ATT 1 - Revised Draft Housing Element — Mountain View City Council, December 13, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
6th Cycle Housing Element
2023-2031
November 2022 HCD Draft
Attachment 1

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
6th Cycle Housing Element
2023-2031
July 2022 HCD Draft

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 Organization of the Housing Element ......................................................................................... 3 Consistency with the General Plan ............................................................................................. 3 Public Participation ...................................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT .............................................................. 17 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ............................................................................ 18 Quantified Objectives ................................................................................................................ 19 Progress in Implementing 2015 to 2023 Housing Element Programs ................................. 19 Effectiveness of the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element ............................................................ 19 Appropriateness of 5th Cycle Programs for Inclusion in 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 22 CHAPTER 3: HOUSING PLAN ................................................................................................... 25 Summary of Major Actions to be Continued in the Sixth Housing Element Cycle ................. 25 Housing Goals and Policies ...................................................................................................... 26 Housing Programs ..................................................................................................................... 29 CHAPTER 4: QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 50 Construction .............................................................................................................................. 51 Rehabilitation ............................................................................................................................ 52 Conservation .............................................................................................................................. 52 APPENDIX A: IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF 5TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS .... 53 APPENDIX B: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... 64 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 65 Note on Data Sources ............................................................................................................... 67 Population and Household Characteristics ............................................................................. 68 Economic and Employment Characteristics ............................................................................ 80 Housing Stock Characteristics ................................................................................................. 85 Housing Costs and Affordability ............................................................................................... 92 Housing and Special Needs Populations ............................................................................... 107 Assessment of Fair Housing ................................................................................................... 124

Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors ...................................................................... 216 APPENDIX C: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS ........................................................................ 219 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) .......................................................................... 220 Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households ....................................................... 220 APPENDIX D: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS.................................................................................. 222 Governmental Constraints ...................................................................................................... 223 Non-Governmental Constraints .............................................................................................. 260 Environmental Constraints ..................................................................................................... 263 APPENDIX E: HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS AND INVENTORY ................................................... 266 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 267 Sites Selection Process .......................................................................................................... 270 Realistic Capacity Evaluation ................................................................................................. 277 Mixed-Use Areas ...................................................................................................................... 283 Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels ................................................ 284 Sites Inventory ......................................................................................................................... 286 Evaluation of Sites Inventory Through the Lens of AFFH ...................................................... 315 Local Data and Knowledge ..................................................................................................... 327 Summary of Conclusions and Approach to Policies and Programs ..................................... 328 HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets ........................................................................................ 329 APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT............................................................................ 336 APPENDIX G: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING VIOLATION CHECKLIST ... 364 APPENDIX H: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ......................... 369

iii

List of Tables
Table 1: Sixth Cycle Quantified Objectives for New Construction, Rehabilitation, and Conservation ................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 2: Population Growth Trends ............................................................................................... 68 Table 3: Household Growth Trends ............................................................................................... 69 Table 4: Population by Age, 2010-2019 ...................................................................................... 69 Table 5: Tenure by Housing Type ................................................................................................... 72 Table 6: Household Income Level by Tenure ................................................................................ 74 Table 7: Examples of Low Wage Occupations ............................................................................. 75 Table 8: Housing Cost Burdens for Extremely Low Income Households, City of Mountain View ......................................................................................................................................................... 77 Table 9: Extremely Low-Income Households by Race and Ethnicity, City of Mountain View .... 78 Table 10: Housing Problems by Race and Ethnicity for ELI Households, Mountain View......... 79 Table 11: Housing Permitting ........................................................................................................ 89 Table 12: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units ........................................................................ 93 Table 13: Monthly Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ..................................................... 95 Table 14: Market-Rate Multifamily Rent Summary, Q3 2021 ..................................................... 96 Table 15: Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing Units, 2021 .............................................. 105 Table 16: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion .......................................................................... 106 Table 17: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ................................................... 114 Table 18: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ....................................... 115 Table 19: Point-In-Time Count, 2015-2019 ................................................................................ 116 Table 20: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ................................ 119 Table 21: Mountain View Vehicles in Public Right-of-Way (PROW), 2017-2020 ...................... 119 Table 22: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Employment in Mountain View, 2019 . 121 Table 23: Migrant Worker Student Population ........................................................................... 121 Table 24: FHEO Fair Housing Complaints by Resolution Type, 2013-2020 ............................. 125 Table 25: DFEH Fair Housing Complaints, 2018-2020 ............................................................. 126 Table 26: Mountain View Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 - 2020 .............................. 129 Table 27: Dissimilarity Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020 ................................................ 131 Table 28: Isolation Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020 ...................................................... 132 Table 29: Household Income Distribution and Median Income, 2015-2019 .......................... 162 Table 30: Poverty by Race and Ethnicity, City of Mountain View, 2015-2019 ......................... 171 Table 31: Distribution of Homeowners by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View and San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties .................................................................................................................... 201 Table 32: Housing Problems Rate by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View ...................................... 203 Table 33: Severe Housing Problems Rate by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View ......................... 203 Table 34: Housing Cost Burdens by Income Bracket and Tenure, City of Mountain View ...... 214 Table 35: Regional Housing Needs Allocation ............................................................................ 220 Table 36: Off-Street Parking Requirements ............................................................................... 233 Table 37: Estimated Residential Development Impact Fees .................................................... 239

Table 38: Base and Maximum FAR for Select Precise Plans .................................................... 247 Table 39: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type ......................................................... 250 Table 40: Recent Multi-family Developments in Mountain View .............................................. 252 Table 41: Mountain View Mobile Home Parks ........................................................................... 256 Table 42: Mountain View’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................. 268 Table 43: Mountain View Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to 6th Cycle RHNA by Income ........................................................................................................................................... 269 Table 44: Consolidated Sites ....................................................................................................... 275 Table 45: Precedent Projects List ............................................................................................... 279 Table 46: Realistic Density Assumptions – Non-Rezoning ....................................................... 281 Table 47: Realistic Density Assumptions – Rezoning ............................................................... 282 Table 48: Affordability Assumptions ........................................................................................... 285 Table 49: Lower Income Units on Non-vacant Sites ................................................................... 285 Table 50: Sites Inventory Summary ............................................................................................ 286 Table 51: Non-Residential Previous Uses on Select Precedent and Pipeline Projects ............ 289 Table 52: Capacity Discount on Multi-tenant Opportunity Sites ................................................ 292 Table 53: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summary by Project Address ..... 298 Table 54: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summarized by Neighborhood ... 299 Table 55: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summarized by Precise Plan ...... 299 Table 56: Proposed Pipeline Projects Summary by Address ..................................................... 302 Table 57: Proposed Pipeline Projects Summarized by Neighborhood ..................................... 304 Table 58: Proposed Pipeline Projects Summarized by Precise Plan ........................................ 305 Table 59: Pending Projects (Rezoning) Summarized by Project Address ................................ 306 Table 60: Status and Expected Timeline of Major Proposed Affordable Developments ........ 307 Table 61: Opportunity Sites Summary by Neighborhood .......................................................... 311 Table 62: Opportunity Sites Summary by Precise Plan .............................................................. 311 Table 63: Rezoned Opportunity Site Summarized by Designation ........................................... 313 Table 64: Accessory Dwelling Units Built in Prior Housing Element Cycle ............................... 314 Table 65: Accessory Dwelling Units Projected Over the Planning Period ................................. 315 Table 66: Distribution of the Sites Inventory by Block Group Racial and Ethnic Composition, Excluding the North Bayshore Area ............................................................................................. 317 Table 67: Distribution of the Sites Inventory by Census Tract Low- and Moderate-Income Composition, Excluding the North Bayshore Area ...................................................................... 320 Table 68: Site Inventory Distribution of Low- and Moderate-Income Units, North Bayshore Area ....................................................................................................................................................... 321 Table 69: Site Inventory Distribution by TCAC/HUD Opportunity Area, Excluding the North Bayshore Area ............................................................................................................................... 324 Table 70: Site Inventory Distribution by Education Domain Score ............................................ 326

List of Figures
Figure 1: Population by Race, 2000-2020.................................................................................... 70 Figure 2: Household Tenure ........................................................................................................... 71 Figure 3: Tenure by Housing Type ................................................................................................. 72 Figure 4: Households by Household Income Level ....................................................................... 73 Figure 5: Resident Employment by Industry ................................................................................. 80 Figure 6: Jobs in Mountain View .................................................................................................... 82 Figure 7: Ratio of Jobs to Workers, by Wage Group ..................................................................... 83 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio ..................................................................................................... 84 Figure 9: Housing Units by Type, 2010-2020 ............................................................................... 86 Figure 10: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ......................................................................... 87 Figure 11: Vacant Units by Type .................................................................................................... 88 Figure 12: Substandard Housing Issues ....................................................................................... 91 Figure 13: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ................................................................................... 92 Figure 14: Median Contract Rent .................................................................................................. 94 Figure 15: Cost Burden by Income Level ...................................................................................... 97 Figure 16: Cost Burden by Tenure ................................................................................................. 98 Figure 17: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................... 99 Figure 18: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level................................................ 100 Figure 19: Overcrowding by Severity ........................................................................................... 101 Figure 20: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ....................................................................... 102 Figure 21: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ............................................................. 103 Figure 22: Household Size by Tenure .......................................................................................... 107 Figure 23: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms .................................................................... 108 Figure 24: Household Type .......................................................................................................... 109 Figure 25: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status ........................................................ 110 Figure 26: Senior Households by Income and Tenure ............................................................... 111 Figure 27: Population by Disability Status .................................................................................. 112 Figure 28: Disability by Type ........................................................................................................ 113 Figure 29: Homelessness by Household Type & Shelter Status, Santa Clara County ............. 117 Figure 30: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County ....................................................................................................................................................... 118 Figure 31: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Santa Clara County .......................... 122 Figure 32: Population with Limited English Proficiency ............................................................. 123 Figure 33: Census Block Groups by% Non-White, Mountain View ............................................ 136 Figure 34: Census Block Groups by% Non-White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ....... 137 Figure 35: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic White, Mountain View ............................. 138 Figure 36: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ........................................................................................................................................ 139 Figure 37: Census Block Groups by% Hispanic or Latino, Mountain View ................................ 140

Figure 38: Census Block Groups by% Hispanic or Latino, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ....................................................................................................................................................... 141 Figure 39: Census Block Groups by Non-Hispanic Black, Mountain View ................................ 142 Figure 40: Census Block Groups by Non-Hispanic Black, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ....................................................................................................................................................... 143 Figure 41: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Asian, Mountain View ............................. 144 Figure 42: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Asian, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ....................................................................................................................................................... 145 Figure 43: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander, Mountain View ............. 146 Figure 44: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 147 Figure 45: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Native American, Mountain View ........... 148 Figure 46: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Native American, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 149 Figure 47: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Other Race Alone, Mountain View ......... 150 Figure 48: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Other Race Alone, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 151 Figure 49: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Persons of Two or More Races, Mountain View ............................................................................................................................................... 152 Figure 50: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Persons of Two or More Races, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................ 153 Figure 51: Population with a Disability by Census Tract, Mountain View ................................. 155 Figure 52: Population with a Disability by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ....................................................................................................................................................... 156 Figure 53:% of Children in Married-Couple Households, 2015-2019, Mountain View ............ 158 Figure 54:% of Children in Married-Couple Households, 2015-2019, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 159 Figure 55:% of Children in Single-Female Headed Households, Mountain View ..................... 160 Figure 56:% of Children in Single-Female Headed Households, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ........................................................................................................................................ 161 Figure 57: Distribution of Median Household Income by Block Group, Mountain View .......... 164 Figure 58: Distribution of Median Household Income by Block Group, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 165 Figure 59:% of Low to Moderate Income Population by Census Tract, Mountain View ........... 166 Figure 60:% of Low to Moderate Income Population by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................................................................................................................... 167 Figure 61: Poverty Status by Census Tract, Mountain View....................................................... 168 Figure 62: Poverty Status by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ................. 169 Figure 63: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ........................................................................................................................................ 170 Figure 64: Distribution of Non-Hispanic White Population by Median Income, City of Mountain View ............................................................................................................................................... 173

vii

Figure 65: Distribution of Non-Hispanic White Population by Median Income, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties .................................................................................................................... 174 Figure 66: 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, Mountain View ..................... 176 Figure 67: 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ........................................................................................................................................ 177 Figure 68: School Boundaries Map for the Mountain View Whisman School District ............ 178 Figure 69: Elementary School Boundaries Map for the Los Altos School District ................... 179 Figure 70: Junior High School Boundaries Map for the Los Altos School District ................... 180 Figure 71: Mountain View Whisman Elementary School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2020-21 ........................................................................................................................................ 182 Figure 72: Los Altos Elementary School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2020-21 ..... 183 Figure 73: Mountain View Middle/Junior High School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2020-21 ........................................................................................................................................ 184 Figure 74: Mountain View High School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2020-21 ...... 185 Figure 75: TCAC Education Domain Score, Mountain View ....................................................... 187 Figure 76: TCAC Education Domain Score, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties .................. 188 Figure 77: Jobs Proximity Index Score, Mountain View .............................................................. 190 Figure 78: Jobs Proximity Index Score, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ......................... 191 Figure 79: VTA System Map ......................................................................................................... 193 Figure 80: Caltrain System Map .................................................................................................. 194 Figure 81: % of Income to Housing + Transportation for a Typical Moderate-Income Household in Mountain View .......................................................................................................................... 196 Figure 82: % of Income to Housing + Transportation for a Typical Moderate-Income Household in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ..................................................................................... 197 Figure 83: Areas of High Pollution in Mountain View ................................................................. 199 Figure 84: Areas of High Pollution in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................ 200 Figure 85: Disposition of Home Loans by Race/Ethnicity in Mountain View, 2020................ 202 Figure 86: Overpayment by Renters, Mountain View ................................................................. 205 Figure 87: Overpayment by Homeowners, Mountain View ........................................................ 206 Figure 88: Overpayment by Renters, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ............................ 207 Figure 89: Overpayment by Homeowners, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ................... 208 Figure 90: Overcrowded Households, Mountain View................................................................ 210 Figure 91: Overcrowded Households, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties .......................... 211 Figure 92: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County .............. 212 Figure 93: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County .. 213 Figure 94: Housing Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View ......................................... 215 Figure 95: Housing Sites Overview ............................................................................................. 295 Figure 96: Pipeline Projects ........................................................................................................ 300 Figure 97: Summary of Opportunity Sites .................................................................................. 312 Figure 98: Housing Sites by Share of Non-White Population ..................................................... 319 Figure 99: Housing Sites by Share of Low- and Moderate-Income Households ....................... 322 Figure 100: Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score .............................................................. 325 Introduction

CHAPTER
1 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 2 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. 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.

During the Fifth Housing Element Update Cycle, the City supported ambitious housing production and the creation and preservation of affordable housing, including the following:
 The City adopted rezonings to increase the City’s total residential development capacity by over 20,000 units--60 percent of the number of existing residential units in Mountain View.  The City has a long-standing inclusionary ordinance to ensure that new residential developments provide affordable housing in addition to market-rate units. During the Fifth Housing Element Update Cycle, Mountain View adopted updates to the ordinance to increase the number of inclusionary affordable units in a development, resulting in hundreds of new lower- and moderate-income units, while adopting a flexible alternative to on-site units that allows developers to accommodate the requirement in ways that advance City housing goals and exceed minimum affordability requirements.  The City also developed partnerships with Santa Clara County and affordable housing developers to create hundreds of affordable units, including units for veterans, people with disabilities, families, and other special-needs populations.  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.  The City also adopted development impact fee exemptions for affordable housing and adopted modifications to the park land dedication fee to allow alternative compliance through Privately Owned, Publicly Accessible (POPA) open areas and create predictability and transparency by calculating the fee basis every year and setting the fee at the time of application submittal.
 To improve the development review process, the City began utilizing “EIR consistency checklists” in Precise Plan areas, a streamlined CEQA procedure that provides more legal protections than a categorical exemption at lower cost and in less time than an initial study.  In addition, the City used SB35 ministerial streamlining for multiple affordable housing developments and prepared Density Bonus Guidelines to facilitate developer understanding

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 3
of this complex state law, which has reduced uncertainty and staff review times of density bonus projects.

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:

 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

4.10 of the Housing Plan. Upon adoption of the Housing Element Update, the City of Mountain View

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 4
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.

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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 5
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 editions in 2021 and 2022 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.

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.

Summary of Input Received from Affordable Housing Developers: Participants expressed appreciation that the Mountain View City Council supports affordable housing efforts and is willing to make a financial commitment to meet housing goals. Participants noted that the challenges related to residential development in Mountain View include multiple and conflicting development standards, poor coordination between City departments, a lack of streamlining of the entitlement process, a need for additional coordination between the City and County to align funding priorities, a need for more City staff to review projects, process requirements that tie the process for getting approval for funding to the process for getting entitlements, high land and construction costs, and community opposition due to concerns about overflow parking impacting existing residents.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 6
Summary of Input Received from Market-Rate Housing Developers: Participants stated that Mountain View’s form-based zoning and precise plans with clear design and guidelines are helping to facilitate residential development in Mountain View. Challenges to development that were cited include land and construction costs, the cost of City fees, the City’s parking requirements and a lack of options for unbundling parking, the 25 percent BMR requirement for townhomes and rowhomes, and public opposition to higher-density projects. In addition, participants cited challenges with the approvals process, including the timeline for the approvals process, subjective criteria for approvals, and a lack of certainty in the process. Participants suggested that the City re-evaluate its parking policies, hire more staff, and add certainty and consistency to the design review process.

Summary of Input Received from Local Service Providers: Participants stated there is good communication between service providers and City staff and noted that the City has had successes in efforts to address homelessness, including a Homekey interim housing community and a partnership with the County to convert the Crestview Hotel to residential use. Participants also noted that there is an ongoing need to address the needs of individuals and families that are experiencing homelessness and those that may be at risk of homelessness, and that there are many families that are doubled up with multiple families in one home due to affordability issues. Participants also noted a need for more affordable housing, childcare services, and senior housing. In addition, participants stated that some individuals do not access benefits due to fear, shame or a lack of knowledge regarding eligibility. This group recommended that the City coordinate with Santa Clara County to finance affordable housing.

Summary of Input from Local Advocacy Groups: Participants stated that the City has done well in terms of supporting housing in general, additional density, and ADUs. Participants expressed support for several ongoing City policies and initiatives, including reviewing R3 development standards, the 25 percent BMR requirement for townhomes and rowhomes, commercial linkage fees for affordable housing, the City’s work on the Homekey project, safe RV parking, and the Crestview hotel project. Participants stated that there are needs for missing middle and workforce housing, three-bedroom apartments for families, universal design for an aging population, and mixed-use design for walkable neighborhoods. Recommendations from participants included supporting transitional, supportive, and permanent housing; mitigating displacement; conducting more outreach to renters facing displacement to make them aware of their right to relocation benefits; preserving deed-restricted units; educating the public about upzoning and addressing fear of change; adopting a local ordinance to extend SB 330 protections; and encouraging a mix of housing types.

Summary of Input from Community-Centered Organizations: Participants expressed support for several ongoing City policies and initiatives, including recent changes to strengthen the inclusionary ordinance, adoption of rent stabilization, and eviction defense funding enacted by the Rental Housing Committee (RHC), Participants also stated that there is a need for more affordable units, housing for vulnerable populations such as persons with disabilities and unhoused persons, and tenant education regarding tenant protections. Participants stated that many lower-income households are at risk of displacement. Participants recommended providing funding to rehabilitate multifamily rental units to prevent units from getting sold and redeveloped, City acquisition of vacant

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 7
homes and empty lots, increasing inclusionary requirements to 20 percent, streamlining the process for ADUs, providing more common space and high-density housing, streamlining the permitting process for ADUs, addressing needs among those living in semi-permanent housing and mobile homes, providing storage for unhoused populations, and providing more safe parking programs.

Summary of Input from Major Local Employers: Participants stated support for City efforts to address housing needs and concern over the ongoing regional housing affordability crisis.

Participants reported that people continue to move further away from their jobs due to a mismatch between salaries and rents. Participants stated that the community needs workers at all income levels and that it is becoming more difficult to recruit and retain workers, especially for roles that require in-person collaboration as well as hospital and other essential service workers. However, some participants also noted that the Bay Area continues to have prestige and status that attracts people to the area and Silicon Valley continues to have a pool of labor that makes it attractive to tech companies. Participants noted Mountain View’s CalTrain station as an amenity for commuting workers. Participants recommended more housing and higher densities, especially in the downtown area; expanding rent stabilization to new units; and improve public transit infrastructure, bike lanes, and pedestrian trails.

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.

Summary of Input Received: Comments received including statements that Mountain View should find enough sites to accommodate five times the number of units called for in the RHNA allocation and that the site inventory needs to take the probability of development into account. Comments expressed support for eliminating parking requirements and setback requirements, lifting height restrictions, and significant increases in density. Commenters advocated for prioritizing renters, creating middle-income housing, and preventing displacement. At least one commenter felt that the R3 zone should allow for retail and office uses to create walkable spaces, while at least one commenter felt that the zoning in the R3 area should not be changed. The City also received questions about how the new housing will be served by parks, water, parking, and schools.

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 (DELAC), the

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 8
Mountain View Chamber of Commerce Business Issues & Public Policy Committee, the Mountain View Solidarity Fund (i.e., Fondo de Solidaridad), and Livable Mountain View.

Summary of Input Received: Comments included concern over displacement due to the redevelopment of rental housing to construct townhomes and rowhomes. In addition, attendees noted that subsidized housing does not serve undocumented residents or those who are paid in cash, and that it can be difficult to qualify without a steady income. Commenters also expressed a need to translate information about the BMR program to Spanish and a lack of awareness among potential program participants about programs that are available to serve them. Comments also included statements about a mismatch between income levels and the type of affordable housing available, both because some residents make too much to qualify for subsidized housing but cannot afford market-rate housing, and because some residents are unable to afford subsidized housing.

There were multiple comments about the complexities of the affordable housing application process and a need to make it more accessible. Comments also included a recommendation that parking reductions be tied to providing affordable housing in a project.

“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. Additional information about this event and the input received is provided in Appendix F.

Summary of Input Received: Participants expressed that they valued living in Mountain View and expressed appreciation of recent efforts the City has made to boost affordable housing. However, they recognized that there is a substantial imbalance between jobs and housing and that much more is needed. They also shared a desire for more walkable and connected neighborhoods, particularly in neighborhoods with more affordable housing options like rowhouses. Participants identified parking as an inefficient use of land that contributes to pollution and raises rental prices. They expressed the need for the City to preserve mobile homes, as they are one of the few remaining affordable housing options for many immigrant low-wage workers. Other housing challenges they recognized are the lack of housing options for older adults and young people, and the lack of options and services for people who are homeless. Participants pointed out that there often is not enough of an effort to engage young people in housing discussions and suggested the City focus on engaging them as well. Among ideas to address Mountain View’s housing challenges were: promoting affordable housing opportunities and removing barriers to apply for them, preservation of mobile home parks, a community or tenant opportunity to purchase program, a young adult housing program, and rezoning land for five times the City’s allocated RHNA number to build in a buffer since only 20 percent of the available sites were developed during the last RHNA cycle.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 9
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.

Additional information about this event and the input received is provided in Appendix F.

Summary of Input Received: When asked about the most critical housing issues in Mountain View, some of the most common responses related to a need for more affordable housing and for more housing at all income levels; a desire to see new housing located near existing housing, jobs, and transit; improving the balance between housing and office space; concern over buildings with three or more stories adjacent to single-family homes, and reducing the time and costs to develop housing.

When asked what Mountain View should do to address housing needs, responses included support for rezoning to allow higher densities, making it easier to develop on infill lots, reducing parking requirements or unbundling parking, and facilitating the production of non-traditional housing types.

In addition, some participants emphasized a need for infrastructure such as roads, parks, sidewalks, transit connectivity, schools, and other services to accompany new housing and expressed concerns that new housing would create parking and traffic congestion issues. Some participants expressed concern about increases in density and stated a preference for limiting the pace of new development. When asked about desirable characteristics for housing in Mountain View over the next ten years, participants cited mitigation or elimination of homelessness; a diverse community; environmentally responsible development, and ensuring that employers pay for infrastructure, housing, transit, and other public services.

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. The results from the Community Feedback Form are provided in Appendix F.

Summary of Input Received: The most common responses to the Community Feedback form identified Mountain View’s most critical housing issues to be not enough housing for low-income and middle-income households, not enough housing for unhoused people, and not enough new housing

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 10 development, though several other items were identified as critical issues (see Appendix F).

Respondents favored rezoning to allow redevelopment from non-residential to residential uses, rezoning to allow more homes in existing residential areas, and streamlining the City approvals process, along with other actions, to support housing construction. To make housing more affordable, respondents favored providing more funding for affordable housing projects and increasing inclusionary requirements. To provide more housing for residents with special needs, respondents favored requiring more units to include accessibility features and working with housing providers to create more housing for people who are experiencing homelessness. To protect existing residents, respondents favored providing housing for people who are displaced from their homes due to demolition, strengthening protections for mobile home park residents, and strengthening protections for renters. Overall, most responses favored policies that would facilitate the production of affordable housing and housing for populations with special needs, though some respondents stated a preference for limiting growth.

City Council and Environmental Planning Commission Study Sessions The City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) addressed the Housing Element Update during study sessions on October 20, 2021; February 16, 2022; May 18, 2022; and November 16, 2022. The Mountain View City Council addressed the Housing Element Update during study sessions held on November 16, 2021; March 8, 2022; June 14, 2022; and December 13, 2022. During the City Council and EPC study sessions, City staff and the consultant team provided information on the Housing Element Update process and requirements, presented draft goals and policies, and discussed the draft Housing Element. City staff and the consultant team responded to questions and received feedback and direction from the City Council and EPC. The City Council and EPC study sessions also provided an opportunity for the general public to comment on the Housing Element Update. City Council and EPC meetings were held in a virtual format due to Covid restrictions.

Summary of Input Received: The following list provides a summary of public comments provided to the City Council and EPC prior to the release of the public review draft of the Housing Element Update. Comments received during the 38-day public review period for the public review draft are provided in the following subsection. Prior to release of the draft Housing Element Update to the public, comments received during City Council and EPC meetings and in letters to the City Council and EPC prior to meetings generally covered the following topics:
• Support for additional density and construction of additional residential units (both affordable and market rate)
• Consider affordable housing opportunities Citywide, such as in neighborhoods around downtown or other commercial areas (e.g., CN, CO Zones). • Concerns about using the R3 Zoning Update to meet RHNA due to:
o Development standards inconsistent with neighborhood scale; o Increase of affordable versus market-rate housing imbalance; and o Increase of displaced residents and loss of CSFRA-covered units. • Concerns about housing affordability and displacement • Focus RHNA sites in precise plan areas.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 11 • Reexamine fees (e.g., park fees).
• Encourage preservation of naturally affordable housing (possibly through R3 Zoning Update). • Consider sites near amenities like parks and transit. • Support streamlined process to provide predictability, to shorten timelines, and to reduce the overall costs for both developers and residents.
• Increase City staffing to shorten the entitlement process. • Conduct more outreach to Mountain View residents from different segments of the community to get meaningful input.
• Reduce or eliminate parking requirements, impose parking maximums, and unbundle parking.
• Focus on a strategic approach to funding affordable housing. • Develop a local no-net-loss policy for rent-controlled units. • Expand the Eviction Protection Program.
• Invest in community-owned housing, e.g., community land trust or tenant/community option to purchase act (TOPA/COPA).
• Create a portal for residents to find and apply for all affordable housing units in Mountain View.
• Expand safe parking and rapid re-housing support.
• Increase protections for COVID impacts and enact special housing protections for essential workers.
• Enact protections against special offers to fill a vacancy that leads to future rent increases in excess of increases allowed under the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance. • Enhance the ADU program with design, permitting, and financing assistance. • Consider unique programs for longer leases on transitional/supportive housing. • Concerns that the draft site inventory was insufficient in producing enough affordable housing; did not include any rezonings, thus maintaining status quo. • Rezone to accommodate more units than needed to meet the RHNA. • Concerns that the site inventory relies too heavily on the North Bayshore and East Whisman plan areas.
• Requests that the site inventory include sites south of El Camino Real to affirmatively further fair housing.
• Concerns that specific sites in the draft site inventory could not realistically be developed with residential units during the planning period.
• Support Pro-Housing Designation application but should not drive housing policy. • Do not rezone for more units than necessary.
• Do not reduce parking requirements or developer fees. • Ensure that infrastructure and public services (e.g., schools, roads, water, parks, retail, bike/pedestrian improvements) can support growth.
• Concerns about the possibility that the Mountain View Whisman School District might establish a Community Facilities District that could increase the cost of housing. [Please Note: this draft is being completed in advance of the November 16, 2022 Environmental Planning Commission study session and the December 13, 2022 City County study session.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 12 Additional comments received during these upcoming meetings will be considered and included before adopting the Housing Element Update.]

36-Day Public Review Period
On May 9, 2022, the City published the draft Housing Element Update for public review on the project website (www.MVHousingElement.org). In addition to the full English language version, the City published the Housing Plan chapter of the document translated into both Spanish and Chinese.

The public comment period ran through June 14, 2022, which was the date of the City Council study session on the draft Housing Element. During the public comment period, comments were submitted in writing to the EPC and City Council in advance of study sessions on May 18, 2022 and June 14, 2022. Public comments were also provided during each study session. Comments received during the public comment period covered a range of topics, and included:

Comments regarding missing or inadequate analysis on specific topics included comments on the lack of an analysis of the Los Altos School District in the Access to Education section. inadequate analysis of the impact of cumulative fees as a potential governmental constraint, inadequate analysis of the impact of development review times, and inadequate reporting on the input from the public participation process and how this input informed the Housing Element Update.

Comments on the sites inventory included that the assumptions regarding the redevelopment of sites are unrealistic (e.g., opportunity sites generally and land dedications in North Bayshore and East Whisman specifically), and that the sites inventory does not have enough sites south of El Camino Real. Comments also included requests for inclusion of specific sites and removal of other sites from the sites inventory.

General comments on the goals, policies, and programs included comments that the programs are too vague, include noncommittal language, and lacked specific actions and timelines.

Comments related to development standards included suggestions to reduce parking requirements or unbundle parking, permit emergency shelters in more zones, rezone to allow additional density, exclude parking from FAR calculations, and remove the one-acre minimum site size from the R4 zoning guidelines.

Comments related to the development review and approvals process included suggestions that the City implement additional actions to streamline development and reduce permitting times.

Many of these comments focused the findings and recommendations from a study that the City recently conducted to identify process improvements in the development review and approvals process (i.e., the Matrix Study). Recommended actions also included reducing discretionary review processes, improving clarity of requirements, providing support for innovative construction practices, and prioritizing processing for affordable housing projects.

Comments related to development fees and the cost of City requirements included suggestions to reduce City fees for residential development, many of which focused on reducing park land

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 13 fees. Conversely, some comments also requested that the City not reduce park land fees to ensure that new development pays for the need for new parks. Some comments also cited the potential CFD for the Mountain View Whisman School District as a constraint. Comments also included recommendations that the City ensure that the inclusionary ordinance maximize affordable unit production while avoiding discouraging new residential construction.

Comments related to displacement included suggestions that the City add additional programs to mitigate displacement, such as a COPA or TOPA, a local ordinance to extend provisions of SB 330, a no net loss policy for rent controlled units, an expansion of the Eviction Protection Program, an increase in relocation assistance, additional protections for residents impacted by Covid, special protections for essential workers, protections against misrepresentation of special offers to fill a vacancy, additional education regarding tenant rights, and a moratorium on rent increases.

Comments also included suggestions to apply displacement mitigation measures such as a COPA or TOPA to mobile home residents in addition to other residents.

Comments related to affordable housing funding included suggestions that the City adopt a real estate transfer tax to support subsidized housing.

Comments related to services and public improvements to accompany residential growth included suggestions that new residential development be accompanied by parks, roads, schools, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other infrastructure. In addition, some comments requested that the City preserve existing local-serving commercial uses in the Village Centers. Other comments included suggestions related to incorporating the natural environment into new development and preserving trees, enhancing highway vegetation barriers, and other suggestions related to the environmental impacts of new residential development.

Comments related to jobs/housing imbalance included suggestions that the City increase the Housing Impact Fee or tie approvals for the construction of new office development to the production of housing.

Other comments related to programs included suggestions to add additional safe parking sites, create a citywide portal for finding and applying for affordable housing, support Community Land Trusts and Community Development Corporations, provide financial assistance to homeowners constructing ADUs/JADUs, and support SB 9 lot-splits.

HCD Review Period
The City of Mountain View submitted the draft Housing Element Update to HCD for HCD’s 90-day review on July 1st, 2022. The draft that was submitted to HCD incorporated significant edits to respond to comments from the public that were received during the 36-day review period described above. HCD received comments from the public on the draft Housing Element Update, which HCD provided to City staff at the end of the 90-day review period. Many of the comments from the public that were submitted to HCD were submitted prior to the HCD review period, including letters that were submitted prior to the release of the first public review draft of the Housing Element Update

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 14 and during the 36-day public review period for the Housing Element Update. Most of these letters were also submitted directly to the City of Mountain View prior to or during the 36-day public review period, and therefore many of these comments are captured in the subsections above and helped to inform the draft Housing Element that was submitted to HCD on July 1st, 2022. In addition to comments sent to HCD, the City of Mountain View received comments from the public during the 90- day review period. Comments received by HCD and the City covered a range of topics and included:

Comments related to the site inventory included statements that that the number of units that will be built on Housing Element sites will be lower than projected in the site inventory, that approved and pending projects will not be constructed during the planning period, and that the site inventory did not adequately address AFFH considerations. Other comments requested that the City not add more sites and expressed concern that the Housing Element plans for too much housing. In addition, some comments expressed concern that redevelopment in Village Centers would result in a loss of retail space and requested that the City ensure that retail space in the Village Centers is retained or replaced.

Comments related to the programs included requests for new or modified programs to:
 Incentivize ADU production
 Address constraints to residential development
 Streamline the development approvals process and improve transparency of requirements  Reduce parking requirements, require unbundled parking, and implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures to reduce development costs  Prevent displacement
 Address needs among unhoused populations, including addressing housing needs among RV and car dwellers, removing restrictions on RV parking, and expanding rapid re-housing assistance
 Improve protections for mobile home park residents
 Add a local density bonus program
 Provide a single portal for applying to affordable housing units  Preserve neighborhood commercial spaces to maintain walkability and livability

Incorporation of Input into the Housing Element Update
Mountain View’s Housing Element Update includes programs and analysis that respond to many of the issues that were raised during the public outreach process. Much of the data in the Housing Needs Assessment, including the Assessment of Fair Housing, is consistent with input received during the public engagement process that highlighted high housing costs and displacement risk as critical housing issues in Mountain View, as well as the disproportionate impact that these issues have on people of color, seniors, people with disabilities, and other special-needs groups. The Housing Element responds to these needs through programs that will facilitate the production of affordable housing, including Programs 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, as well as programs that will mitigate displacement, including Programs 1.5, 1.12, 3.1, 3.2,

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 15

4.2, and 4.4. In addition, Programs 4.2, 4.3, and 4.6 address the impacts that the jobs-housing imbalance has on housing costs.

In addition, the Housing Element includes several programs that will mitigate constraints on housing production that were identified through the public participation process. These include but are not limited to Program 1.2, which will reduce parking requirements for 100% affordable projects, Program 1.3, which includes various actions to address potential constraints related to development standards, Program 1.8, which will revise the park land dedication requirements, Program 1.9, which will assess the City’s BMR housing requirements, and Program 4.1, which will streamline the approvals process. It should be noted that public comments related to each of these items were somewhat mixed. For example, while some commenters advocated for reducing parking requirements, others stressed the importance of maintaining parking standards. In addition, many comments cited park land dedication requirements as a constraint to development, while others stressed the importance of ensuring that new development is accompanied by parks to serve new residents. Similarly, while some comments cited the City’s inclusionary requirements as a potential constraint, others noted its importance in generating affordable housing units in Mountain View or advocated for increasing the inclusionary requirements.

The sites inventory portion of the Housing Element Update also responds to input received during the public engagement process. Some specific sites were removed from the inventory in response to input from property owners and the general public that redevelopment was unlikely on those sites.

The City is undertaking a voluntary rezoning effort concurrent with the Housing Element Update to increase the capacity in the sites inventory and include additional sites throughout the City, including south of El Camino Real, even though the inventory can reasonably achieve the RHNA without these rezonings. While there are still fewer sites south of El Camino Real compared to the remainder of the City, the site inventory identifies all sites south of El Camino Real with a reasonable likelihood of generating affordable units consistent with HCD guidance regarding likelihood and viability of redevelopment with affordable units. In addition, the Housing Element identifies additional programs to further increase the potential of affordable unit production south of El Camino Real, which are not reflected in the inventory. These programs include Program 1.4, which will allow affordable multifamily housing in the R1 district when constructed in conjunction with non-profit religious and community assembly uses on large sites, and Programs 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2, which will facilitate ADU production and SB9 projects.

Following the 36- day public review period, the Housing Element Update was edited to respond to many of the key comments that were received during the public review period. Additional analysis was included to provide an assessment of the Los Altos School District in terms of providing access to education. The Housing Constraints appendix was revised to include additional analysis on the cumulative impact of development fees, the cumulative impact of development standards, and the impact of permit processing procedures. Information was added throughout the document to provide additional information on the input received through the public engagement process and how that input relates to the programs, sites, and analysis that is provided in the Housing Element.

In addition, sites that were found to be unlikely to be developed with residential uses were removed

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Introduction 16 from the sites inventory. Most of the programs in the Housing Element Update were also revised to provide more specificity and more clear timelines and objectives.

In addition, substantial edits were made to the Housing Element Update following receipt of HCD’s comments on the draft, many of which respond to comments received from the public during HCD’s 90-day review period as well as during earlier phases of the public participation process. Key changes that relate to input received during the public participation process include:
 Changes to the site inventory, including additional analysis of non-vacant sites, additional analysis regarding pipeline projects to demonstrate that pending projects in the inventory are anticipated to be completed during the planning period, and reductions in the estimated capacity for some sites.
 Added analysis regarding racial and ethnic differences between schools and disparities in education scores, including connecting the findings from the analysis to the site inventory and Housing Element programs.
 Added analysis related to the AFFH implications of the sites inventory and strengthened programs to facilitate housing development in high-opportunity areas and areas where non- White populations and lower-income households are currently underrepresented.  Added analysis of fees and development standards and strengthened programs that address potential constraints related to fees and development standards.  Revised programs to better facilitate ADU production (1.7 and 2.2), including adding a pilot ADU and SB9 financial incentives program (2.2).
 Added new programs and revised existing programs that address constraints related to development standards, City fees, and the development approvals process (1.1, 1.2, 1.3,

1.8, and 4.1), including adding new programs and adding more meaningful and concrete objectives, metrics, and timeframes to existing programs. These changes include the addition of programs to reduce parking for affordable housing projects (1.2), update development standards to ensure the projects can meet allowed densities, refine other polices including Heritage tree preservation and Public Works requirements, and adopt a TDM ordinance that will allow for reduced parking for projects that implement TDM (1.3).  Enhanced the objectives, metrics, and milestones for programs that address the needs of unhoused populations (2.1 and 3.1).
 Enhanced programs to prevent displacement (1.5, 1.12, 3.2), including adding more meaningful and concrete objectives, metrics, and timeframes and including mobile homes in displacement prevention programs.
 Strengthened Program 2.4 to make the affordable housing application process more inclusive and equitable.
 Added new programs and strengthened existing programs to address housing needs among people with disabilities, including those with developmental disabilities (1.1, 2.1, and 2.3)

Review of Prior
Housing Element

CHAPTER
2 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Review of Prior Housing Element 18 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 5th 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 19 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 20 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 21 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.

Effectiveness in Meeting the Housing Needs of Special Needs Populations During the 2015-2023 Housing Element period, the City of Mountain View was successful in implementing multiple Housing Element programs to address housing needs among special needs households.

In 2013, the City Council approved a development for 27 studios for persons with developmental disabilities at 1585 West El Camino Real, which is located on a high-frequency transit route. This project completed construction in September 2015. Palo Alto Housing also received a funding appropriation in the amount of $8 million to develop 67 studio units, a portion of which are reserved for veterans, at 1701 West El Camino Real. In 2019, the City approved 950 W El Camino, a 71-unit project that will provide 15 units for developmentally disabled adults. The City also expects several pipeline projects with set-asides for permanent supportive housing to provide units for special needs populations.

The 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 2015-2023 planning period, City staff attended quarterly meetings held by the CDBG Coordinators group in addition to meetings 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, 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. As part of the City's comprehensive response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City 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 2022, the City entered into an agreement with the County to leverage $80 million in County 2016 Measure A funds for various housing sites with permanent supportive and rapid rehousing units in the City, for up to 200 units.

In 2020, the City applied with LifeMoves to the 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. In 2021, Mountain View City Council reserved CDBG and HOME funds to support the conversion of the Crestview Hotel into permanent housing, largely for families and individuals at

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Review of Prior Housing Element 22 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 possible to make units available more quickly and affordably.

In 2019, Council adopted a safe parking ordinance that establishes health and safety guidelines for safe parking facilities in the City. In 2020, the City opened two public parking lots as safe parking sites and financially supported operations at a third safe parking site.

The City has also supported the production of affordable housing for large family households. In 2018, MidPen Housing received entitlements for to add an additional 50 affordable units, ranging from studios to three-bedroom units, on the project site located at 460 North Shoreline Boulevard.

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 City’s development pipeline include units for large households.

Mountain View’s housing stock also includes a number of options for senior households. 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. In 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). In 2021, the City Council approved a Mobile Home Rent Stabilization program to regulate rent increases in Mobile Home Parks. Mobile homes tend to provide an important source of affordable housing for seniors.

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 and households with special needs.

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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Review of Prior Housing Element 23  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 6th 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 5th 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 6th Cycle Housing Element Program 3.2, Displacement Prevention and Mitigation.

Housing Plan

CHAPTER
3 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 25 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.

Summary of Major Actions to be Continued in the Sixth Housing Element Cycle In addition to the Housing Plan presented in this chapter, the City of Mountain View continues to implement a number of actions that the City initiated during the Fifth Housing Element Cycle that have significantly increased residential development capacity, facilitated the production and preservation of affordable housing, and removed constraints on residential development. These actions include:
 Zoning to Accommodate Residential Development. During the Fifth Housing Element Update Cycle, Mountain View adopted zoning to allow high-density residential in the San Antonio, North Bayshore, and East Whisman Precise Plan Areas, creating capacity for over 15,000 units. The North Bayshore and East Whisman areas have local density bonus programs that incentivize the creation of thousands of affordable units with allowances for doubling to more than quadrupling the “base” densities. The City also increased densities along El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, facilitating creation of over 2,000 units and creating capacity for thousands more. In addition, the City approved one-off residential development rezonings that are creating thousands of new units. The overall effect of these changes is an increase in housing opportunity equal to more than 60 percent of existing units and twice the City’s 6th cycle RHNA. This growth is focused in areas with access to transit, jobs and services and in areas with the greatest opportunity for redevelopment of aging suburban malls and industrial parks and the lowest risk of residential displacement.
 Job-Housing Balance Policies. Mountain View’s East Whisman Precise Plan includes a Jobs- Housing Linkage requirement that requires residential development to accompany any new office development over 0.4 FAR (approximately the current intensity of office in the area), with the effect that no more than approximately 30 percent of any such development can be net new office. Developers of nonresidential projects are required to provide a Jobs-Housing Linkage Plan with a phasing or housing delivery plan that proposes how the project applicant will facilitate residential development in the Precise Plan Area. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that any new office development is accompanied by residential development to foster a more balanced jobs-housing mix. The North Bayshore Precise Plan has a similar policy, and it can be a template for future policies in other jobs-rich areas.  Production and Preservation of Affordable Housing. Mountain View adopted updates to the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program to increase the number of inclusionary affordable units in a development, resulting in hundreds of new lower- and moderate-income units. At the same time, the City also adopted a flexible alternative to on-site units that allows developers to accommodate BMR requirement in ways that advance City housing goals and exceed minimum affordability requirements. The City also developed partnerships with Santa Clara County and affordable housing developers to create hundreds of affordable

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 26 units, including units for veterans, people with disabilities, families, and other special-needs populations. In addition, the City adopted a City-wide rent-stabilization ordinance, which applies to multifamily rental units as well as mobile homes.  Fee Adjustments. The City adopted exemptions from development impact fees for affordable housing. The City also adopted modifications to the park land dedication fee, to allow alternative compliance through Privately Owned, Publicly Accessible (POPA) open areas, which count to both private and public open space requirements. The City also modified the park land dedication fee to create predictability and transparency by calculating the fee basis every year and setting the fee amount at the time of application submittal.  Development Review Process Improvements. Mountain View began using “EIR consistency checklists” in Precise Plan areas, a streamlined CEQA procedure that provides more legal protections than a categorical exemption, at lower cost and in less time than an initial study.

In addition, the City utilized SB35 ministerial streamlining for multiple affordable housing developments. The City also prepared Density Bonus Guidelines to facilitate developer understanding of this complex state law, which has reduced uncertainty and staff review times for density bonus projects.

Because the City initiated these actions during the last Housing Element Update Cycle, the ongoing implementation of these actions is not reflected in the Sixth Cycle housing programs shown below.

However, these ongoing actions continue to have a meaningful impact on addressing the City’s housing needs.

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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 27

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.

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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 28

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.

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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 29

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 5th Cycle Housing Element that were deemed still relevant, 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.

Each program below 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.

1.1 Zoning Ordinance Update for Consistency with State Laws Update the Zoning Ordinance to address consistency with the following State laws and HCD guidance:
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) Amend ordinance to add definition of residential care homes and allow residential care homes as a permitted use regardless of the number of residents e) Amend ordinance to remove unnecessary findings associated with Reasonable Accommodation permits to remove constraints to housing for special needs populations f) Ensure zoning and general plan for all sites is consistent with the Housing Element site inventory and pipeline projects
Objectives and Metrics:
 Update the Zoning Ordinance as needed to fully accommodate the City's 6th Cycle RHNA.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 30  Update the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with recent legislation, Government Code and Health and Safety Code regulations
Milestone and Timeframe:
 Adopt general zoning updates by December 31, 2024
 Adopt zoning updates needed for any sites included in the sites inventory by January 31, 2024. If a pipeline rezoning project is not approved by this date, those units will be removed from the buffer. If there is no buffer remaining, then additional sites will be identified through the “no net loss” process.
 Adopt zoning updates annually as necessary to respond to future changes in State law (ongoing).

Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: Development Services Fund (DSF) and General Fund AFFH Program: Housing Mobility

1.2 Reduced Parking for Affordable Housing:
a) Study past parking reductions, viable TDM measures, State exemptions and conduct outreach to affordable housing developers
b) Identify and codify parking reductions for 100% affordable housing developments.

Objectives and Metrics
 Streamline review by reducing studies and uncertainty and facilitate 100% affordable housing developments by reducing parking standards
Milestones and Timeframe
 Prepare documentation and resources by June 30, 2026 and update zoning ordinance (if necessary) by December 31, 2026, including review of past affordable housing developments, outreach to affordable developers, preparation of guidelines and (if necessary) zoning or Precise Plan amendments.

Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: Development Services Fund (DSF)
AFFH Program: Housing Mobility

1.3 Review and Update Ordinance and Precise Plan Residential Standards:

Review development standards to ensure they reflect contemporary building types, improve ease of implementation and improve consistency across districts. a) Ensure development projects can meet their allowed densities. Conduct a development prototype study, update definitions as necessary for consistency between plans and districts, and revise multifamily development standards in major districts (including R3) and Precise Plans to ensure projects can meet their allowed density

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 31 b) Compile, evaluate and refine requirements outside the Zoning Ordinance, include Heritage tree preservation and Public Works requirements
c) Ensure that zoning code is updated to reflect densities and other standards as required by state law (e.g., SB 478)
d) Adopt a TDM Ordinance that provides clear requirements for residential trip reduction across all precise plans and zoning districts and update precise plans as needed. Through the ordinance, study the cost of TDM requirements on typical residential developments, and allow residential developers to meet TDM goals through lower-cost options. Update the zoning ordinance to allow residential parking reductions for projects that implement TDM. e) Study live-work as an allowed residential use near retail areas, major corridors and other viable locations
Objectives and Metrics
 Streamline the development review process by updating definitions for standards such as height, open area, common usable open area, floor area ratio, personal storage, pavement coverage and building coverage, and ensuring definitions are consistent with contemporary building types and across the Zoning Ordinance and precise plans.  Reduce government constraints in multifamily zoning districts (R3, R4, CRA) and four Precise Plans (El Camino Real, San Antonio, North Bayshore and East Whisman) by ensuring that projects can build up to their allowed density.
 Reduce government constraints by allowing reduced parking for projects that implement TDM.
 Expand small business access to opportunity by creating live-work spaces in appropriate residential areas
Milestones and Timeframe
 Conduct prototype study and evaluate standards outside the Zoning Ordinance by June 30, 2026
 Update Zoning Ordinance and precise plans to reflect reduced standards and live-work by December 31, 2026
 Adopt TDM ordinance by December 31, 2026
Responsibility: Planning Division, Community Services Department and Public Works Department Potential Funding: Development Services Fund (DSF)
AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Access to Opportunity

1.4: Religious and Community Assembly Sites for Housing Religious and community assembly sites are typically larger sites and are located throughout the City, with several in the City’s highest opportunity neighborhoods. This program would allow affordable multifamily housing on these sites.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 32 Objectives and Metrics:
 Create more affordable housing in the City’s highest opportunity neighborhoods by allowing deed-restricted affordable multifamily housing up to 3 stories on non-profit, religious and community assembly sites in the R1 and R2 districts. Typical densities are expected to be approximately 30 to 40 dwelling units per acre on the residential portions of the sites.  Incentivize such development through ongoing actions, such as outreach, funding and promotional materials
Milestone and Timeframe:
 Complete zoning amendments by December 31, 2026, including outreach to affordable housing developers, non-profit and advocacy organizations and religious and community assembly properties; development of standards and incentives; and creation of ongoing monitoring and promotional materials.

Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: Development Services Fund
AFFH Program: Access to Opportunity

1.5 Non-conforming R1 and R2 Multifamily Developments
Update the Zoning Ordinance to allow replacement of multifamily development in the R1 and R2 districts with non-conforming density to preserve units above the allowed density in the underlying zone
Objectives and Metrics:
 Allow more flexibility for building upgrades, additions and structural alterations that can prolong the life of the building without reducing the number of units on site  Conserve 600 units in multi-family development in R1 and R2 districts where there is currently non-conforming density of residential units
Milestone and Timeframe:
 Inform property owners of the proposed Zoning Ordinance update that would allow them to preserve units by June 30, 2025
 Complete Zoning Ordinance update by December 31, 2025  Ongoing monitoring of identified sites in the R1 and R2 where there is non-conforming density of residential units and to evaluate whether intended objectives are being met Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: Development Services Fund
AFFH Program: Displacement Prevention, Place-Based Strategies

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 33

1.6 SB9 DUO Subdivisions
Update the zoning and subdivision codes to allow two-unit subdivisions of SB9 DUOs (such as condominiums).

Objectives and Metrics:
 Facilitate the creation of middle-income ownership units in the City’s highest opportunity single family neighborhoods through subdivision of DUO developments  Create additional economic incentives to build DUOs through subdivision opportunities  Address potential operations with 2-unit subdivisions, such as owner conflicts or requests for additions/modifications
Milestone and Timeframe:
 Adopt Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments by December 31, 2026 Responsibility: Planning Division and Public Works Department Potential Funding: Development Services Fund (DSF)
AFFH Program: Access to Opportunity

1.7. Monitor and Promote Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and SB9 Developments
Although the City already has a successful ADU/JADU program, the City will make the following additional enhancements to further promote them:
a) Develop an ADU/JADU/SB9 Monitoring Survey to collect data from project applicants during the building permit application process in order to enhance the existing tracking of ADUs/JADUs/SB9 production with more details such as occupancy status and rent levels at time of occupancy.
b) Utilize the data collected from the Monitoring Survey to better understand the income groups they serve and inform future improvements to the outreach and educational efforts c) Continue to track and monitor the number and rents of ADUs/JADUs/SB9 Developments proposed and constructed and the progress of meeting RHNA assumptions of 12 units per year.
d) Create a pre-approved design resource program for ADUs and SB9 projects, including approved designs with streamlined approval processes
e) Distribute and make available updated promotional materials to market the approval process, reduced fees, and additional benefits. Update the ADU and SB9 webpages with up- to-date resources (e.g., educational tools and public information) to increase awareness and provide assistance tools

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 34 Objectives and Metrics:
 Maintain or increase ADU/JADU production in typically high-resource single-family neighborhoods where otherwise net new housing units may not occur and improve residential mobility and access to opportunity.
 Enable the construction of at least 96 net new units through ADUs/JADUs/SB9 during the planning period through promotion, assistance and other tools.  Determine the obstacles affecting affordable ADU/JADU/SB9 production through monitoring and data collection and alleviate them as needed
 Streamline ADU and SB9 development through pre-approved design resources Milestone and Timeframe:
 Implement ADU monitoring survey by December 31, 2024
 Update webpage and prepare promotional materials by June 30, 2025 and ongoing.  Create pre-approved ADU and SB9 design resource framework by June 30, 2025 Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: General Fund

1.8 Park Land Ordinance Update
Complete Phase 2 of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance update and the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Analysis that would support fee reductions could include:
 Review of best-practices for parkland acquisition funding  Pursuit of grants and other funding sources
 Review of the City’s population density assumptions
 Opportunities for private development to provide public open space through existing zoning requirements (e.g., POPAs)
 Development incentives and exceptions to standards for public open space

Objectives and Metrics: Reduce constraints on residential development by reviewing and revising the park land dedication requirements to maintain access to high quality open space while reducing the financial impact to residential development.

Milestone and Timeframe: By December 31, 2024, including adoption of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (addressing anticipated open space needs and long-term funding strategies) and adoption of reduced fees, alternate mitigations and/or other programs to reduce costs on residential.

Responsibility: Community Services Department and Planning Division Potential Funding: Park Land Dedication Fund and Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 35

1.9 BMR Program Review
a) Continue BMR program, as revised in 2019, to include more opportunities for inclusionary units as opposed to fees
b) Review BMR program to identify needed changes based on City goals, including the following as appropriate:
 Impact of program on affordable housing production in Mountain View  Impact of program on production of affordable housing across unit types and, special needs (including accessible units) and affordability levels as compared to City needs  Impact of program on City fair housing goals for increased mobility and access to opportunity
 Potential policy changes based on best practices, new laws, or unanticipated program outcomes
 Potential cleanup in guidelines/policies/procedures to clarify program requirements/facilitate program implementation.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Increasing the diversity, supply, and affordability of housing. Achieving the BMR objective standard of realizing BMR units on-site and integrated with market-rate units for both rental and ownership projects.
 Evaluating best practices and incorporate modifications if any to enhance the efficacy of the program.

Milestone and Timeframe:
 Complete the first review of the BMR Phase 2 program against the objectives in 2023  Complete the second review in 2028
Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division and Planning Division Potential Funding: Local Housing Funds
AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Access to Opportunity

1.10. Density Bonus
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. In addition, continue to implement the city’s local density bonus programs in the North Bayshore and East Whisman Precise Plans, which offer higher bonuses with the provision of more affordable housing, and the City’s NOFA process, which allows unlimited density bonuses to 100% affordable projects.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Ensure City codes and procedures are consistent with State law by monitoring and implementing new State legislation (such as AB 2334).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 36  Maintain production of units containing affordable housing through the review and approval of projects consistent with the State Density Bonus Law and its local provisions Milestone and Timeframe: Ongoing-- every year review State legislation for updates that may affect the City’s Density Bonus program.

Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: General Fund

1.11 No Net Loss of Housing Element Sites
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
 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
The City will annually report on projects under review to see if they reduce any buffers below 5%. If they do, the City will initiate a No Net Loss rezoning process.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Ensure adequate capacity for the City’s RHNA by maintaining a list of opportunity sites that accommodates the City’s RHNA and initiating a rezoning process for new sites if the buffer falls below 5 percent, after accounting for development projects under review Milestone and Timeframe:
 If the City receives an application for a new construction development project on a housing element site with fewer (or greater) units at the given income level than shown in the site inventory (including pipeline sites), those units will be provisionally removed from (or added to) the inventory. If the project is approved (building permit approval for ministerial projects), they will be officially removed from (or added to) the inventory.  Annually update and report on the provisional and official inventories. o If the moderate-income provisional inventory falls below 5 percent buffer, transfer one or more sites from the lower-income provisional inventory to the moderate- income provisional inventory (prioritizing lowest-opportunity neighborhoods) until the moderate-income provisional inventory is at least 5 percent buffer. o If the moderate-income official inventory falls below 5 percent buffer, transfer the sites from the lower-income official inventory.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 37 o If the lower-income provisional inventory falls below 5 percent buffer, initiate the no net loss rezoning process.
 Make necessary findings on projects that reduce the number of units on Housing Element sites
 If the number of units in the official inventory falls below the RHNA, rezone additional sites within six months
Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: General Fund
AFFH Program: Access to Opportunity

1.12 Maintenance of Existing Housing Stock
Utilize existing programs to ensure proper maintenance of the existing housing stock and support rehabilitation of existing housing developments when needed.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Respond to housing code violations through the Code Enforcement, CSFRA petition and Multi-family Housing Inspection programs
 Enforce CSFRA provisions that limit rent increases and displacement impacts to tenants when violations are found.
 Rehabilitation and upgrades at affordable housing developments/CSFRA units Milestone and Timeframe:
 Ongoing implementation and enforcement of Code Enforcement, CSFRA Petition and Multifamily Housing Inspections, utilizing the compliance order process, including landlord penalties
 By December 31, 2024, prepare additional outreach and marketing materials to tenants and landlords regarding tenants’ rights to habitability and safety without rent increases under the CSFRA
 Ongoing assessment and funding of improvements at affordable housing projects Responsibility: Fire Department, Code Enforcement Division, Housing Division, CSFRA Potential Funding: General Fund, housing funds, external funding/partnerships AFFH Program: Displacement Prevention, Place-Based Strategies

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 38

1.13. Sustainable 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.

Objectives and Metrics: Streamline green building review and development of more sustainable (cost-effective and energy-efficient) housing.

Milestone and Timeframe:
 Ongoing
 Training should occur at least two times during the planning cycle Responsibility: Planning and Building Divisions
Potential Funding: General Fund, including existing training budget

2.1. Subsidize and Support Affordable Housing Programs
Make funding available and support programs that allow for the City to increase the number of affordable housing units for underserved populations, particularly:

1. permanent supportive housing for unhoused community members,

2. larger units to serve larger households,

3. people with special needs, including a range of disabilities, and

4. homeownership programs for middle income residents.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Make more housing available to households otherwise left out of the Mountain View housing market.
 Mitigate displacement from a range of unit types, including apartments and mobile homes, through community-centered programs, possibly including COPA/TOPA or community land trusts
 Produce at least 200 supportive housing units for households who have experienced homelessness.
 Increase the share of two and three-bedroom units in the City’s affordable housing stock.  Increase the number of ownership opportunities for middle-income households, and market those opportunities to historically excluded populations  Increase the number of units built for special needs populations and market those units to organizations that support disabilities

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 39 Milestone and Timeframe:
 Funding opportunities will be made available ongoing via the City’s NOFA process and other programs.
 Ongoing evaluation of needed units for populations with special needs, and funding opportunities through the City’s NOFA process as needed and available  Staff will evaluate innovative programs over the housing element period, bringing findings to the Council as appropriate. This will include research as part of the 2022-2024 Breakthrough Grant to identify and implement affordable housing funding programs, displacement response strategy, and outreach/education/community building efforts. This may include study sessions on affordable housing and displacement. Once research is complete, if directed to pursue further, develop program with 5 years.  Update Council on the suitability of community land trusts or COPA/TOPA to address unmet needs. If directed by Council, develop program within 5 years.

Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division
Potential Funding: General Fund and local housing funds AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Access to Opportunity, Displacement Prevention

2.2 Pilot ADU & SB9 Financial Incentives Program
a) Continue to exempt impact fees to promote the development of ADUs and JADUS b) Pilot a program to partially subsidize the cost of building ADUs and SB9 DUOs (Dual Urban Opportunities), either deed-restricted at affordable rents or targeted to households that would otherwise be unable to afford them. This program may build on existing regional programs.

Objectives and Metrics
 Continue to reduce costs of developing ADUs through exemptions from impact fees.  Support economic feasibility of ADUs and DUOs by making funds available to households who would like to build them but would otherwise not be able to afford to develop these units  Increase the supply of naturally-affordable or deed-restricted affordable rental housing in Mountain View through the development of more ADUs and DUOs  Decrease pressure on market-rate housing market by increasing density on single-family sites, which are focused on areas of highest opportunity.

Milestones and Timeframe
 Perform a needs assessment and identify best practices by December 2025  Develop a pilot program informed by the needs assessment by December 2026  Assess pilot for continuation based on objectives and metrics by December 2028 Responsibility: Planning and Housing Divisions
Potential Funding: Local housing funds, regional sources AFFH Program: Access to Opportunity

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 40

2.3 Reasonable Accommodation
Implement City reasonable accommodations procedures.

Objectives and Metrics: Review and approve requests to modify development standards to reasonably accommodate person with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities.

Milestone and Timeframe:
 Update Zoning Ordinance to remove unnecessary requirements or findings associated with Reasonable Accommodation application procedures (Program 1.1)  Produce and make available informational materials on the program by June 30, 2024.

Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: General Fund
AFFH Program: Housing Mobility

2.4 Inclusive and Equitable Affordable Housing Application Processes Review BMR and NOFA application process for inclusivity for language access, technological access, and other barriers and make adjustments to increase inclusivity.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Remove barriers to accessing affordable housing.
 Observed diverse and robust participation in City affordable housing information sessions, clinics, lotteries, and waitlists.

Milestone and Timeframe:
 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. Potential actions include:
o Providing increased in-person affordable housing application availability to overcome technological barriers
o Providing increased interpretation services for potential applicants o Reviewing application processes for unintended barriers o Maintaining the single application portal for inclusionary BMR units, and evaluating/implementing a single application portal for affordable developments if a regional model is developed
 Evaluate effectiveness of changes at least once during the planning period to ensure equitable representation on waitlist and interest lists. Include this evaluation in 2028 BMR review as well.

Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division
Potential Funding: Local housing funds
AFFH Program: Housing Mobility

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 41

2.5 Mediation and Fair Housing Programs
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.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Make information and legal services available to tenants and property owners to support fair housing
 Help tenants and property owners exercise their rights  Prevent eviction and displacement.
 Maintain the Housing and Eviction Help Center and expand it as demand requires.  Utilize the Multicultural Engagement Program to support access to fair housing programs across languages and cultural groups
Milestone and Timeframe:
 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.  Evaluate fair housing via self-evaluation process as part of 2028 BMR review.

Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division
Potential Funding: General Fund and local housing funds AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Displacement Prevention

2.6 Affirmatively Further Fair 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.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Remove impediments to fair housing and provide equitable access to housing and opportunity.

Milestone and Timeframe:
 Update Assessment of Fair Housing as required by HUD with the first update completed in 2023, and subsequent updates based on HUD guidance.
 Implement necessary actions continuously as needed.

Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 42 Potential Funding: CDBG/HOME funds
AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Access to Opportunity, Place-Based Strategies, Displacement Prevention

3.1 Homelessness Prevention and Services for the Unhoused a) Develop and implement a strategy to support those who are unhoused and prevent people from becoming unhoused
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.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Prevent households from becoming homeless – fewer evictions than in the past  Available safety net services for those who need them (such as shelter) - maintain at least 100 shelter or interim housing spots
 A range of housing options to move households from homelessness to permanent housing, including the development of at least 200 supportive housing units  Mobility out of homelessness and into permanent housing, with data showing households moving from shelter and interim housing to Mountain View-based permanent housing Milestone and Timeframe:
 Develop strategy by December 31, 2024. Strategy may include:
o Funding for rental assistance or financial assistance programs to prevent homelessness
o Preferences for new housing for households who experienced or are at risk of experiencing displacement
o Funding and incentives for the development of shelter, interim housing, and supportive housing
 Annually support CSA, LifeMoves and other partner agencies as part of Annual Plan.  Regularly support the development of permanent housing via regular NOFA process.

Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division
Potential Funding: Local housing funds and CDBG/HOME funds AFFH Program: Displacement Prevention

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 43

3.2 Displacement Prevention and Mitigation
Prevent displacement of households, including those in mobile homes, and prevent the loss of naturally occurring affordable units. Conserve and improve existing affordable housing stock.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Prevent displacement through rent stabilization, deed restriction, and housing preservation work. Eviction levels should be maintained or lowered.
 Provide benefits and relocation assistance to displaced residents to partially mitigate impacts of displacement, with the goal of having a comprehensive strategy to prevent displacement before the expiration of SB 330. Strategies may include:
o Temporary relocation
o Realistic options for exercising right of first refusal o Pathways to affordable housing
o Preservation of “naturally affordable” housing
o Connections to owners of developments with vacant “naturally affordable” units  Assist in preserving at least two naturally occurring affordable housing projects during the planning period, and aim to preserve more, to both preserve units and create a viable space for displaced residents to move
Milestone and Timeframe:
 Continuously 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  Continuously monitor conditions to identify need for updates to TRAO, including potential necessary increases in assistance.
 Develop funding strategy for affordable housing preservation by December 31, 2025.  Propose anti-displacement strategies to Council in 2023. Develop comprehensive potential “alternatives to displacement,” via first right of refusal requirements, displaced-resident preferences, partnerships with developers on alternative units for displaced residents, and plans for unit preservation by 2028.
 Target expenditure of funds to assist in preserving at least two naturally occurring affordable housing projects during the planning period
Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods and Planning Divisions Potential Funding: Local housing funds and CDBG/HOME funds AFFH Program: Place-Based Strategies, Displacement Prevention

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 44

4.1 Development Streamlining and Processing Revisions
a) Review and update the City's affordable Housing NOFA process to improve coordination and communication internally (e.g., coordination between Housing, Planning and other departments and internal processes in Planning and other departments) 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. Initial steps in the review include additional developer roundtables, garnering consultant advice, and scanning other public agency processes for best practices. In addition, the City will continue to facilitate and support 100% affordable housing development in the review process, by allocating dedicated staff and utilizing streamlining opportunities.
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, transparency of data and approvals, and other processes involved in housing development for staff and public use.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Facilitate at least 1,100 units of 100% affordable development by streamlining the funding approval process, prioritizing staff review, utilizing State streamlining (e.g., SB35)  Reduce the number of resubmittals and time between application completeness and approval through process and approval body revisions
 Bring the city fully into compliance with new transparency legislation by posting project- specific fees online.

Milestone and Timeframe:
 Bring City into full compliance with transparency requirements as soon as possible.  Review and update NOFA process by June 30, 2024.
 Update the Zoning Ordinance process and approval bodies by December 31, 2026  Fully implement electronic review software by June 30, 2024. Acquire additional software and tools as identified.

Responsibility: Housing, Building and Planning Divisions Potential Funding: General Fund, Development Services Fund and local housing funds AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Access to Opportunity

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 45

4.2 Federal, State, and Regional Policy Initiatives
a) Advocate for, propose, and shape legislation that increases the ability to develop affordable housing, prevent displacement, and remove impediments to accessing housing. b) Support regional funding measure to support affordable housing.

Objectives and Metrics:

Advocacy for:
 State, Federal, and regional policies that support efforts to develop affordable housing, prevent displacement, and remove impediments to accessing housing.  Change in State law that would allow assessment of impact fees on office and other employment-generating uses to account for the impacts that residential uses have on infrastructure and services on the basis that new employment-generating development creates demand for new residential development.
 Long term anti-displacement measures that support the City’s anti-displacement goals  Additional state funding to support the City’s affordable housing new construction, preservation, and rehabilitation pipelines.
 Regional funding to support the City’s RHNA goals for low-income, very-low-income, and extremely-low-income units as well as the City’s efforts at unit preservation/rehabilitation.

Milestone and Timeframe:
 Participate in the planning process for a 2024 regional housing funding measure, and support such measure.
 Continuously monitor federal and State legislation and submit support letters as appropriate.  Propose legislation if directed by Council, especially with regards to objectives listed above.  Monitor changes to SB 330 that would affect displacement prevention efforts in Mountain View and lobby for anti-displacement measures as appropriate.  Apply for State funding programs as appropriate.

Responsibility: City Manager’s Office, Housing and Neighborhoods and Planning Divisions Potential Funding: General Fund and local housing funds AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Displacement Prevention

4.3 Financial Support for Subsidized Housing
a) Examine new revenue sources and increases to existing revenue sources to meet extremely low- to moderate-income housing needs, including increasing housing impact fees on office development, 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.
d) Provide about $40 million to make available for financing affordable and special needs housing units.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 46 e) Develop local revenue ballot measure to fund affordable housing if regional measure is not implemented.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Subsidize affordable housing, especially housing for lower-income households, unhoused, and families and effectively steward housing funds.
 Produce at least 200 supportive housing units for households who have experienced homelessness.

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

Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division
Potential Funding: Local housing funds
AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Access to Opportunity

4.4 Partnerships to Support Affordable Housing
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.

Objectives and Metrics:

Explore partnerships with other public agencies and external partners to leverage funds and increase access to affordable housing programs. In particular, explore “programmatic partnerships,” that leverage funds for a range of projects, to provide increased certainty to the City’s affordable housing pipeline. These partners may include:
 The County of Santa Clara
 The Santa Clara County Housing Authority
 Private Employers in Mountain View
 The Housing Trust of Silicon Valley
 Philanthropic Agencies in Mountain View
 Private Residential and Commercial Developers in Mountain View Increase funding available for affordable housing preservation, rehabilitation, and construction to meet funding gaps anticipated in pipeline with the goal of fulfilling the City’s RHNA goals for low- income, very-low-income, and extremely-low-income units.

Milestone and Timeframe: Continuously develop relationships with partner agencies and private philanthropy to find opportunities to leverage additional funding for affordable housing.  Secure enough funding to support identified near-term pipeline projects, likely totaling over $66 million, by 2025.
 Secure additional funding needed to preserve and rehabilitate projects to meet City’s anti- displacement goals.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 47  Secure additional funding needed to support the achievement of the City’s RHNA goals for low-income, very-low-income, and extremely-low-income units.

Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division
Potential Funding: General Fund
AFFH Program: Access to Opportunity, Place-Based Strategies, Displacement Prevention

4.5 Partnerships with Subsidized Housing Developers
Make City-owned properties available for affordable housing development.

Objectives and Metrics:
 Partner with subsidized housing developers to further affordable housing priorities.  Leverage a range of funding sources – including land dedication – to lower the cost of affordable housing development, and thus increase affordable housing development.

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

Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division
Potential Funding: Local housing funds and CDBG/HOME funds.

AFFH Program: Access to Opportunity

4.6 Partnerships with Employers
a) Study opportunities for short-term employee housing on sites zoned for office use, and implement if feasible
b) Create framework to collaborate with major employers (including large public entities) to provide workforce housing (potentially on office sites)
Objectives and Metrics
 Create new housing opportunities and reduce pressure on rental housing supply through new employee housing
 Build partnerships with the school districts, hospital district, and major private employers to help improve their employee’s access to housing and quality of life Milestones and Timeframe
 Analyze legal constraints, consistency with State laws (such as AB 2011 and SB 6) and consider a land use framework for short-term employee housing  Meet with at least five major employers to discuss opportunities and constraints for workforce housing (both permanent and short-term), and develop policy recommendations and bring before Council by December 31, 2025

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 48 Responsibility: Planning Division, City Managers Office, City Attorney’s Office Potential Funding: General Fund
AFFH Program: Access to Opportunity

4.7 Neighborhood Engagement
The City will encourage and facilitate housing developers to communicate and share information with neighborhood groups and other organizations regarding their proposed projects, including:
 Providing contact information for neighborhood groups and other organizations that can help inform the project, including special needs groups (disabilities, unhoused, seniors) and marketing units to special needs targets
 Continuing to prepare and implement required mailing notices for hearings  Continuing to maintain the City’s email notification system so stakeholders can get updates on major projects
In addition, the City will continue to make information about upcoming developments available on the City’s website, as well as providing contact information for key staff.

Objectives and Metrics: Keep the community informed on proposed projects and give developers an opportunity to address neighborhood concerns early by encouraging meetings and other communications to solicit input and foster support for new residential developments Milestone and Timeframe:
 By December 31, 2023, the City will have contacts, and procedures for maintaining those contacts, for a range of neighborhood groups and other organizations  The City will continuously support neighborhood engagement and transparency about developments, and will improve resources and processes as identified.

Responsibility: Planning and Housing Divisions
Potential Funding: General Fund
AFFH Program: Access to Opportunity

4.8 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.

Objectives and Metrics: Support school district planning by sharing information on residential developments with school districts
Milestone and Timeframe:
 Share a copy of housing element within one month of adoption.  Share development information with Districts annually.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan 49 Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: General Fund

4.9 Water and Sewer Service Coordination
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.

Objectives and Metrics: Ensure that Water and Sewer connections will be made available to address the RHNA
Milestone and Timeframe: Share a copy of housing element within one month of adoption Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: General Fund

4.10 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.

Objectives and Metrics: Implement major programs in the Housing Element Milestone and Timeframe: Annually
Responsibility: Planning Division, City Manager’s Office Potential Funding: General Fund

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

Objectives and Metrics: Ensure compliance with state reporting requirements by completing and submitting the Annual Report each year of the planning period Milestone and Timeframe: Annually
Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: General Fund

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan
Schedule

Date Program/Task Responsibility
Short-term - 4.1: Compliance with new transparency
requirements for posting all zoning, development
standards and fees on the City’s website
Building
- 4.8: Share a copy of the updated Housing
Element to school districts
Planning
- 4.9: Share a copy of the updated Housing
Element to water/sewer utility staff
Planning
December
2023
- 1.9: Complete first review BMR Phase 2 program Housing - 2.6: Update Assessment of Fair Housing Housing
- 3.2 Propose anti-displacement strategies to
Council
Housing
- 4.7: Compile and maintain contact list for
community engagement
Housing and
Planning
June 2024 - 2.4: Produce and distribute Reasonable
Accommodation information materials
Planning
- 4.1: Review and update NOFA process Housing and
Planning
- 4.1: Implement electronic review software Building, Planning December
2024
- 1.1: Zoning Ordinance Update for Consistency
with State Laws
Planning
- 1.7: Implement ADU monitoring survey Planning
- 1.8 Adoption of Parks and Recreation Strategic
Plan
Community Services
- 1.12: Outreach to tenant and landlords about
tenants’ rights under CSFRA
Housing
- 2.1: Update Council on innovative affordable
housing programs, including assessment of CLTs,

COPA/TOPA
Housing
- 3.1: Develop Homelessness Prevention and
Services for the Unhoused strategy
Housing and City
Manager’s Office
June 2025 - 1.7: Update webpage and prepare ADU/SB9
promotional materials
Planning
- 1.7: Create pre-approved ADU and SB9 design
resource framework
Planning and
Building
December
2025
- 2.2: Perform needs assessment for Pilot ADU &
SB9 Financial Incentives Program
Housing
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Housing Plan
- 3.2 Develop funding strategy for affordable
housing preservation
Housing
- 4.3 Complete evaluation of new funding sources Housing - 4.4: Secure funding to support identified near-
term pipeline projects
Housing
- 4.6: Meet with major employers to partner on
workforce housing
Planning
June 2026 - 1.2: Prepare reduced parking documentation and resources
Planning
- 1.3: Conduct prototype study for residential
standards
Planning
- 1.5: Inform property owners about non-
conforming density updates to Zoning Ordinance
Planning
December
2026
- 2.2: Develop pilot ADU & SB9 grant program
informed by needs assessment
Housing
- Various Zoning Ordinance Updates (Planning,
unless specified below):
o 1.2: Reduced parking for affordable
housing
o 1.3: Review and Update Ordinance and
Precise Plan Residential Standards
o 1.3: TDM Ordinance (Public Works)
o 1.4: Religious and Community Assembly
Sites for Housing
o 1.5: Non-conforming R1 and R2
Multifamily Developments
o 1.6: SB9 DUO Subdivisions (Public Works)
o 4.1: Review Zoning Ordinance processes
and approval bodies
Planning, unless
specified
December
2028
- 1.9: Complete second review BMR Phase 2
program, including:
o 2.4: Evaluate effectiveness of efforts to
increase equitable access to housing.
o 2.5: Perform self-evaluation on fair
housing practices.

Housing
- 2.2: Assess pilot ADU & SB9 grant program for
continuation
Housing
- 3.2 Develop comprehensive “alternatives to
displacement” strategy
Housing
December
2029
- 2.1: Develop program for innovative housing
solutions based on research and findings
Housing

Quantified Objectives

CHAPTER
4 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Quantifed Objectives 51 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 1 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 projects 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 52 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:

 1.9 (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 is described, although the aforementioned efforts to preserve naturally affordable housing should be noted.

Table 1: 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

APPENDIX
A
Implemention Status of
5th Cycle Housing Element
Programs

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)

Page 1 of 10 ends

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.

Page 2 of 10 ends

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.

Page 3 of 10 ends

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.

Page 4 of 10 ends

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.

Page 5 of 10 ends

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.

Page 6 of 10 ends

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.

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.

Page 7 of 10 ends

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.

Page 8 of 10 ends

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.

Page 9 of 10 ends

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.

Page 10 of 10 ends

APPENDIX
Housing Needs AssessmentB

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

Programs in the Housing Plan in this Housing Element Update that further the City’s ongoing displacement mitigation efforts include Programs 1.5, 1.12, 2.1, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, and 4.2.  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 66 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. Program 4.6 addresses the impact of jobs on housing costs.  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, including Programs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12,

2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4.
 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 programs that facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing as well as those that address displacement, as noted above.
 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.

These findings are consistent with input that was received through the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update. Participants in the public engagement process highlighted the high cost of housing and associated affordability challenges for lower-income households, including the disproportionate impact that high housing costs have on seniors, persons with disabilities, and Hispanic and Latinx residents. Displacement was cited as a major concern among those that participated in the public engagement process, including concerns about the impact of displacement on the local workforce, people of color, and special needs groups. Input also highlighted the impact that non-residential development has on housing costs in Mountain View. As noted above, the Housing Plan chapter of the Housing Element Update includes several programs to address these key issues that were emphasized by those that participated in the public engagement process, and which are also apparent through the data presented in this Appendix.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 67 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 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. Input from a variety of groups that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update underscored that high housing costs and displacement risk continue to be key issues affecting Mountain View residents, particularly among racial and ethnic minority groups and special-needs populations. 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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 68 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.

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 2. 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 2: 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 3, 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 69

Table 3: 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 4). With the exception of the 45 to 54 age category, all other groups showed an increase in population.

Table 4: 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 70

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 26 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 71 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 ability or lack thereof for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters face greater displacement risks from increases in housing costs or redevelopment, and displacement among renters was noted as a key issue during the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update. 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 5). 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 72 Table 5: 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 instead 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 73 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. Input received during the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update underscored the extent to which lower-income households are increasingly struggling to find affordable housing in Mountain View.

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 6 reports Mountain View households by HUD-defined income category based on household income as a percentage of the HUD Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI). As shown in the table,

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 74 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 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 6 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 6: 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.

Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs
Due to their limited financial resources, extremely low-income households (those with incomes below 30 percent of the area median income) face particular challenges in securing suitable, affordable housing.

Household Income
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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 75 the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state.1

The current (2022) area median annual income in Santa Clara County is $168,500.2 For extremely low-income households, this translates to an income of $55,550 or less for a four-person household or $35,400 or less for a one-person household. 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, farm workers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively low and stagnant wages in many industries.

Table 7 shows examples of occupations with wages where the worker households could potentially qualify as extremely low-income households. It should be noted that the hourly wages shown in the table are based on data collected between 2020 and 2022, and therefore some of the wages shown are lower than the 2022 California minimum wage ($15 per hour for employers with 26 employees or more; $14 per hour for employers with 25 employees or less). Moreover, Mountain View has a local minimum wage, which was set at $17.20 per hour as of January 2022. Neighboring jurisdictions including Los Altos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale have similar local minimum wages. Therefore, the wages shown in the table below are generally lower than the minimum wage that would apply in Mountain View and neighboring jurisdictions. However, workers earning the local minimum wage could nonetheless be members of extremely low-income households.

Table 7: Examples of Low Wage Occupations
Occupation Title Median Hourly Wage
Hotel and Resort Clerks $14.45
Child Care Workers $13.83
Housekeepers $14.94
Manicurists and Pedicurists $13.34
Hosts and Hostesses $12.91
Education, Training, and Library Workers $28.47
Agricultural Graders and Sorters $12.77
Waiter and Waitresses $13.16
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers $13.47
Source: Employment Development Department, 2020-2022 Occupational Employment Projections for California.

1 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 2 Based on HCD Income Limits for 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 76 As noted above, in Mountain View 14 percent of households fall in the extremely low-income category (see Figure 4 and Table 6). This is approximately the same as the proportion for Santa Clara County overall and for the entire Bay Area. Sixty-three percent of Mountain View households have incomes above 100 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), compared to only 52 percent regionally. However, even though Mountain View is a relatively affluent community, the city has over 4,600 extremely low-income households, many of whom are likely to have a need for more affordable housing. The following discussion provides additional information profiling those households.

Household Income Distribution by Tenure
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 available that is affordable for these households. While the majority of both renters and owners in Mountain View have incomes above the median level (see Table 6 above), renter households are more likely to be extremely low income than owners in Mountain View; 16 percent of renters are in extremely low income households, in comparison to only 10 percent of owners. Even though some of these extremely low-income owners may be seniors who own their homes outright, these households are likely to have difficulty affording the upkeep and maintenance of their homes.

While the majority of both extremely low-income renters and owners face severe housing cost burdens in Mountain View, the proportion of renters is much higher. For extremely low-income renters, two-thirds face housing costs of over half their income; only 53 percent of owners face the same level of housing cost burden, as shown in Table 8. In contrast, only 18 percent of all renters in Mountain View and 10 percent of all owners in Mountain View have this level of housing costs relative to income.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 77 Table 8: Housing Cost Burdens for Extremely Low Income Households, City of Mountain View

Renter
Households
Owner
Households All Households
# % # % # %
Extremely Low-Income Households (a) 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% 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% Notes:
(a) Households with incomes equal to 30% of HAMFI (HUD Area Median Family Income) based on CHAS data, which reflect HUD- defined household income limits.
(b) Totals may 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.

Extremely Low-Income Households by Race
Table 9 below provides a breakdown of extremely low-income households by race and ethnicity. As shown, White households account for approximately half of all extremely low-income households in Mountain View. However, Latino households have the highest share of households with extremely low incomes; among Latino households. While 13 percent of all households in Mountain View have extremely low incomes, 22 percent of Latino households have extremely low incomes. The prevalence of extremely low-income households is similar among Pacific Islander households, but there are very few of these households in Mountain View. These data indicate that Latino households are disproportionately impacted by the housing problems experienced by extremely low- income households, including those that put households at risk for displacement.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 78 Table 9: Extremely Low-Income Households by Race and Ethnicity, City of Mountain View
Race/Ethnicity
Total Households ELI Households Share Below
30% AMI # % # %
White 17,725 53.9% 2,185 50.6% 12%
Black/African American 665 2.0% 100 2.3% 15%
Asian 10,035 30.5% 1,035 24.0% 10%
American Indian 15 0.0% 0 0.0% 0%
Pacific Islander 45 0.1% 10 0.2% 22%
Hispanic 4,425 13.4% 990 22.9% 22%
Total Households (a) 33,715 100.0% 4,360 100.0% 13%
Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Numbers may not match other tables due to independent rounding. HAMFI refers to HUD Area Median Family Income. (a) Figures may not sum to total due to independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2014-2018 release.

Extremely Low Income Households with Housing Problems
Extremely low income households are significantly more likely than other households to have housing problems. As reported in the CHAS data presented in Table 10, “housing problems” include the following: lack of complete kitchen, lack of complete plumbing facility; more than one person per room; and cost burden greater than 30 percent of income. Severe housing problems include lack of complete kitchen; lack of complete plumbing facility; more than 1 persons per room; cost burden greater than 50 percent of income. Additional data not presented here indicate that the most common of these problems is high cost burdens. As shown in Table 10, 77 percent of extremely low- income households in Mountain View have one or more housing problems, while 63 percent have one or more severe housing problems. Table 10 also indicates that housing problems among extremely low-income households disproportionately impact Latino households, Black/African American households, and Asian households.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 79 Table 10: Housing Problems by Race and Ethnicity for ELI Households, Mountain View
Race/Ethnicity
ELI Households ELI Households with
Housing Problems (a)
ELI Households with
Severe Housing
Problems (b)
# % # % # %
White 2,185 50.6% 1,660 76.0% 1,255 57.4%
Black/African
American
100 2.3% 65 65.0% 65 65.0%
Asian 1,035 24.0% 725 70.0% 635 61.4%
American Indian 0 0.0% 0 n.a. 0 n.a.

Pacific Islander 10 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Hispanic 990 22.9% 870 87.9% 775 78.3%
Total ELI Households (c) 4,360 100.0% 3,345 76.7% 2,760 63.3% Notes:
(a) Household has one or more housing problems. 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. (b) Severe housing problems include lack of complete kitchen; lack of complete plumbing facility; more than 1 persons per room; cost burden greater than 50% of income.
(c) Figures may not sum to total due to independent rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2022.

Extremely Low-Income Housing Resources and Remaining Needs Although Mountain View has a variety of housing resources for extremely low-income households, many extremely-low income households continue to have unmet housing needs. Housing resources for extremely low-income households in Mountain View include units within affordable developments in Mountain View, including units for individuals with special housing needs such as those with developmental disabilities and seniors. In addition, many extremely low-income households are served by transitional and supportive housing facilities in Mountain View such as Alice Avenue Transitional Home, Quetzal House, the San Antonio Place Efficiency Studios, and the Project Homekey project. 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.

Even with these resources, a significant number of extremely low-income households continue to face high housing cost burdens, displacement, and homelessness. The Housing Plan chapter of this Housing Element Update includes programs to help narrow the gap between extremely low-income households’ needs and the resources available to address these needs.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 80 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 81 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 workers3 and 95,818 persons working4 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).5

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.

3 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.
4 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. 5 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 82 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 83 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 84

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. Mountain View residents and other participants in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update highlighted jobs- housing imbalance and mismatch as key factors contributing to high housing costs in Mountain View.

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 85

Mountain View’s East Whisman Precise Plan includes a Jobs-Housing Linkage requirement that requires residential development to accompany any new office development over 0.4 FAR (approximately the current intensity of office in the area), with the effect that no more than approximately 30 percent of any such development can be net new office. Developers of nonresidential projects are required to provide a Jobs-Housing Linkage Plan with a phasing or housing delivery plan that proposes how the project applicant will facilitate residential development in the Precise Plan Area. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that any new office development is accompanied by residential development to foster a more balanced jobs-housing mix. The North Bayshore Precise Plan has a similar policy. During a Study Session for the Housing Element Update, the Environmental Planning Commission cited this policy as a potential template for future zoning actions in Mountain View to improve jobs-housing balance.

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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 86 Figure 9: Housing Units by Type, 2010-2020

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

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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 87 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 absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.6 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

6 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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 88 proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.7 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.

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 11, Mountain View has exceeded its 5th 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

7 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 89 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 11: 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 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.8 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

8 The timetable for interior inspections was disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 90 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 percent of the City’s multifamily housing structures.

There were a total of 82 multifamily rental units in properties that have been issued Compliance Orders in the past three years (the only years for which data are available), which suggests an average of fewer than 30 units each year in properties that have been issued Compliance Orders.

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. 9

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 buildings10 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 195011 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.

Units in Need of Rehabilitation or Replacement
There are no known residential units in Mountain View that are in need of replacement, though there are some needs for housing rehabilitation, primarily among the City’s rental housing stock. As noted above, an estimated 30 multifamily rental units or fewer are issued Compliance Orders through the

9 Personal communication, Eric Anderson, Fire Marshal, Mountain View Fire Department, February 28, 2022. 10 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. 11 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 91 Multifamily Housing Inspection Program per year on average, suggesting a total of 240 units over the eight-year Housing Element Planning Period. In addition, 5,123 multifamily units in Mountain View have potential earthquake vulnerabilities due to woodframe soft stories. This suggests a total of up to 5,363 multifamily rental units in Mountain View with potential rehabilitation needs. However, this is almost certainly an overestimate, as not all buildings with Compliance Orders are in need of substantial rehabilitation and many buildings with woodframe soft stories may have already been retrofitted. The Housing Plan in this Housing Element Update includes Program 3.2, which includes providing City funds to assist in preserving at least two naturally occurring affordable housing projects during the planning period.

There is a minimal need for rehabilitation among Mountain View’s owner-occupied housing stock.

Mountain View has high home sale prices and owner-occupied homes are generally in good condition. Rehabilitation of existing units is typically undertaken as needed by private homeowners, sometimes in connection with a transfer of ownership. Rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing has not been cited as a major issue during the public engagement process for this Housing Element Update. As noted in the introduction to this Housing Element Update, the public engagement process included a Community Feedback Form to obtain input on critical housing issues. One portion of the form asked respondents to identify up to five of the most critical housing issues in Mountain View. The housing issue that respondents identified the least frequently was “Not enough financial assistance for lower-income homeowners that need to make home repairs.”

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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 92 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).

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 35th 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 average 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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 93 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 12). 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. Individuals that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update noted that high home costs prevent many households from having the ability to purchase a home in Mountain View.

Table 12: 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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 94 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. Input obtained during the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update indicates that rents have continued to increase in more recent years.

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 13). 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 95 Table 13: 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 13 come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which does not fully reflect current rents. Table 14 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 96 Table 14: 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. Displacement risk due to high housing costs was emphasized as a key concern among those that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 97 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

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 98 Figure 16: Cost Burden by Tenure

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 99 Figure 17: Cost Burden by Household Size

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 100 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.

Stakeholders that participated in the public engagement process noted that there are families in

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 101 Mountain View that live with multiple families in one unit, likely in overcrowded conditions, in order to afford housing.

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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 102 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).

Figure 20: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity

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 103 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).

Figure 21: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity

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 104 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 15 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 105 Table 15: 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 Indefinitely 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 106 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.12 Table 16: 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.

12 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 107 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 108 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 households13 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

13 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 109 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 110 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 111 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 112 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 113 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 a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe intellectual disability, as well as disabling conditions that are closely related to intellectual disability or require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability but does not include conditions that are solely physical in nature. 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 114

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 17).

Table 17: 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 18, 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. Many people with developmental disabilities have extremely low incomes, making it difficult to find housing in Mountain View’s high-cost housing market.

Adults with developmental disabilities that live with parents or other elderly family members may be at risk of displacement or homelessness if those family members are no longer able to care for them due to death or other factors that affect their ability to provide care. 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. In addition, there may be a need for additional units for extremely low-income households in order to meet the needs of many individuals with developmental 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. Program 1.1 will update the reasonable accommodation procedures to removing unnecessary findings that could be a constraint to providing reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. In addition, Program 1.1 will amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance to permit of residential care homes as a permitted use regardless of the number of residents. Program 2.1 in the Housing Plan states that the City will make funding available to support a range of housing needs, including permanent supportive housing and housing for people with special needs. Program

2.5 states that the City will fund fair housing education, enforcement, and counseling to

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 115 prevent fair housing violations and provide financial support for tenant/property owner mediation and eviction protection, which can help to prevent displacement among individuals with developmental disabilities. Program 3.1 states that the City will develop and implement a strategy to prevent people from becoming unhoused. In addition, many of the other programs in the Housing Plan that will facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing can also help to address housing needs among individuals with developmental disabilities.

Table 18: 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 19 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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 116 2015 and 2019, compared to a 48% increase countywide.14 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 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 19: 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.

14 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 117 Figure 29: Homelessness by Household Type & Shelter Status, Santa Clara County

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 118 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 are 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 119 Table 20: 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 21: 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 120 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. The Housing Plan component of this Housing Element Update includes Programs 2.1, 3.1, and 4.3 to address the needs of homeless individuals and families, as well as Programs 1.5, 1.12, 2.1, 2.5, 3.2, 4.2, and 4.4 to prevent displacement that could lead to homelessness.

Farmworkers
Mountain View does not have a significant farmworker community. There are no major agricultural operations in Mountain View, and very few if any in the immediate surrounding area. While there are no available data on the number of farmworker that live in Mountain View or the number of farmworker jobs in Mountain View Table 22 shows the number of jobs in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector. As shown, there are less than 200 local residents with jobs in the sector, and less than 40 jobs in Mountain View. This indicates that few if any Mountain View residents are farmworkers, as the total number of resident jobs shown in the table include jobs outside of the agriculture industry, and even residents with jobs in the agriculture industry could hold work in positions other than farmworker positions.

Similarly, it is unlikely that there are any farmworker jobs located in Mountain View.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 121 Table 22: 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, as shown in Table 23. These data further demonstrate that Mountain View does not have a significant farmworker community. 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 23: 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 122 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

Farmworker Housing Needs and Resources: 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 high-cost housing markets. While farmworker housing often includes temporary accommodations that provide beds in group living quarters, farmworkers in Santa Clara County are increasingly shifting toward permanent jobs, as shown in Figure 31.

As a result, an increasing number of workers are likely to be interested in permanent homes that are suitable for themselves and their families, rather than living alone while traveling for work. As a result, farmworkers often seek out the same type of affordable housing as other lower-income households, including a preference for housing that is close to schools and other amenities in more urban areas.

Because Mountain View is not in close proximity to a large number of agricultural jobs, Mountain View is not an ideal location for housing that is targeted to farmworkers. Any farmworkers that currently live in Mountain View or are seeking housing in Mountain View are likely interested in permanent housing in a location with access to schools and other

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 123 amenities. These residents could be served by Mountain View’s existing affordable housing stock or new affordable units that will be built in Mountain View during the upcoming Housing Element Cycle.

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. Individuals that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update noted that language barriers can prevent lower-income households from accessing subsidized housing. Program 2.2 seeks to address this barrier by providing increased interpretation services for the City’s BMR application process.

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.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 124

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.”15

The City of Mountain View complies with all State and Federal fair housing laws and regulations and continuously self-assesses to ensure it is in compliance with State and Federal fair housing rules. The City has not received any judgements, lawsuits, or enforcements as a result of fair housing violations.

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 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.16

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

15 California Government Code § 8899.5 (a)(1)
16 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 125 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 24. Nine complaints were conciliated or settled, a no cause determination was made for three complaints, and two complaints were withdrawn after resolution.

Table 24: 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 25, 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 126 Table 25: 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 0 0.0%
Disability 2 50.0%
Familial status 1 25.0%
National origin/color/race 1 25.0%
Other 0 0.0%
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 0 0.0%
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 0 0.0%
Total, All Resolutions 3 100%

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 127 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 26, 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 128 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 129 Table 26: 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 Percent 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 Percent 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% 310,955 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 130 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,”17 In an interview18 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…,”19 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.20

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

17 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. 18 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.
19 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. 20 “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 131 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.21 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 27).

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 27: Dissimilarity Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020

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

21 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 132 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. 22 23

Table 28 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 28: 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.

22 HUD. (2013). AFFH Data Documentation. Available at: http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/pdf/FR- 5173-P-01_AFFH_data_documentation.pdf
23 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 133 As shown above in Table 26, 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 15% 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 percent 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 percent 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 percent 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 percent (see Figure 43). Regionally, the highest Block

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 134 Group 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 percent (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 percent 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 percent to 13 percent.

Summary of Geographic Distribution of Residents by Race and Ethnicity. Overall, the figures provided below indicate that some areas of Mountain View include concentrations of various racial and ethnic groups in Block Groups throughout the City. In particular, there are concentrations of White residents in Monta Loma, Downtown and many of the Block Groups south of El Camino Real; concentrations of Hispanic and Latino residents in Block Groups around Rengstorff Park and North Bayshore; and concentrations of Asian residents in Block Groups near the San Antonio and Whisman Station neighborhoods. During the public review period for the Housing Element Update, several individuals commented on the high proportion of Latino students at Mariano Castro Elementary School (see Figure 71 below), which has an attendance zone that overlaps with the area around Rengstorff Park (most notably Block Groups 1 and 3 in Census Tract 5094.03 and Block Groups 1 and 2 in Census Tract 5095) that has a large Latino population. These commenters expressed concerns that the differences between schools in terms of the racial and ethnic composition of the students provided an indicator of segregated living patterns within Mountain View. All other racial and ethnic groups comprise a relatively small share of the population in Mountain View overall and in individual Block Groups throughout the City.

Implications of Geographic Distribution of Residents by Race and Ethnicity for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing through the Housing Element Update. Affirmatively furthering fair housing through the Housing Element Update includes taking actions that overcome patterns

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 135 of segregation. The primary mechanism that a local jurisdiction can use to overcome existing patterns of racial or ethnic segregation is to identify affordable housing opportunity sites throughout the community, rather than concentrating affordable housing in areas with existing concentrations of racial and ethnic minority residents. As shown in Figure 97 below and discussed in Appendix E, the housing sites inventory that is included in this Housing Element Update identifies sites throughout the City where affordable housing could be built, and does not concentrate affordable housing opportunity sites in areas with disproportionate concentrations of racial or ethnic minority groups.

The housing site inventory shown in Appendix E helps to affirmatively further fair housing as it relates to the four Block Groups identified above that have a disproportionate share of Latino residents. These four block groups currently account for an estimated 9.6 percent of all existing housing units in Mountain View. Of the housing sites identified in Appendix E, sites in these four Block Groups account for 1.7 percent of lower-income units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. This means that these Block Groups have a disproportionately low share of the lower-income units in the site inventory relative to the number of existing units in these Block Groups.

Another key component of affirmatively furthering fair housing entails ensuring that residents live in areas that provide them with access to opportunity. Though some areas of Mountain View have large populations of various racial and ethnic minority groups, there are no racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in Mountain View, as discussed below (see Figure 63). In addition, almost all of Mountain View offers relatively high access to opportunity, including in areas with comparatively large non-White populations.

The only area considered “Low Resource” in the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map is the North Bayshore area. However, the North Bayshore area has access to a significant number of jobs. It is also the subject of a major precise plan that will bring new development and services to the area, helping to improve access to opportunity. The City prepared and adopted the North Bayshore Precise Plan to create a complete community north of Highway 101, including new neighborhood-serving retail and services, new open spaces, land for a new school, and transit improvements along North Shoreline Boulevard to connect the area to the Downtown Transit Center and the rest of the City. The North Bayshore Master Plan, a development framework to implement the vision of the Precise Plan, is already under review, with approval expected in 2023. This Master Plan includes up to 7,000 dwelling units as well as services, open spaces, a school and mobility improvements to vastly improve the quality of life for existing residents north of Highway 101.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 136 Figure 33: Census Block Groups by% Non-White, Mountain View

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