Mountain View City Council
April 11, 2023

Objectives and Metrics:

Facilitate at least 1, 100 units of 100% affordable development by streamlining the funding approval process, prioritizing staff review, utilizing State streamlining ( e. g., SB35).

Reduce the number of resubmittals and time between application completeness and approval through process and approval body revisions.

Identify thresholds for multifamily projects that can be eligible for ministerial approvals.

Reduce the number of compliant projects in Precise Plans that require Council hearings.

Bring the city fully into compliance with new transparency legislation by posting project - specific fees online.

Improve the development review process through implementation of the 2021 Matrix Study.

Milestone and Timeframe:

Bring City into full compliance with transparency requirements as soon as possible.

Review and update NOFA process by June 30, 2024.

Update the Zoning Ordinance process and approval bodies by December 31, 2026 Implement the following 2021 Matrix Study recommendations:
o
Implement an online permitting system for Building, Planning and Public Works ProjectDox) by December 31, 2024
o Streamline the City' s contract process for consultant services related to development review by December 31, 2024
o Establish and publish formal planning application review timelines and track performance by December 31, 2024
o Standardize development permit -related comment letters to refer to adopted codes, design standards and include checkboxes for staff/ applicant by December 31, 2024 o Expand the City' s GIS system for the public on City' s website by December 31, 2025 o Create a dashboard with historic and current performance indicators for the development review process by December 31, 2025
o Create a dashboard for the implementation of the Matrix Study recommendations by December 31, 2024
o Conduct a Development Services Fund Fee Study and update the Master Fee Schedule based on results by December 31, 2024
Acquire additional software and tools as identified.

Responsibility: IT Department, Finance Department, Housing, Building and Planning Divisions Potential Funding: General Fund, Development Services Fund and local housing funds AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Access to Opportunity
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan
Resolution No. 18781

4. 2 Federal, State, and Regional Policy Initiatives
a) Advocate for, propose, and shape legislation that increases the ability to develop affordable housing, prevent displacement, and remove impediments to accessing housing. b) Support regional funding measure to support affordable housing.

Objectives and Metrics:

Advocacy for:

State, Federal, and regional policies that support efforts to develop affordable housing, prevent displacement, and remove impediments to accessing housing.

Change in State law that would allow assessment of impact fees on office and other employment - generating uses to account for the impacts that residential uses have on infrastructure and services on the basis that new employment -generating development creates demand for new residential development.

Long term anti -displacement measures that support the City' s anti -displacement goals Additional state funding to support the City' s affordable housing new construction, preservation, and rehabilitation pipelines.

Regional funding to support the City' s RHNA goals for low- income, very -low- income, and extremely -low-income units as well as the City' s efforts at unit preservation/ rehabilitation.

Milestone and Timeframe:

Participate in the planning process for a 2024 regional housing funding measure, and support such measure.

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

Propose legislation if directed by Council, especially with regards to objectives listed above.

Monitor changes to SB 330 that would affect displacement prevention efforts in Mountain View and lobby for anti -displacement measures as appropriate.

Apply for State funding programs as appropriate.

Responsibility: City Manager' s Office, Housing and Neighborhoods and Planning Divisions Potential Funding: General Fund and local housing funds AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Displacement Prevention DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan
Resolution No. 18781

4. 3 Financial Support for Subsidized Housing
a) Examine new revenue sources and increases to existing revenue sources to meet extremely low- to moderate -income housing needs, including increasing housing impact fees on office development, and periodically consider updates to fees. b) Perform asset management to ensure loan repayment.
c) Prioritize funding opportunities for lower -income and special needs population groups, such as families and unhoused individuals.
d) Provide about $ 40 million to make available for financing affordable and special needs housing units.
e) Develop local revenue ballot measure to fund affordable housing if regional measure is not implemented.

Objectives and Metrics:

Subsidize affordable housing, especially housing for lower -income households, unhoused, and families and effectively steward housing funds.

Produce at least 200 supportive housing units for households who have experienced homelessness.

Milestone and Timeframe:

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

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

4. 4 Partnerships to Support Affordable Housing
Work with private sector, philanthropy, and public agencies to bring in additional funding sources to support a range of affordable housing opportunities in Mountain View.

Objectives and Metrics:

Explore partnerships with other public agencies and external partners to leverage funds and increase access to affordable housing programs. In particular, explore " programmatic partnerships," that leverage funds for a range of projects, to provide increased certainty to the City' s affordable housing pipeline. These partners may include:

The County of Santa Clara
The Santa Clara County Housing Authority
Private Employers in Mountain View
The Housing Trust of Silicon Valley
Philanthropic Agencies in Mountain View
Private Residential and Commercial Developers in Mountain View DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan
Resolution No. 18781

Increase funding available for affordable housing preservation, rehabilitation, and construction to meet funding gaps anticipated in pipeline with the goal of fulfilling the City' s RHNA goals for lowincome, very -low-income, and extremely -low-income units.

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

Secure enough funding to support identified near -term pipeline projects, likely totaling over 66 million, by 2025, as well as additional funding needed to support the achievement of the City' s RHNA goals for low- income, very -low- income, and extremely - low- income units.

Secure additional funding needed to preserve and rehabilitate projects to meet City' s anti - displacement goals, likely totaling over $ 50 million, by 2028.

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

4.5 Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers
Make City -owned properties available for affordable housing development, facilitate and/ or fund affordable housing projects, and encourage on -site or nearby amenities that serve a broad range of resident needs and community -building opportunities ( such as childcare) Objectives and Metrics:

Partner with subsidized housing developers to further affordable housing priorities. This includes but is not limited to the following sites:

O 89 W. El Camino Real, 96 W. El Camino Real and 1012 Linda Vista Avenue, which currently have NOFA applications in with the City and are undergoing NOFA and planning review. The City has already included City funding for these sites as part of its estimated affordable housing expenditures for the next five years.

O 57- 67 E. Evelyn, which is owned by Charities Housing, and is adjacent to 87 E.

Evelyn, described below. Staff plans to work with Charities to make sure the two sites are master planned, and that similar densities persist for both. This site will also be entirely for affordable units at 80% AMI or lower ( with the majority being lower than that AMI level). The City has already included City funding for this site as part of its estimated affordable housing expenditures for the next five years.

Leverage a range of funding sources - including land dedication - to lower the cost of affordable housing development, and thus increase affordable housing development. This includes, but is not limited to, the following sites:

O 87 E. Evelyn: The City has entered into a ground lease with an option to purchase this site from VTA. The City expects to exercise its purchase option and select an affordable housing developer in 2023. Per Council direction, the site will be DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan
Resolution No. 18781

developed as a 100% affordable housing project with units between 30% and 80% AMI, including supportive housing units, and at least 75 units per acre.

Transition planning and support of RV dwellers at the interim safe parking program located at 87 E. Evelyn. While the City is undertaking the process to develop this former park -and -ride lot, the site is being used as an interim safe parking program. The future selected developer - in coordination with the City - will be required to evaluate potential options for the RV dwellers, such as moving to another safe parking site, finding affordable housing in Mountain View or in a nearby city, and/ or living at 87 E. Evelyn when the project is completed.

O 1255 Pear Avenue: This site will be dedicated to the City as part of a developer - proposed mitigation to the City' s Below -Market Rate housing program for a market - rate project and which is included in the project' s Conditions of Approval. The land dedication site will be used for construction staging for the market -rate units. Once the market -rate units are complete, the City will initiate an RFP process to select an affordable housing developer ( estimated to start in three to four years). It is estimated that the site can accommodate between 100- 140 affordable units, depending on unit sizes.
o Middlefield Park Land Dedication Sites, which includes two sites that are expected to be able to collectively host between 338 and 380 units, depending on unit sizes.

These sites will be dedicated to the City per the City' s Below -Market -Rate guidelines when the first building permits are pulled for the Middlefield Park Master Plan. The sites will be used for 100% affordable housing. It is expected that the City will receive these sites in the next one to two years. At that time, the City will determine specific affordable housing priorities and select a qualified affordable housing developer partner.
o North Bayshore Land Dedication Sites, which include six sites, three of which would be dedicated during the Housing Element period. These sites will be dedicated to the City per the City' s Below -Market -Rate guidelines when the first building permits are pulled for their corresponding phase in the North Bayshore Master Plan ( City Council consideration of the Master Plan for approval is scheduled for June 2023). The sites will be used for 100% affordable housing. The City will determine specific affordable housing priorities and select a qualified affordable housing developer partner Develop at least 65 additional units of affordable housing Downtown, either through the BMR program or through development of one or more City -owned sites.

Create a priority list of amenities and community building opportunities to encourage in or near affordable housing developments
Milestone and Timeframe:

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan
Resolution No. 18781

Identify the remaining Downtown affordable units needed to reach 65 units, and if necessary designating the Downtown City -owned site and issuing the RFP for affordable housing developers by December 31, 2027,
Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division
Potential Funding: Local housing funds and CDBG/ HOME funds.

AFFH Program: Access to Opportunity

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

4. 7 Neighborhood Engagement
During the development review process, City staff will, in letters and discussions, encourage and facilitate housing developers to communicate and share information with neighborhood groups and other organizations regarding their proposed projects. City staff will provide facilitation, such as:

Providing contact information for neighborhood groups and other organizations that can help inform the project, including special needs groups ( tenants, persons with limited English proficiency, persons with disabilities, unhoused persons, seniors) and marketing units to special needs targets
Continuing to prepare and implement required mailing notices for hearings DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan
Resolution No. 18781

Continuing to maintain the City' s email notification system so stakeholders can get updates on major projects
Compliance with statutory limits to public meetings
The City will continue to make information about upcoming developments available on the City' s website, as well as providing contact information for key staff.

The City will continue to enforce the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance when projects are displacing renters,
Objectives and Metrics:

Keep the community informed on proposed projects
Give developers an opportunity to communicate details about their project, which can a) create advocates in the community, and b) disclose limits to the City' s authority over the project
Create opportunities for mutually acceptable changes to developments, which fosters trust in the community and improves outcomes
Ensure tenants receive early and clear communication about the potential for displacement in compliance with the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance and provide interpretation services in Spanish, Chinese ( Mandarin), and Russian, as necessary Milestone and Timeframe:

By December 31, 2023, the City will have contacts, and procedures for maintaining those contacts, for a range of neighborhood groups and other organizations The City will continuously support neighborhood engagement and transparency about developments, and will improve resources and processes as identified.

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

4. 8 School District Coordination
Provide a copy of the Housing Element to school districts serving the City. Share information on new residential developments including number of units and bedrooms and demographic information with school districts.

Objectives and Metrics: Support school district planning by sharing information on residential developments with school districts
Milestone and Timeframe:

Share a copy of housing element within one month of adoption.

Share development information with Districts annually.

Responsibility: Planning Division
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan
Resolution No. 18781

Potential Funding: General Fund

4. 9 Water and Sewer Service Coordination
Provide a copy of the Housing Element to Water and Sewer Utility staff and ensure that they understand that priority for connections must be given to housing developments that address the City' s lower -income RHNA.

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

4. 1.0 City Council Goal Setting
Incorporate Housing Element programs and recommendations from the City' s annual monitoring and review process into the City Council' s goal -setting process. Ensure consistency between the Housing Element and other General Plan Elements throughout the planning period.

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

4. 11 Annual Monitoring and Reporting
Per Government Code Section 65400, annually review the Housing Element and submit findings to the Office of Planning and Research and HCD.

Objectives and Metrics: Ensure compliance with state reporting requirements by completing and submitting the Annual Report each year of the planning period Milestone and Timeframe: Annually
Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: General Fund
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan
Resolution No. 18781

Schedule
Date Program/ Task
Short-term
December 2023
March 2024
Responsibility

4. 1: Compliance with new transparency
requirements for posting all zoning,
development standards and fees on the City' s
we bs ite
Building

4. 8: Share a copy of the updated Housing
Element to school districts
Planning

4. 9: Share a copy of the updated Housing
Element to water/ sewer utility staff
Planning

1. 7 Update City webpage with ADU resources
developed by the Santa Clara County
Collaborative
Planning

1.9: Complete first review BMR Phase 2
program
Housing

2. 6: Update Assessment of Fair Housing

3. 2 Propose anti -displacement strategies to
Council

4. 7: Compile and maintain contact list for
community engagement

1. 1 Zoning Ordinance Update for AB 2339
Housing
Housing
Housing and
Planning
Planning
June 2024 1.3 Establishing Gatekeeper schedule and
begin accepting Gatekeeper applications
Planning
December 2024

2. 3: Produce and distribute Reasonable
Accommodation information materials

4. 1: Review and update NOFA process

4. 1: Implement electronic review software
Planning
Housing and
Planning
Building,
Planning
Various Zoning Ordinance Updates:

O 1. 1: Zoning Ordinance Update for
Consistency with State Laws
O 1.2: Eliminate minimum parking standards
for residential in transit -oriented areas,
affordable Housing developments, and
other cases
O 1.4: Religious and Community Assembly
Sites for Housing
Planning

1. 7: Implement ADU monitoring survey Planning
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan 59
Resolution No. 18781

June 2025
December 2025

1. 8 Adoption of Parks and Recreation Strategic
Plan

1. 12: Outreach to tenant and landlords about
tenants' rights under CSFRA

2. 1: Update Council on innovative affordable
housing programs, including assessment of
CLTs, COPA/ TOPA

3. 1: Develop Homelessness Prevention and
Services for the Unhoused strategy
Community
Services
Housing
Housing
Housing and
City
Manager' s
Office

4. 1 Implement the following 2021 Matrix Study
Recommendations:
o
Implement online permitting system
ProjectDox)
o Streamline City' s contract process for
consultant services
o Establish and publish formal planning
application review timelines
o Standardize development permit -related
comment letters
o Create a dashboard for implementation
of Matrix Study recommendations
o Conduct a Development Services Fund
Fee Study and update the Master Fee
Schedule

4. 2 Participate in planning process for a 2024
regional housing funding measure

1.3: Conduct prototype study for residential
standards

1.5: Inform property owners about nonconforming density updates to Zoning Ordinance

1. 1: Rezoning sites to be included in Sites
Inventory
IT, Finance,
Housing,
Building, and
Planning
City
Manager' s
Office
Planning
Planning
Planning
Various Zoning Ordinance Updates:

O 1. 3: Review and Update Ordinance and
Precise Plan Residential Standards
O 1. 5: Non -conforming R1 and R2
Multifamily Developments

1. 8 Adopt reduced fees, alternate mitigations
and/ or other programs to reduce costs on
residential development
Planning
Planning
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan
Resolution No. 18781

2. 2: Perform needs assessment for Pilot ADU & Housing
SB9 Financial Incentives Program

3. 2 Develop funding strategy for affordable Housing
housing preservation

4. 1 Implement the following 2021 Matrix Study Housing
Recommendations:
o Expand GIS system for the public
o Create dashboard with historic and
current performance indicators for
development review process ( IT,
Housing, Building, and Planning)

4. 3 Complete evaluation of new funding
sources

4. 4: Secure funding to support identified near- Housing term pipeline projects

4.6: Meet with major employers to partner on Planning
workforce housing
December 2026 - 2. 2: Develop pilot ADU & SB9 grant program Housing informed by needs assessment
Various Zoning Ordinance Updates ( Planning, Planning,
unless specified below): unless
O 1. 2 and 1. 3: TDM Ordinance ( Public specified
Works)
O 1. 6: SB9 DUO Subdivisions ( Public
Works)
O 4. 1: Review Zoning Ordinance
processes and approval bodies
December 2027 - 3. 2 Study updates to MHRSO

1.4 Conduct outreach and adopt additional
policies for affordable housing south of ECR
Housing

4. 5 Identify the remaining Downtown Planning and
affordable units needed and/ or issue RFP Public Works
December 2028 - 1. 9: Complete second review BMR Phase 2 Housing program, including:

O 2. 4: Evaluate effectiveness of efforts to
increase equitable access to housing.

O 2. 5: Perform self -evaluation on fair
housing practices.

2. 2: Assess pilot ADU & SB9 grant program for
continuation
Housing

3.2 Develop comprehensive " alternatives to Housing
displacement" strategy

4. 4 Secure additional funding to meet City' s Housing
anti -displacement goals
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan 61
Resolution No. 18781

December 2029 - 2. 1: Develop program for innovative housing Housing solutions based on research and findings
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Housing Plan 62

1.•
4 N M w ME
N M v NM

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

HOUSING ELEMENT

CHAPTER
4 Resolution No. 18781

lor'"
Pee,
Quantified Objectives
Resolution No. 18781

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

Thus, the quantified objectives for housing production may differ from the local jurisdiction' s RHNA for new housing units for the same planning period. The distinction is that the RHNA requires that the City provide sufficient land, appropriately zoned, to accommodate construction of the targeted number of housing units, while the quantified objective for housing production represents the number of housing units that the local jurisdiction expects to be built, rehabilitated, or preserved, considering market conditions, financial resources, and other factors. Table 1 below shows the City of Mountain View' s quantified objectives for the upcoming Housing Element planning period.

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

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

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

These units are dependent on subsidies from numerous public and private sources, including the City. The City' s construction objectives for affordable housing are dependent on continued funding via existing fees, as well as additional funding sources, which the City will pursue. The Housing Element includes programs that will need to be carried out to acquire this funding, such as:

1. 9 ( BMR Program Review)

4.2 ( Federal and State Policy Initiatives)

4. 3 ( Financial Support for Subsidized Housing)

4. 4 ( Partnerships to Support Affordable Housing)
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Quantifed Objectives Resolution No. 18781

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

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

Table 1: Sixth Cycle Quantified Objectives for New Construction, Rehabilitation, and Conservation
Income
Category
Extremely
Low
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Construction
Rehabilitation
Conservation
750
25 0
1, 700
50 0
1, 250
50 0
750
25 0
9, 550
0 0
14, 000
150
0 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Quantifed Objectives 65 1M: MEME

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

HOUSING ELEMENT

APPENDIX
A
Resolution No- 18781

Implemention Status of
5th Cycle Housing Element
Programs

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
CCR Title 25 § 6202
O Jurisdiction Mountain View
00 Reporting Year 2021 ( Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Table D
ou Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 13 Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H. E Status of Program Implementation Financial Support for
Subsidized Housing
In October 2014 and six years into the planning
period ( by 2021), the City Council will
determine whether to increase any of the City' s
affordable housing fees. Administer funds, as
they become available, to support housing
development, housing programs, and
rehabilitation activities. Prioritize funding
opportunities for lower income and special
needs population group.

Ongoing, 2015- 2023
The City collects Housing Impact Fees to address the impact on the demand for affordable housing, when new nonresidential uses and market -rate rental apartments are developed. On December 9, 2014, the Council increased the Housing Impact Fee for Office/ High- Techllndustrial Development from

10. 26 per net square foot to $ 25 per net square foot effective February 7, 2015. In 2018, the City ended the Rental Housing Impact Fee and began requiring 15 percent on -site affordable units to achieve more development of affordable units instead of accepting payment of fees. In 2016, the City reserved or appropriated approximately $ 36 million in City housing funds for three developments at 779 East Evelyn Avenue, 460 North Shoreline Boulevard, and 1701 West El Camino Real, that will account for approximately 233 units serving extremely, low- and very low- income households. A portion of these units are intended for veterans. In 2018, the City reserved $ 22 million and appropriated an additional $ 1. 7 million for predevelopment
costs for 950 West El Camino Real, a 71- unit affordable multi -family rental housing project. The project, and said funding were approved in 2019. In 2019, the City updated its BMR in -lieu fees to $ 96 per net square foot for rental, $ 54. 50 per net square foot for ownership ( other than rowhouses and townhouses), and $ 125 per net square foot for rowhouses and townhouses effective August 24, 2019. In 2020, the City reserved $ 15 million for La Avenida Apartments, a 100 unit affordable multi -family rental housing project as well as an initial $) million for the City' s Lot 12 affordable housing project. In 2021, the City updated its BMR in -lieu fees to to $ 100. 66 per net square foot for rental, $ 57. 14 per net square foot for ownership ( other than rowhouses and townhouses), and $ 131. 06 per net square foot for rowhouses and townhouses. Housing Impact Fees were increased per CPI to $ 1. 60 for the first 25, 000 square feet of net new CommercialEntertainmentlHotellRetail development, and $ 3. 17 for every foot thereafter and $ 14. 81 for the first 10, 000 square feet of net new High- Techllndustrial/ Office development and $ 29. 62 for every square foot thereafter. In 2021 the City reserved $ 16 million for an 85- unit affordable multi - family rental housing project at 1265 Montecito Ave, and appropriated the funds to the La Avenida Apartments which were previously reserved. The City approved using $ 3.
7 million in CDBG and HOME funds to support the conversion of the Crestview Hotel into multi -family affordable housing. The City also ground - leased the site at 87 E. Evelyn with the intent to purchase the site for future affordable housing. Funding for the Lot 12 project increased to $ 12. 25 million. The LiveMoves- Mountain View Homekey interim housing project to serve unsheltered persons was completed in April 2021, which includes City funding for operations. In addition to funds that the City has reserved, the City has an active affordable housing pipeline that consists of several hundred units and a significant amount of City funding will be considered for these projects.

Extremely Low -Income
Housingpotential
In October 2014 and within five years of
Housing Element adoption ( by 2020), the City
will convene meetings with stakeholders to
advance housing for extremely low income
households and at least annually consider
opportunities. pp By2016, the Citywill
reduced development standards, and
other incentives for affordable housing, and
implement, where appropriate within the El
Camino Real and San Antonio Precise Plans.

Ongoing, 2015- 2023 and at
least annually consider
potential opportunities
In February 2014, the City released a second NOFAfor affordable rental and ownership housing developments. So far, the City has appropriated $ 21. 7 million of the funding to ROEM Development Corporation to construct a 116- unit affordable development at 779 East Evelyn Avenue and $ 8 million to Palo Alto Housing ( PAH) for a 67 studio unit affordable development at 1701 West El Camino Real, including 39 ELI studio units. The City also reserved funding for MidPen Housing' s 50 affordable family units at 460 North Shoreline Boulevard and for Eden' s 69 affordable units at La Avenida. The funding reservations for affordable multi- familyhousingat Lot 12, 1265 Montecito, and the Crestview Hotel also require units forhouseholds with extreme) low low
q extremely
incomes. The LifeMoves- Mountain View Homekey project serves ELI households focusing on unsheltered individuals, seniors, and families. The City will continue to explore opportunities to fund affordable housing developments with units for extremely low- income households. This may most likely occur in developments targeted toward housing for the homeless, seniors, or those with special needs, as well as projects with Measure A funding.

Resolution
No.
18781 m
CO
0 N
w
bl co
Partnerships with
Subsidized Housing
Developers
Encourage affordable housing developers to
work with outside funding sources to leverage
the City' s local housing funds to the maximum
extent possible. Assess the feasibility of using
available City -owned properties as subsidized
housingsites, when appropriate and feasbile.

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

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

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

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

Annual reivew of the 2030
General Plan
implementation; Update
ZoningCode by2017,
Review annually for
consistency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal and State Policy
Initiatives
Monitor legislation regarding financing and
housing development.

Ongoing, 2015- 2023
The City continuously monitors Federal and State legislation and is supportive of efforts that involve financing options for affordable housing. The City sent support letters on various State bills of California' s 2017 Housing Package, including SB 2, SB 3, and AB 1505. In 2018, the City sent a support letter to the Governor for new homelessness program funding. The City also sent a letter in support of Federal Bill S. 548 to expand the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit program. As part of the 2020 Federal CARES Act, the City received CDBG CARES Act Rounds 1 and 3 funding totaling approximately 957, 000, which supports the City' s COVID- 19 rent relief program. In 2021, the City sent a support letter to the County and affirmed funding reservations for the Crestview Motel application for State Homekey funds. The City successfully applied for State CDBG Homekey funding for the LifeMovesMountain View project, which required a Council resolution. The City also worked with Senator Becker' s office to request funding support for the Lot 12 project, which through his leadership resulted in $ 8 million awarded to the City through the State Budget Act of 2021 ( SB 129).

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

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

Resolution
No.
18781
Innovative Housing
Programs
Review residential development standards to
ensure that there is flexibility in the Zoning
Code to allow for innovative housing types
such as co -housing, shared housing, and
intergenerational housing.

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

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

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

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

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

In 2020, the City applied with LifeMoves to State Project HomeKey Program to rapidly deploy modular units to provide interim housing for unhoused seniors and families who may be particularly vulnerable to COVID- 19. THe project was awarded 11. 95 million in capital funds and 2A million in operating funds. This was a highly competitive program and to staffs knowledge, one of the only funded projects to use modular housing approach statewide. In 2021 the City Council reserved CDBG and HOME funds to support the conversion of the Crestview Hotel into permanent housing, largely for families and individuals at risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness. The City also supported the County' s application for state funds for this project. The hotel conversion will make it possble to make units available more quickly and affordably. The City also worked on a Memorandum of Understanding with the County for its Measure A funds, which provides a programmatic approach to funding multiple City projects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing, 2015- 2023
The City continues to support the Housing Trust Fund' s homebuyer program. Staff periodically meets with the Housing Trust staff to discuss programs and marketing opportunities. In both Fall 2019 and 2020, the City hosted an informational events in partnership with the Housing Trust regarding their homebuyer program that was open to the public. In 2020, the City is in the process of modifying its Employee Homebuyer Assistance program. In 2021, the City began working with the Housing Trust and HouseKeys to develop a more accessible homebuyer program for displaced tenants seeking to use right of first refusal" rights to buy below -market -rate condos.

Resolution
No.
18781 Priorities for Affordable
Units
Implement the City' s preferences for new BMR
ownership and rental units as specified in the
BMR Asministrative Guidelines. Give
preference to people who live and work in
Mountain View when units become available in
subsidized rental housing developments. Do
extensive advertising and outreach whenever
new BMR orsubsidized units become available
and waitlist are opened for existing affordable
units.

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

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

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

The City also continues to work closely with the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing on funding opportunities for Mountain View' s affordable developments P includingMeasure A projects, as well as Project HomeKey. Staff participates P P in regional 9 discussions to monitor new regulations and possible collaboration on preparation of the federal Fair Housing Assessment, and to share information and strategies for addressing affordable housing, homelessness, fair housing, and other issues of common concern. The City worked on an agreement with the County ( expected to be approved in 2022) to leverage $ 80 million in County 2016 Measure Afunds for various housing sites with permanent supportive and rapid reuhousing units in the City, for up to 200 units.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing, 2015- 2023
The Citycontinues to maintain thequalityof the existinghousingstock byaddressingHousingCode violations as theyare reported. P For calendar year 2020, Code Enforcement addressed 158 housing violations that were reported.

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

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

Inspections inside apartment units were stopped in March 2020 as a safety precaution due to COVID. Staff did conduct approximately842 common area inspections at apartment buildings in 2021.

Resolution
No.
18781
Opportunities for
Rehabilitation
Collaborate with affordable housing
developers on funding applications or when
feasible offer direct financial assistance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analyze and reduce, where appropriate.

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

Ongoing, 2015- 2023
The City continues to work with developers to reduce the parking standards where appropriate. For example, ROEM Development Corporation requested a reduced parking ratio for their 116 unit affordable development located at 779 East Evelyn Avenue. A lower parking ratio of 1. 75 spaces per unit instead of the 2. 10 spaces per unit required by the City Code was approved with the project by the City Council.

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

Second Units
Track the number of second units proposed
and constructed duringthe planningperiod.

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

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

In 2017 and 2020, staff updated the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to encourage development of more accessory dwelling units and provide additional housingopportunities pp and diversitywithin the City. Staff is trackingthe number of second units proposed p p and constructed. Between 2000 and 2016, 15 units were constructed. Between 2017 and 2020, after the City updated its Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, 28 units were constructed.

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

Resolution
No.
18781
Streamlined Entitlement
Process
Assign a primary contact for new subsidized
housing developmemnts to assist with all
necessary entitlements and city processes.

Hold pre -application development meetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City currently supports, and will continue to provide oversight for, the two transitional homes located within the City: ( 1) Alice Avenue Transitional Home, which serves up to five formerly homeless persons; and ( 2) Quetzal House, a local youth shelter and transitional home operated by the Bill Wilson Center that serves about 40 to 50 homeless youth annually. In an effort to further help end chronic homelessness, the City has funded the San Antonio Place Efficiency Studios that include 10 units for persons transitioning out of homelessness. The City continues to look for opportunities to fund supportive housing units within the City in new affordable developments. In 2020, the City continued to fund basic human needs and essential services for those unhoused and living in Mountain View. Additionally, the City has committed funding for its Project Home Key initiative, which provides interim housing for unhoused persons. As part of the the City' s comprehensive response to the pandemic, COuncil approved over $ 3. 8 million composed of
various funding sources for the City' s COVID- 19 rent relief program, administered by Community Services Agency ( CSA).

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

Short- term responses include funding outreach workers and case workers to identify homeless individuals; to connect them with housing and services as appropriate; and to respond to the human service needs of those living in vehicleslRVs. A strategy to respond the longer - term housing needs of the homeless is being developed based on Council input..( see more below) In 2019, Council adopted a safe parking ordinance that establishes health and safety guidelines for safe parking facilities in the City. In addition, the City is in the process of establishing two public parking lots as safe parking sites.

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

Resolution
No.
18781
Special Needs Housing
Encourage the development of special needs
housing with convenient access to services,
public facilities, and transit. Support
developers of special needs housing facilities
through the application process for federal,
State and similar funding sources or through
direct financial assistance from local housing
funds. Provide technical assistance through
the entitlement process, as projects are
submitted for review.

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

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

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

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

The Citycontinues to work with variouspartners, includingnonprofit p developers, p the County, and the Housing Authority, to determine potential opportunities to develop affordable housing, including housing for extremely low- income households, special needs, and the homeless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senior Housing
Study the need and feasibility of zoning code
amendments, such as permitting the
development of senior housing in specific
areas of the community, including residential
and commercial zones at higher densities than
are traditionally allowed. Encourage
dcevelopments with subsidized senior units to
locate near services, public facilities, transit
and the Mountain View Senior Center
Ongoing, 2015- 2023
In 2016, the City funded the rehabilitation of 360 senior units located in Ginzton Terrace Apartments ( 107 units) and The Fountains Apartments ( 124 units) and 56 family units located at Tyrella Gardens Apartments. These subsidized rental projects utilized $ 1. 17 million in CDBG and $ 838, 000 in HOME funds for the rehabilitation.

Resolution
No.
18781 rn
00 O
Lrl
m
01 Senior Care Facilities
Study the appropriateness and effectiveness of
amending the Zoning Ordinance to establish
development standards for senior care
facilities.

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

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

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

The City is an active member of the CDBG Coordinator group, and participates through Project Sentinel in the Fair Housing Task Force. These groups are both regional efforts that include leaders from the corporate, educational, and labor communities, as well as community fair housing advocates and local jurisdictions. These groups provide key opportunities to network, share information, and coordinate on projects. 1585 Studios, a 26- unit studios project at 1585 West El Camino Real, was approved PP in 2013 and completed P in September P 2015, providing26 affordable units for developmentally disabled adults. 950 W El Camino, a 71- unit project, was approved in 2019 and will provide 15 units for developmentally disabled adults.

The Citywill continue to explore P opportunities PP with affordable housingdevelopers P to create housingfor those with special P needs.

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

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

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

Employee Housing Act
Ensure zoning ordinance consistency with
State law.

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

The City will amend the Zoning Code to comply with State law ( Health and Safety Code Section 17021. 5) concurrently with the comprehensive Zoning Code update.

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

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

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

Resolution
No.
18781 Construction and
Demolition Debris
Diversion Ordinance
Implement the Construction and Demolition
Ordinance to ensure effective demolition and
construction recycling. When appropriate
incentivize use of recycled and rapidly
renewable building materials.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution
No.
18781 m
004-
O
r`
m
a1
v
hf
f6
d
City Council Goal Setting
Incorporate Housing Element programs and
recommendations from the City' s annual
monitoring and review process into the City
Council' s goal -setting process. Ensure
consistency between the Housing Element and
other General Plan Elements throughout the
planning period.

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

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

HOUSING ELEMENT

APPENDIX
B
4 Housing Needs Assessment
Resolution No. 18781

California Housing Element law requires local governments to adequately plan for the existing and projected future housing needs of their residents, including the jurisdictions' fair share of the regional housing needs allocation ( RHNA). A complete and thorough analysis must include both a quantification and a descriptive analysis of the specific housing needs that currently exist and those that are reasonably anticipated within the community during the planning period, as well as the resources available to address those needs. The following section summarizes information regarding existing and projected housing needs in Mountain View broken down into the following categories:

Population and Household Characteristics
Economic and Employment Characteristics
Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Costs and Affordability
Housing and Special Needs Populations
Assessment of Fair Housing
Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
Summary of Findings
Major findings from the following Housing Needs Assessment include:

Mountain View experienced significant population growth between 2010 and 2020, outpacing the rate of growth Santa Clara County and the Bay Area overall during this period.

The number of households also increased significantly during this period, but at a slower pace than population growth. A sizable share of recent population growth has consisted of young, working age individuals between the age of 25 and 34, with children under 15 also comprising a significant share of the growth. Overall, these trends indicate that Mountain View has grown to accommodate new households over the past ten years. These data could indicate an increase in the number of households with children and correspondingly larger household sizes as well as an increase in the number of young individuals that share homes in order to afford housing.

More than half of all households in Mountain View rent their homes, which is a higher percentage of renters than either Santa Clara County or the Bay Area overall. Because those that rent their homes are generally more susceptible to displacement than those that own their homes, this suggests a need for programs to prevent displacement of existing Mountain View residents. Indeed, over 1, 000 apartments in Mountain View have been demolished over the past several years, displacing many families and households. Mountain View has several existing programs and policies to address displacement and stabilize the living situation of renters, including the CSFRA, MHRSO, TRAO, and implementation of SB 330.

Programs in the Housing Plan in this Housing Element Update that further the City' s ongoing displacement mitigation efforts include Programs 1. 5, 1. 12, 2. 1, 2. 5, 3. 1, 3. 2, and 4. 2.

Mountain View residents face extremely high housing costs, including for both ownership and rental units. The City' s high cost for housing is likely due to a range of factors, including DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

Mountain View' s position as a significant job center in Silicon Valley. The pace of job growth has exceeded the rate of growth in households in Mountain View and there are more people that work in Mountain View than there are employed residents, creating strong demand for housing. Program 4. 6 addresses the impact of jobs on housing costs.

Compared to the surrounding region, Mountain View has a higher proportion of non -Hispanic White residents, and growth among other racial and ethnic groups has been slower in Mountain View compared to the surrounding region. These trends are likely due largely to the high cost of housing in Mountain View, coupled with wage and income gaps between racial and ethnic groups. The Housing Plan that is included in this Housing Element Update includes several programs to facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing in Mountain View, including Programs 1. 1, 1. 2, 1. 3, 1.4, 1.5, 1. 6, 1. 7, 1. 9, 1. 10, 1. 11, 1. 12,

2. 1, 2. 2, 4. 1, 4. 2, 4. 3, and 4. 4.

Consistent with the City' s high housing costs, many lower -income households in Mountain View experience high housing cost burdens that can put these households at risk for displacement and make it difficult for these households to afford housing costs along with food, healthcare, and other basic needs. High housing cost burdens have a disproportionate impact on large households, seniors, persons with disabilities, and Hispanic and Latinx individuals. The City can help to address housing needs among these groups by undertaking displacement prevention efforts as well as facilitating the production and preservation of affordable housing. This Housing Element Update includes several related actions that the City will take as part of the Housing Plan, including programs that facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing as well as those that address displacement, as noted above.

Mountain View offers relatively high access to opportunity, including in areas with comparatively large non-White populations and areas with lower -income residents. The only area considered " Low Resource" in the 2021 TCAC/ HCD Opportunity Map is the North Bayshore area, but that area has access to the greatest number of jobs is the subject of a major precise plan that will bring new development and services to the area, helping to improve access to opportunity.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

Note on Data Sources
The following housing needs assessment relies upon data from a variety of sources, including but not limited to the U. S. Census Bureau' s American Community Survey ( ACS), Decennial Census, and Local Employment Housing Dynamics ( LEND); the U. S. Department of Housing and Community Development ( HUD) Comprehensive Affordability Strategy ( CHAS) data set; the California Department of Finance ( DOF); the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ( DFEH), HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act ( HMDA) data; the City of Mountain View; and other sources as noted in the tables and figures. Much of the data was compiled by the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG) specifically for use in Housing Elements. Information sourced from the Census Bureau' s American Community Survey or U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development' s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy ( CHAS) data, both of which rely on samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that the data represent estimates, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. This analysis uses the five- year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this " margin of error" but particularly for smaller communities such as Census tracts and block groups, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly. In contrast, the decennial Census attempts to survey 100% of the population. Only basic limited data from the 2020 Census were available at the time of analysis.

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

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

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

Despite these data challenges, the primary findings from the Housing Needs Assessment remain relevant for addressing housing needs in Mountain View over the next eight years. For example, while some data on housing costs in Mountain View reflect pre -pandemic conditions, the following sections also provide data on residential rental rates in Mountain View as of 2021 that indicate that rental rates have begun to recover from the impacts of the pandemic. This suggests that Mountain View continues to be a high -cost housing market in which lower -income households will experience affordability challenges and displacement risk. Input from a variety of groups that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update underscored that high housing costs and displacement risk continue to be key issues affecting Mountain View residents, particularly among racial and ethnic minority groups and special -needs populations. Furthermore, the COVID- 19 pandemic has not fundamentally altered the factors that lead to disparities in access to opportunity, such as historic patterns of segregation and wage and income gaps. While the specific data points DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

may differ somewhat from current conditions, these differences would not substantially alter the findings presented in this section or the appropriateness of related actions that are included in the Housing Plan.

Population and Household Characteristics
Population
The Bay Area is the fifth -largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady gradual increase in population since 1990. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, Mountain View' s population has increased by 15. 0%; this rate is above that of the region as a whole ( 13.5%).

As of 2020, Mountain View had a population of 81, 302 residents, as reported in Table 2. Mountain View' s population makes up 4. 2% of the total population in Santa Clara County. From 1990 to 2000, the population in Mountain View increased by 5. 0%, while it increased by 4. 7% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population in Mountain View increased by

9. 8%. This growth rate was higher than the growth rates in Santa Clara County (9.2%) and the Bay Area ( 8. 4%) during this period.

Table 2: Population Growth Trends
Geography
Mountain View
Santa Clara County
Bay Area
1990
67, 365
1, 497, 577
6, 020, 147
2000
70, 708
1, 682, 585
6, 784, 348
74, 066
1, 781, 642
7, 150, 739
81, 302
1, 945, 166
7, 703, 016
Sources: California Department of Finance, E-4 series; BAE, 2021.

Household Growth Trends
Since 2000, Mountain View' s number of households has grown slower than its population, increasing by 9. 4% compared to the population growth rate of 15. 0%. This household growth rate is slower than that of Santa Clara County ( 13. 7%) or the Bay Area ( 11. 6%). As shown in Table 3, in 2020 Mountain View had 34,184 households, which make up 5.3% of the total households in Santa Clara County. From 1990 to 2000, the number of households in Mountain View increased by 4. 2%, while growth slowed to 2. 3% between 2000 to 2010.

In the most recent decade, the number of households in Mountain View increased by 7. 0%. Though the household growth rate in Mountain View has historically lagged behind those of Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, Mountain View has since accelerated and surpassed both ( 6. 5% and 5. 6%, respectively) during the 2010 through 2020 period.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

Table 3: Household Growth Trends
Geography
Mountain View
Santa Clara
County
Bay Area
1990
29, 990
520, 180
2, 245, 865
2000
31, 242
565, 863
2, 466, 020
2010
31, 957
604, 204
2, 606, 288
2020
34, 184
643, 265
2, 752, 510
Sources: California Department of Finance, E- 5 and E- 8 series; BAE, 2021.

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

In Mountain View, the median age in 2000 was 34.6; by 2019, this figure had increased slightly to approximately 34. 8 years. Between 2010 and 2019, Mountain View experienced a significant increase in the number of residents between the ages of 25 and 34 ( see Table 4). With the exception of the 45 to 54 age category, all other groups showed an increase in population.

Table 4: Population by Age, 2010- 2019
Age Group
Age 0- 14
Age 15- 24
Age 25- 34
Age 35- 44
Age 45- 54
Age 55- 64
Age 65+
Total, All Ages
2010
Number
12, 568
7, 428
15, 637
12, 940
10, 294
7, 353
7, 846
Percent

17. 0%

10. 0%

21. 1%

17. 5%

13. 9%

9. 9%

10. 6%
74, 066 100. 0%
2019
Number
14, 087
7, 936
19, 243
13, 520
9, 922
7, 993
8, 955
Percent

17. 3%

9. 7%

23. 6%

16. 6%

12. 2%

9. 8%

11. 0%
81, 656 100. 0%
2010- 2019
Number
1, 519
508
3, 606
580
372
640
Percent

12. 1%

6. 8%

23. 1%

4. 5%

3. 6%

8. 7%
1, 109 14. 1%
7, 590 10. 2%
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B01001; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 82 Resolution No. 18781

Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs because this information provides a starting point to assess how housing needs and access to opportunity may differ between racial and ethnic groups.

According to data from the 2020 Decennial Census, 40. 1% of residents in Mountain View identify as non -Hispanic White ( see Figure 1). Non -Hispanic Asian/ Asian Pacific Islander ( API) residents account for 35. 2% of the population, while Hispanic/ Latinx residents account for an additional 17. 2%. Since 2000, the number of residents in Mountain View identifying as White has decreased by 15. 4%—and concurrently the number residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased by 55. 8%. In absolute terms, the Asian/ API, Non -Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non - Hispanic population decreased the most ( see Table 26 below for the change in absolute numbers).

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

Figure 1: Population by Race, 2000- 2020
Share
ofPopulation
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

18. 3%

20. 8%
2000

0. 2%

21. 7%
MrIDITAM
2010

0. 2%

17. 2%
2020
Hispanic or Latinx
White, Non -
Hispanic
Black or African
American, Non -
Hispanic
Asian / API, Non -
Hispanic
American Indian
or Alaska Native,
Non -Hispanic
Other Race or
Multiple Races,
Non -Hispanic
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015- 2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/ Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the " Hispanic or Latinx" racial/ ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/ Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/ Latinx ethnicity.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 83 Resolution No. 18781

Household Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help shed light on the level of housing insecurity - the ability or lack thereof for individuals to stay in their homes - in a city and region. Generally, renters face greater displacement risks from increases in housing costs or redevelopment, and displacement among renters was noted as a key issue during the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update. As shown in Figure 2, Mountain View has a much larger share of renter households than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area overall. Approximately 58% of households in Mountain View are renters, compared to 44% of households in Santa Clara County and in the Bay Area overall.

Figure 2: Household Tenure
Percent
of
Households
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
33,756 640, 215 2, 731, 434

41. 6%

56.4% 56. 1%
Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area
Renter Occupied
Owner Occupied
Universe: Occupied housing units
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B25003; BAE, 20; A large majority ( 82%) of the renter households in Mountain View reside in multifamily housing units, and only 17% of renters live in single- family homes ( see Table 5). Unsurprisingly, homeownership rates for households in single- family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multifamily housing.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

Table 5: Tenure by Housing Type
Housing Type
Detached Single - Family
Attached Single - Family
Multifamily Housing
Mobile Homes
Boat, RV, Van, or Other
Total, All Unit Types
Renter Occupied
Number Percent
Owner Occupied
Number Percent
1, 633 8. 3% 7, 784 55. 4%
1, 715 8. 7% 2, 820 20. 1%
16, 148 82. 0% 2, 525 18. 0%
201 1. 0% 927 6. 6%
3 0. 0% 0 0. 0%
19, 700 100. 0% 14, 056 100. 0%
r1 )' v'2tSr`. vE uj i&o aiGus„ i u `t s.

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

Figure 3: Tenure by Housing Type
Share
of
Households
in
Housing
Type
100% -
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
0%
9, 417

17. 3%

82. 7%
4,535

37.8%

62.2%
18, 673 1, 128

86. 5%

13. 5%

82. 2%
Detached Attached Multi -Family Mobile Homes
Single -Family Single -Family Housing
Homes Homes
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Figure omits data on persons living in boats, RVs, vans, or other similar structures due to the lack of a statistically valid sample. Persons living in RVs or other vehicles on the street are not included in the Census housing unit count and are instead generally included in the Census' group quarters homeless population.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 85 Resolution No. 18781

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

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

Figure 4: Households by Household Income Level
Percent
of
Households
100. 0%

90.0%

80.0%

70. 0%

60. 0%

50.0%

40.0% -

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
63%
4 9%
8%
14%
55%
11%
11%
14%
Mountain View Santa Clara County
0%-30% of AMI
51%- 80% of AMI
Greater than 100% of AMI
31%- 50% of AMI
81%- 100% of AMI
52%
9%
13%
11%
15%
Bay Area
Sources: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy ( CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013- 2017; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 86 Resolution No. 18781

Table 6 reports Mountain View households by HUD -defined income category based on household income as a percentage of the HUD Adjusted Median Family Income ( HAMFI). As shown in the table, approximately 30.8% of all households in Mountain View qualify as lower income, meaning they have incomes that are equal to or less than 80% of the HAMFI. This includes 13. 8% of households that have extremely low incomes ( incomes less than or equal to 30% of HAMFI), 8. 1% that have very low incomes ( incomes greater than 30 but less than or equal to 50% of HAMFI), and 8. 8% that have low income ( incomes greater than 50 but less than or equal to 80% of HAMFI).

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

Typically, the number of low- income renters greatly exceeds the amount of housing that is available and affordable for these households. The data in Table 6 indicate that lower -income households in Mountain View are disproportionately renters, who currently make up 67. 8% of all lower income households in the City. An estimated 36% of all renter households in Mountain View have incomes less than or equal to 80% of HAMFI. By comparison, approximately 23. 6% of the City' s owner households are considered lower income.

Table 6: Household Income Level by Tenure
Household Income
Category
30% HAMFI ( see
note)
30%, <= 50% HAMFI
50%, <= 80% HAMFI
80, <= 100% HAMFI
100% HAMFI
Total
Renter Households
Number
3, 160
1, 930
1, 910
1, 360
11, 090
19, 450
Percent

16. 2%

9. 9%

9. 8%

7. 0%

57. 0%
100. 0%
Owner Households
Number Percent
1, 469 10. 4%
Total Households
Number Percent
4, 629 13. 8%
800 5. 7% 2, 730 8. 1%
1, 055 7. 5% 2, 965 8. 8%
833 5. 9% 2, 193 6. 5%
9, 940 70. 5% 21, 030 62. 7%
14, 097 100. 0% 33, 547 100. 0%
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for HUD Area Median Family Income ( HAMFI), often referred to as simply Area Median Income ( AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas. The numbers in the table may not sum to the totals shown due to independent rounding.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 87 Resolution No. 18781

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

Household Income
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state. 1
The current ( 2022) area median annual income in Santa Clara County is $ 168, 500. 2 For extremely low-income households, this translates to an income of $55, 550 or less for a four -person household or $ 35, 400 or less for a one -person household. Households with extremely low -incomes have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance such as supplemental security insurance ( SSI) or disability insurance are considered extremely low-income households. Many households with multiple wage earners - including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farm workers and healthcare professionals - can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively low and stagnant wages in many industries.

Table 7 shows examples of occupations with wages where the worker households could potentially qualify as extremely low-income households. It should be noted that the hourly wages shown in the table are based on data collected between 2020 and 2022, and therefore some of the wages shown are lower than the 2022 California minimum wage ($ 15 per hour for employers with 26 employees or more; $ 14 per hour for employers with 25 employees or less). Moreover, Mountain View has a local minimum wage, which was set at $ 17. 20 per hour as of January 2022. Neighboring jurisdictions including Los Altos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale have similar local minimum wages. Therefore, the wages shown in the table below are generally lower than the minimum wage that would apply in Mountain View and neighboring jurisdictions. However, workers earning the local minimum wage could nonetheless be members of extremely low-income households.

Table 7: Examples of Low Wage Occupations
Occupation Title Median Hourly Wage
Hotel and Resort Clerks 14. 45
Child Care Workers
Housekeepers
Manicurists and Pedicurists

13. 83

14. 94

13. 34
1 Bohn, S. et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 2 Based on HCD Income Limits for 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Occupation Title
Hosts and Hostesses
Education, Training, and Library Workers
Agricultural Graders and Sorters
Waiter and Waitresses
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers
Median Hourly Wage

12. 91

28. 47

12. 77

13. 16

13. 47
iVi.P}'(; C. r_ trit i( iydrr Erri eE vCr ujirr""Kart i1EJiur t nent, 2020- 202L i>CiupucriAiui [ 7 eti.i( rI VI ttr As noted above, in Mountain View 14 percent of households fall in the extremely low-income category ( see Figure 4 and Table 6). This is approximately the same as the proportion for Santa Clara County overall and for the entire Bay Area. Sixty-three percent of Mountain View households have incomes above 100 percent of the Area Median Income ( AMI), compared to only 52 percent regionally. However, even though Mountain View is a relatively affluent community, the city has over 4, 600 extremely low- income households, many of whom are likely to have a need for more affordable housing. The following discussion provides additional information profiling those households.

Household Income Distribution by Tenure
Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Table 8: Housing Cost Burdens for Extremely Low Income Households, City of Mountain View
Renter
Households
Owner
Households
All Households
MOM
Extremely Low -Income Households ( a) 3, 040 100. 0% 1, 325 100. 0% 4, 365 100. 0% With <_ 30% Housing Cost Burden 320 10. 5% 290 22. 0% 610 14. 0% With > 30%, but <_ 50% Cost Burden 380 12. 5% 205 15. 5% 585 13. 4% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 2, 020 66. 4% 700 53. 0% 2, 720 62. 4% Not Computed ( No or Negative Income) 320 10. 5% 125 9. 5% 445 10. 2% Total Households ( b) 19, 695 100. 0% 14, 015 100. 0% 33, 705 100. 0% With <_ 30% Housing Cost Burden 12, 150 61. 7% 10, 215 72. 9% 22, 365 66. 4% With > 30%, but <_ 50% Cost Burden 3, 720 18. 9% 2, 275 16. 2% 5, 995 17. 8% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 3, 505 17. 8% 1, 395 10. 0% 4, 900 14. 5% Not Computed ( No or Negative Income) 320 1. 6% 125 0. 9% 445 1. 3% Notes:
a) Households with incomes equal to 30% of HAMFI ( HUD Area Median Family Income) based on CHAS data, which reflect HUD - defined household income limits.
b) Totals may not equal the sum of individual figures due to independent rounding.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Table 9: Extremely Low -Income Households by Race and Ethnicity, City of Mountain View
Race/ Ethnicity
Total Households ELI Households
White 17, 725 53. 9% 2, 185 50. 6%
Black/ African American
Asian
American Indian
665 2. 0% 100 2. 3%
10, 035 30. 5% 1, 035 24. 0%
15 0. 0% 0 0. 0%
Pacific Islander 45 0. 1% 10 0. 2%
Hispanic 4, 425 13. 4% 990 22. 9%
Total Households ( a) 33, 715 100. 0% 4, 360 100. 0%
Share Below
30% AMI
12%
22%
22%
13%
Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Numbers may not match other tables due to independent rounding. HAMFI refers to HUD Area Median Family Income. a) Figures may not sum to total due to independent rounding.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Table 10: Housing Problems by Race and Ethnicity for ELI Households, Mountain View
ELI Households
Race/ Ethnicity
White 2, 185 50. 6%
Black/ African
American
100 2. 3%
Asian 1, 035 24. 0%
American Indian
Pacific Islander
0 0. 0%
10 0. 2%
Hispanic 990 22. 9%
Total ELI Households ( c) 4, 360 100. 0%
ELI Households with
Housing Problems ( a)
ELI Households with
Severe Housing
Problems ( b)
1, 660 76. 0% 1, 255 57. 4%
65 65. 0% 65 65. 0%
725 70. 0% 635 61. 4%
0 n. a. 0 n. a.
0 0. 0% 0 0. 0%
870 87. 9% 775 78. 3%
3, 345 76. 7% 2, 760 63. 3%
Notes:
a) Household has one or more housing problems. Housing problems include: Lack of complete kitchen, Lack of complete plumbing facility; More than one person per room; Cost burden greater than 30% of income. b) Severe housing problems include lack of complete kitchen; lack of complete plumbing facility; more than 1 persons per room; cost burden greater than 50% of income.
c) Figures may not sum to total due to independent rounding.

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

Extremely Low -Income Housing Resources and Remaining Needs Although Mountain View has a variety of housing resources for extremely low- income households, many extremely -low income households continue to have unmet housing needs. Housing resources for extremely low-income households in Mountain View include units within affordable developments in Mountain View, including units for individuals with special housing needs such as those with developmental disabilities and seniors. In addition, many extremely low-income households are served by transitional and supportive housing facilities in Mountain View such as Alice Avenue Transitional Home, Quetzal House, the San Antonio Place Efficiency Studios, and the Project Homekey project. In 2022, the City entered into an MOU with the County for $ 80 million in Measure A funding to develop up to 200 units of rapid rehousing/ permanent supportive housing units.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

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

Figure 5: Resident Employment by Industry
100. 0%

90. 0%

80. 0%
N
c
a) 70. 0%
N
a)

60. 0%
a)
O 50. 0%
Q
E
uJ 40. 0%
O
a)

30. 0%

20. 0%

10. 0%

0. 0%
4 7%
6%
15%
14%
18%
32%
999 094 4 024 097
6°
8%
21%
5%
19%
26%
9%
17%
4%

0. 20%
Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area
Other
Arts, Entertainmnt,
Recreation, Accomm
Food Services
Retail
Manufacturing,
Wholesale &
Transportation
Information
Health & Educational
Services
Financial &
Professional Services
Construction
Agriculture & Natural
Resources
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element l Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 93 Resolution No. 18781

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

One measure of this dynamic is the relationship between those workers living in a city and those workers employed in a city. A city with a surplus of workers " exports" workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely " import" workers. Based on 2015-2019 ACS data, there are 47, 657 resident workers3 and 95, 818 persons working4 in Mountain View. With a ratio of workers employed in the city to working residents of 2. 01, Mountain View is a net importer of workers.

Long-term employment growth has been strong in Mountain View. Based on the U. S. Census Local Employment Housing Dynamics ( LEND) data from 2002 to 2018, Mountain View gained a total of 39, 272 jobs, an increase of approximately 74. 2% ( see Figure 6). 5 While the number of jobs and the number of workers in a given community may be balanced, that community may offer employment for relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pentup demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions.
3 Based on residents 16 and over who worked during the ACS reference week, as shown in ACS Table B08128 for 2015- 2019. May exclude some workers who were employed buy not working during the reference week; these additional workers were counted in the industry tabulation. These persons may work anywhere, including outside their place/ city of residence. In the case of multiple jobs, this is the job where the respondent worked the most hours during the reference week.
4 Workers by place of work includes those who worked in that place ( e. g., Mountain View) during the ACS reference week, as shown in ACS Table 08604 for 2015- 2019. These persons may live anywhere. In the case of multiple jobs, this is the job where the respondent worked the most hours during the reference week. 5 The job totals reported here may differ from the number of workers reported above as the source for the time series is from administrative records, while the data on workers is from a survey.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

Figure 6: Jobs in Mountain View
100, 000
90, 000
80, 000
70, 000
60, 000
52, 912
N
c 50, 000
40, 000
30, 000
20, 000
10, 000
63, 784
53, 707
88, 872
73, 205
92, 184
0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance - covered employment ( private, state, and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management -sourced Federal employment.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 95 Resolution No. 18781

Mountain View has both a jobs -housing imbalance, reflected in a high ratio ofjobs relative to housing units, and a jobs -housing mismatch, with housing costs that are not aligned with the incomes for a portion of the workers that work in Mountain View. Figure 7 shows the ratio of jobs to workers in Mountain View broken down by different wage groups. A value of 1 means that the city has the same number ofjobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1. 04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region. In Mountain View, the ratio ofjobs to workers is significantly higher across all wage groups. The figure shows that the highest ratio of jobs to workers is for workers with wages over $ 3, 333 per month, which is likely due large part to a significant number of relatively high -wage jobs in Mountain View, rather than a mismatch between wages and housing costs that is more significant than the mismatch for other income groups. Meanwhile, jobs with wages that are under 3, 333 per month comprise a comparatively small proportion of total jobs in Mountain View, leading to a lower ratio ofjobs to workers in that income range. Most Mountain View workers with incomes under $ 3, 333 per month, as well as many with incomes above this amount, likely struggle to find affordable housing in Mountain View' s high -cost housing market.

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

2. 50
LL U0

1. 50

1. 00
2005 2010
year
2015
Wage Group
Wages Less Than $ 1, 250/ Mo
Wages $ 1, 250-$ 3, 333/ Mo
Wages More than $ 3, 333/ Mo
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance - covered employment ( private, state, and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management - sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 96 Resolution No. 18781

The jobs -household ratio in Mountain View has increased significantly in recent years, from 1.68 in 2002 to 2. 74 jobs per household in 2018. Imbalances between jobs and workers can directly influence housing demand and affordability in a community. New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work. This dynamic not only means many workers might need to prepare for long commutes and time spent journeying to work, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for those workers. As shown in Figure 8, Mountain View has a much higher jobs -household ratio than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area as a whole. The slow rate of household growth relative to job growth in Mountain View, together with Mountain View' s low residential vacancy, could indicate that housing production has not kept pace with job growth in the City, which is often a key factor that leads to high housing costs. Mountain View residents and other participants in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update highlighted jobs - housing imbalance and mismatch as key factors contributing to high housing costs in Mountain View.

Figure 8: Jobs -Household Ratio
V1
t00
L0
00 0
0 2. 50

2. 00

1. 50
2005 2010
year
2015
Geography
r•r Mountain View
Santa Clara County
Bay Area
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance -covered employment ( private, state, and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management - sourced Federal employment; Notes: The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs -household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction' s jobs -housing ratio and jobs - household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short- term rentals.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 97 Resolution No. 18781

Mountain View' s East Whisman Precise Plan includes a Jobs -Housing Linkage requirement that requires residential development to accompany any new office development over 0. 4 FAR approximately the current intensity of office in the area), with the effect that no more than approximately 30 percent of any such development can be net new office. Developers of nonresidential projects are required to provide a Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan with a phasing or housing delivery plan that proposes how the project applicant will facilitate residential development in the Precise Plan Area. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that any new office development is accompanied by residential development to foster a more balanced jobs -housing mix. The North Bayshore Precise Plan has a similar policy. During a Study Session for the Housing Element Update, the Environmental Planning Commission cited this policy as a potential template for future zoning actions in Mountain View to improve jobs -housing balance.

Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Types
As of 2020, the housing stock in Mountain View was made up of 29. 1% single- family detached homes, 12. 6% single family -attached homes, 8.4% multifamily homes in structures with two to four units, 47. 0% multifamily homes in structures with five or more units, and 2. 9% mobile homes ( see Figure 9). Multifamily units in buildings with five or more units make up the largest share of the City' s housing stock and experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020. Meanwhile, the number of detached single- family homes increased only slightly, reflecting a trend toward more multifamily development in Mountain View and fewer new single- family homes.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 9: Housing Units by Type, 2010- 2020
c
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8, 000
6, 000
4, 000
2, 000
0 3, 928
4,625
10, 372 10, 698
3, 182 3, 072
IN
15, 302
17, 266
1, 097 1, 066
Single -Family Single -Family Multifamily Multifamily Mobile Homes Home: Attached Home: Detached Housing: Two to Housing: Five -plus Four Units Units
2010 2020
Universe: Housing units
Sources: California Department of Finance, E- 5 series; BAE, 2021, Housing Units by Year Built
In Mountain View, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built between 1960 to 1979, with 15, 608 units constructed during this period ( see Figure 10). Approximately 7. 4% of the City' s current housing stock has been built since 2010, more than was built between 2000 and 2009.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 10: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
6, 924
15, 608
7, 628
Built 1939 Or Built 1940 To Built 1960 To Built 1980 To Built 2000 To Built 2010 0r Earlier 1959 1979 1999 2009 Later
Universe: Housing units
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data 12015- 2019), Table B25034; BAE, 2021.

Vacancy Rates
Vacant units, including units are vacant and not available for rent or for sale, such as units that are held for seasonal or recreational use, make up 7. 0% of the overall housing stock in Mountain View.

Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 5.9% of the total housing units. However, many vacant units are not necessarily available for full-time occupancy. Figure 11 below shows the breakdown of vacant units in Mountain View by type. As shown, slightly more than half (56 percent) of the vacant units in Mountain View are available for rent or sale, with the remainder comprised of other types of vacant units. Vacant units classified as " for recreational or occasional use" are those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as " other vacant" if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/ family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/ renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration. 6 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/ repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the " other vacant" category.

Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the 6 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https:// www. census. gov/ housing/ hvs/ definitions. pdf. Note that these definitions are for the Housing Vacancy Survey, a program separate from the Decennial Census and the American Community Survey, and there may be slight variations in how vacant units are defined for the data used in this report.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

proportion of " other vacant" units in some jurisdictions.? Excluding those units that are not available for rent or for sale, a review of detailed vacancy data from the 2015- 2019 ACS indicates that only

3. 7% of the housing stock was vacant and available for rent and that only 0. 2% was vacant and available for sale. This represents an effective vacancy rate of 3. 9 percent. This is somewhat higher than the county and the region, where the effective vacancy rates were 1.9% and 1.8 percent, respectively.

Figure 11: Vacant Units by Type
Share
of
Vacant
Housing
Units
100% -
80%
60%
40%
20% -
0%
2, 542
13%
17%
53%
32, 280
5%
11%
11%
35%
Mountain View Santa Clara County
172, 660
7%
6%
24%
Bay Area
Sold, Not Occupied
Rented, Not Occupied
Other Vacant
For Seasonal, Recreational,
Or Occasional Use
For Sale
For Rent
Universe: Vacant housing units
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B25004; BAE, 2021.

Housing Permits
Between 2015 and July 2021, the City of Mountain View issued permits for construction of 5, 084 housing units. Most of these permits, about 90. 6 percent, were for above moderate -income housing.

As shown in Table 11, Mountain View has exceeded its 5th Cycle Housing Element RHNAfor above moderate -income housing but lags behind in units permitted for other income groups. A total of 459 permits ( 9. 1 percent) were issued for low- income or very low- income housing. Moderate income permits made up just 0.4% of the total number of permits. Many cities in high -cost areas have limited tools to facilitate the production of moderate - income housing because rents and sale prices for market -rate units typically exceed affordability thresholds for moderate -income households, while 7 See Dow, P. ( 2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco' s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

affordable housing financing sources fund lower -income units but not moderate -income units. This creates a gap between the income levels served by subsidized affordable units and the income levels served by market -rate units, which is often referred to as the " missing middle" in housing production.

Table 11: Housing Permitting
Income Group Permits
Above Moderate - Income Permits 4, 607
Moderate Income Permits
Low Income Permits
Very Low -Income Permits
18 215
244
Attained
421. 5%

3. 4%

43. 7%

30. 0%
Universe: riousrng permits issuea between 2015 and July 2021.

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

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

Substandard Housing
In general, substandard housing is not a significant issue in Mountain View. However, housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard housing conditions that may be present. In Mountain View, about 0. 8% of renters reported lacking a kitchen and 0. 3% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0. 7% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0. 1% of owners who lack plumbing ( see Figure 12).

To monitor the condition of the City' s multifamily housing stock and ensure that tenants are not subjected to substandard living conditions, the City of Mountain View implements its Multifamily Housing Inspection Program. The City of Mountain View Fire Department normally conducts interior inspections of multifamily rental units throughout the City every five to eight years depending on compliance status. 8 The program covers 705 properties containing 16, 267 housing units.

Inspectors categorize properties as " serious" or " non -serious," depending on the type of violations identified during inspections. Inspection program data indicate that approximately 6, 954 units ( 43% of the total units inspected) are in the " serious" category. However, it is important to understand 8 The timetable for interior inspections was disrupted by the Covid- 19 pandemic.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

that a " serious" rating in this inspection program does not necessarily equate to substandard housing conditions; rather, these properties may require some improvement or maintenance, or have potential safety concerns, but do not necessarily have structural decay or uninhabitable conditions. A complete checklist for the program can be found in Appendix G. A better indicator of housing with potentially substandard conditions is the number of properties that were issued a Compliance Order" which is the first level of escalated enforcement action. Escalated enforcement occurs when the routine inspection and re -inspection process do not result in compliance OR unsafe conditions may dictate urgent repairs or other action to protect tenants. Examples include structural conditions, failing decks, failing stairways, and fire alarm and sprinkler systems that are not operable. According to the Fire Department, only five properties were issued a Compliance Order in the last five years. This represents less than one percent of the City' s multifamily housing structures.

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

This indicates that the City' s inspection program is effectively helping to maintain the City' s housing stock by proactively identifying problems with rental housing conditions and bringing properties into compliance. Property owners are incentivized to maintain their properties through assessment of lower fees and less frequent inspections for properties that are categorized as non -serious.

Inspection program staff are also available to address complaints as they are reported. 9 Additionally, Mountain View is located in the seismically active Bay Area and requires its future housing development to undergo analyses of increased risks to safety related to fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and liquefaction. Although there are no known active faults present within the City, there are a significant number of soft -story buildings10 in the City that could be extremely vulnerable to collapse and failure if a major earthquake were to occur in the region.

According to the Mountain View Soft Story Study Report from May 2018, 1, 152 of the 1, 383 multiunit buildings in Mountain View are woodframe buildings that were built between 195011 and 1980, representing 71% of total multifamily units. Of these, 488 buildings appear to have a " woodframe target story" ( WFTS), which is a first -story condition associated with disproportionate earthquake damage and potential collapse. These 488 buildings, containing 5, 123 units, make up about 31% of total multifamily units in the City of Mountain View and about 16% of total housing units including single- family housing units.

Units in Need of Rehabilitation or Replacement
There are no known residential units in Mountain View that are in need of replacement, though there are some needs for housing rehabilitation, primarily among the City' s rental housing stock. As noted above, an estimated 30 multifamily rental units or fewer are issued Compliance Orders through the 9 Personal communication, Eric Anderson, Fire Marshal, Mountain View Fire Department, February 28, 2022. 10 Soft -story buildings are low- rise, multi -story, wood frame structures that are typically older and have an open wall condition on the first floor to accommodate tuck -under parking. 11 Pre- 1950 buildings can also be vulnerable to earthquakes, but usually in ways that do not involve a typical soft -story condition.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

Multifamily Housing Inspection Program per year on average, suggesting a total of 240 units over the eight -year Housing Element Planning Period. In addition, 5, 123 multifamily units in Mountain View have potential earthquake vulnerabilities due to woodframe soft stories. This suggests a total of up to 5, 363 multifamily rental units in Mountain View with potential rehabilitation needs. However, this is almost certainly an overestimate, as not all buildings with Compliance Orders are in need of substantial rehabilitation and many buildings with woodframe soft stories may have already been retrofitted. The Housing Plan in this Housing Element Update includes Program 3. 2, which includes providing City funds to assist in preserving at least two naturally occurring affordable housing projects during the planning period.

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

Mountain View has high home sale prices and owner -occupied homes are generally in good condition. Rehabilitation of existing units is typically undertaken as needed by private homeowners, sometimes in connection with a transfer of ownership. Rehabilitation of owner -occupied housing has not been cited as a major issue during the public engagement process for this Housing Element Update. As noted in the introduction to this Housing Element Update, the public engagement process included a Community Feedback Form to obtain input on critical housing issues. One portion of the form asked respondents to identify up to five of the most critical housing issues in Mountain View. The housing issue that respondents identified the least frequently was " Not enough financial assistance for lower - income homeowners that need to make home repairs." Figure 12: Substandard Housing Issues

0. 80%

0. 60%

0. 40%

0. 20%

0. 00%
Kitchen
Amenity
Plumbing
Renter
Owner
Universe: Occupied housing units
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 104 Resolution No. 18781

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

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

Housing sale prices and rental rates are also an indicator of housing affordability and can signal high incidence of housing cost burden and overcrowding. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The region' s home values have increased steadily since 2000, aside from a slight decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Home values in Mountain View have also appreciated at a much more rapid rate than homes throughout Santa Clara County and the region since the Great Recession. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 229. 7% in Mountain View from $ 554, 520 to $ 1, 828, 466 in December of 2020, according to Zillow. This change is significantly greater than that of Santa Clara County, at around 168. 3 percent, and of the Bay Area, at around 142. 3% (see Figure 13).

Figure 13: Zillow Home Value Index ( ZHVI)
2, 000, 000
1, 800, 000
1, 600, 000
1, 400, 000
1, 200, 000
1, 000, 000
800, 000
600, 000
400, 000
200, 000
1, 828, 466
444, 501
N
O 0
N N
o o 0 O O 8 O
O O 0 0 0 0 0
0 N M <: t 11) r, co os 0CV
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
maimBay Area Santa Clara County Mountain Mew
Universe: Owner -occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35t' to 65t' percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner -occupied housing units, including both single- family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household -weighted average of county -level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF' s E-5 series.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 105 Resolution No. 18781

Based on American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2015-2019 (inflation -adjusted to 2019 values), the largest proportion of homes, about 25 percent, was valued at more than $ 2 million ( see Table 12). By comparison, the largest share of units was valued between $ 1, 000, 000 and 1, 500, 000 in the county and between $ 500, 000 and $ 750, 000 in the region. The limited number of lower -value homes in Mountain View indicates a lack of units affordable to middle and lower - income households interested in homeownership. Housing prices have increased significantly during the pandemic, fueled in part by historically low mortgage rates. In addition, the pandemic is believed to have contributed to high housing costs by increasing demand for homes that provide more space for working from home, particularly single- family homes with yards, encouraging many buyers to enter the home sale market for the first time. Meanwhile, there was a shortage of supply as fewer existing homeowners were listing homes for sale. According to data from Redfin, the median single- family home sale prices in Mountain View was $ 2. 014 million in March 2022, up from

1. 473 million in March of 2019. Individuals that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update noted that high home costs prevent many households from having the ability to purchase a home in Mountain View.

Table 12: Home Values of Owner -Occupied Units
Home Value
Less than $250K
250K to $ 500K
500K to $ 750K
750K to $ 1 M
1Mto$ 1. 5M

1. 5M to $ 2M
More than $ 2M
Total
Mountain View
Number
888
519
Percent

6. 3%

3. 7%
968 6. 9%
1, 737 12. 4%
3, 263 23. 2%
3, 112
3, 569

22. 170

25. 4%
Santa Clara County
Number Percent
Bay Area
Number Percent
19, 359 5. 4%
22, 636 6. 3%
93, 478 6. 170
249, 138 16. 3%
64, 280 17. 8% 345, 087 22. 5%
79, 354 22. 0% 307, 689 20. 170
82, 485 22. 8% 274, 733 17. 9%
40, 175 11. 170
52, 816 14. 6%
120, 970 7. 9%
140, 860 9. 2%
14, 056 100. 0% 361, 105 100. 0% 1, 531, 955 100. 0%
Universe: Owner - occupied units.

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

Residential Rents
Similar to home sales prices, residential rental rates have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state. Between 2009 and 2019, the median rent increased by 78. 9% in Mountain View, from $ 1, 328 to $ 2, 376 per month, according to ACS data ( see Figure 14). This rate of increase was greater than in Santa Clara County, where the median rent increased by 67. 7 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

percent, from $ 1, 285 to $ 2, 155, or regionwide, where the median rent increased from $ 1, 196 in 2009 to $ 1, 849 in 2019, an increase of 54. 6% over the same period. Input obtained during the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update indicates that rents have continued to increase in more recent years.

Figure 14: Median Contract Rent
2, 500 -
2300 -
2, 100 -
1, 900 -
1, 700 -
1, 500 -
1, 300 -
1, 100
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Mountain View ci.. Santa Clara County Bay Area
Universe: Renter -occupied housing units paying cash rent.

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

Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data releases, starting with 2005- 2009 through 2015- 2019, B25058; BAE, 2021
According to ACS data, more than one-fourth of the rental units in Mountain View rented for $3,000 or more per month between 2015 and 2019 (see Table 13). In Santa Clara County, approximately

18.5% of the rental units rented for $ 3,000 or more, while the same was true of 13.0% of the units in the Bay Area. Just 13. 1% of the rental units in Mountain View rented at rates below $ 1, 500 during this period. Rents skewed much lower in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, where 22.6% and 35. 2% of rental units rented below $ 1,500 per month, respectively. These data suggest that Mountain View renters face high housing costs, pricing out many lower income households and potentially putting existing lower -income renters at risk of displacement.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

Table 13: Monthly Contract Rents for Renter -Occupied Units Contract Rent
Less than $ 1, 000
1, 000 to $ 1, 500
1, 500 to $ 2, 000
2, 000 to $2, 500
2, 500 to $ 3, 000
3, 000 to $ 3, 500
3, 500 or more
Total
Mountain View
Number
1, 048
1, 491
3, 731
4, 566
3, 598
2, 849
2, 119
19, 402
Percent

5. 4%

7. 7%

19. 2%

23. 5%

18. 5%

14. 7%

10. 9%
100. 0%
Santa Clara County
Number
27, 896
33, 902
55, 666
58, 293
46, 239
29, 415
20, 957
272, 368
Percent

10. 2%

12. 4%

20. 4%

21. 4%

17. 0%

10. 8%

7. 7%
100. 0%
Bay Area
Number
190, 335
220, 281
265, 903
Percent

16. 3%

18. 9%

22. 8%
201, 746 17. 3%
135, 830 11. 7%
85, 150
66, 440
1, 165, 685

7. 3%

5. 7%
100. 0%
Universe: Renter -occupied housing units paying cash rem.

Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B25056; BAE, 2021.

Data on residential rents in Mountain View between 2019 and 2021 indicate that while the COVID19 pandemic had a significant impact on market -rate rents, rents have begun to rebound, approaching pre -pandemic levels. The rent data in Table 13 come from the U. S. Census Bureau' s American Community Survey, which does not fully reflect current rents. Table 14 presents more current rent data for Mountain View from CoStar, a private data vendor. According to CoStar, Mountain View' s multifamily inventory included 15, 678 market -rate rental units as of the third quarter of 2021, an increase of about 1. 4% from third quarter 2019. The majority of inventoried rental units are either one -bedroom or two -bedroom units, which make up about 39. 5% and 34. 3% of the multifamily rental stock, respectively. The average monthly asking rent per unit was $ 2, 851 across all units at the end of the third quarter of 2021. This is an increase of 6. 8% from Q3 2020 rents, but a 3. 8% decrease from Q3 2019 rents, which may be due to the influence of the COVID- 19 pandemic on rental housing. These impacts are also reflected in recent changes in the average vacancy rate. The multifamily vacancy rate was 6. 3% at the end of the third quarter of 2019, growing to 11. 4% at the end of the third quarter of 2020. As of the third quarter of 2021, the average multifamily vacancy rate was 9. 4 percent, 3. 1 percentage points above the rate at the end of the third quarter of 2019. These data suggest that the rental housing market is continuing to recover from the effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic and may continue to experience higher vacancies and lower rental rates in the near term as a result. However, even at these lower rental rates the average rent for multifamily rental units in Mountain View is substantially higher than many lower -income households can afford.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Table 14: Market -Rate Multifamily Rent Summary, Q3 2021 Multifamily
Residential
Summary
All Unit Types Studio 1 - Bedroom 2- Bedroom
3- or- more
Bedroom
Inventory 15, 678
of Units 100. 0%
Vacancy Rate
Average Monthly
Asking Rent ( per
unit)

9. 4%
Q3 2021 Rent
Q3 2020 Rent
Q3 2019 Rent
2, 851
2, 670
2, 965
Q3 2020 - Q3 2021
Change

6. 8%
Q32019- Q32021
Change

3. 8%
3, 365 6, 197

21. 5% 39. 5%

7. 0% 10. 7%
2, 111
1, 914
2, 203
2, 528
2, 385
2, 672

10. 3% 6. 0%

4. 2% - 5. 4%
5, 379 737

34. 3% 4. 7%

9. 6% 6. 9%
3, 233
3, 026
3, 318
4, 183
3, 888
4, 300

6. 8% 7. 6%

2. 6% 2. 7%
Sources: CoStar Group; BAE, 2021.

Housing Cost Burden
A household is considered " cost -burdened" if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered " severely cost -burdened." Low- income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. High housing cost burdens put low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, and homelessness. Displacement risk due to high housing costs was emphasized as a key concern among those that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update.

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

In Mountain View, 14. 5% of households spend more than half of their income on housing, while

17. 4% have a cost burden of 30% to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

categories ( see Figure 15). For example, 66. 9% of Mountain View households with income less than 30% of HAMFI are severely cost -burdened. For Mountain View residents above 100% of HAMFI, only

0. 8% are severely cost -burdened, and 88.8% of those above 100% of HAMFI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.

Percent
of
Households
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
4, 145

66. 9%

14. 8%

18. 2%
2, 729

43. 4%

34. 0%

22. 5%
2, 960

44. 3%
2, 207

52. 1%
21, 033

10. 5%

88. 8%
0%- 30% of AMI 31%- 50% of AMI 51%- 80% of AMI 81%- 100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Income
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing
30%- 50% of
Income Used for
Housing
0%- 30% of Income
Used for Housing
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent ( contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is " select monthly owner costs," which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income ( AMI).

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 110 Resolution No. 18781

When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Mountain View, 19. 0% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while only 11. 2% of owners are severely cost -burdened ( see Figure 16). Additionally, 18.2% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing, compared to only

16. 7% of those that own.

Figure 16: Cost Burden by Tenure
Share
of
Households
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
14, 056

11. 2%
11111 16. 7%

71. 3%
19, 700

19. 0%

18. 2%

60. 1%
Owner Occupied
Tenure
Renter Occupied
pNot Computed
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing
30%- 50% of
Income Used for
Housing
0%- 30% of Income
Used for Housing
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent ( contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is " select monthly owner costs," which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 111 Resolution No. 18781

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

In Mountain View, 21. 1% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30% to 50 percent, while 18. 6% spend more than half of their income on housing. In comparison, 17. 3% of all other households have a cost burden of 30% to 50 percent, and 14.3% of households are severely cost burdened ( see Figure 17).

Figure 17: Cost Burden by Househ_
Percent
of
Households
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
31, 567

68. 4%
1, 507

21. 1%

60. 3%
All other household types Large Family 5+ persons
Household Type
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing
30%- 50% of
Income Used for
Housing
0%- 30% of Income
Used for Housing
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent ( contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is " select monthly owner costs," which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 112 Resolution No. 18781

Senior households also have special housing needs and are disproportionately cost burdened compared to the total population. Based on 2013- 2017 CHAS data, 40. 5% of senior households were cost burdened compared to 31. 9% of total households. When cost -burdened seniors, especially those on a fixed income, are no longer able to make house payments or rents, displacement from their homes can occur. This puts further stress on the local rental market and forces long-time residents out of the community they call home. Because of this, understanding how seniors might be cost -burdened is of particular importance. About 46.9% of seniors with incomes less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors with incomes more than 100% of AMI, about 90. 6% are not cost -burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing ( see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Cost -Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Percent
of
Households
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
1, 600

46. 9%

21. 2%

31. 9%
1, 010

26. 2%

39. 6%

34. 2%
935 519 2, 004
0%- 30% of AMI 31%- 50% of AMI 51%- 80% of AMI 81%- 100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Household Income
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing
30%- 50% of
Income Used for
Housing
0%- 30% of Income
Used for Housing
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent ( contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is " select monthly owner costs," which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 113 Resolution No. 18781

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

Figure 19 illustrates overcrowding by severity in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area. The percentage of severely overcrowded households is roughly the same in all three geographies, at around 2. 9 percent. In Mountain View, about 92. 8% of households are not considered overcrowded. This suggests that overcrowding does not impact a disproportionate share of Mountain View households, though some households in Mountain View live in overcrowded units.

Stakeholders that participated in the public engagement process noted that there are families in Mountain View that live with multiple families in one unit, likely in overcrowded conditions, in order to afford housing.

Figure 19: Overcrowding by Severity
Percent
of
Households
100. 0%

90. 0%

80. 0%

70. 0%

60. 0%

50. 0%

40. 0%

30. 0%

20. 0%

10. 0%

0. 0%

4. 2

92. 8%

2. 9%
Mountain View

5. 2%

91. 8%

2. 9%
Santa Clara County

93. 1%
Bay Area

2. 7%

1. 00 occupants per room or less 1. 01 to 1. 50 occupants per room

1. 50 occupants per room or more
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1. 01 persons or more per room ( excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1. 5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 114 Resolution No. 18781

In many cities, overcrowding is more prevalent among those who are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to spread out costs and make it possible to stay in their communities or large households living in small units relative to their household size to afford housing. In Mountain View, approximately 11. 2% of renter households are overcrowded ( more than one occupant per room), compared to just 1.5% for those who own their homes. In addition, approximately 4. 9% of households that rent are severely overcrowded ( more than 1. 5 occupants per room), compared to only 0.2% of owner households ( see Figure 20).

Figure 20: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity

7. 0%

6. 0% -

1. 3% 0.2%
Owner Occupied

6. 3%

4.9%
Renter Occupied

1. 0 to 1. 5 Occupants per Room • More than 1. 5 Occupants per Room Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1. 01 persons or more per room ( excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1. 5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 115 Resolution No. 18781

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

About 11. 4% of extremely low- income households ( incomes below 30% of HAMFI) experience overcrowding in Mountain View, with 5. 2% experiencing severe overcrowding. Low-income households ( incomes between 50% and 80% of HAMFI) have a higher rate of severe overcrowding, with 5. 6% occupying units with more than 1.5 occupants per room. Of the households with incomes above 100% of HAMFI, approximately 3. 6% are considered overcrowded, with 1. 5% experiencing severe overcrowding ( see Figure 21).

Figure 21: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity

7. 0%

6. 0%

5. 0%
a
0 0 4. 0%
20 0
0U

3. 0%
a_

2. 0%

1. 0%

0. 0%
0%-30% of AMI 31 %- 50% of AMI

1. 0 to 1. 5 Occupants per Room
51%- 80% of AMI 81%- 100% of AMI Greater than 100% of
AMI
More than 1. 5 Occupants per Room
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one and kitchens), and units with more than 1. 5 persons per room on HUD calculations for Area Median Income ( AMI).

Sources: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development tabulation, 2013- 2017 release; BAE, 2021.
occupied by 1. 01 persons or more per room ( excluding bathrooms are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy ( CHAS) ACS DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 116 Resolution No. 18781

Assisted Housing At -Risk of Conversion
California Government Code Section 65583 requires that housing elements identify all assisted rental housing units within the jurisdiction that are at risk of converting to market rate within ten years of the beginning of the Housing Element Planning period. Many subsidized affordable housing developments receive government funding that requires units be made affordable for a specified amount of time. Typically, assisted units are potentially considered to be at risk of converting to market rate if they are subject to local affordability requirements that will soon expire, or if the affordable units were financed using sources that required affordability for a set period that will soon expire. However, units that are potentially at risk for these reasons may not actually be at risk of conversion, particularly in cases where the units are owned by a nonprofit or other entity that is dedicated to preserving the units as affordable housing. Table 15 presents an inventory of the existing assisted affordable units in Mountain View, including information on affordability time period requirements associated with different funding sources. As shown, none of the subsidized units have affordability terms that would expire in the next ten years. In addition, all of the units are located within 100% affordable developments that are owned by non- profit and mission -driven affordable housing developers who would be likely to extend the affordability restrictions beyond the expiration date associated with the funding sources.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 117 Resolution No. 18781

DRAFT
Mountain
View
Housing
Element I
Appendix B:

Housing
Needs
Assessment
Ioay
oulwD3
13 ' M
10L 1
logy
oulwD3
13 ' M
98-
1891
W - ON
NA
OD Os
vv
tri - A1 O` O` CO
CO

11. CD
CO
O O` W
OSCO O1

N - CD CDU
N
O
v
OO
01 NJ
ko
0 rn
NN
NN
NJ0
O` O`
N
O` co
ZZZZ
0000
Z7 Z7 Z7 Z7
77' 7' 7' U
UU
000
O`
O` O` O`
O` O` 2
0n
rn 00 OA 50
Sierra
Vista &
1929
Hackett
Avenue
c_
O
7O Fcr
CDQ
O
D —
Qo
zN
UN
UN
N_
000
NJ

CA) C) A O U
O` UUNno
nW
00UU CON
coW
O` 2
o
rn
00UU NZ
Z0
0 Z7
Z7 A (
nZDCD 3 OC CD N Dco ( DD
a73 DOcQTDN WUQ N
ND
Cn
WCn Wr
2 () () Ono
NJ
NJANJ NJ 0000
v NJW CO (..)
COW
NW
NUn0NZ
ZZ0
00 Z7
Z7 Z7U
NJ
NJ0 NJ
NJA0
Dn
rtN
Q3
NN
toQ
UMin
iu '
L:
7:ZL•
1!
l/ N
m
kv

13. Q03N
N cnO
CQ N1, 3CW 7C Table
15:

Inventory
of
Assisted
Affordable
Housing
Units,
2021
Resolution No. 18781

The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership' s Preservation Database, the state' s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market -rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed -restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at -risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Based on this data from 2020, there are 1, 460 assisted units in Mountain View in the Preservation Database. Of these units, all are at low risk of conversion. 12 Table 16: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Total Assisted Units in Database
Mountain View
1, 460
0 0
0 1, 460
Santa Clara County
28, 001
1, 471
422
270
30, 164
Bay Area
110, 177
3, 375
1, 854
1, 053
116, 459
Universe: Hub, Low -Income Housing Tax Credit ( LiHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

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

Sources: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database ( 2020); BAE, 2021. 12 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

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

22. This is consistent with Mountain View' s large share of renter households in general, with renter households of all sizes comprising 56 percent of all Mountain View households ( see Figure 2). According to 2013- 2017 HUD CHAS data, approximately 40% of large family households in Mountain View were lower income at less than 80% of HAMFI. This is a slightly larger share than among all renter households in Mountain View, among which 36% are lower - income households.

Figure 22: Household Size by Tenure
Households
8, 000 -
7, 000 -
6, 000 -
5, 000 -
4, 000 -
3, 000 -
2, 000 -
1, 000 -
0 N
D
0Om
ElVc°
c°
c°
0 m m
N
1 Person Household 2 Person Household 3 Person Household 4 Person Household 5 Or More Person Household
Owner Occupied • Renter Occupied
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B25009; BAE, 2021.

Needs and Resources. The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community. Large family households are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms, of which there are 13, 054 units in Mountain View. Among the 12, 629 large units with three or more bedrooms that are occupied, 2, 983 units ( 23. 6%) are renter occupied and 9, 646 units ( 76. 4%) are owner occupied ( see Figure 23). While the data DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

in Figure 22 and Figure 23 indicate that Mountain View has a relatively large inventory of rental units with two or more bedrooms relative to the number of renter households with three or more people, City staff report that there is a shortage of deed -restricted affordable units with two or more bedrooms for lower - income families. This represents a challenge for larger lower -income households that are in need of affordable housing.

The Housing Plan Chapter of this Housing Element Update includes actions that will facilitate the production of larger deed -restricted affordable housing in Mountain View. These actions include eliminating parking standards for 100% affordable housing developments, which may help to improve the feasibility of constructing larger affordable units. In addition, Program 2. 1 includes a commitment to making funding available and support programs to increase the number of affordable units for underserved populations, including larger households. One of the goals of Program 2. 1 is to increase the share of two- and three -bedroom units in the City' s affordable housing stock. In addition to these actions in the Housing Plan, the City will continue to implement its inclusionary housing ordinance, which requires that BMR inclusionary units are comparable to market -rates units in a development in terms of the number of bedrooms. Therefore, to the extent that market -rate developments include larger units, inclusionary units in these developments will also include large units.

Figure 23: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
10, 000
9, 000 -
8, 000
0o03
0 7, 000 - • ti
6, 000 -
5, 000
4, 000
3, 000 - Ni
V
2, 000
1, 000 - r
0 0 Bedrooms
u,
rco,
1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 1
CA
00 3- 4 Bedrooms 5 Or More Bedrooms
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Universe: Occupied housing units
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B25042; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Female -Headed Households with Children
Family households13 headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female -headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. While Mountain View has significantly fewer family households than the County and the region ( 56. 5% compared to 71. 8% and 66. 4 percent, respectively), over ten percent of local households are families with a single parent. Mountain View has a higher proportion of single -person households and non -family households ( such as cohabiting roommates) than the County and the region. Single -person households are likely to seek smaller units than larger households, and non -family households of more than one person may seek different types of units than family households ( e. g., two non -cohabiting adults may seek not just separate bedrooms but also separate bathrooms).

Figure 24: Household Type
100%
75%
v,
E
v 50%
a
25%
0%
Mountain View

9. 8%
Santa Clara County

10. 4%
Bay Area
Other Non -Family
Households
Male - headed
Family
Households
Female -
Headed Family
Households
Married -
couple Family
Households
Single -person
Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a " family household" is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. " Non -family households" are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B11001; BAE, 2021. 13 Family households consist of two or more individuals who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption, although these households may also include other unrelated people.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Needs and Resources. Female -headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

According to 2019 ACS data, there are more female -headed households with children ( at 57. 5 percent) than without children ( at 42.5 percent) in Mountain View. In addition, 227 (16.4 percent) of all female -headed households with children, fall below the federal poverty line, while 76 ( 7. 4 percent) of all female -headed households without children, live in poverty (see Figure 25). For many lower -income female -headed households with children in the high -cost Bay Area housing market, finding affordable housing is likely to be a key housing concern.

These data indicate that female -headed households with children constitute a relatively small share of Mountain View' s population, and that there are very few female -headed households with children with incomes below the poverty level in Mountain View. Still, there may be a need for affordable housing for lower -income female - headed households in Mountain View.

Mountain View has well over a thousand existing deed -restricted affordable units, with many more anticipated to be constructed during the planning period. As shown in Table 15, there are 1. 358 affordable units in assisted affordable developments in Mountain View, including 428 units for extremely low-income households, 685 units for very low-income households, and 245 units for low- income households. All of these units are anticipated to remain affordable throughout the Housing Element period. Other deed -restricted affordable units in Mountain View include BMR units that were provided in market -rate developments in accordance with the City' s inclusionary requirements. While there are no units reserved for female -headed households, it is likely that some of these units provide housing for a portion of Mountain View' s lower -income female -headed households with children. In addition, the City has thousands of affordable units in the development pipeline, as detailed in Appendix E. The Housing Element also includes multiple programs to facilitate the production of additional affordable housing units during the upcoming planning period.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 123 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 25: Female -Headed Households by Poverty Status
Households
1, 400
1, 200
1, 000
800
600
400
200
1, 158
227
with Children
946
Above Poverty Level Below Poverty Level
76 with No Children
Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country an- 1 does not correspond to Area Median Income.

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

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

The largest groups of seniors have incomes greater than 100% of AMI or incomes less than 30% of AMI ( see Figure 26). Senior renter households are much more likely to be lower income. Approximately 78. 8% of senior renter households have incomes less than or equal to 80% of AMI, while 47. 8% of senior owner households have incomes less than or equal to 80% of AMI. The group most likely facing challenges finding suitable affordable housing is extremely low- income senior renters, who make up over 45% of all senior renter households.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 26: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Percent
of
Households
100% -
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
0%
1, 600
58%
42%
1, 010 935 519 2 004
0%- 30% of AMI 31 %- 50% of AM I 51 %- 80% of AM 181 %- 100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

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

Needs and Resources. While not all seniors have specific housing needs, many are likely to need affordable housing, housing with accessibility features, or both. Existing housing developments in Mountain View with deed -restricted affordable units for seniors include Ginzton Terrace Apartments ( 107 units for seniors and persons with disabilities), The Fountains Apartments ( 124 units for seniors), Paulson Park Senior Apartments ( 253 units for seniors and persons with disabilities), Shorebreeze Apartments ( 120 units for seniors, persons with disabilities, and families), and Monte Vista Terrace ( 150 units for seniors and persons with disabilities). There are also 16 small assisted living facilities for seniors in Mountain View with a total capacity of 152 beds. In 2013, the City Council updated the Zoning Ordinance, adding senior facilities to the list of projects eligible for a Planned Unit Development, to allow more development flexibility. In 2016, the City spent approximately $ 1 million in CDBG and 185, 000 in HOME funds on green and sustainable rehabilitation at two subsidized apartment complexes for lower -income seniors. In 2021, the City Council approved a Mobile Home Rent Stabilization program to regulate rent increases in Mobile Home Parks. Mobile homes tend to provide an important source of affordable housing for seniors.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

The Housing Plan chapter of this Housing Element Update includes programs to further address senior housing needs. These include removing potentially subjective findings from the City' s reasonable accommodation procedures and providing informational materials on these procedures as well as a range of programs to support the development and preservation of both deed -restricted and naturally occurring affordable housing. Many of the affordable housing units that will be developed over the planning period will be well -suited to the needs of seniors, and some of the preserved units may also provide affordable housing for seniors. In addition, the Housing Plan includes programs to facilitate the production of multifamily housing in general, including both market -rate and affordable housing. New multifamily properties will be required to include accessibility features in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and adaptability features in accordance with the Fair Housing Amendments Act.

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

In Mountain View, approximately 5, 700 of the civilian noninstitutionalized population ( 7. 0 percent) are estimated to have one or more of the six disability types specified below in Figure

28. As shown in Figure 27, this proportion is slightly lower than the proportions in Santa Clara County ( 8. 0 percent) and the Bay Area ( 9. 6 percent), potentially due to high housing costs in Mountain View, as individuals with disabilities tend to have lower incomes on average than the population as a whole.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 126 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 27: Population by Disability Status
Percent
of
Non -
institutionalized
population
100. 0% -

90. 0% -

80. 0% -

70. 0% -

60. 0% -

50. 0% -

40. 0% -

30. 0% -

20. 0% -

10. 0% -

0.0%

7. 0

93. 0%
Mountain View

8.0%

92. 0%
Santa Clara County
No disability • With a disability
Bay Area
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B18101; BAE, 2021.

Figure 28 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Mountain View. The most common disabilities in Mountain View are ambulatory ( 3. 2 percent), independent living ( 2. 7 percent), and hearing ( 2. 5 percent). Some individuals have more than one disability and therefore are represented more than once in the figure below. Housing preferences and needs for persons with disabilities varies widely, with many requiring additional services such as live- in care, social services, job training programs, or counseling to help them achieve independent living.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 127 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 28: Disability by Type

3. 5%
0a

3. 0%
9 0
0 a) 2. 5%
t
0a
ce 2. 0%
c0
0 o_ 1. 5%
0 J
00 0
c0

0. 5%
a0
3-

0. 0%

3. 2%

2. 7%
With an With an
ambulatory independent
difficulty living difficulty

2. 5%

2. 4%

1. 5%

1. 3%
With a hearing With a cognitive With a self -care With a vision difficulty difficulty difficulty difficulty
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types: Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self -care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor' s office or shopping.

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

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

In addition, they may be at risk due to their specific housing needs. Persons with developmental disabilities are a subset of the population with disabilities as represented in Figure 28 above, and are defined as those with a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. This can include Down' s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe intellectual disability, as well as disabling conditions that are closely related to intellectual disability or require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability but does not include conditions that are solely physical in nature. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

In Mountain View, out of the population of 298 people with a developmental disability, about

50. 3% are children below the age of 18, while adults account for the remaining 49. 7% ( see Table 17).

Table 17: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group
Age Under 18
Age 18+
Total
150
148
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction -level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

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

The most common living arrangement for individuals with developmental disabilities in Mountain View is the home of a parent, family, or guardian. As shown in Table 18, approximately 82. 3% of the individuals with developmental disabilities residing in Mountain View currently live with a parent, family, or guardian, while 12. 9% live in an independent or supported living facility. Many people with developmental disabilities have extremely low incomes, making it difficult to find housing in Mountain View' s high -cost housing market.

Adults with developmental disabilities that live with parents or other elderly family members may be at risk of displacement or homelessness if those family members are no longer able to care for them due to death or other factors that affect their ability to provide care. This could indicate a need for additional independent or supported living facilities, care homes, and other housing options for persons with disabilities as well as a need to ensure that existing homes can be adapted to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. In addition, there may be a need for additional units for extremely low-income households in order to meet the needs of many individuals with developmental disabilities.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 129 Resolution No. 18781

Table 18: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Total
Home of Parent / Family / Guardian 255
Independent / Supported Living 40
Other 10
Community Care Facility 5
Foster / Family Home 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction -level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

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

Needs and Resources. Mountain View residents with disabilities, including those with developmental disabilities, have access to a range of housing resources to serve a variety of potential needs. These resources include standard market -rate and affordable housing units, many of which include accessibility or adaptability features, as well as units that are designed and reserved for persons with disabilities. Existing housing developments in Mountain View with deed -restricted affordable units for persons with disabilities include Ginzton Terrace Apartments ( 107 units for seniors and persons with disabilities), Paulson Park Senior Apartments ( 253 units for seniors and persons with disabilities), Shorebreeze Apartments 120 units for seniors, persons with disabilities, and families), Monte Vista Terrace ( 150 units for seniors and persons with disabilities), 950 West El Camino Real ( includes 15 units for persons with developmental disabilities), and 1585 Studios (27 units for persons with developmental disabilities). The City also expects several pipeline projects with set -asides for permanent supportive housing to provide units for special needs populations. As discussed in the Constraints Analysis ( see Appendix C), the City of Mountain View has reasonable accommodation procedures to facilitate equal access to housing.

While Mountain View has a significant inventory of housing resources for persons with disabilities, including for persons with developmental disabilities, the need may exceed the available resources. The Housing Plan chapter of this Housing Element Update includes several programs to further address housing needs among persons with disabilities. Program

1. 1 will update the reasonable accommodation procedures to removing unnecessary findings that could be a constraint to providing reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. In addition, Program 1. 1 will amend the City' s Zoning Ordinance to permit residential care homes as a permitted use regardless of the number of residents. Program 2. 1 in the Housing Plan states that the City will make funding available to support a range of DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

housing needs, including permanent supportive housing and housing for people with special needs. Program 2. 5 states that the City will fund fair housing education, enforcement, and counseling to prevent fair housing violations and provide financial support for tenant/ property owner mediation and eviction protection, which can help to prevent displacement among individuals with developmental disabilities. Program 3. 1 states that the City will develop and implement a strategy to prevent people from becoming unhoused. In addition, many of the other programs in the Housing Plan that will facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing can also help to address housing needs among individuals with developmental disabilities.

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

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

Table 19 presents HUD' s biennial Point -In -Time ( PIT) count of sheltered and unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness at the city and county level. Of the 9, 706 persons experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County, the vast majority of whom are unsheltered, 606 persons, or six percent, are in Mountain View. However, over 10% of the increase in persons experiencing homelessness between 2015 and 2019 in Santa Clara County was in Mountain View. Indeed, the PIT count in Mountain View increased by nearly 120% between 2015 and 2019, compared to a 48% increase countywide. 14 The PIT count, however, should be considered a conservative estimate as many homeless individuals cannot be identified or counted, even with the most thorough methodology. Furthermore, a decrease in homeless persons counted during the census does not necessarily signify a decrease in homelessness.

Although careful training took place prior to the count of unsheltered homeless, which includes homeless people who are unlikely to be found in shelters or in other residential programs within a local homeless assistance network, it is very difficult to count all homeless individuals living on the streets.
14 The 2021 PIT was deferred due to the COVID- 19 pandemic and the count was completed in February 2022.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 131 Resolution No. 18781

Table 19: Point -In -Time Count, 2015- 2019
City of Mountain View
Sheltered
Unsheltered
Total
2015 2019
2015- 2019 Change
Number Percent
5 271
276
32 574
606
27 303
330
540%
112%
120%
Santa Clara County
Sheltered
Unsheltered
1, 929
4, 627
1, 784
7, 922
145
3, 295
Total 6, 556 9, 706 3, 150
8%
71%
48%
Sources: City of Mountain View; 2020; BAE, 202
Over three- quarters of the countywide population experiencing homelessness are unsheltered adults in households without any children under 18, as shown in Figure 29. Persons experiencing homelessness that are in households with at least one adult and children are the second largest subgroup of the homeless population, accounting for 9. 5% of the population, while 2. 8% are households composed solely of children under 18. Only ten of the 276 persons experiencing homelessness that are in households composed solely of children are sheltered, which is particularly concerning for the County, although it is unclear how many of the 266 unsheltered households in this category reside in Mountain View.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 132 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 29: Homelessness by Household Type a Shelter Status, Santa Clara County
8, 000
7, 000
6, 000
5, 000
4, 000
3, 000
2, 000
1, 000
0 7, 413
696
400
7 377:
3 301. 6
266
N
243
Sheltered - Sheltered -
Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing
Shelter Status
Unsheltered
People in Households
Composed Solely of
Children Under 18
People in Households with
Adults and Children
People in Households
without Children Under 18
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point -in -Time ( PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 133 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 30: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County
2, 500
2, 000
1, 500
0 a_
1, 000
500
0 Sheltered - Emergency
Shelter
Sheltered - Transitional
Housing
Shelter
Unsheltered
Chronic Substance Abuse

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

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

In Mountain View, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 161 during the 2019-20 school year, which is about 7. 0% and 1. 2% of the total homeless student population in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, respectively. Between the 2016- 17 school year and the 2019-20 school year, this population increased by 571 percent, although notably there were no reported homeless students for the 2018- 19 school year, which may reflect a discrepancy in the data. By comparison, Santa Clara County has seen a 3.5% increase in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016- 17 school year, while the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8. 5 percent. During the 2019- 2020 school year, there were still some 13, 718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 134 Resolution No. 18781

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

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

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

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

Table 21: Mountain View Vehicles in Public Right -of -Way ( PROW), 2017- 2020 MI
RV
2017
158
Dec.
2018
189
Jul19
207
Feb.
2020
205
Jul- 20
191
Jan22
135
2017- Jan 2022
Change
Number
23 Percent
15%
Passenger Vehicle 94 89 80 89 70 18 - 76 - 81%
Other/ Unspecified 0 9 11 5 4 63 63 n. a.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element l Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Needs and Resources. Mountain View has taken significant actions to address the needs of persons experiencing homelessness, expending over $ 9. 9 million from 2016 to 2021 ( not including permanent housing funds). This includes a strong continuum of programs, from prevention, the provision of basic needs, shelter, safe parking, interim housing, to permanent supportive housing, as described below:

Prevention: The City regularly funds rent relief programs to prevent homelessness.

During the pandemic, the City funded over $ 3. 8 million in rent relief and financial support. It also opened the Housing and Eviction Help Center, which helped families apply for rent relief and obtain legal services to avoid homelessness. The City also funds a number of support services in the community to help lower -income households stay stably housed.

Basic Needs: The City also funds basic needs services to support those who are unhoused, including shower and laundry services, as well as health services.

Shelter: The City hosts a winter shelter funded by the County of Santa Clara. The City also hosts two transitional homes: ( 1) Alice Avenue Transitional Home, which serves up to five formerly homeless persons; and ( 2) Quetzal House, a local youth shelter and transitional home operated by the Bill Wilson Center that serves about 40 to 50 homeless youth annually.

Safe Parking: To address the large population of households living in vehicles, the City partnered with the County of Santa Clara and a local nonprofit safe parking provider to provide safe parking and a range of other services to support unstably housed residents on a path to permanent housing. Overnight safe parking programs were launched at faith -based locations and grew to several lots leased by the City. The program has since grown to become the largest safe parking provider in the region with the capacity for up to 101 vehicles ( includes both faith -based lots). The City also adopted a Safe Parking Ordinance to facilitate the creation of safe parking locations on private lots in 2019. In response to the COVID- 19 pandemic, the City extended the safe parking program to operate 24/ 7.

Interim Housing: In 2020, the City applied with LifeMoves to the State Project HomeKey Program to rapidly deploy modular units to provide interim housing for unhoused seniors and families who may be particularly vulnerable to COVID- 19. The project was awarded $ 11. 95 million in capital funds and $ 2. 4 million in operating funds. The City leveraged additional City, County, and philanthropic funds to open the program in record time.

Permanent Housing: Finally, the City is committed to providing permanent supportive housing aimed at formerly homeless households. The City funded both San Antonio Place and Eagle Park, both of which include supportive units for formerly homeless households. The City has also committed to funding at least 200 supportive housing and rapid rehousing units for formerly homeless households in Mountain View. In 2022, the City entered into an $ 80 million MOU with the County to leverage County Measure A funds for this effort. In 2021 and 2022, Mountain View City Council reserved CDBG and HOME funds to support the conversion of the Crestview Hotel into DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

permanent housing, largely for families and individuals at risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness. This project also received Project Homekey funds, as well as County support. The hotel conversion will make it possible to make supportive housing available more quickly and affordably.

Despite the City' s significant investment and commitment to addressing housing needs among persons experiencing homelessness, the need continues to exceed the available resources.

This is due in part to the regional nature of homelessness and the significant difficulties associated with addressing this need. The Housing Plan component of this Housing Element Update includes Programs 2. 1, 3. 1, and 4. 3 to address the needs of homeless individuals and families, as well as Programs 1. 5, 1. 12, 2. 1, 2. 5, 3. 2, 4. 2, and 4. 4 to prevent displacement that could lead to homelessness.

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

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

Table 22: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Employment in Mountain View, 2019
Agriculture,
Forestry,
Fishing, and
Huntin •
Total
Employed Resident Jobs
Jobs in Mountain View
181
38 44, 711
93, 107
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics ( Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002- 2019).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 137 Resolution No. 18781

In Mountain View, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019- 20 school year, or in the preceding three school years, as shown in Table 23. These data further demonstrate that Mountain View does not have a significant farmworker community. In the Bay Area, there has been a decline of 14. 1% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year, and the change at the county level was a 49. 7% decrease.

Table 23: Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year Mountain View Santa Clara County
2016- 17
2017- 18
0 0
978
732
2018- 19 0 645
2019- 20 0 492
Bay Area
4, 630
4, 607
4, 075
3, 976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short- term enrollments within the academic year ( July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

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

As shown in Figure 31, the number of permanentfarmworkers in Santa Clara County increased by 42.6% between 2002 and 2017, totaling 2, 418 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers decreased by 53. 3 percent, totaling 1, 757 in 2017. Overall, the farmworker population in Santa Clara County decreased by 23. 5 percent, totaling 4, 175 in 2017.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 138 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 31: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Santa Clara County 4, 000 -
3, 500 —
3, 000 -
2, 500 -
t
2, 000
E
0 1, 500
1, 000
500
1, 696
2, 243
Permanent
2,418
3, 760
2002 2007 2012 2017
2, 747
1, 994
Seasonal
Universe: Hired farm workers ( including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers ( 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor Needs and Resources: Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern. Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs, and many hold jobs that are temporary or seasonal. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging for these farmworker households, particularly in high - cost housing markets. While farmworker housing often includes temporary accommodations that provide beds in group living quarters, farmworkers in Santa Clara County are increasingly shifting toward permanent jobs, as shown in Figure 31. As a result, an increasing number of workers are likely to be interested in permanent homes that are suitable for themselves and their families, rather than living alone while traveling for work. As a result, farmworkers often seek out the same type of affordable housing as other lower -income households, including a preference for housing that is close to schools and other amenities in more urban areas.

Because Mountain View is not in close proximity to a large number of agricultural jobs, Mountain View is not an ideal location for housing that is targeted to farmworkers. Any farmworkers that currently live in Mountain View or are seeking housing in Mountain View are likely interested in permanent housing in a location with access to schools and other amenities. These residents could be served by Mountain View' s existing affordable housing DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

stock or new affordable units that will be built in Mountain View during the upcoming Housing Element Cycle. As noted above, there are well over a thousand existing deed -restricted affordable units in Mountain View, with many more in the development pipeline.

Non -English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limited proficiency can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In Mountain View,

5. 8% of residents five years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for Santa Clara County and the Bay Area at 8.8% and 7. 8 percent, respectively.

Figure 32: Population with Limited English Proficiency
100%
76, 571 1, 810, 962 7, 276, 592
Share
ofPopulation 50%
0%

8. 8% 7. 8%
Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B16005 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH- 03.

Population
5 Years and
Over Who Speak
English " Well"
or " Very well"
Population
5 Years and
Over Who Speak
English " Not
well" or " Not at
all"
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 140 Resolution No. 18781

Needs and Resources. The data presented above indicate residents with limited English proficiency comprise a small share of Mountain View' s population. Individuals that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update noted that language barriers can prevent lower -income households from accessing subsidized housing.

Program 2. 4 seeks to address this barrier by providing increased interpretation services for the City' s BMR application process. Program 2. 5 states that the City will fund fair housing education, enforcement, and counseling to prevent fair housing violations and provide financial support for tenant/ property owner mediation and eviction protection, which can help to address fair housing violations among persons with limited English proficiency.

Assessment of Fair Housing
With the adoption of AB 686, all Housing Elements completed January 1, 2019 or later must include a program that promotes and affirmatively furthers fair housing throughout the community for all persons, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, disability, or any other characteristics that are protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ( FEHA), Government code Section 65008, and all other applicable State and federal fair housing and planning laws. Under State law, affirmatively furthering fair housing means " taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics." 15
The City of Mountain View complies with all State and Federal fair housing laws and regulations and continuously self -assesses to ensure it is in compliance with State and Federal fair housing rules. The City has not received any judgements, lawsuits, or enforcements as a result of fair housing violations.

The law also requires that all Housing Elements completed as of January 1, 2021 or later include an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) that is consistent with the core elements of the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ( AFFH) Final Rule from July 2015. The following section summarizes key findings from the Assessment of Fair Housing, which was completed in accordance with current HCD guidance regarding the application of the newAB686 requirements, as well as a detailed reading of the California Government Code. 16 The main sources of information for the following analysis are the U. S. Census Bureau including the Decennial Census and the American Community Survey), the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources Tool, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 15 California Government Code § 8899. 5 ( a)( 1)
16 Olmstead, Z. ( April 23, 2020). AB 686 Summary of Requirements in Housing Element Law Government Code Section 8899. 50, 65583( c)( 5), 65583( c)( 10), 65583. 2( a).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

DFEH), HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ( FHEO), the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee ( TCAC), and the City of Mountain View.

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

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

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

A limited number of complaints have been filed with FHEO over housing discrimination in Mountain View in recent years. From 2013 through 2020, 14 complaints were recorded and closed, as shown in Table 24. Nine complaints were conciliated or settled, a no cause determination was made for three complaints, and two complaints were withdrawn after resolution.

Table 24: FHEO Fair Housing Complaints by Resolution Type, 2013- 2020 Total, Percent
Resolution 2013- 2020 of Total
Conciliated/ settled 9 64. 3%
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 0 0. 0%
No cause determination 3 21. 4%
Withdrawn after resolution 2 14. 3%
Withdrawn without resolution 0 0. 0%
Total, Closed Complaints 14 100%
Sources: HUD, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, 2021; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 142 Resolution No. 18781

In addition to data from the FHEO, this analysis also reviewed data from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ( DFEH). As reported in Table 25, there were a total of three complaints in Mountain View between 2018 and 2020, covering four basis types and eight discriminatory practices ( a single complaint can include more than one of each of these two categories). All three of the complaints were found to have no cause.

Table 25: DFEH Fair Housing Complaints, 2018- 2020
Total, Percent
Basis Type ( a) 2018- 2020 of Total
Ancestry 0 0. 0%
Disability 2 50. 0%
Familial status 1 25. 0%
National origin/ color/ race 1 25. 0%
Other 0 0. 0%
Sexual harassment - Quid Pro Quo 0 0. 0%
Total, All Basis Types 4 100%
Discriminatory Practice ( a)
Denied equal terms and conditions 1 12. 5%
Denied reasonable accommodation 0 0. 0%
Denied reasonable accommodation for a disability or medical cond. 1 12. 5% Denied rental/ lease/ sale 0 0. 0%
Evicted 1 12. 5%
Harassed 0 0. 0%
Subjected to discriminatory zoning/ land use 1 12. 5%
Subjected to restrictive rule/ covenant 2 25. 0%
Subjected to discriminatory statements/ advertisements 1 12. 5% Other 1 12. 5%
Total, All Practices 8 100%
Resolution
No cause determination 3 100. 0%
Voluntary mediation 0 0. 0%
Withdrawn after resolution 0 0. 0%
Total, All Resolutions 3 100%
Note:
a) Each complaint may involve more than one basis type or discriminatory practice, but there is only one resolution per complaint.

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

While these data suggest that fair housing complaints that arise in Mountain View are relatively rare, the overwhelming majority of fair housing issues are not typically captured in fair housing complaints. In part, this is because many fair housing issues go unreported due to a lack of awareness of fair housing laws, fear of retaliation, or other factors that prevent individuals from coming forward. More broadly, fair housing issues include a range of factors that limit access to opportunity, often with disparate impacts on communities of color, people with disabilities, those with limited English proficiency, and other vulnerable populations. The fair housing complaint system is not designed to address the majority of these factors, and DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

therefore provides information on only a small component of potential fair housing issues. The remainder of this section provides additional data and analysis to assess potential fair housing issues and identify factors that may limit access to opportunity.

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

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

Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
Race and Ethnicity
As noted above, Mountain View has a slightly larger proportion of its population that identifies as Non -Hispanic White than the County and Bay Area region, and the share of residents that identify with other racial and ethnic groups has increased more slowly in Mountain View than in the County and region over recent years. As shown in Table 26, approximately 40. 1% of residents in Mountain View were non -Hispanic White in 2020, compared to 30. 8% of residents in the two -county region. Non -Hispanic Asian residents account for approximately 34. 9% of the citywide population, while Hispanic and Latino residents comprise an additional 17. 2 percent. In both Mountain View and the region, the small Black Non -Hispanic population has been declining, and the Asian Non -Hispanic population has increased substantially. The number of persons identifying as Some Other Race or Two or More Races has also increased both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of the overall population in both the City and the two -county region. The Hispanic population has increased absolutely in both geographies, but its proportion of the total has decreased in Mountain View. This is in contrast to the two - county region, where the Hispanic proportion of the total population increased slightly between DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

2000 and 2020. These trends may be due at least in part to the high cost of housing in Mountain View relative to the County and region overall, coupled with wealth and income gaps between racial and ethnic groups. It should be noted that, as illustrated in the table below, some groups have very limited populations in the City, which means that a small change in absolute numbers among these groups has a significant impact on the percentage change in the population of these groups.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 145 Resolution
No.
18781
Page
207
of
483
Table 26: Mountain View Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 - 2020 City of Mountain View
2000 2010 2020 Change, 2000- 2020 Change, 2010- 2020
Not Hispanic nor Latino by Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White 39, 029 55. 2% 34, 052 46. 0% 33, 008 40. 1% ( 6, 021) - 12. 8% ( 1, 044) - 3. 1% Black or African American 1, 674 2. 4% 1, 468 2. 0% 1, 155 1. 4% ( 519) - 12. 3% ( 313) - 21. 3% Native American Indian & Alaska Native 164 0. 2% 116 0. 2% 101 0. 1% ( 63) - 29. 3% ( 15) - 12. 9% Asian 14, 513 20. 5% 19, 064 25. 7% 28, 760 34. 9% 14, 247 31. 4% 9, 696 50. 9% Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 160 0. 2% 372 0. 5% 215 0. 3% 55 132. 5% ( 157) - 42. 2% Some other race alone 221 0. 3% 241 0. 3% 557 0. 7% 336 9. 0% 316 131. 1 % Two or more races 2, 036 2. 9% 2, 682 3. 6% 4, 374 5. 3% 2, 338 31. 7% 1, 692 63. 1% Subtotal, Not Hispanic nor Latino 57, 797 81. 7% 57, 995 78. 3% 68, 170 82. 8% 10, 373 0. 3% 10, 175 17. 5% Hispanic or Latino 12, 911 18. 3% 16, 071 21. 7% 14, 206 17. 2% 1, 295 24. 5% ( 1, 865) - 11. 6% Total, All Races 70, 708 100. 0% 74, 066 100. 0% 82, 376 100. 0% 11, 668 4. 7% 8, 310 11. 2% San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
2000 2010 2020 Change, 2000- 2020 Change, 2010- 2020
Not Hispanic nor Latino by Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White 1, 096, 637 45. 9% 930, 518 37. 2% 831, 610 30. 8% ( 265, 027) - 15. 1% ( 98, 908) - 10. 6% Black or African American 68, 253 2. 9% 61, 094 2. 4% 56, 849 2. 1 % ( 11, 404) - 10. 5% ( 4, 245) - 6. 9% American Indian & Alaska Native 6, 816 0. 3% 5, 167 0. 2% 4, 261 0. 2% ( 2, 555) - 24. 2% ( 906) - 17. 5% Asian 567, 084 23. 7% 741, 400 29. 7% 981, 182 36. 3% 414, 098 30. 7% 239, 782 32. 3% Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 14, 152 0. 6% 16, 136 0. 6% 14, 785 0. 5% 633 14. 0% ( 1, 351) - 8. 4% Some other race alone 5, 739 0. 2% 6, 586 0. 3% 16, 035 0. 6% 10, 296 14. 8% 9, 449 143. 5% Two or more races 72, 956 3. 1% 77, 480 3. 1% 117, 236 4. 3% 44, 280 6. 2% 39, 756 51. 3% Subtotal, Not Hispanic nor Latino 1, 831, 637 76. 6% 1, 838, 381 73. 5% 2, 021, 958 74. 9% 190, 321 0. 4% 183, 577 10. 0% Hispanic or Latino 558, 109 23. 4% 661, 712 26. 5% 678, 743 25. 1% 120, 634 18. 6% 17, 031 2. 6% Total, All Races 2, 389, 746 100. 0% 2, 500, 093 100. 0% 2, 700, 701 100. 0% 310, 955 4. 6% 200, 608 8. 0% Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 SF3 Table P7, 2010 SF1 Table P8, and 2020 PL 94- 171, Table P2; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

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

One set of historic factors contributing to segregation was national policies such as FHA redlining and loan discrimination. These factors as well as the impact of regional and local planning decisions are discussed in " Segregation Shaped the San Mateo Housing Crisis," 17 In an interview18 discussing his book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, author Richard Rothstein points out numerous policies and actions in the region, including blockbusting and government policies that led to segregated patterns of housing in local communities such as Mountain View, and how this led in part to the wealth gaps, and health disparities by race/ ethnicity that still exist today.

However, one Bay Area developer of suburban housing in the region following WWII, Joseph Eichler, " was one of the first builders to sell a home to whoever could afford it...," 19 Today, Eichler houses with their open floor plans are still sought by homeowners. Reportedly, there are 275 Eichler homes in Mountain View, with additional similar houses designed and built by others. 20
While national policies have contributed historically to patterns of segregation, economic considerations have also been a factor. As discussed above, housing prices in Mountain View have increased substantially over at least the past 20 years, surpassing the pace of housing cost increases in the surrounding region. As a result, other communities in the County and region provide a slightly more affordable option for lower -income households. Due to the economic disparities between racial and ethnic groups, which are attributable in part to historic patterns of redlining and loan discrimination and the resulting impact on wealth gaps that persist today, the high cost of housing in Mountain View is likely a key factor contributing to the differences between the City and the surrounding region in terms of the racial and ethnic composition of the population. The City of Mountain View has engaged in numerous 17 Marcy Rein, " Segregation Shaped the San Mateo Housing Crisis," RP& EJournal, undated, https:// www. reimaginerpe. org/ 20-2/ rein/ san- mateo- segregation access February 14 2022. 18 Charles Russo, " Un- forgetting the segregationist history of the Midpeninsula," Mountain View Voice, June 30, 2020, https:// www. mv-voice. com/ news/ 2020/ 06/ 30/ un-forgetting- the-segregationist- history- of-the- midpeninsu la accessed February 14, 2022.
18 Lisa Keys, " Famous for his California homes, this Jewish developer pushed to integrate the burbs," The Jewish News of Northern California, August 5, 2020 https:// www. iweekly. com/ 2020/ 08/ 05/ famous- for- his- californiahomes-this-jewish- developer- pushed-to- integrate-the-burbs/ accessed February 14, 2022. 20 " Mountain View Eichler Homes," https:// www. eichlerforsale. com/ mountain- view- eichlers/ accessed February 14, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 147 Resolution No. 18781

past and ongoing efforts to address the need for affordable housing in the City, and the Housing Plan section of this Housing Element Update includes new and continued actions to improve the affordability of housing in Mountain View.

Dissimilarity Index
One of two key metrics recommended for use in fair housing analysis as part of the federal AFFH rule, the dissimilarity index measures the evenness with which two groups are distributed across the geographic units that make up a larger area, such as Census Block Groups within a City. The index can range from zero to 100, with zero meaning no segregation, or spatial disparity, and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be interpreted as the percentage of one of the two groups that would have to move to produce an even distribution. An index score above 60 is considered high, while 30 to 60 is considered moderate, and below 30 is considered low. 21 The sub -city analysis, including the calculation of both the dissimilarity and isolation indexes, relies on the use of Block Group - level data from the U. S. Census Bureau.

Mountain View generally shows low dissimilarity index scores by race/ ethnicity ( see Table 27).

In 2020, the scores ranged from 11. 0 for non -Hispanic persons of two or more races to 55. 0 for non -Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native residents. However, it should be noted that the only groups with dissimilarity index scores in the moderate range are those with very small populations in Mountain View; their higher dissimilarity index scores may in part reflect segregation resulting from their limited numbers. Most of the groups show a decrease in the dissimilarity index between 2010 and 2020, indicating that segregation of racial and ethnic groups within Mountain View has generally declined in recent years.

Table 27: Dissimilarity Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020 Racial and/ or Ethnic Group
Black or African American alone
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone
Some other race alone
Two or more races
Hispanic or Latino
Dissimilarity Index
2010 2020

32. 7

38. 7

18. 8

47. 0

31. 1

11. 9

36. 7

25. 7

55. 0

14. 4

44. 4

24. 7

11. 0

29. 6
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census, Table P2; BAE, 2022. 21 Cloud Nine Technologies and Brent Mast, ( 2017). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool AFFH- T) Data Documentation. HUD Office of Policy Development and Research, and Massey, D. S. and N. A. Denton. 1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Isolation Index
The other key metric recommended under the federal AFFH rule is the Isolation Index, which compares a group' s share of the overall population to the average share within a given block group. Ranging from 0 to 100, the isolation index represents the percentage of residents of a given race or ethnicity in a Block Group where the average resident of that group lives, correcting for the fact that this number increases mechanically with that group' s share of the overall study area' s population. Using Hispanic or Latino residents as an example, the isolation index of 7. 8 indicates that the average Hispanic or Latino resident in 2020 lives in a Block Group where the Hispanic or Latino share of the population exceeds the overall citywide average by 7. 8 percent. Isolation index values close to zero indicate that members of that minority group live in relatively integrated neighborhoods. 22 23 Table 28 summarizes isolation index scores by racial and ethnic group. The data indicate that most residents live in areas with relatively high degrees of racial and ethnic integration. The isolation indexes decreased in most groups between 2010 and 2020. None of the scores indicate a high degree of isolation for any group in either 2010 or 2020.

Table 28: Isolation Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020 Racial and/ or Ethnic Group
Non - Hispanic White
Black or African American alone
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Some other race alone
Two or more races
Hispanic or Latino
Isolation Index
2010 2020

7. 8 3. 8

0. 7 0. 5

0. 1 0. 4

3. 5 3. 2

0. 7 0. 4

0. 2 0. 3

0. 3 0. 5

12. 2 7. 8
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census, Table P2; BAE, 2022.

Geographic Distribution of Residents by Race and Ethnicity Figure 33 through Figure 50 below illustrate the geographic concentrations of the overall nonWhite population and the non -Hispanic populations of White, Black, Native American/ Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islanders, Some Other Race, and Two or More Races, and Hispanic or Latino residents by Census block group, for both the City of Mountain View and a comparison region, defined as San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties combined. 22 HUD. ( 2013). AFFH Data Documentation. Available at: http:// www. huduser. org/ portal/ publications/ pdf/ FR5173- P- 01AFFHd atadocu mentatio n. pdf 23 Glaeser, E. and Vigdor, J. ( 2001). Racial Segregation in the 2000 Census: Promising News. Washington, DC:

The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Available at:
http:// www. brookings. edu/ es/ urban/ census/ glaeser. pdf DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 149 Resolution No. 18781

As shown above in Table 26, approximately 60% of Mountain View' s population is non-White.

The share of non- White residents varies considerably by Census Block Group, as shown in Figure 33, ranging from 39% to 77 percent. The highest minority concentrations can be found in Block Groups in the areas around Rengstorff Park, as well as North Whisman, Whisman Station, and areas north of Old Middlefield Way. In the two -county region, the Block Groups with the highest minority population tend to be in urban areas in East San Jose and Milpitas, with concentrations by Block Group ranging from 15% up to 99% (see Figure 34). For many of the groups, the population overall in Mountain View is extremely small.

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

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

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

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

1. 4% of the citywide population as of 2020. By Block Group, the percentage ranges from 0. 1% to four percent (see Figure 39). In the two -county region, the range by Block Group is from zero to 19 percent, as shown in Figure 40. The Block Groups with high concentrations are clustered in and around northern neighborhoods in Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and San Jose.

The largest minority group in Mountain View is the Non -Hispanic Asian population, which makes up 35% of the citywide population. The proportion of non -Hispanic Asians by Block Group varies from 15% to nearly 60 percent, with the highest concentrations found near the San Antonio and Whisman Station neighborhoods ( see Figure 41). In the two -county region, the proportion of the population that is non -Hispanic Asian ranges from less than one percent to nearly 92 percent. The Block Groups with the highest concentrations are located in and around the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, Cupertino, Foster City, Millbrae, and Daly City ( see Figure 42)
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

The Non -Hispanic Hawaiian Native/ Pacific Islander population in Mountain View is extremely small, making up just 0. 1% of the citywide population as of 2020. By Census Glock Group the proportions range from none to two percent (see Figure 43). Regionally, the highest Block Group concentration is 14 percent, with high concentrations in East Palo Alto, San Mateo, and San Bruno ( see Figure 44).

As displayed in Figure 45, the non -Hispanic Alaska Native/ Native American population in Mountain View is also extremely small, ranging from zero to less than two percent by Block Group. Regionally, the proportion in all Block Groups is also less than two percent. One Block Group in North Bayshore in the City shows non -Hispanic Native Americans making up approximately 1.6% of the population, the highest proportion regionally (Figure 46).

The non -Hispanic Some Other Race Alone population in Mountain View is another very small cohort, as seen in Figure 47. The percentage by Block Group ranges from zero to just 2. 2 percent. Regionally, the percentage by Block Group ranges from zero to six percent (see Figure 48). The Block Groups with the highest concentrations of non - Hispanic Some Other Race populations are located in northern San Mateo County in Burlingame, San Bruno, and San Mateo.

Non -Hispanic persons of two or more races comprise 5. 3% of the citywide population according to 2020 Census data. By Block Group, the concentration ranges from three percent to ten percent. The highest concentrations can be found in multiple Block Groups throughout the City, but in no real pattern ( see Figure 49). Regionally the percentage by Block Group ranges from less than one percent to 13 percent.

Summary of Geographic Distribution of Residents by Race and Ethnicity. Overall, the figures provided below indicate that some areas of Mountain View include concentrations of various racial and ethnic groups in Block Groups throughout the City. In particular, there are concentrations of White residents in Monta Loma, Downtown and many of the Block Groups south of El Camino Real; concentrations of Hispanic and Latino residents in Block Groups around Rengstorff Park and North Bayshore; and concentrations of Asian residents in Block Groups near the San Antonio and Whisman Station neighborhoods. During the public review period for the Housing Element Update, several individuals commented on the high proportion of Latino students at Mariano Castro Elementary School ( see Figure 71 below), which has an attendance zone that overlaps with the area around Rengstorff Park ( most notably Block Groups 1 and 3 in Census Tract 5094. 03 and Block Groups 1 and 2 in Census Tract 5095) that has a large Latino population. These commenters expressed concerns that the differences between schools in terms of the racial and ethnic composition of the students provided an indicator of segregated living patterns within Mountain View. All other racial and ethnic groups comprise a relatively small share of the population in Mountain View overall and in individual Block Groups throughout the City.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Implications of Geographic Distribution of Residents by Race and Ethnicity for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing through the Housing Element Update. Affirmatively furthering fair housing through the Housing Element Update includes taking actions that overcome patterns of segregation. The primary mechanism that a local jurisdiction can use to overcome existing patterns of racial or ethnic segregation is to identify affordable housing opportunity sites throughout the community, rather than concentrating affordable housing in areas with existing concentrations of racial and ethnic minority residents. As shown in Figure 97 below and discussed in Appendix E, the housing sites inventory that is included in this Housing Element Update identifies sites throughout the City where affordable housing could be built and does not concentrate affordable housing opportunity sites in areas with disproportionate concentrations of racial or ethnic minority groups.

The housing site inventory shown in Appendix E helps to affirmatively further fair housing as it relates to the four Block Groups identified above that have a disproportionate share of Latino residents. These four block groups currently account for an estimated 9. 6 percent of all existing housing units in Mountain View. Of the housing sites identified in Appendix E, sites in these four Block Groups account for 1.2 percent of lower -income units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. This means that these Block Groups have a disproportionately low share of the lower -income units in the site inventory relative to the number of existing units in these Block Groups.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 33: Census Block Groups by% Non -White, Mountain View Los Altos
Sources, County of Santa Clara, Bu
0 of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin. USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, RE, NPS: BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
of Non - White Population by Block Group
I
39% - 49%
50% - 59%
60% - 69%
70% - 77% 0 0. 5 1 2
237
Sunnyvale
3 4
Miles
Note: Includes all categories except White non -Hispanic persons.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 34: Census Block Groups by% Non -White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties it
Sources'. Esli, HERE NPR, Esri, HERE, Gamin, URGE, EPA NPS: SAE 2021 City of Mountain View % of Non - White Population by Block 60% - 69% o Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Group 70°lo - 99°fo San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary 15% - 49%
J% No Data
50% - 59%
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Note: Includes all categories except White non -Hispanic persons.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 154 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 35: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic White, Mountain View Los Altos
unnyvale
Sources, County of Santa Clara, Bu of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin. USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, ,, RE, NPS: BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
Non - Hispanic White Population by Block Group
1 1 23% - 29%
i 30% - 39%
IW 40% - 49%
50%- 61% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 36: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources. Esri HERE NPS Esri HERE., Germin, IJSGS, EPA NPS; BAE 2021 City of Mountain View % Non - Hispanic white Population by _ 40% - 49 % Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Block Group _ 50% - 85% 7 San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary 1 % - 29%
iA No Data
30%- 39%
0 5 10
ry
20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 156 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 37: Census Block Groups by% Hispanic or Latino, Mountain View 14 Sources. County of Santa Clara, Bu of Land Management, Earl, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri \ RE, NPS; BAE, 2021.

City of Mountain View
Hispanic Population by Block Group
3%- 9%
10%- 19%
20% - 29%
30% - 49% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 38: Census Block Groups by% Hispanic or Latino, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Q City of Mountain View
Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary
Hispanic Population by Block Group - 203/ 4- 295'°
1%- 9°/ - 30%- 93%
10% - 19% 1l No Data
0 5 10 20 30 40
Mlles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 158 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 39: Census Block Groups by Non -Hispanic Black, Mountain View unnyvate
d
Sources:Esri, HERE, County of Sa`'> lara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnol '.! les, Inc., USGS, EPA; BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
Non - Hispanic Black Population by Block Group

0. 1% - 0. 9%

1. 0%- 1. 9%

2. 0% - 2. 9%

3. 0%- 4. 2% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 40: Census Block Groups by Non -Hispanic Black, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: Esri, HERE, NPS, Esri WERE, Garmin, IJSGS, EPA NPS, BAE 2021 City of Mountain View % Non - Hispanic Black Population by - 2. 0 % - 2. 9% Sari Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Block Group 3. 0 % - 19. 2 SraMateo and Santa Clara County Boundary0. 0% - 0. 9 % No Data 1.
0%-1. 9% 0
5 10 20 30 40 Miles
Sources:

U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022. DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 160 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 41: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic Asian, Mountain View Sources: County of Santa Clara, Bulgy of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, RE, NPS; BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
Non - Hispanic Asian Population by Block Group
15% - 29%
30% - 39%
40%- 49%
50% - 60% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 42: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic Asian, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources'. Esii, HERE; NPS, Esri, HERE. Garrnin. USGS. EPA; NPS: SAE. 2021 City of Mountain View % Non - Hispanic Asian Population by - 40. 0% - 49. 9% Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Block Group

50. 0% - 91. 9%
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary 0. 7%- 29, 9% lA No Data

30. 0% - 39. 9%
0 5 10
v
1 20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 162 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 43: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic Pacific Islander, Mountain View
City of Mountain View
of Non - Hispanic Pacific Islander Population by Block Group

0. 00% - 0. 19%

0. 20% - 0. 49%

0. 50% - 0. 99%

1. 00% - 2. 04% 0 0. 5 f 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 44: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic Pacific Islander, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: Esri, HERE, NPS, Esri, HERE. Germin, USGS. EPA NPS: BAE, 2021 City of Mountain View % of Nan - Hispanic Pacific Islander _ 0. 50% - 0. 99% Q San Mateo and Santa. Clara Counties Population by Block Group - 1. 00% - 13.65% San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary 0. 00% - 0. 19% No Data

0. 20%- 0. 49%
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 164 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 45: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic Native American, Mountain View
Los Altos
Sunnyvale
0 Sources: County of Santa Clara, Bulgy of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, " RE, NPS; BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
Non - Hispanic Native American/ Alaskan Native Population by Block Group

0. 00% - 0. 24%

0. 25% - 0. 49%

0. 50% - 1. 55%
0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 46: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic Native American, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources' Esri, HERE, NPS, Esri, HERE. Gerrnin, NSGS, EPA NPS; SAE 2021 City of Mountain View % Non - Hispanic Native American/ 0. 25% - 0. 49% Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Alaskan Native Population by Block 0 50%- 1. 55% San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary Group

0. 00% - 0. 24% P7A No Data
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 166 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 47: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic Other Race Alone, Mountain View
237)
Los Altos
Sunnyvale
0 Sources: County of Santa Clara, Bu of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Eari, `" RE, NPS; BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
Non - Hispanic Other Race Population by Block Group

0. 00% - 0. 19%

0. 20% - 0. 49%

0. 50% - 0. 99%

1. 00% - 2. 22% 0 0. 5 f 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 48: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic Other Race Alone, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: Esri HERE NPS Esri HERE, Garmin, USGS. EPA, NPS; BAE. 2021 c- 1 City of Mountain View % Non -Hispanic Other
Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Population by Block Group San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary 0. 00% - 0. 19%

0. 20% - 0. 49%
Race — 0. 50%- 0. 99%

1. 00%- 6. 27%
No Data
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 168 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 49: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic Persons of Two or More Races, Mountain View
237
Los Altos
Sunnyvale
Sources: County of Santa Clara, Bulgy of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, " RE, NPS; BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
Non - Hispanic 2 or more Race Populafson by Block Group

2. 6% - 4. 9%

5. 0% - 5. 9%

6. 0% - 6. 9%

7. 0%- 9. 7% 0 0. 5 f 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 50: Census Block Groups by% Non -Hispanic Persons of Two or More Races, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources' Esri, HERE, NPS, Esri, HERE. Gerrnin, NSGS, EPA NPS; SAE 2021 City of Mountain View % Non -Hispanic 2 or more
Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Population by Block Group San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary 0. 0% - 4. 9%

5. 0% - 5. 9%
Race 6. 0% - 6. 9%

7. 0%- 12. 7%
l7A No Data
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 170 Resolution No. 18781

Persons with a Disability
Regional Trends. As discussed in the housing needs assessment, approximately 5, 700 residents in Mountain View are estimated to have one or more of the six disability types specified by the American Community Survey. Compared to Santa Clara County, Mountain View has a smaller proportion of the population living with a disability at 7% compared to 8% in the County overall. Additionally, there are 11 Census Tracts in the County with proportions of the population living with a disability over 15%, and none of those Census Tracts are located in the City of Mountain View.

Trends over Time. The proportion of the population living with a disability remained relatively unchanged from 2010 to 2019. The share of the population living with a disability decreased in the City of Mountain View from 7. 2% in 2010 to 7. 0% in 2019. Meanwhile, the share of the population living with a disability increased in the County overall from 7. 9% to 8. 0%.

Patterns across Census Tracts. Figure 51 shows the percent of persons with a disability by Census Tract in Mountain View based on ACS data from 2015- 2019. The Tracts range from

8. 2% to 15. 8% of the civilian noninstitutionalized population having one or more type of disability. The Census Tracts with highest proportion of those with a disability (about ten percent) are located around the western portions of the city. As shown in Figure 52, the San Mateo and Santa Clara County Region shows some Census Tracts with high proportions of disabled persons, though all of the Census Tracts report having less than 20% of the non - institutionalized civilian population with a disability.

Specifically, Census Tracts 5093.03 and 5094.04 have 10. 1% and 10. 4% of the population living with a disability. Tract 5093. 03 is just north of El Camino Real and has a cluster of apartments, commercial uses, and the Mountain View Community Center. Additionally, the Mountain View Senior Center is nearby to east. This concentration of housing suitable for residents with a disability and the proximity to services such as the community and senior center may account for the higher concentration of residents living with a disability in this area.

Tract 5094.04 is directly northeast of the other tract and includes a concentration of low density, one- story apartments. Again, the proximity to services and apartments suitable for residents living with disabilities is likely the cause of the concentration.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 171 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 51: Population with a Disability by Census Tract, Mountain View Los Altos
Q
Sunnyvale
Sources Esri HERE, County of SarlC lava, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE Garmin, INCREMEN`\ P USGS, EPA: BAE, 2021 _ Q City of Mountain View
of Population with a Disability by Tract

4. 2% - 4. 9%

5. 0% - 6. 9%

7. 0%- 9. 9%

10. 0%- 10. 4% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 52: Population with a Disability by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources, Esri, HERE, NPS, Esri, HERE, Gerrrin, USGS, EPA, NPS; BAE, 2021 City of Mountain View % of Population with a Disability by - 7. 0%- 9, 9% Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Tract -
t 0. 0% - 18, 5%
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary 1. 3% - 4. 9% VA No Data

5. 0 % - 6. 9%
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data; BAE, 2022.

Familial Status
Regional Trends. Family status affects housing choices both in the type of housing desired and the ability to afford that housing. Households with more than one adult, especially married couple households, tend to have higher incomes and thus can better afford housing.

Mountain View has a lower proportion of married -couple households than Santa Clara County overall and the Bay Area, with 45.3% of households reporting as married -couple families compared to 57% for the county and 51% of the region. Although a minority of households are characterized as married -couple, most children under 18 in Mountain View live in these DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

households. Overall, 13. 8% of households with children in Santa Clara County are single - female households compared to 12. 3% in the City of Mountain View.

Trends over Time. The share of married -couple household with children under 18 years old increased in Santa Clara County from 79% in 2010 to 82% in 2019. The share of households with children that are married - couple households stayed the same in Mountain View from 2010 to 2019 ( 81% of households with children).

Patterns across Census Tracts. By Census Tract, between 56.9% and 96. 4% of children under 18 reside in married -couple households ( as shown in Figure 53), with no areas with a majority of children in living in single -parent or other non -married couple households. The highest concentrations of children under 18 in married couple households are in the northern and southern portions of Mountain View. The tracts with the highest share of households with children under 18 in married - couple households are Tract 5046. 01 ( 94%) and Tract 5098. 01 92%). Tract 5046. 01 is in the far north of the city along the Bay and home to Google, Intuit, NASA, and Microsoft campuses. Tract 5098. 01 is in the southwest of the city and is comprised of single family detached homes west of Miramonte Avenue and north of Cuesta Drive.

As shown in Figure 54, for the San Mateo and Santa Clara County Region, the proportion of children in married -couple households by Census Tract ranges from 31.9 to 100 percent, though the tracts with 100% in married -couple households have smaller populations of children under 18.

Households with only one parent or guardian present, especially female -headed households, are more likely to face problems in finding affordable housing. Figure 55 shows the distribution in Mountain View of the percent of children in female -headed households with no spouse or partner present in Mountain View. The proportion of children in female -headed households with no spouse or partner present by Census Tract ranges from zero to 37. 2 percent. Three Tracts show concentrations greater than 20 percent, located around the center of the City or near San Antonio Center. The highest concentration, at 37. 2 percent, is located in Tract 5092. 01, bordered by North Shoreline Boulevard, the Central Expressway, Route 85, and US 101. The second highest is Tract 5095 ( 29%) which is located just north of El Camino Real. This Tract is home to several apartment communities, single family homes, Mariano Castro Elementary, Mountain View Academy, and the Khan Lab School. Additionally, the Public Library and Downtown Mountain View are nearby to the east. The third highest is Tract 5094. 04 ( 25%) which is home to the San Antonio Center, the community center, and several apartment communities.

In the two -county region, the proportion of children in female -headed households with no spouse or partner present by Census Tract ranges from zero to 44. 7% ( see Figure 56). Only four Tracts have concentrations over 40 percent. These tracts can be found in San Jose and Redwood City.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 53:% of Children in Married -Couple Households, 2015- 2019, Mountain View
Los Altos
Sources. County of Santa Clara
41 stun Esitirl
Via vi
u of Land Management, Earl, HERE, Garman, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, RE, NPS: BAE, 2021 _ unnyvale
0 City of Mountain View
of Children in Married -Couple Households by Tract
57% - 69%
70% - 79%
80% - 89%
90% - 96% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 54:% of Children in Married -Couple Households, 2015- 2019, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
City of Mountain View
Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary
of Children in Married - Couple _ 80% - 89%
Households by Tract _ 90% - 100%
32%- 70%
70% - 79%
No Data
0 5 10
ry
20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 176 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 55:% of Children in Single - Female Headed Households, Mountain View Los Altos
11f3L1IIt III `-
Vi ew
237i
unnyvale
a
Sources. Esri, HERE, County of SaZara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMEN \P, USGS, EPA: BAE, 2021- Q City of Mountain View of
Children in Female Householder (No Spouse/ Partner Present) Households by Tract 0. 0% - 4. 9% 5.
0% - 9. 9% 10.
0% - 14. 9% 15.
0% - 37. 2% 0

0. 5 1 2 3 4 Miles
Sources:

U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data; BAE, 2022. DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 177 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 56:% of Children in Single - Female Headed Households, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
City of Mountain View
0 San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary
of Children in Female Householder 4. 9% - 9. 9%
No Spouse/ Partner Present) -

10. O%- 14. 9%
Households by Tract

0. 0%- 4. 9°% 15. 0%- 44.7%
IM No Data
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Income
Regional Trends. As shown in Table 29, the median annual household income in Mountain View during the 2015- 2019 ACS survey period was $ 139, 720 ( 2019 dollars), compared to 123, 700 in the two -county region. Approximately 47% of the City' s households had incomes of $ 150, 000 or more, compared to 41. 4% of households in the two -county region. At the lower end of the income scale, roughly one -fifth of the households in both geographies had incomes less than $ 50, 000.

Table 29: Household Income Distribution and Median Income, 2015- 2019 San Mateo and Santa
Mountain View Clara Counties
Household Income Number
Less than $ 14, 999
15, 000 to $ 24, 999
25, 000 to $ 34, 999
35, 000 to $ 49, 999
50, 000 to $ 74, 999
75, 000 to $ 99, 999
100, 000 to $ 149, 999
150, 000 and above
Total Households
1, 808
1, 418
1, 360
1, 916
2, 926
2, 711
5, 840
15, 777
Percent Number Percent

5. 4% 48, 211

4. 2% 38, 244 4. 2%

4. 0% 39, 964 4. 4%
58, 461 6. 5%

8. 7% 96, 299 10. 7%

8. 0% 91, 657 10. 1%

17. 3% 156, 622 17. 3%

46. 7% 374, 300 41. 4%

5. 7%

5. 3%
33, 756 100. 0% 903, 758 100. 0%
Median Household Income $ 139, 720 123, 699
Note: Incomes are in 2019 dollars.

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

Figure 61 shows the percentage of the population living in poverty by Census Tract in Mountain View. According to 2015- 2019 ACS data, approximately 6. 7% of the citywide population lives below the federal poverty limit compared to 7. 5% in Santa Clara County.

Trends over Time. Median household income increased from $ 88, 244 in 2010 to $ 139, 720 in 2019 ( an increase of 58%) in Mountain View. Santa Clara County' s median income increased by 43% during the same time. Therefore, median income growth in Mountain View outpaced growth in the County overall.

Between 2010 to 2019, it is estimated that the poverty rate in the City of Mountain View decreased from 7. 1% to 6. 7%. Similarly, the poverty rate in Santa Clara County decreased from 10. 5% in 2010 to 7. 5% in 2019.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Patterns across Census Block Group and Census Tract. Figure 57 below shows the geographic distribution of households by median household income by Block Group in Mountain View.

The median ranges widely, from $ 67, 800 in a small Block Group near the intersection of Rengstorff Avenue and El Camino Real to over $ 250, 000 in multiple Block Groups south of El Camino Real. There are seven Block Groups with median household incomes below 100, 000. These Block Groups are dispersed throughout the city and primarily located along El Camino Real and Highway 85 (see Figure 57).

As illustrated in Figure 58, the two -county region shows a broader range of median annual household incomes by Block Group, ranging from $ 21, 250 to over $ 250, 000. The lower - income Block Groups tend to be located in more urbanized areas such as San Jose and Campbell, while the highest incomes can be found in more suburban areas, such as Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Woodside.

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

6. 5% to 59. 9 percent. In the two -county region, the percentage ranges from two to 94% (see Figure 60). There are four Census Tracts in Mountain View where a majority ( greater than 50 percent) of the population is low- to moderate -income. These lower -income Tracts are located in the western and northern portions of the City. The western Tracts with majority low- to moderate - income households have a concentration of apartments, the San Antonio Shopping Center, the Community Center, and the Senior Center. The north tract is the location of Google, Intuit, NASA, and Microsoft campuses.

By Census Tract, the poverty rate ranges from 1. 5% to 16. 4%. The two Tracts with the highest proportions of the population with incomes below the poverty level ( greater than 10%) are located in the San Antonio and Monta Loma/ Farley/ Rock areas. In the two -county region, the percent of the population living in poverty by Census Tract ranges from zero to 43. 6 percent.

The Tracts with the highest concentrations ( greater than 20 percent) are found in downtown San Jose and Redwood City ( see Figure 62). There is also one Tract with a high rate of poverty near Stanford University, largely due to the significant student population living there.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 180 Resolution No. 18781