T
ax Credit program. As part of the 2020 Federal CARES Act, the City received CDBG CARES Act Rounds 1 and 3 funding totaling approximately $957,000, which supports the City's COVID-19 rent relief program. In 2021, the City sent a support letter to the County and affirmed funding reservations for the Crestview Motel application for State Homekey funds. The City successfully applied for State CDBG Homekey funding for the LifeMoves- Mountain View project, which required a Council resolution. The City also worked with Senator Becker's office to request funding support for the Lot 12 project, which through his leadership resulted in $8 million awarded to the City through the State Budget Act of 2021 (SB 129).

Project Design and
Integration
As projects are submitted Planning Staff will
review General Plan policies and zoning code
regulations and design standards to ensure
that transitions between proposed
developments and existing neighborhoods are
appropriate.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
As many recently approved projects include higher-density development on underutilized sites, City staff recognizes that it is critical to provide adequate transitions to existing land uses, particularly single-family neighborhoods. The General Plan includes goals and policies to ensure project designs are appropriately integrated into existing neighborhoods. Staff has worked with developers on the following projects providing appropriate transitions (i.e., building heights and setbacks) with surrounding lower-density neighborhoods: 1616 West El Camino Real; 500 Ferguson Drive, 1701 West El Camino Real, 100 Moffett Boulevard, 801 West El Camino Real, 400 San Antonio Road, and 1255 Pear Avenue.

Innovative Housing
Programs
Review residential development standards to
ensure that there is flexibility in the Zoning
Code to allow for innovative housing types
such as co-housing, shared housing, and
intergenerational housing.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
In 2012, the Mountain View City Council approved a 19-unit, three-story, “co-housing” development project over an underground garage at 445 Calderon Avenue, which included moving an existing historic home on-site. The project is marketed as a new, “old-fashioned” neighborhood of energy-efficient condominiums and common facilities, homes that promote collaboration and community, in a convenient walkable downtown location. The City expects that a number of the units will be inhabited by senior residents, although the project is not age-restricted. To approve the project, the City also approved a density bonus to allow a BMR unit to be located in the historic home on-site.

In 2017, LinkedIn prepaid a portion of its $16 million housing impact fee obligation that would have been part of its project approval by investing $10 million in the Housing Trust Silicon Valley Tech Fund. By prepaying, the funds are able to become available to affordable housing developers sooner.

The fund provides short-term loans for land acquisition and other related costs for developments in Mountain View.

In 2017, the City Council approved the North Bayshore Precise Plan, which includes an innovative affordable housing program that has provisions for both rental and ownership housing at various income levels, achieved through a Bonus FAR mechanism.

In 2019, the City Council approved a 716-unit apartment building that includes 144 moderate-income units available for Mountain View Whisman School District teachers and City staff housing.

In 2020, the City applied with LifeMoves to State Project HomeKey Program to rapidly deploy modular units to provide interim housing for unhoused seniors and families who may be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. THe project was awarded 11.95 million in capital funds and 2.4 million in operating funds. This was a highly competitive program and to staff's knowledge, one of the only funded projects to use modular housing approach statewide. In 2021 the City Council reserved CDBG and HOME funds to support the conversion of the Crestview Hotel into permanent housing, largely for families and individuals at risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness. The City also supported the County's application for state funds for this project. The hotel conversion will make it possble to make units available more quickly and affordably. The City also worked on a Memorandum of Understanding with the County for its Measure A funds, which provides a programmatic approach to funding multiple City projects.

Units for Large Housholds
Ensure at least 25 percent of the units in a
subsidized family housing development have
three or more bedrooms to accomodate large
families if City provides financial assistance.

Consider alternatives to preserve and
rehabilitate apartments with large family units
Ongoing, 2015-2023
MidPen Housing received entitlements in January 2018 for a NOFA project to increase affordable units on the project site located at 460 North Shoreline Boulevard. A total of 50 new studios to three-bedroom units for low-income households were approved, and construction is anticipated to begin in early 2019. ROEM Development Corporation included 45 two-bedroom and 15 three-bedroom units for its Evelyn Family Apartments located at 779 East Evelyn Avenue, which opened early 2019. Several of the housing developments in the pipeline include units for large housholds.

Maintain Residential
Development Capacity
Development of evaluation procedure to
implement Government Code section 65863 by
January 31, 2015.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City has identified a residential capacity shortfall from the site inventory list in Section 7, Housing Resources to accommodate 22 low-income units and 257 moderate-income units. Staff is expecting to accommodate this shortfall with the addition of 2,970 affordable residential units in North Bayshore as well as East Whisman to assist with meeting the City’s low and moderate-income unit RHNA allocation.

Staff will continue to monitor this residential capacity and evaluating development applications on properties identified in the Housing Element site inventory included in Section 7, Housing Resources. If a development project reduces capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the City’s lower-income unit RHNA allocation, staff will identify sites to accommodate the difference.

Boomerang Funds Ensure 20% of net "Boomerang" funds are utilized for low and moderate income housing. Ongoing, 2015-2023 In June 2015, the City of Mountain View committed to reserve “Boomerang” funds to be used for eligible housing related activities. The City has committed an amount equal to 20 percent of all funds distributed to the City as a taxing entity under the redevelopment dissolution laws. Beginning in the 2016-17 budget, an ongoing set-aside of $51,000 was approved.

In addition to the Boomerang funds, the successor agency has been receiving loan repayments from former redevelopment housing activities. Close to $1 million has accumulated since 2011 and the City will use these funds for affordable housing and plans to use up to $250,000 for eligible homeless services in the coming years. $1 milion of the successor agency funds have been reserved for affordable houinsg which will be built on Lot 12.

Homebuyer Assistance
Programs
Support Housing Trust Fund homebuyer
assistance programs and other federal, State
and local programs that enable households to
purchase homes.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City continues to support the Housing Trust Fund’s homebuyer program. Staff periodically meets with the Housing Trust staff to discuss programs and marketing opportunities. In both Fall 2019 and 2020, the City hosted an informational events in partnership with the Housing T rust regarding their
homebuyer program that was open to the public. In 2020, the City is in the process of modifying its Employee Homebuyer Assistance program. In 2021, the City began working with the Housing Trust and HouseKeys to develop a more accessible homebuyer program for displaced tenants seeking to use "right of first refusal" rights to buy below-market-rate condos.

Priorities for Affordable
Units
Implement the City's preferences for new BMR
ownership and rental units as specified in the
BMR Asministrative Guidelines. Give
preference to people who live and work in
Mountain View when units become available in
subsidized rental housing developments. Do
extensive advertising and outreach whenever
new BMR orsubsidized units become available
and waitlist are opened for existing affordable
units.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City continues to implement the various housing fee programs. For BMR units, the City has prioritized funding and housing assistance for public safety workers, teachers, and persons who either work or live within Mountain View. The City notices the availability of BMR units through ads in the local paper, articles in The View, multilingual outreach, e-mail notifications to those on the City’s Housing Interest List, signs and information posted on the website, outreach through churches and other nonprofit organizations, and web announcements.

Partnerships with County
Agencies
Increase resident awareness about housing
programs offered by County and regional
agencies by providing information at City Hall
and on the City's website, when funding is
available.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City continues to work with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara to promote affordable housing opportunities in Mountain View and to coordinate support of Mountain View’s affordable housing units through the Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program.

The City also continues to work closely with the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing on funding opportunities for Mountain View’s affordable developments including Measure A projects, as well as Project HomeKey. Staff participates in regional discussions to monitor new regulations and possible collaboration on preparation of the federal Fair Housing Assessment, and to share information and strategies for addressing affordable housing, homelessness, fair housing, and other issues of common concern. The City worked on an agreement with the County (expected to be approved in 2022) to leverage $80 million in County 2016 Measure A funds for various housing sites with permanent supportive and rapid reuhousing units in the City, for up to 200 units.

Anti-Displacement
Strategies. Tenant
Relocation Assistance
Program
Conserve updates to the Tenant Relocation
Assistance Ordinance when there are major
changes to the rental market, the economy, or
development activity.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
In 2010, the City Council adopted a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO) requiring developers to pay for relocation assistance to very low- or extremely low-income households displaced by new development. In June 2014, the Council amended the ordinance to increase the amount of assistance and to make households up to 80 percent AMI eligible for relocation assistance. Also, eligible tenants will receive the cash equivalent of three months median market-rate rent for a similar apartment instead of two months of the tenant’s current rent.

On November 8, 2016, the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) was adopted by voters to regulate rent increases and to provide just- cause eviction provisions. Staff has implemented the CSFRA, including convening a Rental Housing Committee, establishing an operating budget, and developing policies and procedures for petitions.

In April 2018, the City Council amended the TRAO to bring it in line with the CSFRA, which increased the eligibility threshold to 120 percent AMI. The new ordinance redefines an eligible rental unit as one covered under the CSFRA or containing three or more units on one parcel of land not covered by the CSFRA. It also introduces First Right of Return benefits.

In 2019, the TRAO was utilized in fourteen development projects to assist with the relocation of 69 displaced households.

In October 2019, the City Council held a Study Session to explore additional strategies to respond to displacement. Council provided direction to staff to evaluate an acquisition/rehabilitation program, a displacement mitigation program, further modifications to the TRAO, a Landlord-Rental Set-Aside Program, Tenant Preference for displaced tenants in BMR units, and other modifications to the City's ordinances as needed. In 2020, the TRAO was modified per Council direction, and staff conducted additional evaluation on an acquisition rehabilitation program and also local replacement requirements for residential projects that include the demolition of existing housing units. In October of 2020, Council held a second study session to provide additional direction on these elements, with Council supporting evaluating program design considerations. In November of 2020, the City recieved a technical assistance grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to support the acquisition rehabilitation program evaluation and design. In 2021 the City Council approved a Mobile Home Rent Stabilization program to regulate rent increases in Mobile Home Parks.

Code Enforcement
Program
Maintain the quality of the existing housing
stock by addressing housing code violations
as they are reported.

Ongoing, 2015-2023 The City continues to maintain the quality of the existing housing stock by addressing Housing Code violations as they are reported. For calendar year 2020, Code Enforcement addressed 158 housing violations that were reported.

Multi-family Housing
Inspection Program
Continue annual inspection of multi-family
rental properties throughout the City to ensure
property owners and management companies
comply with the California Building Code and
the City's Municipal Code.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
On an annual basis, the City of Mountain View Fire Department conducts inspections of multi-family rental units throughout the City. Staff is also av
ailable to address complaints as they are reported. For calendar year 2021, City staff conducted interior inspections of approximately 4 properties.

Inspections inside apartment units were stopped in March 2020 as a safety precaution due to COVID. Staff did conduct approximately 842 common area inspections at apartment buildings in 2021.

Opportunities for
Rehabilitation
Collaborate with affordable housing
developers on funding applications or when
feasible offer direct financial assistance.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City had a NOFA process that included acquisition and rehabilitation projects; to date, no proposals have been received for acquisition and rehabilitation. Consequently, the City has focused funding on new construction of subsidized units. The City has used CDBG and HOME funds to rehabilitate existing subsidized projects, including Tyrella Gardens, Shorebreeze, The Fountains, Ginzton Terrace, and a major rehabilitation of the Sierra Vista I family apartments. In 2020, as part of the displacement response strategy and as directed by Council, staff evaluated options for an acquisition/preservation program, which would include funding for rehabilitating acquired apartment buildings.

Home Repair Assistance
Continue to provide annual funding for home
reapir services, such as the Minor Home
Repair Access Program to support lower-
income households.

Ongoing, 2015-2023 The City coordinates with firms to operate a minor home repair program for lower-income households. Under the program, low-income homeowners may receive minor repairs and low-income homeowners and tenants can request accessibility modifications.

Condominium Conversion
Continue to regulate Conversions of rental
multi-family units to condominiums per
Municipal Code (Chapter 28, Article VII).

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City continues to regulate condominium conversions on a project-by-project basis per the City's Municipal Code. The City Code prohibits conversion of apartments to condominiums if the number of apartments Citywide falls below 15,373 units. As of December 31, 2019, there were at approximately 1,000 rental units in the City above the condominium conversion threshold. As such, the City will consider condominium conversion applications on a case-by-case basis, consistent with Municipal Code requirements for such conversions.

Preservation of
Subsidized Housing Stock
Maintain a list of subsidized units throughout
the City, including their affordability levels and
monitor affordability covenants. Continue to
update and post the City's AB 987 Affordable
Housing Database online and track affordable
housing units. Work witjh owners of at-risk
units to determine if City housing funds could
be used to preserve subsidized units.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City has posted their AB 987 Affordable Housing Database on its website and will continue to monitor affordable housing units, including units at risk of losing their affordability status. New units are also added and monitored.

The City deed-restricts subsidized affordable housing for a minimum of 55 years. The vast majority of the City’s subsidized housing stock was built in the last 15 years, which means that the issue of expiring deed restrictions will not emerge for a few decades.

Mobile Home Parks
Preserve mobile home parks in the City by
enforcing the provisions established by the
General Plan, Zoning Code, and Mobile Home
Park Coversion Ordinance.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The 2030 General Plan includes a “Mobile Home Park” land use designation to protect mobile home housing. This designation is shown on the General Plan Land Use Map and any proposal to convert or eliminate a mobile home use from a property requires a General Plan amendment as well as a Zoning Code amendment. Additionally, proposals to displace a mobile home park require a conversion impact report as well as multiple review and approval processes before a conversion could be approved. The City will continue to allow and preserve mobile homes as a valuable housing resource.

As part of the work of the CSFRA in 2018, the Rental Housing Committee discussed whether mobile home spaces would be covered under the rent stabilization provisions of the CSFRA and came to the conclusion that they do not fall under the parameters of the CSFRA.

Consideration of mobile home rent regulations is part of the Council Major Goals Workplan for FY2019-21. Council held a discussion in early 2020 but additional deliberations were paused pending litigation regarding Rental Housing Committee decision above that mobile homes are not covered under CSFRA. In 2021 the City Council approved a Mobile Home Rent Stabilization program to regulate rent increases in Mobile Home Parks.

Residential Development
Standards
Review development standards annually, to
identify constraints and remove or offset
constraints, where possible.

The City will review
development standards
annually throughout the
planning period.

Staff continues to annually review development standards to identify constraints and remove offset constraints, where possible. In 2017 and 2020, staff updated the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to encourage development of more accessory dwelling units and provide additional housing opportunities and diversity within the City.

Reduced or Modified
Parking Requirements
Review parking demand analyses for specific
projects, as they are submitted, and work with
housing developers to identify opportunities
for reduced or shared parking requirements.

Analyze and reduce, where appropriate.

Parking requirements as part of the San
Antonio and El Camino Real Precise Plan
updates and future comprehensive Zoning
Code update.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City continues to work with developers to reduce the parking standards where appropriate. For example, ROEM Development Corporation requested a reduced parking ratio for their 116 unit affordable development located at 779 East Evelyn Avenue. A lower parking ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit instead of the 2.10 spaces per unit required by the City Code was approved with the project by the City Council.

The North Bayshore Precise Plan and East Whisman Precise Plan include reduced parking requirements and Transportation Demand Management measures for new residential development.

Second Units
T
rack the number of second units proposed
and constructed during the planning period.

Evaluate the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee,
as it applies to second unit development, and
adjust the application of the fee, if necessary.

Ongoing, 2015-2023,
within two years of
Housing Element
adoption, the City will
evaluate Park Land
Dedication In-Lieu fees.

In 2017 and 2020, staff updated the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to encourage development of more accessory dwelling units and provide additional housing opportunities and diversity within the City. Staff is tracking the number of second units proposed and constructed. Between 2000 and 2016, 15 units were constructed. Between 2017 and 2020, after the City updated its Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, 28 units were constructed.

In 2021 alone, 35 accessory dwelling units began construction and 15 accessory dwelling units were completed. The City has eliminated Parkland Dedication Fees for ADUs.

Streamlined Entitlement
Process
Assign a primary contact for new subsidized
housing developmemnts to assist with all
necessary entitlements and city processes.

Hold pre-application development meetings.

Ongoing, 2015-2023 The City has primary contacts in Planning and Housing for new subsidized housing developments. Pre-application meetings are held with these developments.

School District
Coordination
Provide a copy of the Housing Element to
school districts serving the City. Share
information on new residential developments
including number of units and bedrooms and
demographic information with school districts.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
Depending on the size and impact of a development project, the City encourages developers to work with the school districts to ensure that facilities are available to new residents. School impact fees continue to be collected for new development projects Citywide and projects are analyzed through the environmental review process for potential impacts consistent with State law. City staff continues to communicate with local school districts on planned City growth to assist in their student projections.

Neighborhood
Engagement
Encourage housing developers to
communicate and share information with
groups regarding their proposed projects.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
City staff actively updates a list of proposed and approved projects on the Planning Division website and provides project notices at various points during the development review process. Depending on the size of the development, the City encourages developers to communicate and share information with groups regarding their proposed projects.

For affordable developments, the City proactively schedules neighborhood meetings to receive feedback from the neighborhood on the proposed development. This has been an effective tool to engage the community and seek input on affordable developments in the City.

Water and Sewer Service
Provider Coordination
Ensure that water and sewer providers are
aware of the City's plans for residential
development throughout the City.

By January 31, 2015 The City has delivered a copy of the Housing Element to all public agencies or private entities that provide water or sewer services to properties within the City. Additionally, the City ensures water and sewer providers are aware of the City’s plans for residential development throughout the City.

Flood Management
Ensure that flood risks are considered when
making land use decisions, including the
selection of sites to accommodate the City's
RHNA allocation.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
As part of the recent General Plan update, the City revised the General Plan conservation and safety policies to consider flood risks as they relate to future land use decisions. The Infrastructure and Conservation and Public Safety Elements have been updated to identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management.

Additionally, these Elements identify information regarding flood hazards, including, but not limited to, flood hazard zones, National Flood Insurance Program maps published by FEMA, information about flood hazards designated floodway maps, dam failure inundation maps, areas subject to inundation in the event of the failure of levees or floodwalls, etc., as listed in Section 65302(g)(2). These Elements establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objective for the protection of the community from the unreasonable risks of flooding.

Emergency Resoures to
Prevent Homelessness
continue to partner with the Mountian View Los
Altos Community Services Agency (CSA) or
similar agencies that provide services to the
homeless, by offering financial support and
advertising available programs to residents
living in the City. Continue to fund the
provision of shelter and support services for
the homeless such as the Emergency Housing
Consortium, the Community Services Agency's
Emergency Assistance Program, Graduate
House, and Quetzal House. Participate in
regional homeless prorgams that support
short-term shelter and transitional housing
programs, such as the Clara-mateo homeless
shelter which accomodated families and
individuals from Mountain View.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
City of Mountain View is an active participant in the creation of new transitional and supportive housing facilities to address homelessness, through regional collaboration and cooperation with nonprofit agencies, housing developers, and other jurisdictions. Throughout the planning period, City staff attended quarterly meetings held by the CDBG Coordinators group in addition to meeting with nonprofit agencies and developers to identify possible projects that could be implemented in future years.

The City currently supports, and will continue to provide oversight for, the two transitional homes located within the City: (1) Alice Avenue Transitional Home, which serves up to five formerly homeless persons; and (2) Quetzal House, a local youth shelter and transitional home operated by the Bill Wilson Center that serves about 40 to 50 homeless youth annually. In an effort to further help end chronic homelessness, the City has funded the San Antonio Place Efficiency Studios that include 10 units for persons transitioning out of homelessness. The City continues to look for opportunities to fund supportive housing units within the City in new affordable developments. In 2020, the CIty continued to fund basic human needs and essential services for those unhoused and living in Mountain View. Additionally, the City has committed funding for its Project Home Key initiative, which provides interim housing for unhoused persons. As part of the the City's comprehensive response to the pandemic, COuncil approved over $3.8 million composed of various funding sources for the City's COVID-19 rent relief program, administered by Community Services Agency (CSA).

In October 2016, the City identified potential short-term homelessness response and longer-term homeless housing strategies for Council consideration.

Short-term responses include funding outreach workers and case workers to identify homeless individuals; to connect them with housing and services as appropriate; and to respond to the human service needs of those living in vehicles/RVs. A strategy to respond the longer-term housing needs of the homeless is being developed based on Council input. .(see more below)

I
n 2019, Council adopted a safe parking ordinance that establishes health and safety guidelines for safe parking facilities in the City. In addition, the City is in the process of establishing two public parking lots as safe parking sites.

In 2020, the City opened two public parking lots as safe parking sites and financially supported operatinos at a third safe parking site. In 2021, the City supported the opening of a 100-room transitional housing site funded by the City, County, State Project Homekey and private sources, run by LifeMoves.

Special Needs Housing
Encourage the development of special needs
housing with convenient access to services,
public facilities, and transit. Support
developers of special needs housing facilities
through the application process for federal,
State and similar funding sources or through
direct financial assistance from local housing
funds. Provide technical assistance through
the entitlement process, as projects are
submitted for review.

Ongoing, 2015-2023 and at
least annually consider
potential opportunities. In
October 2014 and again
within five years of
Housing Element adoption
(by 2020), the City will
convene a meeting with
developers and service
providers and at least
annually consider
potential opportunities.

The City has successfully initiated the development of a range of subsidized housing, including units for special-needs groups. Whenever feasible, projects are located near transit and other services; however the high cost and limited availability of land make siting requirements difficult. On January 22, 2013, the City Council approved a development for 27 studios for the developmentally disabled at 1585 West El Camino Real, which is a high- frequency transit route. This project completed construction in September 2015.

Palo Alto Housing has also received a funding appropriation in the amount of $8 million to develop 67 studio units at 1701 West El Camino Real. At least 39 of these units will be reserved for veterans. In 2021, 950 W. El Camino Real - a City funded affordable housing multi family development - opened along a high-frequency transit route. 15 of the 70 affordable units are set asid for adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The City also expects several pipeline projects - with set-asides for permanent supportive housing - to provide units for special needs populations. The LifeMoves- Mountain View Homekey project provides 100 units to serve unsheltered persons, seniors, and families.

The City also assists developers through the entitlement process by providing a streamlined time frame for approval.

The City continues to work with various partners, including nonprofit developers, the County, and the Housing Authority, to determine potential opportunities to develop affordable housing, including housing for extremely low-income households, special needs, and the homeless.

Mediation and Fair
Housing Programs
Continue to fund fair housing education,
enforcement, and counseling. Provide financial
support to mediate housing issues involving
City residents. Continue to support Santa
Clara County Fair Housing Task Force
activities. Provide information about tenant
and landlord housing rights at City Hall, on the
City's website and in other public places to
increase awareness.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
Throughout the planning period, the City has provided funding to Project Sentinel, who is an active member of the Santa Clara County Fair Housing Task Force. The Santa Clara County Fair Housing Task Force meets quarterly to coordinate and collaborate on the promotion of fair housing. Through the Task Force, priorities have been established for fair housing outreach and education. Resources have also been identified within the municipalities, the community, and private industry that can be used to affirmatively further fair housing.

Information from the Task Force is distributed by Project Sentinel and City staff regarding activities that are performed to implement Task Force objectives.

Project Sentinel also works closely with the Fair Housing Law Project (FHLP) and has asked the City to provide roughly $3,000 per year in in-kind services to support FHLP housing legal services for Mountain View residents. The FHLP attorneys provide guidance to Project Sentinel's housing counselors and take many cases that are not considered by other attorneys in private practice, including cases involving reasonable accommodation/disability, overly restrictive rules of conduct/familial status, and similar issues.

Reasonable
Accomodation
Provide information to residents on reasonable
accomodation procedures at public counters
and on the City website. Promote rehabilitation
programs and resources for accessibility
modifications and improvements. Evaluate the
Municipal Code to identify and remove any
constraints regarding reasonable
accomodation as part of the comprehensive
Zoning Code update.

Ongoing, 2015-2023. As
part of the comprehensice
Zoning Code update,
expected to be completed
by 2017, the City will
identify and remove any
constraints to reasonable
accomodations.

The City continues to evaluate the Municipal Code to identify and remove any constraints regarding reasonable accommodation as part of the comprehensive Zoning Code update.

Senior Housing
Study the need and feasibility of zoning code
amendments, such as permitting the
development of senior housing in specific
areas of the community, including residential
and commercial zones at higher densities than
are traditionally allowed. Encourage
dcevelopments with subsidized senior units to
locate near services, public facilities, transit
and the Mountain View Senior Center
Ongoing, 2015-2023
In 2016, the City funded the rehabilitation of 360 senior units located in Ginzton Terrace Apartments (107 units) and The Fountains Apartments (124 units) and 56 family units located at Tyrella Gardens Apartments. These subsidized rental projects utilized $1.17 million in CDBG and $838,000 in HOME funds for the rehabilitation.

Senior Care Facilities
Study the appropriateness and effectiveness of
amending the Zoning Ordinance to establish
development standards for senior care
facilities.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City of Mountain View understands the importance of affordable housing options and desire for seniors to age in place. To accommodate the aging population, the City has a number of housing options. There are 16 small assisted facilities for seniors in the City with a total capacity of 152 beds. In addition to the smaller facilities available, there are also six subsidized rental properties in the City with a total of 704 units. These larger complexes have units with one- to two-bedroom apartments and have deed restrictions to ensure affordability. In 2013, the City Council updated the Zoning Ordinance, adding senior facilities to the list of projects eligible for a Planned Unit Development, to allow more development flexibility.

Housing for
Developmentally Disabled
Persons
Assist developers to apply for available State
and Federal monies in support of housing
construction and rehabilitation targeted for
person with disabilites, including
developmental disabilites. Initiate a
cooperative outreach program with San
Andreas Regional Center to inform individuals
when new housing becomes available for
developmentally disabled persons.

Ongoing, 2015-2023 and at
least bi-annually consider
potential opportunities. In
October 2014 and again
within five years of
Housing Element adoption
(by 2020), the City will
convene a meeting with
developers of supportive
housing and at least bi-
annually consider
potential opportunities.

The City is an active member of the CDBG Coordinator group, and participates through Project Sentinel in the Fair Housing Task Force. These groups are both regional efforts that include leaders from the corporate, educational, and labor communities, as well as community fair housing advocates and local jurisdictions. These groups provide key opportunities to network, share information, and coordinate on projects. 1585 Studios, a 26-unit studios project at 1585 West El Camino Real, was approved in 2013 and completed in September 2015, providing 26 affordable units for developmentally disabled adults. 950 W El Camino, a 71-unit project, was approved in 2019 and will provide 15 units for developmentally disabled adults.

The City will continue to explore opportunities with affordable housing developers to create housing for those with special needs.

Analysis of Impediments
for Fair Housing Choice
(AI)
Continue to prepare and update the City's
Analysis of Impediments very five years, as
required by HUD.

Every five years as
required by HUD
The City completed its update of the Analysis of Impediments (AI) in 2016. The actions to address identified needs are being implemented during the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan cycle. Key City actions to remove barriers include adoption of a reasonable accommodation section in the Zoning Ordinance in 2015 and continued funding for fair housing counseling, education and enforcement. In 2016, the City funded this agency in an amount of $25,000 for fair housing services.

In 2019, the City monitored potential changes in requirements for Fair Housing plans for entitlement jurisdictions receiving CDBG/HOME funding. It is anticipated that the City will begin the update of its Fair Housing Plan as part of explore development of the regional consortium. In 2020, the City as part of the regional consortium process began development of its Analysis of Impediments/Fair Housing Plan for the 2020-2025 period.

Employee Housing Act Ensure zoning ordinance consistency with State law.

Concurrent with
comprehensive Zoning
Code update to be
completed by 2017.

The City will amend the Zoning Code to comply with State law (Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5) concurrently with the comprehensive Zoning Code update.

Green Building Principles
Implement changes to local building codes
based on State Green Building Code
requirements. Provide echnical assistance to
housing developers to implement the Green
Building Code and Water Conservation in
Landscape Regulation ordinance.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City’s Green Building Code and Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations require new developments to incorporate green building techniques.

The City provides information to developers on design techniques to implement Green Building Code and Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations. The City also encourages new projects to be developed with green building principles during the review process and through policies in the new precise plans. Additionally, the North Bayshore Precise Plan has more stringent requirements for higher FAR projects, to establish the area as a leader in sustainability. In 2016 the City also amended its Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations to further encourage water conservation.

Construction and
Demolition Debris
Diversion Ordinance
Implement the Construction and Demolition
Ordinance to ensure effective demolition and
construction recycling. When appropriate
incentivize use of recycled and rapidly
renewable building materials.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
Established in 2008, the City has adopted a Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to establish a program for the recycling and salvage of construction and demolition (C&D) debris. C&D debris comprises a significant portion of the waste stream that can be diverted from the landfill, thereby conserving resources, protecting our environment, and extending landfill life. The ordinance requires at least 50 percent of the debris from construction, renovation, and demolition projects be diverted from landfills through salvage and recycling practices. The program makes it easy and convenient for property owners, general contractors, and subcontractors to meet their responsibilities under the ordinance.

The City currently has information about the program posted on their website. To comply with the ordinance, developers are encouraged to contact the City's exclusive hauler, Recology, for roll-off box service. Using Recology is beneficial to the developers as the paperwork is then complete by the City, materials may be mixed together in one box, and boxes are recycled at SMaRT stations. The program allows the City to verify the hauling and processing of boxes, achieving a 78 percent diversion rate.

Staff Training on Green
Building Principles
Encourage City Staff to attend conferences,
training sessions, and other events to learn
and stay informed on new green initiaitves and
technologies. Hold in-house training sessions
to facilitate inter-department cooperation on
green building practices.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
To effectively maintain an awareness of new legislation and practices regarding green building practices, staff attends meetings, conferences, and other related events. On a regular basis, staff also reviews the Green Building Code and Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations to ensure they are up to date with the latest advancements.

Energy Efficiency
Encourage the use of residential developers to
maximize energy conservation through
proactive site, building and building system
design, materials and equipment to maximize
energy efficiency. Encourage the use of
Energy Star appliances and materials in
subsidized housing developments. Encourage
use of upgraded insulation, advanced air
infilitration reduction practices (air sealing),
and Low-E double-pane windows. Promote use
of energy efficient lighting including
fluorescent.

Ongoing, 2015-2023 During 2016, the City spent approximately $1 million in CDBG and $185,000 in HOME funds on green and sustainable rehabilitation at two subsidized apartment complexes for lower-income seniors: Ginzton Terrace Apartments (107) units and The Fountains Apartments (124 units).

Water Efficiency and
Conservation
Encourage residential developers to maximize
water conservation through effective water
management designs (i.e., use of water
efficient landscaping, efficient irrigation
systems, incorporating wastewater reuse and
metering). Encourage owners of existing
buildings to conduct water conservation
retrofits. Continue to review residential
landscape plans for consistency with they
Ciy's Water Conservation in Landscaping
regulations. Provide information on available
water conservation programs and measures at
the Planning counter to all residents and
developers planning to expand or build new
residences.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City continues to encourage residential developers to maximize water conservation through effective water management designs (i.e., use of water efficient landscaping, efficient irrigation systems, incorporating wastewater reuse and metering). In 2016, the City amended its Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations to meet new State requirements and further encourage water conservation.

Information regarding the Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations is provided online and at City Hall.

Annual Monitoring and
Review
Per Government Code Section 65400, annually
review the Housing Element and submit
findings to the Office of Planning and
Research and HCD.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
In March 2022, the City prepared an annual report on the progress toward implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element. This report was presented to the Environmental Planning Commission and City Council and submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development on April 1, 2022.

City Council Goal Setting
Incorporate Housing Element programs and
recommendations from the City's annual
monitoring and review process into the City
Council's goal-setting process. Ensure
consistency between the Housing Element and
other General Plan Elements throughout the
planning period.

Ongoing, 2015-2023 Based on the annual report prepared for HCD and general evaluation of implementation programs, the City takes into account funding opportunities and actions necessary to implement the Housing Element, ensuring consistency with other established goals.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 39

APPENDIX B: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
California Housing Element law requires local governments to adequately plan for the existing and projected future housing needs of their residents, including the jurisdictions’ fair share of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). A complete and thorough analysis must include both a quantification and a descriptive analysis of the specific housing needs that currently exist and those that are reasonably anticipated within the community during the planning period, as well as the resources available to address those needs. The following section summarizes information regarding existing and projected housing needs in Mountain View broken down into the following categories:
 Population and Household Characteristics
 Economic and Employment Characteristics
 Housing Stock Characteristics
 Housing Costs and Affordability
 Housing and Special Needs Populations
 Assessment of Fair Housing
 Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors

Summary of Findings
Major findings from the following Housing Needs Assessment include:
 Mountain View experienced significant population growth between 2010 and 2020, outpacing the rate of growth Santa Clara County and the Bay Area overall during this period.

The number of households also increased significantly during this period, but at a slower pace than population growth. A sizable share of recent population growth has consisted of young, working age individuals between the age of 25 and 34, with children under 15 also comprising a significant share of the growth. Overall, these trends indicate that Mountain View has grown to accommodate new households over the past ten years. These data could indicate an increase in the number of households with children and correspondingly larger household sizes as well as an increase in the number of young individuals that share homes in order to afford housing.
 More than half of all households in Mountain View rent their homes, which is a higher percentage of renters than either Santa Clara County or the Bay Area overall. Because those that rent their homes are generally more susceptible to displacement than those that own their homes, this suggests a need for programs to prevent displacement of existing Mountain View residents. Indeed, over 1,000 apartments in Mountain View have been demolished over the past several years, displacing many families and households. Mountain View has several existing programs and policies to address displacement and stabilize the living situation of renters, including the CSFRA, MHRSO, TRAO, and implementation of SB 330.  Mountain View residents face extremely high housing costs, including for both ownership and rental units. The City’s high cost for housing is likely due to a range of factors, including

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 40 Mountain View’s position as a significant job center in Silicon Valley. The pace of job growth has exceeded the rate of growth in households in Mountain View and there are more people that work in Mountain View than there are employed residents, creating strong demand for housing.
 Compared to the surrounding region, Mountain View has a higher proportion of non-Hispanic White residents, and growth among other racial and ethnic groups has been slower in Mountain View compared to the surrounding region. These trends are likely due largely to the high cost of housing in Mountain View, coupled with wage and income gaps between racial and ethnic groups. The Housing Plan that is included in this Housing Element Update includes several programs to facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing in Mountain View.
 Consistent with the City’s high housing costs, many lower-income households in Mountain View experience high housing cost burdens that can put these households at risk for displacement and make it difficult for these households to afford housing costs along with food, healthcare, and other basic needs. High housing cost burdens have a disproportionate impact on large households, seniors, persons with disabilities, and Hispanic and Latinx individuals. The City can help to address housing needs among these groups by undertaking displacement prevention efforts as well as facilitating the production and preservation of affordable housing. This Housing Element Update includes several related actions that the City will take as part of the Housing Plan, including both new actions and continuation of ongoing successful efforts.
 Mountain View offers relatively high access to opportunity, including in areas with comparatively large non-White populations and areas with lower-income residents. The only area considered “Low Resource” in the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map is the North Bayshore area, but that area has access to the greatest number of jobs is the subject of a major precise plan that will bring new development and services to the area, helping to improve access to opportunity.

Note on Data Sources
The following housing needs assessment relies upon data from a variety of sources, including but not limited to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), Decennial Census, and Local Employment Housing Dynamics (LEHD); the U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD) Comprehensive Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data set; the California Department of Finance (DOF); the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data; the City of Mountain View; and other sources as noted in the tables and figures. Much of the data was compiled by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) specifically for use in Housing Elements. Information sourced from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which rely on samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that the data represent estimates, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. This analysis

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 41 uses the five-year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for smaller communities such as Census tracts and block groups, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly. In contrast, the decennial Census attempts to survey 100% of the population. Only basic limited data from the 2020 Census were available at the time of analysis.

Impacts of COVID-19
This Housing Needs Assessment was prepared during 2021 and 2022, at which point local demographics, housing market conditions, employment characteristics, and other key issues that are discussed in this section were continuing to experience impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic.

While some of the data presented in this section were collected after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of the data that were available at the time that this document was prepared were collected prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This means that the data may not reflect current conditions to the extent that these conditions have changed as a result of the pandemic.

Moreover, even where more recent data are available, it is difficult to assess the extent to which current data reflect temporary impacts from COVID-19 or longer-term trends.

Despite these data challenges, the primary findings from the Housing Needs Assessment remain relevant for addressing housing needs in Mountain View over the next eight years. For example, while some data on housing costs in Mountain View reflect pre-pandemic conditions, the following sections also provide data on residential rental rates in Mountain View as of 2021 that indicate that rental rates have begun to recover from the impacts of the pandemic. This suggests that Mountain View continues to be a high-cost housing market in which lower-income households will experience affordability challenges and displacement risk. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has not fundamentally altered the factors that lead to disparities in access to opportunity, such as historic patterns of segregation and wage and income gaps. While the specific data points may differ somewhat from current conditions, these differences would not substantially alter the findings presented in this section or the appropriateness of related actions that are included in the Housing Plan.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 42 Population and Household Characteristics

Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady gradual increase in population since 1990. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, Mountain View’s population has increased by 15.0%; this rate is above that of the region as a whole (13.5%).

As of 2020, Mountain View had a population of 81,302 residents, as reported in Table 3. Mountain View’s population makes up 4.2% of the total population in Santa Clara County. From 1990 to 2000, the population in Mountain View increased by 5.0%, while it increased by 4.7% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population in Mountain View increased by

9.8%. This growth rate was higher than the growth rates in Santa Clara County (9.2%) and the Bay Area (8.4%) during this period.

Table 3: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 2000 2010 2020
Mountain View 67,365 70,708 74,066 81,302
Santa Clara County 1,497,577 1,682,585 1,781,642 1,945,166 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,784,348 7,150,739 7,703,016
Sources: California Department of Finance, E-4 series; BAE, 2021.

Household Growth Trends
Since 2000, Mountain View’s number of households has grown slower than its population, increasing by 9.4% compared to the population growth rate of 15.0%. This household growth rate is slower than that of Santa Clara County (13.7%) or the Bay Area (11.6%). As shown in Table 4, in 2020 Mountain View had 34,184 households, which make up 5.3% of the total households in Santa Clara County. From 1990 to 2000, the number of households in Mountain View increased by 4.2%, while growth slowed to 2.3% between 2000 to 2010.

In the most recent decade, the number of households in Mountain View increased by 7.0%. Though the household growth rate in Mountain View has historically lagged behind those of Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, Mountain View has since accelerated and surpassed both (6.5% and 5.6%, respectively) during the 2010 through 2020 period.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 43 Table 4: Household Growth Trends
Geography 1990 2000 2010 2020
Mountain View 29,990 31,242 31,957 34,184
Santa Clara
County 520,180 565,863 604,204 643,265
Bay Area 2,245,865 2,466,020 2,606,288 2,752,510
Sources: California Department of Finance, E-5 and E-8 series; BAE, 2021.

Age
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age- in-place or downsize to stay within their communities as they grow older, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.

In Mountain View, the median age in 2000 was 34.6; by 2019, this figure had increased slightly to approximately 34.8 years. Between 2010 and 2019, Mountain View experienced a significant increase in the number of residents between the ages of 25 and 34 (see Table 5). With the exception of the 45 to 54 age category, all other groups showed an increase in population.

Table 5: Population by Age, 2010-2019
Age Group
2010 2019 2010-2019
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Age 0-14 12,568 17.0% 14,087 17.3% 1,519 12.1%
Age 15-24 7,428 10.0% 7,936 9.7% 508 6.8%
Age 25-34 15,637 21.1% 19,243 23.6% 3,606 23.1%
Age 35-44 12,940 17.5% 13,520 16.6% 580 4.5%
Age 45-54 10,294 13.9% 9,922 12.2% -372 -3.6%
Age 55-64 7,353 9.9% 7,993 9.8% 640 8.7%
Age 65+ 7,846 10.6% 8,955 11.0% 1,109 14.1%
Total, All Ages 74,066 100.0% 81,656 100.0% 7,590 10.2% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B01001; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 44 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs because this information provides a starting point to assess how housing needs and access to opportunity may differ between racial and ethnic groups.

According to data from the 2020 Decennial Census, 40.1% of residents in Mountain View identify as non-Hispanic White (see Figure 1). Non-Hispanic Asian/Asian Pacific Islander (API) residents account for 35.2% of the population, while Hispanic/Latinx residents account for an additional 17.2%. Since 2000, the number of residents in Mountain View identifying as White has decreased by 15.4%—and concurrently the number residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased by 55.8%. In absolute terms, the Asian/API, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non- Hispanic population decreased the most (see Table 23 below for the change in absolute numbers).

The Assessment of Fair Housing section of this Housing Needs Assessment chapter provides additional information regarding patterns of segregation and housing needs among racial and ethnic minority populations.

Figure 1: Population by Race, 2000-2020

Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004, Census 2010, Table P5, and Census 2020, Table P4, PL94-171 data; BAE, 2021.

3.2% 3.9% 6.0%

0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

20.8%

26.2%

35.2%2.4%

2.0%

1.4%

55.2% 46.0%

40.1%

18.3% 21.7% 17.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2020
Share of Population
Hispanic or Latinx
White, Non‐
Hispanic
Black or African
American, Non‐
Hispanic
Asian / API, Non‐
Hispanic
American Indian
or Alaska Native,
Non‐Hispanic
Other Race or
Multiple Races,
Non‐Hispanic

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 45 Household Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help shed light on the level of housing insecurity – the abil ity or lack thereof for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters fa ce greater displacement risks from increases in housing costs or redevelopment. As shown in Figure 2, Mountain View has a much larger share of renter households than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area overall. Approximately 58% of households in Mountain View are renters, compared to 44% of households in Santa Clara County and in the Bay Area overall.

Figure 2: Household Tenure

Universe: Occupied housing units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003; BAE, 2021.

A large majority (82%) of the renter households in Mountain View reside in multifamily housing units, and only 17% of renters live in single-family homes (see Table 6). Unsurprisingly, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multifamily housing.

Approximately 83% of Mountain View’s households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 62% of the households in attached single-family homes own their homes (see Figure 3). For households in multifamily housing, the homeownership rate is only 14%. This suggests that there is a relatively small inventory of smaller ownership units in Mountain View, which could point to a shortage of comparatively affordable options for homeownership. However, the large inventory of renter-occupied multifamily units also suggests that the housing inventory in Mountain View provides options for renter households that may be unable to afford homeownership.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 46 Table 6: Tenure by Housing Type
Housing Type
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
Number Percent Number Percent
Detached Single-Family 1,633 8.3% 7,784 55.4%
Attached Single-Family 1,715 8.7% 2,820 20.1%
Multifamily Housing 16,148 82.0% 2,525 18.0%
Mobile Homes 201 1.0% 927 6.6%
Boat, RV, Van, or Other 3 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total, All Unit Types 19,700 100.0% 14,056 100.0%
Universe: Occupied housing units.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032; BAE, 2021.

Figure 3: Tenure by Housing Type

Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Figure omits data on persons living in boats, RVs, vans, or other similar structures due to the lack of a statistically valid sample. Persons living in RVs or other vehicles on the street are not included in the Census housing unit count and are instea d generally included in the Census’ group quarters homeless population.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 47 Household Income Distribution
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state. In Mountain View, 63% of households have incomes greater than 100% of Area Median Income (AMI), compared to 55% in Santa Clara County and 52% regionally (see Figure 4).

Approximately 31% of households in Mountain View are considered lower income (incomes less than or equal to 80% of AMI). While this is lower than the proportion for Santa Clara County overall (36%), and well below the 39% in the Bay Area, having nearly one-third of Mountain View households in the lower-income categories is a significant proportion of total households. These trends are likely due to the high cost of housing in Mountain View compared to more affordable locations in Santa Clara County – such as San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy – and the rest of the Bay Area.

Figure 4: Households by Household Income Level

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017; BAE, 2021.

Table 7 reports Mountain View households by HUD-defined income category based on household income as a%age of the HUD Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI). As shown in the table, approximately 30.8% of all households in Mountain View qualify as lower income, meaning they have incomes that are equal to or less than 80% of the HAMFI. This includes 13.8 of households that have extremely low incomes (incomes less than or equal to 30% of HAMFI), 8.1% that have very low

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 48 incomes (incomes greater than 30 but less than or equal to 50% of HAMFI), and 8.8% that have low income (incomes greater than 50 but less than or equal to 80% of HAMFI).

Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly exceeds the amount of housing that is available and affordable for these households. The data in Table 7 indicate that lower-income households in Mountain View are disproportionately renters, who currently make up 67.8% of all lower income households in the City. An estimated 36% of all renter households in Mountain View have incomes less than or equal to 80% of HAMFI. By comparison, approximately 23.6% of the City’s owner households are considered lower income.

Table 7: Household Income Level by Tenure
Household Income
Category
Renter Households Owner Households Total Households
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
<=30% HAMFI (see
note)
3,160 16.2% 1,469 10.4% 4,629 13.8%
>30%, <=50% HAMFI 1,930 9.9% 800 5.7% 2,730 8.1%
>50%, <=80% HAMFI 1,910 9.8% 1,055 7.5% 2,965 8.8%
>80, <=100% HAMFI 1,360 7.0% 833 5.9% 2,193 6.5%
>100% HAMFI 11,090 57.0% 9,940 70.5% 21,030 62.7%
Total 19,450 100.0% 14,097 100.0% 33,547 100.0%
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI), often referred to as simply Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas. The numbers in the table may not sum to the totals shown due to independent rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 49 Economic and Employment Characteristics

Resident Employment by Industry
According to 2015-2019 ACS, there are approximately 47,660 employed civilian residents aged 16 and older in Mountain View. The top three industries in terms of employing residents are Financial and Professional Services, Health and Educational Services, and Manufacturing, Wholesale and Transportation (see Figure 5). The largest proportion of employed residents in Mountain View, nearly one-third, work in Financial & Professional Services. While this is also the largest category in the county and the region, only about one-fourth of all employed residents in those two geographies work in this industry grouping. The Health & Educational Services category is the second most prevalent sector of employment for all three areas. Mountain View has a notably greater proportion of employed residents working in the Information industry than both comparison geographies, highlighting its robust technology sector.

Figure 5: Resident Employment by Industry

Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over.

Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not).

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030; BAE, 2021.

0.2% 0.5% 0.7%
3% 5% 6%
32% 26% 26%
18%
19% 20%
14%
5% 4%
15%
21% 17%
6%
8%
9%
7% 8% 9%
5% 6% 8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area
Share of Employed Residents
Other
Arts, Entertainmnt,
Recreation, Accomm
& Food Services
Retail
Manufacturing,
Wholesale &
Transportation
Information
Health & Educational
Services
Financial &
Professional Services
Construction
Agriculture & Natural
Resources
47,657 999,094 4,024,097

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 50 Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. To some extent the Bay Area regional transportation system is set up for a flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis illustrates, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are unbalanced at a sub-regional scale.

One measure of this dynamic is the relationship between those workers living in a city and those workers employed in a city. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” workers. Based on 2015-2019 ACS data, there are 47,657 resident workers
1 and 95,818 persons working2 in Mountain View. With
a ratio of workers employed in the city to working residents of 2.01, Mountain View is a net importer of workers.

Long-term employment growth has been strong in Mountain View. Based on the U.S. Census Local Employment Housing Dynamics (LEHD) data from 2002 to 2018, Mountain View gained a total of 39,272 jobs, an increase of approximately 74.2% (see Figure 6). 3 While the number of jobs and the number of workers in a given community may be balanced, that community may offer employment for relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent- up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions.

1 Based on residents 16 and over who worked during the ACS reference week, as shown in ACS Table B08128 for 2015- 2019. May exclude some workers who were employed buy not working during the reference week; these additional workers were counted in the industry tabulation. These persons may work anywhere, including outside their place/city of residence. In the case of multiple jobs, this is the job where the respondent worked the most hours during the reference week.
2 Workers by place of work includes those who worked in that place (e.g. Mountain View) during the ACS reference week, as shown in ACS Table 08604 for 2015-2019. These persons may live anywhere. In the case of multiple jobs, this is the job where the respondent worked the most hours during the reference week. 3 The job totals reported here may differ from the number of workers reported above as the source for the time series is from administrative records, while the data on workers is from a survey.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 51 Figure 6: Jobs in Mountain View

Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment.

Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002- 2018; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 52 Mountain View has both a jobs-housing imbalance, reflected in a high ratio of jobs relative to housing units, and a jobs-housing mismatch, with housing costs that are not aligned with the incomes for a portion of the workers that work in Mountain View. Figure 7 shows the ratio of jobs to workers in Mountain View broken down by different wage groups. A value of 1 means that the city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region. In Mountain View, the ratio of jobs to workers is significantly higher across all wage groups. The figure shows that the highest ratio of jobs to workers is for workers with wages over $3,333 per month, which is likely due large part to a significant number of relatively high-wage jobs in Mountain View, rather than a mismatch between wages and housing costs that is more significant than the mismatch for other income groups. Meanwhile, jobs with wages that are under $3,333 per month comprise a comparatively small proportion of total jobs in Mountain View, leading to a lower ratio of jobs to workers in that income range. Most Mountain View workers with incomes under $3,333 per month, as well as many with incomes above this amount, likely struggle to find affordable housing in Mountain View’s high-cost housing market.

Figure 7: Ratio of Jobs to Workers, by Wage Group

Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 53

The jobs-household ratio in Mountain View has increased significantly in recent years, from 1.68 in 2002 to 2.74 jobs per household in 2018. Imbalances between jobs and workers can directly influence housing demand and affordability in a community. New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work. This dynamic not only means many workers might need to prepare for long commutes and time spent journeying to work, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for those workers. As shown in Figure 8, Mountain View has a much higher jobs-household ratio than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area as a whole. The slow rate of household growth relative to job growth in Mountain View, together with Mountain View’s low residential vacancy, could indicate that housing production has not kept pace with job growth in the City, which is often a key factor that leads to high housing costs.

Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio

Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; Notes: The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs- household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households); BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 54 Housing Stock Characteristics

Housing Types
As of 2020, the housing stock in Mountain View was made up of 29.1% single-family detached homes, 12.6% single family-attached homes, 8.4% multifamily homes in structures with two to four units, 47.0% multifamily homes in structures with five or more units, and 2.9% mobile homes (see Figure 9). Multifamily units in buildings with five or more units make up the largest share of the City’s housing stock and experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020. Meanwhile, the number of detached single-family homes increased only slightly, reflecting a trend toward more multifamily development in Mountain View and fewer new single-family homes.

In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, as the housing stock becomes more constrained and housing costs rose rapidly, some households are increasingly interested in more affordable “missing middle” housing – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, serving a range of needs, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

Figure 9: Housing Units by Type, 2010-2020

Universe: Housing units
Sources: California Department of Finance, E-5 series; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 55

Housing Units by Year Built
In Mountain View, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built between 1960 to 1979, with 15,608 units constructed during this period (see Figure 10). Approximately 7.4% of the City’s current housing stock has been built since 2010, more than was built between 2000 and 2009.

Figure 10: Housing Units by Year Structure Built

Universe: Housing units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034; BAE, 2021.

Vacancy Rates
Vacant units, including units are vacant and not available for rent or for sale, such as units that are held for seasonal or recreational use, make up 7.0% of the overall housing stock in Mountain View.

Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 5.9% of the total housing units. However, many vacant units are not necessarily available for full-time occupancy. Figure 11 below shows the breakdown of vacant units in Mountain View by type. As shown, slightly more than half (56 percent) of the vacant units in Mountain View are available for rent or sale, with the remainder comprised of other types of vacant units. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 56 absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.4 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category.

Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions. 5 Excluding those units that are not available
for rent or for sale, a review of detailed vacancy data from the 2015-2019 ACS indicates that only

3.7% of the housing stock was vacant and available for rent and that only 0.2% was vacant and available for sale. This represents an effective vacancy rate of 3.9 percent. This is somewhat higher than the county and the region, where the effective vacancy rates were 1.9% and 1.8 percent, respectively.

Figure 11: Vacant Units by Type

Universe: Vacant housing units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004; BAE, 2021.

4 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf. Note that these definitions are for the Housing Vacancy Survey, a program separate from the Decennial Census and the American Community Survey, and there may be slight variations in how vacant units are defined for the data used in this report. 5 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 57 Housing Permits
Between 2015 and July 2021, the City of Mountain View issued permits for construction of 5,084 housing units. Most of these permits, about 90.6 percent, were for above moderate-income housing.

As shown in Table 8, Mountain View has exceeded its 5
th Cycle Housing Element RHNA for above
moderate-income housing but lags behind in units permitted for other income groups. A total of 459 permits (9.1 percent) were issued for low-income or very low-income housing. Moderate income permits made up just 0.4% of the total number of permits. Many cities in high-cost areas have limited tools to facilitate the production of moderate-income housing because rents and sale prices for market-rate units typically exceed affordability thresholds for moderate-income households, while affordable housing financing sources fund lower-income units but not moderate-income units. This creates a gap between the income levels served by subsidized affordable units and the income levels served by market-rate units, which is often referred to as the “missing middle” in housing production.

Table 8: Housing Permitting
Income Group Permits % Attained
Above Moderate-Income Permits 4,607 421.5%
Moderate Income Permits 18 3.4%
Low Income Permits 215 43.7%
Very Low-Income Permits 244 30.0%
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and July 2021.

Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.

Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2021); BAE, 2021.

Substandard Housing
In general, substandard housing is not a significant issue in Mountain View. However, housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard housing conditions that may be present. In Mountain View, about 0.8% of renters reported lacking a kitchen and 0.3% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.7% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.1% of owners who lack plumbing (see Figure 12).

To monitor the condition of the City’s multifamily housing stock and ensure that tenants are not subjected to substandard living conditions, the City of Mountain View implements its Multifamily

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 58 Housing Inspection Program. The City of Mountain View Fire Department normally conducts interior inspections of multifamily rental units throughout the City every five to eight years depending on compliance status.6 The program covers 705 properties containing 16,267 housing units.

Inspectors categorize properties as “serious” or “non-serious,” depending on the type of violations identified during inspections. Inspection program data indicate that approximately 6,954 units (43% of the total units inspected) are in the “serious” category. However, it is important to understand that a “serious” rating in this inspection program does not necessarily equate to substandard housing conditions; rather, these properties may require some improvement or maintenance, or have potential safety concerns, but do not necessarily have structural decay or uninhabitable conditions. A complete checklist for the program can be found in Appendix G. A better indicator of housing with potentially substandard conditions is the number of properties that were issued a “Compliance Order” which is the first level of escalated enforcement action. Escalated enforcement occurs when the routine inspection and re-inspection process do not result in compliance OR unsafe conditions may dictate urgent repairs or other action to protect tenants. Examples include structural conditions, failing decks, failing stairways, and fire alarm and sprinkler systems that are not operable. According to the Fire Department, only five properties were issued a Compliance Order in the last five years. This represents less than one% of the City’s multifamily housing structures. This indicates that the City’s inspection program is effectively helping to maintain the City’s housing stock by proactively identifying problems with rental housing conditions and bringing properties into compliance. Property owners are incentivized to maintain their properties through assessment of lower fees and less frequent inspections for properties that are categorized as non-serious.

Inspection program staff are also available to address complaints as they are reported. 7 Additionally, Mountain View is located in the seismically active Bay Area and requires its future housing development to undergo analyses of increased risks to safety related to fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and liquefaction. Although there are no known active faults present within the City, there are a significant number of soft-story buildings 8 in the City that could be
extremely vulnerable to collapse and failure if a major earthquake were to occur in the region.

According to the Mountain View Soft Story Study Report from May 2018, 1,152 of the 1,383 multi- unit buildings in Mountain View are woodframe buildings that were built between 1950 9 and 1980,
representing 71% of total multifamily units. Of these, 488 buildings appear to have a “woodframe target story” (WFTS), which is a first-story condition associated with disproportionate earthquake damage and potential collapse. These 488 buildings, containing 5,123 units, make up about 31% of total multifamily units in the City of Mountain View and about 16% of total housing units including single-family housing units.

6 The timetable for interior inspections was disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. 7 Personal communication, Eric Anderson, Fire Marshal, Mountain View Fire Department, February 28, 2022. 8 Soft-story buildings are low-rise, multi-story, wood frame structures that are typically older and have an open wall condition on the first floor to accommodate tuck-under parking. 9 Pre-1950 buildings can also be vulnerable to earthquakes, but usually in ways that do not involve a typical soft-story condition.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 59 Figure 12: Substandard Housing Issues

Universe: Occupied housing units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049; BAE, 2021.

Housing Costs and Affordability

Residential Home Sale Prices
Overall, home values in Mountain View are much higher than the countywide and regional averages, and are unaffordable to most of the households and workers in the City and region (see Figure 13).

Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages, and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs.

Housing sale prices and rental rates are also an indicator of housing affordability and can signal high incidence of housing cost burden and overcrowding. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, aside from a slight decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Home values in Mountain View have also appreciated at a much more rapid rate than homes throughout Santa Clara County and the region since the Great Recession. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 229.7% in Mountain View from $554,520 to $1,828,466 in December of 2020, according to Zillow. This change is significantly greater than that of Santa Clara County, at around 168.3 percent, and of the Bay Area, at around 142.3% (see Figure 13).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 60 Figure 13: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)

Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35 th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted av erage of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series.

Sources: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI); BAE, 2021.

Based on American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2015-2019 (inflation-adjusted to 2019 values), the largest proportion of homes, about 25 percent, was valued at more than $2 million (see Table 9). By comparison, the largest share of units was valued between $1,000,000 and $1,500,000 in the county and between $500,000 and $750,000 in the region. The limited number of lower-value homes in Mountain View indicates a lack of units affordable to middle and lower- income households interested in homeownership. Housing prices have increased significantly during the pandemic, fueled in part by historically low mortgage rates. In addition, the pandemic is believed to have contributed to high housing costs by increasing demand for homes that provide more space for working from home, particularly single-family homes with yards, encouraging many buyers to enter the home sale market for the first time. Meanwhile, there was a shortage of supply as fewer existing homeowners were listing homes for sale. According to data from Redfin, the median single-family home sale prices in Mountain View was $2.014 million in March 2022, up from $1.473 million in March of 2019.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 61 Table 9: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Home Value
Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $250K 888 6.3% 19,359 5.4% 93,478 6.1%
$250K to $500K 519 3.7% 22,636 6.3% 249,138 16.3%
$500K to $750K 968 6.9% 64,280 17.8% 345,087 22.5%
$750K to $1M 1,737 12.4% 79,354 22.0% 307,689 20.1%
$1M to $1.5M 3,263 23.2% 82,485 22.8% 274,733 17.9%
$1.5M to $2M 3,112 22.1% 40,175 11.1% 120,970 7.9%
More than $2M 3,569 25.4% 52,816 14.6% 140,860 9.2%
Total 14,056 100.0% 361,105 100.0% 1,531,955 100.0%
Universe: Owner-occupied units.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075; BAE, 2021.

Residential Rents
Similar to home sales prices, residential rental rates have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state. Between 2009 and 2019, the median rent increased by 78.9% in Mountain View, from $1,328 to $2,376 per month, according to ACS data (see Figure 14). This rate of increase was greater than in Santa Clara County, where the median rent increased by 67.7 percent, from $1,285 to $2,155, or regionwide, where the median rent increased from $1,196 in 2009 to $1,849 in 2019, an increase of 54.6% over the same period.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 62 Figure 14: Median Contract Rent

Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent.

Note: County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058; BAE, 2021

According to ACS data, more than one-fourth of the rental units in Mountain View rented for $3,000 or more per month between 2015 and 2019 (see Table 10). In Santa Clara County, approximately

18.5% of the rental units rented for $3,000 or more, while the same was true of 13.0% of the units in the Bay Area. Just 13.1% of the rental units in Mountain View rented at rates below $1,500 during this period. Rents skewed much lower in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, where 22.6% and 35.2% of rental units rented below $1,500 per month, respectively. These data suggest that Mountain View renters face high housing costs, pricing out many lower income households and potentially putting existing lower-income renters at risk of displacement.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 63 Table 10: Monthly Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units

Contract Rent
Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $1,000 1,048 5.4% 27,896 10.2% 190,335 16.3%
$1,000 to $1,500 1,491 7.7% 33,902 12.4% 220,281 18.9%
$1,500 to $2,000 3,731 19.2% 55,666 20.4% 265,903 22.8% $2,000 to $2,500 4,566 23.5% 58,293 21.4% 201,746 17.3% $2,500 to $3,000 3,598 18.5% 46,239 17.0% 135,830 11.7% $3,000 to $3,500 2,849 14.7% 29,415 10.8% 85,150 7.3%
$3,500 or more 2,119 10.9% 20,957 7.7% 66,440 5.7%
Total 19,402 100.0% 272,368 100.0% 1,165,685 100.0%
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056; BAE, 2021.

Data on residential rents in Mountain View between 2019 and 2021 indicate that while the COVID- 19 pandemic had a significant impact on market-rate rents, rents have begun to rebound, approaching pre-pandemic levels. The rent data in Table 10 come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which does not fully reflect current rents. Table 11 presents more current rent data for Mountain View from CoStar, a private data vendor. According to CoStar, Mountain View’s multifamily inventory included 15,678 market-rate rental units as of the third quarter of 2021, an increase of about 1.4% from third quarter 2019. The majority of inventoried rental units are either one-bedroom or two-bedroom units, which make up about 39.5% and 34.3% of the multifamily rental stock, respectively. The average monthly asking rent per unit was $2,851 across all units at the end of the third quarter of 2021. This is an increase of 6.8% from Q3 2020 rents, but a 3.8% decrease from Q3 2019 rents, which may be due to the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on rental housing. These impacts are also reflected in recent changes in the average vacancy rate. The multifamily vacancy rate was 6.3% at the end of the third quarter of 2019, growing to 11.4% at the end of the third quarter of 2020. As of the third quarter of 2021, the average multifamily vacancy rate was 9.4 percent, 3.1 percentage points above the rate at the end of the third quarter of 2019. These data suggest that the rental housing market is continuing to recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and may continue to experience higher vacancies and lower rental rates in the near term as a result. However, even at these lower rental rates the average rent for multifamily rental units in Mountain View is substantially higher than many lower-income households can afford.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 64 Table 11: Market-Rate Multifamily Rent Summary, Q3 2021 Multifamily
Residential
Summary
All Unit Types Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-or-more
Bedroom
Inventory 15,678 3,365 6,197 5,379 737
% of Units 100.0% 21.5% 39.5% 34.3% 4.7%
Vacancy Rate 9.4% 7.0% 10.7% 9.6% 6.9%
Average Monthly
Asking Rent (per
unit)

Q3 2021 Rent $2,851 $2,111 $2,528 $3,233 $4,183
Q3 2020 Rent $2,670 $1,914 $2,385 $3,026 $3,888
Q3 2019 Rent $2,965 $2,203 $2,672 $3,318 $4,300
Q3 2020 – Q3 2021 %
Change 6.8% 10.3% 6.0% 6.8% 7.6%
Q3 2019 – Q3 2021 %
Change -3.8% -4.2% -5.4% -2.6% -2.7%
Sources: CoStar Group; BAE, 2021.

Housing Cost Burden
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. High housing cost burdens put low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, and homelessness.

There are well-documented and persistent relationships between income, tenure, and the likelihood of a household to experience a moderate or severe cost burden. Generally speaking, as household income decreases, housing costs typically account for an increasingly large share of a household’s monthly budget. Similarly, renter households are also typically more likely to experience moderate and severe housing cost burdens, even across income levels. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates and fixed monthly payments, whereas renter households are more readily subject to periodic rent increases, though Mountain View has had a rent stabilization program since 2016.

In Mountain View, 14.5% of households spend more than half of their income on housing, while

17.4% have a cost burden of 30% to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 15). For example, 66.9% of Mountain View households with income less than 30% of HAMFI are severely cost-burdened. For Mountain View residents above 100% of HAMFI, only

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 65

0.8% are severely cost-burdened, and 88.8% of those above 100% of HAMFI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.

Figure 15: Cost Burden by Income Level

Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI).

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; BAE, 2021.

When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Mountain View, 19.0% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while only 11.2% of owners are severely cost-burdened (see Figure 16). Additionally, 18.2% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing, compared to only

16.7% of those that own.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 66 Figure 16: Cost Burden by Tenure

Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091; BAE, 2021.

Large family households of five or more persons often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing. The higher costs associated with homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing disproportionate cost burdens compared to the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In Mountain View, 21.1% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30% to 50 percent, while 18.6% spend more than half of their income on housing. In comparison, 17.3% of all other households have a cost burden of 30% to 50 percent, and 14.3% of households are severely cost burdened (see Figure 17).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 67 Figure 17: Cost Burden by Household Size

Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; BAE, 2021.

Senior households also have special housing needs and are disproportionately cost burdened compared to the total population. Based on 2013-2017 CHAS data, 40.5% of senior households were cost burdened compared to 31.9% of total households. When cost-burdened seniors, especially those on a fixed income, are no longer able to make house payments or rents, displacement from their homes can occur. This puts further stress on the local rental market and forces long-time residents out of the community they call home. Because of this, understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance. About 46.9% of seniors with incomes less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors with incomes more than 100% of AMI, about 90.6% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 18).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 68 Figure 18: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level

Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI).

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; BAE, 2021.

Overcrowding
Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and most often occurs when demand for housing in a city or region is high. Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household exceeds the number of people the home they occupy was designed to hold. This report uses the Census Bureau definition of overcrowding, which is more than one occupant per room (including bedrooms, living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms, and other rooms but not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, units with more than 1.5 occupants per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Figure 19 illustrates overcrowding by severity in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area. The percentage of severely overcrowded households is roughly the same in all three geographies, at around 2.9 percent. In Mountain View, about 92.8% of households are not considered overcrowded. This suggests that overcrowding does not impact a disproportionate share of Mountain View households, though some households in Mountain View live in overcrowded units.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 69 Figure 19: Overcrowding by Severity

Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; BAE, 2021.

In many cities, overcrowding is more prevalent among those who are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to spread out costs and make it possible to stay in their communities or large households living in small units relative to their household size to afford housing. In Mountain View, approximately 11.2% of renter households are overcrowded (more than one occupant per room), compared to just 1.5% for those who own their homes. In addition, approximately 4.9% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to only 0.2% of owner households (see Figure 20).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 70 Figure 20: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity

Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; BAE, 2021.

Similar to cost burden, overcrowding often disproportionately impacts lower income households.

About 11.4% of extremely low-income households (incomes below 30% of HAMFI) experience overcrowding in Mountain View, with 5.2% experiencing severe overcrowding. Low-income households (incomes between 50% and 80% of HAMFI) have a higher rate of severe overcrowding, with 5.6% occupying units with more than 1.5 occupants per room. Of the households with incomes above 100% of HAMFI, approximately 3.6% are considered overcrowded, with 1.5% experiencing severe overcrowding (see Figure 21).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 71 Figure 21: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity

Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI).

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 72 Assisted Housing At-Risk of Conversion
California Government Code Section 65583 requires that housing elements identify all assisted rental housing units within the jurisdiction that are at risk of converting to market rate within ten years of the beginning of the Housing Element Planning period. Many subsidized affordable housing developments receive government funding that requires units be made affordable for a specified amount of time. Typically, assisted units are potentially considered to be at risk of converting to market rate if they are subject to local affordability requirements that will soon expire, or if the affordable units were financed using sources that required affordability for a set period that will soon expire. However, units that are potentially at risk for these reasons may not actually be at risk of conversion, particularly in cases where the units are owned by a nonprofit or other entity that is dedicated to preserving the units as affordable housing. Table 12 presents an inventory of the existing assisted affordable units in Mountain View, including information on affordability time period requirements associated with different funding sources. As shown, none of the subsidized units have affordability terms that would expire in the next ten years. In addition, all of the units are located within 100% affordable developments that are owned by non-profit and mission-driven affordable housing developers who would be likely to extend the affordability restrictions beyond the expiration date associated with the funding sources.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 73 Table 12: Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing Units, 2021

Source: City of Mountain View.

Risk
Status
ELI VLI LI 2023-
2032
Maryce Freelen Place Apartments (Latham Park Apts) CDBG 2044 2230 Latham Street HOME 2025
LIHTC 2027
San Veron Park Apartments
807 San Veron Avenue
Monte Vista Terrace Apartments
1101 Grant Road
Sierra Vista One Apartments
1909 Hacket Avenue
Ginzton Terrace Apartments CDBG 2038
375 Oaktree Drive CCRC 2023
HOME 2071
LIHTC 2048
Shorebreeze Apartments (Mountain View Apts) CDBG Indefinitel y 460 N. Shoreline Blvd HOME 2027
LIHTC 2027
San Antonio Place Apartments CDBG 2052
210 San Antonio Circle HOME 2057
Tyrella Gardens Apartments CDBG 2058
449 Tyrella Avenue LIHTC 2059
Paulson Park I & II (New Central Park) CDBG 2034
111 Montebello Avenue HOME 2073
50 Sierra Vista & 1929 Hackett Avenue LIHTC 2029
The Fountains Apartments (San Ramon) HOME 2044
2005 San Ramon Ave LIHTC 2019
Franklin Street Apartments BMR 2066
135 Franklin Street CDBG 2066
RDA 2066
Studio 819 Apartments
819 N. Rengstorff Ave
1585 Studios BMR 2069
1581-85 W. El Camino Real HOME 2069
1701 ECR
1701 W. El Camino Real
Evelyn Family Apartments
779 E. Evelyn Avenue
Total 1,381 1,358 428 685 245
2072 No Risk
116 114 0 12 102 BMR 2072 No Risk
67 66 39 10 17 BMR
2068 No Risk
27 26 16 10 0 No Risk
49 48 13 35 0 BMR
51 50 15 35 0 No Risk
124 123 0 84 39 No Risk
253 251 32 219 0 No Risk
56 55 0 43 12 No Risk
120 118 36 82 0 No Risk
120 119 103 11 5 No Risk
2070 No Risk
107 106 0 53 53 No Risk
34 27 18 7 2 CDBG
2044 No Risk
150 149 149 0 0 LIHTC 2060 No Risk
32 32 7 10 15 CDBG
75 74 0 74 0 No Risk
Project Total
Units
Assisted
Units
Affordability Level Funding
Source
Expiration
Date

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 74 The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Based on this data from 2020, there are 1,460 assisted units in Mountain View in the Preservation Database. Of these units, all are at low risk of conversion. 10 Table 13: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area
Low 1,460 28,001 110,177
Moderate 0 1,471 3,375
High 0 422 1,854
Very High 0 270 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 1,460 30,164 116,459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table.

Sources: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020); BAE, 2021.

10 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission- driven developer.

High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission- driven developer.

Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 75 Housing and Special Needs Populations

Large Households
As mentioned earlier, large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger unit sizes, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In Mountain View, slightly more than half of large households with five or more persons are renters, as shown in Figure

22. Furthermore, according to 2013-2017 HUD CHAS data, approximately 40% of large family households in Mountain View were lower income at less than 80% of HAMFI; these lower income households may have trouble finding affordable and appropriately sized units in Mountain View.

Figure 22: Household Size by Tenure

Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009; BAE, 2021.

The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community. Large family households are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms, of which there are 13,054 units in Mountain View. Among the 12,629 large units with three or more bedrooms that are occupied, 23.6% are renter occupied and 76.4% are owner occupied (see Figure 23). While the data in Figure 22 and Figure 23 indicate that Mountain View has a relatively large inventory of rental units with two or more bedrooms relative to the number of renter households with three or more people, City staff report that

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 76 there is a shortage of deed-restricted affordable units with two or more bedrooms for lower- income families. This represents a challenge for larger lower-income households that are in need of affordable housing.

Figure 23: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms

Universe: Occupied housing units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042; BAE, 2021.

Household Type
Family households
11 headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. While Mountain View has significantly fewer family households than the County and the region (56.5% compared to 71.8% and 66.4 percent, respectively), over ten% of local households are families with a single parent. Mountain View has a higher proportion of single- person households and non-family households (such as cohabiting roommates) than the County and the region. Single-person households are likely to seek smaller units than larger households, and non-family households of more than one person may seek different types of

11 Family households consist of two or more individuals who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption, although these households may also include other unrelated people.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 77 units than family households (e.g., two non-cohabiting adults may seek not just separate bedrooms but also separate bathrooms).

Figure 24: Household Type

Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001; BAE, 2021.

Female-Headed Households with Children
Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging. According to 2019 ACS data, there are more female-headed households with children (at 57.5 percent) than without children (at 42.5 percent) in Mountain View. In addition, 227 (16.4 percent) of all female-headed households with children, fall below the federal poverty line, while 76 (7.4 percent) of all female-headed households without children, live in poverty (see Figure 25).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 78 Figure 25: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status

Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012; BAE, 2021.

Seniors
Senior households commonly experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping housing a challenge. As noted above (see Figure 18) seniors often are faced with high cost burdens. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions, and/or reduced mobility. Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups.

The largest groups of seniors have incomes greater than 100% of AMI or incomes less than 30% of AMI (see Figure 26). Senior renter households are much more likely to be lower income. Approximately 78.8% of senior renter households have incomes less than or equal to 80% of AMI, while 47.8% of senior owner households have incomes less than or equal to 80% of AMI. The group most likely facing challenges finding suitable affordable housing is extremely low-income senior renters, who make up over 45% of all senior renter households.

Senior owners may have limited incomes, but may also reside in homes that they own outright with no mortgage payments, resulting in low overall housing costs.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 79 Figure 26: Senior Households by Income and Tenure

Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; BAE, 2021.

People with Disabilities
Disability data provide valuable context for assessing the current and future need for accessible housing units. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care. People with disabilities face additional housing challenges, as they not only need housing that is affordable but also accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence. Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. As a result, people with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers.

In Mountain View, approximately 5,700 of the civilian noninstitutionalized population (7.0 percent) are estimated to have one or more of the six disability types specified below in Figure

28. As shown in Figure 27, this proportion is slightly lower than the proportions in Santa Clara County (8.0 percent) and the Bay Area (9.6 percent), potentially due to high housing costs in

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 80 Mountain View, as individuals with disabilities tend to have lower incomes on average than the population as a whole.

Figure 27: Population by Disability Status

Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18101; BAE, 2021.

Figure 28 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Mountain View. The most common disabilities in Mountain View are ambulatory (3.2 percent), independent living (2.7 percent), and hearing (2.5 percent). Some individuals have more than one disability and therefore are represented more than once in the figure below. Housing preferences and needs for persons with disabilities varies widely, with many requiring additional services such as live-in care, social services, job training programs, or counseling to help them achieve independent living.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 81 Figure 28: Disability by Type

Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types: Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107; BAE, 2021.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities
Those with developmental disabilities have a high risk of housing insecurity due to aging caretakers, usually an elderly parent or family member, no longer being able to care for them.

In addition, they may be at risk due to their specific housing needs. Persons with developmental disabilities are a subset of the population with disabilities as represented in Figure 28 above, and are defined as those with severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe intellectual disability. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 82 In Mountain View, out of the population of 298 people with a developmental disability, about

50.3% are children below the age of 18, while adults account for the remaining 49.7% (see Table 14).

Table 14: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group Total
Age Under 18 150
Age 18+ 148
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Sources: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020); BAE, 2021.

The most common living arrangement for individuals with developmental disabilities in Mountain View is the home of a parent, family, or guardian. As shown in Table 15, approximately 82.3% of the individuals with developmental disabilities residing in Mountain View currently live with a parent, family, or guardian, while 12.9% live in an independent or supported living facility. This could indicate a need for additional independent or supported living facilities, care homes, and other housing options for persons with disabilities as well as a need to ensure that existing homes can be adapted to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. As discussed in the Constraints Analysis (see Appendix C), the City of Mountain View has reasonable accommodation procedures to facilitate equal access to housing. In addition, the City’s Zoning Ordinance complies with State law related to the permitting of residential care homes.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 83 Table 15: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Total
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 255
Independent /Supported Living 40
Other 10
Community Care Facility 5
Foster /Family Home 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Sources: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020); BAE, 2021.

Homelessness
One of the most pressing and challenging issues in California is homelessness, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs in already- expensive areas such as the Bay Area result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances.

Table 16 presents HUD’s biennial Point-In-Time (PIT) count of sheltered and unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness at the city and county level. Of the 9,706 persons experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County, the vast majority of whom are unsheltered, 606 persons, or six percent, are in Mountain View. However, over 10% of the increase in persons experiencing homelessness between 2015 and 2019 in Santa Clara County was in Mountain View. Indeed, the PIT count in Mountain View increased by nearly 120% between 2015 and 2019, compared to a 48% increase countywide.
12 The PIT count, however, should
be considered a conservative estimate as many homeless individuals cannot be identified or counted, even with the most thorough methodology. Furthermore, a decrease in homeless persons counted during the census does not necessarily signify a decrease in homelessness.

Although careful training took place prior to the count of unsheltered homeless, which includes

12 The 2021 PIT was deferred due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the count was completed in February 2022.

Results were not yet available as of the writing of this report.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 84 homeless people who are unlikely to be found in shelters or in other residential programs within a local homeless assistance network, it is very difficult to count all homeless individuals living on the streets.

Table 16: Point-In-Time Count, 2015-2019
2015 2019
2015-2019 Change
Number Percent
City of Mountain View
Sheltered 5 32 27 540%
Unsheltered 271 574 303 112%
Total 276 606 330 120%

Santa Clara County
Sheltered 1,929 1,784 -145 -8%
Unsheltered 4,627 7,922 3,295 71%
Total 6,556 9,706 3,150 48%
Sources: City of Mountain View; 2020; BAE, 2021.

Over three-quarters of the countywide population experiencing homelessness are unsheltered adults in households without any children under 18, as shown in Figure 29. Persons experiencing homelessness that are in households with at least one adult and children are the second largest subgroup of the homeless population, accounting for 9.5% of the population, while 2.8% are households composed solely of children under 18. Only ten of the 276 persons experiencing homelessness that are in households composed solely of children are sheltered, which is particularly concerning for the County, although it is unclear how many of the 266 unsheltered households in this category reside in Mountain View.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 85 Figure 29: Homelessness by Household Type & Shelter Status, Santa Clara County

Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); BAE, 2021.

One common challenge among individuals experiencing homelessness is severe mental illness, with the countywide PIT data showing 2,659 persons reporting this condition among the homeless population. Another common affliction is chronic substance abuse, reported by 1,949 persons among the countywide homeless population.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 86 Figure 30: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County

Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics ar e counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); BAE, 2021.

In Mountain View, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 161 during the 2019-20 school year, which is about 7.0% and 1.2% of the total homeless student population in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, respectively. Between the 2016-17 school year and the 2019-20 school year, this population increased by 571 percent, although notably there were no reported homeless students for the 2018-19 school year, which may reflect a discrepancy in the data. By comparison, Santa Clara County has seen a 3.5% increase in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, while the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5 percent. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 87 Table 17: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Academic Year Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area 2016-17 24 2,219 14,990
2017-18 46 2,189 15,142
2018-19 na 2,405 15,427
2019-20 161 2,297 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography. 2018-19 data not available for Mountain View.

Sources: ABAG, based on data from the California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020); BAE, 2021.

To augment the information from the County count, the City also conducts a street-by-street count of vehicles that appear to be in use for living purposes. From 2017 until 2020, the count of vehicles in the public right-of-way (PROW) used for living has ranged from 250 to 300 vehicles on average. The highest count was in July 2020 at 320 (combined street and in safe parking vehicles). The safe parking lots were operating 24/7 at the time and vehicles onsite were excluded from the PROW count and have since been counted separately.

Over time, the counts reflect that more than half of the counted vehicles have been RVs. The 2022 count reflects an increase in other types of vehicles, including vans, buses, and box trucks. While there has been both a modest decrease and a change in types of vehicles used for living purposes in the public right-of-way in the most recent count, the overall trend for lived-in vehicles has remained fairly consistent. Though the numbers are down in some of the on-street counts, the challenges and factors that may result in living in vehicles remain.

Table 18: Mountain View Vehicles in Public Right-of-Way (PROW), 2017-2020 2017 Dec.
2018
Jul-
19 Feb.
2020 Jul-20 Jan-
22 2017- Jan 2022
Change
Number Percent
RV 158 189 207 205 191 135 -23 -15%
Passenger Vehicle 94 89 80 89 70 18 -76 -81%
Other/Unspecified 0 9 11 5 4 63 63 n.a.

Total 252 287 298 299 265 216 13 5%
Sources: City of Mountain View; 2022; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 88

In 2018, the City partnered with the County of Santa Clara and a local nonprofit safe parking provider to provide safe parking and a range of other services to support unstably housed residents on a path to permanent housing. Overnight safe parking programs were launched at faith-based locations and the program has since grown to become the largest safe parking provider in the region with the capacity for up to 101 vehicles (includes both faith-based lots).

The City also adopted a Safe Parking Ordinance to facilitate the creation of safe parking locations on private lots in 2019. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the city extended the safe parking program to operate 24/7. The City has been increasing the options available along the continuum of housing and the focus on the affordable housing pipeline remains one of the highest priorities. The continuum in addition to safe parking lots includes the interim LifeMoves Mountain View facility, which in addition to accepting the City’s unhoused resident also accepts unhoused people from across the County as a part of the County system of coordinated care. Between 2016 and 2021, the city invested $9.9 million in strategies to address homelessness and fund associated services, including over $3.8 million in rent relief to address impacts due to the pandemic. Some of the investment has been directed towards healthcare and providing showers and laundry services for the homeless population, such as the MayView Community Health Center and Hope’s Corner. The city has partnered with the State, private companies, and nonprofits to raise an additional $22.4 million between 2016 and 2021, including a $1 million grant from Google and approximately $17 million in State, City, County, and philanthropic funding for LifeMoves Mountain View (Project Homekey interim housing site). County investment for initiatives in Mountain View specifically includes five years of funding for a cold weather homeless shelter, safe parking, construction of a resource center, and funding for job training programs. In 2022, the City entered into an MOU with the County for $80 million in Measure A funding to develop up to 200 units of rapid rehousing/permanent supportive housing units.

Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern. Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs, and many hold jobs that are temporary or seasonal. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging for these farmworker households, particularly in the current housing market.

Mountain View shows extremely limited resident employment in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector, and even fewer local jobs in the sector. As shown in Table 19, there are less than 200 local residents with jobs in the sector, and less than 40 jobs in Mountain View. Nevertheless, affordable housing for farmworkers is a regional problem that could be mitigated by affordable housing throughout the Bay Area, including in Mountain View.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 89 Table 19: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Employment in Mountain View, 2019

Agriculture,
Forestry,
Fishing, and
Hunting
Total
Employed Resident Jobs 181 44,711
Jobs in Mountain View 38 93,107
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2019).

In Mountain View, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year, or in the preceding three school years. In the Bay Area, there has been a decline of

14.1% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year, and the change at the county level was a 49.7% decrease.

Table 20: Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area 2016-17 0 978 4,630
2017-18 0 732 4,607
2018-19 0 645 4,075
2019-20 0 492 3,976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Sources: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020); BAE, 2021.

As shown in Figure 31, the number of permanent farmworkers in Santa Clara County increased by 42.6% between 2002 and 2017, totaling 2,418 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers decreased by 53.3 percent, totaling 1,757 in 2017. Overall, the farmworker population in Santa Clara County decreased by 23.5 percent, totaling 4,175 in 2017.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 90 Figure 31: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Santa Clara County

Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limited proficiency can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In Mountain View,

5.8% of residents five years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for Santa Clara County and the Bay Area at 8.8% and 7.8 percent, respectively.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 91 Figure 32: Population with Limited English Proficiency

Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.

Assessment of Fair Housing

With the adoption of AB 686, all Housing Elements completed January 1, 2019 or later must include a program that promotes and affirmatively furthers fair housing throughout the community for all persons, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, disability, or any other characteristics that are protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government code Section 65008, and all other applicable State and federal fair housing and planning laws. Under State law, affirmatively furthering fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
13 The law also requires that all Housing Elements completed as of January 1, 2021 or later include an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) that is consistent with the core elements of the

13 California Government Code § 8899.5 (a)(1)

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 92 federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule from July 2015. The following section summarizes key findings from the Assessment of Fair Housing, which was completed in accordance with current HCD guidance regarding the application of the new AB686 requirements, as well as a detailed reading of the California Government Code. 14 The main sources of information for the following analysis are the U.S. Census Bureau (including the Decennial Census and the American Community Survey), the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources Tool, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), and the City of Mountain View.

Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Fair housing complaints can be used as an indicator of the overall magnitude of housing complaints, and to identify characteristics of households experiencing discrimination in housing. Pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act [Government Code Section 12921 (a)], the opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold housing cannot be determined by an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code.” Federal Law also prohibits many kinds of housing discrimination.

Housing discrimination complaints can be directed to either HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) or the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).

Fair housing issues that may arise in any jurisdiction include but are not limited to:
• housing design that makes a dwelling unit inaccessible to an individual with a disability;
• discrimination against an individual based on race, national origin, familial status, disability, religion, sex, or other characteristic when renting or selling a housing unit; • and, disproportionate housing needs including cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, and risk of displacement.

A limited number of complaints have been filed with FHEO over housing discrimination in Mountain View in recent years. From 2013 through 2020, 14 complaints were recorded and closed, as shown in Table 21. Nine complaints were conciliated or settled, a no cause determination was made for three complaints, and two complaints were withdrawn after resolution.

14 Olmstead, Z. (April 23, 2020). AB 686 Summary of Requirements in Housing Element Law Government Code Section 8899.50, 65583(c)(5), 65583(c)(10), 65583.2(a).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 93

Table 21: FHEO Fair Housing Complaints by Resolution Type, 2013-2020

Sources: HUD, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, 2021; BAE, 2021.

In addition to data from the FHEO, this analysis also reviewed data from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). As reported in Table 22, there were a total of three complaints in Mountain View between 2018 and 2020, covering four basis types and eight discriminatory practices (a single complaint can include more than one of each of these two categories). All three of the complaints were found to have no cause.

Total, Percent
Resolution 2013-2020 of Total
Conciliated/settled 9 64.3%
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 0 0.0%
No cause determination 3 21.4%
Withdrawn after resolution 2 14.3%
Withdrawn without resolution 0 0.0%
Total, Closed Complaints 14 100%

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 94 Table 22: DFEH Fair Housing Complaints, 2018-2020

Note:
(a) Each complaint may involve more than one basis type or discriminatory practice, but there is only one resolution per complaint.

Sources: California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, 2022; BAE, 2022.

While these data suggest that fair housing complaints that arise in Mountain View are relatively rare, the overwhelming majority of fair housing issues are not typically captured in fair housing complaints. In part, this is because many fair housing issues go unreported due to a lack of awareness of fair housing laws, fear of retaliation, or other factors that prevent individuals from coming forward. More broadly, fair housing issues include a range of factors that limit access to opportunity, often with disparate impacts on communities of color, people with disabilities, those with limited English proficiency, and other vulnerable populations. The fair housing complaint system is not designed to address the majority of these factors, and therefore provides information on only a small component of potential fair housing issues. The remainder of this section provides additional data and analysis to assess potential fair housing issues and identify factors that may limit access to opportunity.

Total, Percent
Basis Type (a) 2018-2020 of Total
Ancestry 00 . 0 %
Disability 2 50.0%
Familial status 1 25.0%
National origin/color/race 1 25.0%
Other 00 . 0 %
Sexual harassment-Quid Pro Quo 0 0.0%
Total, All Basis Types 4 100%
Discriminatory Practice (a)
Denied equal terms and conditions 1 12.5%
Denied reasonable accommodation 0 0.0%
Denied reasonable accommodation for a disability or medical cond. 1 12.5% Denied rental/lease/sale 0 0.0%
Evicted 1 12.5%
Harassed 00 . 0 %
Subjected to discriminatory zoning/land use 1 12.5%
Subjected to restrictive rule/covenant 2 25.0%
Subjected to discriminatory statements/advertisements 1 12.5% Other 1 12.5%
Total, All Practices 8 100%
Resolution
No cause determination 3 100.0%
Voluntary mediation 0 0.0%
Withdrawn after resolution 00 . 0 %
Total, All Resolutions 3 100%

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 95 Mountain View Fair Housing Services
The City of Mountain View helps fund Project Sentinel, a regional non-profit agency, to provide fair housing services. Project Sentinel provides assistance with housing discrimination, dispute resolution, and housing counseling for residents in Mountain View and throughout Santa Clara, San Mateo, Stanislaus, and Sacramento Counties and Cities of West Sacramento, Fremont, Merced, and Roseville. Through Project Sentinel, the City provides landlord tenant counseling, outreach and education, arbitration, audits, and discrimination investigation. The City also allocates additional General Fund monies to support Project Sentinel to administer a tenant/landlord referral and mediation program, as well as to refer cases that may potentially involve violations of fair housing law to the fair housing service provider.

The City also has an established a Multi-Cultural Engagement Program, which focuses on outreach and education to inform non-English speaking residents on available services, including fair housing services. Outreach workers are fluent in the three primary non-English languages spoken in Mountain View: Spanish, Mandarin, and Russian. Services provided include providing non-English speaking residents with information about programs, meetings, and other community events/activities; providing assistance in completing applications for subsidized housing and community programs; providing translation services as needed; and making presentations and distributing brochures at churches, apartment complexes, and other locations where non-English speaking persons can be found.

Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends

Race and Ethnicity
As noted above, Mountain View has a slightly larger proportion of its population that identifies as Non-Hispanic White than the County and Bay Area region, and the share of residents that identify with other racial and ethnic groups has increased more slowly in Mountain View than in the County and region over recent years. As shown in Table 23, approximately 40.1% of residents in Mountain View were non-Hispanic White in 2020, compared to 30.8% of residents in the two-county region. Non-Hispanic Asian residents account for approximately 34.9% of the citywide population, while Hispanic and Latino residents comprise an additional 17.2 percent. In both Mountain View and the region, the small Black Non-Hispanic population has been declining, and the Asian Non-Hispanic population has increased substantially. The number of persons identifying as Some Other Race or Two or More Races has also increased both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of the overall population in both the City and the two-county region. The Hispanic population has increased absolutely in both geographies, but its proportion of the total has decreased in Mountain View. This is in contrast to the two- county region, where the Hispanic proportion of the total population increased slightly between 2000 and 2020. These trends may be due at least in part to the high cost of housing in Mountain View relative to the County and region overall, coupled with wealth and income gaps between racial and ethnic groups. It should be noted that, as illustrated in the table below, some groups have very limited populations in the City, which means that a small change in

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 96 absolute numbers among these groups has a significant impact on the percentage change in the population of these groups.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 97 Table 23: Mountain View Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 - 2020

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 SF3 Table P7, 2010 SF1 Table P8, and 2020 PL 94-171, Table P2; BAE, 2022.

Not Hispanic nor Latino by Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Perce nt White 39,029 55.2% 34,052 46.0% 33,008 40.1% (6,021) -12.8% (1,044) -3.1% Black or African American 1,674 2.4% 1,468 2.0% 1,155 1.4% (519) -12.3% (313) -21.3% Native American Indian & Alaska Native 164 0.2% 116 0.2% 101 0.1% (63) -29.3% (15) -12.9% Asian 14,513 20.5% 19,064 25.7% 28,760 34.9% 14,247 31.4% 9,696 50.9% Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 160 0.2% 372 0.5% 215 0.3% 55 132.5% (157) -42.2% Some other race alone 221 0.3% 241 0.3% 557 0.7% 336 9.0% 316 131.1% Two or more races 2,036 2.9% 2,682 3.6% 4,374 5.3% 2,338 31.7% 1,692 63.1 % Subtotal, Not Hispanic nor Latino 57,797 81.7% 57,995 78.3% 68,170 82 .8% 10,373 0.3% 10,175 17.5% Hispanic or Latino 12,911 18.3% 16,071 21.7% 14,206 17.2% 1,295 24.5% (1,865) -11.6% Total, All Races 70,708 100.0% 74,066 100.0% 82 ,376 100.0% 11, 668 4.7% 8 ,310 11.2% Not Hispanic nor Latino by Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Perce nt White 1,096,637 45.9% 930,518 37.2% 831,610 30.8% (265,027) -15.1% (98,908) -10.6% Black or African American 68,253 2.9% 61,094 2.4% 56,849 2.1% (11,404) -10.5% (4,245) -6.9% American Indian & Alaska Native 6,816 0.3% 5,167 0.2% 4,261 0.2% (2,555) -24.2% (906) -17.5% Asian 567,084 23.7% 741,400 29.7% 981,182 36.3% 414,098 30.7% 239,782 32.3% Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 14,152 0.6% 16,136 0.6% 14,785 0.5% 633 14.0% (1,351) -8.4% Some other race alone 5,739 0.2% 6,586 0.3% 16,035 0.6% 10,296 14.8% 9,449 143.5% Two or more races 72,956 3.1% 77,480 3.1% 117,236 4.3% 44,280 6.2% 39,756 51.3% Subtotal, Not Hispanic nor Latino 1,831,637 76.6% 1,838, 381 73.5% 2, 021,958 74.9% 190,321 0.4% 183,577 10.0% Hispanic or Latino 558,109 23.4% 661,712 26.5% 678,743 25.1% 120,634 18 .6% 17,031 2.6% Total, All Races 2,389,746 100. 0% 2,500,093 100. 0% 2,700, 701 100.0% 31 0,955 4.6% 200,608 8.0% Change, 2000-2020
City of Mountain View
San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Change, 2010-2020
2000
2000
2010 2020 Change, 2010-2020
2010 2020 Change, 2000-2020

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 98 Historic Patterns of Racial Discrimination
While Mountain View today is a racially diverse community, historic patterns of discrimination have helped to shape disparities between neighborhoods as well as between Mountain View and the region. Citywide, the proportion of the population that identifies as White non- Hispanic is only about 40% of the total, well above the 31% proportion regionally. However, this proportion has been declining over the last several decades, just more slowly than in the region overall.

One set of historic factors contributing to segregation was national policies such as FHA redlining and loan discrimination. These factors as well as the impact of regional and local planning decisions are discussed in “Segregation Shaped the San Mateo Housing Crisis,” 15 In
an interview16 discussing his book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, author Richard Rothstein points out numerous policies and actions in the region, including blockbusting and government policies that led to segregated patterns of housing in local communities such as Mountain View, and how this led in part to the wealth gaps, and health disparities by race/ethnicity that still exist today.

However, one Bay Area developer of suburban housing in the region following WWII, Joseph Eichler, “was one of the first builders to sell a home to whoever could afford it…,” 17 Today,
Eichler houses with their open floor plans are still sought by homeowners. Reportedly, there are 275 Eichler homes in Mountain View, with additional similar houses designed and built by others.
18 While national policies have contributed historically to patterns of segregation, economic considerations have also been a factor. As discussed above, housing prices in Mountain View have increased substantially over at least the past 20 years, surpassing the pace of housing cost increases in the surrounding region. As a result, other communities in the County and region provide a slightly more affordable option for lower-income households. Due to the economic disparities between racial and ethnic groups, which are attributable in part to historic patterns of redlining and loan discrimination and the resulting impact on wealth gaps that persist today, the high cost of housing in Mountain View is likely a key factor contributing to the differences between the City and the surrounding region in terms of the racial and ethnic composition of the population. The City of Mountain View has engaged in numerous

15 Marcy Rein, “Segregation Shaped the San Mateo Housing Crisis,” RP&E Journal, undated, https://www.reimaginerpe.org/20-2/rein/san-mateo-segregation access February 14, 2022. 16 Charles Russo, “Un-forgetting the segregationist history of the Midpeninsula,” Mountain View Voice, June 30, 2020, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2020/06/30/un-forgetting-the-segregationist-history-of-the-midpeninsula, accessed February 14, 2022.
17 Lisa Keys, “Famous for his California homes, this Jewish developer pushed to integrate the burbs,” The Jewish News of Northern California, August 5, 2020, https://www.jweekly.com/2020/08/05/famous-for-his-california- homes-this-jewish-developer-pushed-to-integrate-the-burbs/, accessed February 14, 2022. 18 “Mountain View Eichler Homes,” https://www.eichlerforsale.com/mountain-view-eichlers/, accessed February 14, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 99 past and ongoing efforts to address the need for affordable housing in the City, and the Housing Plan section of this Housing Element Update includes new and continued actions to improve the affordability of housing in Mountain View.

Dissimilarity Index
One of two key metrics recommended for use in fair housing analysis as part of the federal AFFH rule, the dissimilarity index measures the evenness with which two groups are distributed across the geographic units that make up a larger area, such as Census Block Groups within a City. The index can range from zero to 100, with zero meaning no segregation, or spatial disparity, and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be interpreted as the percentage of one of the two groups that would have to move to produce an even distribution. An index score above 60 is considered high, while 30 to 60 is considered moderate, and below 30 is considered low. 19 The sub-city analysis, including
the calculation of both the dissimilarity and isolation indexes, relies on the use of Block Group- level data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Mountain View generally shows low dissimilarity index scores by race/ethnicity (see Table 4).

In 2020, the scores ranged from 11.0 for non-Hispanic persons of two or more races to 55.0 for non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native residents. However, it should be noted that the only groups with dissimilarity index scores in the moderate range are those with very small populations in Mountain View; their higher dissimilarity index scores may in part reflect segregation resulting from their limited numbers. Most of the groups show a decrease in the dissimilarity index between 2010 and 2020, indicating that segregation of racial and ethnic groups within Mountain View has generally declined in recent years.

Table 24: Dissimilarity Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census, Table P2; BAE, 2022.

19 Cloud Nine Technologies and Brent Mast, (2017). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) Data Documentation. HUD Office of Policy Development and Research, and Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dissimilarity Index
Racial and/or Ethnic Group 2010 2020
Black or African American alone 32.7 25.7
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 38.7 55.0
Asian alone 18.8 14.4
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 47.0 44.4 Some other race alone 31.1 24.7
Two or more races 11.9 11.0
Hispanic or Latino 36.7 29.6

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 100 Isolation Index
The other key metric recommended under the federal AFFH rule is the Isolation Index, which compares a group’s share of the overall population to the average share within a given block group. Ranging from 0 to 100, the isolation index represents the percentage of residents of a given race or ethnicity in a Block Group where the average resident of that group lives, correcting for the fact that this number increases mechanically with that group’s share of the overall study area’s population. Using Hispanic or Latino residents as an example, the isolation index of 7.8 indicates that the average Hispanic or Latino resident in 2020 lives in a Block Group where the Hispanic or Latino share of the population exceeds the overall citywide average by 7.8 percent. Isolation index values close to zero indicate that members of that minority group live in relatively integrated neighborhoods. 20 21

Table 25 summarizes isolation index scores by racial and ethnic group. The data indicate that most residents live in areas with relatively high degrees of racial and ethnic integration. The isolation indexes decreased in most groups between 2010 and 2020. None of the scores indicate a high degree of isolation for any group in either 2010 or 2020.

Table 25: Isolation Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census, Table P2; BAE, 2022.

Geographic Distribution of Residents by Race and Ethnicity Figure 33 through Figure 50 below illustrate the geographic concentrations of the overall non- White population and the non-Hispanic populations of White, Black, Native American/Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islanders, Some Other Race, and Two or More Races, and Hispanic or Latino residents by Census block group, for both the City of Mountain View and a comparison region, defined as San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties combined.

20 HUD. (2013). AFFH Data Documentation. Available at: http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/pdf/FR- 5173-P-01_AFFH_data_documentation.pdf
21 Glaeser, E. and Vigdor, J. (2001). Racial Segregation in the 2000 Census: Promising News. Washington, DC:

The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Available at:
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/census/glaeser.pdf
Isolation Index
Racial and/or Ethnic Group 2010 2020
Non-Hispanic White 7.8 3.8
Black or African American alone 0.7 0.5
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.1 0.4
Asian alone 3.5 3.2
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.7 0.4
Some other race alone 0.2 0.3
Two or more races 0.3 0.5
Hispanic or Latino 12.2 7.8

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 101 As shown above in Table 23, approximately 60% of Mountain View’s population is non-White.

The share of non-White residents varies considerably by Census Block Group, as shown in Figure 33, ranging from 39% to 77 percent. The highest minority concentrations can be found in Block Groups in the areas around Rengstorff Park, as well as North Whisman, Whisman Station, and areas north of Old Middlefield Way. In the two-county region, the Block Groups with the highest minority population tend to be in urban areas in East San Jose and Milpitas, with concentrations by Block Group ranging from fifteen% up to 99% (see Figure 34). For many of the groups, the population overall in Mountain View is extremely small.

The percentage of non-Hispanic White population by Block Group in Mountain View ranges from 23% to 61% (see Figure 35). Monta Loma, Downtown and many of the Block Groups south of El Camino Real are majority non-Hispanic White, with proportions of non-Hispanic White residents exceeding 50 percent. In the two-county region, the highest concentrations of non-Hispanic White persons tend to be found in more rural areas, ranging from one% to 85 percent, as shown in Figure 36.

As of 2020, Hispanic and Latino residents made up 17% of the citywide population. By Block Group, the percentage varies widely, from three% to 50% (see Figure 37). The highest concentrations can be found in block groups around Rengstorff Park and North Bayshore.

Regionwide, there are areas with both lower and higher concentrations of the Hispanic /Latino population, with the proportions ranging from just one% to 93% by block group. The highest concentrations can be found in the cities of East Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Jose, and Gilroy (see Figure 38).

The non-Hispanic Black population in Mountain View is extremely small, accounting for just

1.4% of the citywide population as of 2020. By Block Group, the percentage ranges from 0.1% to four percent. In the two-county region, the range by Block Group is from zero to 19 percent, as shown in Figure 40. The Block Groups with high concentrations are clustered in and around northern neighborhoods in Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and San Jose.

The largest minority group in Mountain View is the Non-Hispanic Asian population, which makes up 35% of the citywide population. The proportion of non-Hispanic Asians by Block Group varies from 15% to nearly 60 percent, with the highest concentrations found near the San Antonio and Whisman Station neighborhoods (see Figure 41). In the two-county region, the proportion of the population that is non-Hispanic Asian ranges from less than one% to nearly 92 percent. The Block Groups with the highest concentrations are located in and around the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, Cupertino, Foster City, Millbrae, and Daly City (see Figure 42)

The Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander population in Mountain View is extremely small, making up just 0.1% of the citywide population as of 2020. By Census Glock Group the proportions range from none to two% (see Figure 43). Regionally, the highest Block Group

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 102 concentration is 14 percent, with high concentrations in East Palo Alto, San Mateo, and San Bruno (see Figure 44).

As displayed in Figure 45, the non-Hispanic Alaska Native/Native American population in Mountain View is also extremely small, ranging from zero to less than two% by Block Group.

Regionally, the proportion in all Block Groups is also less than two percent. One Block Group in North Bayshore in the City shows non-Hispanic Native Americans making up approximately

1.6% of the population, the highest proportion regionally (Figure 46).

The non-Hispanic Some Other Race Alone population in Mountain View is another very small cohort, as seen in Figure 47. The percentage by Block Group ranges from zero to just 2.2 percent. Regionally, the percentage by Block Group ranges from zero to six% (see Figure 48).

The Block Groups with the highest concentrations of non-Hispanic Some Other Race populations are located in northern San Mateo County in Burlingame, San Bruno, and San Mateo.

Non-Hispanic persons of two or more races comprise 5.3% of the citywide population according to 2020 Census data. By Block Group, the concentration ranges from three% to ten percent. The highest concentrations can be found in multiple Block Groups throughout the City, but in no real pattern (see Figure 49). Regionally the percentage by Block Group ranges from less than one% to 13 percent.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 103 Figure 33: Census Block Groups by% Non-White, Mountain View

Note: Includes all categories except White non-Hispanic persons.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 104

Figure 34: Census Block Groups by% Non-White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Note: Includes all categories except White non-Hispanic persons.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 105 Figure 35: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic White, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 106

Figure 36: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 107

Figure 37: Census Block Groups by% Hispanic or Latino, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 108

Figure 38: Census Block Groups by% Hispanic or Latino, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 109 Figure 39: Census Block Groups by Non-Hispanic Black, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 110

Figure 40: Census Block Groups by Non-Hispanic Black, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 111 Figure 41: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Asian, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 112

Figure 42: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Asian, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 113 Figure 43: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 114

Figure 44: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 115 Figure 45: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Native American, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 116

Figure 46: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Native American, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 117 Figure 47: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Other Race Alone, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 118

Figure 48: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Other Race Alone, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 119 Figure 49: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Persons of Two or More Races, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 120

Figure 50: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Persons of Two or More Races, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

Persons with a Disability
As discussed in the housing needs assessment, approximately 5,700 residents in Mountain View are estimated to have one or more of the six disability types specified by the American Community Survey. Figure 51 shows the% of persons with a disability by Census Tract in Mountain View based on ACS data from 2015-2019. The Tracts range from 8.2% to 15.8% of the civilian noninstitutionalized population having one or more type of disability. The Census Tracts with highest proportion of those with a disability (about ten percent) are located around the western portions of the city.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 121 As shown in Figure 52, the San Mateo and Santa Clara County Region shows some Census Tracts with high proportions of disabled persons, though all of the Census Tracts report having less than 20% of the non-institutionalized civilian population with a disability.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 122 Figure 51: Population with a Disability by Census Tract, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 123

Figure 52: Population with a Disability by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

Familial Status
Family status affects housing choices both in the type of housing desired and the ability to afford that housing. Households with more than one adult, especially married couple households, tend to have higher incomes and thus can better afford housing. Mountain View has a lower proportion of married-couple households than Santa Clara County overall and the Bay Area, with 45.3% of households reporting as married-couple families compared to 57% for the county and 51% of the region. Although a minority of households are characterized as married-couple, most children under 18 in Mountain View live in these households. By Census Tract, between 56.9% and 96.4% of children under 18 reside in married-couple households (as shown in Figure 53), with no areas with a majority of children in living in single-parent or

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 124 other non-married couple households. The highest concentrations of children under 18 in married couple households are in the northern and southern portions of Mountain View. For the San Mateo and Santa Clara County Region, the proportion of children in married-couple households ranges from 31.9 to 100 percent, though the tracts with 100% in married-couple households have smaller populations of children under 18.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 125 Figure 53:% of Children in Married-Couple Households, 2015-2019, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 126 Figure 54:% of Children in Married-Couple Households, 2015-2019, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

Households with only one parent or guardian present, especially female-headed households, are more likely to face problems in finding affordable housing. Figure 55 shows the distribution in Mountain View of the% of children in female-headed households with no spouse or partner present in Mountain View. The proportion of children in female-headed households with no spouse or partner present ranges from zero to 37.2 percent. Three Tracts show concentrations greater than 20 percent, located around the center of the City or near San Antonio Center. The highest concentration, at 37.2 percent, is located in Tract 5092.01, bordered by North Shoreline Boulevard, the Central Expressway, Route 85, and US 101. In the two-county region, the proportion of children in female-headed households with no spouse or partner present ranges from zero to 44.7% (see Figure 56). Only four Tracts have concentrations over 40 percent. These tracts can be found in San Jose and Redwood City.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 127 Figure 55:% of Children in Single-Female Headed Households, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 128 Figure 56:% of Children in Single-Female Headed Households, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 129 Income
As shown in Table 26, the median annual household income in Mountain View during the 2015-2019 ACS survey period was $139,720 (2019 dollars), compared to $123,700 in the two-county region. Approximately 47% of the City’s households had incomes of $150,000 or more, compared to 41.4% of households in the two-county region. At the lower end of the income scale, roughly one-fifth of the households in both geographies had incomes less than $50,000.

Table 26: Household Income Distribution and Median Income, 2015-2019

Note: Incomes are in 2019 dollars.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample period, B19001 and S1903; BAE, 2022.

Figure 57 below shows the geographic distribution of households by median household income by Block Group in Mountain View. The median ranges widely, from $67,800 in a small Block Group near the intersection of Rengstorff Avenue and El Camino Real to over $250,000 in multiple Block Groups south of El Camino Real. There are six Block Groups with median household incomes below $100,000. These Block Groups are dispersed throughout the city (see Figure 57). As illustrated in Figure 58, the two-county region shows a broader range of median annual household incomes by Block Group, ranging from $21,250 to over $250,000.

The lower-income Block Groups tend to be located in more urbanized areas, while the highest incomes can be found in more suburban areas, such as Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Woodside.

Household Income Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $14,999 1,808 5.4% 48,211 5.3%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,418 4.2% 38,244 4.2%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,360 4.0% 39,964 4.4%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,916 5.7% 58,461 6.5%
$50,000 to $74,999 2,926 8.7% 96,299 10.7%
$75,000 to $99,999 2,711 8.0% 91,657 10.1%
$100,000 to $149,999 5,840 17.3% 156,622 17.3%
$150,000 and above 15,777 46.7% 374,300 41.4%
Total Households 33,756 100.0% 903,758 100.0%
Median Household Income
San Mateo and Santa
Mountain View Clara Counties
$139,720 $123,699

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 130 Figure 57: Distribution of Median Household Income by Block Group, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample period; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 131

Figure 58: Distribution of Median Household Income by Block Group, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample period; BAE, 2022.

Figure 59 displays additional information regarding income levels in Mountain View, showing the percentage of persons in low- to moderate-income households by Census Tract. The percentage of persons in low- to moderate-income households by Census Tract ranges from

6.5% to 59.9 percent. In the two-county region, the percentage ranges from two to 94% (see Figure 60). There are four Census Tracts in Mountain View where a majority (greater than 50 percent) of the population is low- to moderate-income. These lower-income Tracts are located in the western and northern portions of the City.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 132 Figure 59:% of Low to Moderate Income Population by Census Tract, Mountain View

Sources: HUD; U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2011-2015 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 133

Figure 60:% of Low to Moderate Income Population by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: HUD; U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2011-2015 data.

Figure 61 shows the percentage of the population living in poverty by Census Tract in Mountain View. According to 2015-2019 ACS data, approximately 6.7% of the citywide population lives below the federal poverty limit. By Census Tract, the percentage ranges from

1.5% to 16.4 percent. The two Tracts with the highest concentrations (greater than 10 percent) are located in the San Antonio and Monta Loma/Farley/Rock areas. In the two- county region, the% of the population living in poverty ranges from zero to 43.6 percent. The Tracts with the highest concentrations (greater than 20 percent) are found in downtown San Jose and Redwood City (see Figure 62). There is also one Tract with a high rate of poverty near Stanford University, largely due to the significant student population living there.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 134 Figure 61: Poverty Status by Census Tract, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample period; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 135

Figure 62: Poverty Status by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample period; BAE, 2021.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
To assist communities in identifying racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (also known as RCAPs and ECAPs), HUD developed a definition that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold, as well as a poverty test. The racial and ethnic concentration threshold requires that an RCAP or ECAP have a non-White population of 50% or more. The poverty test defines areas of “extreme poverty” as those where 40% or more of the population lives at or below the federal poverty line, or those where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. Based on these criteria, there are no R/ECAP areas in Mountain View. There are a small number of R/ECAP areas in the larger two-county region in central San Jose and in Gilroy (see Figure 63).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 136

Figure 63: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; HUD; BAE, 2022.

While none of the tracts in Mountain View meet the criteria for a R/ECAP, there are some areas in the city, such as San Antonio, Monta Loma/Farley/Rock, and North Bayshore that have higher concentrations of non-White and lower income populations (see Figure 33 and Figure 59). Table 27 reports the prevalence of poverty by race and ethnicity between 2015 and 2019. The data show that several racial and ethnic groups, including Black or African American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, Hispanic or Latino, and residents of Some Other Race alone, have poverty rates in excess of the citywide average of 6.7 percent.

However, it should be noted that since the ACS is based on a sample, some of the numbers for some of the groups e.g., American Indian and Alaska Native) are subject to a high margin of error.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 137 Table 27: Poverty by Race and Ethnicity, City of Mountain View, 2015-2019

Note:
(a) Includes only those for whom poverty status was determined.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019 five-year sample period, S1701; BAE, 2022.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence R/ECAPs show one side of concentrations by race and wealth. On the other side are “areas of affluence” where non-minority affluent populations are concentrated. HCD devised a measure which calls out Census tracts with relatively high concentrations of both White population and higher household incomes, as detailed in the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool. These areas are designated as “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence,” or RCAAs.

There are no RCAAs in Mountain View or the larger two-county region. However, there are income disparities in the city and the region, as indicated above in the discussion of household income and in Figure 57 and Figure 58. In general, higher incomes are found in the more suburban areas with higher concentrations of non-Hispanic Whites.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity
AB 686 requires the needs assessment to include an analysis of access to opportunities. To facilitate this assessment, HCD and the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened an independent group of organizations and research institutions under the umbrella of the California Fair Housing Task Force, which produces an annual set of Opportunity Maps.

The maps identify areas within every region of the state “whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low- income families – particularly long-term outcomes for children.” 22 22 California Fair Housing Task Force. December 2020. Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.

Available at: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2021-hcd-methodology.pdf Total
Total Below Poverty
Racial/Ethnic Group Population Poverty Rate
White alone 44,333 2,583 5.8%
Black or African American alone 1,268 134 10.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native 324 101 31.2%
Asian alone 25,958 1,684 6.5%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 246 12 4.9%
Some other race alone 5,411 800 14.8%
Two or more races 3,754 164 4.4%
Total, All Races 81,294 5,478 6.7%
Hispanic or Latino 14,757 1,823 12.4%
Not Hispanic or Latino 66,537 3,655 5.5%
Total, All Ethnicities 81,294 5,478 6.7%

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 138 TCAC and HCD created these “Opportunity Maps” using reliable and publicly available data sources to derive 21 indicators used to calculate opportunity index scores for Census tracts in each region in California. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map categorizes Census tracts into five groups based on the opportunity index scores:
 Highest Resource
 High Resource
 Moderate Resource/Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing)  Low Resource
 High Segregation & Poverty

Before an area receives an opportunity index score, some Census tracts are filtered into the High Segregation & Poverty category. The filter identifies Census tracts where at least 30% of the population is below the federal poverty line and there is a disproportionate share of households of color. After filtering out High Segregation and Poverty areas, the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map allocates the 20% of tracts in each region with the highest relative opportunity index scores to the Highest Resource designation and the next 20% to the High Resource designation. The remaining non-filtered tracts are then evenly divided into Low Resource and Moderate Resource categories.

As illustrated in Figure 64, Mountain View has no tracts with High Segregation and Poverty, but otherwise has tracts ranging across the other four categories. The highest resource tracts are largely concentrated in the southern part of the City and overlap with many of the higher- income tracts and many of the tracts with higher concentrations of White residents. There is one Low Resource-designated tract located at the northernmost part of the City (North Bayshore). This tract contains the Shoreline Amphitheatre, and the headquarters of Google, Intuit, and other tech companies, and has relatively small amounts of housing. While this Census Tract is one of the City’s Census tracts with a higher proportion of non-White residents and lower-income residents, that may be a function of the only housing type available (a mobile home park) and limited access to daily goods, services and/or schools. While this could potentially indicate disparities in access to opportunity across racial, ethnic, and income groups, this Census tract also overlaps with the North Bayshore Precise Plan area, which is planned for a mix of uses including residential, office, retail, services, and open space.

Implementation of the North Bayshore Precise Plan will help to improve access to opportunity in this area by bringing services to the neighborhoods that will be created under the plan.

Tracts in San Mateo and Santa Clara County also cover a broad range of categories, although there is one tract with High Segregation and Poverty located in San Jose (see Figure 65). In Santa Clara County, the Highest Resource tracts are largely concentrated in western Santa Clara Valley cities such as Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Los Altos. In San Mateo County, there are high concentrations of Highest Resource tracts in the areas south of the airport in the I-280 corridor and west of US 101, as well as additional areas in Foster City and parts of Redwood City.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 139 Figure 64: 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, Mountain View

Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 140

Figure 65: 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; BAE, 2022.

Access to Education
Most of Mountain View is served by the Mountain View Whisman School District which has approximately 4,400 students enrolled up through eighth grade. Figure 66 shows the location of each of the district’s schools and the elementary school attendance areas.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 141 Figure 66: School Boundaries Map for the Mountain View Whisman School District

Notes:

Mistral Elementary and Stevenson Elementary are Choice Schools available to students throughout the district. Huff Elementary was recently renamed as Amy Imai Elementary.

Source: Mountain View Whisman School District.

Figure 67 shows that there are substantial disparities between elementary schools in their ethnic makeup. These differences in part reflect the residential makeup of the surrounding neighborhoods that feed each of these schools as shown in the discussion of race and ethnicity above. One of the two schools with a majority Latino population is a Spanish language immersion school that is a choice school rather than a neighborhood school.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 142 Figure 67: Mountain View Elementary School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2020-21

Sources: California Department of Education, Ed-Data; BAE, 2021.

The Mountain View Whisman School District also provides the two middle schools that serve the city, and the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High district has three high schools with a total of approximately 4,500 students, serving a district that encompasses Mountain View, Los Altos, parts of Los Altos Hills, and other nearby unincorporated areas. The variation in race and ethnicity at the middle school level is not as significant as for the elementary schools (see Figure 68). The two large high schools (Mountain View and Los Altos) have similar diverse ethnic makeups; Alta Vista, which is a very small (71 students) alternative/continuation school, shows a very different mix, with a student body that is approximately three-fourths Latino, in contrast to one-fourth for the district overall.

27.5% 25.4%

44.6%

3.4% 3.9%

10.6%

35.1%

13.6%

0.8% 1.6%

0.6%

6.0%

0.7%

1.7%

17.4%

29.9%

7.3%

64.5%

87.9%

33.6%

10.9%

44.9%

18.2%

12.7%

12.5%

9.8%

1.6%

12.4% 15.7%

11.0%

34.3% 27.3% 32.5%

22.3%

5.9%

29.3% 35.1% 23.3%

1.8% 3.1% 2.5% 0.7%

8.1%

2.5%

5.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Benjamin
Bubb
Elementary
Edith
Landels
Elementary
Amy Imai
Elementary
Gabriela
Mistral
Elementary
Mariano
Castro
Elementary
Monta
Loma
Elementary
Stevenson
Elementary
Theuerkauf
Elementary
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Two or More Races
White
All Other Groups

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 143 Figure 68: Mountain View Middle and High School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2020-21

Sources: California Department of Education, Ed-Data; BAE, 2021.

One of the factors used to develop the Opportunity Index discussed previously is education.

The Opportunity Index considers three education criteria in equal measure: math proficiency for 4
th graders, reading proficiency for 4th graders, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate, to create an “Education Domain” score ranging from 0 to 100% for each Census Tract (or in some cases, rural block group), with a higher score representing better educational opportunities.
23 Figure 69 shows the Education Domain scores for Mountain View. The geographic distribution for the Education Domain score is very similar to the distribution for the overall Opportunity Index, although high Education Domain scores are additionally found in the northern areas of the City. As illustrated in Figure 70, the scores across the two-county region tend to mirror the scores of the overall Opportunity Index, with high scores tending toward rural areas and lower scores in the more urbanized areas.

23 The methodology for this can be found in https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2021-hcd- methodology.pdf.

10.0% 15.9%

23.2%

2.8%

27.5%2.2%

0.9%

1.3%

2.8%

1.0%

43.1% 40.8% 21.7%

74.6% 27.6%

14.0% 13.2%

10.1%

4.2%

6.3%

24.6% 27.6%

39.8%

14.1%

36.1%

6.0%

1.6% 3.9% 1.4% 1.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Crittenden
Middle
Isaac Newton
Graham Middle
Mountain View
High
Alta Vista High Los Altos High
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Two or More Races
White
All Other Groups

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 144 Figure 69: TCAC Education Domain Score, Mountain View

Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 145 Figure 70: TCAC Education Domain Score, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 146 Access to Employment
HUD has developed the Jobs Proximity Index as a way to measure access to employment opportunities. As stated by HUD:

The Jobs Proximity Index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood (Census Block Group) as a function of its distance to all job locations within a CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily.

The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. Values are percentile ranked with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
24 Located within the Silicon Valley, Mountain View has generally high job proximity index scores, with scores higher than 51 in all of its Census Tracts (see Figure 71). The higher index scores, ranging from 75 to 99, are all located in the northern portions of the City where most of the City’s commercial and industrial areas are located. These are also the portions of the City that include some of the City’s Census tracts with larger non-White and larger low-income populations With the exception of some largely unpopulated rural Block Groups, the areas with high proximity index values in the two-county region are clustered along Highway 101 from the north end of the region down through San Jose, particularly on the Bay side of 101 (see Figure 72).

24 https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/HUD::jobs-proximity-index/about. The index is currently based on U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data from 2014.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 147 Figure 71: Jobs Proximity Index Score, Mountain View

Source: HUD, based on U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2014 Data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 148 Figure 72: Jobs Proximity Index Score, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Source: HUD, based on U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2014 Data.

Access to Transportation
Public transportation is made available through Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Caltrain, and Mountain View Community Shuttle, providing Mountain View residents with multimodal transit options. VTA runs three light rail lines; 19 frequent, 24 local, and four express bus routes; and nine shuttle routes (see Figure 73). Routes operate on a mix of schedules on weekdays, and on select routes, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays

25. VTA routes
also connect transit riders to transit centers, BART, and Caltrain.

Caltrain provides regional commuter rail service along the San Francisco Peninsula from Gilroy to San Francisco and makes a stop in Downtown Mountain View and San Antonio, as shown in Figure 74. Caltrain runs a 104-train schedule on weekdays and more limited service on

25 Visit https://www.vta.org/go/routes for complete route and schedule information.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 149 weekends and holidays. Services include Baby Bullet, Limited Express, and Local Service.

Caltrain riders also can access two free or low-cost shuttle services at the Mountain View station, including the Mountain View Community Shuttle and MVgo.

In partnership with the City, Google, and VTA, Mountain View Transportation Management Association provides a free Mountain View Community Shuttle service throughout the City, making a total of 50 stops. The shuttles run seven days a week: every 30 minutes from 7AM to 7PM on weekdays and every hour from 10AM to 6PM on weekends and holidays.

MVgo’s shuttle service, also provided by Mountain View Transportation Management Association, runs from Monday through Friday, excluding observed holidays. MVgo has four routes
26 that provide access throughout Mountain View. Through a partnership with Waze Carpool, MVgo also offers a $5 subsidy on all carpool trips for people commuting to or from Mountain View.

26 Visit https://mvgo.org/shuttles/ for complete route and schedule information.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 150 Figure 73: VTA System Map

Source: https://vta.org/, October 11, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 151 Figure 74: Caltrain System Map

Source: https://www.caltrain.com/

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 152 The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT)27 has developed a metric, the H+T (Housing and Transportation) Index that takes into account housing and transportation costs for a typical household. By their metric, in order to remain affordable housing costs plus transportation costs should equal 45% or less of total household income. They estimate this burden at the Census block group level, so disparities in this total estimated cost can be seen at a local or a regional level.

Based on these estimates, the Census Block Groups in Mountain View range from 29 to 68% on the index, with many exceeding the 45% threshold for moderate-income households at 80% of AMI, as shown in Figure 75. This means that a household at this income level would, on average, be cost- burdened when considering combined housing and transportation costs. According to the H+T Fact Sheet by CNT, Mountain View has an average H+T cost of 44 percent, which is just below the threshold. Most of the cost-burdened Block Groups are located towards the south of the City, which are mainly comprised of single-family homes occupied by higher-income households.

There are very few areas in the region where a moderate-income household would have housing and transportation costs equal to or less than 45% of total household income. However, some relatively affordable areas exist to the south in San Jose and to the north in Redwood City. Regionwide, the areas with the highest housing and transportation cost burdens can be found in rural areas west of Mountain View (see Figure 76). These areas are generally considered higher-income.

27 https://htaindex.cnt.org/. For more on the methodology, see https://htaindex.cnt.org/about/HTMethods_2016.pdf.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 153 Figure 75: % of Income to Housing + Transportation for a Typical Moderate-Income Household in Mountain View

Source: Housing + Transportation Index, Center for Neighborhood Technology.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 154 Figure 76: % of Income to Housing + Transportation for a Typical Moderate-Income Household in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Source: Housing + Transportation Index, Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Access to a Clean Environment
CalEnviroScreen provides a methodology to assist in identifying whether a local community is disproportionately burdened by pollution. For every Census Tract in the state, CalEnviroScreen produces a score using environmental, health, and socioeconomic information derived from government sources, with higher scores associated with a higher pollution burden. The original layer was developed by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on behalf of the California Environmental Protection Agency and released in early 2017. 28 The analysis here uses
the draft CalEnviroScreen version 4.0, released in the first half of 2021. As shown in Figure 77 below, the highest score (indicating the percentile of the CalEnviroScreen score, or the worst environmental conditions) is found in the northernmost tract in the City north of Highway 101.

28 For more information, see https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 155 Regionally, the highest scores also tend to be concentrated in neighborhoods near Highway 101.

However, there are several Tracts in the region with scores in the highest/worst quartile, indicating that these areas are disproportionately burdened with pollution. These highest-scoring Tracts can be found in cities throughout the region, namely Gilroy, San Jose, East Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Bruno, and South San Francisco (see Figure 78).

Overall, these data suggest that Mountain View is similar to neighboring communities along the Highway 101 corridor with respect to providing access to a clean environment. More specifically, areas between Highway 101 and the Bay tend to have lower CalEnviroScreen scores while these scores generally improve on the opposite side of Highway 101, increasing in conjunction with distance with the Highway.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 156 Figure 77: Areas of High Pollution in Mountain View

Source: DRAFT CalEnviroScreen Version 4.0.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 157 Figure 78: Areas of High Pollution in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Source: DRAFT CalEnviroScreen Version 4.0.

Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk
The following section assesses the extent to which protected classes in Mountain View, particularly members of racial and ethnic minority groups, experience disproportionate housing needs and are at risk for displacement.

Minority Homeownership Rates
According to the available data from the 2015-2019 ACS, the Mountain View homeownership rate is 42 percent, compared to 58% in the two-county region. The lower homeownership rate in Mountain View is reflected across all racial and ethnic groups. Table 28 shows that there are significant racial disparities in homeownership rates in both Mountain View and the larger two-county region. In Mountain View, the homeownership rate is highest for non-Hispanic Whites, at 47 percent, and lowest for householders of some other race alone, at 15 percent. Black and Hispanic/Latino homeownership rates in Mountain View are less than half the rate of non-Hispanic Asians and Whites. In the two-county region, the Black homeownership rate is 52% of the non-Hispanic White

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 158 rate, while the Hispanic/Latino homeownership rate is 60% of the non-Hispanic White rate. These trends likely reflect a combination of market and economic factors and historic discrimination in the housing market in Mountain View and the broader region.

Table 28: Distribution of Homeowners by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View and San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

(a) Includes American Indian and Alaska Native Alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone, and Some Other Race Alone. Categories with less than 100 households in Mountain View were combined with Some Other Race Alone.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 5-year sample data, B25003A-I, BAE, 2022.

Mortgage Loan Approvals by Race/Ethnicity and Income
The inability to obtain a mortgage can be a barrier to home ownership; historically, minorities have tended to have more difficulty obtaining loans, creating a significant barrier to homeownership. An analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for home purchase loan applications in Mountain View in 2020 indicates that loan application and approval rates vary widely by race and ethnicity. As shown in Figure 79, approval rates in 2020 were lowest for Non-Hispanic Blacks and other Non-Hispanic minorities, at 67% and 50 percent, respectively. Notably, both of these groups recorded less than five valid loan applications in 2020, meaning these data are not statistically reliable due to the small sample size. Similarly, while the Hispanic approval and origination rates appear high, at 100 percent, they are based on a total of only seven valid home purchase loan applications in 2020. Nevertheless, these low application rates may be indicative of racial disparities in access to homeownership opportunities in Mountain View.

City of Mountain View
Household Tenure Total Ownership
Householder by Race Owner Renter Households Rate
White Alone 8,852 11,310 20,162 43.9%
Non-Hispanic White Alone 8,223 9,340 17,563 46.8%
Black or African American Alone 104 454 558 18.6%
Asian Alone 4,539 5,934 10,473 43.3%
Some other race alone (a) 258 1,460 1,718 15.0%
Two or more races 303 542 845 35.9%
Total, All Races 14,056 19,700 33,756 41.6%
Hispanic or Latino 914 3,535 4,449 20.5%
San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Household Tenure Total Ownership
Householder by Race Owner Renter Households Rate
White Alone 292,001 185,848 477,849 61.1%
Non-Hispanic White Alone 252,655 136,015 388,670 65.0%
Black or African American Alone 7,747 15,123 22,870 33.9% Asian Alone 181,128 116,583 297,711 60.8%
Some other race alone (a) 25,300 50,676 75,976 33.3%
Two or more races 13,472 15,880 29,352 45.9%
Total, All Races 519,648 384, 110 903,758 57.5%
Hispanic or Latino 65,796 101,870 167,666 39.2%

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 159

Figure 79: Disposition of Home Loans by Race/Ethnicity in Mountain View, 2020

Notes:

Hispanic applicants include all persons claiming Hispanic origin regardless of race. Analysis includes only home purchase loans and excludes those originated by lenders not subject to HMDA. Excludes applications that were withdrawn and files that were closed due to incompleteness. Includes conventional, FHA, FSA/RHS, and VA home loans on 1-4 family single family dwellings by race and ethnicity of applicant. Applications with missing ethnicity data are excluded.

Sources: FFIEC, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data; BAE, 2022.

Prevalence of Housing Problems
Table 29 and Table 30 report the relative prevalence of housing problems among households with incomes equal to, or less than, the area median by race and ethnicity. Households of a given racial or ethnic heritage are considered to have a disproportionately greater need for housing assistance if they experience housing problems at a significantly greater rate (ten percentage points or more) than do households within the same income level as a whole, regardless of race or ethnicity. For example, 76.7% of all extremely low-income households (i.e., household incomes less than 30% of AMI) in Mountain View experienced at least one of the four housing problems between 2014 and 2018 (see Table 29). Extremely low-income Hispanic households experienced housing problems at a significantly greater rate, at 87.9 percent. The results are similar for severe housing problems, with only Hispanic households experiencing severe housing problems at rates that, at one or more income levels, exceed the citywide average by at least ten percentage points (see Table 30).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 160 Table 29: Housing Problems Rate by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View

Notes:

Housing problems include lack of complete kitchen; lack of complete plumbing facility; more than one person per room; cost burden greater than 30% of income. Includes all households within incomes at or below 100% of area median income. Figures may not sum to total due to rounding. Cells highlighted in red indicate sub-groups for which the rate of housing problems exceed the average rate of a given income group by ten percentage points or more.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2022.

Table 30: Severe Housing Problems Rate by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View

Notes:

Housing problems include lack of complete kitchen; lack of complete plumbing facility; more than 1.5 persons per room; cost burden greater than 50% of income. Includes all households within incomes at or below 100% of area median income. Figures may not sum to total due to rounding. Cells highlighted in red indicate sub-groups for which the rate of housing problems exceed the average rate of a given income group by ten percentage points or more.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2022.

Housing Cost Burden
As described in the housing needs assessment, overpayment for housing is defined as a household paying more than 30% of its gross income on housing-related expenses, such as rent, utilities, or mortgage payments. By this measure, 33% of all households in Mountain View were cost-burdened during the 2015-2019 ACS survey period. This proportion is similar to that for Santa Clara County overall.

Figure 80 shows the geographic distribution of overpayment for renters in Mountain View and Figure 81 shows the geographic distribution of overpayment for homeowners. Overall, 37% of renters Percent of AMI Total (b)
Race/Ethnicity 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-100% ≤ 100% AMI
White 76.0% 73.1% 65.9% 56.2% 69.1%
Black/African American 65.0% 90.0% 0.0% 28.6% 58.7%
Asian 70.0% 85.6% 73.5% 59.2% 72.0%
American Indian n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. n.a.

Pacific Islander 0.0% n.a. n.a n.a. 0.0%
Hispanic 87.9% 89.7% 78.8% 59.4% 82.7%
Subtotal, Housing Problems 76.7% 81.3% 72.4% 55.6% 72.9% Average Rate +10% 86.7% 91.3% 82.4% 65.6% 82.9%
Percent of AMI Total
Race/Ethnicity 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% ≤ 100% AMI
White 57.4% 46.2% 27.3% 15.1% 40.0%
Black/African American 65.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.9%
Asian 61.4% 56.8% 45.1% 18.4% 49.0%
American Indian n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Pacific Islander 0.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0%
Hispanic 78.3% 69.0% 43.8% 18.8% 59.6%
Subtotal, Severe Housing Problems 63.3% 53.7% 37.1% 15. 1% 46.5% Average Rate +10% 73.3% 63.7% 47.1% 25.1% 56.5%

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 161 during the 2015-2019 ACS survey period paid 30% or more of their incomes on housing. By Census Tract, the proportion of renters who were overpaying ranged from zero% to 55 percent. For the region, the proportion by Census Tract ranged from zero% to 80 percent, as shown in Figure 82 below. The areas in Mountain View with the highest concentrations of overpaying renters are located in the western and southern portions of the city. These areas vary significantly with respect to the racial and ethnic composition of the population as well as household income levels, as indicated in the maps above in this section.

Unlike the geographic pattern for renters, most of the Census Tracts with higher proportions of overpaying homeowners are located in neighborhoods east of State Highway-85, such as North Whisman and Whisman Station. However, the Tract with the highest share of overpaying homeowners can be found in the western portion of the City in the San Antonio area near Rengstorff Park (Census Tract 5094.03). This tract showed 71% of owner households paying 30% or more of their incomes on housing costs during the 2015-2019 ACS survey period, which was the highest proportion regionally (see Figure 83). As demonstrated above in Figure 59, most of the population living in this tract is considered low- or moderate-income, which may be a contributing factor.

Notably, the housing stock in this Census Tract is almost entirely dominated by rental apartment buildings and complexes, with most of the for-sale inventory consisting of smaller one- and two- bedroom condominium units. Partly due to the characteristics of the housing stock, home sale prices in this area tend to be lower than the citywide average, so it is noteworthy that such a high proportion of homeowners are overpaying for housing in this Census Tract.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 162 Figure 80: Overpayment by Renters, Mountain View

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 163 Figure 81: Overpayment by Homeowners, Mountain View

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 164 Figure 82: Overpayment by Renters, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 165 Figure 83: Overpayment by Homeowners, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 166 Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding of residential units, in which there is more than one person per room, can be a potential indicator that households are experiencing economic hardship and are struggling to afford housing. Citywide, approximately seven% of housing units are considered overcrowded. By Census Tract, the proportion of overcrowded households ranges from one to 21 percent. The Tracts located in the San Antonio area have the highest rates of overcrowding, with the proportion of overcrowded households exceeding ten percent. Census Tract 5094.03 has the highest proportion of overcrowded units, at 21% (see Figure 84). As mentioned above, this Tract also has the highest percentage of the population with incomes below the federal poverty level, suggesting that many households in this area are likely struggling to afford suitable housing.

In the two-county region, the proportion of overcrowded households by Tract ranges from zero to 41 percent. Of the populated Tracts, 38% have a higher proportion of overcrowded households than the statewide average. Most of these Tracts are in urban areas in the region, in both counties (see Figure 85).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 167 Figure 84: Overcrowded Households, Mountain View

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 168 Figure 85: Overcrowded Households, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

Resident Displacement
Table 31 reports the number of households by income level and tenure by housing cost burden. A household is considered to have a moderate housing cost burden if housing expenses exceed 30% of income, and to have a severe cost burden when housing expenses exceed 50% of income.

Particularly for lower-income households, having housing costs that exceed 30% of household income often means that households are unable to afford housing while also meeting other basic needs such as food and healthcare. Between 2014 and 2018, there were an estimated 7,765 renter households who earned less than 100% of HUD-Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) and spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing in Mountain View. These households are more likely than others to experience displacement as a result of increasing housing costs especially if they reside in units not covered by rent stabilization. There were also an estimated 3,945 owner households with incomes at or below 100% of HAMFI and moderate or severe housing costs burden during this period. Owner households are generally less susceptible to housing displacement because owners typically have a fixed mortgage payment, although low-income owner households

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 169 may still experience displacement pressure if they lack the resources for upkeep and maintenance of their property or if they experience a reduction in income due to a job loss or other factors.

Table 31: Housing Cost Burdens by Income Bracket and Tenure, City of Mountain View

Notes:
(a) CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits. HAMFI stands for HUD Area Median Family Income. (b) Totals do not equal the sum of individual figures due to independent rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2022.

As discussed above, Hispanic households are disproportionately likely to experience one or more housing problems (see Table 29 and Table 30) than the population overall. Hispanic households in Mountain View are also far more likely to be housing cost burdened, with the majority of Hispanic households in the city devoting more than 30% of their income towards housing. As shown in Figure 86 below, 53% of Hispanic households in Mountain View are housing cost burdened, compared to 29% of non-Hispanic White households. This could indicate that Hispanic and Latinx households are Household Income Brackets (a) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent HH Income <=30% HAMFI (b) 3,040 100.0% 1,325 100.0% 4,365 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 320 10.5% 290 22.0% 610 14.0% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 380 12.5% 205 15.5% 585 13.4% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 2,020 66.4% 700 53.0% 2,720 62.4% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 320 10.5% 125 9.5% 445 10.2% HH Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI (b) 1,785 100.0% 840 100.0% 2,625 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 250 14.0% 335 39.9% 585 22.3% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 545 30.6% 355 42.3% 900 34.4% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 985 55.3% 150 17.9% 1,135 43.3% HH Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI (b) 1,700 100.0% 830 100.0% 2,530 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 335 19.7% 450 54.2% 785 31.0% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 995 58.5% 125 15.1% 1,120 44.3% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 370 21.8% 255 30.7% 625 24.7% HH Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI 1,240 100.0% 950 100.0% 2,190 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 445 35.9% 595 62.6% 1,040 47.5% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 700 56.5% 240 25.3% 940 42.9% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 95 7.7% 115 12.1% 210 9.6% HH Income >100% HAMFI (b) 11,930 100.0% 10,075 100.0% 22,005 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 10,800 90.5% 8,545 84.9% 19,345 87.9% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 1,100 9.2% 1,350 13.4% 2,450 11.1% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 35 0.3% 175 1.7% 210 1.0% Total Households (b) 19,695 100.0% 14,015 100.0% 33,705 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 12,150 61.7% 10,215 72.9% 22,365 66.4% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 3,720 18.9% 2,275 16.2% 5,995 17.8% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 3,505 17.8% 1,395 10.0% 4,900 14.5% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 320 1.6% 125 0.9% 445 1.3% Renter Households Owner Households All Households

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 170 disproportionately impacted by displacement risk compared to other racial and ethnic groups in Mountain View.

Figure 86: Housing Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 171 Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
The table below summarizes known fair housing issues and their contributing factors, as identified through the Assessment of Fair Housing provided above. This section was also informed by the City of Mountain View’s federal Assessment of Fair Housing document, which was in preparation concurrent with the preparation of the City’s sixth cycle Housing Element Update.

Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor

1. The high cost of housing
in Mountain View
contributes to disparities in
access to opportunity.

Mountain View generally has low levels of segregation within City limits and offers high access to opportunity citywide, including in areas with large non-White and/or lower-income populations. However, the City’s high housing costs makes it more difficult for lower-income and moderate-income households to find housing in Mountain View, which is a primary factor that has led Mountain View to be less racially and ethnically diverse than the region. Because Mountain View provides high access to opportunity but lower levels of diversity than the region overall, barriers to securing housing in Mountain View also create disparities in access to opportunity. The City of Mountain View undertakes numerous actions to facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing, which help to mitigate these disparities.

2. Many lower-income
Mountain View residents
have been impacted by
displacement, while others
currently face displacement
risk.

Many lower-income residents in Mountain View experience high housing cost burdens, putting them at risk of displacement. In addition, prior to the implementation of SB 330, many Mountain View residents have been displaced due to the demolition of rent-stabilized units and redevelopment of these sites as higher-cost rental and townhome developments. Mountain View’s Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act, Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and Tenant Relocation Ordinance help to prevent or mitigate the impact of displacement of existing residents. SB 330 and other changes to State law have largely prevented ongoing demolition of rent-stabilized units and other lower-cost rental units in Mountain View.

3. Mountain View’s high-
cost housing market
disproportionately impacts
non-White and special
needs households, who
tend to have lower incomes
and therefore a
disproportionate need for
affordable housing.

Many special needs populations and households, such as persons with disabilities, seniors on fixed incomes, and single parent households, tend to have low incomes and are therefore disproportionately impacted by the high cost of housing in Mountain View. As a result, special needs populations and non-White residents are impacted by Mountain View’s high housing costs to a greater degree than other households. The City of Mountain View undertakes a range of actions to facilitate the production and preservation of affordable and special needs housing, and the Housing Element includes several policies to advance these goals.

4. Some special-needs
groups face a mismatch
between the supply of
housing in Mountain View
and the type of housing
needed to address their
specific needs.

Mountain View has a shortage of affordable housing options for some households and individuals with special housing needs, including lower- income large family households, individuals with disabilities, individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and those in need of supportive services. Market-rate units do not typically address these special needs, while significant funding gaps lead to a shortage of affordable units to address these needs. These challenges are not unique to Mountain View, and Mountain View has engaged in actions to address these gaps, such as participating in two State Homekey applications.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 172

To advance the objective to affirmatively further fair housing in Mountain View, Goal 2 of the Housing Plan portion of Mountain View’s sixth cycle Housing Element Update is “An inclusive and equitable community where housing assistance is available and accessible.” The fair housing issues and related contributing factors listed above are key priorities for achieving this goal. Most of the programs in the Housing Plan consist of actions that will serve to address these issues and contributing factors. Relevant programs include:
 Program 1.1: Zoning Ordinance Update (Fair Housing Issues 1, 3, and 4)  Program 1.2: Community Sites for Housing (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)  Program 1.3: Conservation of Units (Fair Housing Issues 1, 2, and 3)  Program 1.4: Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)
 Program 1.5: Density Bonus (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)  Program 1.6: No Net Loss (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)  Program 1.10: Park Land Dedication Ordinance (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)  Program 1.11: BMR Program Review (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)  Program 2.1: Subsidize and support affordable housing programs to meet an array of housing needs, with particular emphasis on underserved populations (Fair Housing Issues 1,

3. and 4)
 Program 2.2: Inclusive and equitable affordable housing application process (Fair Housing Issue 3)
 Program 2.3: Mediation and Fair Housing Programs (Fair Housing Issues 2 and 3)  Program 2.4: Reasonable Accommodation (Fair Housing Issues 3 and 4)  Program 2.5: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (Fair Housing Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4)  Program 3.1: Homelessness Prevention and Services for the Unhoused (Fair Housing Issues 2 and 4)
 Program 3.2: Displacement Prevent and Mitigation (Fair Housing Issues 1, 2, and 3)  Program 4.1: Development Streamlining and Processing Revisions (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)
 Program 4.2: Federal and State Policy Initiatives (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)  Program 4.3: Financial Support for Subsidized Housing (Fair Housing Issues 1, 3, and 4)  Program 4.4: Partnerships to Support Affordable Housing (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)  Program 4.5: Partnerships with Subsidized Housing Developers (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)  Program 4.7: Neighborhood Engagement (Fair Housing Issues 1 and 3)

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix C: Projected Housing Needs 173 APPENDIX C: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
A key component of any Housing Element Update is identifying adequate sites to address the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines state-wide projected housing needs and allocates new housing unit target numbers to regional councils of government (COGs). State law (California Government Code Section 65584) provides for COGs to then prepare and adopt plans that assign a “fair share” of the region’s housing construction need to each city and county. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the COG that determines fair-share portions of state allocations for the City of Mountain View.

The City’s RHNA requirements for the 2023-2031 Housing Element projection period are summarized in Table 32. For the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, the City of Mountain View is required to plan to accommodate the development of at least 11,135 housing units. This includes 2,773 units for very low-income households, 1,597 units for low-income households, 1,885 units for moderate-income households, and 4,880 units for above moderate-income households.

Table 32: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Income Group Number
of Units
Percent
of Total
Very Low 2,773 25%
Low 1,597 14%
Moderate 1,885 17%
Above Moderate 4,880 44%
TOTAL 11,135 100%
Source: ABAG, 2021.

Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households
Although the RHNA does not include allocations for extremely low-income households, Housing Element Law requires that jurisdictions estimate the need for housing units affordable to extremely low-income households and plan to accommodate this need. Extremely low-income households are those with income less than 30% of area median income. In Santa Clara County, 30% of the AMI is the equivalent to an annual income of $49,700 for a family of four. Households with extremely low incomes have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as supplemental security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance, are considered extremely low-income households. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix C: Projected Housing Needs 174 professionals – can also fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in these industries.

HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low- income households (those making zero to 50% AMI) to calculate their projected need to house extremely low-income households. HCD provides three methodologies for estimating this need: 1) allocate the% of very low-income need to extremely low-income households based on the ABAG region’s proportion; 2) allocate the% of very low-income need to extremely low -income households based on the current proportion for Mountain View; 3) assume that 50% of Mountain View’s very low- income RHNA is for extremely low-income households. To estimate the projected housing need for extremely low-income households, 50% of Mountain View’s 2,773 very low-income RHNA units are assumed to serve extremely low-income households. Based on this methodology, the City has a projected need of 1,387 units for extremely low-income households over the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 175 APPENDIX D: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Sections 65583(a)(5) and 65583(a)(6) of the California Government Code state that the purpose of a Housing Element is to identify governmental and non-governmental factors (constraints) that inhibit the development, maintenance, or improvement of housing. The Housing Element must analyze “potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified for persons with disabilities, land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.” Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take action on any unnecessary constraints and to mitigate or remove them. A thorough understanding of the constraints to development can help to create appropriate policy responses to mitigate constraints and also make it easier and more affordable to affirmatively further fair housing development.

The following sections analyze the various governmental, market, and environmental factors that may constrain the production of affordable housing in Mountain View. These include infrastructure availability, environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and public opinion.

Governmental Constraints
Government regulations are required because the housing market on its own does not produce the range of housing to meet the spectrum of needs. Conversely, these actions can affect housing costs by limiting the supply of buildable land, setting standards and allowable densities for development, and exacting fees for the use of land or the construction of homes. Potential regulatory constraints include local land use policies (as defined in a community’s general plan), zoning regulations and their accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, growth control ordinances or urban limit lines, and development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may represent regulatory constraints.

Since the adoption of the 2015-2023
Housing Element, updated State legislation related to housing has been incorporated into the California Government Code and Mountain View City Code (City Code or Zoning Ordinance). These regulatory considerations have been incorporated into the analysis and are mentioned throughout in specific instances where governmental constraints are applicable.

To inform the following analysis of governmental constraints, the City of Mountain View commissioned an economic analysis to evaluate the impact that various local governmental requirements have on the feasibility of residential development in Mountain View. The economic analysis evaluated the impact of the City’s requirements related to affordable housing, parks, transportation impact fees, transportation demand management, community benefits, parking, design, building, and infrastructure, as well as the impact of City processing times and school district fees and taxes. The analysis classified the impact that each of these requirements have on development costs as “minimal,” “moderate, “ or “major,” depending on the magnitude of the

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 176 impact. This analysis is presented in Appendix H. Findings related to each of these topic areas are discussed in the appropriate subsections below.

Land Use Designations and Zoning
Land use controls take a number of forms that affect the development of housing. One example of land use control is the City’s General Plan, which establishes the City’s overall vision of preservation and change. On July 10, 2012, the Mountain View City Council adopted the 2030 General Plan. The General Plan includes revised land use designations that describe the general distribution and intensity of land uses in Mountain View. The 2030 General Plan creates several new mixed-use land use designations and identifies several action items that call for the comprehensive review and update of the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plans. To implement the General Plan, Title 36 of the Mountain View Zoning Ordinance identifies corresponding zoning districts. Zoning has the most immediate impact on the construction of new housing. The City’s zoning and development regulations establish permitted uses within each zone and standards that dictate how much development can occur on a given parcel of land by setting parameters such as maximum densities, height, setback, and lot coverage.

 R1 Single-Family Residential. The R1 district is intended for detached, single-family housing and related uses compatible with a family living environment allowing up to 6 dwelling units per acre. This district is consistent with the low-density residential land use designation in the City’s General Plan. Minimum lot areas in the R1 district range from 6,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The maximum building height is 24 feet for single-story homes and 28 feet for two-story structures. Senate Bill 9 (the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act) went into effect on January 1, 2022. The bill allows a housing development containing two residential units on one lot within the R1 district without discretionary review or a public hearing, subject to certain criteria as well as a lot split to create two lots from one lot. The provisions of SB 9 are applied in tandem with the City's existing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) standards, resulting in the potential for up to four residential units on an eligible R1-zoned property.
 R2 One- and Two-Family Residential. The R2 zoning district, consistent with the medium-low density residential land use designation of the General Plan, is intended for single-family dwellings, duplexes, low-density rowhouse and townhouse developments, small-lot single- family developments, and similar and related compatible uses. This zone allows for up to 12 dwelling units per acre. This district requires minimum lot sizes of 7,000 square feet and allows maximum building heights of 24 feet for single-story structures and 30 feet for two- story structures.
 R3 Multi-family Residential. The R3 district is intended for multi-family housing including apartments, condominiums, rowhouse and townhouse development, small-lot single-family development, and similar and related compatible uses. This district is consistent with the medium, medium-high, and high-density residential land use designation of the General Plan, which allow up to 25, 35, and 80 dwelling units per acre, respectively. This district allows densities of 13 to 55 dwelling units per acre, although the specific density allowed depends on the lot size with larger parcels capable of achieving higher densities. The minimum lot size

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 177 is 12,000 square feet. However, lots in small-lot single-family, townhomes, and rowhouse developments approved through the planned unit development (PUD) process may be smaller. The maximum height is 45 feet. The City is currently updating the R3 zoning district development standards to incorporate form-based zoning standards, incentivize stacked-flat development, and amend the City’s Design Guidelines.
 R4 High Density Residential and Multi-family. The R4 zoning district, consistent with the General Plan’s high density residential land use designation, is intended for multi-family housing including apartments and condominiums, located near transit, and not adjacent to R1 and R2 areas. This district allows for densities of up to 80 dwelling units per acre.

Depending on the number of stories, the maximum building height ranges from 62 feet to 70 feet.
 RMH Mobile Home Park. The RMH district allows for mobile homes within a mobile home park or mobile home subdivision with shared recreational and open space facilities. This district is consistent with the General Plan’s mobile home park residential land use designation. The maximum density in the RHM district is 14 dwelling units per acre.  CRA Arterial Commercial-Residential. The CRA zoning district permits a broad range of commercial, office, and residential uses along the City’s major arterials. The maximum residential density in the CRA district is 43 dwelling units per acre and the maximum building height is 45 feet, 35 feet to the top of the wall plate. For residential and mixed-use projects, the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet.

The City’s zoning code, specific development standards for each zone, as well as other ordinances and the General Plan can be reviewed online through the City’s website.

Precise Plans
Precise Plans are a planning mechanism used to coordinate future public and private improvements on specific properties where special conditions of size, shape, land ownership, or existing or desired development require particular attention. Precise Plans can be exclusively residential, commercial, and industrial, or allow a mix of uses. Currently 21 of the 25 Precise Plan areas in the City of Mountain View allow residential uses. Precise Plans are generally more flexible than traditional zoning standards and are designed to address local conditions and opportunities. These Precise Plans contain broad goals and objectives and establish development and design standards for the specific locations. The development standards in the Precise Plans have the same legal status as traditional zoning district standards.

Several of the City’s Precise Plans (including Downtown, San Antonio, El Camino Real, East Whisman, and North Bayshore) regulate density by floor area ratio (FAR), rather than dwelling units per acre.

This supports the City’s goal to allow developers the flexibility to create more units while providing a predictable building envelope. The net result of this policy has been the creation of hundreds of additional units, while limiting height, bulk, and character effects on surrounding neighborhoods.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 178 As described in Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory, the majority of the City’s sites inventory for accommodating the housing need for this cycle falls within these Precise Plan areas.

The residential development standards for these Precise Plans are summarized below:

 Downtown Precise Plan. The Downtown Precise Plan allows residential development up to 30 to 60 units per acre and an FAR range of 1.0 to 2.75. Parking requirements range from

1.5 spaces per unit for studios and one-bedroom units to 2.0 spaces per unit for two- bedroom and larger units. Residential developments must also provide 0.3 spaces per unit for guest parking. The Precise Plan is subdivided into 10 subareas, each with its own unique characteristics and development standards. Maximum density in the Precise Plan is determined by sliding scales for different subareas based on the lot area. The Plan was last updated in June 2019.
 San Antonio Precise Plan. The 2030 General Plan establishes five “change” areas, where new, higher intensity land uses are allowed, one of which is the San Antonio area. The San Antonio Precise Plan allows residential development with intensities of up to 1.85 to 2.35 FAR (roughly 60 to 80 units per acre), depending on location. The San Antonio Precise Plan also includes reduced development standards (i.e., parking requirements) and other incentives for affordable and higher density residential development. The Plan was last updated in May 2019.
 El Camino Real Precise Plan. El Camino Real was established as a “change area” in the 2030 General Plan. Change area direction from the plan includes: a diverse mix of land uses, improved connections to and between neighborhoods, and the creation of a vibrant, multi- modal corridor. Residential development in the El Camino Real Precise Plan ranges from

1.35 to 2.30 FAR (roughly 50 to 75 units per acre). Larger developments are required to provide community benefits such as open space, affordable housing, and mobility improvements. The Precise Plan also includes reduced development standards (i.e., parking requirements) and other incentives for affordable and higher density residential development. The Plan was last updated in June 2019.
 East Whisman Precise Plan. The East Whisman Precise Plan calls for a mix of offices, neighborhood-serving commercial, multi-family residential, lodging, and small businesses.

The purpose of the Precise Plan is to foster a sustainable, transit-oriented residential neighborhood and employment center with an increased diversity of land uses and mobility choices. To achieve this intent, the East Whisman Precise Plan splits the plan area into three “Character Areas”: (1) Mixed Use Character Area, (2) Employment Character Area, and (3) Village Center Character Area. Height limits range from 60 feet to 120 feet within the Mixed Use and Employment Character Areas of the plan, and are 50 feet within the Village Center Character Area. For residential development within the Mixed-Use Character Area, there are an additional three categories of development intensity: High, Medium, and Low. The maximum FAR for residential development is up to 3.50 FAR in High Intensity development locations (up to about approximately 150 units per acre), up to 2.50 FAR in Medium Intensity development locations (up to approximately 100 units per acre), and finally, up to 1.85 FAR in Low Intensity development locations (up to approximately 75 units per acre). The Village

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 179 Center Character Area allows up to 1.35 FAR (up to approximately 50 units per acre). The Plan was last updated in October 2020.
 North Bayshore Precise Plan. An objective of the North Bayshore Precise Plan is to create complete neighborhoods that integrate and connect residential uses with office, retail, service uses, and open spaces. The Precise Plan area is divided into three Complete Neighborhoods (Joaquin, Shorebird, and Pear) and organized into four Character Areas (Gateway, Core, General, and Edge). Height limits for residential buildings range from four stories (55 feet) to 15 stories (160 feet) within the Complete Neighborhood Areas of the Plan. The maximum FAR for residential development is up to 4.5 FAR in the Gateway and Core Character Areas (up to approximately 200 units per acre), up to 3.5 FAR in the General Character Area (up to approximately 160 units per acre), and up to 1.85 FAR in the Edge Character Area (up to approximately 100 units per acre). Expected unit densities are higher in North Bayshore because the Plan puts a special emphasis on smaller, workforce units. The Plan was last updated in October 2020.

Design Guidelines
The City has design guidelines for different housing types for various non-standard unit types. The City’s zoning districts determine which unit types are allowed, but the design guidelines provide developers with the City’s design expectation for small-lot, single-family units, townhouse, rowhouse, and units in the R4 zoning districts. The following section is a summary of the different guidelines and unit types. As discussed above, the City commissioned an economic analysis as part of this Housing Element Update to evaluate the impact of various City requirements, including residential design requirements, on the cost of residential development. That analysis found that the City’s design requirements have a minimal impact on residential development costs.

Small-Lot Single-Family Guidelines
Small-lot single-family developments are detached single-family homes typically built on 3,000 to 4,000 square feet lots with a minimum private yard area of 15 feet by 15 feet. With a density range of 7 to 10 units per acres, it bridges the gap between conventional single-family homes (1 to 6 units per acre) and rowhomes and multi-family housing, such as apartments and condominiums.

Small-lot single-family development is permitted in the City’s R2 and R3 zoning districts. A small-lot, single-family development does not comply with many of the standard zoning requirements of the R2 and R3 zones, and therefore, a PUD permit is required. The PUD allows exceptions to the standard zoning requirements and is intended to encourage innovative housing design and to allow variations for properties with unique lot sizes and special development needs. In addition to a PUD, a developer would need to obtain a Tentative Map or Preliminary Parcel Map (depending on the number of lots), and a Development Review Permit (DRP) for site plan and architectural review of projects. Small-lot, single-family townhomes and rowhouses are also permitted in some Precise Plans. The permit is different in Precise Plans, but the process and timing are similar. In place of a PUD, an applicant would need to obtain a Planned Community Permit (PCP).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 180 Townhouse Guidelines
Townhouses are two- to three-story attached dwellings with a private yard area. Townhouses are intended to provide opportunities for home ownership with many characteristics of single-family homes, such as large floor area, private yards, and ground-floor front doors. The guidelines require private yards with a minimum dimension of 15 feet. Attached garages are characteristic of this building type, but parking may also be provided in detached garages, parking courts, or some combination of garage type, typically on the same side as the unit entrance. The allowable density is 12 units per acre, but densities of 14 units per acre may be approved if the proposed average unit size is less than 1,400 square feet, including garage, and the total amount of paving coverage is less than 20 percent of lot area.

Rowhouse Guidelines
A rowhouse is a one-family dwelling unit that is aligned in a row with each unit facing a street or open space. Rowhouses have alley-loaded garages on the opposite side of the front door. Rowhouses provide ownership opportunities with many characteristics of single-family homes, such as the privacy of no upstairs neighbors, large floor area, front porches, and attached car garages. The rowhouse guidelines recommend a minimum lot size of 0.5 acre and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. Rowhouses differ from townhouses in that rowhouses can be built at a higher density and the garages for rowhouses face the rear of the unit.

R4 Guidelines
The R4 guidelines were developed to encourage high-density residential development in standard residential zones. The R4 guidelines are intended to provide guidance to those who develop stacked flats (apartments and condominiums) and to better integrate these types of developments into existing neighborhoods.

The R4 guidelines require a 1-acre minimum lot size and allow for densities up to 80 units per acre.

R4 development cannot be contiguous to R1 or R2 zoning districts and should be within walking distance of transit stations and nearby arterial streets. The R4 guidelines only apply to the City’s R4 zoning district. If a developer meets all the standards for the district and does not pursue ownership units, they would need to obtain a DRP Permit. If ownership units (condominiums) are proposed, a developer would need to attain a PUD, DRP, and Tentative Map.

Precise Plans
Many of the City’s Precise Plans, including all five of the Plans listed above, also include design guidelines that supplement the standards and special conditions in these areas. The guidelines address issues such as: the massing of large buildings, the quality and detail of finish materials, the size and shape of windows and roof lines, the relationship between public and private open areas, and the design of service and utility areas. In general, these design guidelines are not meant to limit development density or intensity and can be applied without reducing residential capacity.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 181 Parking
Parking requirements may serve as a constraint on housing development by increasing development costs and reducing the amount of land available for project amenities or additional units. In addition, the average cost of development per parking space varies widely, depending on whether parking will be included as underground parking or at-grade parking, as well as site conditions. Costs associated with this development range from $30,000 to up to $90,000 per parking space. The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update (see Appendix H) found that increased parking requirements have a moderate impact on residential development costs. As shown in Table 33, off-street residential parking requirements vary by housing type. Parking requirements range from one space per unit for efficiency studios to two spaces for single-family homes and multi-family units with one or more bedrooms. Some types of housing are also required to provide guest parking. In multi-family developments, 15 percent of the required parking spaces must be conveniently located for guest parking. Parking requirements established for Precise Plans supersede the provisions of required parking spaces for other development types. Of note, the East Whisman and North Bayshore Precise Plans designate parking maximums (and no minimums) for many new residential development projects. Other developments such as small-lot single-family homes, townhouses, and rowhouses must provide additional guest parking above the parking for the individual units. The additional guest parking requirements range from 0.3 spaces per unit for rowhouses to 0.6 spaces per unit for townhouses. The combined off-street parking for residents and guests ranges from 2.3 spaces per rowhouse unit to 2.6 spaces per townhouse unit. The Zoning Ordinance also requires bicycle parking for most housing types to encourage alternative forms of transportation. Development requesting parking reductions as part of a density bonus incentive is required to maintain affordability in compliance with specific criteria for unit types.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 182 Table 33: Off-Street Parking Requirements
Housing Unit Parking Required Bicycle Parking Required
Accessory Dwelling
1 space per unit, except near
public transit or where the
ADU is replacing a garage or
where other conditions apply
None
Multi-family (R3 & R4)
Studio: 1.5 spaces per unit, 1
space shall be covered
1-bedroom unit less than or
equal to 650 sf; 1.5 spaces
per unit, 1 space shall be
covered
1-bedroom unit greater than
650 sf; 2 spaces per unit, 1
space shall be covered
Units with 2 or more
bedrooms: 2 spaces per unit,
1 space shall be covered.

Guest parking: 15% of the
parking spaces required will
be reserved for guest
parking(a)
1 space per unit; 1 space per
10 units for guest parking
Multi-Family (El Camino Real
and San Antonio)
Studio and 1-bedroom: 1
space per unit
2-bedroom and larger: 2
spaces per unit
Guest parking: 15% of the
parking spaces required will
be reserved for guest parking
1 space per unit; 1 space per
10 units for guest parking
Multi-Family (North Bayshore
and East Whisman)
Various maximums apply and
no minimums Varies
Rooming and Boarding
Houses Parking Study Required Parking Study Required
Senior Care Facility Parking Study Required Parking Study Required Senior Congregate Care 1.15 spaces per unit (half
spaces covered) 2% of vehicle spaces
Single-Family/Duplex 2 spaces per unit (1 covered) None Efficiency Studios 1 space per unit, plus 1 space
per non-resident employee(b) 1 space per 10 units
Small Lot, Single-Family
2 spaces per unit (1 covered).

0.5 spaces per unit for guest
parking
None

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 183 Housing Unit Parking Required Bicycle Parking Required
Townhouse
2 spaces per unit (1 covered).

0.6 spaces per unit for guest
parking
1 space per unit
Rowhouse
Studio: 1.5 spaces per unit
1-Bedroom or more: 2 spaces
covered per unit; 0.3 spaces
per unit for guest parking
1 space per unit
Source: Mountain View City Code Section A36.37.040, 2021.

Notes:
(a) The Zoning Administrator may increase the parking requirement to 2.3 spaces per unit if needed to ensure adequate guest parking. Refer to Mountain View City Code Section A36.37.040 on model parking standards for details. Parking standards may differ between Precise Plans.
(b) Reduction of up to 0.5 spaces may be granted through the conditional use permit process.

The Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in off-street parking requirements through a Conditional Use Permit. Applicants must demonstrate that changes in conditions or issues justify a reduction, and that the reduction would not result in a parking deficiency. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance includes several specific exceptions to parking standards. Applicants requesting a parking reduction must submit a parking management plan that ensures parking space availability.

The City modified several parking requirements for both parking and bicycle parking to align with model parking standards for multi-family residential projects. These parking standards put in place lower parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The model parking standard requires one parking space for studio and one-bedroom units, two parking spaces for two-bedroom units or more units, and 15 percent of the required vehicle spaces available for guests. This standard was adopted in the El Camino Real and San Antonio Precise Plans. Housing Element Program 1.1 states that the City will complete a review of development standards, which could include parking requirements, in at least one zoning district by December 31, 2025, and modify standards to address feasibility constraints. Parking requirements under the State Density Bonus Law supersede the City’s parking standards. In many cases, these parking requirements can be as low as 0.5 parking spaces per unit.

Cumulative Impacts of Development Standards
The cumulative impacts of Mountain View’s development standards and parking requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plans do not appear to unduly constrain residential development in the City, especially in recently adopted Precise Plans. Multi-family developments in these Precise Plan areas have consistently been approved or constructed to the maximum density (or higher pursuant to State Density Bonus Law or other provisions), including the projects at 950 West El Camino Real, 801 West El Camino Real, 2268 West El Camino Real, 2700 West El Camino Real, 400 Logue Avenue, 400 San Antonio Road, and 2580 California Street. This is evident in the precedent projects analysis in Appendix E.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 184 Other development types, such as rowhouses and small-lot single family units, tend to be constrained by the development type rather than standards applicable to the zone (e.g., only so many detached single-family homes can fit on a lot).

Inclusionary Housing
The City of Mountain View has adopted and incorporated a Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program as part of its Zoning Ordinance. City Council initiated a process to make updates to the City’s BMR Housing Program requirements, which were completed in June 2019. The primary goal of the updates was for the BMR program to create actual BMR units integrated with market-rate development instead of receiving in-lieu fees. To accomplish this objective, the BMR in-lieu fees were set at a level proportional to the number of market rate units proposed. Developers of any residential project involving the creation of one or more dwelling units (except ADUs) or the conversion of rental units to ownership units shall meet the requirements of the BMR Housing Program. Projects involving fewer than seven units may pay an in-lieu fee, while projects with seven units or more must provide on-site BMR units. A project with seven or more units may pay an in-lieu fee for a fractional BMR unit when the BMR obligation results in a fractional BMR unit that is less than 0.5 (i.e., less than half a unit).

All rental developments must provide 15 percent of the total number of units to low-income or very- low-income tenants, with two income levels provided for a weighted average income level at less than or equal to 65 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). The weighted average approach provides developers flexibility. Ownership units other than rowhouses and townhouses must include 15 percent of the total number of ownership units affordable to moderate-income households, to a minimum of two income levels, with a weighted average income level of 100 percent AMI.

Rowhouse or townhouse ownership units in residential developments must provide a 25 percent on- site requirement to moderate-income households with 15 percent affordable to a weighted average of 100 percent AMI and 10 percent affordable to a weighted average of 135 percent AMI. All BMR units provided by developers must be integrated throughout the development and be comparable to market rate units in terms of size and design.

The BMR Housing Program does allow for alternative mitigation measures, such as land dedication or the provision of off-site units, if the City Council determines that such alternative measures will further the availability of affordable housing opportunities in the City to a greater extent than providing BMR units on-site.

BMR in-lieu fees are used by the City to address other housing needs, such as assisting households earning less than 50 percent of AMI. For example, BMR in-lieu fees are used for downtown multi- family development that will provide rental housing for extremely low- and very low-income families in Mountain View. These fees are leveraged with other fees and outside funding sources (including state programs) to help subsidize 100 percent affordable developments.

The City has two different sources of local affordable housing funds: BMR in-lieu fees, and Housing Impact Fees on new commercial/office development. As of July 1, 2021, the City had over $47

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 185 million in BMR funds and over $25 million in Housing Impact funds. The fund balance allows the Council to subsidize new affordable housing projects and other housing initiatives. Of the $72 million, over $50 million had already been reserved or planned for affordable housing projects and housing initiatives. The City also has a pipeline of housing projects that will continue to draw from these funds, and in fact, will likely outpace the replenishment of these funds.

The City continually reviews its inclusionary housing program and is scheduled for the first review of the 2019 guidelines in late 2022. City staff’s review will include an assessment as to the effect of the program on housing production. Local developers interviewed during this Housing Element Update did not generally cite the City’s inclusionary ordinance as a constraint, though one reported that the recently adopted 25 percent inclusionary requirement for townhouses and rowhouses could make development of these types of units more challenging. However, the economic returns for these units have been historically high, with the analysis supporting that developers can bear this requirement. The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update found that on-site inclusionary requirements and BMR in-lieu fees account for 13 percent of townhouse development costs and nine percent of multifamily rental development costs; however, while the BMR obligation is an added development cost, it is necessary in that the ordinance contributes to fair housing and equity, and achieves more affordable units The City’s pipeline projects are evidence that significant BMR units can be provided through the City’s BMR program.

Housing Element Program 1.11 states that the City will review and revise its BMR program requirements as needed in 2022 and in 2027 to reflect community needs for affordable and market rate housing.

Park Dedication
The City of Mountain View requires developers of residential subdivisions as well as single-family dwellings, duplexes, multi-family dwellings, mobile homes, rowhouses, and other dwelling units to dedicate park land, pay an in-lieu fee, or both as a condition of approval. The intent of this dedication requirement is so that such developments contribute their fair share toward the purchase, development and/or improvement of park and recreational facilities. If a proposed residential development includes land that has been designated as a park or recreational facility in the General Plan, the developer may be required to dedicate land. Developers are required to pay an in-lieu fee if the development occurs on land on which no park is shown or proposed, where dedication is impossible, impractical, or undesirable, or if the proposed development contains 50 or fewer units. The in-lieu fee is based on the fair market value of the land that otherwise would have been required for dedication.

The required land dedication varies by the proposed project’s density, ranging from 0.0081 acres per dwelling unit for low density development (i.e., one to six units per acre) to 0.0060 acres for medium to high density development (i.e., more than 13 units per acre), which accounts for the vast majority of Mountain view’s residential development. The in-lieu fee is based on the value of land and is adopted every year. In 2021, the park land dedication in-lieu fee for developments of 26 units per acre and above was $240-$280 per required square feet of land, equivalent to $62,726 to $73,181 per unit.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 186

Mountain View allows developers to receive credit for privately owned/publicly accessible (POPA) open space provided within their developments. Developers may receive credits for up to 75 percent of their park land dedication requirements for recreational spaces such as turf fields, children play areas, picnic areas, swimming pools, and recreation areas. The City’s ordinance currently exempts affordable units from paying the park in-lieu fee.

The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update found that Mountain View’s park dedication requirements have a moderate to major impact on development costs for rowhouses and a major impact on development costs for multifamily development.

Housing Element Program 1.10 states that by June 2024 the City will review and revise the parkland dedication requirements to maintain access to high quality open space while reducing the financial impact to residential development.

Fees and Exactions
Like cities throughout California, Mountain View collects development fees to recover the capital costs of providing community services and the administrative costs associated with processing applications. New housing typically requires payment of school impact fees, sewer and water connection fees, building permit fees, wastewater treatment plant fees, and a variety of handling and service charges. Typical fees collected in the City are outlined in Table 34. As shown, fees range from $69,497 per multi-family unit (based on a small project of approximately 10 units) to $238,987 per single-family home. The median sale price for new condominiums is approximately $1.68 million in Mountain View. While there are relatively few, new single-family homes in Mountain View, the median sale price for single-family homes in Mountain View built in 2010 or later is approximately $2.63 million. Based on these sales prices, total fees and exactions in the City would represent 5 to 6 percent of condominium sales prices and 8 percent of new single-family sales prices. Most development fees in Mountain View are adjusted for cost of living increases annually. 29The City is
currently developing a Nexus Study to adopt an Impact Fee for the East Whisman Precise Plan Area.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 187

Table 34: Estimated Residential Development Impact Fees Fee Type Single-
Family(1)
Multi
Family
Small (2)
Multi Family Large(3)
Entitlement Fee(4) -- $2,841 $45,000
Building Permit Fee/Construction
Fee (5) $14,720 $137,000 $278,900

Impact Fees(6) $71,347 $550,700 $7,899,900
Other Fees(7) $152,920 $4,356 $35,250
Total $238,987
$694,967
(or
$69,497
per unit)
$8,259,050 (or $82,591 per
unit)
Source: City of Mountain View.

Notes:
1 Based on a 2,600 square foot house
2 Based on 10 units (2 bedroom 9,000 square foot unit and 3 bedroom 12,000 square foot unit) 3 Based on 100 units
4 May include the following: Development Review Permit or Planned Community Permit, Heritage Tree Removal, Cost Recovery.

5 May include the following: Plan Check Fee, Building Permit Fees, Electrical Fee, Mechanical Fee, Plumbing Fee, land use document.
6 May include the following: Water Capacity Fee, Sewer Capacity Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Frees, School Impact Fee.
7 May include the following: Excavation Permit for new utility services and driveway, BMR In-Lieu Fees, Improvement Plan Check and Construction Inspection.

Although development fees and exactions do increase the cost of producing housing, in general Mountain View’s fees do not appear to create an undue constraint on residential development in the City. The experience of recently approved and developed affordable housing projects in Mountain View confirms that development fees are largely in-line with standards in surrounding jurisdictions and do not constitute a constraint to affordable housing development. However, the economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update identified the City’s BMR requirements and park dedication requirements as having a major impact on residential development costs. As discussed above, the Housing Element Update includes programs to evaluate and address the potential impacts of these requirements during the upcoming Housing Element planning period.

Mountain View Whisman School District Community Facilities District At its August 12, 2021 meeting, the Mountain View Whisman School District (School District) Board of Trustees provided direction for the School District to explore the establishment of a Community Facilities District (CFD). The purpose of the district would be to support the siting and construction of

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 188 new schools to serve the anticipated population growth. CFDs fund these facilities through parcel taxes, which could be enacted through a two-thirds vote of the residents in the affected area.

The August 12, 2021 presentation to the School District Board indicates the School District’s intention to apply the CFD to the area north of Central Expressway, which would include much of the City’s R3 areas which house apartments and other multi-family units as well as new housing areas in North Bayshore and East Whisman. The tax would be based on the number of units on a parcel and would levy a significantly higher tax on new units than existing ones. In October 2021, the School District began polling a sample of registered voters in the affected area about the creation of a CFD.

It is unknown whether the School District will ultimately decide to place a CFD on the ballot and whether voters would approve such a measure. The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of the Housing Element Update process included an evaluation of the impact of the CFD and found that, if enacted, the CFD would have a major impact on residential development costs.

On- and Off-Site Improvements
Residential developers are responsible for constructing road, water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements on new housing sites. Where a project has off-site impacts, such as increased stormwater runoff, increased sewer load or added congestion at a nearby intersection, additional developer expenses may be necessary to mitigate impacts. The contractor is required to make site improvements before constructing a building on the property. Site improvements can include connections to existing utility systems, rough grading, and installation of water and sewer lines. The cost variation depends on the lot size, unit size, and type of residential dwelling. Other factors that can influence costs are the primary infrastructure needed for the site and roadway improvements.

While land costs are lower in greenfield areas at the edge of the City, these areas typically require a greater amount of investment in backbone infrastructure and site improvements. Given there are such limited vacant sites in the City, development is primarily in infill areas, where site improvement costs are typically lower since infrastructure is already in place; however, the cost to repair aging infrastructure can be high.

The City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Section 28 of the City Code) establishes the on- and off-site improvement requirements that developers must adhere to. Specifically, subdivision developers must improve all streets, highways, or public ways that are part of or adjacent to the development.

Improvements may include necessary paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bikeways, catch basins, pipes, storm drains, sanitary sewers and laterals, water mains and services, fire hydrants, street lighting, traffic signals, roadway striping, street monuments, street signs, and street trees. Further, the Subdivision Ordinance requires all underground utilities to be constructed prior to the surfacing of streets, service roads, alleys, and highways. The majority of the City is already served by public streets. For new development, the minimum standard street width for both private and public streets in Mountain View is at least 60 feet. However, in special circumstances, City Council may authorize a narrower width. Streets must be aligned to conform to and provide for the continuation of adjacent, pre-existing streets and must be at least as wide as the pre-existing streets to which they relate. For potential new development, publicly-accessible bicycle and pedestrian paths or internal streets may be required to be constructed. New private streets may be proposed as part of residential

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 189 developments and must meet City Design Standards. Mountain View’s Department of Public Works, Engineering Division performs inspections for compliance with regulations and ordinances pertaining to capital projects and private developments. Based on interviews conducted as part of the outreach process, local developers did not indicate that Mountain View’s site improvement requirements were major barriers to development. In addition, the economic analysis of City requirements that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update found that Mountain View’s design, building, and infrastructure requirements have only a minimal impact on residential development costs.

Processing and Permit Procedures
The City of Mountain View has several different processes for approving new residential developments.
 Projects in standard zoning districts without subdivision or subdivision involving fewer than five lots are approved by the Zoning Administrator at a public hearing. Subdivisions are approved by the Subdivision Committee, which is held at the same hearing, but the committee also includes staff from the City Attorney’s Office and Public Works Department.  Projects in standard zoning districts with subdivision of five or more lots are approved by the City Council after recommendation from the Zoning Administrator and Subdivision Committee.
 Projects requesting Zoning or General Plan Amendments (with or without subdivision) are approved by the City Council after recommendation by the Environmental Planning Commission.
 Projects in Precise Plans have various review processes, though always have one of the three options above.

All new construction that requires planning approval receives design comments and recommendations from the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC). The DRC, consisting of the Deputy Zoning Administrator (Staff person) and two advising architects, reviews the architectural and site design of new projects and improvements to existing sites.

Small-lot single-family, rowhouses, and townhomes are allowed in the City’s R2, R3, R4 and CRA zoning districts with a PUD permit. The PUD allows exceptions to the standard zoning requirements and is intended to encourage innovative housing design and to allow variations for properties with unusual shapes and sizes. In addition to a PUD permit, a developer would need to obtain a Tentative Map for developments with five or more lots and a Development Review Permit for site plan and architectural review of projects. The permits can be processed concurrently and typically takes 6-18 months.

If a zone change or General Plan amendment is required for a project, the City Council first considers this “gatekeeper” request. This means the Council decides whether the request should be processed by Staff. The Council considers estimated resources required to process the application, estimated cost, existing and scheduled City resource commitments, and summary of other General Plan, precise plan or zoning considerations affecting the proposed text amendment. The intent of this process is not to approve or deny an application, but rather to confirm that there is sufficient interest

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 190 in the project that it is worth devoting City resources towards the review of the legislative approvals necessary for the project. Once Council has authorized a project to apply for a General Plan amendment, the application will progress through the process as described above.

Senate Bill 35
Senate Bill (SB) 35, passed in 2017, requires jurisdictions that have not approved enough housing projects to meet their RHNA to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing developments that incorporate affordable housing. Per SB 35, review and approval of proposed projects with specified levels of affordability must be based on objective standards and cannot be based on subjective design guidelines or undergo any discretionary review. Historically, projects in Mountain View qualify for SB 35 by providing at least 50 percent of their units as affordable to lower income households; however, SB 35’s provisions can be triggered with as little as 10 percent affordability if the City does not make sufficient progress towards issuing building permits that satisfy its RHNA during the planning period. In addition to the affordability criteria to be eligible, projects must also meet a list of other criteria, including prevailing wage requirements for projects over 11 units. In order for applicants to take advantage of SB 35, per Government Code Section 65913.4 (10)(b)(1)(a)(et seq.), they need to submit a Notice of Intent and jurisdictions need to give Native American tribes an opportunity for consultation. The City of Mountain View has developed a SB 35 Preliminary Application Checklist form, consistent with the law, for streamlined ministerial review.

Bonus FAR or Development Tiers
The City’s four newest Precise Plans (El Camino Real, San Antonio, North Bayshore and East Whisman) include Bonus FAR or development tiers above allowed-by-right densities. The purpose of these additional tiers is to allow a framework by which development can support the re-envisioning of these change areas through community benefits and additional affordable housing. With the adoption of each Precise Plan, an economic analysis was conducted to set the community benefits at a level where developers would choose to build the additional density while contributing to the City’s infrastructure and affordable housing. Refer to Table 35 for the base and maximum FARs for the recent Precise Plans.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 191

Table 35: Base and Maximum FAR for Select Precise Plans Base Residential FAR Maximum FAR with Bonus
El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.35 1.85
San Antonio Precise Plan 1.35 1.85 – 2.35
North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.0 1.85 – 4.5
East Whisman Precise Plan 1.0 1.35 – 3.5

Design Review by DRC
The Development Review Committee (DRC) considers a proposed project’s conformance with City- adopted design guidelines and the development standards of the zoning district, in addition to architectural best practices, use of high-quality and durable materials, and other considerations that improve the quality and design of developments.

The DRC meeting is intended to be a working meeting between the applicant and Staff, and act as a collaborative process between the applicant and DRC. Small projects are generally reviewed and recommended for approval by the DRC in one meeting. In the past, larger projects may have required multiple meetings during which design modifications were made at the request of the DRC.

As of late, DRC typically provides recommendations for residential projects in at most two meetings as part of a streamlined effort and also provides developers with greater certainty regarding the length of their project’s design review.

Zoning Administrator Approvals
The Zoning Administrator makes final decisions on single-family residences with major FAR exceptions, residential development with a subdivision of fewer than five lots, commercial and industrial projects that conform to the existing (standard) zoning, variances, planned unit developments, and planned community permits when specified within a Precise Plan. The Zoning Administrator makes recommendations for current development projects that require City Council approval in standard zoning districts and many Precise Plans. The Zoning Administrator holds a public hearing where they make findings and determine the conditions of approval.

Environmental Planning Commission
The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) provides recommendations for General Plan amendments, zoning amendments, Precise Plan amendments and new Precise Plans. The EPC also reviews and makes recommendations to the City Council regarding updates to the City’s General Plan, including the Housing Element. Unlike Planning Commissions in other jurisdictions, the EPC is solely an advisory body that does not make final decisions on development projects. The EPC makes recommendations on development projects to the City Council when associated with General Plan and zoning amendments, or planned community permits when prescribed by a Precise Plan.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 192 City Council Approvals
The City Council makes final decisions on Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps, planned community permits when specified within a precise plan, General Plan and Zoning maps, Ordinance amendments, and any permit or entitlement application referred by the Zoning Administrator. The Council also approves updates to the City’s General Plan, including the Housing Element. The Council also reviews appeals on determinations by the Zoning Administrator. Council decisions are made based on recommendations provided by the EPC, Zoning Administrator (with DRC input), and public input.

Building Permit Processing
The Building Inspection Department currently takes four weeks to review a building permit application for a single-family home. Building permit applications for planned community developments take approximately six weeks for the initial review. Subsequent review is a two-week cycle.

Processing Times
Table 36 presents a summary of the typical approvals required for various housing types and the typical permit processing times. Actions requiring ministerial review, such as single-family homes, duplexes and ADUs, are typically approved within two weeks. Other approvals have longer processing times. Projects requiring a Zoning change, General Plan amendment, or Environmental Impact Report, face entitlement processes of nine to fifteen months. These times are for Planning approval; Building Permit approvals (see previous section) add to the total time.

Environmental review is conducted concurrently with development review. While an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may extend a project’s timeline (e.g, up to 24 months, depending on the complexity), EIRs are generally only needed for rezonings and General Plan amendments. Other types of environmental documents, such as an exemption, an Initial Study with Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/ND or IS/MND), do not significantly change the project review times in Table 36.

The City of Mountain View meets or exceeds State-required timelines for the approval of development permits, as shown in Table 36. The time required for development approval is not generally a constraint or substantial cost to housing developers. Senate Bill (SB) 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would impose or enforce design standards that are not objective design standards on or after January 1, 2020 [Government Code Section 663300 (b)(C)]. The bill also established specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures. Per SB 330, housing developers may submit a “preliminary application” for a residential development project. Submittal of a preliminary application allows a developer to provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development before providing the full amount of information required by the local government for a housing development application. The City of Mountain View has developed a preliminary application form consistent with SB 330. In addition, the bill limits the application review process to 30 days for projects less than 150 units, 60 days for projects greater than 150 units, and

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 193 no more than five total public hearings, including Environmental Planning Commission, design review, and City Council.

Table 36: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type Project Type Typical Approvals
Required Time Frame
Single-Family Home Ministerial 4 – 6 months
Accessory Dwelling Unit Ministerial 3 – 5 months
Duplex Ministerial 4 – 6 months
Rowhouse, Townhouse, Small-Lot Single Family
(5 or more lots)
Standard R Zones
Planned Unit Development
Permit and Tentative Map
(Council approval)
12-24 months
Precise Plans
Planned Community
Permit and Tentative Map
(Council approval)
12-24 months
Apartments
Standard R Zones
Development Review
Permit (Zoning
Administrator approval)
6-18 months
CRA
Conditional Use Permit
and Development Review
Permit (Zoning
Administrator Approval)
6-18 months
Precise Plans Planned Community
Permit (Council approval) 12-24 months
Condominiums Same as Apartments with
Tentative Map
Same as
Apartments
Any project with a Zoning Change or General
Plan Amendment (GPA) Rezoning or GPA 12-24 months

Source: City of Mountain View, 2022.

The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update found that extended development schedules due to delays in City approvals can have a moderate impact on residential development costs.

Codes and Enforcement
Mountain View has adopted (with Mountain View City Code amendments) the 2019 California Building Code, the 2019 California Mechanical Code, the 2019 California Plumbing Code, the 2019

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 194 California Electrical Code, the 2019 California Fire Code, the 2019 California Residential Code, 2019 the Mountain View Green Building Code, the 2019 California Energy Code, and the 2019 Handicapped Accessibility Regulations (Title 24). City codes are updated regularly as these codes and standards are modified at state and national levels.

The City has adopted several minor amendments to the 2019 California Building Code to prevent unsafe or hazardous building conditions. The City’s Building Code would not adversely affect the ability to construct housing in Mountain View.

Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types

Multi-family Housing
Multi-family housing, including rental and ownership products, is the primary permitted use in the City’s R3 and R4 zoning districts, as well as in several of the City’s Precise Plan districts. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for multi-family housing in the R2 and CRA districts. Multi- family housing accounts for approximately 57 percent of the units in the City and approximately 75 percent of the new housing units approved since 2010. Recent developments have been approved and built at the upper end of allowed densities, and even higher when including State Density Bonus.

Major multi-family developments approved and built between 2014-2022 are shown in Table 36.

Table 37: Recent Multi-family Developments in Mountain View Address Number of
Units
2580 California Street 632
400 San Antonio Road 582
555 East Evelyn Avenue 471
500 Ferguson Road 394
2700 West El Camino Real 211
1720 Villa Street 226
2268 West El Camino Real 204
394 Ortega Avenue 144
779 East Evelyn Avenue 116

Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters provide a critical resource for individuals or families experiencing housing instability. Government Code Section 65582(d) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” Effective January 1, 2008, California SB 2 requires all jurisdictions to have a zoning

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 195 district that permits at least one year-round emergency shelter without a CUP or any other discretionary permit requirements. Jurisdictions must identify a zone where emergency shelters are permitted by-right within one year from the adoption of the housing element.

The City of Mountain View identified several possible zones to permit emergency shelters by-right based on their compatibility, access to transit and services, and suitability to accommodate permanent shelters for the homeless, and determined that City’s General Industrial (MM) district could support emergency shelters. The MM district allows for processing, assembling, research, wholesale, warehousing, data centers, personal storage facilities, or other storage uses. Conditional uses include offices, veterinary clinics, lodges, private clubs and halls, educational and recreation uses, religious institutions, and assorted retail and commercial uses.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance permits emergency shelters by-right in the MM district which includes objective development and management standards for emergency shelters and are in conformance with State law. In addition, the City’s Zoning Ordinance includes standards for off-street parking in compliance with AB 139/Gov. Code § 65583 subd. (a)(4)(A)) with emergency shelters required to provide thirty-five-hundredths (0.35) of a parking space per individual bed plus one (1) additional space per employee.

The permit processing and development standards encourage and facilitate the development of emergency shelters and no discretionary permits are required for approval of a permanent emergency shelter. The City will continue to monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate emergency shelters and provide information to appropriate organizations that serve the needs of homeless and extremely low-income persons. In addition, the City allows Emergency Shelters with a CUP in all commercial and industrial zoning districts.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
Transitional housing helps transition an individual or family from a short-term emergency shelter.

Government Code Section 65592 (j) defines transitional housing as “buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance.”

Supportive housing is generally described as permanent housing linked to a range of support services. Government Code Section 65582(g) defines supportive housing as “housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.” Services typically include assistance designed to meet the needs of the target population in retaining housing, living and working in the community, and/or improving health, and may include case management, mental health treatment, and life skills.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 196

Pursuant to SB 2, the City’s Zoning Ordinance has been updated to treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. For example, if the transitional housing is a multi-family use proposed in a multi-family zone, then zoning treats the transitional housing the same as other multi- family uses proposed in the zone. Per Government Code Section 65582, target population is defined as persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Assembly Bill (AB) 101, passed in 2019, requires that a low barrier navigation center be a use permitted by right in mixed-use zones and non-residential zones permitting multi-unit uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines “low barrier navigation center” as a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to amend the Planning and Development Code to comply with this new requirement (Housing Element Program 1.1 Update Zoning Ordinance).

Efficiency Studios
Efficiency studios, also known as single-room occupancy (SRO) units, often provide affordable housing opportunities for lower-income residents. Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance requires efficiency studios to have a minimum floor area of 150 square feet and include a private bathroom and partial kitchen. The average size of efficiency studios cannot exceed 325 square feet.

Efficiency studios are allowed with a CUP in the CRA zoning district and with a planned community permit in areas of the Downtown Precise Plan area that specifically lists efficiency studios as permitted or provisional use. To help encourage development of this product type, the City’s Zoning Ordinance allows a reduction of parking standards by the Zoning Administrator, and a waiving of City fees with Council approval (including park fees and transient occupancy taxes).

The City’s Zoning Code previously established a cap of 180 new efficiency studios be developed within the City. However, as 118 efficiency studios were approved as part of San Antonio Place, the City repealed the limit on new efficiency studios as it was deemed to be a constraint to the development of new units. Projects containing efficiency units are now reviewed and approved as they are submitted to the City.

Employee Housing
For consistency with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), the Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 17021.5 requires that employee housing serving six or fewer

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 197 employees shall be deemed a single-family structure and shall be treated subject to the standards for a family dwelling in the same zone. The City does not have any provisions in the Zoning Ordinance addressing employee housing serving six or fewer employees. Further, HSC Section 17021.6 requires that employee housing of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household be considered an agricultural use. The City does not have such provisions in its Zoning Ordinance. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to amend the Planning and Development Code to comply with this new requirement (Housing Element program 1.1 Update Zoning Ordinance).

Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) often provide affordable housing opportunities for lower-income residents or additional housing opportunities for extended families and affordable housing options.

Effective December 10, 2020, the City Council adopted new zoning regulations to align with recent State laws pertaining to ADUs, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), and multi-family ADUs. The zoning text amendments were made to bring the City into compliance with updated ADU legislation and to be consistent with the General Plan in supporting the policies of the prior Housing Element (2015-2023) by removing constraints to the development of ADUs, as provided in specific Housing Element programs. The City finds that ADUs and JADUs are residential uses that are consistent with the allowable density, with the General Plan, and zoning designation for the site, provided the units are located on properties zoned to allow single-family or multi-family dwelling residential uses. While no Planning permit is required, all new ADUs require building permits. ADUs are allowed with ministerial approval only when the site complies with all applicable requirements and a building permit is issued within sixty (60) days of submittal of a complete application. These requirements are not seen as a constraint to the production of ADUs, as the trend for ADUs permitted and constructed have increased each year between 2018 to 2020. The City encourages all applicants to review preliminary ADU plans with Planning staff to ensure the project meets all zoning requirements, prior to preparing detailed construction plans for building permit submittal.

Density Bonuses
To provide additional opportunities for housing and housing variety, the City has adopted a Density Bonus ordinance that allows for incentives for the development of housing affordable to qualifying residents and households. The incentives include the ability to construct more residential dwelling units than the maximum residential density permitted by the applicable zoning and General Plan designations and other discretionary incentives. This ordinance was implemented to align with State Density Bonus Law as required by Government Code Section 65915(a). Density bonus programs are also included in the City’s Precise Plan areas, including the North Bayshore Precise Plan, to increase the supply of new market rate and affordable housing.

Mobile Homes and Factory-Built Housing
Manufactured housing and mobile homes are a permitted use in all of the City’s residential zoning districts. However, mobile home parks are only permitted in the RMH zoning district, subject to approval of a mobile home park permit (MHPP). The City currently has approximately 1,100 mobile

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 198 homes in mobile home parks. These units make up approximately three percent of the City’s housing stock. Refer to Table 38 for more details.

Mobile homes provide affordable housing with low yard and housing maintenance, which attracts a high number of seniors. The parks are distinctive because the homes are owned by residents, while they rent the land beneath them. Separate ownership carries the risk of conversion of the parks to another land use and possibly resulting in the loss of affordable housing. The State requires a conversion report with applications for park conversions. The conversion report must provide appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts of mobile home park conversions on displaced residents, and strategies to assist displaced residents to obtain replacement housing.

In addition to State regulations, the City adopted a mobile home conversion ordinance (Chapter 28, Article X), which also requires a conversion report and identification of measures to mitigate the impacts of conversions. In recognition of mobile homes’ value as an affordable housing option, the City has a mobile home park General Plan designation and a mobile home park zoning designation that also provide protection for existing mobile home parks. The City requires a Conversion Impact Report to convert a property with a mobile home to another use. Further, to help maintain the affordability of mobile homes and provide other protections to mobile home park residents, the City Council adopted the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance in September of 2021.

Table 38: Mountain View Mobile Home Parks
Park Name Address Number of
Units
Moorpark Mobile Home Park 501 Moorpark Way 138
Sahara Village Mobile Home Park 191 El Camino Way 206
New Frontier Mobile Home Park 325 Sylvan Avenue 141
Santiago Villa Mobile Home Park 1075 Space Parkway 358
Sunset Estates Mobile Home Park 433 Sylvan Avenue 144
Moffett Mobile Home Park 440 Moffett Boulevard 143
TOTAL 1,130
Source: City of Mountain View, 2021.

Affordable Housing – State Laws Impacting Local Development Standards Specific housing laws passed during the last housing cycle would revise policies and processes of the City and potentially reduce governmental constraints on housing development. These laws guide the development of recommendations in this update for the 6th cycle. The legislation that impacts residential development standards and potential affordable housing includes though is not limited to:

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 199  AB 686 (Santiago): Places requirements on Housing Elements, and revisions to Housing Elements that occur on and after January 1, 2021, to include an assessment of fair housing within the jurisdiction.
 SB 330 and SB 8 (Skinner): Declares a statewide housing emergency to be in effect until January 1, 2030. To increase the production of housing, the bill suspends certain restrictions on the development of new housing during this period of statewide emergency and expedites local government permitting processes and timeframes. The bill applies to all “housing development projects,” with a special emphasis on projects for very-low-, low-, and moderate- income households and emergency shelters.
 AB 2162 (Chiu): Requires that supportive housing be allowed by-right in zones where multi- family and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential zones that permit multi-family uses. Minimum parking requirements for units occupied by supportive housing residents are prohibited if the development is located within 0.5 mile of a public transit stop.  SB 9 (Atkins): Signed by the California Governor on September 16, 2021, SB 9 requires “a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single- family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements.” The law also requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements and thus allow, ministerially without CEQA, up to four units on all single-family zoned parcels.

Constraints for Persons with Disabilities
Senate Bill 520, passed in October 2001, requires local housing elements to evaluate constraints for persons with disabilities and develop programs which accommodate the housing needs of disabled persons. Persons with special needs or disabilities have a number of housing needs related to housing accessibility; access to transportation, employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on-site or nearby supportive living services. The following is a description of City regulations, policies, and procedures that support housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

Procedures for Ensuring Reasonable Accommodation
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or reductions to parking requirements.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance incorporates procedures for reasonable accommodation that comply with State requirements. The process for reasonable accommodation includes submittal of an application form, an administrative review by City Staff, and a decision within 30 days after the application is submitted. An application for a reasonable accommodation is granted if all of the following findings are made:

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 200

 The housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual with a disability as defined under the Fair Housing Acts.
 The requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Fair Housing Acts.  The requested reasonable accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
 The requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning.  The requested reasonable accommodation would not adversely impact surrounding properties or uses.
 There are no reasonable alternatives that would provide an equivalent level of benefit without requiring a modification or exception to the City’s applicable rules, standards and practices.
.Residential Care Homes
In conformance with State law, Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance permits residential care homes with six or fewer residents in all residential zones as permitted by State law. Residential care homes with six or fewer residents are not subject to special development requirements, policies, or procedures which would impede them from locating in a residential district. Residential care homes with seven or more residents are allowed through a Conditional Use Permit in all residential zones.

In the past, some zoning codes have included narrow definitions of the term family. The City’s Zoning Code does define the term “family” so as not to discriminate against unrelated persons with disabilities living together.

Building Codes and Permitting
The City’s Building Code includes amendments to the 2019 California Building Code, which do not have the potential to diminish the City’s ability to accommodate persons with disabilities. The City Code goes further than the 2019 California Building Code in that it provides for fee waivers or reductions for those persons with disabilities. Specifically, in relation to the payment of fees for the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of materials for housing units, the City has amended the City’s Building Code to include a fee waiver or reduction at the discretion of the chief building official, for all building permits related to improvement to the home of a person at least sixty (60) years of age with a qualifying disability and such improvements are made to accommodate that disability.

Tree Preservation
The City has a Tree Preservation Ordinance that is intended to prevent uncontrolled and indiscriminate destruction of mature trees in order to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the City. The Ordinance protects Heritage Trees, which are defined as:

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 201  A tree that has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54 inches above the natural grade;
 A multi-branched tree that has major branches below 54 inches above the natural grade with a circumference of 48 inches measured just below the first major trunk fork;  Any quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood), or cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of 12 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade; or  A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit.

Heritage trees may not be removed on public or private property without a valid heritage tree permit from the City. Applications for the removal of heritage trees in connection with a discretionary development project permit are subject to review by the City’s Zoning Administrator or City Council.

Applications for permits are approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the official or hearing body which acts on the associated development permit application.

The City strives to preserve trees where possible and may require developers to build around trees.

In most cases, however, developers are allowed to remove Heritage trees if they are replaced at a two-to-one ratio, depending on the type of tree. Because a large share of residential development in Mountain View is infill development that involves demolition and replacement, building footprints are often already in place and tree preservation issues do not arise as a major concern to developers.

Governmental Constraints Findings
 Overall, Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance generally does not act as a constraint to new housing production. The development standards and parking requirements for the existing six zoning districts that permit residential development are reasonable. When appropriate, the Zoning Administrator may approve a CUP to reduce the number of parking spaces for a development with smaller units.
 Although Mountain View’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance could pose a constraint to housing production, the City has experienced signif icant amounts of mark et-rate residential construction activity with the inclusionary requirements in place and these requirements remain an important tool for generating affordable housing. Mountain View’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires projects of a certain size to provide at least 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units (or 25 percent for ownership townhouses and rowhouses) as below- market rate or, in the case of a fractional unit (below 0.5 for developments with more than seven units) pay an in-lieu fee. There is also an option for alternatives to the production requirement. In general, this creates more affordable units than with a fee-only system.

Housing Element Program 1.11 states that the City will review and revise the Below-Market- Rate program requirements during the planning period to reflect community needs for affordable and market rate housing.
 The City’s park land dedication requirements may act as a constraint to housing production but will be addressed through a Housing Element program. The park land dedication in-lieu fee totals approximately $238,987 for a single-family unit, $69,497 for a unit in a small (ten

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 202 units or less) multi-family project, and $82,591 for a unit in a large (100 units or more) multi- family project. Overall, the City’s park land dedication requirements were found to have a moderate to major impact on residential deve lopment costs, depending on the unit type.

Housing Element Program 1.10 will address this potential constraint through a review and revision to the City’s park land dedication requirements to maintain access to high quality open space while reducing the financial impact to residential development.  I n c o m p l i an ce w i t h S B 2 , Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance allows permanent emergency shelters as a permitted use in the MM zoning district.
 Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance treats transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
 The City’s Zoning Ordinance includes a process for reasonable accommodation requests for people with physical disabilities. Federal and State fair housin g laws require jurisdictions to make reasonable accommodations to their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 203 Non-Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors which may constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions, such as the availability of financing and land and construction costs, as well as community opposition to new development.

Availability of Financing
The availability of financing can have an impact on the supply and cost of housing. Developers typically rely on construction financing to construct new housing units, while home buyers generally rely on financing to purchase residential properties. Interest rates can have a considerable impact on the cost to build, purchase, and improve homes, while restrictive lending terms can make it difficult to qualify for financing.

Financing is generally available for the residential construction and home mortgages and does not generally pose a constraint to the production of housing. While one developer interviewed for this Housing Element Update reported that decreases in rents due to the COVID-19 pandemic had made financing more challenging, these impacts likely reflect broader feasibility challenges due to decreased rents rather than challenges related specifically to financing. Moreover, residential rents have shown continuing increases as the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have lessened, mitigating these feasibility challenges.

Assembling financing for new construction is consistently challenging for affordable housing developers, though this challenge is not unique to the Mountain View context. In fact, the City of Mountain View routinely provides financing to affordable housing projects to help fill funding gaps.

Affordable housing developers that were interviewed for this Housing Element Update cited the City’s financial contributions to affordable housing projects as a key factor that facilitates the production of affordable housing in Mountain View. Most affordable housing developments require several sources of financing to become feasible, including bank loans as well as federal, State, local, and philanthropic funding. Major sources of funding include low-income housing tax credits, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funding, HOME funds, and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Local sources of funding for projects in Mountain View include the City’s affordable housing funds as well as Santa Clara County Measure A funds. The City has also been part of two state Homekey applications, drawing in additional state funds to build housing for people experiencing homelessness. In order to meet its RHNA goals for affordable units, the City will have to find other sources of funding in order to meet the significant gaps in funding availability compared to the units in its pipeline.

Land Costs
Land costs in Mountain View are high, as are land costs in much of the rest of Santa Clara County.

The cost of land can vary considerably based on location, lot size, zoning, availability of existing infrastructure, and other factors. Recent sales of sites in Mountain View that are zoned for multi- family residential development indicate that typical land prices for multi-family sites are approximately $13 million per acre. Affordable housing developers that were consulted as part of

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 204 the Housing Element Update process reported that a land cost of $100,000 per unit or more is not unusual in the Mountain View market. The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update assumed a land cost of $122,000 per unit for multifamily housing. While the available data on single-family land sale costs in Mountain View is limited due to the limited inventory of vacant single-family sites, and land zoned for single-family uses tends to have a lower per-acre cost but a higher per-unit cost than land zoned for multi-family uses.

Construction Costs
Construction costs have increased substantially over the past several years and are often cited as a key barrier to the production of housing. Causes for the increase in construction costs include increases in the cost of materials as well as increases in labor costs. While demand for construction labor has remained strong in recent years, the pool of construction labor in California has not kept pace with demand. The COVID-19 pandemic led to further increases in construction costs due to supply chain disruptions and a shortage of construction materials and equipment. According to historical cost increases published by RS Means, hard construction costs for projects in the San Francisco region increased by 11 percent between 2018 and January 2021, and by 25 percent between the start of the City’s last Housing Element cycle (2015) and 2021. The TBD Construction Bid estimate shows more significant construction cost escalation, increasing by 17 percent between 2018 and 2021 and by 42 percent between 2015 and 2021.

As of the third quarter of 2021, development costs for multi-family units often total $550,000 per unit or more, before including the cost of land. One affordable housing developer that was consulted as part of the Housing Element Update process reported that it is difficult to build an affordable unit in Silicon Valley for less than $700,000 per unit including the cost of land, and that the cost of one recent project in Mountain View exceeded $1 million per unit. Single-family construction costs can vary substantially based on home size, quality of finishes, and other factors, but are often higher than the cost of a multi-family unit.

Public Opinion
Other constraints to housing production in Mountain View include public opinion, specifically community concern about higher-density development. Developers acknowledged that projects will almost always encounter some form of resistance from neighbors and residents, most commonly citing concerns about density and parking. This is the case not just in Mountain View, but in many jurisdictions. Within Mountain View, public opinion on new residential development at higher densities can have community support as well. Therefore, engagement with the local neighborhood associations can be critical for projects. Extensive community outreach can help to mitigate concern over new residential development. Despite some opposition to increased density, there is almost always a show of support for housing in Mountain View, particularly housing that addresses unmet needs, such as affordable housing.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 205 Non-Governmental Constraints Findings
 High land construction costs present challenges to the development of both market rate and affordable housing in Mountain View. Land prices in Mountain View are high, much like the rest of Silicon Valley, often reaching $100,000 per unit for multi-family developments.

Construction costs are also high and have increased steadily during recent years. Together, high land and construction costs present barriers to the production of housing in Mountain View. Neighboring jurisdictions face similar constraints, contributing to the regional housing shortage. The City of Mountain View helps to address this constraint by providing funding for affordable housing construction. In addition, Mountain View has increased density in large portions of the City through various Precise Plans, which help to reduce the per-unit land cost for both market rate and affordable developments.
 Public opinion, particularly community concern over higher-density development, may constrain housing production in Mountain View. Projects in many jurisdictions, including Mountain View, often encounter some form of resistance from neighbors and residents.

Engagement with local neighborhood associations and other community involvement processes can help to mitigate concern over new residential development. In addition, Mountain View has active groups and individuals that support pro-housing policies, which help to balance opposition to density with support for additional housing. Housing Element Program 4.7 addresses this issue by encouraging developers to facilitate early and ongoing outreach with surrounding neighborhood groups while planning for new residential development.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 206 Environmental Constraints
Environmental hazards affecting housing units include geologic and seismic conditions that provide the greatest threat to the built environment. The City has identified areas where land development should be carefully controlled. The following hazards are examples of environmental constraints that may impact future development of residential units in the City. For a summary of additional environmental constraints, it is recommended that the City’s General Plan Safety Element be referenced as well as the City’s most recent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).

Seismic Hazards
Mountain View is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. Mountain View City Hall is located approximately 6.7 miles northeast of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (A- PEFZ) for the San Andreas Fault, and approximately 11.2 miles southwest of the A-PEFZ for the Hayward Fault. The complex and potentially active Berrocal/Monte Vista-Shannon fault zone has its northern terminus about 2.7 miles to the southwest, while the inactive Cascade, Stanford, and San Jose faults all cross the City of Mountain View from the southeast to the northwest. There are, however, no known active faults present within the City, and the fault rupture hazard for the City is considered to be very low. Future development of housing would be required to undergo review, including analysis of increased risks to human health or safety related to fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and liquefaction, in addition to compliance with standard California building and safety code requirements.

Flooding
Portions of the City are within the 100-year flood zones as determined by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. There are Pipeline projects in the sites inventory that are located in the 100-year flood zone, near US-101 and El Camino Real’s crossing of Permanente Creek. In addition there is one Opportunity Site in the sites inventory in the flood zone near El Camino Real and Miramonte Avenue.

These projects would need to obtain a flood development permit as described in Section 8.160 of the City Code and be in compliance with California building and safety code requirements.

There are no dams or reservoirs within the City, with the exception of the irrigation ponds at the Shoreline Golf Links. The City is not located within a dam failure inundation zone. The Stevens Creek Reservoir is located upstream from the City on Stevens Creek, but its dam failure inundation zone does not cross into Mountain View’s jurisdictional boundary. In addition, creeks within the City are maintained for flooding with slope protection by the Valley Water (VW). Future housing development within the City would not be affected by any levee failures along the creek channel and would not expose residents to flooding risks as a result of a failure of a levee or dam.

Fire Hazards
The most serious fire threat within the City is building and structure fires. Other fire hazards within the City may be associated with heavy industrial uses, older commercial and residential structures, the presence of hazardous materials, and arson. No Fire Hazard Severity Zones for State responsibility areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones for local responsibility areas have been identified within or adjacent to the City of Mountain View. Future housing development within the City

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 207 would be required to comply with the materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposures and vegetation management practices described in the 2019 California Building Code and Chapter 47 in the California Fire Code and/or any other ordinances adopted by the City of Mountain View thereafter.

Noise
The ambient noise environment in the City of Mountain View is impacted by a variety of noise sources, including traffic, railroad, airport, and stationary noise sources. The City addresses noise in the Noise Chapter of the General Plan and in Chapter 5: Animals and Fowl, Chapter 8: Buildings, and Chapter 21: Miscellaneous Offenses and Smoking Regulations of the City Code. The City’s exterior noise acceptability guidelines for new development show that environments with ambient noise levels of up to 55 dBA are considered normally acceptable for residential development and conditionally acceptable up to 65 dBA. The interior noise acceptability is 45 dBA and conditionally acceptable up to 50 dBA. In addition, the City Code restricts the operation of loud noise producing equipment used in construction or demolition on weekdays to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and restricts such activities from occurring on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays unless City Staff grant prior written approval. Future housing development in the City would be required to comply with City policies regulating noise. Analysis and review of the following noise-related topics may occur including exposure of persons to excessive noise levels, including airport noise; exposure of persons to excessive ground borne vibration; generation of excessive noise; construction noise; and increases in ambient noise levels.

Soil and Groundwater Contamination
The East Whisman and North Bayshore areas have significant soil and groundwater contamination from previous industrial uses. Commercial sites may also have issues from previous dry cleaning or automotive operations.

In order to further effectively manage soil and groundwater contamination, the City has established procedures for determining where contamination is located and how to mitigate it. The City addresses soil and groundwater contamination in Chapter 5, Infrastructure, of the General Plan. In addition, the City regularly communicates with county, State, and federal agencies on the monitoring, remediation, and reporting of its contaminated soil and groundwater sites. Often, podium apartment buildings over underground garages - the most typical construction of new units in the City - can help the issue by removing contaminated soil. Future housing can build safe housing even in these conditions, by incorporating vapor barriers and active and passive ventilation, among other tools.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 208 APPENDIX E: HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS AND

INVENTORY
Introduction
A Housing Element must include an inventory of available land that is appropriately zoned and suitable for housing development to accommodate a jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as required by State law. This inventory for the City of Mountain View focuses on sites that are, or can be made available, for housing development affordable to households of varying income levels. This Appendix summarizes the evaluation of potential ho using sites, and the adequacy of sites to meet development capacities to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs for the 2023-2031 planning period.

Specifically, California law (Government Code Sections 65583 (a)(3)) requires that the Housing Element contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and non-vacant (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for development. State law also requires an analysis of the relationship to zoning and services to these sites as well as identifying sites throughout the community, in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).

The analysis presented in this Appendix demonstrates there is an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the City’s housing allocation of 11,135 units, plus a surplus of nearly 4,000 additional units to acts as a “buffer” if sites develop to non-residential or at different affordability levels than assumed in the sites inventory. This section is organized by the following topics:
 Summary of the regional context and capacity;
 Sites selection process which includes a description of the methodology and evaluation of site criteria, unit capacity, and sites to accommodate varied income levels; and  Sites inventory which includes the identification of sites by project type categories and evaluation of sites in meeting AFFH requirements.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The City’s housing target for the eight-year planning period (January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2031) is defined by its RHNA (also referred to as the City’s 6 th cycle RHNA). RHNA is the California State-
required process that seeks to ensure cities and counties are planning for enough housing to accommodate all economic segments of the community. Each city and county in the Bay Area must update their current housing element to meet statutory requirements by January 31, 2023 and plan for a specific allocation of assumed new housing units for specified income groupings as part of their sites inventory process to address their RHNA target. The City’s RHNA for this planning period is shown in Table 39.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 209 Table 39: Mountain View’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation Summary Info
Units by Income Group
Total Units
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
City RHNA a 2,773 1,597 1,885 4,880 11,135
Percent of
Total
25% 14% 17% 44% 100%
NOTES: a The RHNA allocation shown was adopted by ABAG on December 16, 2021.

SOURCE: ABAG, December 2021.

Summary of Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
The total realistic development capacity of all sites in the land inventory is listed in Table 40 and provides a summary of the total residential capacity compared to the City’s 6th cycle RHNA. The total realistic capacity shown is 15,100 units, which exceeds the net target of 11,135 units the City is required to accommodate for its RHNA, and also supplements that allocation by representing a 36 percent buffer. HCD recommends that jurisdictions provide a 15 to 30 percent buffer beyond the minimum RHNA target to comply with the “no net loss” provisions of State Housing Element Law that require the jurisdictions to maintain sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA for the duration of the planning period at every income level. In addition to considering the aggregate number of units that the sites can accommodate, it is necessary to consider the potential for sites to accommodate housing that is affordable to all income levels, in accordance with the RHNA allocations, as discussed in the Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels section. Each of the two primary project types, Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites, are presented in Table 40 and described in further detail in the Methodology/Evaluation of Possible Sites section.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 210 Table 40: Mountain View Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to 6th Cycle RHNA by Income
Summary Info
Units by Income Group
Total
Units Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Mountain View RHNA 4,370 1,885 4,880 11,135

Capacity from Pipeline
Projects
2,300 457 6,480 9,237
No Rezoning Needed
Approved 226 207 1,414 1,847
Under Review 1,214 248 4,752 6,214
Under Review (Informal) 281 1 314 596
Rezoning Needed
Rezone Pipeline Projects 579 1 0 580
Capacity on Opportunity Sites 3,370 2,270 243 5,863
Developable Sites 2,857 1,994 112 4,943
Rezone Opportunity Sites 465 238 121 824
ADU Projection 48 38 10 96

Total Capacity 5,670 2,727 6,723 15,100
Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) from
RHNA
+1,300 +842 +1,843 +3,965
Buffer 30% 45% 38% 36%
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, May 2022.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AB 686 (Santiago) created a new requirement for local jurisdictions to evaluate their Housing Element sites inventories through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The law requires that the sites inventory be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with the local jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. As discussed in more detail below, the housing sites detailed in this Appendix will affirmatively further fair housing by providing opportunities for housing development for lower-income households in areas with high opportunity and good access to jobs, transportation, and a healthy environment. Although sites are not identified

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 211 on every city block, the sites inventory is in compliance with the goals of affirmatively furthering fair housing. The sites inventory and Mountain View’s progressive inclusionary housing policies will help to integrate households with a mix of incomes in locations throughout the community. Overall, the housing sites inventory does not exacerbate or create R/ECAPS, RCAAs, or racial or ethnic isolation or segregation; nor does it overly concentrate lower income housing opportunity sites in any single area of the City. The sites inventory also helps to affirmatively further fair housing from a regional perspective by creating opportunities for housing development for households at all income levels in a community that has outstanding access to jobs, services, a healthy environment, and other amenities that support a high quality of life and positive life outcomes for residents.

Sites Selection Process
The following is a summary of the overall sites inventory process and the methodology and assumptions that support the sites selection process. Using guidance provided by HCD, an inventory of available sites was conducted by closely examining site characteristics and other HCD-established criteria. Primarily, sites were identified by using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping software from multiple datasets to identify parcels that fit the HCD-specified criteria as adequate housing sites. Further, sites were further refined over a series of working sessions and through input from the Environmental Planning Commission, City Council, and stakeholders through the community engagement process. The information used to generate the sites inventory database was derived from these primary resources:
1) ABAG’s Housing Element Site Selection (HESS) Tool;
2) Santa Clara County Office of the Assessor; and
3) City of Mountain View.

Housing sites identified as part of the sites inventory analysis were evaluated using a variety of criteria to determine their ability to meet State requirements and meet the City’s RHNA, plus a buffer.

The following sections describe the screening criteria and methodology applied for the sites selection process. Once all sites had been selected and verified, the realistic density assumption that was informed by and calculated from City precedent projects was applied to determine each sites’ realistic unit capacity.

Methodology/Evaluation of Possible Sites
To meet the City’s RHNA requirement, two primary project types are identified in the sites inventory, as described below. The methodology and assumptions that support these project types, are summarized in the General Site Evaluation Considerations and Sites for Rezoning sections.

Pipeline Projects
Pipeline projects include City projects that are either approved or under review, including those where formal applications and pre-applications have been submitted. Permits or certificates of occupancy are expected to be issued for these projects in the 6th cycle, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 212  Pipeline Projects – No Rezoning Required: These projects include a significant portion of the pipeline projects and are located where residential is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan (therefore rezoning is not required).

 Pipeline Projects – Rezoning Required: These projects include a smaller portion of the pipeline projects and are located where residential is not currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan, therefore require a rezoning.

Opportunity Sites
Opportunity sites is the second main project type that includes both vacant and non-vacant sites that have available infrastructure and meet a variety of criteria that make them candidates for residential development during the 6
th cycle planning period. The following is a description of the subcategories under the opportunity sites.

 Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites: These identified opportunity sites are considered vacant or underutilized and are eligible for residential development as is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan.

 Rezoned Opportunity Sites: Concurrent with the Housing Element, several parcels were rezoned to allow residential or increase the residential capacity. Only those sites that meet the criteria applied to opportunity sites were included. These opportunity sites that require rezoning are not needed to meet the RHNA, but instead are intended to increase the sites inventory buffer only.

 Accessory Dwelling Units: Accessory Dwelling Units are considered opportunities for residential development and are based on projected development during the planning period as is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan.

General Site Evaluation Considerations
This section provides a summary of the evaluation considerations made as part of the analysis and a description of each consideration. As most of the City is already built out, sites in the inventory primarily include non-vacant parcels that already have access to infrastructure and meet a variety of HCD criteria that make them suitable candidates for housing redevelopment. While sites not included in the sites inventory can also be developed for housing to meet RHNA targets, those sites identified in the inventory are considered optimal and most likely to develop and contribute to housing production in the 6th cycle. The following considerations were evaluated and are described in more detail in the following sections:
 Infrastructure Availability;
 Environmental Constraints;
 Site Status and Capacity (i.e., vacant, underutilized, existing uses, and residential zoning);

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 213  Site Size;
 Permitted Density; and
 Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element(s).

Infrastructure Availability
The availability of utility infrastructure to a site can be a constraint to housing development and was considered as an evaluation criterion when working to identify sites for the inventory. As a primarily urban and developed community, the City of Mountain View is well-served by existing infrastructure systems, including both wet and dry utilities. As much of Mountain View already has available or nearby access to water and wastewater services, wet utilities is not a constraint to residential development though minor upgrades to these services (e.g., expanded sewer and water hookups to the trunk line) may be needed to develop select sites for residential uses. Dry utilities, including natural gas and electricity, provided by PG&E, and telecommunication services by AT&T, will continue to be available throughout the City. All sites have been screened to have available infrastructure.

Environmental Constraints
The analysis of environmental constraints included a review of all parcels identified in the inventory using different GIS-based data screens as well as ABAG’s HESS tool to determine if sites possess one or more environmental constraint, including hazard risks such as wildfire, sea level rise, earthquake/seismic zones, and landslide risk, or other restrictive environmental conditions. Overall, the urbanized areas of the City where the sites for the inventory are located do not have special hazard risks or significant environmental challenges. Where siting housing on parcels with environmental constraints may be unavoidable to accommodate the City’s housing need, risks would be addressed through building codes and other mitigation measures.

Site Status and Capacity
After accounting for pipeline projects, the remaining RHNA must be met through developable opportunity sites in the inventory. The existing characteristics of the site were considered as evaluation criteria for the opportunity sites. Specifically, all residentially zoned sites, either vacant or underutilized, were considered as potential buildable residential sites and were evaluated for site adequacy and capacity. Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2 require that the inventory of suitable land look at criteria for vacant and underutilized sites as outlined below:

 Vacant sites that are zoned for multi-family development  Vacant sites that are not zoned for multi-family development, but that allow such development (such as Precise Plans)
 Underutilized sites that are zoned for residential development and capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity  Sites that are not zoned for residential development, but can be redeveloped for and/or rezoned for multi-family residential development
 Sites owned or leased by the City that can be redeveloped for multi-family residential development within the housing cycle

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 214  Sites controlled by the State, a city/county, or another public agency where there is agreement/documentation that the site can be developed within the housing cycle  Non-vacant sites require substantial evidence to demonstrate that existing development will not preclude housing production during the planning period

A methodology to determine “underutilized” sites was necessary given the City has negligible vacant land. Sites were removed from consideration in the underutilized methodology if: the sites did not initially allow residential uses, were historic resources, were sites that support community-serving uses (parks, utilities, transportation, schools, hospitals), sites with structures that were recently built or modified, and sites generally built out to their allowed density. In addition, sites with more than three existing residential uses were removed from consideration since they could result in displacement of rent-controlled units, which is contrary to the City’s goals for affordable housing production.

An analysis of past and current multi-family residential developments was conducted to identify characteristics of sites that could be redeveloped. Multi-family developments replaced a broad array of different non-residential land uses, including multi-tenant shopping centers, motels, office and R&D buildings, among other uses. Several salient characteristics stood out among the opportunity sites:
 Almost all were built before 1986
 Less than 0.3 FAR office or retail
 Less than 0.5 FAR industrial, R&D, or motel
Sites owned by the City and other public agencies were also evaluated for affordable housing development (including City facilities, City parking Lot 11, the VTA Bus Yard on North Shoreline Boulevard, the DMV site on Showers Drive and various federally-owned sites within City limits).

However, these sites are fully encumbered through the end of the 6 th cycle. The Downtown Transit
Center may have a joint development opportunity this cycle, but it does not currently allow residential, and it is not necessary to meet the RHNA. Therefore, its zoning will be carried out at a time appropriate for the development.

Site Size
Per State law, sites smaller than half an acre or larger than 10 acres are not considered adequate to accommodate lower income housing needs unless it can be demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during prior planning periods, or other evidence is provided that the site can be developed as lower income housing.

 Large Sites - There are no opportunity sites larger than 10 acres included in the sites inventory. Based on the City’s experience with past residential projects, larger sites tend to include a mix of units affordable to various income levels, rather than 100 percent affordable. Consistent with the precedent projects, pipeline projects on large sites greater than 10 acres are reflective of this mix in housing affordability.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 215  Small Sites – The inventory across both project types (pipeline and opportunity sites) includes sites that are less than one-half acre in size. For opportunity sites, a screening of individual parcels less than one-half acre was considered for possible parcel consolidation to determine if additional lower income units at the default density could be achieved. Refer to the Permitted Density section below for more information on default density. Ultimately, this strategy not carried forward as part of the main solution for selecting sites for the inventory as more effective parcels to accommodate the lower income RHNA were identified. Parcel consolidation involves the joining of multiple adjacent parcels, that individually are less than one-half acres in size, into one to increase the unit capacity to support lower income units.

Typically, this can be done with a limited number of owners present and the likelihood that the parcels would be developed together as a single project.

Permitted Density
State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a “default density standard” of 30 units per acre for lower income units in a metropolitan jurisdiction such as Mountain View. This is the minimum density that is deemed appropriate in State law to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA. In accordance with the State’s default density standards, sites that could support a minimum of 30 units per acre were considered appropriate for very low- and low income units, as well as for moderate income units. All underutilized opportunity sites can accommodate at least the default density.

Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element(s)
To accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA, sites from the 2014-2022 Housing Element Sites Inventory were evaluated to determine their viability for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. A total of 17 prior Housing Element sites have been identified as part of the 6 th cycle inventory. Of
those sites, 12 have been rezoned since the 5th cycle, which allow them to be included in the 6th cycle inventory as new sites. Because they are considered new sites, they are not subject to residential use by right in which 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households.

The remaining five sites are included as pipeline projects.

Sites for Rezoning
Government Code section 65583.2(h) sets requirements if sites are identified for rezoning to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall. The City’s sites inventory does not have a lower income shortfall, and therefore is not subject to those requirements. Nonetheless, the City is rezoning sites concurrent with the Housing Element, intends to rezone sites within the mandated timeline, and continues to study additional rezonings to increase the City’s housing capacity at all income levels, thus contributing to the increase in the RHNA buffer. These rezonings include the following:
 Implementing General Plan Village Center uses and standards at existing underutilized shopping centers throughout the City (including south of El Camino Real where the highest opportunity neighborhoods are located);
 Removing the requirement to obtain legislative approvals in order to build at the highest densities along El Camino Real; and

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 216  Various under review and anticipated affordable housing developments on previously non-residential sites throughout the City (Pipeline Projects – Rezoning Required).

Realistic Capacity Evaluation
As required by Housing Element statute, local governments must analyze available sites based on a determination of the realistic residential development capacity. To establish realistic capacity, precedent projects were referenced when evaluating vacant and underutilized sites, and specifically the typical densities of existing or approved residential development at similar affordability levels to confirm local development trends. Density is dictated by the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. As a conservative estimate of capacity, the sites inventory applies the more restrictive density standard of either the zone or the General Plan. In zones that are regulated by floor area ratio (FAR), the maximum density is defined by the FAR. Densities achieved through FARs and the General Plan are based on precedent projects, which were used to determine the realistic density assumptions.

Over 90 Mountain View residential and mixed-use precedent projects were initially analyzed to calculate the realistic density based by zone or General Plan land use designation for the opportunity sites (excluding the ADUs). Many of these precedent projects have applicable zones and General Plan land use designations, consistent with the sites in the inventory. As an example, there are no Medium Density Residential parcels in the inventory and as a result, these precedent projects are not shown. Refer to Table 41 for a listing of the relevant City precedents projects, along with details on the project acreage, dwelling units, density achieved, Precise Plan information if applicable, and General Plan land use designation.

Precedents provide an average density and are inherently more conservative than taking the highest density allowed or built. For zones with FARs where no built precedents were available (or too few to have an average), the realistic capacity assumption was determined by applying the same realistic density assumption for zones with the same FAR maximum where there were precedents to draw from, given these zones had similar characteristics. Refer to Table 41 and Table 43 for realistic density assumptions.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 217

Table 41: Precedent Projects List
Project Address
Project
Area_
Acreage
Dwelling Units,
excluding
Density Bonus
Density (DU/ac).
excluding Density
Bonus
Zoning/Precise
Plan
General Plan Land Use
Designation
324 Bryant Street 0.26 7 26.92 Downtown Downtown Mixed-Use 676 Dana Street 0.25 7 28.00 Downtown Downtown Mixed-Use 231-235 Hope Street 0.26 9 34.62 Downtown Downtown Mixed-Use 135 Franklin Street 1.03 51 49.51 Downtown Downtown Mixed-Use City Lot 12 (Bryant Street) 1.50 75 50.00 Downtown Downtown Mixed-Use 400 Logue Avenue 2.54 374 147.24 East Whisman (High Intensity) East Whisman Mixed- Use
320 Logue Avenue 2.15 363 168.84 East Whisman (High Intensity) East Whisman Mixed- Use
819 N Rengstorff Avenue 0.83 36 43.37 CRA General Mixed-Use 870 E El Camino Real
(Mixed-Use Corridor
Portion Only)

1.16 97 83.62 El Camino Real (Medium
Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
1411-1495 W El Camino
Real 1.25 53 42.40 El Camino Real (Low
Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
334 San Antonio Road 0.66 42 63.64 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor) Mixed-Use Corridor
1616 W El Camino Real 0.99 66 66.67 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
1701 W El Camino Real 0.49 54 110.20 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
950 W El Camino Real 0.61 68 111.48 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 218 394 Ortega Avenue 1.62 144 88.89 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor) Mixed-Use Corridor
865 E El Camino Real 2.30 150 65.22 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
1720 W El Camino Real 2.43 162 66.67 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
801 W El Camino Real 2.39 164 68.62 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
100 Moffett Boulevard 2.70 184 68.15 Planned Community Mixed-Use Corridor 2650 W El Camino Real 2.91 193 66.32 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
2268-2280 W El Camino
Real 2.61 204 78.16 El Camino Real (Medium
Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
2700 W El Camino Real 2.28 172 75.44 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
400-520 San Antonio
Road 5.75 432 75.13 San Antonio (Mixed-Use
Corridor) Mixed-Use Corridor
2580 California Street 8.63 632 73.23 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor) Mixed-Use Corridor
601 Escuela Avenue 0.50 25 50.00 El Camino Real (Low
Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
1313 and 1347 W El
Camino Real 0.44 18 40.91 El Camino Real (Low
Intensity) Mixed-Use Corridor
730 Central Avenue 0.24 15 62.50 CRA Mixed-Use Corridor

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 219 Table 42: Realistic Density Assumptions – Non-Rezoning General Plan
Designation
Maximum
Density -
GP Zoning District
Maximum Density
- Zoning
Characteristic
DU/ac
Target
Percentage
Realistic
Density
Medium High-
Density Residential
35 DU/ac R3 and equivalent Varies 29.9 85% 30
General Mixed-Use 1.35 FAR CRA and equivalent 43 DU/ac 43.37 84% 36 Mixed-Use Corridor 1.85 FAR El Camino Real Precise
Plan (Village Center)

1.85 FAR including
required retail

53.98 84% 45
San Antonio Precise Plan
(Mixed-Use Corridor)

1.85 FAR 71.97 84% 60
El Camino Real Precise
Plan (Low Intensity)

1.35 FAR 45.74 84% 38
CRA (Moffett Blvd) 43 DU/ac 62.5 84% 36
East Whisman
Mixed-Use

1.0 FAR +
Precise
Plan Bonus
East Whisman Precise
Plan (High Intensity)

3.5 FAR 157 70% 110
East Whisman Precise
Plan (Medium Intensity)

2.5 FAR no example
projects*; 112
70% 79
East Whisman Precise
Plan (Village Center)

1.35 FAR no example
projects***; 45
84% 38
North Bayshore
Mixed-Use

1.0 FAR +
Precise
Plan Bonus
North Bayshore Precise
Plan (General)

3.5 FAR no example
projects*; 157
70% 110
North Bayshore Precise
Plan (Edge)

1.85 FAR no example
projects**; 71
70% 50
Mixed-Use Center 2.35 FAR San Antonio Precise Plan
(Mixed-Use Center)

2.35 FAR 65 60% 39
Downtown Mixed-
Use
References
Downtown
Precise
Plan
Downtown Precise Plan Varies - most sites
are 50 DU/ac

45.15 55% 25

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 220

Table 43: Realistic Density Assumptions – Rezoning
General Plan
Designation
Maximum
Density - GP Zoning District Maximum Density
- Zoning
Characteristic
DU/ac
Target
Percentage
Realistic
Density
Neighborhood
Mixed-Use

1.05 FAR Updated CN District 1.05 FAR 30 70% 21
Mixed-Use
Corridor
Residential

1.85-2.3 FAR Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan
or Moffett Boulevard

1.85 FAR 72 70% 50
El Camino Real Precise
Plan (Village Center)
Increase of 0.45
FAR

17.99 84% 15

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 221

Mixed-Use Areas
The precedent projects were evaluated to determine the likely density of 100 percent residential development in each of the zones. However, most sites are within mixed-use zones with there being a possibility that non-residential uses could be built. This likelihood was conservatively set at either 55-60 percent, 70 percent, or 84 percent depending on the following:
- 84 percent: This includes areas with many precedents, specifically the Mixed-Use Corridor General Plan designation areas along the City’s main arterials. Over the last 10 years, 84 percent of development land area in this area was residential, or residential with a trivial amount of commercial that did not reduce the density. This reflects the strong density incentives the City has in these areas (allowing much more residential development than commercial), and developers rarely choose other uses (mostly hotels and very small offices). - 70 percent : This reflects areas with fewer precedents, more uncertainty and/or a higher commercial development potential. This is, however, still quite conservative for these areas.

For example, East Whisman has a Jobs-Housing Linkage requirement that requires residential development to accompany any new office development, with the effect that no more than approximately 30 percent of any given development can be office. North Bayshore has a similar policy. Other areas where there are no precedents, such as the Neighborhood Mixed-Use (General Plan Village Center) areas, have similar density incentives as the Mixed-Use Corridor areas given these designations share some like characteristics. - 55-60 percent : This reflects areas where residential and non-residential development may be roughly equally, but only reflect a small number of sites in the inventory, within the Downtown area and the San Antonio Shopping Center.

Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels One of the most important evaluation considerations of the sites selection process is to evaluate a sites’ ability to accommodate households with varying income levels. To satisfy the RHNA requirement, the amount of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units is specified for each site in the inventory. Refer to Appendix E for more details. Furthermore, the unit capacity must be maintained throughout the 2023-2031 planning period. Therefore, a buffer of at least 15 percent to 30 percent is generally recommended by HCD, and the Mountain View’s sites inventory buffer is 36 percent. If sites listed in the inventory are redeveloped with other uses or different income levels than what is identified, the difference can be made up with the buffer sites to ensure there is “no net loss” of RHNA capacity at each income level.

Affordability assumptions for opportunity sites (excluding ADUs) are outlined in Table 44 by site characteristic and income levels. As mentioned in the Methodology/Evaluation of Possible Sites section, State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a default density standard of 30 units per acre for lower-income units in a metropolitan jurisdiction. Sites that are 0.5 to 10 acres that allow for development at 30 units per acre are suitable to accommodate the lower income RHNA, as indicated by HCD. This guidance is based on HCD’s experience that fewer lower income

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 222 projects are developed with fewer than 50 units or more than 150 units. The City has taken the more conservative approach, which is to limit a single site’s lower income allocation to a range between 50 and 150 units, even though that further disqualifies many sites that are greater than 0.5 acres.

No sites less than 0.5 acres can accommodate more than 50 units, and there are no sites in the inventory, other than pipeline projects, larger than 10 acres. This splitting of incomes is reasonable because many large developments choose to comply with their below-market-rate housing requirement through land dedication, on which affordable housing developers can build at higher densities than the original development. The North Bayshore and Middlefield Park Master Plans and 1255 Pear Avenue are good examples of this. In addition, the City has elected to limit moderate- income allocation to a range between 0 and 150 units, both because this is a more conservative assumption and in order to limit the risk that a single project will require a significant amount of new Housing Element sites under “No Net Loss”.

Table 44: Affordability Assumptions
Site Characteristic Capacity Assumption Income Category Application
Accommodates fewer than 50 units
(includes all sites smaller than 0.5 acres) 100% Moderate Income Units Accommodates between 50 and 150
units 100% Lower-Income Units
Accommodates between 150 and 300
units
150 Lower-Income Units
Remainder Moderate Income Units
Accommodates more than 300 units
150 Lower-income Units
150 Moderate Income Units
Remainder Above Moderate
Income Units

50 percent Threshold of Lower Income Units on Non-vacant Sites State law requires additional analysis of existing uses in the Sites Inventory if more than 50% of the City’s low-income RHNA is accommodated on non-vacant sites. HCD has published guidance for how to determine this, which includes adjustments for proposed lower income projects and ADU capacity, in addition to vacant sites in the inventory. Table 45shows this analysis based on HCD’s guidance. A substantial amount of the City’s lower-income units (more than 50 percent of the lower income RHNA) are within proposed projects. In addition, the inventory includes affordable ADU units and a singular vacant opportunity site with low income unit capacity. In summary, 44 percent of Mountain View’s lower income RHNA is accommodated on nonvacant sites, which is below the 50 percent threshold. Therefore, no additional analysis is needed to support the Site Inventory’s non-vacant sites.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 223 Table 45: Lower Income Units on Non-vacant Sites
Adjustment Factor Number of Units
Proposed Lower Income Projects 2,319
ADU Capacity (affordable to lower incomes) 48
Capacity on Vacant Sites 82
Total Capacity (not related to non-vacant
sites) 2,449
RHNA on Non-vacant Sites 4,370 – 2,449 = 1,921
Percentage of Lower Income RHNA
accommodated on Non-vacant sites 1,921 / 4,370 = 44%

Sites Inventory
A summary of all sites identified by project type categories identified in the Mountain View 6th cycle Housing Element sites inventory for the 2023-2031 planning period is provided in this section.

Figure 87 presents an overview map of the identified housing site locations within Mountain View (excluding ADUs), and Table 46 outlines the unit capacity by income level for each of the two main project types.

Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites
State law requires each jurisdiction to include a land inventory to identify specific sites that are suitable for residential development and demonstrate that sufficient land is zoned to provide housing capacity that is adequate to meet the RHNA for each income level. The lack of vacant land in Mountain View and the relatively high value of new residential development means that the City consistently sees the redevelopment of underutilized sites, including ones that contain functioning residential and commercial uses. Non-vacant, opportunity sites in the inventory were observed to have commercial buildings that fall short of the site’s development potential, underutilized surface parking lots occupying a major portion of the site, and/or have landowners that expressed interest in redevelopment.

Unit Capacity by Project Type
The following are summaries of the key findings for each of the project types: 1) pipeline projects, including those that do not and do require rezonings, and 2) opportunity sites, including those that do not and do require rezonings and ADUs. Refer to Table 46 for the sites inventory summary and Figure 87 for an overview map of all sites in the inventory. This inventory was developed based on HCD requirements for locations and affordability levels as well as City goals focusing on sites that have residential capacity under the current zoning and areas that have had undergone robust community engagement, such as Precise Plan areas. Sites that would cause high residential displacement were avoided.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 224 Table 46: Sites Inventory Summary
Project Category
Type
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above Moderate-
Income Capacity
Realistic Capacity
Total (Units)
Pipeline Projects (A) 2,300 457 6,480 9,237
Opportunity Sites
(B) 3,370 2,250 243 5,863
Total Inventory
(A+B) 5,670 2,707 6,723 15,100
6th cycle RHNA (C) 4,370 1,885 4,880 11,135
RHNA Buffer
(A+B)-C +1,300 +842 +1,843 +3,985

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 225 Figure 87: Overview of All Housing Site Locations

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 226

Pipeline Projects
Pipeline projects are those where an application has been approved, or a formal or preliminary application has been received, or, in one case, a site has been dedicated by a development to accommodate their below-market-rate housing requirement. Pipeline projects include two subcategories which include those pipeline projects that require rezoning and those that do not.

 Pipeline Projects - Rezoning Not Required
The projects in this category conform with the current General Plan and zoning. Sites considered as pipeline projects include 107 sites on parcels totaling approximately 234 acres (refer to Figure 89). As summarized in Table 47 through Table 49, this subcategory of the pipeline projects is anticipated to generate 8,657 units based on applications received. Table 47 provides an overview of units based on the project status (approved, under review, under review (informal), dedicated), Table 48 demonstrates how units at varied income levels appear and are distributed in each of the City’s recognized seven neighborhoods, and Table 49 indicates that a majority of the pipeline projects that do not require rezoning (85 percent) are located in the City’s Precise Plan areas, including Downtown, East Whisman, El Camino Real, San Antonio, and North Bayshore, where robust community engagement has already occurred to vet areas that would support residential development.

Larger pipeline projects of this subcategory include the Master Plans for Middlefield Park (East Whisman Precise Plan) and North Bayshore. Both plans are multi-year developments and will provide a combination of affordable and market-rate housing. The Master Plans themselves do not confer the right to build, though they are a required step in the entitlement process. However, the plans show interest on the part of a major landowner in the development of housing, including affordable housing, to be completed within the timeframe of the Housing Element planning period. In addition, counting the Master Plans are the most conservative way for the City to use these sites in the inventory, for two reasons. First, many of the sites within the Master Plans would have qualified as lower income or moderate -income sites were it not for the application.

Second, while all the sites in the Master Plans are included in the site inventory, the City is not taking credit for 100 percent of the build-out of the Master Plans (only the portion reasonably expected to occur by 2031). Within the 2023-2031 planning period, the North Bayshore Master Plan is assumed to provide approximately half of land dedications for affordable units and start construction of approximately 3,365 market- rate and inclusionary units, of which approximately 695 units are affordable to lower- and moderate-income levels. This represents less than half of the anticipated units (up to 7,000 total units) in the project that is counted for this cycle. The Middlefield Park Master Plan is assumed to provide 100 percent of land dedications for affordable units and start construction of approximately 50 percent of market-rate units, which yield

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 227 1,088 net new units, of which 380 units are affordable. Refer to the City of Mountain View homepage at www.mountainview.gov for more information on these master plans.

Table 47: Pipeline Project Summary by Project Status
Project Status Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Above
Moderate Income
Units
Sum of Net
New Units
Approved 226 207 1,414 1,847
Under Review 1,214 248 4,752 6,214
Under Review (Informal) 281 1 314 596
Grand Total 1,721 456 6,480 8,657

Table 48: Pipeline Projects Summarized by Neighborhood Neighborhood Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Net
New Units
Central Neighborhoods 191 3 28 222
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 78 0 158 236
Moffett/Whisman Road 563 276 2,805 3,644
Monta Loma/Farley/Rock
Street
1 0 20 21
North Bayshore 740 167 2,890 3,797
San Antonio/Rengstorff 44 3 166 213
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 104 7 413 524
Grand Total 1,721 456 6,480 8,657

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 228 Table 49: Pipeline Projects Summarized by Precise Plan Precise Plan
Sum of
Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate-
Income Units
Sum of Above
Moderate-
Income Units
Sum of Net New
Units
Downtown 119 1 7 127
East Whisman 509 96 1,870 2,475
El Camino Real 251 8 563 822
North Bayshore 740 167 2,890 3,797
San Antonio 15 3 82 100
Not in Precise Plan 87 181 1,068 1,336
Grand Total 1,721 456 6,480 8,657

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 229 Figure 88 – Pipeline Projects (Rezone Not Required) – Summary of Parcels

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 230  Pipeline Projects - Rezoning Required
Sites identified within this subcategory require rezoning and have applications under review, or that the City or affordable housing developers have acquired with the intent to redevelop. Among this project type are affordable developments on Montecito Avenue, Terra Bella Avenue, and Linda Vista as shown in Table 50. In addition, several sites on East Evelyn Avenue and one on Linda Vista Avenue have been acquired by the City or by affordable housing developers with the intent to build. These applications would be exempt from the City’s “gatekeeper” process because they are 100 percent affordable developments going through the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process to allocate City affordable housing funds, and the City and developer can be confident that they will proceed within the timeframe of the Housing Element. The number of units assumed on each site are based on discussions with the developers and are corroborated by the capacities of nearby and similar affordable housing developments.

Sites considered as pipeline projects that require rezoning would include seven sites on parcels totaling approximately 8.5 acres (refer to Figure 89).

Table 50: Rezone Sites Summary by Project Address
Site Address
Sum of
Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Total Unit
Capacity
1020 & 1040 Terra Bella
Ave 108 0 0 108
1265 Montecito Ave 84 1 0 85
57 E Evelyn Avenue 42 0 0 42
67 E Evelyn Avenue 126 0 0 126
87 E Evelyn Avenue 150 0 0 150
1010 Linda Vista 69 0 0 69
Grand Total 579 1 0 580

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 231 Figure 89 – Pipeline Projects (Rezone)– Summary of Parcels

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 232 Opportunity Sites
Sites identified within this project type include those vacant and non-vacant, underutilized opportunity sites as well as accessory dwelling units. The following is a summary of the findings for these subcategories.

 Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites
All sites in this subcategory conform with the current General Plan and zoning and do not require a rezoning. These sites were filtered and selected as described in the Site Selection Process section, and will support multi-family housing at a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Almost all of these sites (98 percent) are within the recently updated Precise Plans for Downtown, East Whisman, El Camino Real, North Bayshore, San Antonio, and South Whisman, which are well distributed throughout the City as illustrated in Figure 90. As shown in Table 51, the opportunity sites identified will provide capacity to develop at least 4,963 units across the six Precise Plans.

Table 51: Opportunity Sites Summary by Precise Plan
Precise Plans Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate-
Income Units
Sum of Above
Moderate-
Income Units
Sum of Net New
Units
Downtown 0 6 0 6
East Whisman 997 263 52 1,312
El Camino Real 1,283 1,350 60 2,693
North Bayshore 313 92 0 405
San Antonio 182 143 0 325
South Whisman 82 0 0 82
Not in Precise Plan 0 140 0 140
Grand Total 2,857 1,994 112 4,963

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 233 Figure 90: Opportunity Sites – Summary of Parcels

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 234  Opportunity Sites – Rezoned Required
Some opportunity sites were identified for rezoning as a result of stakeholder input that was gathered during the development of the sites inventory process. These opportunity sites have been rezoned as part of this Housing Element Update and are consistent with General Plan direction. These sites include the following:

 Existing shopping centers that were identified as “Village Centers” in the 2030 General Plan, where new residential development could be integrated into redeveloped neighborhood centers with a mix of uses.
 El Camino Real ”Village Centers” that already allow up to 2.3 FAR through a legislative “floating zone” process—a process that is superseded by State law and the General Plan.

Many of these sites align with a variety of the evaluation criteria that make them ideal candidates for residential development given their proximity to services, goods, amenities, and transit.

Rezone opportunity sites within the General Plan Village Centers and El Camino Real Village Center sites include a total of 25 parcels on parcels totaling approximately 36 acres and yield 824 units total. Refer to Table 52 and Figure 90.

Table 52: Rezoned Opportunity Site Summarized by Designation

Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Sum of Total Unit
Capacity
El Camino Real Village Center 233 24 121 378
General Plan Village Center 232 214 0 446
Grand Total 465 238 121 824

 Accessory Dwelling Unit
Accessory dwelling unit is the third subcategory under the opportunity sites project type. An evaluation was conducted to determine the projected number of ADUs to be built within the planning period.

Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are small, self-contained dwelling units that provide a kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area. The unit can be

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 235 attached to the main home with a separate entrance or can be a small, detached unit in the rear yard or above a garage (Mountain View Ordinance Section 36.12.60).

Because of their small size (between 500 to 1,000 square feet), ADUs typically rent for less than apartments and can provide affordable rental options for smaller households, as well as affordable housing options for extended family. Consistent with State law, the City’s zoning permits one ADU and one JADU per parcel within single family residential zoning, and additional units within multi-family residential zoning. HCD guidance suggests that jurisdictions can assume that ADUs and JADUs continue to develop at the same pace that has occurred over the last three years.

Between 2018 to 2020, 22 ADUs/JADUs were completed in Mountain View as shown in Table 53, with 2020 having 12 built ADUs/JADUs.

Table 53: Accessory Dwelling Units Built in Prior Housing Element Cycle Year 2018 2019 2020 Total
Building
Completed 5 5 12 22

Based on the trend of the 12 ADUs built in 2020, which is more than double from the prior year, the inventory assumed 96 ADUs total (12 units multiplied over an 8-year planning period). It is anticipated that a similar number of ADUs and JADUs, if not more, will be permitted and built in Mountain View during each year in the 6
th cycle, with additional improvements to be made to ADU processes and public education, and through expanding policies and programs to further advance ADU/JADU development (for more information, refer to the Policies & Programs section of the Housing Element).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 236 The affordability assumptions for ADUs/JADUs are based on a study prepared by UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation (April 2021), noting that ADUs/JADUs in Santa Clara County are affordable to 50 percent of families (family of two) making equal to or less than 80 percent of AMI. By applying these assumptions to Mountain View, the results project the following as shown in Table 54.

Table 54: Accessory Dwelling Units Projected Over the Planning Period Income
Category
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Total ADUs 24 24 38 10 96
Percentages 25% 25% 40% 10% 100%
Source: ABAG. September 8, 2021. Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units. http://21elements.com/documentsmainmenu- 3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 237

Evaluation of Sites Inventory Through the Lens of AFFH
AB 686 (Santiago) created a new requirement for local jurisdictions to evaluate their Housing Element sites inventories through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The law requires that the site inventory be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with the local jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. HCD’s guidance on implementation of the requirement for the sites inventory analysis states that it should address:

 Improved Conditions: A discussion of how the sites are identified in a manner that better integrates the community with a consideration for the historical patterns and trends, number of existing households, the magnitude (e.g., number of units) of the RHNA by income group and impacts on patterns of socio-economic and racial concentrations.

 Exacerbated Conditions: Similar to above, an explanation of identified sites relative to the impact on existing patterns of segregation and number of households relative to the magnitude (e.g., number of units) of the RHNA by income group.

 Isolation of the RHNA: An evaluation of whether the RHNA by income group is concentrated in areas of the community.

 Local Data and Knowledge: A consideration of current, planned and past developments, investment, policies, practices, demographic trends, public comment and other factors.

 Other Relevant Factors: Any other factors that influence the impacts of the identification of sites to accommodate the regional housing need on socio-economic patterns and segregation.

The following discussion explores how the housing sites inventory for the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element addresses these concerns.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)  Mountain View does not have any areas that qualify as R/ECAPS (nor does it have any areas that qualify as Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs); thus, there is no concern about the distribution of lower-income RHNA sites potentially exacerbating R/ECAPS or failing to better integrate RCAAs.

Areas with Concentrations of Minority Residents (percent of Population Non-White)  Mountain View is 60 percent non-White. While lower-income RHNA sites are not found on every City block, they are distributed across all seven City neighborhoods.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 238 Concentrations of Poverty (percent of Population with Income below poverty level)  Overall, Mountain View has very low levels of poverty, and its areas of highest concentration of households with income below poverty level only reach a maximum of 16.4 percent .

There is a grouping of lower-income RHNA sites in one of two Census Tracts with between

10.0 and 16.4 percent poverty; however, sites are also dispersed into areas with poverty below 10 percent .

Environmental Conditions (CalEnviroscreen)
 Sites are well distributed, with significant concentrations of RHNA sites in areas with the lowest percentile (best) scores. There are also concentrations of sites in the City’s areas that have higher percentile scores; however, the City’s percentile scores rise only to 50.5 percent at their highest, meaning that these sites are in areas that still rank well on a statewide basis.

Access to Opportunity (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas
 Most of the City’s lower income RHNA sites/capacity are in areas of Highest or High Resource. Limited sites are in Moderate or Low Resource areas. Available transit services can help to connect residents of these areas to resources in other areas.

Transportation Access (Housing + Transportation Cost as percent of Income)  Most of the housing opportunity sites are located in areas with lower (best) to moderate H+T cost as a percentage of income for a moderate-income household. Many of the housing sites are spread along El Camino Real with significant transit options.

Access to Jobs (Jobs Proximity Index)
 All of Mountain View has either a jobs proximity index value of 51 to 74 or 75 to 99 (with 100 being the best); thus, all of the lower-income RHNA sites are in locations with good access to jobs. Many of the sites that are in the areas with values in the 51 to 74 range are only across El Camino Real from areas ranked 75 to 99.

Local Data and Knowledge
The sites inventory includes a number of parcels in the part of Mountain View located north of Highway 101, which is currently classified by the HCD/TCAC Opportunity Areas map as a Low Resource area. The Low Resource classification is likely due to fact that the area has historically been a non-residential area with limited amenities for residents; however, this area is planned for substantial housing development in the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element planning period and beyond via the North Bayshore Precise Plan. The implementation of the precise plan can be considered a place-based strategy that will help to transform the area into a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood that is well connected to the rest of the City of Mountain View and has access to the largest concentration of jobs in the City. The first guiding principle of the precise plan is to create complete neighborhoods, calling for the blending of residential, commercial, and office uses with services, open space, and transportation options for residents and area employees. While the precise plan includes a number of sites identified to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA, the

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 239 precise plan calls for new residential development to be mixed-income, 20 percent affordable units and the balance market rate units.

During the public review process for the Housing Element Update, some stakeholders commented that they wished to see more housing opportunity sites identified in the more affluent neighborhoods south of El Camino Real. In response to those comments, the Housing Sites inventory process included an evaluation of additional sites south of El Camino Real, including religious sites and shopping centers.

 While religious sites did not meet the opportunity sites criteria, primarily because there are few precedents involving church sites and multi-family development, the Housing Element includes a program to allow religious sites additional density when constructing affordable housing developments on their land.
 Several shopping centers south of El Camino Real were identified as “Village Centers” in the 2030 General Plan, where new housing could be allowed in the context of redeveloped neighborhood shopping sites. Zoning amendments adopted with the Housing Element Update implemented this General Plan direction. These sites were included in the sites inventory if they are consistent with the underutilized sites methodology (see Section X:

Rezoned Opportunity Sites).

In addition, the area does include a substantial amount land zoned R3 (Multiple Family), primarily just south of El Camino Real. The sites inventory is not targeting rezoning of land zoned R1 (Single Family) in the areas south of El Camino Real. Although there are practical reasons for this, such as a lack of vacant land in the R1 district that meets the State’s criteria for housing sites (e.g., larger than one-half acre, vacant, likely to redevelop in the 2023-2031 time period), there are still opportunities for new housing for lower-income households in the form of potential Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units that could be added to existing single-family lots, as well as the potential for some densification of the neighborhood through the provisions of SB9.

In addition, the City identified several “back-pocket” rezonings that could be carried out in case opportunity sites are developed with uses other than the income level signified in the sites inventory.

Some of these sites are in high opportunity areas, including the following:

 Small offices surrounding El Camino Hospital along Grant Road south of El Camino Real;  The Downtown Transit Center, which may be an opportunity for a joint development with CalTrain; and
 Other nonresidential sites south of El Camino Real, such as 1949 Grant Road and offices near Blossom Valley Shopping Center.

Summary of Conclusions and Approach to Policies and Programs The sites inventory and the housing development opportunities that it provides will help to affirmatively further fair housing. Overall, the sites inventory does not exacerbate fair housing

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 240 issues, such as contribute to R/ECAPS, RCAAs, or racial or ethnic isolation or segregation; nor does it overly concentrate lower income housing opportunity sites in any single area of the City. It does not concentrate lower-income housing opportunity sites in areas that already have significant concentrations of poverty or areas of racial or ethnic isolation or segregation. In contrast, opportunities for housing development for lower-income households are identified in areas with high opportunity and good access to jobs, transportation, and a healthy environment.

The sites inventory, which fully accommodates the City’s share of the regional housing need for the 2023 to 2031 planning period, along with a substantial buffer, also helps to affirmatively further fair housing from a regional perspective by creating opportunities for housing development for households at all income levels in a location that has outstanding access to jobs, services, a healthy environment, and other amenities that support a high quality of life and positive life outcomes for residents.

A robust roster of local policies and programs will complement the sites inventory to help protect housing opportunities for existing lower-income households, households with special needs, and minorities, and work to ensure equitable access to housing within the community for all socio- economic segments of the community as well as prospective residents.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 241 Sites Inventory Spreadsheets

This page intentionally left blank

Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number
Consolidated
Sites General Plan Designation (Current) Zoning Designation Parcel Size (Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity
Total
Capacity
MOUNTAIN VIEW 1001 N Shoreline Blvd 94043 15315032 Mixed Use Center P 7.42 Office 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 20 20 263 303 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1100 La Avenida 94043-1424 11614111 North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.98 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not U sed in Prior Housing Element 100 0 0 100 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1255 Pear Ave 94043-1433 11614089 A North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.96 Vacant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 220 220 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1255 Pear Ave 94043-1442 11614098 A North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.54 Vacant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1255 Pear Ave 94043-1432 11614126 A North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.62 Vacant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1255 Pear Ave 94043-1431 11614136 A North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 9.45 Office 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1255 Pear Ave (Affordable Housing Dedication) 94043 11614094 North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.90 Vacant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 112 0 0 112 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1313 and 1347 W El Camino Real 94040-2403 18932085 B Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.06 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1313 and 1347 W El Camino Real 94040-2403 18932086 B Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.44 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 0 22 24 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1332 Park Dr 94040-2416 18932028 Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.32 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Eleme nt 00 2 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1411-1495 W El Camino Real 94040-2405 18932074 C Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.51 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1411-1495 W El Camino Real 94040-2405 18932079 C Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.20 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 5 48 53 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1411-1495 W El Camino Real 94040-2405 18932080 C Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.47 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1919 Gamel Way 94040-2007 15421007 D Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.49 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Elem ent 29 0 63 92 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1919 Gamel Way 94040-2071 15421008 D Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.23 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Elem ent 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1919 Gamel Way 94040-2072 15421010 D Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.23 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Elem ent 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1919 Gamel Way 94040-2075 15421011 D Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.25 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Elem ent 00 0 0 MO
UNTAIN VIEW 1919 Gamel Way 94040-2010 15421012 D Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.23 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Elem ent 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1919 Gamel Way 94040-2007 15421013 D Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.57 Vacant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1958 Latham St 94040-2108 15421017 Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.41 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Eleme nt 00 6 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 198 Easy Street 94043-3707 16037005 Medium-Density Residential R3-3sd 0.51 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 4 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1991 W El Camino Real 94040 17005051 Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.76 Restaurant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Elem ent 5 1 48 54 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2645 Fayette Drive 94040-1119 14816008 E High-Density Residential P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0.32 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 0 33 38 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2645 Fayette Drive 94040-1180 14816009 E High-Density Residential P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0.35 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 294 Tyrella Ave 94043-3919 16032001 F Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.30 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Elem ent 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 294 Tyrella Ave 94043-3919 16032002 F Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.23 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Elem ent 0 0 10 10 MOUNTAIN VIEW 320 Logue Ave 94043-4027 16058004 East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 2.09 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 55 0 308 363 MOUNTAIN VIEW 334 San Antonio Rd 94040-1214 14815020 Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0.66 Gas Station 1 0 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Eleme nt - Non-Vacant 10 3 49 62 MOUNTAIN VIEW 355-401 E Middlefield Rd 94043 16052013 G East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 2.00 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 92 58 466 616 MOUNTAIN VIEW 355-401 E Middlefield Rd 94043 16052021 G East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 4.00 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 400 Logue Avenue 94043-4029 16058002 East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 2.53 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 24 38 346 408 MOUNTAIN VIEW 555 W Middlefield Rd 94043-4007 15849001 Medium-Density Residential P 14.97 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 32 16 275 323 MOUNTAIN VIEW 570 Rengstorff Ave 94040-1990 14836033 H Medium High-Density Residential R3-1.25 3.76 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing E lement 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 570 Rengstorff Ave 94040 14836035 H Medium High-Density Residential R3-1.25 0.30 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Elemen t 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 570 Rengstorff Ave 94040-1704 14836036 H Medium High-Density Residential R3-1.25 0.05 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing E lement 0 0 15 15 MOUNTAIN VIEW 601 Escuela Ave 94040-2008 15435013 I Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.34 Restaurant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 601 Escuela Ave 94041-1720 15435014 I Medium-Density Residential P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.16 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 2 21 25 MOUNTAIN VIEW 615-749 W El Camino Real 94040-2507 19302049 J Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.93 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 615-749 W El Camino Real 94040-2507 19302050 J Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.16 Fast Food 1 0 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Ele ment - Non-Vacant 33 266 299 MOUNTAIN VIEW 676 Dana Street 94041 15822019 Downtown Mixed-Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0.26 Restaurant 1 0 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non- Vacant 00 7 7 MOUNTAIN VIEW 730 Central Ave 94043-4715 15845001 Mixed-Use Corridor CRA 0.24 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Pr ior Housing Element 2 0 19 21 MOUNTAIN VIEW 773 Cuesta Drive 94040-3740 19322003 Low-Density Residential R1 0.72 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 3 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW 777 W Middlefield Rd 94043-3307 15324005 High-Density Residential P 9.69 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 144 364 508 MOUNTAIN VIEW 828-836 Sierra Vista Ave and 1975/1979 Colony St 94043-1706 15304001 K Medium-Density Residential R3-2 0.27 Multi-Family Duplex Rental 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Eleme nt 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 828-836 Sierra Vista Ave and 1975/1979 Colony St 94043-1728 15304017 K Medium-Density Residential R3-2 0.32 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 828-836 Sierra Vista Ave and 1975/1979 Colony St 94043-1728 15304018 K Medium-Density Residential R3-2 0.23 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 0 14 15 MOUNTAIN VIEW 828-836 Sierra Vista Ave and 1975/1979 Colony St 94043-1706 15304019 K Medium-Density Residential R3-2 0.23 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 851-853 Sierra Vista Avenue 94043-1729 15303006 L Medium-Density Residential R3-2 0.12 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 851-853 Sierra Vista Avenue 94043-1729 15303007 L Medium-Density Residential R3-2 0.10 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 851-853 Sierra Vista Avenue 94043-1729 15303022 L Medium-Density Residential R3-2 0.41 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 6 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 870 E El Camino Real 94040-2814 16111011 Medium-Density Residential R3-2 & P(38) - El Camino Real Preicse Plan 9.29 Multi-Family 3+ Rental 1 0 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 33 0 158 191 MOUNTAIN VIEW 89 W El Camino Real 94040 19313022 Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.47 Restaurant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Elem ent 61 0 0 61 MOUNTAIN VIEW 901 E El Camino Real 94040-2832 19808002 Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.38 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 45 0 0 45 MOUNTAIN VIEW 918 Rich Ave 94040 18933028 Medium High-Density Residential R3-1 0.72 Vacant 1 0 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 3 1 24 28 MOUNTAIN VIEW 96 W El Camino Real 94040 15801038 Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.88 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 70 00 70 MOUNTAIN VIEW City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 94041-1925 15811033 M Downtown Mixed-Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0.10 Parking Lot 1 1 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 94041-1925 15811034 M Downtown Mixed-Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0.10 Parking Lot 1 1 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 94041-1925 15811035 M Downtown Mixed-Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0.04 Parking Lot 1 1 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 94041-1923 15811036 M Downtown Mixed-Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0.06 Parking Lot 1 1 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 00 0 0 MO
UNTAIN VIEW City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 94041-1923 15811037 M Downtown Mixed-Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0.17 Parking Lot 1 1 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 94041-1923 15811038 M Downtown Mixed-Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0.18 Parking Lot 1 1 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 119 1 0 120 MOUNTAIN VIEW City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 94041-1923 15811055 M Downtown Mixed-Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0.70 Parking Lot 1 1 Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 94041-1923 15811060 M Downtown Mixed-Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0.17 Parking Lot 1 1 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Ele ment 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043-4020 16057008 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 8.88 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043-2232 16057009 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 3.09 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043-2210 16057010 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 1.04 I ndustrial 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043-4022 16057011 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 1.41 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043-4022 16057012 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 4.97 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043-4018 16057013 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 2.17 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043-4019 16058001 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 1.29 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043-2243 16058016 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 5.84 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043-2243 16058017 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 4.51 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 338 0 750 1088 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043 16059005 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 1.03 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Middlefield Park Master Plan 94043 16059006 N East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0.79 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1320 11610077 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.94 Office 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1318 11610078 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.50 Ped/Bike Circulation 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1318 11610079 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.44 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1318 11610080 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.86 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1207 11610084 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.70 Office 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW Nor th Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1316 11610085 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.88 Office 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1227 11610088 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.76 Restaurant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1320 11610089 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 2.77 Office 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1230 11610095 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 5.77 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1243 11610097 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 4.41 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1227 11610101 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.99 Restaurant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043 11610102 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 8.63 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1236 11610104 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 3.64 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1236 11610105 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 3.71 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1236 11610107 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.94 Office 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043 11610108 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 4.44 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1339 11611021 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.99 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1339 11611022 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.62 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1338 11611024 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.56 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1338 11611025 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.80 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1368 11611028 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 4.88 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1353 11611030 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 19.19 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1339 11611038 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 16.90 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 528 167 2670 3365 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1332 11611039 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 4.16 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1346 11613034 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 6.41 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043 11613037 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.55 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043 11613038 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.71 Vacant 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1440 11614028 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.11 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1315 11614058 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.92 I ndustrial 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1336 11614066 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.41 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1434 11614070 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.72 I ndustrial 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1308 11614072 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.98 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW North Bayshore Master Plan 94043-1441 11614095 O North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.10 I ndustrial 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 00 0 0 Pipeline Projects - Rezoning Not Required
Jurisdiction
Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
Parcel Size
(Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-
Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity
Total
Capacity
MOUNTAIN VIEW 1265 Montecito Ave 94043-4506 15026004 Neighborhood Commercial CN 1.21 Office 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 84 1 0 85 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1020 & 1040 Terra Bella Ave 94043 15315002 AA General Industrial MM 1.67 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 78 0 0 78 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1020 & 1040 Terra Bella Ave 94043-1830 15315021 AA General Industrial MM 0.49 Single Family Detached 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 30 0 0 30 MOUNTAIN VIEW 67 E Evelyn Avenue 94041 16065002 High-Intensity Office MM 1.68 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 126 0 0 126 MOUNTAIN VIEW 87 E Evelyn Avenue 94041 16065008 High-Intensity Office MM 2.32 Park and Ride Lot 1 1 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 0 0 150 MOUNTAIN VIEW 57 E Evelyn Avenue 94041 16065009 High-Intensity Office MM 0.56 Industrial 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 42 0 0 42 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1010 Linda Vista 94043 15315011 General Industrial MM 0.64 Research and Development 1 0 Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 69 0 0 69 Pipeline Projects - Rezoning Required
Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Consolidated Sites General Plan Designation (Current) Zoning Designation Parcel Size (Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-
Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity
Total
Capacity
MOUNTAIN VIEW 1280 SPACE PARK WY 94043-1434 11614071 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.98 Industrial 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 107 0 0 107 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1060 LA AVENIDA 94043-1422 11614107 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.24 Research and Development 1 0 Availa ble Not Used in Prior Housing Element 61 0 0 61 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1070 LA AVENIDA 94043-1422 11614108 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.07 Industrial 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 53 0 0 53 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1080 LA AVENIDA A 94043-1422 11614109 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.92 Industrial 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 04 5 0 4 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1090 LA AVENIDA 94043-1422 11614110 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.96 Industrial 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 04 7 0 4 7 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1350 PEAR AV 94043-1302 11614114 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0.84 Research and Development 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 92 0 0 92 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2483 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY 94043-2330 14711025 Not Applicable General Mixed-Use CRA 1.34 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 04 8 0 4 8 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2485 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY 94043-2316 14711029 Not Applicable General Mixed-Use CRA 0.50 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 8 0 1 8 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2495 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY 94043-2316 14711034 Not Applicable General Mixed-Use CRA 0.56 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 0 0 2 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 298 SAN ANTONIO RD 94040-1212 14815017 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0.53 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 03 2 0 3 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2630 CALIFORNIA ST 94040-1206 14815018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 1.05 Mini-Mart 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 63 0 0 63 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2633 CALIFORNIA ST 94040-1205 14815021 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0.40 Restaurant 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant - treat like new (rezoned since last cycle) 0 24 0 24 MOUNTAIN VIEW 384 SAN ANTONIO RD 94040-1214 14815022 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0.98 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant - treat like new (rezoned since last c ycle) 58 0 0 58 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2690 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.03 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant - treat like new (rezone d since last cycle) 62 0 0 62 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2674 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816004 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.26 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant - treat like new (rezone d since last cycle) 0 15 0 15 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2630 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816012 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.79 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 81 0 0 81 MOUNTAIN VIEW FAYETTE DR 94040 14816013 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0.32 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 9 0 1 9 MOUNTAIN VIEW FAYETTE DR 94040 14816014 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0.15 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 090 9 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2600 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816015 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.50 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 2 0 2 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW 630 SAN ANTONIO RD 94040 14816016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 2.82 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 127 0 0 127 MOUNTAIN VIEW 608 SAN ANTONIO RD 94040-1304 14816017 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 1.03 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 61 0 0 61 MOUNTAIN VIEW 100 SAN ANTONIO CL 94040-1210 14817001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0.51 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 03 0 0 3 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2560 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1307 14821008 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Center P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0.75 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 9 0 2 9 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2464 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1421 14828005 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.61 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 7 0 2 7 MOU
NTAIN VIEW 2320 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1420 14836001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.40 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 4 0 2 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2124 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1612 14836027 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.74 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 04 3 0 4 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2116 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1612 14836028 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.00 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 60 0 0 60 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2100 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1612 14836029 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.52 Mini-Mart 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 03 1 0 3 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW 204 STIERLIN RD 94043-4618 15328060 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor CRA & R2 0.58 Office 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 0 0 2 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1398 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2404 15430015 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.53 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 0 0 2 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1288 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2402 15430044 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.96 Gas Station 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 58 0 0 58 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1905 LATHAM ST 94040-2107 15436007 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.74 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 04 4 0 4 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1962 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436012 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.80 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 04 8 0 4 8 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1952 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436014 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.03 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 04 6 0 4 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1910 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 2.47 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 111 0 0 111 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2080 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.45 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 7 0 2 7 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2090 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437007 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.56 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 03 3 0 3 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2098 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437008 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.45 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 6 0 2 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 615 S RENGSTORFF AV 94040-2105 15437009 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.60 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 03 6 0 3 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2034 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437015 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.73 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 04 4 0 4 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2020 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.64 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 03 8 0 3 8 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2026 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.52 Restaurant 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant - treat like new (rezoned since last cycle) 0 31 0 31 MOUNTAIN VIEW 30 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 15801001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.36 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 6 0 1 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 40 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 15801002 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.20 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 090 9 MOUNTAIN VIEW 62 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 15801003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.55 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 70 0 0 70 MOUNTAIN VIEW 200 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2606 15805112 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.45 Fast Food 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 7 0 1 7 MOUNTAIN VIEW 286 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2606 15805113 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.43 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 6 0 1 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 500 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 15806001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.11 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 040 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 500 W EL CAMINO REAL 15806002 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.10 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 030 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW 500 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2602 15806003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.11 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 040 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 624 WEL CAMINO REAL 94040-2508 15806006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.28 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 0 0 1 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW S OAK ST 94041 15807007 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.10 Restaurant 1 0 Available N ot Used in Prior Housing Element 060 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1128 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2518 15807025 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.42 Medical 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 5 0 2 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1134 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2518 15807026 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.64 Office 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 03 8 0 3 8 MOUNTAIN VIEW 785 CASTRO ST 94041-2013 15809009 Not Applicable Downtown Mixed-Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0.28 Office 1 0 Available N ot Used in Prior Housing Element 060 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 495 MOFFETT BL 94043-4727 15849002 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor CRA 0.96 Gas Station 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 03 4 0 3 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 282 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 94043-3910 16026007 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 1.19 Vacant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 04 4 0 4 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW N WHISMAN RD 94043 16028003 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0.50 Fast Food 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 8 0 1 8 MOU
NTAIN VIEW 209 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 94043-3909 16028004 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0.55 Fast Food 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 0 0 2 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW 295 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 94043-3909 16028005 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0.45 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 7 0 1 7 MOUNTAIN VIEW 295 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 16028006 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0.13 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 040 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 325 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 94043 16052010 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 2.05 Research and Development 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 10 0 160 MOUNTAIN VIEW 335 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 94043-4028 16052011 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0.93 Research and Development 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 72 0 0 72 MOUNTAIN VIEW 345 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 94043-4067 16052012 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 1.07 Research and Development 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 84 0 0 84 MOUNTAIN VIEW 460 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 94043-4032 16053005 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 1.27 Office 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 139 0 0 139 MOUNTAIN VIEW 450 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 94043-4006 16053006 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 1.00 Research and Development 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 110 0 0 110 MOUNTAIN VIEW 475 ELLIS ST 94043-2203 16058011 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 4.49 Research and Development 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 150 52 352 MOUNTAIN VIEW 815 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059001 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0.93 Research and Development 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 72 0 0 72 MOUNTAIN VIEW 835 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059002 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0.90 Research and Development 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 70 0 0 70 MOUNTAIN VIEW 855 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059003 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0.97 Research and Development 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 76 0 0 76 MOUNTAIN VIEW 875 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059004 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0.96 Industrial 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 74 0 0 74 MOUNTAIN VIEW FERGUSON DR 94043 16060021 Not Applicable Medium High-Density Residential P(37) - South Whisman Precise Plan 2.77 Vacant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 82 0 0 82 MOUNTAIN VIEW 820 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2836 16110003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.37 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 82 0 0 82 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1953 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2262 17005016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.46 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 7 0 2 7 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2065 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 17005026 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.32 Grade School 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 80 0 0 80 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1901 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.27 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 2 0 1 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW 910 EL MONTE AV 94040-2319 17006007 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.10 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 50 0 0 50 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1949 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006058 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.32 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 4 0 1 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1921 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006060 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.30 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 58 0 0 58 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1935 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006062 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.66 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 74 0 0 74 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1010 EL MONTE AV 94040-2321 17007067 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.31 Gas Station 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 2 0 1 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW 810 MIRAMONTE AV 94040-2514 18902024 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.32 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 9 0 1 9 MOUNTAIN VIEW 595 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2641 19303044 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.40 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 5 0 1 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW 215 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2605 19304006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.39 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 4 0 1 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 239 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2605 19304018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.28 Mini-Mart 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 0 0 1 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 19313009 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.14 Vacant 1 1 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - treat like new (rezoned since last cycle) 0 8 0 8 MOUNTAIN VIEW W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2602 19313010 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.35 Vacant 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - treat like new (rezoned since last cycle) 0 21 0 21 MOUNTAIN VIEW 133 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2603 19313030 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.38 Vacant 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - treat like new (rezoned since last cycle) 0 22 0 22 MOUNTAIN VIEW 111 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2603 19313031 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.71 Vacant 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - treat like new (rezoned since last cycle) 0 43 0 43 MOUNTAIN VIEW W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2602 19313032 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corrido r P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.57 Vacant 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - treat like new (rezoned since last cycle) 0 34 0 34 MOUNTAIN VIEW 111 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 19313033 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.59 Vacant 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - treat like new (rezoned since last cycle) 0 35 0 35 MOUNTAIN VIEW 975 BAY ST 94040-2626 19314001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.39 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and similar 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 7 0 1 7 MOUNTAIN VIEW 101 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2701 19742003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.58 Gas Station 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 6 0 2 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 121 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2701 19742004 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 7.96 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 150 60 360 MOUNTAIN VIEW 789 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2833 19801003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 4.59 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant - treat like new (rezoned since l ast cycle) 150 127 0 277 MOUNTAIN VIEW 825 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2807 19807003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.29 Fast Food 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 01 7 0 1 7 MOUNTAIN VIEW 831 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2807 19807004 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.16 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 70 0 0 70 MOUNTAIN VIEW 891 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2807 19807008 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.40 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 02 4 0 2 4 Opportunity Sites - Rezoning Not Required
Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites General Plan Designation (Current) Zoning Designation Parcel Size (Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-
Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity
Total
Capacity
MOUNTAIN VIEW 1708 MIRAMONTE AV 94040-3763 18906096 Not Applicable Neighborhood Mixed-Use CN 0.32 Gas Station 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 6 0 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1220 GRANT RD 94040-3227 19314011 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(27) - Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan 0.36 Gas Station 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 18 0 18 MOUNTAIN VIEW PAMELA DR 94040 19314009 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(27) - Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan 0.40 Recreation 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 20 0 20 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2312 ALMA ST 94043 14736037 Not Applicable Neighborhood Mixed-Use CN 0.97 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 20 0 20

MOUNTAIN VIE
W 112 N RENGSTORFF AV 94043-4222 14736038 Not Applicable Nei ghborhood Mixed-Use CN 1.72 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 36 0 36 MOUNTAIN VIEW 400 A MOFFETT BL 94043 15324016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor CN 1.64 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 82 0 0 82 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1504 GRANT RD 94040-3214 19312001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(27) - Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan 5.08 Retail, including Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 150 105 0 255 MOUNTAIN VIEW 110 N RENGSTORFF AV 94043-4222 14736025 Not Applicable Nei ghborhood Mixed-Use CN 0.44 Gas Station 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 9 0 9 MOUNTAIN VIEW 40 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 15801002 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.20 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and simila r 10 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 3 0 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1901 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.27 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and simila r 10 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 4 0 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1949 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006058 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.32 Retail, includin g Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 5 0 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW 30 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 15801001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.36 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and simila r 10 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 5 0 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW 975 BAY ST 94040-2626 19314001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.39 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and simila r 10 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 6 0 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2600 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816015 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.50 Retail, includin g Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 8 0 8 MOUNTAIN VIEW 101 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2701 19742003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.58 Gas Station 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 9 0 9 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2464 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1421 14828005 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0.61 Restaurant 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 10 0 10 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1952 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436014 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.03 Retail, includin g Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 61 -46 0 15 MOUNTAIN VIEW 910 EL MONTE AV 94040-2319 17006007 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.10 Retail, includin g Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 16 0 0 16 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1921 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006060 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.30 Retail, includin g Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 20 0 0 20 MOUNTAIN VIEW 62 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 15801003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.55 Services - Vehicle, Constuction, Business and simila r 10 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 23 0 0 23 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1935 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006062 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.66 Retail, includin g Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 25 0 0 25 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2630 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816012 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.79 Retail, includin g Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 27 0 0 27 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1910 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 2.47 Retail, includin g Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 38 0 0 38 MOUNTAIN VIEW 630 SAN ANTONIO RD 94040 14816016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 2.82 Retail, includin g Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 23 20 0 43 MOUNTAIN VIEW 121 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2701 19742004 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 7.96 Retail, includin g Banks and Personal Services 1 0 Available Not Used in Prior Housin g Element 0 0 121 121 Opportunity Sites - Rezoning Required

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix F: Summary of Public Input 246 APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

This page intentionally left blank

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WORKSHOP #1
September 23, 2021 - 6:30-8:00pm
The purpose of the Housing Element Update Workshop was to provide an overview of the intention, components, and process of a Housing Element Update and gather questions and comments from participants about housing concerns, goals, and characteristics. Feedback received will inform the content of future outreach events, and will guide in preparing the Housing Element Update.

The meeting was held via Zoom on Thursday, September 23, 2021 from 6:30-8:00pm and was facilitated by City staff and the consultant team. Live simultaneous Mandarin interpretation was available, and there were approximately 40 public participants. The format of the meeting is described in the agenda below:
● Welcome & Introductions & Live Poll: Demographic Questions ● Housing Element Update Presentation: Overview of the Project & Process ● Live Poll: Housing Questions
● Small Group Discussion Breakout rooms
● Small Group Report Out
● Closing and Next Steps

ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: A total of 60 individuals registered; 38 attended Presenters
● City – Ellen Yau
● BAE– Stephanie Hagar
● Plan to Place – Dave Javid
Consultant Team
● BAE – Stephanie Hagar
● ESA - Evan Wasserman
● Plan to Place – Dave Javid, Paul Kronser, Rachael Sharkland Housing Element Update Workshop #1 1

WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Dave Javid and Ellen Yau opened the meeting by welcoming attendees, giving an agenda overview, and opening the demographic live poll (see results below). After the poll closed, Stephanie Hagar delivered a presentation offering an overview of the Housing Element Update project and process, which was recorded and will be posted on the website for public access.

After the presentation, Dave gave an overview of the small group breakout logistics and opened the second live poll to garner feedback related to housing priorities.

Demographic Poll Results (Full results in appendix)
● Age:
○ 36% of the attendees were between the ages of 26-45;
○ 29% were between 46-64;
● Race and Ethnicity:
○ 50% White
○ 32.1% Asian
● Do you currently rent or own the home you live in?
○ 53.6% Own
○ 39.3% Rent
● What type of housing do you live in?
○ 46.4% Home/ Duplex
○ 39.3% Apartment
● Which bracket best describes your household income
○ 78.6% $100,000 or more
○ 17.9% $60,000 to $99,999
● Which of the following describes why you decided to attend tonight’s workshop? (May select more than one)
○ 82.1% I live in Mountain View
○ 14.3% I want to know more about the Housing Element Update Process Housing Poll Results (Full results in appendix)
● How satisfied are you with your current housing situation? ○ 32% Satisfied
○ 25% Somewhat satisfied
● How satisfied are you with the affordability of housing in Mountain View? ○ 46.4% Dissatisfied
○ 25% Somewhat dissatisfied
● How satisfied are you with the variety of housing types that are available in Mountain View?
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 2

○ 35.7% Dissatisfied
○ 21.4% Somewhat dissatisfied
● How do you feel about the amount of new housing that has been built in Mountain View during the past few years?
○ 46.4% Too little has been built
○ 21.4% Somewhat too much has been built
● How Well do you think Mountain View provides access to housing and opportunity for all segments of the population, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, disability, status etc? ● 46.4% Neutral
● 25% Not Well
The majority of the meeting was devoted to gathering input from meeting participants through facilitated small group discussions. Feedback was recorded in a virtual whiteboard in response to the discussion prompts below The summary below provides a high-level overview of themes that emerged from the break-out discussions.

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 3

BREAK OUT DISCUSSION PROMPTS AND SUMMARY
The following questions were asked in each small break out room. Participants were encouraged to raise their virtual hands and offer verbal responses, or could respond via Chat.

The Main Takeaways section below provides a high level summary of responses collected from each of the 3 breakout rooms. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of breakout rooms in which the referenced comment was expressed.

Discussion Prompts:

1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Mountain View?

2. What do you think Mountain View should do to address Housing needs or goals?

3. What characteristics do you want to see in housing over the next 10 years?

4. What suggestions do you have for Mountain View to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?
Main Takeaways:

1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Mountain View? ○ We need more affordable housing. (3)
○ There is a lack of Senior housing. (1)
○ We need more types of housing at all income levels. (3) ○ The lack of housing at all levels is largely because it isn't legal according to planning and zoning code to build at needed densities. (1) ○ The densities needed to make building housing profitable for a developer aren’t permitted. (1)
○ The City should thoughtfully locate new housing units and consider existing housing stock, co-location with jobs and transit. (3)
○ City should concentrate higher density housing in Precise Planned areas / planned communities. (1)
○ We have an imbalance between office space and housing (office space outcompetes housing). (2)
○ Minimum parking requirements, setbacks, and height requirements are too restrictive and prevent housing from being built. (1)
○ Concern expressed around buildings 3 stories and higher directly adjacent to single family homes. (2)
○ We should reduce the costs and time it takes to build in order to incentivize housing at all levels. (2)

2. What do you think Mountain View should do to address Housing needs or goals? ○ Support expressed for exploring rezoning as a strategy to allow for higher densities. (3)
○ The City should simultaneously plan for more infrastructure when planning for housing (i.e. wider roads, more parks, sidewalks, better connection to public transit, schools and other services). (2)
○ The City should fund down payment assistance programs. (1) ○ The City should make it easier to develop smaller, in fill sites. (2)
○ The City should change regulations, especially parking requirements (lower or unbundle) to encourage housing construction. (2)
○ The Housing element should address the difficulty of production, because lack of supply is one of the main issues. (2)
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 4

○ Concern expressed about parking and traffic congestion. (2) ○ The Housing Element should include non-traditional housing types (ie. stacked flats, co-ops, and ADUs). (2)
○ Building new housing is an opportunity for more walkable/interconnected neighborhoods. (1)
○ The City needs to do more precise plans, and less broad sweeping changes on rezoning / new construction due to the wide variety of housing types co-existing already. (1)

3. What characteristics do you want to see in housing over the next 10 years? ○ The City should focus on the mitigation/ elimination of homelessness. (2) ○ Tech companies are one of the main pressures increasing housing costs. (2) ○ Desire to see corporate/tech neighbors paying for infrastructure, housing, transit and other public services. (2)
○ Focus on continued support for more diverse demography in Mountain View; diversity is an asset. (2)
○ I would like to see environmentally responsible development (recycled water, solar etc.). (2)

4. What suggestions do you have for Mountain View to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?
○ City should solicit feedback from everyone who works in Mountain View, survey at offices/ employers. (2)
○ There should be more outreach to renters (eg. posting ads on Craigslist, mailers in utility bills). (2)
○ The City should reach out to leverage neighborhood associations. (1) ○ City should try to reach out to future/ potential residents. (1) ○ Please offer Spanish interpretation. (1)
○ Reach out to Mountain View Day worker center, grocery stores, mobile home alliance, CSA’s, rent relief, next door and community forums, connect with different faith communities, and contact authors of
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6786z5j9 (1).Housing Element Update Workshop #1 5

APPENDIX
LIVE POLL: DEMOGRAPHIC RESULTS
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 6

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 7

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 8

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 9

LIVE POLL: HOUSING RESULTS
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 10

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 11

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 12

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 13

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM SUMMARY
September 23, 2021 - January 2nd, 2022
The purpose of the Housing Element Update is to guide how the City seeks to produce new housing, preserve existing housing, ensure fair access to housing, prevent displacement of existing residents, and meet other critical housing needs over the next 8 years as required by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development. To gather feedback and reach a broader audience, an online feedback form was prepared to gather input from the Mountain View community in addition to other engagement efforts.

The online feedback form was made available on the project website (www.mvhousingelement.org) from September 23rd, 2021 through January 2nd, 2022. The survey link was shared at community events (e.g. Monster Bash, Tree Lighting), via social media and community chat groups, published in City publications, and sent to stakeholders and interested parties who signed up for project notifications. A total of 343 responses were received in English, Russian, Spanish and Chinese. Feedback received will inform the content of future outreach efforts, and will guide the development of the Housing Element.

The following questions were included in the online feedback form.

1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Mountain View (select top 5)?

2. What do you think Mountain View should do to support more housing construction?

3. What do you think Mountain View should do to make housing more affordable ?

4. What do you think Mountain View should do to provide more housing for residents with special housing needs?

5. What do you think Mountain View should do to protect existing renters and homeowners?

6. What characteristics do you want to see in housing over the next 10 years?

7. What suggestions do you have for Mountain View to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?

8. What is one thing that you think is most important for us to consider as part of the Housing Element Update?

9. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Below is a summary of the input received through the multiple choice questions, followed by common themes captured from the open ended “Other” option that accompanied each question (see complete list of responses atwww.mvhousingelement.org). Numbers in parentheses after each common theme indicates the number of responses that were accounted for.

Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 1

ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM SUMMARY: MULTIPLE CHOICE
QUESTIONS 1-5

1. WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE MOST CRITICAL HOUSING ISSUES IN MOUNTAIN VIEW (SELECT TOP 5)?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Need for Complementary Infrastructure/Services to Support Housing (5) ○ Excessive Development (5)
○ Neighborhood Preservation (5)
○ Need for Innovation and Diversity in Housing Types (4) ○ Environmental Quality (e.g. open space, trees) (4)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 2

2. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO SUPPORT MORE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Limit Housing Growth (11)
○ Allow/Encourage Mixed Use (4)
○ Reduce/Remove Governmental Constraints (4)
○ Redevelop Obsolescent Offices with Housing (3)
○ Advocate for Regional Cooperation (3)
○ Ensure Adequate Infrastructure to Support Housing (3) ○ City As Developer (3)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 3

3. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Build More Housing (5)
○ Not The City's Role/Do Nothing (5)
○ Provide Incentives and Streamline Approvals (3)
○ Focus Housing Near Transit (2)
○ Improve Transit Service (2)
○ Leverage Public Land for Affordable Housing (2)
○ City As Developer (2)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 4

4. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING FOR RESIDENTS WITH SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Nothing Needs To Be Done (7)
○ Advocate for Regional Cooperation (4)
○ Not Familiar With Issue/Needs (3)
○ Provide Funding for Accessible Housing (3)
○ Develop Accessible Housing (2)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 5

5. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO PROTECT EXISTING RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Nothing Needs to be Done (11)
○ Control Costs or Provide Financial or Displacement Assistance (5) ○ Preserve Neighborhoods (5)
○ Create Local Funding Mechanism (3)
○ Enforce Existing laws/policies (3)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 6

OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS 6-9 - COMMON THEMES FOR

OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES

6. WHAT CHARACTERISTICS DO YOU WANT TO SEE IN HOUSING OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS?
○ More Supply and Density
○ Affordable Housing Across Socio-Economic Spectrum
○ Small-Scale Infill/Existing Neighborhood Preservation ○ Transit-Oriented Development
○ Diverse Housing Options (e.g. special needs housing)
○ Maintain Quality of Life and Environment
○ Limit Growth and Density
○ Quality and Unique Design
○ Evaluate Review Process/Fees/Regulations

7. WHAT SUGGESTIONS DO YOU HAVE FOR MOUNTAIN VIEW TO SOLICIT ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE?
○ Comments received regarding what groups the City should outreach to:
■ Community Organizations/Neighborhood Groups (8)
■ Workers/Businesses (5)
■ Families with children (4)
■ Renters (4)
■ Low-Income/Unhoused (3)
■ Homeowners (3)
○ Comments received on the best methods to take feedback from the community:
■ Community Meetings/Workshop/Pop-ups (8)
■ Surveys (5)
■ Go to existing meetings (2)
○ Comments received on the best method to conduct outreach:
■ Direct Mailing (11)
■ Social Media//Online/Email (6)
■ City Bills & Newsletter/City Locations (e.g. Library/Senior Center) (6) ■ Article (3)
■ Door to Door (flyers, solicitors) (2)
○ Other comments regarding additional feedback suggestions:
■ More of it (2)
■ Provide more education resources (2)

8. WHAT IS ONE THING THAT YOU THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONSIDER AS PART OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE?
○ Focus new housing on Affordability Across Socio-Economic Spectrum (44) ○ Comments about R3 Zoning Update (32)
○ Increase the quantity and density of new housing. (30) Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 7

○ Focus on new low and/or medium density housing to preserve the existing neighborhoods. (18)
○ Promote new housing near transit centers and create walkable developments. (14)
○ When adding new housing, provide additional infrastructure to support the added residents. (11)
○ Protect the quality of life and environment of Mountain View. (11) ○ Develop funding programs for affordable housing. (8)
○ Provide programs that protect renters. (6)
○ Streamline the approval process for new building and development. (6) ○ Ensure the safety of Mountain View residents.(6)
○ Reduce parking standards for new developments. (5)
○ Include adequate parking for new development. (3)

9. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
○ Limit the density and height of new development/housing. (32) ○ Build more housing in general. (22)
○ Provide more housing that is affordable for families, seniors, disabled, workers, and service providers. (19)
○ Thank you for providing opportunities for community feedback. (17) ○ New housing should be environmentally sensitive. (14) ○ Preserve the City characteristics. (9)
○ New housing should be able to limit the need for automobile use. (5) ○ Protect existing renters from future rent increases.(4) ○ Provide more outreach and education on housing opportunities and existing issues facing Mountain View residents. (4)
○ Recreational Vehicles (RVs) should not be allowed Citywide and should not take up parking needed for Mountain View residents. (3)
○ Ensure that Mountain View is a safe community. (2)
○ The City should work on streamlining the development process and reduce costs associated with building. (2)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 8

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 268 APPENDIX G: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MULTI-

FAMILY HOUSING VIOLATION CHECKLIST

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 269

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 270

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 271

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix H: Economic Analysis of Governmental Requirements 272 APPENDIX H: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF

GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Governmental Constraints for Rowhomes and Multifamily Rental Housing Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint Summary Description of Governmental Constraint Purpose of Governmental Constraint Potential Impacts on Development
Feasibility
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation*
Affordable
Housing
On-site
Inclusionary
Housing
Requirements
The City's inclusionary housing (IH) program requires
developers to provide a percentage of below market rate (BMR) units on-site that are affordable to households at specified income levels. Developers can alternatively
meet this obligation via land dedication, payment of BMR in-lieu fees or other strategies if approved by the City Council.

Providing new BMR housing affordable to a
broad range of local residents and workers
helps meet RHNA goals and other important
State, regional and local policy objectives.

Reduces land values to property owners,
increases development costs, affects market
rate unit pricing, and/or lowers
developer/investor returns. (If developers
cannot meet underwriting criteria or achieve
adequate returns to attract investment, then
development will not proceed.)
Major
Affordable
Housing
BMR In-Lieu
Housing Fee
The City has adopted a BMR in-lieu housing fee to help
fund affordable housing in the City. The housing fee is paid by developers that are unable to fully meet the
inclusionary housing requirement on-site or via land
dedication.
" "
Major
Park Land
Dedication In-
lieu Fee
Park land dedication in-lieu fee is based on residential land value, which varies by residential density and
geography. In FY 21/22, fee ranges from $57,500 to
$73,200 per market rate unit (see Exhibit 3).

Expanding park land provides new open space
and recreational resources to residents and
students of the local school districts.

Reduces developable land area for housing and
increases development costs for market rate
housing. (See Exhibit 3)
Park Land
Dedication
Park land dedication requirement varies by residential
density with ratio of .0060 acres of parkland per market rate unit for development of 13 du/acre or greater.

Affordable housing is exempt from park land dedication
requirement.
" "
POPA Credit Privately owned/publicly accessible (POPA) open space that meets specific criteria for recreational and open
space use is eligible for a land dedication or fee credit up to seventy-five (75) percent of the value of the land
devoted to the POPA open space.
" "
Schools School Impact
Fees
School fee is based on Statewide Level 1 fee of
$4.08/SF, distributed to the two school districts.

Improving academic resources and school
facilities is important to maintaining quality
public education.

Increases development costs. Minimal
Schools Parcel tax All parcels in Mountain View pay a parcel tax to fund schools. "
Increases annual costs of owning or operating
housing, which reduces capacity to secure
funding to help pay for development costs.

Minimal
Schools Additional
annual
assessments or
taxes
Local school districts are considering levying additional assessments or special taxes to help fund schools. " "
Major
Parks
Moderate to Major
(rowhome),
Major (multifamily
Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Governmental Constraints for Rowhomes and Multifamily Rental Housing Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint Summary Description of Governmental Constraint Purpose of Governmental Constraint Potential Impacts on Development
Feasibility
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation*
Transportation Citywide TIF City has adopted a citywide transportation impact fee (TIF) for residential development.

Enhancing multi-modal transportation networks
helps achieve circulation, Single Occupancy
Vehicle (SOV) and climate goals.

Increases development costs. Minimal
Transportation TDM -  Transit
Pass
City requires a transportation management analysis for
new development, which often includes adoption of a
transportation demand management (TDM) program that
may include offering a free transit pass to residents.

Implementing a TDM program helps achieve
circulation, Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV)
and climate goals while reducing parking needs.

Increases annual costs of owning or operating
housing, which reduces capacity to secure
funding to help pay for development costs.

Minimal
Transportation TDM- Other
TDM measures
including TMA
Other TDM measures include an onsite TDM coordinator,
TDM electronic signage, shuttles, and/or participation in a Transportation Management Association (TMA).
" "
Moderate
Community
Benefits
Provision of
community
benefits
City requires that developers provide community benefits in order to secure certain development approvals,
including increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

Enhancing community amenities, such as
providing space for local organizations and
businesses, helps meet community goals.

Increases development costs and may change
the amount of land available for new housing
units, parks and community amenities.

Minimal
Development
Requirements
Increased
Parking
Requirements
Parking requirements range from 1-2 spaces/unit
depending on housing type and bedroom size. Guest
parking requirements range from .15 to .60 spaces per
unit. Model parking standard requires 1 space for
studio/one-bedroom units, 2 parking spaces for two
bedroom or larger units, with 15% of required spaces for guests.

Providing on-site parking may reduce parking
pressures on surrounding neighborhoods.

Increases amount of parking, which affects
building construction, increases development
costs and may change the amount of land
available for new housing units, parks and
community amenities, plus inhibit reaching multi-
modal transportation and climate goals.

Moderate
Development
Requirements
Design,
Building,
Infrastructure
Requirements
City requires developer to meet numerous design,
building and infrastructure requirements, which could
result in increased development costs as predevelopment progresses
Enhancing design and building standards, such
as REACH codes, helps meet planning, design
and climate goals.

Increases development costs and may change
the amount of land available for new housing
units, parks and community amenities.

Minimal
Development
Requirements
Extended
Development
Schedule
City requirements and/or processing time frames may
increase the time it takes for developers to receive land use, design, infrastructure, permitting, plan check, and construction related approvals.

Allows additional staff review to help assure
housing meets pertinent land use, design,
infrastructure, and building standards
Increases carrying costs for land and
predevelopment expenses and/or increases
construction costs due to extended schedule.

Moderate
* Minimal - increases development costs less than 1%, Moderate - increases development costs between 1% to 5%, Major - increases development costs by 5% or more.

Source: City of Mountain View Municipal Code, FY 2021/22 Master Fee Schedule and Below Market Rate (BMR) Program, California Housing and Community Development Department.

Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 2
Summary Financial Evaluation of Governmental Constraints Based on Cost Impact Per Housing Unit Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Rowhome Unit Multifamily Rental Unit
Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint
Increase in Development
Costs and Obligations Key Assumptions
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation
Affordable
Housing
On-site
Inclusionary
Housing
Requirements and
BMR In-lieu Fee
Provision of BMR units on-site
that are priced or rented for
less than development cost or
fee payment
Housing BMR in-lieu fee for
rowhome at
$131.06/habitable SF and
multifamily rental at
$100.66/habitable SF
$ 196,600 13.9% $ 80,500 9.3% Major
Park Land
Dedication and In-
lieu Fee
Park land dedication or
payment of fee per market
rate unit
See Exhibit 3– Scenario 1
Park Land
Dedication
Proportion of site to be
dedicated.

See Exhibit 3– Scenario 2
POPA Credit Proportion of site to be
dedicated.

See Exhibit 3– Scenario 3
Schools School Impact Fees School impact fee per unit Level 1 fee cost of $4.08/assessable SF
$ 6,120 0.4% $ 4,080 0.5% Minimal
Schools Parcel tax Annual parcel tax payment Parcel tax of $191 per parcel $ 3,141 0.2% $ 16 0.0% Minimal Schools Additional annual
assessments or
taxes
Potential increase in annual
costs associated with new
school funding
Projected at $5,000/year for
rowhome and $4,000/year for
multifamily
$ 82,200 5.8% $ 65,800 7.6% Major
Transportation Citywide TIF Impact fee per unit TIF for rowhome at $5,188/unit and multifamily
rental at $2,905/unit
$ 5,188 0.4% $ 2,905 0.3% Minimal
Transportation TDM -  Transit Pass Annual cost of VTA transit pass (discounted for larger
residential developments)
VTA Smart Pass at
$135/year X 2 persons for
rowhome and $135/year X

1.5 persons for multifamily
$ 4,400 0.3% $ 3,300 0.4% Minimal
Transportation TDM- Other TDM
measures including
TMA
Annual contribution to TMA
and other TDM measures
TDM/TMA contribution
estimated at
$100/month/unit.
$ 19,700 1.4% $ 19,700 2.3% Moderate
Moderate to Major
(rowhome),
Major (multifamily)
Parks $57,500-
$74,400 4.1%-5.3% $51,600-
$73,200 6.0%-8.5%
Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 2
Summary Financial Evaluation of Governmental Constraints Based on Cost Impact Per Housing Unit Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Rowhome Unit Multifamily Rental Unit
Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint
Increase in Development
Costs and Obligations Key Assumptions
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation
Community
Benefits
Community benefit
payment or
contribution
Cost of community benefits ECRPP community benefit
payment at $6.60/SF for
multifamily but may be lower
elsewhere.
$ - 0.0% $ 5,280 0.6% Minimal
Development
Requirements
Increased Parking
Requirements
Parking increase of .4 spaces
per unit
Estimated increase in parking
development cost based on

0.4 spaces @
$60,000/space.
$ 24,000 1.7% $ 24,000 2.8% Moderate
Development
Requirements
Design, Building,
Infrastructure
Requirements
City design, building and/or
infrastructure requirements
that increase development
costs
Estimated increase at 1% of
building related costs.
$ 6,000 0.4% $ 5,000 0.6% Minimal
Development
Requirements
Extended
Development
Schedule
Increased development costs
due to delays in City approval.

Schedule extended by 4
months multiplied by 50% of
land and construction costs
at 10% equity carrying cost.
$ 16,000 1.1% $ 9,000 1.0% Moderate
Translation of Annualized Cost to Development Cost
Loan Constant as Proxy for Annual Cost 6.08% (4.5% interest, 30 year amortization) Source: City of Mountain View Municipal Code, FY 2021/22 Master Fee Schedule and Below Market Rate (BMR) Program, California Housing and Community Development Dept.

Seifel Consulting Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 3
Evaluation of Alternative Park Land Dedication Scenarios Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis R3 Zoning R3 Zoning R4 or ECR & SA PP NBPP, EWPP
Rowhome Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily
Assumed Density per Acre 20 du/acre 30 du/acre 75 du/acre 125 du/acre Park Land Dedication Density Category 13-25 du/acre 26+ du/acre 26+ du/acre 26+ du/acre Park Land Dedication Requirement 0.006 acres/unit 0.006 acres/unit 0.006 acres/unit 0.006 acres/unit Scenario 1– Fee Only – Developments less than 50 units, on Small Sites and/or Undesirable Park Locations (Most Projects) Value per Acre (per Master Fee Schedule) 9,580,000$ per acre 10,450,000$ per acre 12,200,000$ per acre 12,200,000$ per acre Park Land Fee Per Market Rate Unit 57,500$ per unit 62,700$ per unit 73,200$ per unit 73,200$ per unit Scenario 2– Park Land Dedication + Fee With Allowed Increase in Density for Multifamily (6 Acre Developments) Assumed Parcel Area 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres
Potential Housing Units 120 180 450 750
Park Land Requirement 0.50 acres 0.92 acres 2.29 acres 3.82 acres Percent of Site Required for Park 8% 15% 38% 64%
Onsite Park Land Dedication 0.40 acres 0.60 acres 0.60 acres 0.60 acres Percent of Site Dedicated as Park 7% 10% 10% 10%
Remaining Development Potential 5.60 acres 5.40 acres 5.40 acres 5.40 acres Density (Increased for Multifamily) 20 du/acre 33 du/acre 83 du/acre 139 du/acre Housing Units on Remaining Acreage 112 units 180 units 450 units 750 units Percent Affordable 25% 15% 15% 15%
Affordable BMR Units 28 units 27 units 68 units 113 units Market Rate 84 units 153 units 382 units 637 units
Remaining Park Land Requirement 0.10 acres 0.32 acres 1.69 acres 3.22 acres Total Cost of Park Land Plus Fee 4,828,000$ 3,323,000$ 20,642,000$ 39,308,000$ Per Market Rate Unit 57,500$ per unit 21,700$ per unit 54,000$ per unit 61,700$ per unit Potential Decrease in Units from Park Land
Dedication 8 units 0 units 0 units 0 unitsReduced Project Value (Market Rate Units) -$ -$ -$ -$ Scenario 3– POPA Land Dedication + Fee With Allowed Increase in Density for Multifamily (6 Acre Developments) Assumed Parcel Area 6 acre 6 acre 6 acre 6 acre
Park Land Requirement 0.51 acres 0.92 acres 2.29 acres 3.82 acres POPA Dedication 0.6 acres 0.9 acres 0.9 acres 0.9 acres Potential POPA Dedication Credit 0.45 acres 0.675 acres 0.675 acres 0.675 acres Percent of Property as POPA 10% 15% 15% 15%
Remaining Development Potential
(Deducting 50% of POPA) 5.70 acres 5.55 acres 5.55 acres 5.55 acres Density (Increased for Multifamily) 20 du/acre 32 du/acre 81 du/acre 135 du/acre Housing Units on Remaining Acreage 114 units 180 units 450 units 750 units Percent Affordable 25% 15% 15% 15%
Affordable BMR Units 29 units 27 units 68 units 113 units Market Rate 85 units 153 units 382 units 637 units
Remaining Park Land Requirement 0.06 acres 0.24 acres 1.62 acres 3.15 acres Total Cost of POPA Plus Fee 6,323,000$ 2,539,000$ 19,727,000$ 38,393,000$ Per Market Rate Unit 74,400$ per unit 16,600$ per unit 51,600$ per unit 60,300$ per unit Potential Decrease in Housing Units from
POPA Dedication 6 units 0 units 0 units 0 units
Source: City of Mountain View Municipal Code and FY 2021/22 Master Fee Schedule.