ATT 3 - Redlined Draft Housing Element — Mountain View City Council, December 13, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Heritage trees may not be removed on public or private property without a valid heritage tree permit from the City. Applications for the removal of heritage trees in connection with a discretionary development project permit are subject to review by the City’s Zoning Administrator or City Council.

Applications for permits are approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the official or hearing body which acts on the associated development permit application.

The City strives to preserve trees where possible and may require developers to build around trees.

In most cases, however, developers are allowed to remove Heritage trees if they are replaced at a two-to-one ratio, depending on the type of tree. Because a large share of residential development in Mountain View is infill development that involves demolition and replacement, building footprints are often already in place and tree preservation issues do not arise as a major concern to developers.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 264 Governmental Constraints Findings
 Overall, Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance generally does not act as a constraint to new housing production. The development standards and parking requirements for the existing six zoning districts that permit residential development are reasonable. When appropriate, the Zoning Administrator may approve a CUP to reduce the number of parking spaces for a development with smaller units. Housing Element Program 1.31 includes a review of development standards to address potential feasibility constraints. In addition, the City of Mountain View is adopting updates to its Zoning Ordinance concurrent with the Housing Element Update to increase residential development capacity.  Although Mountain View’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance could pose a constraint to housing production, the City has experienced significant amounts of market-rate residential construction activity with the inclusionary requirements in place and these requirements remain an important tool for generating affordable housing. Mountain View’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires projects of a certain size to provide at least 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units (or 25 percent for ownership townhouses and rowhouses) as below-market rate or, in the case of a fractional unit (below 0.5 for developments with more than seven units) pay an in-lieu fee. There is also an option for alternatives to the production requirement. In general, this creates more affordable units than with a fee-only system.

Housing Element Program 1.911 states that the City will review and revise the Below-Market- Rate program requirements during the planning period to reflect community needs for affordable and market rate housing.
 The City’s park land dedication requirements may act as a constraint to housing production but will be addressed through a Housing Element program. The park land dedication in-lieu fee totals approximately $238,987 for a single-family unit, $69,497 for a unit in a small (ten units or less) multi-family project, and $82,591 for a unit in a large (100 units or more) multi- family project. Overall, the City’s park land dedication requirements were found to have a moderate to major impact on residential development costs, depending on the unit type.

Housing Element Program 1.810 will address this potential constraint through a review and revision to the City’s park land dedication requirements to maintain access to high quality open space while reducing the financial impact to residential development.  In compliance with SB 2, Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance allows permanent emergency shelters as a permitted use in the MM zoning district.
 Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance treats transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
 The City’s Zoning Ordinance includes a process for reasonable accommodation requests for people with physical disabilities. Federal and State fair housing laws require jurisdictions to make reasonable accommodations to their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 265 Non-Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors which may constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions, such as the availability of financing and land and construction costs, as well as community opposition to new development.

Availability of Financing
The availability of financing can have an impact on the supply and cost of housing. Developers typically rely on construction financing to construct new housing units, while home buyers generally rely on financing to purchase residential properties. Interest rates can have a considerable impact on the cost to build, purchase, and improve homes, while restrictive lending terms can make it difficult to qualify for financing.

Financing is generally available for the residential construction and home mortgages and does not generally pose a constraint to the production of housing. While one developer interviewed for this Housing Element Update reported that decreases in rents due to the COVID-19 pandemic had made financing more challenging, these impacts likely reflect broader feasibility challenges due to decreased rents rather than challenges related specifically to financing. Moreover, residential rents have shown continuing increases as the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have lessened, mitigating these feasibility challenges.

Assembling financing for new construction is consistently challenging for affordable housing developers, though this challenge is not unique to the Mountain View context. In fact, the City of Mountain View routinely provides financing to affordable housing projects to help fill funding gaps.

Affordable housing developers that were interviewed for this Housing Element Update cited the City’s financial contributions to affordable housing projects as a key factor that facilitates the production of affordable housing in Mountain View. Most affordable housing developments require several sources of financing to become feasible, including bank loans as well as federal, State, local, and philanthropic funding. Major sources of funding include low-income housing tax credits, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funding, HOME funds, and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Local sources of funding for projects in Mountain View include the City’s affordable housing funds as well as Santa Clara County Measure A funds. The City has also been part of two state Homekey applications, drawing in additional state funds to build housing for people experiencing homelessness. In order to meet its RHNA goals for affordable units, the City will have to find other sources of funding in order to meet the significant gaps in funding availability compared to the units in its pipeline. Housing Element Program 4.3 seeks to identify other sources of funding to meet this need. In addition, Housing Element Program 4.1 includes updating the City’s NOFA process for affordable housing to improve coordination and communication internally and with applicants.

Land Costs
Land costs in Mountain View are high, as are land costs in much of the rest of Santa Clara County.

The cost of land can vary considerably based on location, lot size, zoning, availability of existing infrastructure, and other factors. Recent sales of sites in Mountain View that are zoned for multi-

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 266 family residential development indicate that typical land prices for multi-family sites are approximately $13 million per acre. Affordable housing developers that were consulted as part of the Housing Element Update process reported that a land cost of $100,000 per unit or more is not unusual in the Mountain View market. The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update (see Appendix H) assumed a land cost of $122,000 per unit for multifamily housing. While the available data on single-family land sale costs in Mountain View is limited due to the limited inventory of vacant single-family sites, and land zoned for single-family uses tends to have a lower per-acre cost but a higher per-unit cost than land zoned for multi-family uses.

Construction Costs
Construction costs have increased substantially over the past several years and are often cited as a key barrier to the production of housing. Causes for the increase in construction costs include increases in the cost of materials as well as increases in labor costs. While demand for construction labor has remained strong in recent years, the pool of construction labor in California has not kept pace with demand. The COVID-19 pandemic led to further increases in construction costs due to supply chain disruptions and a shortage of construction materials and equipment. According to historical cost increases published by RS Means, hard construction costs for projects in the San Francisco region increased by 11 percent between 2018 and January 2021, and by 25 percent between the start of the City’s last Housing Element cycle (2015) and 2021. The TBD Construction Bid estimate shows more significant construction cost escalation, increasing by 17 percent between 2018 and 2021 and by 42 percent between 2015 and 2021.

As of the third quarter of 2021, development costs for multi-family units often total $550,000 per unit or more, before including the cost of land. One affordable housing developer that was consulted as part of the Housing Element Update process reported that it is difficult to build an affordable unit in Silicon Valley for less than $700,000 per unit including the cost of land, and that the cost of one recent project in Mountain View exceeded $1 million per unit. Single-family construction costs can vary substantially based on home size, quality of finishes, and other factors, but are often higher than the cost of a multi-family unit.

Public Opinion
Other constraints to housing production in Mountain View include public opinion, specifically community concern about higher-density development. Developers acknowledged that projects will almost always encounter some form of resistance from neighbors and residents, most commonly citing concerns about density and parking. This is the case not just in Mountain View, but in many jurisdictions. Within Mountain View, public opinion on new residential development at higher densities can have community support as well. Therefore, engagement with the local neighborhood associations can be critical for projects. Extensive community outreach can help to mitigate concern over new residential development. Despite some opposition to increased density, there is almost always a show of support for housing in Mountain View, particularly housing that addresses unmet needs, such as affordable housing.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 267 Requests to Develop Housing Below the Densities Identified in the Sites Inventory Residential development in Mountain View is not likely to be constrained due to requests to develop housing at densities below the densities that are identified in the Housing Element site inventory and analysis. Requests to develop sites at low densities tends to be a constraint to housing production if the market favors lower-density product types, such as detached single-family homes, on sites where higher-density product types, such as multifamily units, are allowed. As evidenced by construction activity in Mountain View during the last Housing Element Cycle and projects currently in the pipeline, there is strong demand for multifamily housing in Mountain View. Meanwhile, there has been virtually no construction of detached single-family homes in Mountain View in recent years. More importantly, the sites inventory for Mountain View’s Housing Element determined the capacity for opportunity sites based on the actual densities of recently-constructed projects in Mountain View, as discussed in the Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory chapter. The sites inventory and analysis demonstrates that the densities used to determine capacity on housing opportunity sites are consistent with densities among recent projects in Mountain View under the same or similar development standards.

Time Between Approval and Building Permits
The time between project approvals and issuance of building permits is not generally a constraint to housing production in Mountain View. Before COVID, Multifamily and rowhouse developments had a median time from planning application to building completion of about 3.7 years. Since construction can take over 2 years, this means there is not usually very much time between entitlement and building permit application.

During the previous Housing Element Update cycle, the City of Mountain View issued building permits for more units than called for the City’s RHNA allocation, as discussed in Chapter 2. Mountain View continues to have a robust project pipeline, as discussed in Appendix E, with strong developer interest in both entitling and building projects.

While some developments do not proceed after entitlement, this is exceedingly rare. Those projects that do not proceed are nearly always followed by a new residential entitlement (usually by a new developer). This is because under-utilized sites in Mountain View are good development opportunities, especially for residential uses.

Non-Governmental Constraints Findings
 High land construction costs present challenges to the development of both market rate and affordable housing in Mountain View. Land prices in Mountain View are high, much like the rest of Silicon Valley, often reaching $100,000 per unit for multi-family developments.

Construction costs are also high and have increased steadily during recent years. Together, high land and construction costs present barriers to the production of housing in Mountain View. Neighboring jurisdictions face similar constraints, contributing to the regional housing shortage. The City of Mountain View helps to address this constraint by providing funding for affordable housing construction. In addition, Mountain View has increased density in large

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 268 portions of the City through various Precise Plans, which help to reduce the per-unit land cost for both market rate and affordable developments.
 Public opinion, particularly community concern over higher-density development, may constrain housing production in Mountain View. Projects in many jurisdictions, including Mountain View, often encounter some form of resistance from neighbors and residents.

Engagement with local neighborhood associations and other community involvement processes can help to mitigate concern over new residential development. In addition, Mountain View has active groups and individuals that support pro-housing policies, which help to balance opposition to density with support for additional housing. Housing Element Program 4.7 addresses this issue by encouraging developers to facilitate early and ongoing outreach with surrounding neighborhood groups while planning for new residential development.

Environmental Constraints
Environmental hazards affecting housing units include geologic and seismic conditions that provide the greatest threat to the built environment. The City has identified areas where land development should be carefully controlled. The following hazards are examples of environmental constraints that may impact future development of residential units in the City. For a summary of additional environmental constraints, it is recommended that the City’s General Plan Safety Element be referenced as well as the City’s most recent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). All parcels included in the sites inventory were reviewed for any known environmental constraints, such as wildfire, sea level rise, earthquake/seismic zones, and landslide risk, and other possible constraints to development feasibility. The sites included in the inventory have all been designated for residential development and are not constrained by special hazard risk, known environmental factors, or other site-specific constraints that would limit development. The specific process for this analysis is described in the Sites Selection Process section within Appendix E. Precedent development projects within Mountain View have been completed without major impacts from environmental constraints.

Seismic Hazards
Mountain View is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. Mountain View City Hall is located approximately 6.7 miles northeast of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (A- PEFZ) for the San Andreas Fault, and approximately 11.2 miles southwest of the A-PEFZ for the Hayward Fault. The complex and potentially active Berrocal/Monte Vista-Shannon fault zone has its northern terminus about 2.7 miles to the southwest, while the inactive Cascade, Stanford, and San Jose faults all cross the City of Mountain View from the southeast to the northwest. There are, however, no known active faults present within the City, and the fault rupture hazard for the City is considered to be very low. Future development of housing would be required to undergo review, including analysis of increased risks to human health or safety related to fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and liquefaction, in addition to compliance with standard California building and safety code requirements.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 269 Flooding
Portions of the City are within the 100-year flood zones as determined by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. There are Pipeline projects in the sites inventory that are located in the 100-year flood zone, near US-101 and El Camino Real’s crossing of Permanente Creek. In addition, there is one Opportunity Site in the sites inventory in the flood zone near El Camino Real and Miramonte Avenue.

These projects would need to obtain a flood development permit as described in Section 8.160 of the City Code and be in compliance with California building and safety code requirements.

There are no dams or reservoirs within the City, with the exception of the irrigation ponds at the Shoreline Golf Links. The City is not located within a dam failure inundation zone. The Stevens Creek Reservoir is located upstream from the City on Stevens Creek, but its dam failure inundation zone does not cross into Mountain View’s jurisdictional boundary. In addition, creeks within the City are maintained for flooding with slope protection by the Valley Water (VW). Future housing development within the City would not be affected by any levee failures along the creek channel and would not expose residents to flooding risks as a result of a failure of a levee or dam.

Fire Hazards
The most serious fire threat within the City is building and structure fires. Other fire hazards within the City may be associated with heavy industrial uses, older commercial and residential structures, the presence of hazardous materials, and arson. No Fire Hazard Severity Zones for State responsibility areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones for local responsibility areas have been identified within or adjacent to the City of Mountain View. Future housing development within the City would be required to comply with the materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposures and vegetation management practices described in the 2019 California Building Code and Chapter 47 in the California Fire Code and/or any other ordinances adopted by the City of Mountain View thereafter.

Noise
The ambient noise environment in the City of Mountain View is impacted by a variety of noise sources, including traffic, railroad, airport, and stationary noise sources. The City addresses noise in the Noise Chapter of the General Plan and in Chapter 5: Animals and Fowl, Chapter 8: Buildings, and Chapter 21: Miscellaneous Offenses and Smoking Regulations of the City Code. The City’s exterior noise acceptability guidelines for new development show that environments with ambient noise levels of up to 55 dBA are considered normally acceptable for residential development and conditionally acceptable up to 65 dBA. The interior noise acceptability is 45 dBA and conditionally acceptable up to 50 dBA. In addition, the City Code restricts the operation of loud noise producing equipment used in construction or demolition on weekdays to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and restricts such activities from occurring on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays unless City Staff grant prior written approval. Future housing development in the City would be required to comply with City policies regulating noise. Analysis and review of the following noise-related topics may occur including exposure of persons to excessive noise levels, including airport noise; exposure of persons to excessive ground borne vibration; generation of excessive noise; construction noise; and increases in ambient noise levels.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 270

Soil and Groundwater Contamination
The East Whisman and North Bayshore areas have significant soil and groundwater contamination from previous industrial uses. Commercial sites may also have issues from previous dry cleaning or automotive operations.

In order to further effectively manage soil and groundwater contamination, the City has established procedures for determining where contamination is located and how to mitigate it. The City addresses soil and groundwater contamination in Chapter 5, Infrastructure, of the General Plan. In addition, the City regularly communicates with county, State, and federal agencies on the monitoring, remediation, and reporting of its contaminated soil and groundwater sites. Often, podium apartment buildings over underground garages - the most typical construction of new units in the City - can help the issue by removing contaminated soil. Future housing can build safe housing even in these conditions, by incorporating vapor barriers and active and passive ventilation, among other tools.

APPENDIX
Housing Sites Analysis
and InventoryE

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 272 APPENDIX E: HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS AND

INVENTORY
Introduction
A Housing Element must include an inventory of available land that is appropriately zoned and suitable for housing development to accommodate a jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as required by State law. This inventory for the City of Mountain View focuses on sites that are, or can be made available, for housing development affordable to households of varying income levels. This Appendix summarizes the evaluation of potential housing sites, and the adequacy of sites to meet development capacities to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs for the 2023-2031 planning period.

Specifically, California law (Government Code Sections 65583 (a)(3)) requires that the Housing Element contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and non-vacant (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for development. State law also requires an analysis of the relationship to zoning and services to these sites as well as identifying sites throughout the community, in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).

The analysis presented in this Appendix demonstrates there is an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the City’s housing allocation of 11,135 units, plus a surplus of over 3,6006,644 additional units (1,612 of which are low and moderate income units) to acts as a “buffer” if sites develop to non-residential or at different affordability levels than assumed in the sites inventory. This section is organized by the following topics:
 Summary of the regional context and capacity;
 Sites selection process which includes a description of the methodology and evaluation of site criteria, unit capacity, and sites to accommodate varied income levels; and  Sites inventory which includes the identification of sites by project type categories and evaluation of sites in meeting AFFH requirements.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The City’s housing target for the eight-year planning period (January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2031) is defined by its RHNA (also referred to as the City’s 6th cycle RHNA). RHNA is the California State- required process that seeks to ensure cities and counties are planning for enough housing to accommodate all economic segments of the community. Each city and county in the Bay Area must update their current housing element to meet statutory requirements by January 31, 2023 and plan for a specific allocation of assumed new housing units for specified income groupings as part of their sites inventory process to address their RHNA target. The City’s RHNA for this planning period is shown in Table 42Table 43.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 273 Table 4243: Mountain View’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation Summary Info
Units by Income Group
Total Units
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
City RHNA a 2,773 1,597 1,885 4,880 11,135
Percent of
Total
25% 14% 17% 44% 100%
NOTES: a The RHNA allocation shown was adopted by ABAG on December 16, 2021.

SOURCE: ABAG, December 2021.

Summary of Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
The total realistic development capacity of all sites in the land inventory is listed in Table 43Table 44 which provides a summary of the total residential capacity against the City’s 6th cycle RHNA. The total realistic capacity shown is 17,779 14,783 units, which exceeds the net target of 11,135 units the City is required to accommodate for its RHNA, and also supplements that allocation by representing a 6033 percent buffer, of which 46 percent is a buffer on low and moderate income units. HCD recommends that jurisdictions provide a 15 to 30 percent buffer beyond the minimum RHNA target to comply with the “no net loss” provisions of State Housing Element Law that require the jurisdiction to maintain sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA for the duration of the planning period at every income level. In addition to considering the aggregate number of units that the sites can accommodate, it is necessary to consider the potential for sites to accommodate housing that is affordable to all income levels, in accordance with the RHNA allocations, as discussed in the Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels section. Each of the two primary project types, Approved Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites, are presented in Table 43Table 44 and described in further detail in the Methodology/Evaluation of Possible Sites section.

As shown in Table 43Table 44, the number of units from Pipeline Projects alone is greater than the City’s RHNA. Though these Pipeline units do not fulfill the RHNA allocation at every income level, this demonstrates there are sufficient sites for the City’s RHNA and provides strong evidence there is residential developer interest and economic feasibility for housing development on the types of sites, including non-vacant sites, identified in this inventory.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 274 Table 4344: Mountain View Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to 6th Cycle RHNA by Income
Summary Info
Units by Income Group
Total
Units1 Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Mountain View RHNA 4,370 1,885 4,880 11,135

Capacity from Approved
Pipeline Projects
2,501379 499221 8,4351,672 2,272
11,435
Approved/Under
Construction 509 247 3,186 3,942
Proposed Projects 1,992 252 5,232 7,476

Capacity on Opportunity Sites 5,184 2,323 5,004 12,511 Pending Projects –
No Rezoning Required
1,317 255 4,761 6,333
Pending Projects –
Rezoning Required
579 1 0 580
Developable Sites 3,1272,775 1,6541,811 1,484112 6,2654,69 8 Rezone Opportunity Sites 465 218 121 804
ADU Projection 48 38 10 96

Total Capacity 5,6765,563 2,1912,544 9,9126,676 17,77914, 783
Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) from
RHNA
1,306+1,193 306+659 5,032+1,796 6,644+3,6
48 Buffer 30%27% 16%35% 103%37% 60%33%
Source: Environmental Science Associates, June 2022.

Note: There may be some rounding of total units.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AB 686 (Santiago) created a new requirement for local jurisdictions to evaluate their Housing Element sites inventories through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. This Housing Element Update addresses these requirements in part by providing data and analysis in the

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 275 Assessment of Fair Housing section of Appendix B, which informs many of the programs provided in the Housing Plan chapter of this document.

The law also requires that the sites inventory be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with the local jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. As discussed in more detail below, (see “Evaluation of the Sites Inventory Through the Lens of AFFH”) the housing sites detailed in this Appendix will affirmatively further fair housing by disproportionately providing opportunities for housing development for lower income households in areas with high opportunity and good access to jobs, transportation, high-quality educational opportunities, and a healthy environment. In addition, lower-income housing sites in the inventory are disproportionately located in areas with comparatively low existing concentrations of low-income and moderate-income households. The lower-income housing sites identified in this Appendix are not concentrated in areas with existing concentrations of non-White residents. However, due to the challenges associated with identifying developable housing sites in locations south of El Camino Real, there is a shortage of housing sites in predominantly White neighborhoods. The Housing Plan chapter of this Housing Element update includes programs that would facilitate the production of affordable housing on sites that are not identified in the site inventory through development on religious sites, ADUs, and SB 9 projects. Many of the opportunities for these types of development are located in predominantly White areas south of El Camino Real.

Although sites are not identified on every city block, the sites inventory is in compliance with the goals of affirmatively furthering fair housing. The sites inventory and Mountain View’s progressive inclusionary housing policies will help to integrate households with a mix of incomes in locations throughout the community. Overall, the housing sites inventory does not exacerbate or create R/ECAPS, RCAAs, or racial or ethnic isolation or segregation; nor does it overly concentrate lower income housing Opportunity Sites in any single area of the City. The sites inventory also helps to affirmatively further fair housing from a regional perspective by creating opportunities for housing development for households at all income levels in a community that has outstanding access to jobs, services, a healthy environment, and other amenities that support a high quality of life and positive life outcomes for residents.

The only area considered “Low Resource” in the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map is the North Bayshore area, where some (though not a majority) of the lower income sites are located. 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 proposed 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 E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 276

Sites Selection Process
The following is a summary of the overall sites inventory process and the methodology and assumptions that support the sites selection process. Using guidance provided by HCD, an inventory of available sites was conducted by closely examining site characteristics and other HCD-established criteria. Primarily, sites were identified by using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping software from multiple datasets to identify parcels that fit the HCD-specified criteria as adequate housing sites. Sites were further refined over a series of working sessions and through input from the Environmental Planning Commission, City Council, and stakeholders through the community engagement process. The information used to generate the sites inventory database was derived from these primary resources:
1) ABAG’s Housing Element Site Selection (HESS) Tool;
2) Santa Clara County Office of the Assessor; and
3) City of Mountain View.

Housing sites identified as part of the sites inventory analysis were evaluated using a variety of criteria to determine their ability to meet State requirements and meet the City’s RHNA, plus a buffer.

The following sections describe the screening criteria and methodology applied for the sites selection process. Once all sites had been selected and verified, the realistic density assumption that was informed by and calculated from City precedent projects was applied to determine each sites’ realistic unit capacity.

Methodology/Evaluation of Possible Sites
To meet the City’s RHNA requirement, two primary project types are identified in the sites inventory, as described below. The methodology and assumptions that support these project types are summarized in the General Site Evaluation Considerations and Sites for Rezoning sections.

Approved Pipeline Projects
Projects that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projection period (which started on June 30, 2022) may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. Permits or certificates of occupancy are expected to be issued for these projects after June 30, 2022, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA. These Approved Projects do not require rezoning (by definition). Pipeline Projects include those that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projection period (which started on June 30, 2022). Based on HCD guidance, these projects may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. The following is a description of the subcategories under Pipeline Projects:
 Approved/Under Construction: These projects include those that have been approved or are under construction and will receive a certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the RHNA projection period, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 277  Proposed Projects: These are projects that are seeking entitlements, including one project that requires rezoning., Project status includes formal applications or pre-applications under review, master plans with development agreements approved or under review (only those portions realistically expected to start construction by 2031), and sites owned by 100 percent% affordable housing developers with the intent to submit applications in the next year. Permits or certificates of occupancy for these Proposed Projects are expected to be issued in the 6th cycle, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA as well.

Opportunity Sites
Opportunity Sites is the second main project type that includes both vacant and non-vacant sites that have available infrastructure and meet a variety of criteria that make them candidates for residential development during the 6th cycle planning period. The following is a description of the subcategories under the Opportunity Sites.

 Pending Projects: These are projects that are under review, including those where formal applications and pre-applications have been submitted and those that do and do not require rezoning. Permits or certificates of occupancy for these Pending Projects are expected to be issued in the 6th cycle, making these proposed, Pending Projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA.
 Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites: These identified Opportunity Sites are considered vacant or underutilized and are eligible for residential development as is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan. . There are some sites that will require rezoning and it is anticipated that these rezonings will have been adopted prior to the start of the 6th cycle while others may be enacted soon after the start of the 6th cycle. These include General Plan Village Center sites, including those south of El Camino Real. Refer to these sections for more information on rezoned sites: Sites for Rezoning and Rezoned Opportunity Sites.
 Rezoned Opportunity Sites: Concurrent with the Housing Element, several parcels were rezoned to allow residential or increase the residential capacity. Only those sites that meet the criteria applied to Opportunity Sites were included. Sites that were rezoned areThese Opportunity Sites that require rezoning are not needed to meet the RHNA, but instead are intended to increase the sites inventory buffer only. These sites were rezoned prior to the beginning of the cycle, so do not need to meet any of the requirements for sites needed to meet a shortfall.  Accessory Dwelling Units: Accessory Dwelling Units are considered opportunities for residential development and are based on projected development during the planning period as is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan.

General Site Evaluation Considerations
This section provides a summary of the evaluation considerations made as part of the analysis and a description of each consideration. As most of the City is already built out with there being limited

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 278 number of vacant parcels remaining, sites in the inventory primarily include non-vacant parcels that already have access to infrastructure and meet a variety of HCD criteria that make them suitable candidates for housing redevelopment. While sites not included in the sites inventory can also be developed for housing to meet RHNA targets, those sites identified in the inventory are considered optimal and most likely to develop and contribute to housing production in the 6th cycle. The following considerations were evaluated and are described in more detail in the following sections:
 Infrastructure Availability;
 Environmental Constraints;
 Site Status and Capacity (i.e., vacant, underutilized, existing uses, and residential zoning);  Site Size;
 Permitted Density; and
 Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element(s).

Infrastructure Availability
The availability of utility infrastructure to a site can be a constraint to housing development and was considered as an evaluation criterion when working to identify sites for the inventory. As a primarily urban and developed community, the City of Mountain View is well-served by existing infrastructure systems, including both wet and dry utilities. As much of Mountain View already has available or nearby access to water and wastewater services, wet utilities is not a constraint to residential development though minor upgrades to these services (e.g., expanded sewer and water hookups to the trunk line) may be needed to develop select sites for residential uses. Dry utilities, including natural gas and electricity provided by PG&E, and telecommunication services by AT&T, will continue to be available throughout the City. All sites have been screened to have available infrastructure.

Environmental Constraints
The analysis of environmental constraints included a review of all parcels identified in the inventory using different GIS-based data screens as well as ABAG’s HESS tool to determine if sites possess one or more environmental constraint, including hazard risks such as wildfire, sea level rise, earthquake/seismic zones, and landslide risk, or other restrictive environmental conditions. Overall, the urbanized areas of the City where the sites for the inventory are located do not have special hazard risks or significant environmental challenges. Where siting housing on parcels with environmental constraints may be unavoidable to accommodate the City’s housing need, risks would be addressed through building codes and other mitigation measures. Refer to the Environmental Constraints section in Appendix D for more information.

Site Status and Capacity
After accounting for ApprovedPipeline Projects, whose combined unit capacity exceeds the City’s entire RHNA, only low income and moderate income RHNA categories remain which the remaining RHNA must be met through developable Opportunity Sites in the inventory. The existing characteristics of the site were considered as evaluation criteria for the Opportunity Sites.

Specifically, all residentially zoned sites, either vacant or underutilized, were considered as potential buildable residential sites and were evaluated for site adequacy and capacity. Government Code

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 279 Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2 require that the inventory of suitable land look at criteria for vacant and underutilized sites as outlined below:

 Vacant sites that are zoned for multi-family development  Vacant sites that are not zoned for multi-family development, but that allow such development (such as Precise Plans)
 Underutilized sites that are zoned for residential development and capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity  Sites that are not zoned for residential development, but can be redeveloped for and/or rezoned for multi-family residential development
 Sites owned or leased by the City that can be redeveloped for multi-family residential development within the housing cycle
 Sites controlled by the State, a city/county, or another public agency where there is agreement/documentation that the site can be developed within the housing cycle  Non-vacant sites require substantial evidence to demonstrate that existing development will not preclude housing production during the planning period

A methodology to determine “underutilized” sites was necessary given the City has negligible vacant land. Sites were removed from consideration in the underutilized methodology if sites: did not initially allow residential uses, were historic resources, were sites that support community-serving uses (parks, utilities, transportation, schools, hospitals), had structures that were recently built or modified, and were generally built out to their allowed density. In addition, Opportunity Sites with more than three existing residential uses were removed from consideration since they could result in displacement of rent-controlled units, which is contrary to the City’s goals for affordable housing production. The final sites inventory does not include any sites that have existing residential on site.

Refer to the Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites section, under the Sites Inventory subsection for more details on underutilized sites in the inventory.

Sites owned by the City and other public agencies were also evaluated for affordable housing development (including City facilities, City parking Lot 11, the VTA Bus Yard on North Shoreline Boulevard, the DMV site on Showers Drive and various federally-owned sites within City limits).

However, these sites are fully encumbered through the end of the 6th cycle. The Downtown Transit Center may have a joint development opportunity this cycle, but it does not currently allow residential, and it is not necessary to meet the RHNA. Therefore, its zoning will be carried out at a time appropriate for the development.

Site Size
Per State law, sites smaller than half an acre or larger than 10 acres are not considered adequate to accommodate lower income housing needs unless it can be demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during prior planning periods, or other evidence is provided that sites at this size can be developed as lower income housing.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 280  Large Sites – With the exception of two APNs in a consolidated Pending Project within the North Bayshore Precise Plan, There is only one Opportunity Sitessites in the inventory larger than 10 acres, 1500 North Shoreline Boulevard. This and other large sites (less than 10 acres) use a special methodology that only applies a maximum of 150 lower -income units to any given site. Based on the City’s experience with past residential projects, larger sites tend to include a mix of units affordable to various income levels, rather than 100 percent affordable, so only applying a maximum of 150 lower income sites is consistent with that experience as well as the City’s BMR requirements. 1500 North Shoreline Boulevard can yield 1,689 units when calculating its size with its the realistic density of 110 dwelling units per acre based on the General Plan land use designation, North Bayshore Mixed-Use, and the zoning, North Bayshore Precise Plan (this is a very conservative assumption, treating it like a 3.5 FAR site, when the Precise Plan actually allows up to 4.5 FAR). The North Bayshore Precise Plan requires 10 percent low income and either 5 percent or 10 percent moderate income units (depending on the size of the project), or at least 169 low income units and 84 to 169 moderate income units. However, based on the large site methodology, this would cap the number of low income units to 150 and moderate-income units to 150, with the remainder for above-moderate income units. This is a more conservative approach and lower estimation for both low and moderate-income units. The City has been meeting with a developer who has shared plans for a potential large residential project at 1500 North Shoreline Boulevard that would likely include more affordable units than have been designated in the inventory for this project. Further, 1500 Shoreline Boulevard is surrounded on all four sides with projects under review.

 Small Sites – The inventory across both project types (Pending Projects and Opportunity Sites) includes sites that are less than one-half acre in size. For Opportunity Sites, a screening of individual parcels less than one-half acre was considered for possible parcel consolidation to determine if additional lower income units at the default density could be achieved. Refer to the Permitted Density section below for more information on default density. Parcel consolidation involves the joining of multiple adjacent parcels, that individually are less than one-half acres in size, into one to increase the unit capacity to support lower income units. Typically, this can be done with a limited number of owners present and the likelihood that the parcels would be developed together as a single project.

Ultimately, this strategy was not carried forward since other means to accommodate the lower income RHNA were identified. The sites inventory includes parcels that are less than or slightly greater than one-half acre in size. A screening of these smaller parcels and common ownership was conducted. Where smaller parcels were immediately adjacent to other Opportunity Sites that had the same landowner, these parcels were consolidated to create larger sites, given the likelihood of these consolidated sites being developed together as a single project. Refer to Table 44 for a list of consolidated sites in the inventory.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 281 Table 4445: Consolidated Sites
Site Address APN Consolidated
Sites Acres
2630 W EL CAMINO REAL 14816012 A 1.79
FAYETTE DR 14816013 A 0.32
2116 W EL CAMINO REAL 14836028 B 1.00
2100 W EL CAMINO REAL 14836029 B 0.52
2124 W EL CAMINO REAL 14836027 B 0.74
2483 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY 14711025 C 1.34
2485 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY 14711029 C 0.50
1134 W EL CAMINO REAL 15807026 D 0.64
1128 W EL CAMINO REAL 15807025 D 0.42
S OAK ST 15807007 D 0.10
2690 W EL CAMINO REAL 14816001 E 1.03
2674 W EL CAMINO REAL 14816004 E 0.26
630 SAN ANTONIO RD 14816016 F 2.82
FAYETTE DR 14816014 F 0.15
1949 W EL CAMINO REAL 17006058 G 0.32
1921 W EL CAMINO REAL 17006060 G 1.30
1935 W EL CAMINO REAL 17006062 G 1.66

Permitted Density
State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a “default density standard” of 30 units per acre for lower income units in a metropolitan jurisdiction such as Mountain View. This is the minimum density that is deemed appropriate in State law to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA. In accordance with the State’s default density standards, sites that could support a minimum of 30 units per acre were considered appropriate for very low and low income units, as well as for moderate income units. All underutilized Opportunity Sites in the inventory can accommodate at least the default density.

Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element(s)
To accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA, sites from the 2014-2022 Housing Element Sites Inventory were evaluated to determine their viability for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. A total of 12 prior Housing Element sites have been identified as part of the 6th cycle inventory that were included in the 5th cycle. Of those 12 sites, seven have been rezoned since the 5th cycle, which allow them to be included in the 6th cycle inventory as new sites. Because they are considered new sites, they are not subject to residential use by right in which 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. The remaining five sites are included as Pending Projects where

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 282 rezoning is not required. In addition, there are a total of eight APNs for Approved Projects that were identified in the 5th cycle and are contributing to this 6th cycle RHNA.To accommodate the 2023- 2031 RHNA, sites from the 2014-2022 Housing Element sites inventory were evaluated to determine their viability for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. It was determined that seven sites were identified in the 2014-2022 Housing Element sites inventory, as listed below.  2026 W El Camino Real (APN 15437018)
 2674 W El Camino Real (APN 14816004)
 2690 W El Camino Real (APN 14816001)
 2630 California Street (APN 14815018)
 2633 California Street (APN 14815021)
 384 San Antonio Road (APN 14815022)
 789 E El Camino Real (APN 19801003)

The zoning status for these sites had changed since the 5th cycle Housing Element, allowing a higher density and therefore increasing the potential housing capacity of these sites. Based on this circumstance, HCD considers these sites that have been rezoned since the last cycle as “new sites” and not sites that were used in a prior Housing Element. The following is a timeline of the subsequent rezonings for these seven sites, which are incorporated and categorized as new sites in the 6th cycle sites inventory.
 October 14, 2014: The previous Housing Element was adopted, which assumed the seven sites were zoned “CRA”.
 November 17, 2014: The El Camino Real Precise Plan was adopted and replaced the “CRA” zoning.
 December 2, 2014: The San Antonio Precise Plan was adopted and also replaced the “CRA” zoning.
 January 31, 2015: This was the start of the 5th cycle.

There are eleven other sites from the 2014-2022 Housing Element sites inventory that are found within this 6th cycle’s Pipeline Projects, where projects have been approved, are under construction, or seeking entitlements. While these eleven sites are not in 6th cycle sites inventory, these sites are contributing to this 6th cycle RHNA.

Sites for Rezoning
Government Code section 65583.2(h) sets requirements if sites are identified for rezoning to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall. The City’s sites inventory does not have a lower income shortfall, and therefore is not subject to those requirements. Nonetheless, the City is rezoning sites that will contribute to the increase in the RHNA buffer. Some of these rezonings will have been adopted prior to the start of the 6th cycle while others may be enacted soon after the start of the 6th cycle. sites concurrent with the Housing Element, intends to rezone sites within the mandated timeline, and continues to study additional rezonings to increase the City’s housing

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 283 capacity at all income levels, thus contributing to the increase in the RHNA buffer. These rezonings include the following:

 Implementing General Plan Village Center uses and standards at existing underutilized shopping centers throughout the City (including south of El Camino Real where the highest opportunity neighborhoods are located);
 Removing the requirement to obtain legislative approvals in order to build at the highest densities along El Camino Real; and
 Various under review and anticipated affordable housing developments on previously non-residential sites throughout the City (Pending Projects – Rezoning Required).

Realistic Capacity Evaluation
As required by Housing Element statute, local governments must analyze available sites based on a determination of the realistic residential development capacity. To establish realistic capacity, precedent projects were referenced when evaluating vacant and underutilized sites, and specifically the typical densities of existing or approved residential development at similar affordability levels to confirm local development trends. The precedent projects used as references are subject to the same land use controls and site improvement standards as the sites in the inventory. While precedent projects provide an average density, or what is referred to as “Characteristic Density” by General Plan designation or zone in Table 45Table 46 and Table 46Table 47, the realistic density assumption applied to the sites inventory is one that is more conservative than the built or approved densities and discounts the “Characteristic Density” by as much as 15 percent to 45 percent, depending on the General Plan designation or zone. Refer to the “Mixed-Use Areas” section below for more details on realistic capacity assumptions.

Density is dictated by the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. As a conservative estimate of capacity, the sites inventory applies the more restrictive density standard of either the zone or the General Plan. In zones that are regulated by floor area ratio (FAR), the maximum density is defined by the FAR. Densities achieved through FARs and the General Plan are based on precedent projects, which were used to determine the realistic density assumptions.

Over 90 Mountain View residential and mixed-use precedent projects were initially analyzed to calculate the realistic density based by zone or General Plan land use designation for the Opportunity Sites (excluding the ADUs and Pending Projects). These precedent projects have applicable zones and General Plan land use designations, consistent with the sites in the inventory. As an example, there are no Medium Density Residential parcels in the inventory and as a result, these precedent projects are not shown. Refer to Table 45Table 46 for a listing of the relevant City precedents projects, along with details on the project acreage, dwelling units, density achieved, Precise Plan information if applicable, and General Plan land use designation.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 284 Precedents provide an average density and are inherently more conservative than taking the highest density allowed or built. For zones with FARs where no built precedents were available (or too few to have an average), the realistic capacity assumption was determined by applying the same realistic density assumption for zones with the same FAR maximum where there were precedents to draw from, given these zones had similar characteristics. Refer to Table 45Table 46 for more details on precedent projects along with Table 46Table 47 and Table 47Table 48 for realistic density assumptions.

Example of a precedent project in the El Camino Real
Precise Plan - 2700 West El Camino Real
Example of a precedent project in the
Downtown Precise Plan - 135 Franklin Street

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 285

Table 4546: Precedent Projects List
Project Address
Project
Area_
Acreage
Dwelling
Units,
excluding
Density
Bonus
Density
(DU/ac).
excluding
Density
Bonus
Zoning/Precise
Plan
Existing Use
(Prior to
Redevelopment)
Previous
FAR
Previous
Building
Year Built (if
available)
324 Bryant Street 0.26 7 26.92 Downtown not a precedent 676 Dana Street 0.25 7 28.00 Downtown Multi-tenant retail building with
office and
restaurant

0.52 1952
231-235 Hope Street 0.26 9 34.62 Downtown not a precedent 135 Franklin Street 1.03 51 49.51 Downtown not a precedent City Lot 12 (Bryant Street) 1.50 75 50.00 Downtown not a precedent 400 Logue Avenue 2.54 374 147.24 East Whisman
(High Intensity)
1-story
Office/R&D
building

0.38 1978
320 Logue Avenue 2.15 363 168.84 East Whisman
(High Intensity)
1-story
Office/R&D
building

0.34 1967

819 N Rengstorff Avenue 0.83 36 43.37 CRA not a precedent 870 E El Camino Real
(Mixed-Use Corridor
Portion Only)

1.16 97 83.62 El Camino Real
(Medium
Intensity)
not a precedent
1411-1495 W El Camino
Real

1.25 53 42.40 El Camino Real
(Low Intensity)
3 commercial
buildings, incl.
dance studio, car
rental, martial arts
studio and rug
store

0.24 1948 &
1979

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 286 Project Address
Project
Area_
Acreage
Dwelling
Units,
excluding
Density
Bonus
Density
(DU/ac).
excluding
Density
Bonus
Zoning/Precise
Plan
Existing Use
(Prior to
Redevelopment)
Previous
FAR
Previous
Building
Year Built (if
available)
334 San Antonio Road 0.66 42 63.64 San Antonio
(Mixed-Use
Corridor)
Gas station 0.06798187
2 1963
1616 W El Camino Real 0.99 66 66.67 El Camino Real
(Medium
Intensity)
Two single-tenant
retail buildings

0.14 1967
1701 W El Camino Real 0.49 54 110.20 El Camino Real (Medium
Intensity)
Two single-tenant
retail buildings

0.13 1930
950 W El Camino Real 0.61 68 111.48 El Camino Real
(Medium
Intensity)
Fast food
restaurant

0.1 1986
394 Ortega Avenue 1.62 144 88.89 San Antonio
(Mixed-Use
Corridor)
not a precedent
865 E El Camino Real 2.30 150 65.22 El Camino Real
(Medium
Intensity)
Billiard hall and 2-
tenant retail
building

0.23 1964
1720 W El Camino Real 2.43 162 66.67 El Camino Real (Medium
Intensity)
2-story motel 0.44 1964
801 W El Camino Real 2.39 164 68.62 El Camino Real
(Medium
Intensity)
Several small
retail buildings

0.22 1955 &
1963
100 Moffett Boulevard 2.70 184 68.15 Planned
Community
Social service
office & car repair

0.33 1972 &
1950

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 287 Project Address
Project
Area_
Acreage
Dwelling
Units,
excluding
Density
Bonus
Density
(DU/ac).
excluding
Density
Bonus
Zoning/Precise
Plan
Existing Use
(Prior to
Redevelopment)
Previous
FAR
Previous
Building
Year Built (if
available)
2650 W El Camino Real 2.91 193 66.32 El Camino Real (Medium
Intensity)
2-story motel and
1-story car repair

0.30 & 0.04 1959 &
1952
2268-2280 W El Camino
Real

2.61 204 78.16 El Camino Real
(Medium
Intensity)
Several SFRs and
a retail strip
center with 7
tenants

0.3 1981
(retail),
1955 and
1938 (SFRs)
2700 W El Camino Real 2.28 172 75.44 El Camino Real (Medium
Intensity)
2-story motel 0.52 1960
400-520 San Antonio
Road

5.75 432 75.13 San Antonio
(Mixed-Use
Corridor)
Multiple office
and light industrial
buildings, tire
store, multi-tenant
retail
various, up
to 0.44
office
1960 to
1998
2580 California Street 8.63 632 73.23 San Antonio
(Mixed-Use
Corridor)
Vacant former
Safeway building,
retail strip center
with 6 tenants,
large 2-story
office building

0.33 1966
(Safeway),
1988
(retail),
1979
(office)
455 San Antonio Road
(Residential portion only)

5.5 330 60 San Antonio
(Mixed-Use
Center)
Sears, plus a large
multi-tenant retail
strip center

0.3 1956
(effective
1976)
601 Escuela Avenue 0.50 25 50.00 El Camino Real
(Low Intensity)
Small retail strip
center with 7
tenants

0.31179981
6 1955

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 288 Project Address
Project
Area_
Acreage
Dwelling
Units,
excluding
Density
Bonus
Density
(DU/ac).
excluding
Density
Bonus
Zoning/Precise
Plan
Existing Use
(Prior to
Redevelopment)
Previous
FAR
Previous
Building
Year Built (if
available)
1313 and 1347 W El
Camino Real

0.44 18 40.91 El Camino Real
(Low Intensity)
2 commercial
buildings, incl.
massage, bar,
check-cashing,
fitness

0.2 1946 &
1953
730 Central Avenue 0.24 15 62.50 CRA Vacant former car repair

0.47960667
3 1956
Notes: Projects labeled as "not a precedent" are not useful for the selection of sites because they were vacant or replaced dwelling units. These projects are useful as development density precedents, however.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 289 Table 4647: Realistic Density Assumptions – Non-Rezoning General Plan
Designation
Maximum
Density –
GP Zoning District
Maximum Density
- Zoning
Characteristic
DU/ac
Target
Percentage
Realistic
Density
Medium High-
Density Residential
35 DU/ac R3 and equivalent Varies 29.9 85% 30
General Mixed-Use 1.35 FAR CRA and equivalent 43 DU/ac 43.37 84% 36 Mixed-Use Corridor 1.85 FAR El Camino Real Precise
Plan (Village Center)

1.85 FAR including
required retail

53.98 84% 45
El Camino Real Precise
Plan (Medium Intensity)

1.85 FAR 71.97 84% 60
San Antonio Precise Plan
(Mixed-Use Corridor)

1.85 FAR 71.97 84% 60
El Camino Real Precise
Plan (Low Intensity)

1.35 FAR 45.74 84% 38
CRA (Moffett Blvd) 43 DU/ac 62.5 84% 36
East Whisman
Mixed-Use

1.0 FAR +
Precise
Plan Bonus
East Whisman Precise
Plan (High Intensity)

3.5 FAR 157 70% 110
East Whisman Precise
Plan (Medium Intensity)

2.5 FAR no example
projects*; 112
70% 79
East Whisman Precise
Plan (Village Center)

1.35 FAR no example
projects***; 45
84% 38
North Bayshore
Mixed-Use

1.0 FAR +
Precise
Plan Bonus
North Bayshore Precise
Plan (General)

3.5 FAR no example
projects*; 157
70% 110
North Bayshore Precise
Plan (Edge)

1.85 FAR no example
projects**; 71
70% 50
Mixed-Use Center 2.35 FAR San Antonio Precise Plan
(Mixed-Use Center)

2.35 FAR 65 **** 60% 39

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 290 Downtown Mixed-
Use
References
Downtown
Precise
Plan
Downtown Precise Plan Varies - most sites
are 50 DU/ac

45.15 55% 25
* This is based on a proportional increase/decrease from the East Whisman Precise Plan (High Intensity) ** These are based on the characteristic projects in El Camino Real Precise Plan (Medium Intensity) and San Antonio Precise Plan (Mixed- Use Corridor).
*** This is based on the characteristic projects in El Camino Real Precise Plan (Low Intensity). **** This is significantly lower than the actual density allowed on these sites. However, this assumes that developments will include a mix of uses that will reduce the developable area of residential (such as office, entertainment, etc.).

Table 4748: Realistic Density Assumptions – Rezoning
General Plan
Designation
Maximum
Density - GP Zoning District Maximum Density
- Zoning
Characteristic
DU/ac
Target
Percentage
Realistic
Density
Neighborhood
Mixed-Use

1.05 FAR Updated CN District 1.05 FAR 30 70% 21
Mixed-Use
Corridor
Residential

1.85-2.3 FAR Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan
or Moffett Boulevard

1.85 FAR 72 70% 50
El Camino Real Precise
Plan (Village Center)
Increase of 0.45
FAR (to 2.3 FAR
including retail)
Increase of

17.99 (to 71.97)
84% Increase
of 15 (to
60)

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 291 Example of a precedent project in the El Camino
Real Precise Plan - 1701 West El Camino Real
Example of a precedent project in the San Antonio
Precise Plan – 400 San Antonio Road

Mixed-Use Areas
The precedent projects were evaluated to determine the likely density of 100 percent residential development in each of the zones. However, most sites are within mixed-use zones with there being a possibility that non-residential uses could be built. This likelihood was conservatively set at either 55- 60 percent, 70 percent, or 84 percent depending on the following:
 84 percent: This includes areas with many precedents, specifically the Mixed-Use Corridor General Plan designation areas along the City’s main arterials. Over the last 10 years, 84 percent of development land area in this area was residential, or residential with a trivial amount of commercial that did not reduce the density. This reflects the strong density incentives the City has in these areas (allowing much more residential development than commercial), and developers rarely choose other uses (mostly hotels and very small offices).  70 percent: This reflects areas with fewer precedents, more uncertainty and/or a higher commercial development potential. This is, however, still quite conservative for these areas.

For example, East Whisman has a Jobs-Housing Linkage requirement that requires residential development to accompany any new office development, with the effect that no more than approximately 30 percent of any given development can be office. North Bayshore has a similar policy. Other areas where there are no precedents, such as the Neighborhood Mixed-Use (General Plan Village Center) areas, have similar density incentives as the Mixed- Use Corridor areas given these designations share some like characteristics.  55-60 percent: This reflects areas where residential and non-residential development may be roughly equally, but only reflects a small number of sites in the inventory, within the Downtown area and the San Antonio Shopping Center.

In addition, ten of the Mixed-Use Corridor sites where the realistic capacity is set at 84 or 70 percent as mentioned above are large, multi-tenant shopping centers. These retail areas have older buildings with low FARs. For these ten sites, an additional 80 percent discount has been applied to account for their lower likelihood of redevelopment, especially given State guidance that multitenant centers may be a constraint on redevelopment. Nonetheless, Mountain View has experience redeveloping large multi-tenant shopping centers. Refer to the Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites section below for more information on large multi-tenant sites.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 292

Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels One of the most important evaluation considerations of the sites selection process is to evaluate a sites’ ability to accommodate households with varying income levels. To satisfy the RHNA requirement, the amount of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units is specified for each site in the inventory. Refer to the HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets at the end of Appendix E for more details. Furthermore, the unit capacity must be maintained throughout the 2023-2031 planning period. Therefore, a buffer of at least 15 percent to 30 percent is generally recommended by HCD, and the Mountain View’s sites inventory buffer is well beyond this recommendation is (3360 percent). If sites listed in the inventory are redeveloped with other uses or different income levels than what is identified, the difference can be made up with the buffer sites to ensure there is “Nno Nnet Lloss” of RHNA capacity at each income level.

Affordability assumptions for Opportunity Sites (excluding ADUs and Pending Projects) are outlined in Table48Table49 by site characteristic and income levels. As mentioned in the Methodology/Evaluation of Possible Sites section, State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a default density standard of 30 units per acre for lower-income units in a metropolitan jurisdiction. Opportunity Sites (with the exception of consolidated sites) that are 0.5 to 10 acres that allow for development at 30 units per acre are suitable to accommodate the lower income RHNA, as indicated by HCD. This guidance is based on HCD’s experience that fewer lower income projects are developed with fewer than 50 units or more than 150 units. As a response to this, the City has taken the more conservative approach, which is to limit a single site’s lower income allocation to a range between 50 and 150 units, even though that further disqualifies many sites that are greater than 0.5 acres. No sites less than 0.5 acres can accommodate more than 50 units, unless consolidated, and there are no sites in the inventory, other than Pending Projects, larger than 10 acres. There is only one opportunity site greater than 10 acres, and using this methodology the number of lower income units assumed on the site is consistent with the likely BMR requirement for any project in this location. This splitting of incomes is reasonable because many large developments choose to comply with their below-market-rate housing requirement through land dedication, on which affordable housing developers can build at higher densities than the original development. The North Bayshore and Middlefield Park Master Plans and 1255 Pear Avenue are good examples of this. In addition, the City has elected to limit moderate-income allocation to a range between 0 and 150 units, both because this is a more conservative assumption and in order to limit the risk that a single project will require a significant amount of new Housing Element sites under “No Net Loss”.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 293 Table4849: Affordability Assumptions
Site Characteristic Capacity Assumption Income Category Application
Accommodates fewer than 50 units
(includes all sites smaller than 0.5 acres) 100% Moderate Income Units Accommodates between 50 and 150
units 100% Lower-Income Units
Accommodates between 150 and 300
units
150 Lower-Income Units
Remainder Moderate Income Units
Accommodates more than 300 units
150 Lower-income Units
150 Moderate Income Units
Remainder Above Moderate
Income Units

50 percent Threshold of Lower Income Units on Non-vacant Sites State law requires additional analysis of existing uses in the sites inventory if more than 50 percent of the City’s low-income RHNA is accommodated on non-vacant sites. HCD has published guidance for how to determine this, which includes adjustments for proposed lower income projects and ADU capacity, in addition to vacant sites in the inventory. Table 49Table 50 shows this analysis based on HCD’s guidance. A substantial amount of the City’s lower-income units (more than 50 percent of the lower income RHNA) are within proposed Pipeline Pprojects, including those that are approved and pending. In addition, the inventory includes affordable ADU units and a vacant Opportunity Site with low income unit capacity. In summary, 47 approximately 41.7 percent of Mountain View’s lower income RHNA is accommodated on non-vacant sites, which is below the 50 percent threshold.

Therefore, no additional analysis is needed to support the site inventory’s non-vacant sites.

Table 4950: Lower Income Units on Non-vacant Sites
Adjustment Factor Number of Units
Proposed Lower Income Projects 2,501275
ADU Capacity (affordable to lower incomes) 48
Capacity on Vacant Sites 0
Total Capacity (not related to non-vacant
sites) 2,323549
RHNA on Non-vacant Sites 4,370 – 2,549323 =
2,0471,822
Percentage of Lower Income RHNA
accommodated on Non-vacant sites
12,047822/ 4,370 =

41.77%

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 294 “Park Place,” a downtown multi-family development A rowhouse development on Willowgate Street

Sites Inventory
A summary of all sites identified by project type categories identified in the Mountain View 6th cycle Housing Element sites inventory for the 2023-2031 planning period is provided in this section.

Figure 95Figure 95 presents an overview map of the identified housing site locations within Mountain View (excluding ADUs), and Table 50Table 51 outlines the unit capacity by income level for each of the two main project types.

Table 5051: Sites Inventory Summary
Project Category
Type
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above Moderate-
Income Capacity
Realistic Capacity
Total (Units)
Pipeline Projects 2,501 499 8,418 11,418
Opportunity Sites 3,175 1,692 1,494 6,361
Sub Total
(A) 5,676 2,191 9,912 17,779
6th cycle RHNA (B) 4,370 1,885 4,880 11,135
RHNA Buffer
(A-B) +1,306 +306 +5,032 +6,644

Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites

State law requires each jurisdiction to include a land inventory to identify specific sites that are suitable for residential development and demonstrate that sufficient land is zoned to provide housing capacity that is adequate to meet the RHNA for each income level. The lack of vacant land in Mountain View and the relatively high value of new residential development means that the City consistently sees the redevelopment of underutilized sites, including ones that contain functioning residential and commercial uses. Non-vacant, Opportunity Sites in the inventory were screened

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 295 based on the criteria previously described and observed to have commercial buildings that fall short of the site’s development potential, underutilized surface parking lots occupying a major portion of the site, and/or have landowners that expressed interest in redevelopment.

HCD Table A at the end of this Appendix E shows all the developable Opportunity Sites’ existing uses, including their age, number of stories and FAR, showing consistency with the criteria provided under “Site Status and Capacity” above.

Non-vacant, Opportunity Sites in the inventory were screened based on the criteria previously described. Online tools, including Google Earth and Google Street View whereby a desktop windshield survey was conducted, were used to verify uses and conditions of buildings or lots on non-vacant sites. Several salient characteristics stood out among the redeveloped sites seen in Precedents Projects and the soon to be developed Pipeline Projects that are consistent with sites in the inventory.
 Opportunity Sites are underutilized and fall short of the site’s development potential. Non- consolidated, Opportunity Sites in the inventory have low FARs (less than 0.35 FAR office or retail or less than 0.5 FAR industrial or Research and Development). Exceptions to this criteria include 1) 910 El Monte Avenue, which has a one-story building that is 70 years old, located in a high opportunity area, and adjacent to existing residential, 2) 2320 W. El Camino Real, which was built in 1969 and has a chain link fence around the site, and 3) 1952 W. El Camino Real, which was built in 1959 and the property owner is marketing the site based on the desktop windshield survey.
 Opportunity Sites have buildings that are older with many of them nearing the end of their lifespan. All non-consolidated, Opportunity Sites were built before 1986 except 1350 Pear Avenue, which was built in 1987 and has tenant vacancy based on the desktop windshield survey.

If a housing element relies on non-vacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more or its RHNA for lower income households, the housing element must describe findings with substantial evidence that the use on sites will be discontinued. Examples of substantial evidence include expiring leases, dilapidated building conditions, development agreements to develop the site, and letters with owners expressing development interest. The City of Mountain View’s reliance on non-vacant sites for lower income units in the sites inventory, as defined by HCD, does not meet this 50 percent threshold. The City’s reliance on non-vacant sites for lower income units is 41.7 percent. Refer to the “50 percent Threshold of Lower Income Units on Non-vacant Sites” section for more information on this topic.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 296

Examples of buildings in older condition at underutilized sites: 2026 W El Camino Real (left), 624 W El Camino Real (right)

 Precedent and Pipeline Projects show that multi-family developments replaced or will replace in this 6th cycle a broad array of different non-residential land uses, including multi-tenant shopping centers, motels, office and R&D buildings, among other uses. Refer to Table 51Table 52 for a list of non-residential uses that existed in the year or two before applications were submitted on select Precedent and Pipeline Projects, consistent with those existing uses found on Opportunity Sites, furthering the point that existing uses are not a limitation to redevelopment. This is a strong indicator that development of residential uses on underutilized, non-vacant sites with existing uses is occurring and will continue to be an on-going trend given the scarcity of vacant land in the City. Based on this, the non-vacant Opportunities Sites included in the inventory do not face impediments to residential development due to existing land uses.

Of the 96 sites in the inventory, existing uses share common characteristics with those previous uses found on Precedent and Pipeline Projects. Below is a list of such characteristics and the number of sites in the inventory with these characteristics. While the characteristics are generally described separately, more than one site may present multiple characteristics; therefore, the numbers presented are not intended to add up to 96, the number of sites in the inventory. Refer to the HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets at the end of this Appendix E to find details, including existing uses and data by address and APN, for sites in the inventory.
o 1 Opportunity Site is vacant with no signs of site infrastructure or improvements present; a chain link fence surrounds the site
o 18 Opportunity Sites have tenant vacancy and/or property marketing based on a desktop windshield survey and/or through other research o 10 Opportunity Sites are small multi-tenant sites that have older, one-story buildings with low FARs
o 15 Opportunity Sites are one-story (with the exception of 1280 Space Park Way which is two-stories) buildings with FARs below 0.5; buildings are older and have been built prior to 1986 (with the exception of 1350 Pear Avenue which has tenant vacancy)

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 297 o 16 Opportunity Sites are gas stations or auto service related; these one-story facilities were built in the 1960s (with the exception of two that were built in the 1970s: 1288 W El Camino Real and 62 W El Camino Real), and generally have FARs below 0.15 (with the exception of a 0.27 tire store at 30-40 W El Camino Real) o 5 Opportunity Sites are parking lots
o 8 Opportunity Sites are in poor condition (signs of graffiti, boarded up windows) and/or have chain link fences surrounding the site
o 41 Opportunity Sites are single retail tenants (including banks and personal services) and exhibit other characteristics described above, such as having tenant vacancy, is a gas station or auto service related, and/or is in poor condition

Table 5152: Non-Residential Previous Uses on Select Precedent and Pipeline Projects
Address Previous Use
1001 N Shoreline Blvd Large parking lot serving a recent office development
1100 La Avenida 1-story light industrial with multiple tenants 1313 and 1347 W El Camino Real 1-story small retail center with multiple tenants 1411-1495 W El Camino Real Three one-story retail buildings fully occupied with multiple tenants
2645 Fayette Drive 2-story light industrial building, fully occupied with one tenant
334 San Antonio Rd Operating gas station
400 Logue Avenue 1-story research and development use fully occupied with an existing tenant
901 E El Camino Real Operating 2-story hotel
City Lot 12 (Bryant St) Public parking lot
355-401 E Middlefield Rd Two 1-story light industrial buildings occupied with existing tenants
615-749 W El Camino Real Operating 1-story bank and fast-food restaurant 96 W El Camino Real Operating 1-story mortuary
Middlefield Park Master Plan
Broad range of occupied and vacant 1-story
light industrial buildings, plus a 4-story and a 3-
story Class A office building built in 1997
North Bayshore Master Plan
Broad range of occupied and vacant 1- to 2-
story office, light, and commercial industrial
buildings

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 298 Address Previous Use
320 Logue Ave 1-story multi-tenant office building with some tenant spaces available
685 E Middlefield Rd Occupied multi-tenant 2-story office buildings 1265 Montecito Ave Occupied office building
67 E Evelyn Avenue 1- to 2-story light industrial with multiple tenants, with tenant spaces available
87 E Evelyn Avenue Public parking lot
950 W El Camino Real Fast food restaurant
865 E El Camino Real Billiard hall and occupied 2-tenant retail building
801 W El Camino Real Several small, occupied retail buildings 100 Moffett Boulevard Occupied social service office and car repair 400-520 San Antonio Road Multiple office and light industrial buildings, tire store, multi-tenant retail (mostly occupied)
601 Escuela Avenue Small retail strip center occupied with multiple tenants

 The sites inventory includes ten parcels that are occupied by larger shopping centers (i.e., more than 2 acres) with multiple tenants (i.e., more than three). However, all of these sites are underutilized with low FARs and have older buildings. They also have large parking lots that may be able to accommodate stand-alone residential developments. Furthermore, five of the ten parcels are within two consolidated sites that have common ownership, increasing the likelihood of development to occur under one project (for each landowner). Six of the ten parcels are located in high opportunity areas. Given these conditions, these sites have been included in the inventory. However, the full unit capacity of these sites based on their General Plan land use designation, size, and density has not been applied. Instead, a more conservative estimate was calculated to heavily discount the capacity by 80 percent, yielding a reduced capacity of 303 units (rather than 1,515 units). Refer to Table 52. This discount acknowledges the constraint of multitenant retail centers for redevelopment. Nonetheless, in the last 15 years, the City’s largest multiple tenant shopping center has had significant redevelopment: San Antonio Center is a prime example of redevelopment that occurred on sites that supported existing larger and multiple tenants, including a Sears, Rite Aid, Ross, BevMo, Kohls, and many small retail spaces. Phases of this project have been completed, are under construction, or under review. At full build out, the San Antonio Village Center will include over 300 residential units, a neighborhood center, a grocery store, specialty retail, class A office, a hotel, a cinema, a parking structure and an elementary school. See images from the project below.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 299

Source: Merlone Geier Partners Source: Brookfield New Housing at the San Antonio Village Center

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 300 Table 5253: Capacity Discount on Multi-tenant Opportunity Sites

Site Address
APN Consolidated
Sites
General Plan Land
Use Designation Acres Maximum
Density
Unit
Capacity
Unit
Capacity
with 80%
Discount
Located in
High
Opportunity
Area
2630 W EL CAMINO
REAL 14816012 A Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 1.79 47-93 108 22
FAYETTE DR 14816013 A Mixed-Use Corridor 0.32 63-89 30 6 2600 W EL CAMINO
REAL 14816015 Not
Applicable
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 0.50 47-93 19 4
1910 W EL CAMINO
REAL 15436018 Not
Applicable
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 2.47 47-93 149 30
1949 W EL CAMINO
REAL 17006058 G Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 0.32 47-93 255 51 Yes
1921 W EL CAMINO
REAL 17006060 G Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 1.30 47-93 481 96 Yes
1935 W EL CAMINO
REAL 17006062 G Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 1.66 47-93 19 4 Yes
1504 GRANT RD 19312001 Not
Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor 5.08 ~72 78 16 Yes
121 E EL CAMINO
REAL 19742004 Not
Applicable
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 7.96 47-93 99 20 Yes
789 E EL CAMINO
REAL 19801003 Not
Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor 4.59 65-111 277 55 Yes
Sum Total 1,515 303

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 301 Existing leases or other contracts in non-vacant sites have been considered. It is important to note that leases and contracts related to privately owned properties are not public information, and the City does not have any power to require or compel property owners to provide this information.

Through public listings, the City has identified that nearly a quarter of the non-vacant sites in the inventory are up for lease. Additionally, the shift toward residential and mixed-use development on commercially zoned sites is reflective of broader national trends in the shifting retail market. The expansion of online retailing has had major impacts on consumer behaviors and greatly reduced demand for brick-and-mortar retail. These trends are expected to continue leading to even more opportunities for the redevelopment of commercial properties.

Demand for residential development within Mountain View is evident based on the volume of development applications and housing trends throughout the Bay Area and California as a whole.

Mountain View’s location within the greater San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley has a significant impact on the demand for housing. Job growth, employment opportunities, and the dynamic economy that characterize the region result in a strong demand for residential development. The creation of housing has not kept up with the demand, so demand has only grown.

This demand for housing has influenced trends that include the redevelopment of non-vacant sites into housing. These trends are evidenced in the Precedent and Pipeline Projects, as stated above, and the reason why the number of units in the Pipeline Projects alone exceed Mountain View’s entire 6th cycle RHNA. Compared to its neighboring peers, Mountain View has one of the highest RHNA in Santa Clara County, third to the City of Sunnyvale and City of Santa Clara, whose land area however exceeds Mountain View’s by approximately 46% and 33%, respectively.

Refer to the Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites section for a summary of the unit capacity for these sites and HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets at the end of this Appendix E for a list of all Opportunity Sites and its attributes.

Unit Capacity by Project Type
The following are summaries of the key findings for each of the project types: Approved Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites, including Pending Projects, Opportunity Sites that do not and do require rezonings and ADUs. Refer to Table 50Table 51 for the sites inventory summary and Figure 95Figure 95 for an overview map of all sites in the inventory (ADUs excluded). This inventory was developed based on HCD requirements for locations and affordability levels as well as City goals focusing on sites that have residential capacity under the current zoning and areas that have had undergone robust community engagement, such as Precise Plan areas. Sites that would cause high residential displacement were avoided.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 302

A rowhouse development in the South Whisman
neighborhood.

A multifamily development in the San Antonio mixed-use neighborhood.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 303 Figure 95: Housing Sites Overview

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 304 Figure 95: Housing Sites Overview, continued

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 305 Approved Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects include those that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projection period (which started on June 30, 2022).

Based on HCD guidance, these Pipeline Projects are not considered sites in the inventory; however, these sites may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. Refer to Figure 94 for all Pipeline Project locations, including approved and under construction projects.

 Approved/Under Construction: Pipeline Projects include a subcategory of projects that have been approved or are under construction and will receive a certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the RHNA projection period, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA. Approved Projects are those where an application has been approved. Approved Projects are not considered as sites in the inventory. However, the units accommodated by Approved Projects can be credited toward meeting the City’s RHNA.

Projects in this category conform with the current General Plan and zoning, therefore no rezoning is required. A total of 3,9422,272 units from Approved Projects are listed in Table 53Table 54 which summarizes those projects that are approved or are under construction, by address and site status. Affordability assumptions are based on approved entitlements and include deed-restricted units per BMR requirements. Projects under construction that will receive a certificate of occupancy during the projection period include: 1001 N Shoreline Boulevard, 1255 Pear Avenue, 777 W Middlefield Road, 851-853 Sierra Vista Avenue, 950 W El Camino Real, 1720 Villa Street, and 555-557 E Evelyn Avenue. Remaining projects in this subcategory have been approved and are listed as such in Table 53Table 54. Expected completion dates are provided in this table as well. Approved/under construction projects are made up of 60 sites,As a conservative approach, only projects that started construction after January 1, 2022 will be counted towards accommodating the RHNA. There are other projects, including 2580 California Street, 1720 Villa Street, 555 East Evelyn Avenue, with over 1,300 units that are under construction and have yet to receive occupancy as of the beginning of the projection period (June 30, 2022). After accounting for all Approved Projects, a total of 8,863 units at various income levels will need to be accommodated by the sites inventory in order for the City to meet its RHNA.

The projects in this category conform with the current General Plan and zoning, therefore no rezoning is required for the Approved Projects. Sites considered as Approved Projects include 46 sites on parcels totaling approximately 9623 acres, as shown in (refer to Figure 96Figure 96). While some neighborhoods have more aApproved/under construction pProject units than others, Table 54Table 55 demonstrates how units at varied income levels appear and are distributed in each of the City’s recognized neighborhoods. Approximately 43 56 percent of aApproved/under construction pProjects are located in the City’s Precise Plan areas, including Downtown, East Whisman, El Camino Real, San Antonio, Villa Mariposa, and North Bayshore, where robust community engagement has already occurred to vet areas that would support residential development. Refer to Table 55Table 56.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 306 Table 5354: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summary by Project Address
Address
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Total
Capacity
Expected
Entitlement
Date (Year)
Projects
that
contain
Deed-
restricted
Affordable
Lower
Income
Units
1001 N Shoreline Blvd 20 20 263 303 2024(apt)
2025(condos) Yes
1100 La Avenida 100 0 0 100 2024 Yes
1255 Pear Ave 0 0 220 220 2024 Yes
1313 and 1347 W El
Camino Real 2 0 22 24 2024 Yes
1411-1495 W El Camino
Real 0 5 48 53 2024 Yes
1720 Villa Street 3 0 204 207 2023 Yes
1919 Gamel Way 29 0 63 92 2024 Yes
1958 Latham St 0 0 6 6 2024 No
198 Easy Street 0 0 4 4 2024 No
2580-2590 California Street 14 18 600 632 2023 Yes
2645 Fayette Drive 5 0 33 38 2025 Yes
334 San Antonio Rd 10 3 49 62 2026 Yes
400 Logue Avenue 24 38 346 408 2025 Yes
555 East Evelyn Avenue 0 0 471 471 2023 No
555 W Middlefield Rd 32 16 275 323 2029 Yes
570 Rengstorff Ave 0 0 15 15 2024 No
601 Escuela Ave 2 2 21 25 2025 Yes
773 Cuesta Drive 0 0 3 3 2024 No
777 W Middlefield Rd 0 144 364 508 2025 Yes
828-836 Sierra Vista Ave
and 1975/1979 Colony St 1 0 14 15 2024 Yes
851-853 Sierra Vista Avenue 0 0 6 6 2023 No
870 E El Camino Real 33 0 158 191 2025 Yes
901 E El Camino Real 45 0 0 45 2023 Yes
950 West El Camino Real 70 0 1 71 2022 (August) Yes
City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 119 1 0 120 2026 Yes
Grand Total 509 247 3,186 3,942

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 307 Site Address
Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Above
Moderate Income
Units
Sum of Total
Unit
Capacity
1001 North Shoreline
Boulevard 20 20 263 303
1100 La Avenida 100 0 0 100
1255 Pear Avenue 0 0 220 220
1313 and 1347 W El Camino
Real 2 0 22 24
1919 Gamel Way 29 0 63 92
1958 Latham Street 0 0 6 6
198 Easy Street 0 0 4 4
2645 Fayette Drive 5 0 33 38
294 Tyrella Avenue 0 0 10 10
400 Logue Avenue 24 38 346 408
555 W Middlefield Rd 32 16 275 323
570 Rengstorff Avenue 0 0 15 15
601 Escuela Avenue 2 2 21 25
676 Dana Street 0 0 7 7
773 Cuesta Drive 0 0 3 3
777 W Middlefield Road 0 144 364 508
828-836 Sierra Vista Avenue
and 1975/1979 Colony
Street
1 0 14 15
851-853 Sierra Vista Avenue 0 0 6 6
901 E El Camino Real 45 0 0 45
City Lot 12 (Bryant Street) 119 1 0 120
Grand Total 379 221 1,672 2,272

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 308 Table 5455: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summarized by Neighborhood
Neighborhood Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Net New
Units
Central Neighborhoods 194121 3 22628 423152
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 7845 0 6290 70745
Moffett/Whisman Road 76 218 1,2521262 1,5456
Monta Loma/Farley/Rock Street 1 0 20 21
North Bayshore 100 0 220 320
San Antonio/Rengstorff 5834 210 766117 845151
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 2 50 7325 8027
Grand Total 509379 247221 3,1861,672 3,9422,272

Table 5556: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summarized by Precise Plan
Precise Plan Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Net New
Units
Downtown 119 1 07 120127
East Whisman 24 38 346 408
El Camino Real 15249 72 25043 40994
North Bayshore 100 0 220 320
San Antonio 295 210 68233 73238
Villa Mariposa 3 0 204 207
Not in Precise Plan 82 180 1,4841023 1,7461285
Grand Total 509379 247221 3,1861,672 3,9422,272

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 309 Figure 96: : Summary of Parcels: Approved Projects Pipeline Projects

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 310 Figure 96Figure 96: : Summary of Parcels: Approved Projects Pipeline Projects, continued

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 311 Pending Proposed Projects: Proposed Projects are Pipeline Projects that are seeking entitlements, including those where formal applications or pre-applications have been submitted. Buildling Ppermits or certificates of occupancy for these Proposed Projects are expected to be issued in the 6th cycle, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA. Proposed Projects also include land dedications for 100 percent affordable housing projects, and sites owned by affordable housing developers who have plans in place for developing these sites within this planning period. There are 66 parcels, totaling approximately 182 acres, that yield 7,476 units identified as Proposed Projects in the sites inventory. This subcategory yields the greatest unit capacity and fulfills more than half the RHNA requirement. This demonstrates there is continued interest and desire to develop housing on non-vacant parcels with existing residential and non- residential uses in the City. With the exception of 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue, all Proposed Projects do not require rezoning as these sites conform to the current General Plan and zoning.

Refer to Table 56 for all Proposed Projects.

These are projects under review, including those where formal applications and pre-applications have been submitted, those that do and do not require rezoning, and, in one case, a site that has been dedicated by a development to accommodate their below-market-rate housing requirement.

Permits or certificates of occupancy for these Pending Projects are expected to be issued in the 6th cycle, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA. There are 66 parcels identified as Pending Projects in the sites inventory.

Table 5657: Proposed Pipeline Projects Summary by Address Site Address/
Intersection
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Expected
Entitlement
Date
(Year)
Projects
that
contain
Deed-
restricted
Affordable
Lower
Income
Units
1255 Pear Ave
(Affordable Housing
Dedication)
112 0 0 112 2024 Yes
1332 Park Dr 0 0 2 2 2023 No
355-401 E Middlefield
Rd 92 58 466 616 2023 Yes
615-749 W El Camino
Real 33 266 299 2023 Yes
730 Central Ave 2 0 19 21 2022 Yes
89 W El Camino Real 61 0 0 61 2024 Yes
918 Rich Ave 3 1 24 28 2023 Yes
96 W El Camino Real 70 0 0 70 2024 Yes

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 312 Site Address/
Intersection
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Expected
Entitlement
Date
(Year)
Projects
that
contain
Deed-
restricted
Affordable
Lower
Income
Units
Middlefield Park
Master Plan 338 0 750 1088 2022 Yes
North Bayshore
Master Plan 528 167 2670 3365 2023 Yes
320 Logue Ave 30 25 309 364 2023 Yes
685 E Middlefield Rd 138 0 690 828 2023 Yes
266/272 Tyrella Ave 6 0 36 42 2024 Yes
1265 Montecito Ave 84 1 0 85 2022 Yes
1012 Linda Vista 69 0 0 69 2023 Yes
67 E Evelyn Avenue 126 0 0 126 2024 Yes
87 E Evelyn Avenue 150 0 0 150 2024 Yes
57 E Evelyn Avenue 42 0 0 42 2024 Yes
1020 & 1040 Terra
Bella Ave 78 0 0 78 2023 Yes
1020 & 1040 Terra
Bella Ave 30 0 0 30 2023 Yes
Grand Total 1,992 252 5,232 7,476

 Pending Projects – No Rezoning Required

There are 59 Proposedending Project parcels under review on nearly 171 acres that conform to the current General Plan and zoning. This subcategory yields the greatest unit capacity – 6,333 total units which is more than half the RHNA requirement – when compared to the other project types that are included in the sites inventory. This demonstrates there is continued interest and desire to develop housing in the City.

Lower and moderate-income units among the Proposedending Projects are the City’s best estimate based on submitted applications, site capacities and other available information. While the ultimate number of units may change a small amount based on unforeseen circumstances, these projects are committed to very nearly the identified number of lower- and moderate-income units based on the City’s BMR requirements, ownership by non-profit affordable developers, and current Council goals.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 313 Proposedending Projects where no rezoning is required isare present throughout the City. Typical review times and times between building permit and construction are no more than five years (see Appendix D: Housing Constraints). Therefore, other than projects without a development agreement or projects that are dependent on City funding and coordination, it is reasonable for these projects to start construction by 2031. , with a

Manymajority of the units occurring in two master plans involving long, multi-year Development Agreements: Middlefield Park (East Whisman Precise Plan) and North Bayshore. Applications have been submitted for these Master Plans which include the proposed housing units as described below. Both plans are multi-year developments and will provide a combination of affordable and market-rate housing. The Master Plans themselves do not confer the right to build, though they are a required step in the entitlement process. However, the plans show interest on the part of a major landowner in the development of housing, including affordable housing, to be completed within the timeframe of the Housing Element planning period. In addition, counting the Master Plans are the most conservative way for the City to use these sites in the inventory, for two reasons. First, many of the sites within the Master Plans would have qualified as lower income or moderate -income sites were it not for the application. Second, while all the sites in the Master Plans are included in the site inventory, Tthe City is not taking credit for 100 percent of the build-out of the Master Plans (only the portion reasonably expected to occur within an 8 year period or by 2031). Refer to the City of Mountain View homepage at www.mountainview.gov for more information on these master plans.

For more details on the unit distribution of Proposed Projects, refer to Table 57Table 58 and Table 58Table 59.

 North Bayshore Master Plan: A formal application for this Proposed Project was submitted in September 2021. It includes a Development Agreement for 30 years.

Within the 2023-2031 planning period, the North Bayshore Master Plan is assumed to provide approximately half of land dedications for affordable units and start construction of approximately 3,365 market-rate and inclusionary units, of which approximately 695 units are affordable to lower- and moderate-income levels. This represents less than half of the anticipated units (out of up to 7,000 total units) in the project that is counted for this cycle. This is reasonable because this Master Plan and Development Agreement includes a phasing plan that requires construction of residential early in the entitlement period.
 Middlefield Park Master Plan: A formal application for this Proposed Project was submitted in September 2020 and project approval in late 2022 is anticipated. It includes a Development Agreement for 20 years. The Middlefield Park Master Plan is assumed to provide 100 percent of land dedications for affordable units and start construction of approximately 50 percent of market-rate units, which yield 1,088 net new units, of which 338 units are affordable. This is the portion of the units expected to be built within the 8 year planning period (out of up to 1,900 total units). This is reasonable because this Master Plan and Development Agreement includes a phasing plan that requires construction of residential early in the entitlement period.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 314 Refer to the City of Mountain View homepage at www.mountainview.gov for more information on these master plans.

For more details on the unit distribution of Pending Projects that do not require rezoning, refer to Table 50 and Table 51.

Table 5758: Pending Proposed Pipeline Projects (No Rezoning) Summarized by Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Net New
Units
Moffett/Whisman Road 92 58 466 616
Central Neighborhoods 70 0 0 70
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 318 0 0 318
Moffett/Whisman Road 691 25 1,804 2,520
Monta Loma/Farley/Rock Street 84 1 0 85
North Bayshore 640 167 2,670 3,477
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 97 1 292 390
Grand Total 1,992 252 5,232 7,476

Neighborhood
Sum of
Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Net
New Units
Moffett/Whisman
Road 92 58 466 616
Central
Neighborhoods 70 0 0 70
Grant Road/Sylvan
Park 33 0 158 191
Moffett/Whisman
Road 340 25 1,078 1,473

North Bayshore 640 167 2,670 3,477
San Antonio/Rengstorff 10 3 49 62
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 102 2 340 444
Grand Total 1,317 255 4,761 6,333

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 315 Table 5859: Pending Proposed Pipeline Projects (No Rezoning) Summarized by Precise Plan
Precise Plan Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Net
New Units
East Whisman 598 83 2,215 2,896
El Camino Real 164 0 266 430
North Bayshore 640 167 2,670 3,477
Not in Precise Plan 590 2 81 673
Grand Total 1,992 252 5,232 7,476

Precise Plan
Sum of
Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Net New
Units
East Whisman 460 83 1,525 2,068
El Camino Real 202 1 472 675
North Bayshore 640 167 2,670 3,477
San Antonio 10 3 49 62
Not in Precise Plan 5 1 45 51
Grand Total 1.317 255 4,761 6,333

 Pending Proposed Projects – Rezoning Required
Pending Proposed Project sites identified within this subcategory require rezoning, or are those that the City or affordable housing developers have acquired with the intent to redevelop. Among this project type are affordable developments on Montecito Avenue and Terra Bella Avenue, and Linda Vista as shown in Table 59Table 60. In addition, several sites on East Evelyn Avenue and one on Linda Vista Avenue have been acquired by the City or by affordable housing developers with the intent to build. These applications would be exempt from the City’s “gatekeeper” process because they are 100 percent affordable developments going through the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process to allocate City affordable housing funds, and the City and developer can be confident that they will proceed within the timeframe of the Housing Element. The number of units assumed on each site are based on discussions with the developers and are corroborated by the capacities of nearby and similar affordable housing developments. Sites in this subcategory include seven sites on parcels totaling approximately 8.65 acres. Refer to (refer to Figure 97)..

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 316 Table 5960: Pending Projects (Rezoning) Summarized by Project Address Site Address
Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Total Unit
Capacity
1020 & 1040 Terra Bella
Ave 108 0 0 108
1265 Montecito Ave 84 1 0 85
57 E Evelyn Avenue 42 0 0 42
67 E Evelyn Avenue 126 0 0 126
87 E Evelyn Avenue 150 0 0 150
1012 Linda Vista 69 0 0 69
Grand Total 579 1 0 580

Affordable Pending Proposed Projects
Many of the Pending Proposed Projects described above are 100 percent affordable developments.

While these projects are at different points in the review process, all are expected to be developed within the 6th Cycle, even though they depend on City action, including funding, to proceed. Table 60Table 61 shows the status and steps necessary to bring these developments to fruition. A tentative timeline is also shown. In addition, Programs 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2,

4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. ensure that these projects will continue to move forward.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 317 Table 6061: Status and Expected Timeline of Major Proposed Pending Affordable Developments Address Sponsor City Subsidy
Expected
Affordable
Units
Estimated
Construction
Start
Next Steps
(planning entitlement, building plans
preparation, building permit issuance,
construction. etc.)
1265
Montecito
Avenue
Charities $16 million 85 2023
 Rezoning and entitlement under
review — less than 1 year
expected December 2022
 Building Permit and secure non-City
funding — approx. 1 year
Lot 12 Alta/Related $4.25 million +
land 120 2023 Building Permit and secure non-City
funding — 1 year
901 E. El
Camino Real Jamboree $5.4 million 45 2022 Building Permit & Rehabilitation work — 1 year
89 W. El
Camino Real
First
Community
Housing
pending NOFA
committee 61 2024/2025
 Plan development and NOFA
Process — less than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1
year
 Building Permit and secure non-City
funding — approx. 1 year
96 W. El
Camino Real Danco pending NOFA
committee 70 2024/2025
 Plan development and NOFA
Process — less than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1
year
 Building Permit and secure non-City
funding — approx. 1 year
1020 Terra Bella
Avenue Alta
pending NOFA
committee$13.5
million
108 2023/2024
 Plan development and NOFA
Process — less than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1
year
 Building Permit and secure non-City
funding — approx. 1 year

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 318 Address Sponsor City Subsidy
Expected
Affordable
Units
Estimated
Construction
Start
Next Steps
(planning entitlement, building plans
preparation, building permit issuance,
construction. etc.)
87 E. Evelyn
Avenue
TBD pending
development
agreement
150 2025/2026  City-leased with intent to own & will
be rezoned with Housing Element
Update
 Select developer— less than 1 year
 Plan preparation & funding—
approx. 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1
year
 Building Permit and secure non-City
funding — approx. 1 year
57-67 E. Evelyn
Avenue
Charities pending NOFA
committee
168 2025/2026  Plan development and NOFA
Process — TBD
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1
year
 Building Permit and secure non-City
funding — approx. 1 year
1012 Linda
Vista Avenue
Alta pending NOFA
committee
69 2024/2025  Plan development and NOFA
Process — less than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1
year
 Building Permit and secure non-City
funding — approx. 1 year

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 319 Address Sponsor City Subsidy
Expected
Affordable
Units
Estimated
Construction
Start
Next Steps
(planning entitlement, building plans
preparation, building permit issuance,
construction. etc.)
Pear Ave.

Sobrato
Dedication
TBD not yet known 112 2028  Staging for nearby development - 2 years
 Select developer(s)— less than 1
year
 Plan preparation & funding — less
than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1
year
 Building Permit —approx. 1 year
Middlefield
Park Master
Plan
TBD not yet known 1,088338 2027 – if land
is dedicated
in 20232023
 Council Action on Master Plan —
2022; Construction of the Master
Plan anticipated to start in 2023.
 Land dedication anticipated in
Master Plan— 3 years
 City to select nonprofit
developer(s)— approximately 1
year
 Plan preparation & funding — less
than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1
year
 Building Permit — 6-9 months for
each site

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 320 Address Sponsor City Subsidy
Expected
Affordable
Units
Estimated
Construction
Start
Next Steps
(planning entitlement, building plans
preparation, building permit issuance,
construction. etc.)
North Bayshore
Master Plan
TBD not yet known 3,365695 Phase 1:
2028/2029, if
land is
dedicated by
2026
Phase 2: by
2031, if land is
dedicated by
2029
 Council action on Master Plan —
2023
 Land dedication anticipated in
Master Plan— Phase 1 by 2026;
Phase 2 tentatively by 2029
 Start construction within two years
from land dedication
Source: City of Mountain View, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 321 Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites
All sites in this subcategory conform with the current General Plan and zoning and do not require a rezoning.These sites were filtered and selected as described in the Site Selection Process section, and will support multi-family housing at a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Almost all of these sites (976 percent) are within the recently updated Precise Plans for Downtown, East Whisman, El Camino Real, North Bayshore, and San Antonio, which are well distributed throughout the City as illustrated in Figure 9795. As shown in Table 61Table 62 and Table 62Table 63, the Opportunity Sites identified will provide capacity to develop at least 6,265 4,698 units across all City neighborhoods, within five six Precise Plans.

Table 6162: Opportunity Sites (No Rezoning) Summary by Neighborhood Neighborhood
Sum of Low
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Net New
Capacity
Central Neighborhoods 220 102 0 322
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 303 76 0 379
Moffett/Whisman Road 1,079 297 52 1,428
Monta Loma/Farley/Rock
Street
66 85 0 151
North Bayshore 463 242 1,432 2,137
San Antonio/Rengstorff 613 585 0 1,198
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 383 267 0 650
Grand Total 3,127 1,654 1,484 6,265

Neighborhood
Sum of
Low
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Net New
Capacity
Central Neighborhoods 128 174 0 302
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 452 344 60 856
Moffett/Whisman Road 997 297 52 1346
Monta Loma/Farley/Rock
Street 0 86 0 86
North Bayshore 313 92 0 405
San Antonio/Rengstorff 623 678 0 1301
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 262 140 0 402
Grand Total 2775 1811 112 4698

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 322

Table 6263: Opportunity Sites No Rezoning) Summary by Precise Plan Precise Plan
Sum of Low
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Net New
Capacity
Downtown 0 6 0 6
East Whisman 997 263 52 1,312
El Camino Real 1,127 778 0 1,905
Grant – Phyllis 201 121 0 322
North Bayshore 463 242 1,432 2,137
San Antonio 191 119 0 310
Not in Precise Plan 148 125 0 273
Grand Total 3,127 1,654 1,484 6,265

Precise Plan
Sum of Low
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of Net New
Capacity
Downtown 0 6 0 6
East Whisman 997 263 52 1312
El Camino Real 1283 1187 60 2530
North Bayshore 313 92 0 405
San Antonio 182 143 0 325
Not in Precise Plan 0 120 0 120
Grand Total 2775 1811 112 4698

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 323 Figure 97: Summary of Opportunity Sites

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 324 Rezoned Opportunity Sites – Rezoning Required
Some Opportunity Sites were identified for rezoning rezoned as a result of stakeholder input that was gathered during the development of the sites inventory process. These Opportunity Sites are consistent with General Plan direction and have been rezoned as part of concurrent with this Housing Element Update (before the beginning of the 6th cycle), (though some actions will not take effect while others will be rezoned shortly after the start of the cycle)32 and are consistent with General Plan direction.

These sites include the following:

 Existing shopping centers that were identified as “Village Centers” in the 2030 General Plan, where new residential development could be integrated into redeveloped neighborhood centers with a mix of uses.
 El Camino Real ”Village Centers” that already allow up to 2.3 FAR through a legislative “floating zone” process—a process that is superseded by State law and the General Plan.

Many of these sites align with a variety of the evaluation criteria that make them ideal candidates for residential development given their proximity to services, goods, amenities, and transit.

Rezoned Opportunity Sites within the General Plan Village Centers and El Camino Real Village Center sites include a total of 254 parcels on parcels totaling approximately 35 acres and yield 804664 units total. Refer to Table 63Table 64 and Figure 97.

Table 6364: Rezoned Opportunity Site Summarized by Designation

Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Sum of Total Unit
Capacity
General Plan Village Center 232283 194192 0 426475
El Camino Real Village Center 233131 2459 1210 378189
Grand Total 465413 218251 1210 804664

32 Though all pipeline and inventory sites have been rezoned consistent with the inventory by January 31, 2023 (with the exception of 1020 Terra Bella which is proceeding on its own schedule), some rezonings will not take effect until slightly afterward due to the City’s ordinance procedures.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 325 Accessory Dwelling Unit
Accessory dwelling unit is a the last subcategory under the Opportunity Sites project type. An evaluation was conducted to determine the projected number of ADUs to be built within the planning period.

Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are small, self-contained dwelling units that provide a kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area. The unit can be attached to the main home with a separate entrance or can be a small, detached unit in the rear yard or above a garage (Mountain View Ordinance Section 36.12.60). Because of their small size (between 500 to 1,000 square feet), ADUs typically rent for less than apartments and can provide affordable rental options for smaller households, as well as affordable housing options for extended family. Consistent with State law, the City’s zoning permits one ADU and one JADU per parcel within single family residential zoning, and additional units within multi-family residential zoning. HCD guidance suggests that jurisdictions can assume that ADUs and JADUs continue to develop at the same pace that has occurred over the last three years. Between 2018 to 2020, 22 ADUs/JADUs were completed in Mountain View as shown in Table 64Table 65, with 2020 having 12 built ADUs/JADUs.

Table 6465: Accessory Dwelling Units Built in Prior Housing Element Cycle Year 2018 2019 2020 Total
Building
Completed 5 5 12 22

Based on the trend of the 12 ADUs built in 2020, which is more than double from the prior year, the inventory assumed 96 ADUs total (12 units multiplied over an 8-year planning period). It is anticipated that a similar number of ADUs and JADUs, if not more, will be permitted and built in Mountain View during each year in the 6th cycle, with additional improvements to be made to ADU processes and public education, and through expanding policies and programs to further advance ADU/JADU development (for more information, refer to the Policies & Programs section of the Housing Element).

The affordability assumptions for ADUs/JADUs are based on a study prepared by UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation (April 2021), noting that ADUs/JADUs in Santa Clara County are affordable to 50 percent of families (family of two) making equal to or less than 80 percent of AMI. By applying these assumptions to Mountain View, the results project the following as shown in Table 65Table 66.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 326 Table 6566: Accessory Dwelling Units Projected Over the Planning Period Income
Category
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Total ADUs 24 24 38 10 96
Percentages 25% 25% 40% 10% 100%
Source: ABAG. September 8, 2021. Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units. http://21elements.com/documentsmainmenu- 3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file

Evaluation of Sites Inventory Through the Lens of AFFH
AB 686 (Santiago) created a new requirement for local jurisdictions to evaluate their Housing Element sites inventories through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The law requires that the site inventory be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with the local jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. HCD’s guidance on implementation of the requirement for the sites inventory analysis states that it should address:

 Improved Conditions: A discussion of how the sites are identified in a manner that better integrates the community with a consideration for the historical patterns and trends, number of existing households, the magnitude (e.g., number of units) of the RHNA by income group and impacts on patterns of socio-economic and racial concentrations.

 Exacerbated Conditions: Similar to above, an explanation of identified sites relative to the impact on existing patterns of segregation and number of households relative to the magnitude (e.g., number of units) of the RHNA by income group.

 Isolation of the RHNA: An evaluation of whether the RHNA by income group is concentrated in areas of the community.

 Local Data and Knowledge: A consideration of current, planned and past developments, investment, policies, practices, demographic trends, public comment and other factors.

 Other Relevant Factors: Any other factors that influence the impacts of the identification of sites to accommodate the regional housing need on socio-economic patterns and segregation.

Overall, the Sites Inventory supports the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing through the Housing Element Update process. The following discussion explores evaluates how the housing sites

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 327 inventory for the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element addresses these concerns relates to various measures of affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Mountain View does not have any areas that qualify as R/ECAPS (nor does it have any areas that qualify as Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs); thus, there is no concern about the distribution of lower-income RHNA sites potentially exacerbating R/ECAPS.

or failing to better integrate While Mountain View also does not have any areas that meet the technical definition for RCAAs, Figure 6464 in Appendix B shows that most of the Census Tracts in Mountain View with high proportions of White residents also have relatively high median household incomes. The following subsection evaluates the site inventory in relation to areas with concentrations of White residents. The findings from that subsection also generally apply to the distribution of sites in relation to areas that have both a high concentration of White residents and a high median household income.

Areas with Concentrations of Minority Residents (percent of Population Non-White) Mountain View is 60 percent non-White, and as a result most Mountain View residents live in neighborhoods with a majority non-White population. Within Mountain View there is some variation in the racial and ethnic mix between neighborhoods; Census Block Groups in Mountain View range from 39 percent non-White to 77 percent non-White, with Latino residents and Asian residents constituting a significant share of residents in some areas of the City. These trends are discussed in more detail in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Section shown in Appendix B.

While lower-income RHNA sites are not found on every City block, they are distributed across all seven City neighborhoods. Table 6667 provides an analysis of the site inventory in relation to the share of the population that is comprised of non-White residents. This analysis excludes the Census Block Group where the North Bayshore Master Plan is located (Census Tract 5046.01, Block Group 1), which is analyzed separately below. This Block Group is unique from the remainder of the City in that the units in the site inventory that would be located in this Block Group would significantly outnumber the existing units in the Block Group. As a result, construction of the units in the site inventory could have a significant effect on the racial and ethnic mix in the Block Group as new households move into new units. This potential change could occur even with no change in the composition of the existing households in the Block Group, most or all of which live in a mobile home park and would be subject to various protections under the Mountain View Municipal Code. The existing mobile home park is anticipated to remain throughout the planning period.

Table 6667 shows the existing distribution of housing units in Mountain View in relation to the non- White share of the population in each Block Group. As shown, almost half (48 percent) of all existing housing units in Mountain View are located in Census Block Groups in which non-White residents constitute 55 to 65 percent of the Block Group’s population. Among units in approved projects, pipeline projects, and available sites outside of the North Bayshore area, 74 percent of lower-income

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 328 units are located in Census Block Groups where non-White residents constitute 55 to 65 percent of the Block Group’s population, meaning that approximately three quarters of all lower-income units in the site inventory outside of the North Bayshore area are located in areas with a racial and ethnic mix that is fairly typical for Mountain View.

As shown in Table 6667, approximately 29 percent of existing housing units are located in Block Groups in which non-White residents constitute 65 percent of the population or more. Among lower- income units in the site inventory outside of the North Bayshore area, 19 percent would be located in these Block Groups, meaning that the site inventory does not overly concentrate affordable units in Block Groups with existing concentrations of non-White households.

Table 6667 also demonstrates that the units in the site inventory are disproportionately located outside of areas with particularly small non-White populations. As shown, 23 percent of existing housing units in Mountain View are located in Block Groups in which non-White residents comprise less than 55 percent of the population. Among units in the site inventory, eight percent of lower- income units (excluding those in the North Bayshore area) would be located in Block Groups in which non-White residents comprise less than 55 percent of the population. This is due largely to the challenges associated with identifying viable housing opportunity sites in areas south of El Camino Real, which is where most of the City’s majority-White Block Groups are located. This Housing Element Update includes programs that will help to facilitate affordable housing production South of El Camino Real by allowing affordable multifamily housing in the R1 district when constructed in conjunction with non-profit religious and community assembly uses on large sites (Program 1.4) and facilitating ADU production and SB9 projects (Programs 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2). Units that would be facilitated through these programs are not captured in the site inventory.

Table 6667: Distribution of the Sites Inventory by Block Group Racial and Ethnic Composition, Excluding the North Bayshore Area
Block Group Racial and Ethnic
Composition Existing Housing Units (a) Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (b)
Less than 55% Non-White 23% 4%
55%-65% Non-White 48% 74%
65% or more Non-White 29% 21%
Notes:
(a) Excludes existing households in the Census Block Group that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Block Group is analyzed separately.
(b) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. Excludes units in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Census Tract is analyzed separately.

Sources: US Census, 2020; BAE 2022.

In addition to the units evaluated in Table 6667, the site inventory also includes 5,934 units in the Census Block Group that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. Within this Block Group,

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 329 non-White residents comprise an estimated 69 percent of the population, higher than is typical within Mountain View. It should be noted that most if not all of the existing housing units in this Census Tract are in a mobile home park, which likely provides a comparatively affordable housing option. The 5,934 units in the site inventory are equal to approximately 16 times the number of existing units in this Census Tract. Of these units in the site inventory in this Census Tract, most (4,322 units) are anticipated to be affordable to above moderate-income households, with the remainder affordable to low-income or moderate-income households. The inclusion of a significant number of above moderate-income units in this area along with the smaller share of low- and moderate-income units will prevent a concentration of lower-income units in this Census Tract.

Figure 98Figure 98 further demonstrates the findings described above. The figure shows the sites in the site inventory, including approved projects, pending projects, and opportunity sites, as well as the non-White share of the population in each Census Tract. In addition, the map also shows religious sites, on which the development of affordable housing will be facilitated by Program 1.4, and areas zoned for single-family use, which are potential sites for ADUs and SB9 projects that will be facilitated by Programs 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2. As shown, the sites are not concentrated in any one area of the City, nor are sites concentrated in areas with particularly high concentrations of non-White residents. The figure demonstrates that there is a shortage of sites in the Census Tracts with particularly low concentrations of non-White residents. However, the map also demonstrates that much of these Census Tract are zoned for single-family use, enabling the creation of affordable units through ADUs or SB9 projects in these areas. These Census Tracts also include religious sites that could be potential future sites for affordable housing. The site inventory does not include ADUs, SB9 projects, or housing that could be built on religious sites, and therefore these units would be additive to units built on sites in the inventory.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 330 Figure 98: Housing Sites by Share of Non-White Population

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 331

Concentrations of Poverty (percent of Population with Income below poverty level)Level and Low and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods
Overall, Mountain View has very low levels of poverty, and its areas of highest concentration of households with income below poverty level only reach a maximum of 16.4 percent. There is a grouping of lower-income RHNA sites in one of two Census Tracts with between 10.0 and 16.4 percent poverty; however, sites are also dispersedpredominantly located in into areas with poverty below 10 percent.

Table 6768 demonstrates that the units in the site inventory – including all approved projects, pending projects, and units on available sites – would help to affirmatively further fair housing by expanding low-income housing opportunities in areas with comparatively low proportions of low- and moderate-income households. The table shows that approximately half (49 percent) of households in Mountain View live in Census Tracts where less than 35 percent of households have low or moderate incomes. Excluding units in the North Bayshore area, approved projects, pending projects, and available sites in the site inventory, 54 percent of lower-income units are in Census Tracts in which less than 35 percent of households have low or moderate incomes. This means that the lower- income units in the site inventory are disproportionately located in Census Tracts with relatively low existing concentrations of low- and moderate-income households.

Table 6768: Distribution of the Sites Inventory by Census Tract Low- and Moderate-Income Composition, Excluding the North Bayshore Area Census Tract Income Composition Existing Housing Units (a) Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (b)
Less than 35% Low/Moderate Income 49% 54%
35% or higher Low/Moderate Income 51% 46%
Notes:
(a) Excludes existing households in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Census Tract is analyzed separately.
(b) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. Excludes units in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Census Tract is analyzed separately.

Sources: US Census ACS, 2015-2019; BAE 2022.

The analysis shown in Table 6768 excludes the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan area (Census Tract 5046.01). As noted above, this Census Tract is unique from the remainder of the City in that the units in the site inventory that would be located in this Census Tract would significantly outnumber the existing units in the Tract. As a result, construction of the units in the site inventory would likely have a significant effect on the income distribution in the Census Tract as new households move into new units that target households at a range of income levels.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 332 As shown in Table 6869, an estimated 53 percent of households in Census Tract 5046.01 are low or moderate-income households, making this one of the Census Tracts with the largest concentrations of low- and moderate-income households in Mountain View. This is likely because the most if not all of the existing housing units in this Census Tract are in a mobile home park, which tend to provide a comparatively affordable housing option. In total, there are an estimated 370 existing households in this Census Tract.

Among approved projects, pipeline projects, and units on available sites, 27 percent of the units in this Census Tract would consist of low- or moderate-income units, a significantly lower proportion than among existing households in this Census Tract. Assuming no change in the household income distribution among existing units in the Census Tract, the addition of these units would result in an estimated 29 percent of households in the Census Tract having low or moderate incomes. As shown in Table 6768 above, approximately half of all households in Mountain View live in Census Tracts in which 35 percent of households have low or moderate incomes, meaning that the construction of the units in the site inventory would make the concentration of low- and moderate-income households in the North Bayshore area lower than the existing concentration in most areas of the City.

Table 6869: Site Inventory Distribution of Low- and Moderate-Income Units, North Bayshore Area
Existing Housing Units Units in Site Inventory Total
All Units 370 5,934 6,304
Low-Income & Moderate-
Income Households/Units (a) 196 1,612 1,808
% Low/Moderate Income 53% 27% 29%
Note:
(a) The number of low/moderate-income units among existing units is estimated based on the share of existing households in the Census Tract with low or moderate incomes.

Sources: US Census ACS, 2015-2019; BAE 2022.

Figure 9999 further demonstrates the findings described above. The figure shows the sites in the site inventory, including approved projects, pending projects, and opportunity sites, as well as the share of low- and moderate-income households in each Census Tract. The map also shows religious sites, where the development of affordable housing will be facilitated by Program 1.4, and areas zoned for single-family use, which are potential sites for ADUs and SB9 projects that will be facilitated by Programs 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2. Apart from the North Bayshore area, the map does not show any significant concentrations of units in areas with large existing concentrations of low- and moderate-income households. Within the North Bayshore areas, most new units are anticipated to be affordable to above moderate-income households, as discussed above and therefore the addition of units in that portion of the City would not increase the existing concentration of low- and moderate-income households in this area. The map also demonstrates that many of the Census

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 333 Tracts with low proportions of low- and moderate-income households are zoned for single-family use and include religious sites, and therefore could be potential locations for the construction of affordable units through ADUs, SB9 projects, or development of affordable housing on religious sites.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 334 Figure 99: Housing Sites by Share of Low- and Moderate-Income Households

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 335

Environmental Conditions (CalEnviroscreen)
Sites are well distributed, with significant concentrations of RHNA sites in areas with the lowest percentile (best) scores. There are also concentrations of sites in the City’s areas that have higher percentile scores; however, the City’s percentile scores rise only to 50.5 percent at their highest, meaning that these sites are in areas that still rank well on a statewide basis. Some areas with high CalEnviroScreen scores, most notably the North Bayshore area, are anticipated to accommodate a portion of the City’s RHNA. These areas have high CalEnviroScreen scores largely due to the proximity to Highway 101. While the site inventory does include affordable units in these areas, most of these units are anticipated to be affordable to above moderate-income households. Therefore, the site inventory does not concentrate affordable units in areas with high CalEnviroScreen scores.

Access to Opportunity (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas)
The TCAC/HUD Opportunity Index designates Mmost of the Mountain View as either a “highest resource,” “high resource,” or “moderate resource (rapidly changing).” The exception is the Census Tract that is located north of Highway 101, which encapsulates the North Bayshore Master Plan Area. The North Bayshore area currently has access to a significant number of jobs and is 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.City’s lower income RHNA sites/capacity are in areas of Highest or High Resource. Limited sites are in Moderate or Low Resource areas. Available transit services can help to connect residents of these areas to resources in other areas.

Construction of the units in the site inventory will help to improve access to opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing in Mountain View. With the exception of units in the North Bayshore Master Plan area, more than half (52 percent) of all lower-income units in the site inventory are located in “highest resource” areas and 43 percent are located in “high resource” areas, while five percent are located in “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” areas, as shown in Table 6970.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 336 Table 6970: Site Inventory Distribution by TCAC/HUD Opportunity Area, Excluding the North Bayshore Area
Opportunity Index Designation Existing Housing Units (a) Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (b)
Highest Resource 41% 52%
High Resource 45% 43%
Moderate Resource (rapidly changing) 14% 5%
Low Resource 0% 0%
Notes:
(a) Excludes existing households in the Census Block Group that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Block Group is analyzed separately.
(b) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. Excludes units in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. These Census Tracts are analyzed separately.

Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; BAE, 2022.

Figure 100100 further demonstrates the findings described above. The figure shows the sites in the site inventory, including approved projects, pending projects, and opportunity sites, as well as the TCAC Opportunity Index score in each Census Tract. The map also shows religious sites, where the development of affordable housing will be facilitated by Program 1.4, and areas zoned for single- family use, which are potential sites for ADUs and SB9 projects that will be facilitated by Programs

1.6, 1.7, and 2.2. Apart from the North Bayshore area, the vast majority of sites are located in High Resource and Highest Resource areas, with the remainder located in Moderate Resource Areas.

While there are a significant number of sites in the North Bayshore area, which is designated as a Low Resource area, implementation of the North Bayshore Master Plan is anticipated to improve access to opportunity in this area, as discussed above. The map also shows that there is significant potential for development of affordable housing on religious siges in High Resource and Highest Resources areas. In addition, there is potential for development of ADUs and SB9 projects in High and Highest Resource areas that are zoned for single-family use.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 337 Figure 100: Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 338

Education Domain Scores
The geographic distribution of units in the site inventory will help to improve access to opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing in Mountain View. As shown in Table 7071, approximately half (49 percent) of all existing housing units in Mountain View are located in Census Tracts with an Educational Domain score under 80 percent, with the remainder (51 percent) in Census Tracts with an Education Domain score of 80 percent or higher. Among lower-income units in the site inventory, 66 percent are located in Census Tracts with an education domain score of 80 percent or higher.

This means that lower-income sites are disproportionately located in areas with high education domain scores. Many Census Tracts with Education Domain scores under 80 percent also have significantly higher scores than the regional (San Mateo and Santa Clara County) median of 60 percent.

Table 7071: Site Inventory Distribution by Education Domain Score Census Tract Education Domain Score Existing Housing Units Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (a)
Less than 80% 49% 34%
80% or higher 51% 66%
Note:
(a) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites.

Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; 2022.

Transportation Access (Housing + Transportation Cost as percent of Income) Most of the housing Opportunity Sites are located in areas with lower (best) to moderate H+T cost as a percentage of income for a moderate-income household. Many of the housing sites are spread along El Camino Real with significant transit options.

Access to Jobs (Jobs Proximity Index)
All of Mountain View has either a jobs proximity index value of 51 to 74 or 75 to 99 (with 100 being the best); thus, all of the lower-income RHNA sites are in locations with good access to jobs. Many of the sites that are in the areas with values in the 51 to 74 range are only directly across El Camino Real from areas ranked 75 to 99.

Housing Element Actions to Address AFFH Implications of the Site Inventory. This analysis demonstrates that the site inventory supports the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing by identifying sites for a significant number of affordable units in high-resource areas with access to opportunity and areas with relatively low proportions of low- and moderate-income households.

While the site inventory does not concentrate sites for affordable units in areas with existing concentrations of non-White households, it also does not include a significant number of sites in predominantly White areas. This is due primarily to the challenges associated with identifying

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 339 housing opportunity sites in areas south of El Camino Real, an area that is characterized by high- value single-family homes, where most of the predominantly White Census Block Groups in Mountain View are located. While the site inventory does identify some sites within this area, due to the high value of the existing homes and challenges with site assembly, much of this area would be unlikely to meet HCD’s criteria for lower-income housing opportunity sites even if rezoned at to allow for higher densities. This Housing Element Update includes programs that will help to facilitate affordable housing production South of El Camino Real by allowing affordable multifamily housing in the R1 district when constructed in conjunction with non-profit religious and community assembly uses on large sites (Program 1.4) and facilitating ADU production and SB9 projects (Programs 1.6,

1.7 and 2.2). Units that would be facilitated through these programs are not captured in the site inventory.

Local Data and Knowledge
The sites inventory includes a number of parcels in the part of Mountain View located north of Highway 101, which is currently classified by the HCD/TCAC Opportunity Areas map as a Low Resource area. The Low Resource classification is likely due to fact that the area has historically been a non-residential area with limited amenities for residents; however, this area is planned for substantial housing development in the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element planning period and beyond via the North Bayshore Precise Plan. The implementation of the precise plan can be considered a place-based strategy that will help to transform the area into a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood that is well connected to the rest of the City of Mountain View and has access to the largest concentration of jobs in the City. The first guiding principle of the precise plan is to create complete neighborhoods, calling for the blending of residential, commercial, and office uses with services, open space, and transportation options for residents and area employees. While the precise plan includes a number of sites identified to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA, the precise plan calls for new residential development to be mixed-income, 20 percent affordable units and the balance market rate units.

During the public review process for the Housing Element Update, some stakeholders commented that they wished to see more housing Opportunity Sites identified in the more affluent neighborhoods south of El Camino Real. In response to those comments, the Housing Sites inventory process included an evaluation of additional sites south of El Camino Real, including religious sites and shopping centers.

 While religious sites did not meet the Opportunity Sites criteria, primarily because there are few precedents involving church sites and multi-family development, the Housing Element includes a program to allow religious sites additional density when constructing affordable housing developments on their land.
 Several shopping centers south of El Camino Real were identified as “Village Centers” in the 2030 General Plan, where new housing could be allowed in the context of redeveloped neighborhood shopping sites. Zoning amendments adopted with the Housing Element Update implemented this General Plan direction. These sites were included in the sites

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 340 inventory if they are consistent with the underutilized sites methodology (see Section X:

Rezoned Opportunity Sites section).

In addition, the area does include a substantial amount land zoned R3 (Multiple Family), primarily just south of El Camino Real. The sites inventory is not targeting rezoning of land zoned R1 (Single Family) in the areas south of El Camino Real. Although there are practical reasons for this, such as a lack of vacant land in the R1 district that meets the State’s criteria for housing sites (e.g., larger than one-half acre, vacant, likely to redevelop in the 2023-2031 time period), there are still opportunities for new housing for lower-income households in the form of potential Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units that could be added to existing single-family lots, as well as the potential for some densification of the neighborhood through the provisions of SB9.

In addition, the City identified several “back-pocket” rezonings that could be carried out in case Opportunity Sites are developed with uses other than the income level signified in the sites inventory.

Some of these sites are in high opportunity areas, including the following:

 The Downtown Transit Center, which may be an opportunity for a joint development with CalTrain; and
 Other nonresidential sites south of El Camino Real, such as 1949 Grant Road and offices near Blossom Valley Shopping Center.

Summary of Conclusions and Approach to Policies and Programs The sites inventory and the housing development opportunities that it provides will help to affirmatively further fair housing. Overall, the sites inventory does not exacerbate fair housing issues, such as contribute to R/ECAPS, RCAAs, or racial or ethnic isolation or segregation; nor does it overly concentrate lower income housing Opportunity Sites in any single area of the City. It does not concentrate lower-income housing Opportunity Sites in areas that already have significant concentrations of poverty or areas of racial or ethnic isolation or segregation. In contrast, opportunities for housing development for lower-income households are identified in areas with high opportunity and good access to jobs, transportation, and a healthy environment.

The sites inventory, which fully accommodates the City’s share of the regional housing need for the 2023 to 2031 planning period, along with a substantial buffer, also helps to affirmatively further fair housing from a regional perspective by creating opportunities for housing development for households at all income levels in a location that has outstanding access to jobs, services, a healthy environment, and other amenities that support a high quality of life and positive life outcomes for residents.

A robust roster of local policies and programs will complement the sites inventory to help protect housing opportunities for existing lower-income households, households with special needs, and minorities, and work to ensure equitable access to housing within the community for all socio- economic segments of the community as well as prospective residents.

Jurisdiction
Name
Site
Address/Inter
section
5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-
Owned Site Status
Identified in
Last/Last
Two
Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Optional
Information 1 Optional Information 2 Optional Information 3

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1500
SHORELINE BL 94043-1314 11613030 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use
P(39) - North
Bayshore
Precise Plan
0 ~157 15.75
one-story single tenant cinema;
surrounded on all sides with projects
under review that are expected to be
entitled by 2023; FAR: 0.10; Year Built:
1986
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(3.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1280 SPACE
PARK WY 94043-1434 11614071 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use
P(39) - North
Bayshore
Precise Plan
0 ~157 0.98
two-story light industrial/science
laboratory - FAR: 0.42; Year Built:
1959
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(3.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1060 LA
AVENIDA 94043-1422 11614107 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use
P(39) - North
Bayshore
Precise Plan
0 ~71 1.24 one-story light industrial/consultant
office - FAR: 0.364; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1070 LA
AVENIDA 94043-1422 11614108 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use
P(39) - North
Bayshore
Precise Plan
0 ~71 1.07 one-story USPS Carrier Annex - FAR:

0.334; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1080 LA
AVENIDA A 94043-1422 11614109 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use
P(39) - North
Bayshore
Precise Plan
0 ~71 0.92
one-story light industrial/medical clinic -
FAR: 0.331; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1090 LA
AVENIDA 94043-1422 11614110 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use
P(39) - North
Bayshore
Precise Plan
0 ~71 0.96 one-story light industrial space - FAR:

0.31; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 1350 PEAR AV 94043-1302 11614114 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use
P(39) - North
Bayshore
Precise Plan
0 ~157 0.84
one-story vacant, multi-tenant light
industrial - FAR: 0.332; Year Built:
1987
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(3.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2483 OLD

MIDDLEFIELD
WY
94043-2330 14711025 C General Mixed-
Use CRA 0 43 1.34
one-story restaurant with two-story
office behind - FAR: 0.384; Year Built:
1973; tenant vacancy signs at both
2483 and 2485 Old Middlefield Way
which have the same ownership
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2485 OLD

MIDDLEFIELD
WY
94043-2316 14711029 C General Mixed-
Use CRA 0 43 0.50
one-story vacant service/light industrial
building - FAR: 0.375; Year Built: 1963;
tenant vacancy signs at both 2483 and
2485 Old Middlefield Way which have
the same ownership
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2495 OLD

MIDDLEFIELD
WY
94043-2316 14711034 Not Applicable General Mixed-
Use CRA 0 43 0.56 one-story single tenant liquor store - FAR: 0.168; Year Built: 1977 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
110 N

RENGSTORFF
AV
94043-4222 14736025 Not Applicable Neighborhood
Mixed-Use CN 0 ~30 0.44 gas station - FAR: 0.028; Year Built:1958 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0
Opportunity Site -
General Plan Village
Center
Rezoned to allow residential at
approximately ~30 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 2312 ALMA ST 94043 14736037 Not Applicable Neighborhood Mixed-Use CN 0 ~30 0.97
one-story retail (salon, insurance,
restaurants) - FAR: 0.211; Year
Built:1960
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0
Opportunity Site -
General Plan Village
Center
Rezoned to allow residential at
approximately ~30 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
112 N

RENGSTORFF
AV
94043-4222 14736038 Not Applicable Neighborhood
Mixed-Use CN 0 ~30 1.72 one-story restaurant and vacant fitness center - FAR: 0.268; Year Built:1960 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0
Opportunity Site -
General Plan Village
Center
Rezoned to allow residential at
approximately ~30 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
298 SAN
ANTONIO RD 94040-1212 14815017 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(40) - San
Antonio Precise
Plan
0 63-89 0.53 one-story medical offices - FAR: 0.298;
Year Built: 1965 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2630
CALIFORNIA ST 94040-1206 14815018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(40) - San
Antonio Precise
Plan
0 63-89 1.05
one-story retail (laundromat,
convenance store, auto parts) - FAR:

0.193; Year Built: 1900
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2633
CALIFORNIA ST 94040-1205 14815021 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(40) - San
Antonio Precise
Plan
0 63-89 0.40 one-story single tenant restaurant -
FAR: 0.099; Year Built: 1964 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
384 SAN
ANTONIO RD 94040-1214 14815022 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(40) - San
Antonio Precise
Plan
0 63-89 0.98 one-story single tenant bank - FAR:

0.252; Year Built: 1971 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

HCD Sites Inventory Table A
Jurisdiction
Name
Site
Address/Inter
section
5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-
Owned Site Status
Identified in
Last/Last
Two
Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Optional
Information 1 Optional Information 2 Optional Information 3

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2690 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816001 E Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 1.03 vacant, single tenant car wash - FAR:

0.1; Year Built: 1962 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2674 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816004 E Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.26
one-story single tenant service building
(associated with adjacent closed car
wash at 2690 W El Camino Real); Year
Built: 1955
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2630 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816012 A
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 1.79
one-story pharmacy that is part of a
multi-tenant shopping center - average
FAR: 0.15 for adjoining sites at 2630 W
El Camino Real and Fayette Drive
(APN 14816013); Year Built: 1972; part
of a consolidated site with common
ownership with potential to develop as
one project
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 22 0 22 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW FAYETTE DR 94040 14816013 A Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(40) - San
Antonio Precise
Plan
0 63-89 0.32
Parking lot (serving adjacent multi-
tenant retail) - average FAR: 0.15 for
adjoining sites at 2630 W El Camino
Real and Fayette Drive (APN
14816013); Year Built: Not Applicable
(no building on site); part of a
consolidated site with common
ownership with potential to develop as
one project
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 4 0 4 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW FAYETTE DR 94040 14816014 F Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(40) - San
Antonio Precise
Plan
0 63-89 0.15
Parking lot (serving adjacent retail) -
FAR: 0; Year Built: Not Applicable (no
building on site)
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2600 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816015 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 0.50
one-story bank that is part of a multi-
tenant shopping center - FAR: 0.19;
Year Built: 1972
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 6 0 6 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
630 SAN
ANTONIO RD 94040 14816016 F
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 2.82 one-story vacant, single tenant grocery
store - FAR: 0.292; Year Built: 1972 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 150 20 0 170 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
608 SAN
ANTONIO RD 94040-1304 14816017 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(40) - San
Antonio Precise
Plan
0 63-89 1.03 one-story single tenant bank - FAR:

0.222; Year Built: 1970 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
100 SAN
ANTONIO CL 94040-1210 14817001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(40) - San
Antonio Precise
Plan
0 63-89 0.51 one-story glass retailer/service - FAR:

0.258; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2560 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-1307 14821008 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Center
P(40) - San
Antonio Precise
Plan
0 ~65 0.75 one-story single tenant restaurant -
FAR: 0.175; Year Built: 1981 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(2.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2464 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-1421 14828005 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 0.61
one-story six-unit retail (beauty,
wellness, acupuncture, restaurant) -
FAR: 0.167; Year Built: 1984
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 37 0 37 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2320 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-1420 14836001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.40
one-story vacant single tenant retail -
FAR: 0.39; Year Built: 1969; a chain
link fence surrounds the site
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2124 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-1612 14836027 B Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.74
one-story vacant, single tenant retail -
FAR: 0.402; Year Built: 1960; chain
link fence surrounds the adjoining
parcels at 2116 and 2100 W El Camino
Real; 2116, 2100, and 2124 W El
Camino Real are under the same
ownership
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2116 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-1612 14836028 B Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 1.00
one-story vacant, single tenant retail -
FAR: 0.17; Year Built: 1995; chain link
fence surrounds the parcels at 2116
and 2100 W El Camino Real; 2116,
2100, and 2124 W El Camino Real are
under the same ownership
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2100 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-1612 14836029 B Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.52
one-story vacant, single tenant retail -
FAR: 0.176; Year Built: 1960; chain
link fence surrounds the parcels at
2116 and 2100 W El Camino Real;
2116, 2100, and 2124 W El Camino
Real are under the same ownership
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
400 A MOFFETT
BL 94043 15324016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use
Corridor CN 0 ~72 1.64
one-story 4-unit commercial (beauty,
cleaners, mini-mart, gun shop) - FAR:

0.196; Year Built: 1969
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0
Opportunity Site -
General Plan Village
Center
Rezoned to allow residential at
approximately ~72 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1398 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2404 15430015 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 41-50 0.53
one-story six-unit commercial (beauty,
computer service, vaping, fitness) -
FAR: 0.282; Year Built: 1975
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1288 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2402 15430044 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.96 gas station - FAR: 0.059; Year Built:
1972 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1905 LATHAM
ST 94040-2107 15436007 Not Applicable Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.74
one-story retail (convenance,
laundromat, restaurants) - FAR: 0.266;
Year Built: 1964
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1962 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436012 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.80 one-story single tenant restaurant -
FAR: 0.123; Year Built: 1971 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1952 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436014 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 1.03
one-story party supply store; property
owner is marketing the site - FAR:

0.444; Year Built: 1959
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 61 0 0 61 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1910 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436018 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 2.47
one-story six-unit retail (furniture,
restaurants, fitness) with tenant
vacancy - FAR: 0.318; Year Built: 1984
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 30 0 30 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2080 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.45 single tenant, self car wash - FAR:

0.149; Year Built: 1968 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2090 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437007 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.56
one-story single tenant, fountain store -
FAR: 0.043; Year Built: 1958; building
is not well maintained/ boarded up
windows
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2098 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437008 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.45
one-story single tenant fast food - FAR:

0.1; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
615 S

RENGSTORFF
AV
94040-2105 15437009 Not Applicable Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.60
one-story four-unit commercial
(convenience, restaurant, beauty,
laundry) - FAR: 0.207; Year Built: 1974
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2034 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437015 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.73
one-story single tenant mattress store -
FAR: 0.221; Year Built: 1960 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2020 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.64
one-story retail (restaurant, florist,
vacuum store) - FAR: 0.077; Year Built:
1951
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2026 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.52
vacant one-story restaurant - FAR:

0.172; Year Built: 1952; site is
surrounded by a chain link fence; the
building has not been well maintained
(signs of graffiti)/boarded up windows
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
30 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040 15801001 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 0.36
one-story single tenant tire store - FAR:

0.27; Year Built: 1965 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 21 0 21 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
40 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040 15801002 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 0.20
one-story single tenant tire store - FAR:

0.27; Year Built: 1965 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 12 0 12 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
62 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040 15801003 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 1.55 one-story single tenant truck rental -
FAR: 0.035; Year Built: 1979 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 93 0 0 93 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
200 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2606 15805112 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 41-50 0.45
one-story single tenant fast food - FAR:

0.131; Year Built: 1969 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
286 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2606 15805113 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 41-50 0.43 one-story single tenant restaurant -
FAR: 0.146; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
624 WEL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2508 15806006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 41-50 0.28
one-story vacant, single tenant car
service building - FAR: 0.159; Year
Built: 1958; building is not well
maintained/ boarded up windows
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW S OAK ST 94041 15807007 D Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.10
parking lot for medical office at 1128 W
El Camino Real - FAR: Not Applicable;
Year Built: Not Applicable
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1128 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2518 15807025 D Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.42 one-story single tenant medical office -
FAR: 0.285; Year Built: 1945 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1134 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2518 15807026 D Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.64 two-story vacant offices - FAR: 0.154 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 785 CASTRO ST 94041-2013 15809009 Not Applicable
Downtown Mixed-
Use
P(19) -
Downtown
Precise Plan
0 50 0.28 one-story vacant offices - FAR: 0.30;
Year Built: 1970 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
495 MOFFETT
BL 94043-4727 15849002 Not Applicable Mixed-Use
Corridor CRA 0 43 0.96 gas station - FAR: 0.04; Year Built:
1968 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
282 E

MIDDLEFIELD
RD
94043-3910 16026007 Not Applicable East Whisman
Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~45 1.19
vacant; chain link fence surround the
site; no site infrastructure or
improvements is present
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW N WHISMAN RD 94043 16028003 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~45 0.50
Parking lot for fast food at 209 W
Middlefield Road - FAR: 0; Year Built:

Not Applicable (no building on site)
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
209 E

MIDDLEFIELD
RD
94043-3909 16028004 Not Applicable East Whisman
Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~45 0.55
one-story single tenant fast food - FAR:

0.161; Year Built: 1984 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
295 E

MIDDLEFIELD
RD
94043-3909 16028005 Not Applicable East Whisman
Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~45 0.45 one-story single tenant restaurant/deli -
FAR: 0.09; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
295 E

MIDDLEFIELD
RD
16028006 Not Applicable East Whisman
Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~45 0.13 one-story single tenant restaurant/deli -
FAR: 0.09; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
325 E

MIDDLEFIELD
RD
94043 16052010 Not Applicable East Whisman
Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~112 2.05 one-story light industrial - FAR: 0.373;
Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(2.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
335 E

MIDDLEFIELD
RD
94043-4028 16052011 Not Applicable East Whisman
Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~112 0.93 one-story light industrial - FAR: 0.357;
Year Built: 1982 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(2.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
345 E

MIDDLEFIELD
RD
94043-4067 16052012 Not Applicable East Whisman
Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~112 1.07 one-story light industrial - FAR: 0.339;
Year Built: 1959 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(2.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
460 E

MIDDLEFIELD
RD
94043-4032 16053005 Not Applicable East Whisman
Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 147 - 169 1.27
one-story light industrial/service agency
office - FAR: 0.333; Year Built: 1977 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(3.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
450 E

MIDDLEFIELD
RD
94043-4006 16053006 Not Applicable East Whisman
Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 147 - 169 1.00 one-story light industrial - FAR: 0.307; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(3.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 475 ELLIS ST 94043-2203 16058011 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~112 4.49 one-story light industrial - FAR: 0.335;
Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(2.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 815 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059001 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~112 0.93 one-story church office - FAR: 0.21;
Year Built: 1962 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(2.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 835 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059002 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~112 0.90 one-story light industrial office - FAR:

0.381; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(2.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 855 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059003 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~112 0.97 one-story light industrial office - FAR:

0.369; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(2.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 875 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059004 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use
P(41) - East
Whisman
Precise Plan
0 ~112 0.96
one-story vacant light industrial office -
FAR: 0.39; Year Built: 1963 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(2.5). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on a
proportional increase or
decrease of similar district’s
precedent. projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
820 E EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2836 16110003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 1.37
one story four-unit commercial
(restaurant, beauty salon,
chiropractors) - FAR: 0.235; Year
Built: 1971
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1953 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2262 17005016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.46 one-story single tenant deli - FAR:

0.084; Year Built: 1970 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
2065 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040 17005026 Not Applicable Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 1.32
one-story single tenant daycare center -
FAR: 0.248; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1901 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006006 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 0.27 one-story single tenant rental car
location - FAR: 0.11; Year Built: 1958 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 16 0 16 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
910 EL MONTE
AV 94040-2319 17006007 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 1.10
one-story single tenant office supply
store - FAR: 0.424; Year Built: 1952;
located in a high opportunity area and
adjacent to existing residential
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 66 0 0 66 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1949 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006058 G
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 0.32
one-story multi-tenant retail (pet store,
pool store, auto parts, shipping) -
average FAR: 0.22 for 1949, 1921 and
1935 W El Camino Real; Year Built:
1984; part of a consolidated site with
common ownership with potential to
develop as one project; located in high
opportunity area
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 4 0 4 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1921 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006060 G
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 1.30
one-story multi-tenant retail (pet store,
pool store, auto parts, shipping) -
average FAR: 0.22 for 1949, 1921 and
1935 W El Camino Real; Year Built:
1984; part of a consolidated site with
common ownership with potential to
develop as one project; located in high
opportunity area
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 16 0 0 16 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1935 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006062 G
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 1.66
one-story multi-tenant retail (pet store,
pool store, auto parts, shipping) -
average FAR: 0.22 for 1949, 1921 and
1935 W El Camino Real; Year Built:
1984; part of a consolidated site with
common ownership with potential to
develop as one project; located in high
opportunity area
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 20 0 0 20 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1010 EL MONTE
AV 94040-2321 17007067 Not Applicable Mixed-Use
Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 41-50 0.31 gas station - FAR: 0.074; Year Built:
1955 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
810
MIRAMONTE AV 94040-2514 18902024 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.32 one-story single tenant auto repair -
FAR: 0.081; Year Built: 1963 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
1708
MIRAMONTE AV 94040-3763 18906096 Not Applicable Neighborhood Mixed-Use CN 0 ~30 0.32 gas station - FAR: 0.08; Year
Built:1955 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0
Opportunity Site -
General Plan Village
Center
Rezoned to allow residential at
approximately ~30 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
595 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2641 19303044 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 41-50 0.40 one-story single tenant paint store -
FAR: 0.26; Year Built: 1981 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
215 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2605 19304006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 41-50 0.39 one-story single tenant tire store -
FAR: 0.077; Year Built: 1959 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
239 W EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2605 19304018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 41-50 0.28 one story single tenant liquor store -
FAR: 0.183; Year Built: 1971 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.35). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 1504 GRANT RD 94040-3214 19312001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(27) - Grant-
Phyllis Precise
Plan
0 ~72 5.08
large multi-tenant shopping center with
one-story buildings (grocery and
various other retail uses) - FAR: 0.242;
Year Built: 1973; located in high
opportunity area
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 51 0 0 51
Opportunity Site -
General Plan Village
Center
Rezoned to allow residential at
approximately ~72 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 975 BAY ST 94040-2626 19314001 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 0.39 single tenant self car wash - FAR:

0.095; Year Built: 1965 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 23 0 23 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 1220 GRANT RD 94040-3227 19314011 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(27) - Grant-
Phyllis Precise
Plan
0 ~72 0.36 gas station - FAR: 0.131; Year
Built:1963 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0
Opportunity Site -
General Plan Village
Center
Rezoned to allow residential at
approximately ~72 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW 1250 Grant Road 94040-3227 19314012 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(27) - Grant-
Phyllis Precise
Plan
0 ~72 5.62 supermarket - FAR: 0.23; Year Built:
1971 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0
Opportunity Site -
General Plan Village
Center
Rezoned to allow residential at
approximately ~72 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
101 E EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2701 19742003 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 0.58 gas station - FAR: 0.063; Year Built:
1967 Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 35 0 35 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
121 E EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2701 19742004 Not Applicable
Mixed-Use
Corridor (ECR
Village Center)
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 47-93 7.96
large multi-tenant shopping center with
one-story buildings (pharmacy and
various other retail uses) - FAR: 0.257;
Year Built: 1966; located in high
opportunity area
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 96 0 0 96 Opportunity Site - El
Camino Real
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing
approximately 65-111 DU/ac.

Rezoning not necessary to
meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
789 E EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2833 19801003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 4.59
electronics store with other retail
tenants - FAR: 0.275; Year Built: 1971;
located in high opportunity area
Yes - current No - Privately-
Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 55 0 0 55 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
825 E EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2807 19807003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.29 one story single tenant restaurant -
FAR: 0.095; Year Built: 1968 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
831 E EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2807 19807004 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 1.16 one-story single tenant used goods
retail - FAR: 0.231; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
891 E EL
CAMINO REAL 94040-2807 19807008 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor
P(38) - El
Camino Real
Precise Plan
0 65-111 0.40 one-story single tenant rental car
location - FAR: 0.059; Year Built: 1963 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available
Not Used in Prior
Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Opportunity Site
Maximum Density set by FAR
(1.85). Maximum dwelling units
per acre shown is based on the
range of precedent projects.

HCD Sites Inventory Table A

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 347 HCD Sites Inventory Table B: this is intentionally blank

HCD Sites Inventory Table C

Zoning Designation
From Table A, Column G
and Table B, Columns L and N
(e.g., "R-1")
General Land Uses Allowed (e.g., "Low-density residential") R1
Low-Density Residential, up to approximately 6 DU/ac -
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV3SIMIR1ZODIST
R2
Medium Low-Density Residential, up to approximately 12 DU/ac - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV4ONTMIR2ZODIST
R3-1
Medium Density Residential, up to approximately 35 DU/ac - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV5MUMIR3ZODIST
R3-1.25
Medium Density Residential, up to approximately 35 DU/ac - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV5MUMIR3ZODIST
R3-2
Medium Density Residential, up to approximately 22 DU/ac - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV5MUMIR3ZODIST
R3-3sd
Medium Density Residential, up to approximately 15 DU/ac - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV5MUMIR3ZODIST
P
Planned Community (Planned Development zoning), uses depend on approval -
CN
Neighborhood-serving commercial -
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVCOZO_DIV4COIGCNZODIST
CRA
Multi-family residential up to 43 DU/ac, office, commercial, hotels, etc - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVCOZO_DIV6CORETECRZODIST
MM
Industrial -
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVIINZO_DIV5GEINMMZODIST
P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan
Downtown Mixed Use (commercial, office, multi-family residential) - https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29 P(27) - Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan
Shopping center (commercial); General Plan allows residential up to 1.85 FAR and Precise Plan will be amended -
P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.35/1.85/2.3 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.85/3.5/4.5 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.85/2.35 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.85/2.5/3.5 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -

APPENDIX
Summary of Public InputF

Countywide Meeting Summary

Mountain View: Introducing the Housing Element Update

A series of countywide meetings about the Housing Element update were held from August to September 2021. Each meeting offered Spanish‐language interpretation and provided community members with an introduction the Housing Element update, why it matters, information on the Let’s Talk Housing outreach effort and countywide trends. Breakout room discussions with individual cities and towns followed.

Who We Heard From
In total 832 registered for the series. Of those who registered for the series, the majority identified as White and over half were 50 years or older. Over sixty percent lived over 21 years within the county, and over half were homeowners.

How long have you lived in
County?
Don't live here 0‐5 years 6‐10 years
11‐20 years 21+ years
5%
62%
30%
3%
Living Situation
Live with friends or family Own Rent Other
1%
21%
69%
2% 7%
Type of Home
ADU Apartment Single family home Mobile or Manufactured home Other Countywide Meeting Summary

Mountain View was part of the August 30th, 2021 introductory meeting, along with Milpitas, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. This meeting offered Vietnamese interpretation in addition to Spanish, courtesy of the City of Milpitas, and outreach for the meeting was conducted in the three languages. Twenty‐seven people who registered for the August 30th meeting identified as living in Mountain View. Of the Mountain View participants, half indicated owning their home. A majority of them indicated that they lived in an apartment or condo and one indicated living in a mobile or manufactured home. Half of participants were between the ages of 30‐49 and half identified as White.

What We Heard

Main Meeting
People were asked to share a word in the chat describing housing now at the beginning of the meeting, and the housing they envisioned in their communities ten years from now.

Now In 2030
English‐language Breakout Session
In the breakout session, participants expressed that they valued living in Mountain View. However, they recognized that there is a substantial imbalance between jobs and housing. 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 as well. Ideas to address these needs included rezoning land for five times the City’s allocated RHNA number to build in a buffer since only 20% of the available sites were developed during the last RHNA cycle.

Spanish‐language Breakout Session
Mountain View residents participating in the Spanish‐language breakout room recognized recent efforts the City has made to boost affordable housing and expressed appreciation for them. At the same time, they acknowledged that much more is needed. 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

Countywide Meeting Summary

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 isn’t 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, and a young adult housing program.

Post Event Survey
The post‐event survey reflected the variety of opinions present on issues ranging from a desire to preserve communities as they are, to an appeal for more and diverse housing everywhere in the county. Community members responded that they valued the space and the information provided within it and would like to have longer times for such community discussions in the future so all participants can share their thoughts. Additionally, they suggested the City target outreach for future housing element engagement opportunities to the local day worker center and the Mobile Home Alliance.

Mountain View Appendix
Main Meeting
Questions from Feedback form
NA
Breakout Room Chat and/or Notes
Questions:

N/A
Comments
N/A
Responses to facilitator questions:

What is working in Mountain View? (In the chat, share a word or two about what you value or love about your community and it’s housing.)
Rowhouses: Nice rowhouses but disconnected ‐ uncomfortable walking environment. Would like to see neighborhoods that are walkable, and also connect to somewhere. This would allow less parking.

I am a part of a housing association that focuses on community organizing. It’s great to be in these kinds of meetings. Mountainview has to add 11,135 housing units according to the RHNA 2023‐2031 plan. Of those, 2,773 have to be for very low income houses.

There’s several affordable housing units and Mountainview has mobile parks. Someone in the chat (Doris) mentioned this in the chat: she asked if the housing elements can be applied to mobile homes.

If the owner of the mobile home park for personal reasons decides that he has to get rid of the property. That creates anguish because sometimes they are parks of more than 200 mobile homes. I think it is important to think about the needs of these mobile home parks.

2. What are some of our key housing needs, challenges and opportunities? (In the chat, share a word or two about our key housing needs, challenges or opportunities.) A single parking spot can increase rent by $3000 per year and also contributes to pollution Need enough development in an area to support businesses, etc., to create more walkable areas Jobs/Housing imbalance: Google putting up offices, etc.

A lot of offices being built, every office built makes the job/housing balance worse We’re way behind on park space ‐ City keeps collecting in‐lieu fees It seems that 11,000 additional units is not very high nor is the percentage of housing separated for low income units. What do you think? I think the number is too low ‐ I think the city is trying to help I think the challenges Hispanic families have is the high cost of housing in Mountainview. For example, someone in the elderly, 80 years old, applied for support (to rent an inexpensive apartment) and was asked to have 40 thousand in the bank and that exceeds our ability to pay. She applied to Affordable Housing and was told that she did not have sufficient funds. Hopes are dashed by those high standards If someone has a good credit history, it should be enough. The two dads ‐ dad and mom ‐ have to work and the children are often left alone in order to pay the rent. Family time is sacrificed.

In Mountain View I see that the city is making an effort to support us but there are obstacles that we must work on to move forward together.

There is a housing program: if someone is going to build, the owner can offer to make the units affordable. I see that as positive. It is working well. There are several elements that I do not know but I

3. What ideas or suggestions do you have to help meet our housing needs? (In the chat, share any ideas or suggestions you have to help meet our housing needs. ) Only developed 20% of inventory sites in last RHNA cycle, need to zone for 5x RHNA in order to accommodate (LA model), we should do the same, otherwise rent will keep going up because not Building in a buffer
When an owner decides to sell their property, it would be good if they had contemplated offering the city to work with the city in order to serve the needs of the community. But I see that sometimes they prefer to offer it to other private / for‐profit actors. It would be good to enter into negotiations to San José has a similar program. It gives the option to NGOs or non‐profit organizations. Perhaps Mountain View will be encouraged to adopt something similar.

I am concerned about homeless street dwellers. I want them to have a home. I don't see it much but once in a while I have seen it near my home. It is not a problem of a single city ‐ it is of the whole My daughter told me that it would be good to have a program for young people who want to be able to save for their housing needs. It is important to involve young people.

4. How can we make sure we hear from our entire community? Neighborhood meetings: neighborhood associations ‐ Reach out to ones you have contacts for that have regular meetings and make sure community knows about plans that affect that particular I think it is important to spread the word. I did not know about this Housing Elements process. As we were told, it only happens every 8 years. Perhaps my colleagues had problems entering through Zoom.

I think there were several steps and it would be easier not to have the registration process but to simply be able to access with a single button. That can help those struggling with technology and with We use email or whatsapp. The city of Mountain View has a WhatsApp of ambassadors and with great pride I am part of that group. There is another group of “Mountain View High School parents” and I am also part of that group. Churches and other community groups can also help spread the word.

5. What Kind of Housing Do We Have in the Future (Let’s return to it being 2030, and how we’ve accomplished a lot! In the chat, share with us a word or two about your vision for the housing in our No responses
It's 2030, and we've accomplished a lot! What kind of housing is in our community now? No responses
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WORKSHOP #1
September 23, 2021 - 6:30-8:00pm
The purpose of the Housing Element Update Workshop was to provide an overview of the intention, components, and process of a Housing Element Update and gather questions and comments from participants about housing concerns, goals, and characteristics. Feedback received will inform the content of future outreach events, and will guide in preparing the Housing Element Update.

The meeting was held via Zoom on Thursday, September 23, 2021 from 6:30-8:00pm and was facilitated by City staff and the consultant team. Live simultaneous Mandarin interpretation was available, and there were approximately 40 public participants. The format of the meeting is described in the agenda below:
● Welcome & Introductions & Live Poll: Demographic Questions ● Housing Element Update Presentation: Overview of the Project & Process ● Live Poll: Housing Questions
● Small Group Discussion Breakout rooms
● Small Group Report Out
● Closing and Next Steps

ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: A total of 60 individuals registered; 38 attended Presenters
● City – Ellen Yau
● BAE– Stephanie Hagar
● Plan to Place – Dave Javid
Consultant Team
● BAE – Stephanie Hagar
● ESA - Evan Wasserman
● Plan to Place – Dave Javid, Paul Kronser, Rachael Sharkland Housing Element Update Workshop #1 1

WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Dave Javid and Ellen Yau opened the meeting by welcoming attendees, giving an agenda overview, and opening the demographic live poll (see results below). After the poll closed, Stephanie Hagar delivered a presentation offering an overview of the Housing Element Update project and process, which was recorded and will be posted on the website for public access.

After the presentation, Dave gave an overview of the small group breakout logistics and opened the second live poll to garner feedback related to housing priorities.

Demographic Poll Results (Full results in appendix)
● Age:
○ 36% of the attendees were between the ages of 26-45;
○ 29% were between 46-64;
● Race and Ethnicity:
○ 50% White
○ 32.1% Asian
● Do you currently rent or own the home you live in?
○ 53.6% Own
○ 39.3% Rent
● What type of housing do you live in?
○ 46.4% Home/ Duplex
○ 39.3% Apartment
● Which bracket best describes your household income
○ 78.6% $100,000 or more
○ 17.9% $60,000 to $99,999
● Which of the following describes why you decided to attend tonight’s workshop? (May select more than one)
○ 82.1% I live in Mountain View
○ 14.3% I want to know more about the Housing Element Update Process Housing Poll Results (Full results in appendix)
● How satisfied are you with your current housing situation? ○ 32% Satisfied
○ 25% Somewhat satisfied
● How satisfied are you with the affordability of housing in Mountain View? ○ 46.4% Dissatisfied
○ 25% Somewhat dissatisfied
● How satisfied are you with the variety of housing types that are available in Mountain View?
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 2

○ 35.7% Dissatisfied
○ 21.4% Somewhat dissatisfied
● How do you feel about the amount of new housing that has been built in Mountain View during the past few years?
○ 46.4% Too little has been built
○ 21.4% Somewhat too much has been built
● How Well do you think Mountain View provides access to housing and opportunity for all segments of the population, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, disability, status etc? ● 46.4% Neutral
● 25% Not Well
The majority of the meeting was devoted to gathering input from meeting participants through facilitated small group discussions. Feedback was recorded in a virtual whiteboard in response to the discussion prompts below The summary below provides a high-level overview of themes that emerged from the break-out discussions.

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 3

BREAK OUT DISCUSSION PROMPTS AND SUMMARY
The following questions were asked in each small break out room. Participants were encouraged to raise their virtual hands and offer verbal responses, or could respond via Chat.

The Main Takeaways section below provides a high level summary of responses collected from each of the 3 breakout rooms. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of breakout rooms in which the referenced comment was expressed.

Discussion Prompts:

1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Mountain View?

2. What do you think Mountain View should do to address Housing needs or goals?

3. What characteristics do you want to see in housing over the next 10 years?

4. What suggestions do you have for Mountain View to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?
Main Takeaways:

1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Mountain View? ○ We need more affordable housing. (3)
○ There is a lack of Senior housing. (1)
○ We need more types of housing at all income levels. (3) ○ The lack of housing at all levels is largely because it isn't legal according to planning and zoning code to build at needed densities. (1) ○ The densities needed to make building housing pro
ﬁtable for a developer
aren’t permitted. (1)
○ The City should thoughtfully locate new housing units and consider existing housing stock, co-location with jobs and transit. (3)
○ City should concentrate higher density housing in Precise Planned areas / planned communities. (1)
○ We have an imbalance between of
ﬁce space and housing (ofﬁce space
outcompetes housing). (2)
○ Minimum parking requirements, setbacks, and height requirements are too restrictive and prevent housing from being built. (1)
○ Concern expressed around buildings 3 stories and higher directly adjacent to single family homes. (2)
○ We should reduce the costs and time it takes to build in order to incentivize housing at all levels. (2)

2. What do you think Mountain View should do to address Housing needs or goals? ○ Support expressed for exploring rezoning as a strategy to allow for higher densities. (3)
○ The City should simultaneously plan for more infrastructure when planning for housing (i.e. wider roads, more parks, sidewalks, better connection to public transit, schools and other services). (2)
○ The City should fund down payment assistance programs. (1) ○ The City should make it easier to develop smaller, in ﬁll sites. (2)
○ The City should change regulations, especially parking requirements (lower or unbundle) to encourage housing construction. (2)
○ The Housing element should address the dif
ﬁculty of production, because
lack of supply is one of the main issues. (2)
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 4

○ Concern expressed about parking and trafﬁc congestion. (2) ○ The Housing Element should include non-traditional housing types (ie. stacked ﬂats, co-ops, and ADUs). (2)
○ Building new housing is an opportunity for more walkable/interconnected neighborhoods. (1)
○ The City needs to do more precise plans, and less broad sweeping changes on rezoning / new construction due to the wide variety of housing types co-existing already. (1)

3. What characteristics do you want to see in housing over the next 10 years? ○ The City should focus on the mitigation/ elimination of homelessness. (2) ○ Tech companies are one of the main pressures increasing housing costs. (2) ○ Desire to see corporate/tech neighbors paying for infrastructure, housing, transit and other public services. (2)
○ Focus on continued support for more diverse demography in Mountain View; diversity is an asset. (2)
○ I would like to see environmentally responsible development (recycled water, solar etc.). (2)

4. What suggestions do you have for Mountain View to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?
○ City should solicit feedback from everyone who works in Mountain View, survey at offices/ employers. (2)
○ There should be more outreach to renters (eg. posting ads on Craigslist, mailers in utility bills). (2)
○ The City should reach out to leverage neighborhood associations. (1) ○ City should try to reach out to future/ potential residents. (1) ○ Please offer Spanish interpretation. (1)
○ Reach out to Mountain View Day worker center, grocery stores, mobile home alliance, CSA’s, rent relief, next door and community forums, connect with different faith communities, and contact authors of
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6786z5j9 (1).

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 5

APPENDIX
LIVE POLL: DEMOGRAPHIC RESULTS
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 6

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 7

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 8

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 9

LIVE POLL: HOUSING RESULTS
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 10

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 11

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 12

Housing Element Update Workshop #1 13

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM SUMMARY
September 23, 2021 - January 2nd, 2022
The purpose of the Housing Element Update is to guide how the City seeks to produce new housing, preserve existing housing, ensure fair access to housing, prevent displacement of existing residents, and meet other critical housing needs over the next 8 years as required by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development. To gather feedback and reach a broader audience, an online feedback form was prepared to gather input from the Mountain View community in addition to other engagement efforts.

The online feedback form was made available on the project website (www.mvhousingelement.org) from September 23rd, 2021 through January 2nd, 2022. The survey link was shared at community events (e.g. Monster Bash, Tree Lighting), via social media and community chat groups, published in City publications, and sent to stakeholders and interested parties who signed up for project notifications. A total of 343 responses were received in English, Russian, Spanish and Chinese. Feedback received will inform the content of future outreach efforts, and will guide the development of the Housing Element.

The following questions were included in the online feedback form.

1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Mountain View (select top 5)?

2. What do you think Mountain View should do to support more housing construction?

3. What do you think Mountain View should do to make housing more affordable ?

4. What do you think Mountain View should do to provide more housing for residents with special housing needs?

5. What do you think Mountain View should do to protect existing renters and homeowners?

6. What characteristics do you want to see in housing over the next 10 years?

7. What suggestions do you have for Mountain View to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?

8. What is one thing that you think is most important for us to consider as part of the Housing Element Update?

9. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Below is a summary of the input received through the multiple choice questions, followed by common themes captured from the open ended “Other” option that accompanied each question (see complete list of responses atwww.mvhousingelement.org). Numbers in parentheses after each common theme indicates the number of responses that were accounted for.

Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 1

ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM SUMMARY: MULTIPLE CHOICE
QUESTIONS 1-5

1. WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE MOST CRITICAL HOUSING ISSUES IN MOUNTAIN VIEW (SELECT TOP 5)?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Need for Complementary Infrastructure/Services to Support Housing (5) ○ Excessive Development (5)
○ Neighborhood Preservation (5)
○ Need for Innovation and Diversity in Housing Types (4) ○ Environmental Quality (e.g. open space, trees) (4)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 2

2. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO SUPPORT MORE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Limit Housing Growth (11)
○ Allow/Encourage Mixed Use (4)
○ Reduce/Remove Governmental Constraints (4)
○ Redevelop Obsolescent Offices with Housing (3)
○ Advocate for Regional Cooperation (3)
○ Ensure Adequate Infrastructure to Support Housing (3) ○ City As Developer (3)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 3

3. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Build More Housing (5)
○ Not The City's Role/Do Nothing (5)
○ Provide Incentives and Streamline Approvals (3)
○ Focus Housing Near Transit (2)
○ Improve Transit Service (2)
○ Leverage Public Land for Affordable Housing (2)
○ City As Developer (2)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 4

4. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING FOR RESIDENTS WITH SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Nothing Needs To Be Done (7)
○ Advocate for Regional Cooperation (4)
○ Not Familiar With Issue/Needs (3)
○ Provide Funding for Accessible Housing (3)
○ Develop Accessible Housing (2)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 5

5. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO PROTECT EXISTING RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Nothing Needs to be Done (11)
○ Control Costs or Provide Financial or Displacement Assistance (5) ○ Preserve Neighborhoods (5)
○ Create Local Funding Mechanism (3)
○ Enforce Existing laws/policies (3)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 6

OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS 6-9 - COMMON THEMES FOR

OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES

6. WHAT CHARACTERISTICS DO YOU WANT TO SEE IN HOUSING OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS?
○ More Supply and Density
○ Affordable Housing Across Socio-Economic Spectrum
○ Small-Scale Infill/Existing Neighborhood Preservation ○ Transit-Oriented Development
○ Diverse Housing Options (e.g. special needs housing)
○ Maintain Quality of Life and Environment
○ Limit Growth and Density
○ Quality and Unique Design
○ Evaluate Review Process/Fees/Regulations

7. WHAT SUGGESTIONS DO YOU HAVE FOR MOUNTAIN VIEW TO SOLICIT ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE?
○ Comments received regarding what groups the City should outreach to:
■ Community Organizations/Neighborhood Groups (8)
■ Workers/Businesses (5)
■ Families with children (4)
■ Renters (4)
■ Low-Income/Unhoused (3)
■ Homeowners (3)
○ Comments received on the best methods to take feedback from the community:
■ Community Meetings/Workshop/Pop-ups (8)
■ Surveys (5)
■ Go to existing meetings (2)
○ Comments received on the best method to conduct outreach:
■ Direct Mailing (11)
■ Social Media//Online/Email (6)
■ City Bills & Newsletter/City Locations (e.g. Library/Senior Center) (6) ■ Article (3)
■ Door to Door (flyers, solicitors) (2)
○ Other comments regarding additional feedback suggestions:
■ More of it (2)
■ Provide more education resources (2)

8. WHAT IS ONE THING THAT YOU THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONSIDER AS PART OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE?
○ Focus new housing on Affordability Across Socio-Economic Spectrum (44) ○ Comments about R3 Zoning Update (32)
○ Increase the quantity and density of new housing. (30) Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 7

○ Focus on new low and/or medium density housing to preserve the existing neighborhoods. (18)
○ Promote new housing near transit centers and create walkable developments. (14)
○ When adding new housing, provide additional infrastructure to support the added residents. (11)
○ Protect the quality of life and environment of Mountain View. (11) ○ Develop funding programs for affordable housing. (8)
○ Provide programs that protect renters. (6)
○ Streamline the approval process for new building and development. (6) ○ Ensure the safety of Mountain View residents.(6)
○ Reduce parking standards for new developments. (5)
○ Include adequate parking for new development. (3)

9. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
○ Limit the density and height of new development/housing. (32) ○ Build more housing in general. (22)
○ Provide more housing that is affordable for families, seniors, disabled, workers, and service providers. (19)
○ Thank you for providing opportunities for community feedback. (17) ○ New housing should be environmentally sensitive. (14) ○ Preserve the City characteristics. (9)
○ New housing should be able to limit the need for automobile use. (5) ○ Protect existing renters from future rent increases.(4) ○ Provide more outreach and education on housing opportunities and existing issues facing Mountain View residents. (4)
○ Recreational Vehicles (RVs) should not be allowed Citywide and should not take up parking needed for Mountain View residents. (3)
○ Ensure that Mountain View is a safe community. (2)
○ The City should work on streamlining the development process and reduce costs associated with building. (2)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 8

APPENDIX
City of Mountain View
Multi-Family Housing
Violation Checklist
G

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 377 APPENDIX G: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MULTI-

FAMILY HOUSING VIOLATION CHECKLIST

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 378

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 379

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 380

APPENDIX
Economic Analysis of
Governmental RequirementsH

Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Governmental Constraints for Rowhomes and Multifamily Rental Housing Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint Summary Description of Governmental Constraint Purpose of Governmental Constraint Potential Impacts on Development
Feasibility
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation*
Affordable
Housing
On-site
Inclusionary
Housing
Requirements
The City's inclusionary housing (IH) program requires
developers to provide a percentage of below market rate (BMR) units on-site that are affordable to households at specified income levels. Developers can alternatively
meet this obligation via land dedication, payment of BMR in-lieu fees or other strategies if approved by the City Council.

Providing new BMR housing affordable to a
broad range of local residents and workers
helps meet RHNA goals and other important
State, regional and local policy objectives.

Reduces land values to property owners,
increases development costs, affects market
rate unit pricing, and/or lowers
developer/investor returns. (If developers
cannot meet underwriting criteria or achieve
adequate returns to attract investment, then
development will not proceed.)
Major
Affordable
Housing
BMR In-Lieu
Housing Fee
The City has adopted a BMR in-lieu housing fee to help
fund affordable housing in the City. The housing fee is paid by developers that are unable to fully meet the
inclusionary housing requirement on-site or via land
dedication.
" "
Major
Park Land
Dedication In-
lieu Fee
Park land dedication in-lieu fee is based on residential land value, which varies by residential density and
geography. In FY 21/22, fee ranges from $57,500 to
$73,200 per market rate unit (see Exhibit 3).

Expanding park land provides new open space
and recreational resources to residents and
students of the local school districts.

Reduces developable land area for housing and
increases development costs for market rate
housing. (See Exhibit 3)
Park Land
Dedication
Park land dedication requirement varies by residential
density with ratio of .0060 acres of parkland per market rate unit for development of 13 du/acre or greater.

Affordable housing is exempt from park land dedication
requirement.
" "
POPA Credit Privately owned/publicly accessible (POPA) open space that meets specific criteria for recreational and open
space use is eligible for a land dedication or fee credit up to seventy-five (75) percent of the value of the land
devoted to the POPA open space.
" "
Schools School Impact
Fees
School fee is based on Statewide Level 1 fee of
$4.08/SF, distributed to the two school districts.

Improving academic resources and school
facilities is important to maintaining quality
public education.

Increases development costs. Minimal
Schools Parcel tax All parcels in Mountain View pay a parcel tax to fund schools. "
Increases annual costs of owning or operating
housing, which reduces capacity to secure
funding to help pay for development costs.

Minimal
Schools Additional
annual
assessments or
taxes
Local school districts are considering levying additional assessments or special taxes to help fund schools. " "
Major
Parks
Moderate to Major
(rowhome),
Major (multifamily
Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Governmental Constraints for Rowhomes and Multifamily Rental Housing Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint Summary Description of Governmental Constraint Purpose of Governmental Constraint Potential Impacts on Development
Feasibility
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation*
Transportation Citywide TIF City has adopted a citywide transportation impact fee (TIF) for residential development.

Enhancing multi-modal transportation networks
helps achieve circulation, Single Occupancy
Vehicle (SOV) and climate goals.

Increases development costs. Minimal
Transportation TDM - Transit
Pass
City requires a transportation management analysis for
new development, which often includes adoption of a
transportation demand management (TDM) program that
may include offering a free transit pass to residents.

Implementing a TDM program helps achieve
circulation, Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV)
and climate goals while reducing parking needs.

Increases annual costs of owning or operating
housing, which reduces capacity to secure
funding to help pay for development costs.

Minimal
Transportation TDM- Other
TDM measures
including TMA
Other TDM measures include an onsite TDM coordinator,
TDM electronic signage, shuttles, and/or participation in a Transportation Management Association (TMA).
" "
Moderate
Community
Benefits
Provision of
community
benefits
City requires that developers provide community benefits in order to secure certain development approvals,
including increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

Enhancing community amenities, such as
providing space for local organizations and
businesses, helps meet community goals.

Increases development costs and may change
the amount of land available for new housing
units, parks and community amenities.

Minimal
Development
Requirements
Increased
Parking
Requirements
Parking requirements range from 1-2 spaces/unit
depending on housing type and bedroom size. Guest
parking requirements range from .15 to .60 spaces per
unit. Model parking standard requires 1 space for
studio/one-bedroom units, 2 parking spaces for two
bedroom or larger units, with 15% of required spaces for guests.

Providing on-site parking may reduce parking
pressures on surrounding neighborhoods.

Increases amount of parking, which affects
building construction, increases development
costs and may change the amount of land
available for new housing units, parks and
community amenities, plus inhibit reaching multi-
modal transportation and climate goals.

Moderate
Development
Requirements
Design,
Building,
Infrastructure
Requirements
City requires developer to meet numerous design,
building and infrastructure requirements, which could
result in increased development costs as predevelopment progresses
Enhancing design and building standards, such
as REACH codes, helps meet planning, design
and climate goals.

Increases development costs and may change
the amount of land available for new housing
units, parks and community amenities.

Minimal
Development
Requirements
Extended
Development
Schedule
City requirements and/or processing time frames may
increase the time it takes for developers to receive land use, design, infrastructure, permitting, plan check, and construction related approvals.

Allows additional staff review to help assure
housing meets pertinent land use, design,
infrastructure, and building standards
Increases carrying costs for land and
predevelopment expenses and/or increases
construction costs due to extended schedule.

Moderate
* Minimal - increases development costs less than 1%, Moderate - increases development costs between 1% to 5%, Major - increases development costs by 5% or more.

Source: City of Mountain View Municipal Code, FY 2021/22 Master Fee Schedule and Below Market Rate (BMR) Program, California Housing and Community Development Department.

Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 2
Summary Financial Evaluation of Governmental Constraints Based on Cost Impact Per Housing Unit Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Rowhome Unit Multifamily Rental Unit
Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint
Increase in Development
Costs and Obligations Key Assumptions
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation
Affordable
Housing
On-site
Inclusionary
Housing
Requirements and
BMR In-lieu Fee
Provision of BMR units on-site
that are priced or rented for
less than development cost or
fee payment
Housing BMR in-lieu fee for
rowhome at
$131.06/habitable SF and
multifamily rental at
$100.66/habitable SF
$ 196,600 13.9% $ 80,500 9.3% Major
Park Land
Dedication and In-
lieu Fee
Park land dedication or
payment of fee per market
rate unit
See Exhibit 3– Scenario 1
Park Land
Dedication
Proportion of site to be
dedicated.

See Exhibit 3– Scenario 2
POPA Credit Proportion of site to be
dedicated.

See Exhibit 3– Scenario 3
Schools School Impact Fees School impact fee per unit Level 1 fee cost of $4.08/assessable SF
$ 6,120 0.4% $ 4,080 0.5% Minimal
Schools Parcel tax Annual parcel tax payment Parcel tax of $191 per parcel $ 3,141 0.2% $ 16 0.0% Minimal Schools Additional annual
assessments or
taxes
Potential increase in annual
costs associated with new
school funding
Projected at $5,000/year for
rowhome and $4,000/year for
multifamily
$ 82,200 5.8% $ 65,800 7.6% Major
Transportation Citywide TIF Impact fee per unit TIF for rowhome at $5,188/unit and multifamily
rental at $2,905/unit
$ 5,188 0.4% $ 2,905 0.3% Minimal
Transportation TDM - Transit Pass Annual cost of VTA transit pass (discounted for larger
residential developments)
VTA Smart Pass at
$135/year X 2 persons for
rowhome and $135/year X

1.5 persons for multifamily
$ 4,400 0.3% $ 3,300 0.4% Minimal
Transportation TDM- Other TDM
measures including
TMA
Annual contribution to TMA
and other TDM measures
TDM/TMA contribution
estimated at
$100/month/unit.
$ 19,700 1.4% $ 19,700 2.3% Moderate
Moderate to Major
(rowhome),
Major (multifamily)
Parks $57,500-
$74,400 4.1%-5.3% $51,600-
$73,200 6.0%-8.5%
Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 2
Summary Financial Evaluation of Governmental Constraints Based on Cost Impact Per Housing Unit Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Rowhome Unit Multifamily Rental Unit
Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint
Increase in Development
Costs and Obligations Key Assumptions
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation
Community
Benefits
Community benefit
payment or
contribution
Cost of community benefits ECRPP community benefit
payment at $6.60/SF for
multifamily but may be lower
elsewhere.
$ - 0.0% $ 5,280 0.6% Minimal
Development
Requirements
Increased Parking
Requirements
Parking increase of .4 spaces
per unit
Estimated increase in parking
development cost based on

0.4 spaces @
$60,000/space.
$ 24,000 1.7% $ 24,000 2.8% Moderate
Development
Requirements
Design, Building,
Infrastructure
Requirements
City design, building and/or
infrastructure requirements
that increase development
costs
Estimated increase at 1% of
building related costs.
$ 6,000 0.4% $ 5,000 0.6% Minimal
Development
Requirements
Extended
Development
Schedule
Increased development costs
due to delays in City approval.

Schedule extended by 4
months multiplied by 50% of
land and construction costs
at 10% equity carrying cost.
$ 16,000 1.1% $ 9,000 1.0% Moderate
Translation of Annualized Cost to Development Cost
Loan Constant as Proxy for Annual Cost 6.08% (4.5% interest, 30 year amortization) Source: City of Mountain View Municipal Code, FY 2021/22 Master Fee Schedule and Below Market Rate (BMR) Program, California Housing and Community Development Dept.

Seifel Consulting Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 3
Evaluation of Alternative Park Land Dedication Scenarios Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis R3 Zoning R3 Zoning R4 or ECR & SA PP NBPP, EWPP
Rowhome Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily
Assumed Density per Acre 20 du/acre 30 du/acre 75 du/acre 125 du/acre Park Land Dedication Density Category 13-25 du/acre 26+ du/acre 26+ du/acre 26+ du/acre Park Land Dedication Requirement 0.006 acres/unit 0.006 acres/unit 0.006 acres/unit 0.006 acres/unit Scenario 1– Fee Only – Developments less than 50 units, on Small Sites and/or Undesirable Park Locations (Most Projects) Value per Acre (per Master Fee Schedule) 9,580,000$ per acre 10,450,000$ per acre 12,200,000$ per acre 12,200,000$ per acre Park Land Fee Per Market Rate Unit 57,500$ per unit 62,700$ per unit 73,200$ per unit 73,200$ per unit Scenario 2– Park Land Dedication + Fee With Allowed Increase in Density for Multifamily (6 Acre Developments) Assumed Parcel Area 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres
Potential Housing Units 120 180 450 750
Park Land Requirement 0.50 acres 0.92 acres 2.29 acres 3.82 acres Percent of Site Required for Park 8% 15% 38% 64%
Onsite Park Land Dedication 0.40 acres 0.60 acres 0.60 acres 0.60 acres Percent of Site Dedicated as Park 7% 10% 10% 10%
Remaining Development Potential 5.60 acres 5.40 acres 5.40 acres 5.40 acres Density (Increased for Multifamily) 20 du/acre 33 du/acre 83 du/acre 139 du/acre Housing Units on Remaining Acreage 112 units 180 units 450 units 750 units Percent Affordable 25% 15% 15% 15%
Affordable BMR Units 28 units 27 units 68 units 113 units Market Rate 84 units 153 units 382 units 637 units
Remaining Park Land Requirement 0.10 acres 0.32 acres 1.69 acres 3.22 acres Total Cost of Park Land Plus Fee 4,828,000$ 3,323,000$ 20,642,000$ 39,308,000$ Per Market Rate Unit 57,500$ per unit 21,700$ per unit 54,000$ per unit 61,700$ per unit Potential Decrease in Units from Park Land
Dedication 8 units 0 units 0 units 0 unitsReduced Project Value (Market Rate Units) -$ -$ -$ -$ Scenario 3– POPA Land Dedication + Fee With Allowed Increase in Density for Multifamily (6 Acre Developments) Assumed Parcel Area 6 acre 6 acre 6 acre 6 acre
Park Land Requirement 0.51 acres 0.92 acres 2.29 acres 3.82 acres POPA Dedication 0.6 acres 0.9 acres 0.9 acres 0.9 acres Potential POPA Dedication Credit 0.45 acres 0.675 acres 0.675 acres 0.675 acres Percent of Property as POPA 10% 15% 15% 15%
Remaining Development Potential
(Deducting 50% of POPA) 5.70 acres 5.55 acres 5.55 acres 5.55 acres Density (Increased for Multifamily) 20 du/acre 32 du/acre 81 du/acre 135 du/acre Housing Units on Remaining Acreage 114 units 180 units 450 units 750 units Percent Affordable 25% 15% 15% 15%
Affordable BMR Units 29 units 27 units 68 units 113 units Market Rate 85 units 153 units 382 units 637 units
Remaining Park Land Requirement 0.06 acres 0.24 acres 1.62 acres 3.15 acres Total Cost of POPA Plus Fee 6,323,000$ 2,539,000$ 19,727,000$ 38,393,000$ Per Market Rate Unit 74,400$ per unit 16,600$ per unit 51,600$ per unit 60,300$ per unit Potential Decrease in Housing Units from
POPA Dedication 6 units 0 units 0 units 0 units
Source: City of Mountain View Municipal Code and FY 2021/22 Master Fee Schedule.

Mountain View City CouncilDecember 13, 2022

Mountain View City Council
December 13, 2022