Mountain View City Council
April 11, 2023

Figure 57: Distribution of Median Household Income by Block Group, Mountain View
Sources: Esri, HERE, County of Sa Clara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnol,; ies, Inc., USGS, EPA; BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
Median Household Income by Block Group
No Data
100, 000
100, 000 - $ 149,999
150, 000 - $ 174, 999
n175,000
WA
0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 five- year sample period; BAE, 2022.

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

Figure 58: Distribution of Median Household Income by Block Group, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: Esri, HERE, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS; BAE, 2021 Q City of Mountain View
Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary
Median Household Income by Block Group
No Data
100, 000
100, 000 - $ 149,999
150, 000 - $ 174,999 0 5 10
a$ 175,000
20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 five- year sample period; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 182 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 59:% of Low to Moderate Income Population by Census Tract, Mountain View
Los Alto.
nnyvale
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
of Low -to -Moderate Income Population by Tract

6. 5% - 29.9%

30. 0% - 39.9%

40. 0% - 49. 9%

50. 0% - 59. 9% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: HUD; U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2011- 2015 data.

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

Figure 60:% of Low to Moderate Income Population by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
0 City of Mountain View
Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary
of Low -to - Moderate Income
Population by Tract

0. 0%- 30, 0%

30. 0% - 39. 9%

40. 0%- 49. 9%
50% - 93. 9%
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Sources: HUD; U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2011- 2015 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 184 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 61: Poverty Status by Census Tract, Mountain View L0.,: :+ Itr
NIauntaIll
Vievvr
0 37
Sunnyvale
Sources. Esri, HERE, County of Sa7lara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMEN'\ P, USGS, EPA', BAE, 2021_ City of Mountain View
of Population whose Income in the Past 12 Months is Below Poverty Level

1. 5% - 2. 9%

3. 0% - 6. 9%

7. 0%- 9. 9%

10. 0% - 16. 4% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 five- year sample period; BAE, 2022.

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

Figure 62: Poverty Status by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Liverm ore
Sources Esri, HERE. NPS. E. HERE. Gannin. USGS, EPA, NPS; BAE, 2021 Q City of Mountain View % of Population whose Income in the 7. 0% - 9.9 % San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Past 12 Months is Below Poverty Level - 10. 0% - 43. 6% San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary, 0. 0% - 2. 9% No Data

3. 0 % - 6. 9
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 five- year sample period; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 186 Resolution No. 18781

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

Figure 63: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources, Esri, HERE. NPS. Esri, HERE, Garmin. USGS, EPA, NPS, BAE. 2021 Q City of Mountain View Racially/ Ethnically Concentrated Areas San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties of Poverty ( RIECAP) Score L.: 7; San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary I 0 - Not a R7ECAP 1 - R/ ECAP
0 5 10 20 30
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014- 2018 five- year sample data; HUD; BAE, 2022. 40 Miles
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

While none of the tracts in Mountain View meet the criteria for a R/ ECAP, there are some areas in the city, such as San Antonio, Monta Loma/ Farley/ Rock, and North Bayshore that have higher concentrations of non-White and lower income populations (see Figure 33 and Figure 59). Table 30 reports the prevalence of poverty by race and ethnicity between 2015 and 2019. The data show that several racial and ethnic groups, including Black or African American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, Hispanic or Latino, and residents of Some Other Race alone, have poverty rates in excess of the citywide average of 6. 7 percent.

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

Table 30: Poverty by Race and Ethnicity, City of Mountain View, 2015- 2019 Total
Total Below Poverty
Racial/ Ethnic Group Population Poverty Rate
White alone 44, 333 2, 583 5. 8%
Black or African American alone 1, 268 134 10. 6%
American Indian and Alaska Native 324 101 31. 2%
Asian alone 25, 958 1, 684 6. 5%
Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander 246 12 4. 9%
Some other race alone 5, 411 800 14. 8%
Two or more races 3, 754 164 4. 4%
Total, All Races 81, 294 5, 478 6. 7%
Hispanic or Latino 14, 757 1, 823 12. 4%
Not Hispanic or Latino 66, 537 3, 655 5. 5%
Total, All Ethnicities 81, 294 5, 478 6. 7%
Note:
a) Includes only those for whom poverty status was determined.

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

Resolution No. 18781

Racially and Ethnically Concentrate Areas of Affluence
R/ ECAPs show one side of concentrations by race and wealth. On the other side are " areas of affluence" where non -minority affluent populations are concentrated. HCD devised a measure which calls out Census tracts with relatively high concentrations of both White population and higher household incomes, as detailed in the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool. These areas are designated as " Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence," or RCAAs. There are no RCAAs in Mountain View or the larger two -county region.

Figure 64 shows the distribution of Census Block Groups in Mountain View by the percent of the population that is Non -Hispanic White as well as Block Groups with a median annual household income above the regional median of $ 124, 000. The figure shows that most Block Groups in Mountain View, including most with a predominantly non -Hispanic White population, have a median household income that is higher than the regional median. However, some Block Groups with a predominantly non -Hispanic White population have median household incomes below the regional median. In addition, Block Groups with a median household income above the regional median include many where the non -Hispanic White population comprises a relatively small share of the population in the Block Group.

Figure 65 shows the distribution of Census Block Groups in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties by the percent of the population that is Non -Hispanic White as well as Block Groups with a median annual household income above the regional median of $ 124, 000. This figure shows that relatively high -income communities along the Highway 101 corridor and in San Jose include areas in which the population is predominantly non -Hispanic White as well as areas in which the non -Hispanic White population comprises a relatively small share of the population, similar to the findings for Mountain View. However, the map also indicates that significant areas within the western portion of both Counties are both relatively affluent and predominantly non -Hispanic White.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 189 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 64: Distribution of Non -Hispanic White Population by Median Income, City of Mountain View
CM
II City of Mountain View
Non -Hispanic White Population by Block Group
23% - 29%
30% - 39%
40% - 49%
50% - 61%
Greater than the Regional
Median Income, >_$ 124, 000K
0 0. 5 1
y r, santa Clara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garm GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA
2 3 4
Miles
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

Figure 65: Distribution of Non -Hispanic White Population by Median Income, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, BA E, 2021.

City of Mountain View % Non - Hispanic White Population by Block 30% - 39% Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Group - 40% - 49%
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary 1% - 29% — 50% - 85% No Data
0 5 10
141 Greater than the Regional
Median Income, >_$ 124, 000K
20 30 40
Miles
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
AB 686 requires the needs assessment to include an analysis of access to opportunities. To facilitate this assessment, HCD and the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee ( TCAC) convened an independent group of organizations and research institutions under the umbrella of the California Fair Housing Task Force, which produces an annual set of Opportunity Maps.

The maps identify areas within every region of the state " whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for lowincome families - particularly long-term outcomes for children." 24 TCAC and HCD created these " Opportunity Maps" using reliable and publicly available data sources to derive 21 indicators used to calculate opportunity index scores for Census tracts in each region in California. The TCAC/ HCD Opportunity Map categorizes Census tracts into five groups based on the opportunity index scores:
24 California Fair Housing Task Force. December 2020. Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/ HCD Opportunity Map.

Available at: https:// www. treasurer. ca. gov/ ctcac/ opportunity/ 2021- hcd- methodology. pdf DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

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

As illustrated in Figure 66, Mountain View has no tracts with High Segregation and Poverty, but otherwise has tracts ranging across the other four categories. The highest resource tracts are largely concentrated in the southern part of the City and overlap with many of the higher - income tracts and many of the tracts with higher concentrations of White residents. There is one Low Resource -designated tract located at the northernmost part of the City ( North Bayshore). This tract contains the Shoreline Amphitheatre, and the headquarters of Google, Intuit, and other tech companies, and has relatively small amounts of housing. While this Census Tract is one of the City' s Census tracts with a higher proportion of non-White residents and lower -income residents, that may be a function of the only housing type available ( a mobile home park) and limited access to daily goods, services and/ or schools. While this could potentially indicate disparities in access to opportunity across racial, ethnic, and income groups, this Census tract also overlaps with the North Bayshore Precise Plan area, which is planned for a mix of uses including residential, office, retail, services, and open space.

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

Tracts in San Mateo and Santa Clara County also cover a broad range of categories, although there is one tract with High Segregation and Poverty located in San Jose ( see Figure 67). In Santa Clara County, the Highest Resource tracts are largely concentrated in western Santa Clara Valley cities such as Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Los Altos. In San Mateo County, there are high concentrations of Highest Resource tracts in the areas south of the airport in the 1- 280 corridor and west of US 101, as well as additional areas in Foster City and parts of Redwood City.

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

Figure 66: 2021 TCAC/ HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, Mountain View Sources: County of Santa Clara, Bu of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, RE, NPS; BAE, 2021.

City of Mountain View
2021 TCACIHCD Opportunity Map
High Resource
Highest Resource
f 1 Low Resource
Moderate Resource 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014- 2018 five- year sample data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 193 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 67: 2021 TCAC/ HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources' Esri, HERE NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, LJSGS, EPA, NPS; SAE, 2021 Q City of Mountain View 2021 TCAC/ HCD Opportunity Map
Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Highest Resource
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary I= High Resource Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation & Poverty
Moderate Resource ( Rapidly NZ No Data
Changing)
0 5 10 20 30
Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014- 2018 five- year sample data; BAE, 2022.
40 Miles
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 194 Resolution No. 18781

Access to Education
Most of Mountain View is served by the Mountain View Whisman School District which has approximately 4,400 students enrolled up through eighth grade. Figure 68 shows the location of each of the district' s schools and the elementary school attendance areas.

Figure 68: School Boundaries Map for the Mountain View Whisman School District
Notes:

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

Source: Mountain View Whisman School District.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element 1 Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

The remainder of Mountain View is served by the Los Altos School District, which has approximately 3, 600 students25 from kindergarten through eighth grade. Figure 69 shows the location of each of the district' s schools and the elementary school attendance areas.

Mountain View is served by Covington, Almond, Springer, Santa Rita, and Oak Elementary Schools. Figure 70 shows the boundaries for the attendance areas for the two junior high schools, both of which serve some Mountain View students.

Figure 69: Elementary School Boundaries Map for the Los Altos School District
Los Altos School District
Elementary School
Attendance Boundaries
Adopted 61181'2007
for implementation Fall 2002
Source: Los Altos School District
25 This is the total enrollment not just of Mountain View resident students.

Area tov ndcd by San * Mono Rd..
rails pad ar aca, Sh 3 A cis Dr,. and
if ' I illfnmi.,' Si, Am -1• 3 Showell Pnccl
IAS$ iId[ oCovin.Jromn
flff
n.

L.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 196 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 70: Junior High School Boundaries Map for the Los Altos School District
Los Altos School District
Junior High School
Attendance Boundaries
Adopted 6118/ 2007
for implementation Fall 2008
LAakar 3 x-baw+r C4rnug{ onc Rau . n:

GISaCc
Source: Los Altos School District
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 197 Resolution No. 18781

Elementary Schools
Figure 71 shows that there are substantial disparities between elementary schools in the Mountain View Whisman school district in their ethnic makeup. These differences in part reflect the residential makeup of the surrounding neighborhoods that feed each of these schools as shown in the discussion of race and ethnicity above. One of the two schools with a majority Latino population, Gabriela Mistral Elementary is a Spanish language immersion school that is a choice school rather than a neighborhood school. The other school with a majority Latino population, Mariano Castro Elementary, is located on the same school site as Gabriela Mistral Elementary and serves an area that overlaps with an area around Rengstorff Park that has a large concentration of Hispanic and Latino residents, as shown in Figure 37 above. More specifically, the attendance zone for this school overlaps with four Census Block Groups in which the Latino population accounts for 30 to 50 percent of the total population in each Block Group.

As discussed in the section on the geographic distribution of residents by race and ethnicity, above, the primary mechanism that the City can use to overcome existing patterns of discrimination is to ensure that there are sites where affordable housing can be built throughout Mountain View, such that affordable units that are developed during the Housing Element planning period are not overly concentrated in areas with existing concentrations of racial and ethnic minority groups. While the housing sites inventory in this Housing Element Update includes some housing sites in the neighborhood that Mariano Castro Elementary serves, the vast majority of housing opportunity sites are located elsewhere in the City. The four Block Groups that overlap with the Gabriela Mistral Elementary attendance zone in which 30 to 50 percent of the population is Latino currently account for an estimated 9. 6 percent of all existing housing units in Mountain View. Of the housing sites identified in Appendix E of this Housing Element Update, 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.

The attendance zone that Mariano Castro Elementary serves is comprised of areas that are classified as " Moderate Resource" or " High Resource" on the TCAC/ HCD opportunity map ( see Figure 66), indicating relatively high access to opportunity in this area.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 198 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 71: Mountain View Whisman Elementary School Student Enrollment by Race/ Ethnicity, 2020- 21
100. 0%

90. 0%

34. 3

27. 3°k

80. 0 k ° 32. 5.'

29. 3%

70. 0%

9. 8%

60. 0%

12. 7°k

12. 5%

18. 2% 12. 4%

50. 0% 7. 3 k

87. 9°k
Iii

40. 0%

17. 4%

29. 9%

64.P5%

33. 6%

30. 0% °
k

20. 0%

6. 0%

10. 0%

0. 0% 1

1. 8% 3. 1 % 2. 5%

22. 3°k

0. 7% 2. 5%

5. 9%

1. 6%

8. 1 %

35. 1 ° k

15. 7%

10. 9%

23. 3°k

11. 0°k

44. 9°k
Benjamin Edith Amy Imai Gabriela Mariano Monta Stevenson Theuerkauf Bubb Landels Elementary Mistral Castro Loma Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Two or More Races
White
All Other Groups
Sources: California Department of Education, Ed -Data; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 199 Resolution No. 18781

The variation in the ethnic mix between the Los Altos elementary schools is not as pronounced as for the Mountain View Whisman school district, although there is some variation, as shown in Figure 72. For these schools, the two largest groups are Whites and Asians, who together make up over two-thirds of the student body in all the schools; White students are the majority at one school, but neither Asians nor Whites make up a majority at any other school.

Latino/ Hispanic children and children of two or more races make up most of the remainder of the student population in each of the schools. Black students make up less than one percent of the students in any of the schools, and all other groups account for the remaining 0. 6 percent to 4.4 percent.

These schools also vary from the Mountain View Whisman district schools; the Los Altos schools tend to have fewer Hispanic students and more White and Asian students.

Figure 72: Los Altos Elementary School Student Enrollment by Race/ Ethnicity, 2020- 21
100. 0%

90. 0%

80. 0%

70. 0%

60. 0%

50. 0%

40. 0%

30. 0%

20. 0%

10. 0%

0. 0%

3. 7%

38. 0%

3. 1%
9 51. 0%

2. 4% 1. 9% 3. 0%

0. 3% 16%

31. 9%
i

2. 1%

1. 3%

45. 0%

29. 7%
0%

3. 1% 0. 6%
111

48.6%

4. 0%
Oak Avenue LASD Virtual Covington Almond Gardner Loyola Santa Rita Springer Elementary Elementary Elementary Bullis Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary
Asian Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Two or More Races White AII Other Groups Sources: California Department of Education, Ed -Data; BAE, 2021.

Resolution No. 18781

Middle Schools
The Mountain View Whisman School District provides two middle schools that serve the city, Crittenden Middle School and Isaac Newton Graham Middle School. The variation in race and ethnicity at the middle school level is not as significant as for the Mountain View Whisman elementary schools ( see Figure 74). The Los Altos School District has two junior high schools, Ardis G. Egan Junior High and Georgina P. Blach Junior High, also shown in Figure 73. The ethnic/ racial mix in these two schools is similar to that for the district' s elementary schools.

As with the elementary schools, the student body in middle schools in the Mountain View Whisman district has a different race and ethnic mix than the Los Altos district schools, with a much higher proportion of Hispanic students and lower proportions of Asian and white students.

Figure 73: Mountain View Middle/ Junior High School Student Enrollment by Race/ Ethnicity, 2020- 21
100. 0%

90. 0%

80. 0%

70. 0%

60. 0%

50. 0%

40. 0%

30. 0%

20. 0%

10. 0%

0. 0%

43. 1%
0 2. 2/ 0
A

40. 8%
u.y7o

2. 1 %
Crittenden Middle Isaac Newton Ardis G. Egan Junior Georgina P. Blach Graham Middle High Junior High
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Two or More Races
White
All Other Groups
Sources: California Department of Education, Ed -Data; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 201 Resolution No. 18781

High Schools
Mountain is served by a single high school district. Mountain View -Los Altos Union High district has three high schools with a total of approximately 4,500 students, serving a district that encompasses Mountain View, Los Altos, parts of Los Altos Hills, and other nearby unincorporated areas. The two large high schools ( Mountain View and Los Altos) have similar diverse ethnic makeups; Alta Vista, which is a very small ( 71 students) alternative/ continuation school, shows a very different mix, with a student body that is approximately three -fourths Latino, in contrast to one- fourth for the district overall.

Figure 74: Mountain View High School Student Enrollment by Race/ Ethnicity, 2020- 21
100. 0%

90. 0%

80. 0%

70. 0%

60. 0%

50. 0%

40. 0%

30. 0%

20. 0%

10. 0%

0. 0%

21. 7%

23. 2°k
Mountain View High

3. 9%

1. 3%

14. 1° k

74. 6%
Alta Vista High

1. 4%

36. 1%

27. 5°k
Los Altos High

1. 5%

1. 0%
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Two or More Races
White
All Other Groups
Sources: California Department of Education, Ed -Data; BAE, 2021.

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

The Opportunity Index considers three education criteria in equal measure: math proficiency for 4th graders, reading proficiency for 4th graders, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate, to create an " Education Domain" score ranging from 0 to 100% for each Census Tract ( or in some cases, rural block group), with a higher score representing better educational opportunities. 26
26 The methodology for this can be found in https:// www. treasurer. ca. gov/ ctcac/ opportunity/ 2021- hcdmethodology. pdf.

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

Figure 75 shows the Education Domain scores for Mountain View and Figure 76 shows the Education Domain scores for San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The Education Domain scores for Census Tracts in Mountain View range from 53 percent to 99 percent, with a median of 81 percent. Within San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties overall, the Education Domain scores range from zero percent to 100 percent, with a median of 60 percent. These data indicate that Mountain View generally has relatively high Education Domain scores, though scores within some Census Tracts fall somewhat below the median for the two -County region.

As shown in Figure 75, the Census Tracts in Mountain View with the lowest Education Domain scores are Tract 5094.04 (53 percent), 5904.03 (56 percent), 5098.01 (67 percent) and 5095 ( 69 percent). These four Census Tracts overlap with an area that has a disproportionately large Latino population, which is discussed in more detail in the Segregation and Integration section of this analysis, as well as areas with a majority White population and areas with a racial and ethnic mix that is somewhat similar to the overall citywide mix. These four Census Tracts include some of the Census Tracts in Mountain View with the highest proportion of low-income and moderate -income households as well as one Census Tract south of El Camino Real ( 5098. 01) with one of the lowest proportions of low- income and moderate - income households. All other Census Tracts in Mountain View have an Education Domain score of 71 percent or higher, putting them over ten percentage points higher than the median for the two -County region.

The housing site inventory shown in Appendix E helps to affirmatively further fair housing as it relates to the four Census Tracts identified above that have the lowest Education Domain scores in Mountain View. These four Census Tracts currently account for an estimated 27 percent of all existing housing units in Mountain View. Sites in these four Census Tracts account for seven percent of units in the housing site inventory provided in Appendix E. This means that these Census Tracts have a disproportionately low share of the lower -income units in the site inventory relative to the number of existing units in these Census Tracts.

As illustrated in Figure 76, the Education Domain scores across the two -county region tend to mirror the scores of the overall Opportunity Index, with high scores tending toward rural areas and lower scores in the more urbanized areas.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 203 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 75: TCAC Education Domain Score, Mountain View
Sources: County of Santa Clara, Bu
City of Mountain View
of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, 2021 TCAC Education Domain Score
53% - 69%
70% - 74%
75% - 79%
80% - 99% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014- 2018 five- year sample data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 204 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 76: TCAC Education Domain Score, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Sources. Esri. HERE, NPS. Esn. HERE, Garrnin, USGS, EPA. NPS; BAE. 2021 Q City of Mountain View 2021 TCAC Education Domain Score Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary
0%- 69%
70% - 74%
75% - 79%
80%- 100% 0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014- 2018 five- year sample data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 205 Resolution No. 18781

Access to Employment
HUD has developed the Jobs Proximity Index as a way to measure access to employment opportunities. As stated by HUD:

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

The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. Values are percentile ranked with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. 27
Located within the Silicon Valley, Mountain View has generally high job proximity index scores, with scores higher than 51 in all of its Census Tracts ( see Figure 77). The higher index scores, ranging from 75 to 99, are all located in the northern portions of the City where most of the City' s commercial and industrial areas are located. These are also the portions of the City that include some of the City' s Census tracts with larger non-White and larger low-income populations With the exception of some largely unpopulated rural Block Groups, the areas with high proximity index values in the two -county region are clustered along Highway 101 from the north end of the region down through San Jose, particularly on the Bay side of 101 see Figure 78).
27 https:// hudgis- hud. opendata. arcgis. com/ datasets/ HUD:: iobs- proximity- index/ about. The index is currently based on U. S. Census Longitudinal Employer - Household Dynamics data from 2014.

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

Figure 77: Jobs Proximity Index Score, Mountain View
Sources: Esri, HERE, County of Sa Clara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMEN 0 City of Mountain View
Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group
MI51- 74
75 - 99
0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Source: HUD, based on U. S. Census Longitudinal Employer - Household Dynamics, 2014 Data.

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

Figure 78: Jobs Proximity Index Score, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Sources: Esri, HERE. NPS. E. HERE. Garrnm, HSGS. EPA. NHS. BAE, 2n21 Q City of Mountain View Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties - p - 25
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary 26- 50
51- 74
75 - 99 0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Source: HUD, based on U. S. Census Longitudinal Employer - Household Dynamics, 2014 Data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 208 Resolution No. 18781

Access to Transportation
Public transportation is made available through Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority VTA), Caltrain, and Mountain View Community Shuttle, providing Mountain View residents with multimodal transit options. VTA runs three light rail lines; 19 frequent, 24 local, and four express bus routes; and nine shuttle routes ( see Figure 79). Routes operate on a mix of schedules on weekdays, and on select routes, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays28. VTA routes also connect transit riders to transit centers, BART, and Caltrain.

Caltrain provides regional commuter rail service along the San Francisco Peninsula from Gilroy to San Francisco and makes a stop in Downtown Mountain View and San Antonio, as shown in Figure 80. Caltrain runs a 104-train schedule on weekdays and more limited service on weekends and holidays. Services include Baby Bullet, Limited Express, and Local Service.

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

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

MVgo' s shuttle service, also provided by Mountain View Transportation Management Association, runs from Monday through Friday, excluding observed holidays. MVgo has four routes29 that provide access throughout Mountain View. Through a partnership with Waze Carpool, MVgo also offers a $ 5 subsidy on all carpool trips for people commuting to or from Mountain View.
28 Visit https:// www. vta. org/ go/ routes for complete route and schedule information. 29 Visit https:// mvgo. org/ shuttles/ for complete route and schedule information.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 209 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 79: VTA System Map
ato A• s
me
A>< - F.
ot..eb. East
Palo Alto
Los
Altos
Hills
Palo Alto
Mountain
View
Li
Pow
w
o+`
43 Rale
San Francisco Bay
lo. hh.. A
Martin
Moffett
layshorei Darts
NASA
Sunnyvale
it
m CLm Mal mm
Grow
elta
Mao... • AMMO
Imo
Q
CM*
Source: https:// vta. orq/ October 11, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 210 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 80: Caltrain System Map
San Francisco/
San Bruno b"
sn
San Bruno
Millbrae Transit • .

Center • r
Broadway__
b
Weekend Only
Burlingame •
9 San Mateo •
Hayward Park •
Hillsdale •
M
Belmont •
M
San Carlos •
Redwood City •
Menlo Park
Palo Alto
California Ave
San Antonio
Mountain View
101
Oracle • •_
Ni Park 80•
Chase Center
22nd St.

Bayshore
South San Francisco
SFO
San International Francisco Airport
Lawrence • s
Le vcs. Stedlum
SJC
San lose
In
Santa Clara r • 1 Airportternational
gS * PayPal Park
College Park •
San Jose Diridon •
SAP Center
t) Tamien • ( A0'
as sI 0 Capitol
t. eY
0 Blossom Hill
Distance between
Blossom Hill and
Gilroy not to scale
Morgan Hill
San Martin
Gilroy
i
i
CI)
Source: https:// www. caltrain. com/
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 211 Resolution No. 18781

The Center for Neighborhood Technology ( CNT) 30 has developed a metric, the H+ T ( Housing and Transportation) Index that takes into account housing and transportation costs for a typical household. By their metric, in order to remain affordable housing costs plus transportation costs should equal 45% or less of total household income. They estimate this burden at the Census block group level, so disparities in this total estimated cost can be seen at a local or a regional level.

Based on these estimates, the Census Block Groups in Mountain View range from 29 to 68% on the index, with many exceeding the 45% threshold for moderate - income households at 80% of AMI, as shown in Figure 81. This means that a household at this income level would, on average, be cost - burdened when considering combined housing and transportation costs. According to the H+ T Fact Sheet by CNT, Mountain View has an average H+ T cost of 44 percent, which is just below the threshold. Most of the cost -burdened Block Groups are located towards the south of the City, which are mainly comprised of single-family homes occupied by higher -income households.

There are very few areas in the region where a moderate -income household would have housing and transportation costs equal to or less than 45% of total household income. However, some relatively affordable areas exist to the south in San Jose and to the north in Redwood City. Regionwide, the areas with the highest housing and transportation cost burdens can be found in rural areas west of Mountain View ( see Figure 82). These areas are generally considered higher -income. 30 https:// htaindex. cnt.org/. For more on the methodology, see https:// htaindex. cnt. org/ about/ HTMethods 2016. pdf.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 212 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 81: % of Income to Housing + Transportation for a Typical Moderate - Income Household in Mountain View
Los Altos
Sources; Esri, HERE, County of Sa Clara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnol unnyvale
es, Inc., USGS, EPA; BAE, 2021
Q City of Mountain View
Housing & Transportation Cost as a % of Income for a Typical Moderate - Income Household by Block Group wA No Data
45W
45% - 74%
I I
0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Source: Housing + Transportation Index, Center for Neighborhood Technology.

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

Figure 82: % of Income to Housing + Transportation for a Typical Moderate - Income Household in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources. Esri HERE, NPS Esri_ HERE Garman USGS_ EPA, NPS& BAE, 2021 0 City of Mountain view Housing & Transportation Cost as a Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties of Income for Regional ModerateSan Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary Income Household 45%
li. 45% - 74%
75% 0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Source: Housing + Transportation Index, Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Access to a Clean Environment
CalEnviroScreen provides a methodology to assist in identifying whether a local community is disproportionately burdened by pollution. For every Census Tract in the state, CalEnviroScreen produces a score using environmental, health, and socioeconomic information derived from government sources, with higher scores associated with a higher pollution burden. The original layer was developed by California' s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on behalf of the California Environmental Protection Agency and released in early 2017. 31 The analysis here uses the draft CalEnviroScreen version 4. 0, released in the first half of 2021. 31 For more information, see https:// oehha. ca. gov/ calenviroscreen.

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

As shown in Figure 83 below, the highest score ( indicating the percentile of the CalEnviroScreen score, or the worst environmental conditions) is found in the northernmost tract in the City north of Highway 101. This is likely due largely to the area' s proximity to Highway 101 and air quality issues related to the freeway. In addition, the presence of landfills factors into the methodology for assigning CalEnviroScreen scores and this Census Tract includes two closed landfills: one at Shoreline Park in Mountain View and one at Byxbee Park in Palo Alto. Because the scores include a weighting based on socioeconomic factors, other factors that likely increase the score for this area include lower household incomes and a high proportion of Latino residents among the population in this Census Tract. All of the housing units in this Census Tract that are within Mountain View are within one mobile home park, which likely accounts for the lower household incomes among the Tract' s population. Another Census Tract in Mountain View that also has a high CalEnviroScreen score is located directly on the other side of Highway 101 on the western edge of the City. This Tract likely has a high score due largely to its proximity to the freeway.

Areas in Mountain View with high CalEnviroScreen scores are anticipated to accommodate a share of the City' s RHNA during the Housing Element planning period. Among approved projects, pending projects, and available sites combined, units in these Census Tracts account for 23 percent of lower - income units, 11 percent of moderate -income units, and 42 percent of above moderate -income units. While some of the sites for these units are located close to the freeway, all are located relatively far from both landfill sites. In the Census Tract that is north of Highway 101 that includes the North Bayshore Master Plan area, the addition of a significant number of above moderate - income units may also impact the socioeconomic factors that affect the CalEnviroScreen score, which could have the effect of reducing the score during the planning period.

Regionally, the highest scores also tend to be concentrated in neighborhoods near Highway 101.

However, there are several Tracts in the region with scores in the highest/ worst quartile, indicating that these areas are disproportionately burdened with pollution. These highest -scoring Tracts can be found in cities throughout the region, namely Gilroy, San Jose, East Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Bruno, and South San Francisco ( see Figure 84).

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

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

Figure 83: Areas of High Pollution in Mountain View
VAltirporot . ifroi
Sources£ sri, HERE, County ofSa = Clara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMEN \ P, USGS, EPA: BAE, 2021, Q City of Mountain View
CalEnviroScreen Percentile Range

1. 4% - 10. 0%

10. 0% - 19. 9%

20. 0% - 29. 9%

30. 0% - 39. 9%

40. 0% - 50. 5°/ a
0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Source: DRAFT CalEnviroScreen Version 4. 0.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 216 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 84: Areas of High Pollution in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Sources. Esri HERE, NPS Esri HERE Garmin,, USGS EPA, NPS; BAE, 2021 Q City of Mountain View
San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary
CalEnviroScreen Percentile Range

0. 0% - 9. 9%

10. 0%- 19. 9%

20. 0% - 29. 9%

30. 0% - 39. 9%

40.0% - 90. 8%
5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Source: DRAFT CalEnviroScreen Version 4. 0.

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

Minority Homeownership Rates
According to the available data from the 2015- 2019 ACS, the Mountain View homeownership rate is 42 percent, compared to 58% in the two -county region. The lower homeownership rate in Mountain View is reflected across all racial and ethnic groups. Table 31 shows that there are significant racial disparities in homeownership rates in both Mountain View and the larger two -county region. In Mountain View, the homeownership rate is highest for non -Hispanic Whites, at 47 percent, and lowest for householders of some other race alone, at 15 percent. Black and Hispanic/ Latino homeownership rates in Mountain View are less than half the rate of non -Hispanic Asians and Whites. In the two -county region, the Black homeownership rate is 52% of the non -Hispanic White DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution No. 18781

rate, while the Hispanic/ Latino homeownership rate is 60% of the non -Hispanic White rate. These trends likely reflect a combination of market and economic factors and historic discrimination in the housing market in Mountain View and the broader region.

Table 31: Distribution of Homeowners by Race/ Ethnicity, Mountain View and San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
City of Mountain View
Householder by Race
Household Tenure Total Ownership
Owner Renter Households Rate
White Alone 8, 852 11, 310 20, 162 43. 9%
Non -Hispanic White Alone 8, 223 9, 340 17, 563 46. 8%
Black or African American Alone 104 454 558 18. 6%
Asian Alone 4, 539 5, 934 10, 473 43. 3%
Some other race alone ( a) 258 1, 460 1, 718 15. 0%
Two or more races 303 542 845 35. 9%
Total, All Races 14, 056 19, 700 33, 756 41. 6%
Hispanic or Latino 914 3, 535 4,449 20. 5%
San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Householder by Race
Household Tenure Total Ownership
Owner Renter Households Rate
White Alone 292, 001 185, 848 477, 849 61. 1%
Non -Hispanic White Alone 252, 655 136, 015 388, 670 65. 0% Black or African American Alone 7, 747 15, 123 22, 870 33. 9% Asian Alone 181, 128 116, 583 297, 711 60. 8%
Some other race alone ( a) 25, 300 50, 676 75, 976 33. 3% Two or more races 13, 472 15, 880 29, 352 45. 9%
Total, All Races 519, 648 384, 110 903, 758 57. 5%
Hispanic or Latino 65, 796 101, 870 167, 666 39. 2%
a) Includes American Indian and Alaska Native Alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone, and Some Other Race Alone. Categories with less than 100 households in Mountain View were combined with Some Other Race Alone.

Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 5- year sample data, B25003A- I, BAE, 2022.

Mortgage Loan Approvals by Race/ Ethnicity and Income
The inability to obtain a mortgage can be a barrier to home ownership; historically, minorities have tended to have more difficulty obtaining loans, creating a significant barrier to homeownership. An analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act ( HMDA) data for home purchase loan applications in Mountain View in 2020 indicates that loan application and approval rates vary widely by race and ethnicity. As shown in Figure 85, approval rates in 2020 were lowest for Non -Hispanic Blacks and other Non -Hispanic minorities, at 67% and 50 percent, respectively. Notably, both of these groups recorded less than five valid loan applications in 2020, meaning these data are not statistically reliable due to the small sample size. Similarly, while the Hispanic approval and origination rates appear high, at 100 percent, they are based on a total of only seven valid home purchase loan applications in 2020. Nevertheless, these low application rates may be indicative of racial disparities in access to homeownership opportunities in Mountain View.

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

Figure 85: Disposition of Home Loans by Race/ Ethnicity in Mountain View, 2020 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 0 0 0
o
r o 0
04 o
rn o
0 0
CO 0
MM
Asian Non - Hispanic Black/ African
American Non -
Hispanic
White Non - Hispanic Other Minority Hispanic or Latino
Race Non - Hispanic
Approval ^ Origination Denial
Notes:

Hispanic applicants include all persons claiming Hispanic origin regardless of race. Analysis includes only home purchase loans and excludes those originated by lenders not subject to HMDA. Excludes applications that were withdrawn and files that were closed due to incompleteness. Includes conventional, FHA, FSA/ RHS, and VA home loans on 1- 4 family single family dwellings by race and ethnicity of applicant. Applications with missing ethnicity data are excluded.

Sources: FFIEC, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data; BAE, 2022.

Prevalence of Housing Problems
Table 32 and Table 33 report the relative prevalence of housing problems among households with incomes equal to, or less than, the area median by race and ethnicity. Households of a given racial or ethnic heritage are considered to have a disproportionately greater need for housing assistance if they experience housing problems at a significantly greater rate ( ten percentage points or more) than do households within the same income level as a whole, regardless of race or ethnicity. For example, 76. 7% of all extremely low- income households ( i. e., household incomes less than 30% of AMI) in Mountain View experienced at least one of the four housing problems between 2014 and 2018 ( see Table 32). Extremely low-income Hispanic households experienced housing problems at a significantly greater rate, at 87. 9 percent. The results are similar for severe housing problems, with only Hispanic households experiencing severe housing problems at rates that, at one or more income levels, exceed the citywide average by at least ten percentage points ( see Table 33).

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

Table 32: Housing Problems Rate by Race/ Ethnicity, Mountain View Percent of AMI Total ( b)
Race/ Ethnicity 0- 30% 31- 50% 51- 80% 81- 100% <_ 100% AMI White 76. 0% 73. 1% 65. 9% 56. 2% 69. 1%
Black/ African American 65. 0% 90. 0% 0. 0% 28. 6% 58. 7% Asian 70. 0% 85. 6% 73. 5% 59. 2% 72. 0%
American Indian n. a. n. a. n. a n. a. n. a.

Pacific Islander 0. 0% n. a. n. a n. a. 0. 0%
Hispanic 87. 9% 89. 7% 78. 8% 59. 4% 82. 7%
Subtotal, Housing Problems 76. 7% 81. 3% 72. 4% 55. 6% 72. 9% Average Rate + 10% 86. 7% 91. 3% 82. 4% 65. 6% 82. 9%
Notes:

Housing problems include lack of complete kitchen; lack of complete plumbing facility; more than one person per room; cost burden greater than 30% of income. Includes all households within incomes at or below 100% of area median income. Figures may not sum to total due to rounding. Cells highlighted in red indicate sub -groups for which the rate of housing problems exceed the average rate of a given income group by ten percentage points or more.

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

Table 33: Severe Housing Problems Rate by Race/ Ethnicity, Mountain View Percent of AMI Total
Race/ Ethnicity 0- 30% 30- 50% 50- 80% 80- 100% <_ 100% AMI White 57. 4% 46. 2% 27. 3% 15. 1% 40. 0%
Black/ African American 65. 0% 4. 0% 0. 0% 0. 0% 21. 9% Asian 61. 4% 56. 8% 45. 1% 18. 4% 49. 0%
American Indian n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a.

Pacific Islander 0. 0% n. a. n. a. n. a. 0. 0%
Hispanic 78. 3% 69. 0% 43. 8% 18. 8% 59. 6%
Subtotal, Severe Housing Problems 63. 3% 53. 7% 37. 1% 15. 1% 46. 5% Average Rate + 10% 73. 3% 63. 7% 47. 1% 25. 1% 56. 5%
Notes:

Housing problems include lack of complete kitchen; lack of complete plumbing facility; more than 1. 5 persons per room; cost burden greater than 50% of income. Includes all households within incomes at or below 100% of area median income. Figures may not sum to total due to rounding. Cells highlighted in red indicate sub -groups for which the rate of housing problems exceed the average rate of a given income group by ten percentage points or more.

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

Housing Cost Burden
Regional Trends. As described in the housing needs assessment, overpayment for housing is defined as a household paying more than 30% of its gross income on housing -related expenses, such as rent, utilities, or mortgage payments. By this measure, 33% of all households in Mountain View were cost -burdened during the 2015- 2019 ACS survey period. This proportion is similar to that for Santa Clara County overall where 35% of all households were cost burdened in 2019.

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

Trends over Time. The prevalence cost -burdened households decreased substantially in the County between 2010 to 2019, from 42% to 35%. The share of households in Mountain View that are cost burdened also decreased, from 37% in 2010 to 33% in 2019.

Renters in the County and City have higher rates of high housing cost burdens than owners and the share of renters that have a high housing cost burden was essentially constant in the County and City between 2010 and 2019. In Santa Clara County, 44% of renters had a high housing cost burden in 2010, compared to 45% in 2019. In Mountain View, 36% of renters had a high housing cost burden in 2010, compared to 37% in 2019.

For owners, cost burden is considerably lower than renter cost burden in both Santa Clara County and Mountain View and decreased between 2010 and 2019. The share of owner households with high housing cost burdens decreased in Santa Clara County, from 41% in 2010 to 28% in 2019.

Similarly, the share of owner households with high housing cost burdens also decreased in Mountain View, from 37% in 2010 to 28% in 2019.

Patterns across Census Tracts. Figure 86 shows the geographic distribution of overpayment for renters in Mountain View and Figure 87 shows the geographic distribution of overpayment for homeowners. Overall, 37% of renters during the 2015- 2019 ACS survey period paid 30% or more of their incomes on housing. By Census Tract, the proportion of renters who were overpaying ranged from zero percent to 55 percent. For the region, the proportion by Census Tract ranged from zero percent to 80 percent, as shown in Figure 88 below. The areas in Mountain View with the highest concentrations of overpaying renters are located in the western and southern portions of the city.

These areas vary significantly with respect to the racial and ethnic composition of the population as well as household income levels, as indicated in the maps above in this section.

Unlike the geographic pattern for renters, most of the Census Tracts with higher proportions of overpaying homeowners are located in neighborhoods east of State Highway- 85, such as North Whisman and Whisman Station. However, the Tract with the highest share of overpaying homeowners can be found in the western portion of the City in the San Antonio area near Rengstorff Park ( Census Tract 5094. 03). This tract showed 71% of owner households paying 30% or more of their incomes on housing costs during the 2015- 2019 ACS survey period, which was the highest proportion regionally (see Figure 89). As demonstrated above in Figure 59, most of the population living in this tract is considered low- or moderate - income, which may be a contributing factor.

Notably, the housing stock in this Census Tract is almost entirely dominated by rental apartment buildings and complexes, with most of the for -sale inventory consisting of smaller one- and two - bedroom condominium units. Partly due to the characteristics of the housing stock, home sale prices in this area tend to be lower than the citywide average, so it is noteworthy that such a high proportion of homeowners are overpaying for housing in this Census Tract.

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

Figure 86: Overpayment by Renters, Mountain View
Sources, County of Santa Clara, But of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin. USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, RE, NPS: BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
of Renter Households with Gross Rent ? 30°/ n of Household Income by Tract J
0% - 29%
30% - 39%
40% - 49%
MEM 50% - 55% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Source: U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data.

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

Figure 87: Overpayment by Homeowners, Mountain View
Sources: Esri, HERE, County of Sa Clara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnol ies, Inc., USGS, EPA; BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
of Owner Households with Housing Payments >_ 30% of Household Income by Tract 17% - 24%
25% - 29%
30% - 34%
35% - 71 % 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Source: U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data.

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

Figure 88: Overpayment by Renters, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Sources: Esa, HERE, NPS, Han, HERE. Garmin, JSGS. EPA, NPS; BAE, 2021 Q City of Mountain View % of Renter Households with Gross Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Rent DSO % of Household Income by Tract
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary
0%- 30%
YP7/
30% - 39%
40%- 49%
50% - 80%
No Data
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Source: U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 224 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 89: Overpayment by Homeowners, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties SourcesEsrl HERE, NPS Esri HERE Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS SAE, 2021 J City of Mountain view % of Owner Households with Housing 0 San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Payments a30% of Household Income San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary by Tract 0% -
25% Livermore
25% -
29% 30% -
34% 35%-
71% No
Data 0
5 10 20 30 40 Miles
Source:

U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data. DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 225 Resolution No. 18781

Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding of residential units, in which there is more than one person per room, can be a potential indicator that households are experiencing economic hardship and are struggling to afford housing. Citywide, approximately seven% of housing units are considered overcrowded. By Census Tract, the proportion of overcrowded households ranges from one to 21 percent. The Tracts located in the San Antonio area have the highest rates of overcrowding, with the proportion of overcrowded households exceeding ten percent. Census Tract 5094. 03 has the highest proportion of overcrowded units, at 21% (see Figure 90). As mentioned above, this Tract also has the highest percentage of the population with incomes below the federal poverty level, suggesting that many households in this area are likely struggling to afford suitable housing.

In the two -county region, the proportion of overcrowded households by Tract ranges from zero to 41 percent. Of the populated Tracts, 38% have a higher proportion of overcrowded households than the statewide average. Most of these Tracts are in urban areas in the region, in both counties ( see Figure 91).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 226 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 90: Overcrowded Households, Mountain View
Sources. Esri, HERE, County ofS CIara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Germ. INCREMEN \ P, 11SGS, EPA; BAE, 2021.

Q City of Mountain View
of Overcrowded Household by Tract

0. 0%- 4. 9%

5. 0% - 9. 9%

10. 0%- 14. 9%

15. 0% - 20. 7% 0 0. 5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Source: U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data.

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

Figure 91: Overcrowded Households, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Sources. Esri, HERE, NPS. Esri, HERE, Garrnin, USGS, EPA, NPS, SAE. 2021 City of Mountain View % of Overcrowded Household by Tract Q San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties 0. 0% - 4. 9%
San Mateo and Santa Clara County Boundary 5. 0% - 9. 9 %

10. 0% - 14. 9%

15. 0% - 40. 9%
FA No Data
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Source: U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 data.

Homelessness
As shown in Table 19 above, there were an estimated 606 unhoused persons living in Mountain View and 3, 150 unhoused persons living in Santa Clara County as of the 2019 Point -In -Time Count.

While the Point -In -Time Count does not provide demographic data at the City level, the countywide data indicate that people with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by homelessness in Santa Clara County. Data from the Point -In -Time Count indicate that 45 percent of unhoused people surveyed in the 2019 count had one or more disabilities. This is a significantly higher prevalence of persons with disabilities than in the population in Santa Clara County overall, among which an estimated eight percent ( see Figure 27) has one or more disabilities.

In addition, Latino residents, American Indian/ Alaska Native residents, Black or African American residents, and residents of " Other Races" ( i. e., any race other than American Indian/ Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, or White) or Multiple Races are disproportionately impacted by homelessness. As shown in Figure 92, Latino residents comprise an estimated 26 percent of the DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

County' s population overall but comprised an estimated 43 percent of the County' s unhoused population. Figure 93 shows that American Indian and Alaska Native residents, Black and African American residents, and residents of Other Races or Multiple Races comprised large shares of the County' s unhoused population relative to each group' s share of the overall County population. White residents made up the largest group of unhoused residents in terms of race, though the proportion of White residents as a share of the unhoused population was similar to the proportion of White residents as a share of the County' s population overall ( 44 percent).

Figure 92: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County

80. 00%

70. 00%

60. 00%
0 50. 00%

0. 0

40. 00%
0 30. 00%
ad

20. 00%

10. 00%

0. 00%
Notes:

57. 3°k
Hispanic/ Latinx Non- Hispanic/ Latinx
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population 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.

The data from HUD on Hispanic/ Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity.

Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category ( Hispanic/ Latinx or non- Hispanic/ Latinx) could be of any racial background.

Sources: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD), Continuum of Care ( CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports ( 2019); U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B01001( A- I) DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 229 Resolution No. 18781

Figure 93: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County

50. 00%

45. 00%

40. 00%

35. 00%
0 30. 00%
a0. 0 25.00%
0 23 20. 00%
ad

15. 00%

10. 00%

5. 00%

0. 00%
Notes:
0 O
American Indian or Asian / API ( Hispanic Black or African White ( Hispanic and Other Race or Alaska Native and Non - Hispanic) American ( Hispanic Non - Hispanic) Multiple Races Hispanic and Non- and Non - Hispanic) ( Hispanic and Non - Hispanic) Hispanic)
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population 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.

HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/ Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/ Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table. Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/ Latinx and non- Hispanic/ Latinx individuals.

Sources: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD), Continuum of Care ( CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports ( 2019); U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data ( 2015- 2019), Table B01001( A- I) Resident Displacement
Table 34 reports the number of households by income level and tenure by housing cost burden. A household is considered to have a moderate housing cost burden if housing expenses exceed 30% of income, and to have a severe cost burden when housing expenses exceed 50% of income.

Particularly for lower -income households, having housing costs that exceed 30% of household income often means that households are unable to afford housing while also meeting other basic needs such as food and healthcare. Between 2014 and 2018, there were an estimated 7, 765 renter households who earned less than 100% of HUD -Area Median Family Income ( HAMFI) and spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing in Mountain View. These households are more likely than others to experience displacement as a result of increasing housing costs especially if they reside in units not covered by rent stabilization. There were also an estimated 3, 945 owner DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessmen Resolution No. 18781

households with incomes at or below 100% of HAMFI and moderate or severe housing costs burden during this period. Owner households are generally less susceptible to housing displacement because owners typically have a fixed mortgage payment, although low-income owner households may still experience displacement pressure if they lack the resources for upkeep and maintenance of their property or if they experience a reduction in income due to a job loss or other factors.

Table 34: Housing Cost Burdens by Income Bracket and Tenure, City of Mountain View
Renter Households Owner Households All Households
Household Income Brackets ( a) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent HH Income <= 30% HAMFI ( b) 3, 040 100. 0% 1, 325 100. 0% 4, 365 100. 0% With <_ 30% Housing Cost Burden 320 10. 5% 290 22. 0% 610 14. 0% With > 30%, but <_ 50% Cost Burden 380 12. 5% 205 15. 5% 585 13. 4% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 2, 020 66. 4% 700 53. 0% 2, 720 62. 4% Not Computed ( No or Negative Income) 320 10. 5% 125 9. 5% 445 10. 2% HH Income > 30% to <= 50% HAMFI ( b) 1, 785 100. 0% 840 100. 0% 2, 625 100. 0% With <_ 30% Housing Cost Burden 250 14. 0% 335 39. 9% 585 22. 3% With > 30%, but <_ 50% Cost Burden 545 30. 6% 355 42. 3% 900 34. 4% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 985 55. 3% 150 17. 9% 1, 135 43. 3% HH Income > 50% to <= 80% HAMFI ( b) 1, 700 100. 0% 830 100. 0% 2, 530 100. 0% With <_ 30% Housing Cost Burden 335 19. 7% 450 54. 2% 785 31. 0% With > 30%, but <_ 50% Cost Burden 995 58. 5% 125 15. 1 % 1, 120 44. 3% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 370 21. 8% 255 30. 7% 625 24. 7% HH Income > 80% to <= 100% HAMFI 1, 240 100. 0% 950 100. 0% 2, 190 100. 0% With <_ 30% Housing Cost Burden 445 35. 9% 595 62. 6% 1, 040 47. 5% With > 30%, but <_ 50% Cost Burden 700 56. 5% 240 25. 3% 940 42. 9% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 95 7. 7% 115 12. 1% 210 9. 6% HH Income > 100% HAMFI ( b) 11, 930 100. 0% 10, 075 100. 0% 22, 005 100. 0% With <_ 30% Housing Cost Burden 10, 800 90. 5% 8, 545 84. 9% 19, 345 87. 9% With > 30%, but <_ 50% Cost Burden 1, 100 9. 2% 1, 350 13. 4% 2, 450 11. 1 % With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 35 0. 3% 175 1. 7% 210 1. 0% Total Households ( b) 19, 695 100. 0% 14, 015 100. 0% 33, 705 100. 0% With <_ 30% Housing Cost Burden 12, 150 61. 7% 10, 215 72. 9% 22, 365 66. 4% With > 30%, but <_ 50% Cost Burden 3, 720 18. 9% 2, 275 16. 2% 5, 995 17. 8% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 3, 505 17. 8% 1, 395 10. 0% 4, 900 14. 5% Not Computed ( No or Negative Income) 320 1. 6% 125 0. 9% 445 1. 3% Notes:
a) CHAS data reflect HUD -defined household income limits. HAMFI stands for HUD Area Median Family Income. b) Totals do not equal the sum of individual figures due to independent rounding.

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

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

As discussed above, Hispanic households are disproportionately likely to experience one or more housing problems ( see Table 32 and Table 33) than the population overall. Hispanic households in Mountain View are also far more likely to be housing cost burdened, with the majority of Hispanic households in the city devoting more than 30% of their income towards housing. As shown in Figure 94 below, 53% of Hispanic households in Mountain View are housing cost burdened, compared to 29% of non - Hispanic White households. This could indicate that Hispanic and Latinx households are disproportionately impacted by displacement risk compared to other racial and ethnic groups in Mountain View. This is consistent with the information provided in Figure 92 above, which indicates that Latino residents in Santa Clara County are disproportionately impacted by homelessness.

Figure 94: Housing Cost Burden by Race/ Ethnicity, Mountain View 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
70% 72% 70% 72%
47%
American Indian Asian / API, Black or African White, Non- Other Race or Hispanic or or Alaska Native, Non -Hispanic American, Non- Hispanic Multiple Races, Latino Non -Hispanic Hispanic Non -Hispanic
0%- 30% of Income Used for Housing 30% 50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Cost Burden Not computed Sources: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013- 2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy ( CHAS) data; BAE, 2022.

In addition, people with disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to displacement. As discussed in the section of this Appendix that addresses populations with special housing needs, individuals with disabilities often have extremely low or very low incomes, making it difficult to afford housing in Mountain View' s high -cost housing market. In addition, individuals with disabilities are disproportionately represented in the County' s unhoused population, indicating that people with disabilities are disproportionately likely to experience displacement.

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

Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
The table below summarizes known fair housing issues and their contributing factors, as identified through the Assessment of Fair Housing provided above. This section was also informed by the City of Mountain View' s federal Assessment of Fair Housing document, which was in preparation concurrent with the preparation of the City' s sixth cycle Housing Element Update. In addition, many of the issues cited below are consistent with input that was provided during the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update, which highlighted the high cost of housing, risk of displacement, disproportionate impacts on non- White and special -needs households, and shortage of housing for some special -needs groups as key concerns affecting Mountain View residents.

To advance the objective to affirmatively further fair housing in Mountain View, Goal 2 of the Housing Plan portion of Mountain View' s sixth cycle Housing Element Update is " An inclusive and equitable community where housing assistance is available and accessible." The fair housing issues and related contributing factors listed above are key priorities for achieving this goal. Most of the programs in the Housing Plan consist of actions that will serve to address these issues and contributing factors. Programs that will help to address the identified fair housing issues and contributing factors are shown in the table below.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 233 Resolution
No.
18781 m
co
0 u1
CT) N
v
c
CO
Cl_
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Key Actions

1. The high cost of Mountain View generally has low levels of segregation within 1. 2: Eliminate Minimum Parking Standards for Residential in Transit - housing in Mountain City limits and offers high access to opportunity citywide, Oriented Areas, Affordable Housing Developments, and Other Cases View contributes to including in areas with large non- White and/ or lower -income 1. 3: Review and Update Ordinance and Precise Plan Residential disparities in access populations. However, there are some areas of Mountain Standards to opportunity and
racial and ethnic
View with comparatively high concentrations of non- White residents, while residents in many of the high -cost single -

1. 4: Religious and Community Assembly Sites for Housing segregation. family neighborhoods south of El Camino Real are

1.6: SB9 DUO Subdivisions
disproportionately White. In addition, the City' s high housing 1. 7: Monitor and promote Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessory costs makes it more difficult for lower -income and Dwelling Units and SB9 Developments moderate -income households to find housing in Mountain 1. 8: Park Land Ordinance Update View, which is a primary factor that has led Mountain View to be less racially and ethnically diverse than the region.

1. 9: BMR Program Review
Because Mountain View provides high access to opportunity 1. 10: Density Bonus but lower levels of diversity than the region overall, barriers 1. 11: No Net Loss of Housing Element Sites to securing housing in Mountain View also create disparities 2. 2: Pilot ADU & SB9 Financial Incentives Program in access to opportunity at the regional level. The City of Mountain View undertakes numerous actions to facilitate 2. 4: Inclusive and Equitable Affordable Housing Application Processes the production and preservation of affordable housing,
which help to mitigate these disparities.

2. 6: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

4. 1: Development Streamlining and Processing Revisions

4. 2: Federal, State, and Regional Policy Initiatives

4. 3.: Financial Support for Subsidized Housing

4. 7: Neighborhood Engagement

2. Many lower- Many lower -income residents in Mountain View experience 1.5: Non -conforming R1 and R2 Multifamily Developments income Mountain View high housing cost burdens, putting them at risk of 1. 12 Maintenance of Existing Housing Stock residents have been
impacted by
displacement. In addition, prior to the implementation of SB 330, many Mountain View residents have been displaced 2. 1: Subsidize and Support Affordable Housing Programs displacement, while due to the demolition of rent -stabilized units and 2.5: Mediation and Fair Housing Programs others currently face redevelopment of these sites as higher -cost rental and 2. 6: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing displacement risk. townhome developments. Mountain View' s Community 3. 1: Homelessness Prevention and Services for the Unhoused Stabilization and Fair Rent Act, Mobilehome Rent
Stabilization Ordinance, and Tenant Relocation Ordinance

3. 2: Displacement Prevention and Mitigation
help to prevent or mitigate the impact of displacement of 4. 2: Federal, State, and Regional Policy Initiatives existing residents. SB 330 and other changes to State law 4. 4: Partnerships to Support Affordable Housing have largely prevented ongoing demolition of rent -stabilized units and other lower - cost rental units in Mountain View.

4. 5: Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Resolution
No.
18781 Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Key Actions

3. Mountain View' s Many special needs populations and households, such as 1. 1 Zoning Ordinance Update for Consistency with State Laws high -cost housing persons with disabilities, seniors on fixed incomes, and 1.2: Eliminate Minimum Parking Standards for Residential in Transit - market single parent households, tend to have low incomes and are Oriented Areas, Affordable Housing Developments, and Other Cases disproportionately therefore disproportionately impacted by the high cost of 1. 3: Review and Update Ordinance and Precise Plan Residential impacts non- White
and special needs
housing in Mountain View. As a result, special needs
populations and non- White residents are impacted by
Standards
households, who tend Mountain View' s high housing costs to a greater degree than 1. 4: Religious and Community Assembly Sites for Housing to have lower incomes other households. The City of Mountain View undertakes a 1. 7: Monitor and promote Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessory and therefore a range of actions to facilitate the production and Dwelling Units and SB9 Developments disproportionate need preservation of affordable and special needs housing, and 1. 8: Park Land Ordinance Update for affordable housing. the Housing Element includes several policies to advance these goals.

1. 10: Density Bonus

1. 11: No Net Loss of Housing Element Sites

2. 1: Subsidize and Support Affordable Housing Programs

2. 2: PilotADU & SB9 Financial Incentives Program

2. 4: Inclusive and Equitable Affordable Housing Application Processes

2. 6: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

4. 1: Development Streamlining and Processing Revisions

4. 3: Financial Support for Subsidized Housing

4. 4: Partnerships to Support Affordable Housing

4. 5: Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers

4. 7: Neighborhood Engagement

4. Some special- Mountain View has a shortage of affordable housing options 1. 1 Zoning Ordinance Update for Consistency with State Laws needs groups face a for some households and individuals with special housing 2. 1: Subsidize and Support Affordable Housing Programs mismatch between
the supply of housing
needs, including lower -income large family households, individuals with disabilities, individuals and families

2. 3: Reasonable Accommodation
in Mountain View and experiencing homelessness, and those in need of supportive 2. 6: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing the type of housing services. Market -rate units do not typically address these 3. 1: Homelessness Prevention and Services for the Unhoused needed to address special needs, while significant funding gaps lead to a 4. 3.: Financial Support for Subsidized Housing their specific needs. shortage of affordable units to address these needs. These challenges are not unique to Mountain View, and Mountain

4. 7: Neighborhood Engagement
View has engaged in actions to address these gaps, such as participating in two State Homekey applications.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment f#: • 7-
4;
N o EN No
NE so NE

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

HOUSING ELEMENT

APPENDIX
Resolution No. 18781
Projected Housing Needs
Resolution No. 18781

Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA)
A key component of any Housing Element Update is identifying adequate sites to address the jurisdiction' s Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA). The California Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD) determines state- wide projected housing needs and allocates new housing unit target numbers to regional councils of government ( COGs). State law ( California Government Code Section 65584) provides for COGs to then prepare and adopt plans that assign a fair share" of the region' s housing construction need to each city and county. The Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG) is the COG that determines fair -share portions of state allocations for the City of Mountain View.

The City' s RHNA requirements for the 2023- 2031 Housing Element projection period are summarized in Table 35. For the 2023- 2031 Housing Element planning period, the City of Mountain View is required to plan to accommodate the development of at least 11, 135 housing units. This includes 2, 773 units for very low- income households, 1, 597 units for low- income households, 1, 885 units for moderate - income households, and 4, 880 units for above moderate - income households.

Table 35: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Income Group
Number
of Units
Percent
of Total
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
TOTAL
2, 773
1, 597
1, 885
25%
14%
17%
4, 880 44%
11, 135 100%
Source: ABAG, 2021.

Housing Needs for Extremely Low -Income Households
Although the RHNA does not include allocations for extremely low-income households, Housing Element Law requires thatjurisdictions estimate the need for housing units affordable to extremely low-income households and plan to accommodate this need. Extremely low-income households are those with income less than 30% of area median income. In Santa Clara County, 30% of the AMI is the equivalent to an annual income of $ 49, 700 for a family of four. Households with extremely low incomes have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as supplemental security insurance ( SSI) or disability insurance, are considered extremely low-income households. Many households with multiple wage earners - including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix C: Projected Housing Needs Resolution No. 18781

professionals - can also fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in these industries.

HCD' s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very lowincome households ( those making zero to 50% AMI) to calculate their projected need to house extremely low- income households. HCD provides three methodologies for estimating this need: 1) allocate the% of very low-income need to extremely low-income households based on the ABAG region' s proportion; 2) allocate the% of very low-income need to extremely low - income households based on the current proportion for Mountain View; 3) assume that 50% of Mountain View' s very lowincome RHNA is for extremely low- income households. To estimate the projected housing need for extremely low-income households, 50% of Mountain View' s 2, 773 very low-income RHNA units are assumed to serve extremely low- income households. Based on this methodology, the City has a projected need of 1,387 units for extremely low-income households over the 2023- 2031 Housing Element planning period.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix C: Projected Housing Needs 238

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

HOUSING ELEMENT

APPENDIX
D
Resolution No. 18781

Housing Constraints
Resolution No. 18781

Sections 65583(a)( 5) and 65583(a)( 6) of the California Government Code state that the purpose of a Housing Element is to identify governmental and non -governmental factors ( constraints) that inhibit the development, maintenance, or improvement of housing. The Housing Element must analyze " potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified for persons with disabilities, land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development." Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take action on any unnecessary constraints and to mitigate or remove them. A thorough understanding of the constraints to development can help to create appropriate policy responses to mitigate constraints and also make it easier and more affordable to affirmatively further fair housing development.

The following sections analyze the various governmental, market, and environmental factors that may constrain the production of affordable housing in Mountain View. These include infrastructure availability, environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and public opinion.

Governmental Constraints
Government regulations are required because the housing market on its own does not produce the range of housing to meet the spectrum of community needs. Conversely, these actions can affect housing costs by limiting the supply of buildable land, setting standards and allowable densities for development, and exacting fees for the use of land or the construction of homes. Potential regulatory constraints include local land use policies ( as defined in a community' s general plan), zoning regulations and their accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, growth control ordinances or urban limit lines, and development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may represent regulatory constraints. Since the adoption of the 2015- 2023 Housing Element, updated State legislation related to housing has been incorporated into the California Government Code and Mountain View City Code ( City Code or Zoning Ordinance). These regulatory considerations have been incorporated into the analysis and are mentioned throughout in specific instances where governmental constraints are applicable.

Cumulative Impacts of Governmental Constraints
The City of Mountain View commissioned an economic analysis to evaluate the cumulative impact that various local governmental requirements have on the feasibility of residential development in Mountain View. The economic analysis, provided in Appendix H, evaluated the impact of the City' s requirements related to affordable housing, parks, transportation impact fees, transportation demand management, community benefits, parking, design, building, and infrastructure, as well as the impact of City processing times and school district fees and taxes. The analysis classified the impact that each of these requirements have on development costs as:

Minimal," which represents approximately 0 to 0.6 percent of the development cost DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Moderate," which represents approximately 1 to 2.8 percent of the development cost, or Major," which represents approximately 7. 6 to 9. 3 percent of the development cost.

The full analysis is presented in Appendix H and a summary of the findings is presented below.

Constraints as having " major" cost impacts:
o On -site inclusionary housing requirements
o BMR in -lieu housing fees
o Park land dedication in -lieu fee, park land dedication, and POPA credit for multifamily o Annual school assessments or taxes ( explored by the MVWSD since August 2021 - see " Mountain View Whisman School District Community Facilities District" below) Constraints as having " moderate to major" cost impacts:
o Park land dedication in -lieu fee, park land dedication, and POPA credit for rowhomes Constraints as having " moderate" cost impacts:
o TDM measures ( TMA)
o Parking requirements
o Extended development schedules
Constraints as having " minimal" cost impacts:
o Schools impact fees
o Parcel tax
o Citywide TIF
o Transit Pass
o Provision of community benefits
o Design, building, infrastructure requirements
In acknowledgment of the costs and constraints imposed by these governmental requirements and standards, the Housing Element includes a number of targeted programs aimed at evaluating and reducing the cumulative impacts of such constraints on housing production. While some governmental requirements may not impose direct constraints on housing development, in combination with other regulatory standards or when constraints considered as having minimal impacts are combined, they can compound to impose barriers to housing development. Many of the outlined programs address the challenges associated with the compounding nature of governmental requirements. Below are the most pertinent programs; other programs not listed may be relevant as well. Refer to Chapter 3: Housing Plan for a full list of all Housing Element programs. Additionally, a summary of the Governmental Constraints Findings is presented at the end of this section.

Program 1. 2: Eliminate Minimum Parking Standards for Residential in Transit -Oriented Areas, Affordable Housing Developments, and Other Cases
Program 1. 3: Review and Update Ordinance and Precise Plan Residential Standards Program 1. 8: Park Land Ordinance Update
Program 1. 9: BMR Program Review
Program 1. 10: Density Bonus
Program 2. 1: Subsidize and Support Affordable Housing Programs Program 4. 1: Development Streamlining and Processing Revisions Program 4. 2: Federal, State, and Regional Policy Initiatives Program 4. 3: Financial Support for Subsidized Housing
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Program 4. 4: Partnerships to Support Affordable Housing Program 4. 8: School District Coordination
Program 4. 9: Water and Sewer Service Coordination
Program 4. 10: City Council Goal Setting
In addition to these programs, there are a number of Housing Element policies intended to help reduce the cumulative impact of governmental constraints related to requirements, standards, and processes. These policies include:

Policy 1. 5. Periodically evaluate the City' s development standards, review processes and, if necessary, remove unnecessary barriers to quality housing for all income levels.

Policy 1. 6. Provide incentives, such as reduced parking standards and/ or reductions in other development standards and fees, to facilitate the development of housing that is affordable to lower- and moderate - income households.

Policy 2. 1. Initiate and maintain programs to assist extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households in accessing affordable rental and ownership units Policy 4. 1. Advocate for additional State, regional, and private funding for affordable housing and affordable housing programs.

Land Use Designations and Zoning
Land use controls take a number of forms that affect the development of housing. One example of land use control is the City' s General Plan, which establishes the City' s overall vision of preservation and change. On July 10, 2012, the Mountain View City Council adopted the 2030 General Plan. The General Plan includes revised land use designations that describe the general distribution and intensity of land uses in Mountain View. The 2030 General Plan creates several new mixed -use land use designations and identifies several action items that call for the comprehensive review and update of the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plans. To implement the General Plan, Title 36 of the Mountain View Zoning Ordinance identifies corresponding zoning districts. Zoning has the most immediate impact on the construction of new housing. The City' s zoning and development regulations establish permitted uses within each zone and standards that dictate how much development can occur on a given parcel of land by setting parameters such as maximum densities, height, setback, and lot coverage.

Note that the Housing Element Site Inventory does not include any sites in the City' s R districts including R1, R2, R3, R4 or RMH), except as applied to the projected Accessory Dwelling Units ADUs).

R1 Single -Family Residential. The R1 district is intended for detached, single- family housing and related uses compatible with a family living environment allowing up to 6 dwelling units per acre. This district is consistent with the low -density residential land use designation in the City' s General Plan. Minimum lot areas in the R1 district range from 6, 000 square feet to 10, 000 square feet. The maximum building height is 24 feet for single -story homes and 28 feet for two- story structures. There is no lot coverage standard, but there is an FAR standard that ranges from 0. 4 to 0. 45. Senate Bill 9 ( the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency ( HOME) Act) went into effect on January 1, 2022. The bill allows a housing DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

development containing two residential units on one lot within the R1 district without discretionary review or a public hearing, subject to certain criteria as well as a lot split to create two lots from one lot. The provisions of SB 9 are applied in tandem with the City's existing Accessory Dwelling Unit ( ADU) standards, resulting in the potential for up to four residential units on an eligible R1-zoned property. While SB9 (consistent with State law) results in fairly small units on some lots, other R1 development is not constrained by the development standards.

R2 One- and Two -Family Residential. The R2 zoning district, consistent with the medium - low density residential land use designation of the General Plan, is intended for single-family dwellings, duplexes, low -density rowhouse and townhouse developments, small -lot singlefamily developments, and similar and related compatible uses. This zone allows for up to 12 dwelling units per acre. This district requires minimum lot sizes of 7, 000 square feet and allows one duplex or two single-family dwellings per 7, 000 square foot parcel. The maximum building height is 24 feet for single -story structures and 30 feet for two- story structures.

There is no lot coverage standard but there is a 0. 55 FAR standard. R2 development is not constrained by the development standards.

R3 Multi -family Residential. The R3 district is intended for multi -family housing including apartments, condominiums, rowhouse and townhouse development, small -lot single- family development, and similar and related compatible uses. This district is consistent with the medium, medium -high, and high -density residential land use designation of the General Plan, which allow up to 25, 35, and 80 dwelling units per acre, respectively. This district allows densities of 13 to 55 dwelling units per acre, although the specific density allowed depends on the lot size with larger parcels capable of achieving higher densities. The minimum lot size is 12, 000 square feet. However, lots in small -lot single- family, townhomes, and rowhouse developments approved through the planned unit development ( PUD) process may be smaller. The maximum height is 45 feet. There is a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent ( 40 percent in R3- D). There is also a minimum open area of 55 percent (though this can be on a podium, balcony or rooftop). The maximum FAR is 1. 05. The City is currently updating the R3 zoning district development standards to incorporate form -based zoning standards, incentivize stacked -flat development, and amend the City' s Design Guidelines. Through that process, the City identified several standards that constrain the densities allowed in this zone, including lot coverage, open area, and maximum units on small sites. To address this, the City will update the R3 zoning standards to ensure that projects can meet their maximum density ( Program 1. 3).

R4 High Density Residential and Multi -family. The R4 zoning district, consistent with the General Plan' s high density residential land use designation, is intended for multi -family housing including apartments and condominiums, located near transit, and not adjacent to R1 and R2 areas. This district allows for densities of up to 80 dwelling units per acre.

Depending on the number of stories, the maximum building height ranges from 62 feet to 70 feet. The maximum FAR is 2. 3. There is no lot coverage standard. The minimum open area is 30 percent. R4 development does not appear constrained by the development standards, but the City will conduct further study and address this through Program 1. 3.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

RMH Mobile Home Park. The RMH district allows for mobile homes within a mobile home park or mobile home subdivision with shared recreational and open space facilities. This district is consistent with the General Plan' s mobile home park residential land use designation. The maximum density in the RHM district is 14 dwelling units per acre. This zoning district is completely built out with mobile home parks and the zoning standards are not expected to have an effect on these sites.

CRA Arterial Commercial - Residential. The CRA zoning district permits a broad range of commercial, office, and residential uses along the City' s major arterials. For residential and mixed -use projects, the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. The maximum residential density in the CRA district is 43 dwelling units per acre and the maximum building height is 45 feet, 35 feet to the top of the wall plate. The maximum FAR is 1.35. There is no lot coverage requirement. The minimum open area is 45 percent. The minimum lot size constrains projects that would otherwise be allowed to build residential and other standards may also constrain allowed density. The City will conduct further study and address this through Program 1. 3.

In addition, Mountain View' s Zoning Ordinance allows for permanent emergency shelters as a permitted use in the MM zoning district in compliance with SB 2. The City treats transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject only to restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. In alignment with Federal and State fair housing policies, the Zoning Ordinance includes a process for reasonable accommodation requests for individuals with physical disabilities to provide equal access to housing. Additionally, accessory uses in agricultural zones include living quarters for persons regularly employed on the premises and conditional uses include accommodations for transient labor such as labor cabins or camps.

The City' s zoning code, specific development standards for each zone, as well as other ordinances and the General Plan can be reviewed online through the City' s website. Chapter 36 of Mountain View' s Code of Ordinances includes more information specifically on zoning districts, zoning maps, development standards, impact fees, and other land use controls.

Precise Plans
Precise Plans are a planning mechanism used to coordinate future public and private improvements on specific properties where special conditions of size, shape, land ownership, or existing or desired development require particular attention. Precise Plans can be exclusively residential, commercial, and industrial, or allow a mix of uses. Currently 21 of the 25 Precise Plan areas in the City of Mountain View allow residential uses. Precise Plans are generally more flexible than traditional zoning standards and are designed to address local conditions and opportunities. These Precise Plans contain broad goals and objectives and establish development and design standards for the specific locations. The development standards in the Precise Plans have the same legal status as traditional zoning district standards.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Several of the City' s Precise Plans ( including Downtown, San Antonio, El Camino Real, East Whisman, and North Bayshore) regulate density by floor area ratio ( FAR), rather than dwelling units per acre.

This supports the City' s goal to allow developers the flexibility to create more units while providing a predictable building envelope. The net result of this policy has been the creation of hundreds of additional units, while limiting height, bulk, and character effects on surrounding neighborhoods.

As described in Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory, the majority of the City' s sites inventory for accommodating the housing need for this cycle falls within these Precise Plan areas.

The residential development standards for these Precise Plans are summarized below:

Downtown Precise Plan. The Precise Plan is subdivided into 10 subareas, each with its own unique characteristics and development standards. It allows residential development up to 30 to 60 units per acre and an FAR range of 1.0 to 2. 75. Maximum density in the Precise Plan is determined by sliding scales for different subareas based on the lot area. Maximum heights range from 3 to 5 stories. There is no lot coverage standard. Minimum open area is 30 percent. There is no evidence at this time that standards may constrain development at allowed densities, since few recent projects have been proposed ( likely based on the small size of most parcels).

San Antonio Precise Plan. The 2030 General Plan establishes five " change" areas, where new, higher intensity land uses are allowed, one of which is the San Antonio area. The San Antonio Precise Plan allows residential development with intensities of up to 1.85 to 2. 35 FAR ( roughly 70 to 80+ units per acre), depending on location. Maximum heights range from 4 stories to 6 stories. There is no coverage requirement. The minimum open area is 175 square feet per unit. The San Antonio Precise Plan also includes reduced parking requirements and other incentives for affordable and higher density residential development.

The Plan was last updated in May 2019. There is no evidence at this time that standards may constrain development at allowed densities, since several projects have recently been built in the area.

El Camino Real Precise Plan. El Camino Real was established as a " change area" in the 2030 General Plan. Change area direction from the plan includes: a diverse mix of land uses, improved connections to and between neighborhoods, and the creation of a vibrant, multi - modal corridor. Residential development in the El Camino Real Precise Plan ranges from

1.35 to 2.30 FAR ( roughly 50 to 75 units per acre). Maximum heights range from 3 to 6 stories. There is no coverage requirement. The minimum open area is 175 square feet per unit. The Precise Plan also includes reduced parking requirements and other incentives for affordable and higher density residential development. The Plan was last updated in June 2019. There is no evidence at this time that standards may constrain development at allowed densities, since several projects have recently been built in the area.

East Whisman Precise Plan. The East Whisman Precise Plan calls for a mix of offices, neighborhood - serving commercial, multi -family residential, lodging, and small businesses.

The purpose of the Precise Plan is to foster a sustainable, transit -oriented residential neighborhood and employment center with an increased diversity of land uses and mobility DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

choices. To achieve this intent, the East Whisman Precise Plan splits the plan area into three Character Areas": ( 1) Mixed Use Character Area, ( 2) Employment Character Area, and ( 3) Village Center Character Area. Height limits range from 60 feet to 120 feet (4 to 11 stories) within the Mixed Use and Employment Character Areas of the plan, and are 50 feet ( 3 to 4 stories) within the Village Center Character Area. For residential development within the Mixed -Use Character Area, there are an additional three categories of development intensity:

High, Medium, and Low. The maximum FAR for residential development is up to 3.50 FAR in High Intensity development locations ( up to about approximately 160 units per acre), up to

2. 50 FAR in Medium Intensity development locations ( up to approximately 110 units per acre), and finally, up to 1. 85 FAR in Low Intensity development locations ( up to approximately 75 units per acre). The Village Center Character Area allows up to 1.35 FAR ( up to approximately 50 units per acre). There is no coverage requirement. The open area requirement ranges from 120 to 200 square feet per unit. The Plan was last updated in October 2020. There is no evidence at this time that standards may constrain development at allowed densities, since several projects have recently been approved and proposed in the area.

North Bayshore Precise Plan. An objective of the North Bayshore Precise Plan is to create complete neighborhoods that integrate and connect residential uses with office, retail, service uses, and open spaces. The Precise Plan area is divided into three Complete Neighborhoods ( Joaquin, Shorebird, and Pear) and organized into four Character Areas Gateway, Core, General, and Edge). Height limits for residential buildings range from four stories ( 55 feet) to 15 stories ( 160 feet) within the Complete Neighborhood Areas of the Plan. The maximum FAR for residential development is up to 4.5 FAR in the Gateway and Core Character Areas ( up to approximately 200 units per acre), up to 3. 5 FAR in the General Character Area ( up to approximately 160 units per acre), and up to 1.85 FAR in the Edge Character Area ( up to approximately 100 units per acre). Expected unit densities are higher in North Bayshore because the Plan puts a special emphasis on smaller, workforce units. The maximum building coverage is 70 percent. The minimum open area is 80 square feet per unit. The Plan was last updated in October 2020. There is no evidence at this time that standards may constrain development at allowed densities, since several projects have recently been approved and proposed in the area.

Design Guidelines
The City has design guidelines for different housing types for various non- standard unit types. The City' s zoning districts determine which unit types are allowed, but the design guidelines provide developers with the City' s design expectation for small -lot, single-family units, townhouse, rowhouse, and units in the R4 zoning districts. The following section is a summary of the different guidelines and unit types. As discussed above, the City commissioned an economic analysis as part of this Housing Element Update ( see Appendix H) to evaluate the impact of various City requirements, including residential design requirements, on the cost of residential development. That analysis found that the City' s design requirements have a minimal impact on residential development costs.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Small -Lot Single -Family Guidelines
Small -lot single- family developments are detached single- family homes typically built on 3, 000 to 4,000 square feet lots with a minimum private yard area of 15 feet by 15 feet. With a density range of 7 to 10 units per acres, it bridges the gap between conventional single- family homes ( 1 to 6 units per acre) and rowhomes and multi -family housing, such as apartments and condominiums.

Small -lot single- family development is permitted in the City' s R2 and R3 zoning districts. A small -lot, single- family development does not comply with many of the standard zoning requirements of the R2 and R3 zones, and therefore, a PUD permit is required. The PUD allows exceptions to the standard zoning requirements and is intended to encourage innovative housing design and to allow variations for properties with unique lot sizes and special development needs. In addition to a PUD, a developer would need to obtain a Tentative Map or Preliminary Parcel Map ( depending on the number of lots), and a Development Review Permit (DRP) for site plan and architectural review of projects. Small -lot, single- family townhomes and rowhouses are also permitted in some Precise Plans. The permit is different in Precise Plans, but the process and timing are similar. In place of a PUD, an applicant would need to obtain a Planned Community Permit ( PCP).

Townhouse Guidelines
Townhouses are two -to three-story attached dwellings with a private yard area. Townhouses are intended to provide opportunities for home ownership with many characteristics of single- family homes, such as large floor area, private yards, and ground -floor front doors. The guidelines require private yards with a minimum dimension of 15 feet. Attached garages are characteristic of this building type, but parking may also be provided in detached garages, parking courts, or some combination of garage type, typically on the same side as the unit entrance. The allowable density is 12 units per acre, but densities of 14 units per acre may be approved if the proposed average unit size is less than 1, 400 square feet, including garage, and the total amount of paving coverage is less than 20 percent of lot area.

Rowhouse Guidelines
A rowhouse is a one -family dwelling unit that is aligned in a row with each unit facing a street or open space. Rowhouses have alley -loaded garages on the opposite side of the front door. Rowhouses provide ownership opportunities with many characteristics of single-family homes, such as the privacy of no upstairs neighbors, large floor area, front porches, and attached car garages. The rowhouse guidelines recommend a minimum lot size of 0. 5 acre and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. Rowhouses differ from townhouses in that rowhouses can be built at a higher density and the garages for rowhouses face the rear of the unit.

R4 Guidelines
The R4 guidelines were developed to encourage high -density residential development in standard residential zones. The R4 guidelines are intended to provide guidance to those who develop stacked flats (apartments and condominiums) and to better integrate these types of developments into existing neighborhoods.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

The R4 guidelines require a 1-acre minimum lot size and allow for densities up to 80 units per acre.

R4 development cannot be contiguous to R1 or R2 zoning districts and should be within walking distance of transit stations and nearby arterial streets. The R4 guidelines only apply to the City' s R4 zoning district. If a developer meets all the standards for the district and does not pursue ownership units, they would need to obtain a DRP Permit. If ownership units ( condominiums) are proposed, a developer would need to attain a PUD, DRP, and Tentative Map.

Precise Plans
Many of the City' s Precise Plans, including all five of the Plans listed above, also include design guidelines that supplement the standards and special conditions in these areas. The guidelines address issues such as: the massing of large buildings, the quality and detail of finish materials, the size and shape of windows and roof lines, the relationship between public and private open areas, and the design of service and utility areas. In general, these design guidelines are not meant to limit development density or intensity and can be applied without reducing residential capacity.

Parking
Parking requirements may serve as a constraint on housing development by increasing development costs and reducing the amount of land available for project amenities or additional units. In addition, the average cost of development per parking space varies widely, depending on whether parking will be included as underground parking or at -grade parking, as well as site conditions. Costs associated with this development range from $ 30, 000 to up to $ 90, 000 per parking space. The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update ( see Appendix H) found that increased parking requirements have a moderate impact on residential development costs. As shown in Table 36, off-street residential parking requirements vary by housing type. Parking requirements range from one space per unit for efficiency studios to two spaces for single-family homes and multi -family units with one or more bedrooms. Some types of housing are also required to provide guest parking. In multi -family developments, 15 percent of the required parking spaces must be conveniently located for guest parking. Parking requirements established for Precise Plans supersede the provisions of required parking spaces for other development types. Of note, the East Whisman and North Bayshore Precise Plans designate parking maximums ( and no minimums) for many new residential development projects. Other developments such as small -lot single-family homes, townhouses, and rowhouses must provide additional guest parking above the parking for the individual units. The additional guest parking requirements range from 0. 3 spaces per unit for rowhouses to 0. 6 spaces per unit for townhouses. The combined off-street parking for residents and guests ranges from 2. 3 spaces per rowhouse unit to 2. 6 spaces per townhouse unit. The Zoning Ordinance also requires bicycle parking for most housing types to encourage alternative forms of transportation. Development requesting parking reductions as part of a density bonus incentive is required to maintain affordability in compliance with specific criteria for unit types.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Table 36: Off -Street Parking Requirements
Accessory Dwelling
Multi -family ( R3 & R4)
Multi -Family ( El Camino Real
and San Antonio)
Multi -Family ( North Bayshore
and East Whisman)
Rooming and Boarding
Houses
Senior Care Facility
Senior Congregate Care
Single- Family/ Duplex
Efficiency Studios
Small Lot, Single -Family
1 space per unit, except near
public transit or where the
ADU is replacing a garage or
where other conditions apply
Studio: 1. 5 spaces per unit, 1
space shall be covered
1- bedroom unit less than or
equal to 650 sf; 1. 5 spaces
per unit, 1 space shall be
covered
1- bedroom unit greater than
650 sf; 2 spaces per unit, 1
space shall be covered
Units with 2 or more
bedrooms: 2 spaces per unit,
1 space shall be covered.

Guest parking: 15% of the
parking spaces required will
be reserved for guest
parking( a)
Studio and 1- bedroom: 1
space per unit
2- bedroom and larger: 2
spaces per unit
Guest parking: 15% of the
parking spaces required will
be reserved for guest parking
Various maximums apply and
no minimums
Parking Study Required
Parking Study Required

1. 15 spaces per unit ( half
spaces covered)
2 spaces per unit ( 1 covered)
1 space per unit, plus 1 space
per non- resident employee( b)
2 spaces per unit ( 1 covered) .

0.5 spaces per unit for guest
parking
None
1 space per unit; 1 space per
10 units for guest parking
1 space per unit; 1 space per
10 units for guest parking
Varies
Parking Study Required
Parking Study Required
2% of vehicle spaces
None
1 space per 10 units
None
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 249 Resolution No. 18781

Housing Uni
Tzw.1lus
whaus
2 spaces per unit ( 1 covered) .

0. 6 spaces per unit for guest
parking
Studio: 1. 5 spaces per unit
1- Bedroom or more: 2 spaces
covered per unit; 0. 3 spaces
per unit for guest parking
1 space per unit
1 space per unit
Source: Mountain View City Code Section A36. 37. 040, 2021.

Notes:
a) The Zoning Administrator may increase the parking requirement to 2. 3 spaces per unit if needed to ensure adequate guest parking. Refer to Mountain View City Code Section A36. 37. 040 on model parking standards for details. Parking standards may differ between Precise Plans.
b) Reduction of up to 0. 5 spaces may be granted through the conditional use permit process.

The Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in off-street parking requirements through a Conditional Use Permit. Applicants must demonstrate that changes in conditions or issues justify a reduction, and that the reduction would not result in a parking deficiency. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance includes several specific exceptions to parking standards. Applicants requesting a parking reduction must submit a parking management plan that ensures parking space availability.

The City modified several parking requirements for both parking and bicycle parking to align with model parking standards for multi -family residential projects. These parking standards put in place lower parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The model parking standard requires one parking space for studio and one -bedroom units, two parking spaces for two -bedroom units or more units, and 15 percent of the required vehicle spaces available for guests. This standard was adopted in the El Camino Real and San Antonio Precise Plans. Housing Element Program 1. 3 states that the City will complete a review of development standards, which could include parking requirements, in at least one zoning district by December 31, 2025, and modify standards to address feasibility constraints. Parking requirements under the State Density Bonus Law supersede the City' s parking standards. In many cases, these parking requirements can be as low as 0. 5 parking spaces per unit.

Cumulative Impacts of Development Standards
The cumulative impacts of Mountain View' s development standards and parking requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plans do not appear to unduly constrain residential development in the City, especially in recently adopted Precise Plans. Multi -family developments in these Precise Plan areas have consistently been approved or constructed to the maximum density or higher pursuant to State Density Bonus Law or other provisions), including the projects at 950 West El Camino Real, 801 West El Camino Real, 2268 West El Camino Real, 2700 West El Camino Real, 400 Logue Avenue, 400 San Antonio Road, and 2580 California Street. This is evident in the precedent projects analysis in Appendix E.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Other development types, such as rowhouses and small -lot single family units, tend to be constrained by the development type rather than standards applicable to the zone ( e. g., only so many detached single-family homes can fit on a lot).

Developers, residents, and other stakeholders that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update provided suggestions for several aspects of the City' s development standards that could be changed to facilitate the production of housing in Mountain View. These included rezoning to allow additional density in existing residential areas, rezoning non- residential areas to allow residential development, and reducing parking requirements. Concurrent with the Housing Element Update, the City rezoned several areas to create additional capacity for residential development and create additional housing opportunity sites. As part of Program 1.3, the City will also review other development standards to reduce constraints on residential development.

Inclusionary Housing
The City of Mountain View has adopted and incorporated a Below Market Rate ( BMR) Housing Program as part of its Zoning Ordinance. City Council initiated a process to make updates to the City' s BMR Housing Program requirements, which were completed in June 2019. The updates resulted in the increase of inclusionary affordable units, leading to hundreds of new lower- and moderate -income units. The primary goal of the updates was for the BMR program to create actual BMR units integrated with market -rate development instead of receiving in -lieu fees. To accomplish this objective, the BMR in -lieu fees were set at a level proportional to the number of market rate units proposed. Developers of any residential project involving the creation of one or more dwelling units (except ADUs) or the conversion of rental units to ownership units shall meet the requirements of the BMR Housing Program. Projects involving fewer than seven units may pay an in -lieu fee, while projects with seven units or more must provide on -site BMR units. A project with seven or more units may pay an in -lieu fee for a fractional BMR unit when the BMR obligation results in a fractional BMR unit that is less than 0.5 (i. e., less than half a unit). In addition, the City adopted a flexible alternative to on -site units that allows developers to accommodate the requirement in ways that advance City housing goals and exceed minimum affordability requirements.

All rental developments must provide 15 percent of the total number of units to low-income or very - low -income tenants, with two income levels provided for a weighted average income level at less than or equal to 65 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). The weighted average approach provides developers flexibility. Ownership units other than rowhouses and townhouses must include 15 percent of the total number of ownership units affordable to moderate -income households, to a minimum of two income levels, with a weighted average income level of 100 percent AMI. Rowhouse or townhouse ownership units in residential developments must provide a 25 percent on -site requirement to moderate -income households with 15 percent affordable to a weighted average of 100 percentAMl and 10 percent affordable to a weighted average of 135 percentAMl. All BMR units provided by developers must be integrated throughout the development and be comparable to market rate units in terms of size and design.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

The BMR Housing Program does allow for alternative mitigation measures, such as land dedication or the provision of off -site units, if the City Council determines that such alternative measures will further the availability of affordable housing opportunities in the City to a greater extent than providing BMR units on -site.

BMR in -lieu fees are used by the City to address other housing needs, such as assisting households earning less than 50 percent of AMI. For example, BMR in -lieu fees are used for downtown multifamily development that will provide rental housing for extremely low- and very low- income families in Mountain View. These fees are leveraged with other fees and outside funding sources ( including state programs) to help subsidize 100 percent affordable developments.

The City has two different sources of local affordable housing funds: BMR in -lieu fees, and Housing Impact Fees on new commercial/ office development. As of July 1, 2021, the City had over $ 47 million in BMR funds and over $ 25 million in Housing Impact funds. The fund balance allows the Council to subsidize new affordable housing projects and other housing initiatives. Of the $ 72 million, over $ 50 million had already been reserved or planned for affordable housing projects and housing initiatives. The City also has a pipeline of housing projects that will continue to draw from these funds, and in fact, will likely outpace the replenishment of these funds.

The City continually reviews its inclusionary housing program and is scheduled for the first review of the 2019 guidelines in late 2022. City staff' s review will include an assessment as to the effect of the program on housing production. Local developers interviewed during this Housing Element Update did not generally cite the City' s inclusionary ordinance as a constraint, though one reported that the recently adopted 25 percent inclusionary requirement for townhouses and rowhouses could make development of these types of units more challenging. However, the economic returns for these units have been historically high, with the analysis supporting that developers can bear this requirement. The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update see Appendix H) found that on -site inclusionary requirements and BMR in -lieu fees account for 13 percent of townhouse development costs and nine percent of multifamily rental development costs; however, while the BMR obligation is an added development cost, it is necessary in that the ordinance contributes to fair housing and equity, and achieves more affordable units.

The City' s pipeline projects are evidence that significant BMR units can be provided through the City' s BMR program. The City provides multiple avenues for projects to customize their BMR provision to meet their needs, including off -site mitigation, density bonus ( which reduces the proportion of units that must be affordable), and alternate income levels. In addition, the City' s allowed residential FARs ( 1. 85 to 4. 5 in key growth areas) and incentives for residential ( such as its jobs -housing linkage program) continue to generate residential project applications, despite the cost to developers. As a result, thousands of recent and pipeline development units are proposed consistent with the City' s BMR program, already exceeding the City' s total RHNA. This finding shows that, while it is a cost, it is not a constraint.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Housing Element Program 1. 9 states that the City will review and revise its BMR Phase 2 program requirements against objectives in 2023 and complete a second review in 2028 to reflect community needs for affordable and market rate housing. The review process identifies changes that need to be made to the program in order to meet City goals regarding:

Furthering affordable housing production in Mountain View, including o Across unit types,
o special needs ( including accessible units) and
o affordability levels as compared to City needs.

Evaluating whether the BMR program facilitates mobility and access to opportunity and if any improvements could be made to increase mobility and access to opportunity.

The potential policy changes based on best practices, new laws, or unanticipated program outcomes.

Potential cleanup in guidelines/ policies/ procedures to clarify program requirements/ facilitate program implementation.

Housing Element Program 1. 9' s review of the inclusionary ordinance ensures the continued balance of feasibility and benefits that come as a result of creating affordable housing through BMR requirements.

Park Dedication
The City of Mountain View requires developers of residential subdivisions as well as single- family dwellings, duplexes, multi -family dwellings, mobile homes, rowhouses, and other dwelling units to dedicate park land, pay an in -lieu fee, or both as a condition of approval. The intent of this dedication requirement is so that such developments contribute their fair share toward the purchase, development and/ or improvement of park and recreational facilities. If a proposed residential development includes land that has been designated as a park or recreational facility in the General Plan, the developer may be required to dedicate land. Developers are required to pay an in -lieu fee if the development occurs on land on which no park is shown or proposed, where dedication is impossible, impractical, or undesirable, or if the proposed development contains 50 or fewer units.

The in -lieu fee is based on the fair market value of the land that otherwise would have been required for dedication.

The required land dedication varies by the proposed project' s density, ranging from 0. 0081 acres per dwelling unit for low density development ( i. e., one to six units per acre) to 0. 0060 acres for medium to high density development ( i. e., more than 13 units per acre), which accounts for the vast majority of Mountain view' s residential development. The in -lieu fee is based on the value of land and is adopted every year. In 2021, the park land dedication in -lieu fee for developments of 26 units per acre and above was $ 240-$280 per required square feet of land, equivalent to $ 62, 726 to $ 73, 181 per unit.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Mountain View allows developers to receive credit for privately owned/ publicly accessible ( POPA) open space provided within their developments, as of 2019. Developers may receive credits for up to 75 percent of their park land dedication requirements for recreational spaces such as turf fields, children play areas, picnic areas, swimming pools, and recreation areas. The City' s ordinance currently exempts affordable units from paying the park in -lieu fee. In 2021, to mitigate this constraint, modifications to the park land dedication fee were adopted, such as calculating the fee basis annually and setting the fee at the time of application submittal. Such modifications provide more predictability and transparency to the process.

The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update ( see Appendix H) found that Mountain View' s park dedication requirements have a moderate to major impact on development costs for rowhouses and a major impact on development costs for multifamily development. This is consistent with feedback obtained during the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update, which cited the park dedication requirements as a potential constraint to development. Housing Element Program 1. 8 states that the City will review and revise the park land dedication requirements to maintain access to high quality open space while reducing the financial impact to residential development. The adoption of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan addressing anticipated open space needs and long-term funding strategies) will be done by December 31, 2024 and adoption of reduced fees, alternate mitigations and/ or other programs to reduce costs on residential will be done by December 31, 2025.

Fees and Exactions
Like cities throughout California, Mountain View collects development fees to recover the capital costs of providing community services and the administrative costs associated with processing applications. New housing typically requires payment of school impact fees, sewer and water connection fees, building permit fees, wastewater treatment plant fees, and a variety of handling and service charges. Typical fees collected in the City are outlined in Table 37. Meeting transparency requirements, the City has posted planning application and development fee schedules on the Planning Division webpage on the City website. Additionally, Housing Element Program 4. 1 will ensure fee consistency. As shown, fees range from $ 69, 497 per multi -family unit ( based on a small project of approximately 10 units) to $ 238, 987 per single- family home. The median sale price for new condominiums is approximately $ 1. 68 million in Mountain View. While there are relatively few, new single-family homes in Mountain View, the median sale price for single-family homes in Mountain View built in 2010 or later is approximately $ 2. 63 million. Based on these sales prices, total fees and exactions in the City would represent 5 to 6 percent of condominium sales prices and 8 percent of new single- family sales prices. Most development fees in Mountain View are adjusted for cost of living increases annually.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Table 37: Estimated Residential Development Impact Fees Entitlement Fee( 4)
Building Permit Fee/ Construction
Fee ( 5)
Impact Fees( 6)
Other Fees( 7)
Total
2, 841 $ 45, 000
14, 720 $ 137, 000 $ 278, 900
71, 347 $ 550, 700 $ 7, 899, 900
152, 920 $ 4, 356 $ 35, 250
694, 967
238, 987 (
or $ 8, 259, 050 ( or $ 82, 591 per
69, 497 unit)
per unit)
Source: City of Mountain View.

Notes:

Based on a 2, 600 square foot house
2 Based on 10 units ( 2 bedroom 9, 000 square foot unit and 3 bedroom 12, 000 square foot unit) 3 Based on 100 units
4 May include the following: Development Review Permit or Planned Community Permit, Heritage Tree Removal, Cost Recovery. 5 May include the following: Plan Check Fee, Building Permit Fees, Electrical Fee, Mechanical Fee, Plumbing Fee, Land Use document.
6 May include the following: Water Capacity Fee, Sewer Capacity Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Park Land Dedication In -Lieu Frees, School Impact Fee.

May include the following: Excavation Permit for new utility services and driveway, BMR In -Lieu Fees, Improvement Plan Check and Construction Inspection.
8 Residential developments that are for 100 percent affordable housing units are exempt from impact fees.

Although development fees and exactions do increase the cost of producing housing, in general Mountain View' s fees do not appear to create an undue constraint on residential development in the City. The cumulative effect of all fees on housing production should be considered when evaluating possible constraints. Table 37 outlines the estimated residential development impact fees using a typical 2, 600 square foot single family house, a small ten unit multi -family development, and a large one hundred unit multi -family development. The entitlement fees may include fees associated with Development Review Permit or Planned Community Permit, heritage tree removal, and/ or cost recovery. The building permit fees/ construction fees may include plan check fees, building permit fees, electrical fees, mechanical fees, plumbing fees, and/ or land use document. The impact fees may include water capacity fees, sewer capacity fees, transportation impact fees, park land dedication in -lieu fees, and school impact fees. 0ther fees associated may include Excavation Permit for new utility services and driveway, BMR in -lieu fees, Improvement Plan Check and construction inspection. Note that residential development that is for 100 percent affordable housing units are exempt from impact fees.

However, the economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update ( see Appendix H) identified the City' s BMR requirements and park dedication requirements as having a major impact on residential development costs. As discussed above, the Housing Element Update includes programs to evaluate and address the potential impacts of these requirements during the DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Housing Element planning period. Appendix H outlines various fees and their associated level of impact on development either as " minimal", " moderate", or " major" as previously mentioned. Major fee constraints based on cost evaluation as described in Appendix H include on -site inclusionary housing requirements and BMR in -lieu fee, park fees, and school assessments and special taxes.

The on -site inclusionary housing requirements and below market rate ( BMR) in -lieu fee requires developers to provide a percentage of below market rate units on site that are affordable to specific income levels. This reduces land values to property owners and increases development fees in order to provide affordable housing to a broader range of local residents to help meet RHNA and other important policy objectives. The costs associated with these fees per rowhome unit are $ 196, 600 ( or approximately 13.9 percent of development cost). The costs associated with these fees per multifamily unit are $ 80, 500 ( or approximately 9. 3 percent of development cost).

For Mountain View, the majority of fees for housing development are incurred through the park land dedication requirements. The Mountain View park fee expands park land and recreational resources to residents and students at local school districts. This constraint reduces developable land area for housing and increases development costs for market rate housing. As a response to this, in accordance with Housing Element Program 1. 8, by December 31, 2025 the City will review and revise this requirement to maintain access to open space while seeking to reduce the financial impact to residential development. The costs associated with these fees per rowhome unit are 57, 500- $ 74, 400 ( or approximately 4. 1 percent- 5. 3 percent of development cost). The costs associated with these fees per multifamily unit are $ 51, 600- $ 73, 200 ( or approximately 6. 0 percent8. 5 percent of development cost).

The cumulative effect of all fees on housing production should be considered when evaluating possible constraints. For Mountain View, the majority of fees for housing development are incurred through the park land dedication requirements. There were many public comments received that pointed to this constraint. As a response to this, Program 1.8 was created to assess the park land dedication requirements through the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. The cost related to the BMR requirements were raised within the public comments as well and informed the creation of Program 1. 9.

Programs to address the remaining development impact fees were not deemed necessary, since such fees represent a lower amount - approximately one percent of development costs in aggregate, and address critical utilities and transportation infrastructure, and/ or support necessary costs to implement the general plan and precise plan vision in areas with the greatest growth and change.

Meaningful reductions of these small fees would significantly affect these programs and improvements. In addition, the City evaluates the cumulative effect of these fees on a regular basis when new fees are adopted. As previously mentioned, refer to Appendix H for the cost evaluation on governmental constraints. A summary of the response to these findings and against public input is described within the Cumulative Impacts of Governmental Constraints section above, highlighting relevant programs and policies established to reduce barriers to housing development.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

East Whisman Development Impact Fee
On May 24, 2022, the City of Mountain View adopted the East Whisman Development Impact Fee to finance transportation, potable water, recycled water, and sewer improvements in the East Whisman Precise Plan Area. The fee rate for residential uses ranges from $ 2, 888 per unit for a studio to 6, 223 for a three -bedroom unit, plus an additional $ 864 per additional bedroom for units with more than three bedrooms.

Although the fee amounts shown in Table 37 and the economic analysis of governmental constraints in Appendix H were prepared prior to the adoption of the East Whisman Development Impact Fee, the findings related to City fees as discussed above also apply in the East Whisman Precise Plan area, even with the newly -adopted impact fee. Based on the economic analysis of constraints shown in Appendix H, the East Whisman Development Impact Fee is equal to approximately 0. 3 percent of total development costs for a multifamily development, and therefore has a minimal impact on development feasibility. Moreover, the fee rates shown in Table 37 and the economic analysis of governmental constraints shown in Appendix H assume a community benefits requirement that would apply in the El Camino Real or San Antonio Precise Plan areas, each of which have a community benefit requirement that is equivalent to approximately 0.6 percent of total development costs for a multifamily project. The East Whisman Precise Plan Area has a lower community benefits requirement that is equal to approximately 0.4 percent of total development costs. Therefore, the combined effect of the newly -adopted East Whisman Development Impact Fee ( 0. 3 percent of total development costs) and the East Whisman community benefits requirement (0.4 percent of total development costs) is approximately equal to the effect of the community benefits requirement that was assumed in Table 37 and in the economic analysis shown in Appendix H ( 0.6 percent of total development costs). The East Whisman Development Impact Fee adds a minimal amount to total development costs in the Precise Plan area, while contributing funds that are necessary to enable construction of capital improvements that are necessary to support new development in the Precise Plan area. Therefore, this fee does not constitute a significant or undue constraint on new residential development in the Precise Plan area.

Mountain View Whisman School District Community Facilities District At its August 12, 2021 meeting, the Mountain View Whisman School District ( School District) Board of Trustees provided direction for the School District to explore the establishment of a Community Facilities District ( CFD). The purpose of the district would be to support the siting and construction of new schools to serve the anticipated population growth. CFDs fund these facilities through parcel taxes, which could be enacted through a two-thirds vote of the residents in the affected area.

The August 12, 2021 presentation to the School District Board indicates the School District' s intention to apply the CFD to the area north of Central Expressway, which would include much of the City' s R3 areas which house apartments and other multi -family units as well as new housing areas in North Bayshore and East Whisman. The tax would be based on the number of units on a parcel and would levy a significantly higher tax on new units than existing ones. In October 2021, the School District began polling a sample of registered voters in the affected area about the creation of a CFD.

It is unknown whether the School District will ultimately decide to place a CFD on the ballot and DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

whether voters would approve such a measure. The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of the Housing Element Update process ( see Appendix H) included an evaluation of the impact of the CFD and found that, if enacted, the CFD would have a major impact on residential development costs. While the City cannot prevent the adoption of the CFD, the programs in this Housing Element Update include several programs to improve development feasibility, including Programs 1. 8 ( Park Land Ordinance Update), 1.9 ( BMR Program Review), 1. 10 ( Density Bonus), and

4. 1 ( Development Streamlining and Processing Revisions) which could help to partially counteract any feasibility impacts of the CFD if adopted.

On- and Off -Site Improvements
Residential developers are responsible for constructing road, water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements on new housing sites. Where a project has off -site impacts, such as increased stormwater runoff, increased sewer load or added congestion at a nearby intersection, additional developer expenses may be necessary to mitigate impacts. The contractor is required to make site improvements before constructing a building on the property. Site improvements can include connections to existing utility systems, rough grading, and installation of water and sewer lines. The cost variation depends on the lot size, unit size, and type of residential dwelling. Other factors that can influence costs are the primary infrastructure needed for the site and roadway improvements.

While land costs are lower in greenfield areas at the edge of the City, these areas typically require a greater amount of investment in backbone infrastructure and site improvements. Given there are such limited vacant sites in the City, development is primarily in infill areas, where site improvement costs are typically lower since infrastructure is already in place; however, the cost to repair aging infrastructure can be high.

The street improvement standards ordinance, Article V of Chapter 27 of the Mountain View City Code, states that minimum standard street right-of-way width shall be at least sixty ( 60) feet. In such cases as special circumstances may warrant, the Subdivision Committee or City Council may authorize a street of lesser right- of-way width, but not less than fifty ( 50) feet, unless a further reduction in right-of-way width is authorized as an integral part of a planned unit development and established pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36 of the Code. However, Mountain View is an almost completely built -out city with negligible need for new public streets.

Certain Precise Plan areas, such as East Whisman and North Bayshore, are located in areas with large industrial blocks that must be reduced to provide the necessary access to and between new residential uses. These plans lay out new paths that can be accommodated by new publicly - accessible streets, bike paths, or pedestrian paseos. These new dedication requirements tend to be much smaller than the typical public street, can serve " double -duty" as emergency access, and are not deducted from the project' s land area for the purpose of calculating FAR or density. They are also located at distances typically appropriate for multifamily blocks. These requirements are not a constraint on new development, as evidenced by the number of pipeline units proposed in these locations.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Based upon recent proposals submitted by the development community for a variety of housing sites throughout the City, off -site improvements required for housing development were not found to be a major constraint, and was not identified by developers.

Processing and Permit Procedures
The City of Mountain View has several different processes for approving new residential developments.

Projects in standard zoning districts without subdivision or subdivision involving fewer than five lots are approved by the Zoning Administrator at a public hearing. Subdivisions are approved by the Subdivision Committee, which is held at the same hearing, but the committee also includes staff from the City Attorney' s Office and Public Works Department one hearing required). When discretionary, a Development Review Permit is always required and a Conditional Use Permit, and/ or Planned Unit Development Permit may be required, depending on the zone or project.

Projects in standard zoning districts with subdivision of five or more lots are approved by the City Council after recommendation from the Zoning Administrator and Subdivision Committee two hearings required). A Development Review Permit is always required and a Conditional Use Permit, and/ or Planned Unit Development Permit may be required, depending on the zone or project.

Projects in Precise Plans have various review processes, including the two above or approval by the City Council after recommendation by the Environmental Planning Commission ( one to two hearings required). The permits above may be required, in addition to a Planned Community Permit.

Projects requesting Zoning, Precise Plan or General Plan Amendments ( with or without subdivision) are approved by the City Council after recommendation by the Environmental Planning Commission ( two hearings required). These projects require authorization gatekeeper") prior to beginning review, unless they are a 100 percent affordable project or consistent with a number of minor exemptions in the code. The permits required include all those above, plus the amendment( s).

The following are required findings for each of the permits that may be required for zoning -compliant projects:

Development Review Permit ( DRP) ( always required for new construction) o The project complies with the general design considerations as described by the purpose and intent of Chapter 36 ( Zoning) of the City Code, the General Plan, and any City -adopted design guidelines.
o The architectural design of structures, including colors, materials, and design elements (i. e., awnings, exterior lighting, screening of equipment, signs, etc.), is compatible with surrounding development.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

o The location and configuration of structures, parking, landscaping, and access are appropriately integrated and compatible with surrounding development, including public streets and sidewalks and other public property. o The general landscape design ensures visual relief, complements structures, provides an attractive environment, and is consistent with any adopted landscape program for the general area.
o The design and layout of the proposed project will result in well -designed vehicular and pedestrian access, circulation, and parking.
o The approval of the Development Review Permit complies with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA).

The following DRP findings also apply to Density Bonus projects:
o The project is a housing development that contains at least one ( 1) of the features described in Section 65915(b) of the State Density Bonus Law to qualify for a density bonus, and all other eligibility requirements as described in Government Code Section 65915( c) have been met.
o The project has provided sufficient affordable units or otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for the bonus density as described in Section 65915(f) of the State Density Bonus Law.
o The project meets the eligibility requirements for reduced parking ratios as described in Section 65915( p) of the State Density Bonus Law.
o The project meets the eligibility requirements for incentive( s)/ concession( s) as described in Section 65915( d) of the State Density Bonus Law, and the incentive( s)/ concession( s) result(s) in reduced costs to provide the affordable units. o The development standard( s) requested to be waived would physically preclude the units or incentives/ concessions provided in the project as described in Section 65915( e) of the State Density Bonus Law.

Conditional Use Permit ( required in certain mixed -use zones) o The proposed use is conditionally permitted within the project' s Zoning District and complies with all of the applicable provisions of Chapter 36 ( Zoning) of the City Code. o The proposed use is consistent with the project' s Land Use Designation of the General Plan.
o The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the site, building character, and environmental conditions of existing and future land uses in the vicinity.
o Any special structure or building modifications necessary to contain the proposed use would not impair the architectural integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is to be located.
o The approval of the Conditional Use Permit complies with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA). Planned Unit Development Permit (PUP) ( required for projects with non- standard subdivisions, such as rowhouses, or other prescribed exceptions to standards). The proposed land use( s) are allowed within the subject zoning district. The site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The proposed project would be harmonious and compatible with DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

existing and future developments within the zoning district and surrounding area. In the case of a proposed residential project, the development will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability and will result in an intensity of land utilization no higher than, and standards of open space no less than, permitted for a similar development within the zone district. The approval of the PUD permit for proposed project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA). The proposed project is consistent with the general plan. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed project are not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the community. The proposed project is in substantial compliance with the intent of requirements of the applicable zone district and implementation of the proposed harmonious and integrated PUD design is superior to standard development in the underlying zone and, therefore, justifies the exceptions to the requirements of this chapter. Planned Community Permit ( PCP) ( required in precise plans). The proposed use or development is consistent with the provisions of the project's Precise Plan, or, if no Precise Plan exists for the subject area, the proposal clearly demonstrates superior site and building design and compatibility with surrounding uses and developments; or if variations from requirements in the applicable Precise Plan are granted, the proposal clearly demonstrates superior site and building design and is in substantial compliance with the intent of the requirements in the applicable Precise Plan. o The proposed use or development is consistent with the project' s Land Use Designation of the General Plan.
o The proposed uses and development will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
o The proposed project promotes a well -designed development that is harmonious with existing and planned development in the surrounding area.

The approval of the Planned Community Permit complies with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA). Many of the findings above are certain and independently verifiable ( e. g., consistency with zoning and general plan). Others appear more subjective. However, the subjective findings are generally used to reinforce the vision and intent of zoning districts and precise plans, which are implemented through objective and independently verifiable standards. For example, landscaping standards include objective water use classifications, maximum heights in visibility areas, minimum planting sizes ( e. g., 15- gallon), parking lot tree spacing, distance from service lines, required irrigation elements and minimum tree plantings (see " Tree Preservation" below). Consistent with State law, the City does not deny residential projects on the basis of subjective guidelines or standards.

The presence of multiple permits and findings (such as CUPs, PCPs) do not change the duration of review or reduce the certainty of approval. The primary process by which residential projects are assessed is the Development Review process, which looks at compliance with development standards, architectural design, site planning, health and safety, and similar issues. This review covers all the given findings simultaneously. Though additional minor fees may occasionally apply to DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

additional permits, most projects are reviewed based on a cost recovery, which does not depend on the number of permits. Lastly, the additional findings may also reduce constraints: for example, projects in Precise Plans are subject to an additional set of findings (Planned Community Permit) that actually allow relief from development standards, which offers additional flexibility to development that meets the vision and intent of the precise plan.

Housing Element Program 4. 1 outlines steps for the Planning Division to review and streamline development permitting processes including acquiring software tools to improve development review and seeking consultant and public agency input for best practices.

All new construction that requires planning approval receives design comments and recommendations from the City' s Development Review Committee ( DRC). The DRC, consisting of the Deputy Zoning Administrator ( Staff person) and two advising architects, reviews the architectural and site design of new projects and improvements to existing sites.

Small -lot single- family, rowhouses, and townhomes are allowed in the City' s R2, R3, R4 and CRA zoning districts with a PUD permit. The PUD allows exceptions to the standard zoning requirements and is intended to encourage innovative housing design and to allow variations for properties with unusual shapes and sizes. In addition to a PUD permit, a developer would need to obtain a Tentative Map for developments with five or more lots and a Development Review Permit for site plan and architectural review of projects. The permits can be processed concurrently and typically takes 6-18 months.

Developers and other stakeholders that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update cited the City' s permit processing procedures as a constraint to residential development. In addition, the City recently completed a detailed analysis of its entitlement process i. e., the Development Review Assessment) that identified a series of process improvements to streamline the development review and entitlement process. The City is currently in the process of implementing the recommendations from the Development Review Assessment. Housing Element Program 4. 1 includes actions to streamline the development review process.

General Plan, Zoning and Precise Plan Amendments and " Gatekeepers" If a zone change, Precise Plan amendment or General Plan amendment is required for a project, the City Council first considers a " gatekeeper" request. This means the Council decides whether the request should be processed by Staff. The gatekeeper process is initiated by the Council, usually during the goal -setting process held every two years, and thereafter gatekeeper applications are solicited and hearings are scheduled. The Council considers estimated resources required to process the application, estimated cost, existing and scheduled City resource commitments, and summary of other General Plan, precise plan or zoning considerations affecting the proposed text amendment. The intent of this process is not to approve or deny an application, but rather to confirm that there is sufficient interest in the project that it is worth devoting City resources towards the review of the legislative approvals necessary for the project.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

The City has not held gatekeeper authorization hearings since 2016. This has largely been due to available staff resources and the desire to focus development to recently completed major precise plans that significantly increased the City' s zoning capacity. However, the City has authorized School District Transfers of Development Rights ( TDRs) since then, which grant additional density and intensity to projects that purchase TDRs from the Los Altos School District.

Not all General Plan, zoning or precise plan amendments are subject to the gatekeeper process.

Over the last several years, the City has expanded the scope of projects that can proceed through the development review process without a gatekeeper authorization. These include:

Project sites within more than one zoning district, under two acres in total size, and owned by a single entity if the change is consistent with one of the site' s existing land use designations or land use types;
Project sites under two acres in total size, abutting an existing residential zoned property, and proposed for conversion from an industrial to a residential zoning designation; and 100% affordable housing projects that require authorization by the notice of funding availability ( NOFA) committee.

Once Council has authorized a project to apply for a General Plan, zoning or precise plan amendment or if the project is exempt from this process) the application will progress through the process for permitting procedures as described above. Applications requesting amendments tend to be more complicated and time- consuming than conforming projects. This is because individual standards are not often defined, many CEQA exemptions are not available, and policy direction from the City Council or Environmental Planning Commission may be necessary. Nonetheless, once Council authorization is granted or a gatekeeper - exempt application is submitted, the City makes every effort to review applications consistent with Permit Streamlining Act timelines, even though this is not a requirement under State law.

An amendment to the general plan may be approved only if all of the following findings are made:
a. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the general plan; b. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city;
c. The site is physically suitable for the requested/ anticipated land use development( s) ( including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints); and
d. The proposed amendment is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA).

Amendment of a precise plan may be approved only if all of the following findings can be made:
a. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan; b. The property covered by the proposed precise plan or precise plan amendment is within the planned community ( PC) district.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

c. The proposed plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the community;
d. The proposed plan promotes development of desirable character, harmonious with existing and proposed development in the surrounding area;
e. The site has special conditions of size, shape, land ownership, existing development or development opportunities that can only be addressed by approval of the proposed precise plan or amendment; and
f. The approval of the proposed plan complies with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA).

An amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance or the official zoning map may be approved only if all of the following findings are made, as applicable to the type of amendment. a. Findings required for all amendments:

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan;

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city; and

3. The proposed amendment is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA).
b. Additional finding for text amendments: The proposed amendment is internally consistent with this chapter.
c. Additional findings for map amendments: The site is physically suitable ( including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designation( s) and anticipated land use development( s).

Several sites in the inventory are affected by zoning or precise plan amendments that the City is concurrently adopting with the Housing Element ( before the start of the 6th cycle), so projects on those sites will not need any amendments. One rezoning application under review ( not needed to meet RHNA) is also in the sites inventory - 1020- 1040 Terra Bella Avenue. That project will need to meet the rezoning and General Plan amendment findings above, but will not need to go through the gatekeeper process. If the project is not approved within one year, it will be removed from the inventory ( per Program 1.1). No other sites in the inventory will be subject to the gatekeeper or General Plan, Zoning, or Precise Plan amendment process, so this process will not affect nor is considered a constraint to the sites inventory.

Senate Bill 35
Senate Bill ( SB) 35, passed in 2017, requires jurisdictions that have not approved enough housing projects to meet their RHNA to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing developments that incorporate affordable housing. Per SB 35, review and approval of proposed projects with specified levels of affordability must be based on objective standards and cannot be based on subjective design guidelines or undergo any discretionary review. Historically, projects in Mountain View qualify for SB 35 by providing at least 50 percent of their units as affordable to lower income households; however, SB 35' s provisions can be triggered with as little as 10 percent affordability if the City does not make sufficient progress towards issuing building permits that satisfy DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

its RHNA during the planning period. In addition to the affordability criteria to be eligible, projects must also meet a list of other criteria, including prevailing wage requirements for projects over 11 units. In order for applicants to take advantage of SB 35, per Government Code Section 65913.4 10)( b)( 1)( a)( et seq.), they need to submit a Notice of Intent and jurisdictions need to give Native American tribes an opportunity for consultation. The City of Mountain View has developed a SB 35 Preliminary Application Checklist form, consistent with the law, for streamlined ministerial review.

Bonus FAR or Development Tiers
The City' s four newest Precise Plans ( El Camino Real, San Antonio, North Bayshore and East Whisman) include Bonus FAR or development tiers above allowed -by -right densities. The purpose of these additional tiers is to allow a framework by which development can support the re -envisioning of these change areas through community benefits and additional affordable housing. With the adoption of each Precise Plan, an economic analysis was conducted to set the community benefits at a level where developers would choose to build the additional density while contributing to the City' s infrastructure and affordable housing. Refer to Table 38 for the base and maximum FARs for the recent Precise Plans.

Table 38: Base and Maximum FAR for Select Precise Plans Base esi. en rat FA
El Camino Real Precise Plan
San Antonio Precise Plan
North Bayshore Precise Plan
East Whisman Precise Plan
p
r

1. 35

1. 35

1. 0

1. 0

1. 85

1. 85 — 2. 35

1. 85 — 4. 5

1. 35 — 3. 5
Design Review by DRC
The Development Review Committee ( DRC) considers a proposed project' s conformance with City - adopted design guidelines and the development standards of the zoning district, in addition to architectural best practices, use of high -quality and durable materials, and other considerations that improve the quality and design of developments.

The DRC meeting is intended to be a working meeting between the applicant and Staff, and act as a collaborative process between the applicant and DRC. Small projects are generally reviewed and recommended for approval by the DRC in one meeting. In the past, larger projects may have required multiple meetings during which design modifications were made at the request of the DRC. As of late, DRC typically provides recommendations for residential projects in at most two meetings as part of a streamlined effort and also provides developers with greater certainty regarding the length of their project' s design review.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element l Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Zoning Administrator Approvals
The Zoning Administrator makes final decisions on single- family residences with major FAR exceptions, residential development with a subdivision of fewer than five lots, commercial and industrial projects that conform to the existing ( standard) zoning, variances, planned unit developments, and planned community permits when specified within a Precise Plan. The Zoning Administrator makes recommendations for current development projects that require City Council approval in standard zoning districts and many Precise Plans. The Zoning Administrator holds a public hearing where they make findings and determine the conditions of approval. The Zoning Administrator usually meets the second and fourth Wednesday of every month. For applications requiring Zoning Administrator approval, the Zoning Administrator may announce and issue their decision at the conclusion of the scheduled hearing; may continue the item for additional public hearing; or may defer action by taking the item under advisement and issuing the decision no later than thirty ( 30) days following the hearing. The decision shall contain applicable findings and any conditions of approval. Following the hearing, a notice of the decision and any conditions of approval shall be mailed to the property owner and applicant at the address shown on the application.

Environmental Planning Commission
The Environmental Planning Commission ( EPC) provides recommendations for General Plan amendments, zoning amendments, Precise Plan amendments and new Precise Plans. The EPC also reviews and makes recommendations to the City Council regarding updates to the City' s General Plan, including the Housing Element. Unlike Planning Commissions in other jurisdictions, the EPC is solely an advisory body that does not make final decisions on development projects. The EPC makes recommendations on development projects to the City Council ( in lieu of the Zoning Administrator) when associated with General Plan and zoning amendments, or planned community permits when prescribed by a Precise Plan.

City Council Approvals
The City Council makes final decisions on Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps, planned community permits when specified within a precise plan, General Plan and Zoning maps, Ordinance amendments, and any permit or entitlement application referred by the Zoning Administrator. The Council also approves updates to the City' s General Plan, including the Housing Element. The Council also reviews appeals on determinations by the Zoning Administrator. Council decisions are made based on recommendations provided by the EPC, Zoning Administrator ( with DRC input), and public input.

Senate Bill 330
Senate Bill ( SB) 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would impose or enforce design standards that are not objective design standards on or after January 1, 2020 [Government Code Section 663300 b)( C)]. The bill also established specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures. Per SB 330, housing developers may submit a " preliminary application" for a residential development project. Submittal of a preliminary application allows a developer to provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development before providing the full amount of DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

information required by the local government for a housing development application. The City of Mountain View has developed a preliminary application form consistent with SB 330. In addition, the bill limits the application code -compliance review process (after a project is deemed complete) to 30 days for projects less than 150 units, 60 days for projects greater than 150 units. It also limits residential projects to hold no more than five total public hearings, including Environmental Planning Commission, design review, and City Council.

Planning Permit Processing Times
Planning permits are not just Planning Division review. They also include review by a multidisciplinary team of Public Works engineers, Building Permit reviewers, fire protection engineers, stormwater control and other environmental protection reviews and others.

Table 39 presents a summary of the typical approvals required for various housing types and the median permit processing times, including Planning Permits and Building Permits. Actions requiring ministerial review, such as single- family homes, duplexes and ADUs, are approved with the Building Permit and do not contribute to the processing times. The times shown are the median among projects submitted between 2015 and 2020, excluding COVID times, for reasons stated below. They are the total times from when an applicant submits their application to approval date. The median time to approve Planning Permits for most projects is just over a year. However, the time to approve legislative actions is generally longer, about 20 months.

The City complies with all State laws related to permit processing, including the Permit Streamlining Act, which mandates that cities provide a list of all items an application must still submit within 30 days of receiving a submittal. The processing times below are not a result of City responsiveness to applications but are generally due to the number of incomplete submittal iterations and/ or the time between incomplete submittal iterations and/ or CEQA requirements.

Environmental review is conducted concurrently with development review. While an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) may extend a project' s timeline ( e. g., up to 24 months, depending on the complexity), EIRs are generally only needed for rezonings and General Plan amendments. Other types of environmental documents, such as an exemption, an Initial Study with Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS/ ND or IS/ MND), can add small amounts to the processing times, but these are included in the times reported in Table 39. In addition, over the last eight years the City has implemented " EIR consistency checklists" in Precise Plan areas, in the interest to streamline the CEQA procedure and provide more legal protections than categorical exemption but at lower cost and in less time than an initial study.

The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update ( see Appendix H) found that extended development schedules for City review and approvals can have a moderate impact on residential development costs. In addition, developers, residents, and others that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update noted that the City' s processing procedures have a negative impact on the feasibility of new residential development.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Permit processing timelines have increased since 2014. However, this has been due to several factors:

Housing projects since 2014 have generally been larger with more units and complexity than projects prior to 2014.

Increased complexity of State housing legislation has led to delays of some projects, as developers and City staff have occasionally needed to change course on projects, mid - review.

COVID forced the City to adopt new procedures and increased times between submittals for several development applicants. Overall processing times since 2020 have been significantly higher than between 2015 and 2019.

The City is currently conducting studies to improve development review efficiency and reduce timelines. Program 4. 1 in this Housing Element is intended to help mitigate this issue.

Table 39: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type Single -Family Home or Duplex
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Rowhouse, Townhouse, Small - Lot
Single Family ( 5 or more lots)
Apartments
Standard Zones ( R and CRA)
Precise Plans
Condominiums
Any project with a Zoning Change
or General Plan Amendment ( GPA)
Building Permit
Building Permit
Planned Unit
Development Permit
and Tentative Map
Council approval)
Development Review
Permit, sometimes
Conditional Use Permit
Zoning Administrator
approval)
Planned Community
Permit ( Council
approval)
Same as Apartments
with Tentative Map
Council Approval)
Rezoning or GPA
Council Approval)
n/ a
n/ a
13 months
5 months

4. 5 months
12 months
13 months 11 months
Same as Apartments
20 months 11 months
Source: City of Mountain View, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Building Permit Processing
Building Permits are reviewed by the same multi -disciplinary team that Planning Permits are. Table 39 shows the median review time of applications before COVID, from first submittal to approval.

Single family homes generally take about 5 months to review, while ADUs take a bit less. These are the total review times since Planning Permits are not required. Larger projects generally take a year or just less.

Codes and Enforcement
The Code Enforcement Division of the City Attorney' s Office is responsible for enforcement of property maintenance, zoning, and building codes throughout Mountain View. Code enforcement is a responsibility shared by many City departments along with cooperation from residents and businesses. Housing Element Program 1. 12 Maintenance of Existing Housing Stock was developed to respond to housing code violations. The program will maintain the quality of the existing housing stock by addressing housing code violations as they are reported.

Mountain View has adopted ( with Mountain View City Code amendments) the 2019 California Building Code, the 2019 California Mechanical Code, the 2019 California Plumbing Code, the 2019 California Electrical Code, the 2019 California Fire Code, the 2019 California Residential Code, 2019 the Mountain View Green Building Code, the 2019 California Energy Code, and the 2019 Handicapped Accessibility Regulations ( Title 24). City codes are updated regularly as these codes and standards are modified at state and national levels.

The City has adopted several minor amendments to the 2019 California Building Code to prevent unsafe or hazardous building conditions. The City' s Building Code would not adversely affect the ability to construct housing in Mountain View.

Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types
Multi -family Housing
Multi -family housing, including rental and ownership products, is the primary permitted use in the City' s R3 and R4 zoning districts, as well as in several of the City' s Precise Plan districts. A Conditional Use Permit ( CUP) is required for multi -family housing in the R2 and CRA districts. Multifamily housing accounts for approximately 57 percent of the units in the City and approximately 75 percent of the new housing units approved since 2010. Recent developments have been approved and built at the upper end of allowed densities, and even higher when including State Density Bonus.

Major multi -family developments approved and built between 2014- 2022 are shown in Table 40.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Table 40: Recent Multi -family Developments in Mountain View 2580 California Street 632
400 San Antonio Road 582
555 East Evelyn Avenue 471
500 Ferguson Road 394
2700 West El Camino Real 211
1720 Villa Street 226
2268 West El Camino Real 204
394 Ortega Avenue 144
779 East Evelyn Avenue 116
Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters provide a critical resource for individuals or families experiencing housing instability. Government Code Section 65582(d) defines an emergency shelter as " housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay." Effective January 1, 2008, California SB 2 requires all jurisdictions to have a zoning district that permits at least one year- round emergency shelter without a CUP or any other discretionary permit requirements. Jurisdictions must identify a zone where emergency shelters are permitted by -right within one year from the adoption of the housing element.

The City of Mountain View identified several possible zones to permit emergency shelters by -right based on their compatibility, access to transit and services, and suitability to accommodate permanent shelters for the homeless, and determined that City' s General Industrial ( MM) district could support emergency shelters. The MM district allows for processing, assembling, research, wholesale, warehousing, data centers, personal storage facilities, or other storage uses. Conditional uses include offices, veterinary clinics, lodges, private clubs and halls, educational and recreation uses, religious institutions, and assorted retail and commercial uses.

The City' s Zoning Ordinance permits emergency shelters by -right in the MM district which includes objective development and management standards for emergency shelters and are in conformance with State law. In addition, the City' s Zoning Ordinance includes standards for off-street parking in compliance with AB 139/ Gov. Code § 65583 subd. ( a)( 4)(A)) with emergency shelters required to provide thirty -five -hundredths ( 0. 35) of a parking space per individual bed plus one ( 1) additional space per employee.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

The permit processing and development standards encourage and facilitate the development of emergency shelters and no discretionary permits are required for approval of a permanent emergency shelter. The City will continue to monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate emergency shelters and provide information to appropriate organizations that serve the needs of homeless and extremely low-income persons. In addition, the City allows Emergency Shelters with a CUP in all commercial and industrial zoning districts.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
Transitional housing helps transition an individual or family from a short-term emergency shelter.

Government Code Section 65592 ( j) defines transitional housing as " buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance."
Supportive housing is generally described as permanent housing linked to a range of support services. Government Code Section 65582( g) defines supportive housing as " housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community." Services typically include assistance designed to meet the needs of the target population in retaining housing, living and working in the community, and/ or improving health, and may include case management, mental health treatment, and life skills.

Pursuant to SB 2, the City' s Zoning Ordinance has been updated to treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. For example, if the transitional housing is a multi -family use proposed in a multi -family zone, then zoning treats the transitional housing the same as other multifamily uses proposed in the zone. Per Government Code Section 65582, target population is defined as persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act ( Division 4. 5 commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Assembly Bill ( AB) 101, passed in 2019, requires that a low barrier navigation center be a use permitted by right in mixed -use zones and non- residential zones permitting multi -unit uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines " low barrier navigation center" as a housing first, low -barrier, service -enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. The Housing Element includes an DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

implementation program to amend the Planning and Development Code to comply with this new requirement ( Housing Element Program 1. 1 Update Zoning Ordinance).

Efficiency Studios/ SROs
Efficiency studios, also known as single -room occupancy (SRO) units, often provide affordable housing opportunities for lower -income residents. Mountain View' s Zoning Ordinance requires efficiency studios to have a minimum floor area of 150 square feet and include a private bathroom and partial kitchen. The average size of efficiency studios cannot exceed 325 square feet. Efficiency studios are allowed with a CUP in the CRA zoning district and with a planned community permit in the El Camino Real Precise Plan, the San Antonio Precise Plan and areas of the Downtown Precise Plan area that specifically lists efficiency studios as permitted or provisional use. To help encourage development of this product type, the City' s Zoning Ordinance allows a reduction of parking standards by the Zoning Administrator, and a waiving of City fees with Council approval ( including park fees and transient occupancy taxes). Further, the El Camino Real and San Antonio Precise Plans limit density based on floor area rather than units, which has the result of creating opportunity for many more efficiency studios than would otherwise be allowed.

The City' s Zoning Code previously established a cap of 180 new efficiency studios be developed within the City. However, as 118 efficiency studios were approved as part of San Antonio Place, the City repealed the limit on new efficiency studios as it was deemed to be a constraint to the development of new units. Projects containing efficiency units are now reviewed and approved as they are submitted to the City.

Employee Housing
For consistency with the Employee Housing Act ( Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), the Health and Safety Code ( HSC) Section 17021. 5 requires that employee housing serving six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure and shall be treated subject to the standards for a family dwelling in the same zone. The City does not have any provisions in the Zoning Ordinance addressing employee housing serving six or fewer employees. Further, HSC Section 17021. 6 requires that employee housing of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household be considered an agricultural use. The City does not have such provisions in its Zoning Ordinance. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to amend the Planning and Development Code to comply with this new requirement Housing Element Program 1. 1 Update Zoning Ordinance).

Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units ( ADUs) often provide affordable housing opportunities for lower -income residents or additional housing opportunities for extended families and affordable housing options.

Effective December 10, 2020, the City Council adopted new zoning regulations to align with recent State laws pertaining to ADUs, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units ( JADUs), and multi -family ADUs. The zoning text amendments were made to bring the City into compliance with updated ADU legislation and to be consistent with the General Plan in supporting the policies of the prior Housing Element 2015- 2023) by removing constraints to the development of ADUs, as provided in specific Housing DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Element programs. The City finds that ADUs and JADUs are residential uses that are consistent with the allowable density, with the General Plan, and zoning designation for the site, provided the units are located on properties zoned to allow single- family or multi -family dwelling residential uses. While no Planning permit is required, all new ADUs require building permits. ADUs are allowed with ministerial approval only when the site complies with all applicable requirements and a building permit is issued within sixty ( 60) days of submittal of a complete application. These requirements are not seen as a constraint to the production of ADUs, as the trend for ADUs permitted and constructed have increased each year between 2018 to 2020. The City encourages all applicants to review preliminary ADU plans with Planning staff to ensure the project meets all zoning requirements, prior to preparing detailed construction plans for building permit submittal.

Density Bonuses
To provide additional opportunities for housing and housing variety, the City has adopted a Density Bonus ordinance that allows for incentives for the development of housing affordable to qualifying residents and households. The incentives include the ability to construct more residential dwelling units than the maximum residential density permitted by the applicable zoning and General Plan designations and other discretionary incentives. This ordinance was implemented to align with State Density Bonus Law as required by Government Code Section 65915( a). Density bonus programs are also included in the City' s Precise Plan areas, including the North Bayshore Precise Plan, to increase the supply of new market rate and affordable housing.

Mobile Homes and Factory -Built Housing
Manufactured housing and mobile homes are a permitted use in all of the City' s residential zoning districts. However, mobile home parks are only permitted in the RMH zoning district, subject to approval of a mobile home park permit (MHPP). The City currently has approximately 1, 100 mobile homes in mobile home parks. These units make up approximately three percent of the City' s housing stock. Refer to Table 41 for more details.

Mobile homes provide affordable housing with low yard and housing maintenance, which attracts a high number of seniors. The parks are distinctive because the homes are owned by residents, while they rent the land beneath them. Separate ownership carries the risk of conversion of the parks to another land use and possibly resulting in the loss of affordable housing. The State requires a conversion report with applications for park conversions. The conversion report must provide appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts of mobile home park conversions on displaced residents, and strategies to assist displaced residents to obtain replacement housing.

In addition to State regulations, the City adopted a mobile home conversion ordinance ( Chapter 28, Article X), which also requires a conversion report and identification of measures to mitigate the impacts of conversions. In recognition of mobile homes' value as an affordable housing option, the City has a mobile home park General Plan designation and a mobile home park zoning designation that also provide protection for existing mobile home parks. The City requires a Conversion Impact Report to convert a property with a mobile home to another use. Further, to help maintain the DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

affordability of mobile homes and provide other protections to mobile home park residents, the City Council adopted the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance in September of 2021.

Table 41: Mountain View Mobile Home Parks
Moorpark Mobile Home Park
Sahara Village Mobile Home Park
New Frontier Mobile Home Park
Santiago Villa Mobile Home Park
Sunset Estates Mobile Home Park
Moffett Mobile Home Park
TOTAL
501 Moorpark Way
191 El Camino Way
325 Sylvan Avenue
1075 Space Parkway
433 Sylvan Avenue
440 Moffett Boulevard
138
206
141
358
144
143
1, 130
Source: City of Mountain View, 2021.

Affordable Housing - State Laws Impacting Local Development Standards Specific housing laws passed during the last housing cycle would revise policies and processes of the City and potentially reduce governmental constraints on housing development. These laws guide the development of recommendations in this update for the 6th cycle. The legislation that impacts residential development standards and potential affordable housing includes though is not limited to:

AB 686 (Santiago): Places requirements on Housing Elements, and revisions to Housing Elements that occur on and after January 1, 2021, to include an assessment of fair housing within the jurisdiction.

SB 330 and SB 8 (Skinner): Declares a statewide housing emergency to be in effect until January 1, 2030. To increase the production of housing, the bill suspends certain restrictions on the development of new housing during this period of statewide emergency and expedites local government permitting processes and timeframes. The bill applies to all " housing development projects," with a special emphasis on projects for very -low-, low-, and moderate - income households and emergency shelters.

AB 2162 ( Chiu): Requires that supportive housing be allowed by -right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including non- residential zones that permit multi -family uses. Minimum parking requirements for units occupied by supportive housing residents are prohibited if the development is located within 0. 5 mile of a public transit stop.

SB 9 (Atkins): Signed by the California Governor on September 16, 2021, SB 9 requires " a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a singlefamily residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements." The law also requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements and thus allow, ministerially without CEQA, up to four units on all single- family zoned parcels.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Constraints for Persons with Disabilities
Senate Bill 520, passed in October 2001, requires local housing elements to evaluate constraints for persons with disabilities and develop programs which accommodate the housing needs of disabled persons. Persons with special needs or disabilities have a number of housing needs related to housing accessibility; access to transportation, employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on -site or nearby supportive living services. The following is a description of City regulations, policies, and procedures that support housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

Procedures for Ensuring Reasonable Accommodation
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or reductions to parking requirements.

The City' s Zoning Ordinance incorporates procedures for reasonable accommodation that comply with State requirements. The process for reasonable accommodation includes submittal of an application form, an administrative review by City Staff, and a decision within 30 days after the application is submitted. An application for a reasonable accommodation is granted if all of the following findings are made:

The housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual with a disability as defined under the Fair Housing Acts.

The requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Fair Housing Acts.

The requested reasonable accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.

The requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning.

The requested reasonable accommodation would not adversely impact surrounding properties or uses.

There are no reasonable alternatives that would provide an equivalent level of benefit without requiring a modification or exception to the City' s applicable rules, standards and practices.

Residential Care Homes
In conformance with State law, Mountain View' s Zoning Ordinance permits residential care homes with six or fewer residents in all residential zones as permitted by State law. Residential care homes with six or fewer residents are not subject to special development requirements, policies, or procedures which would impede them from locating in a residential district. Residential care homes with seven or more residents are allowed through a Conditional Use Permit in all residential zones.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

In the past, some zoning codes have included narrow definitions of the term family. The City' s Zoning Code does define the term " family" so as not to discriminate against unrelated persons with disabilities living together.

Building Codes and Permitting
The City' s Building Code includes amendments to the 2019 California Building Code, which do not have the potential to diminish the City' s ability to accommodate persons with disabilities. The City Code goes further than the 2019 California Building Code in that it provides for fee waivers or reductions for those persons with disabilities. Specifically, in relation to the payment of fees for the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of materials for housing units, the City has amended the City' s Building Code to include a fee waiver or reduction at the discretion of the chief building official, for all building permits related to improvement to the home of a person at least sixty ( 60) years of age with a qualifying disability and such improvements are made to accommodate that disability.

Tree Preservation
The City has a Tree Preservation Ordinance that is intended to prevent uncontrolled and indiscriminate destruction of mature trees in order to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the City. The Ordinance protects Heritage Trees, which are defined as:

A tree that has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54 inches above the natural grade;
A multi -branched tree that has major branches below 54 inches above the natural grade with a circumference of 48 inches measured just below the first major trunk fork; Any quercus ( oak), sequoia ( redwood), or cedrus ( cedar) tree with a circumference of 12 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade; or A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit.

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Governmental Constraints Findings
Overall, Mountain View' s Zoning Ordinance generally does not act as a constraint to new housing production. The development standards and parking requirements for the existing six zoning districts that permit residential development are reasonable. When appropriate, the Zoning Administrator may approve a CUP to reduce the number of parking spaces for a development with smaller units. Housing Element Program 1. 3 includes a review of development standards to address potential feasibility constraints. In addition, the City of Mountain View is adopting updates to its Zoning Ordinance concurrent with the Housing Element Update to increase residential development capacity.

Although Mountain View' s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance could pose a constraint to housing production, the City has experienced significant amounts of market -rate residential construction activity with the inclusionary requirements in place and these requirements remain an important tool for generating affordable housing. Mountain View' s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires projects of a certain size to provide at least 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units ( or 25 percent for ownership townhouses and rowhouses) as below - market rate or, in the case of a fractional unit ( below 0. 5 for developments with more than seven units) pay an in -lieu fee. There is also an option for alternatives to the production requirement. In general, this creates more affordable units than with a fee -only system.

Housing Element Program 1. 9 states that the City will review the Below -Market -Rate program requirements during the planning period to reflect community needs for affordable and market rate housing and will implement actions based on the review as directed by City Council.

The City' s park land dedication requirements may act as a constraint to housing production but will be addressed through a Housing Element program. The park land dedication in -lieu fee totals approximately $ 238, 987 for a single- family unit, $ 69, 497 for a unit in a small ( ten units or less) multi -family project, and $ 82, 591 for a unit in a large ( 100 units or more) multifamily project. Overall, the City' s park land dedication requirements were found to have a moderate to major impact on residential development costs, depending on the unit type.

Housing Element Program 1. 8 will address this potential constraint through a review and revision to the City' s park land dedication requirements to maintain access to high quality open space while reducing the financial impact to residential development.

In compliance with SB 2, Mountain View' s Zoning Ordinance allows permanent emergency shelters as a permitted use in the MM zoning district.

Mountain View' s Zoning Ordinance treats transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

The City' s Zoning Ordinance includes a process for reasonable accommodation requests for people with physical disabilities. Federal and State fair housing laws require jurisdictions to make reasonable accommodations to their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Non -Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non -governmental factors which may constrain the production of new housing. These could include market -related conditions, such as the availability of financing and land and construction costs, as well as community opposition to new development.

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

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

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

Affordable housing developers that were interviewed for this Housing Element Update cited the City' s financial contributions to affordable housing projects as a key factor that facilitates the production of affordable housing in Mountain View. Most affordable housing developments require several sources of financing to become feasible, including bank loans as well as federal, State, local, and philanthropic funding. Major sources of funding include low-income housing tax credits, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funding, HOME funds, and Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) funds. Local sources of funding for projects in Mountain View include the City' s affordable housing funds as well as Santa Clara County Measure Afunds. The City has also been part of two state Homekey applications, drawing in additional state funds to build housing for people experiencing homelessness. In order to meet its RHNA goals for affordable units, the City will have to find other sources of funding in order to meet the significant gaps in funding availability compared to the units in its pipeline. Housing Element Program 4. 3 seeks to identify other sources of funding to meet this need. In addition, Housing Element Program 4. 1 includes updating the City' s NOFA process for affordable housing to improve coordination and communication internally and with applicants.

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

The cost of land can vary considerably based on location, lot size, zoning, availability of existing infrastructure, and other factors. Recent sales of sites in Mountain View that are zoned for multi - DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

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

Time Between Approval and Building Permits
The time between project approvals and issuance of building permits is not generally a constraint to housing production in Mountain View. Before COVID, Multifamily and rowhouse developments had a median time from planning application to building completion of about 3. 7 years. Since construction can take over 2 years, this means there is not usually very much time between entitlement and building permit application.

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

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

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

Construction costs are also high and have increased steadily during recent years. Together, high land and construction costs present barriers to the production of housing in Mountain View. Neighboring jurisdictions face similar constraints, contributing to the regional housing shortage. The City of Mountain View helps to address this constraint by providing funding for affordable housing construction. In addition, Mountain View has increased density in large DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

portions of the City through various Precise Plans, which help to reduce the per -unit land cost for both market rate and affordable developments.

Public opinion, particularly community concern over higher -density development, may constrain housing production in Mountain View. Projects in many jurisdictions, including Mountain View, often encounter some form of resistance from neighbors and residents.

Engagement with local neighborhood associations and other community involvement processes can help to mitigate concern over new residential development. In addition, Mountain View has active groups and individuals that support pro -housing policies, which help to balance opposition to density with support for additional housing. Housing Element Program 4. 7 addresses this issue by encouraging developers to facilitate early and ongoing outreach with surrounding neighborhood groups while planning for new residential development.

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

Seismic Hazards
Mountain View is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. Mountain View City Hall is located approximately 6. 7 miles northeast of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone ( APEFZ) for the San Andreas Fault, and approximately 11. 2 miles southwest of the A- PEFZ for the Hayward Fault. The complex and potentially active Berrocal/ Monte Vista -Shannon fault zone has its northern terminus about 2. 7 miles to the southwest, while the inactive Cascade, Stanford, and San Jose faults all cross the City of Mountain View from the southeast to the northwest. There are, however, no known active faults present within the City, and the fault rupture hazard for the City is considered to be very low. Future development of housing would be required to undergo review, including analysis of increased risks to human health or safety related to fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and liquefaction, in addition to compliance with standard California building and safety code requirements.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

Flooding
Portions of the City are within the 100-year flood zones as determined by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. There are Pipeline projects in the sites inventory that are located in the 100-year flood zone, near US- 101 and El Camino Real' s crossing of Permanente Creek. In addition, there is one Opportunity Site in the sites inventory in the flood zone near El Camino Real and Miramonte Avenue.

These projects would need to obtain a flood development permit as described in Section 8. 160 of the City Code and be in compliance with California building and safety code requirements.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis Resolution No. 18781

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 283 N M w ME
N M v NM

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

HOUSING ELEMENT

APPENDIX
E
Resolution No. 18781

Housing Sites Analysis
and Inventory
Resolution No. 18781

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

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

The analysis presented in this Appendix demonstrates there is an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the City' s housing allocation of 11, 135 units, plus a surplus of 5, 379 additional units ( 1,077 of which are low and moderate income units) to act as a " buffer" if sites develop to nonresidential or at different affordability levels than assumed in the sites inventory. This section is organized by the following topics:

Summary of the regional context and capacity;
Sites selection process which includes a description of the methodology and evaluation of site criteria, unit capacity, and sites to accommodate varied income levels; and Sites inventory which includes the identification of sites by project type categories and evaluation of sites in meeting AFFH requirements.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

Table 42: Mountain View' s Regional Housing Needs Allocation Moderate Above Moderate
City RHNA a
Percent of
Total
2, 773 1, 597 1, 885 4, 880 11, 135
25% 14% 17% 44% 100%
NOTES: a The RHNA allocation shown was adopted by ABAG on December 16, 2021.

SOURCE: ABAG, December 2021.

Summary of Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
The total realistic development capacity of all sites in the land inventory is listed in Table 43 which provides a summary of the total residential capacity against the City' s 6th cycle RHNA. The total realistic capacity shown is 16,514 units, which exceeds the net target of 11,135 units the City is required to accommodate for its RHNA, and also supplements that allocation by representing a 48 percent buffer, including a 22. 6 percent buffer on low and moderate income units32. HCD recommends that jurisdictions provide a 15 to 30 percent buffer beyond the minimum RHNA target to comply with the " no net loss" provisions of State Housing Element Law that require the jurisdiction to maintain sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA for the duration of the planning period at every income level. In addition to considering the aggregate number of units that the sites can accommodate, it is necessary to consider the potential for sites to accommodate housing that is affordable to all income levels, in accordance with the RHNA allocations, as discussed in the Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels". Each of the two primary project types, Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites, are presented in Table 43 and described in further detail in the " Methodology/ Evaluation of Possible Sites" section. As shown in Table 43, there are a number of units from Pipeline Projects included that would meet the City' s housing needs, demonstrating that there is residential developer interest and economic feasibility for housing development on the types of sites, including non -vacant sites, identified in this inventory. 32 The moderate income buffer alone is 18 percent. However, program 1. 11 includes a process to move lower -income sites to moderate income RHNA if the moderate -income buffer runs out. Therefore a more appropriate measure of the buffer is the combined 22. 6 percent.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element l Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

Table 43: Mountain View Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to 6th Cycle RHNA by Income
Mountain View RHNA
Capacity from Pipeline
Projects
Approved/ Under
Construction
Proposed Projects
Capacity on Opportunity Sites
Developable Sites ( as of
January 31, 2023)
ADU Projection
Total Capacity ( as of January
31, 2023
Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) from
RHNA
4, 370 1, 885 4, 880 11, 135
1, 201 274 4, 311 5, 786
533 248 2, 984 3, 765
668 26 1, 327 2, 021
3, 996 1, 650 4, 536 10, 182
3, 850 1, 577 4, 512 9, 939
146 73 24 243
5, 197 1, 924 8, 847 15, 968
827 + 39 + 3, 967 + 4, 833
Developable Sites ( Rezoning 250* 296 0 546
after January 31, 2023,
including Program 1. 1)
Total Capacity 5, 447* 2, 220 8, 847 16, 514
Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) from + 1, 077* + 335 + 3, 967 + 5, 379 RHNA
Buffer 25%* 18% 81% 48%
Included in this number are 82 lower -income units on a developable site ( 400 Moffett Boulevard) rezoned after January 31, 2023. If the surplus of lower -income units falls below 82 prior to approval and certification, there will have been a shortfall, and the City will identify sites to rezone consistent with lower -income shortfall requirements. 57/ 67 East Evelyn Avenue, another site rezoned after January 31, 2023, with potential for 168 units, is expected to comply with the shortfall requirements.

Source: Environmental Science Associates, February 2023.

Note: There may be some rounding of total units.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

Affirmatively F irthering Fair Housing
AB 686 (Santiago) created a new requirement for local jurisdictions to evaluate their Housing Element sites inventories through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. This Housing Element Update addresses these requirements in part by providing data and analysis in the Assessment of Fair Housing section of Appendix B, which informs many of the programs provided in the Housing Plan chapter of this document.

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

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

The only area considered " Low Resource" in the 2021 TCAC/ HCD Opportunity Map is the North Bayshore area, where some ( though not a majority) of the lower income sites are located. However, the North Bayshore area has access to a significant number of jobs. It is also the subject of a major precise plan that will bring new development and services to the area, helping to improve access to opportunity. The City prepared and adopted the North Bayshore Precise Plan to create a complete community north of Highway 101, including new neighborhood - serving retail and services, new open spaces, land for a new school, and transit improvements along North Shoreline Boulevard to connect DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

the area to the Downtown Transit Center and the rest of the City. The North Bayshore Master Plan, a development framework proposed to implement the vision of the Precise Plan, is already under review, with approval expected in 2023. This Master Plan includes up to 7, 000 dwelling units as well as services, open spaces, a school and mobility improvements to vastly improve the quality of life for existing residents north of Highway 101.

The AFFH implications of the site inventory are discussed in more detail in a subsequent subsection of this appendix.

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

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

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

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

Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects include those that have been approved, permitted, or received a final certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projection period ( which started on June 30, 2022).

Based on HCD guidance, these projects may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. The following is a description of the subcategories under Pipeline Projects:

Approved/ Under Construction: These projects include those that have been approved or are under construction and will receive a final certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

RHNA projection period, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA.

Proposed Projects: These are projects that are seeking entitlements, including some projects that require rezoning. Project status includes formal applications or pre -applications under review. Permits or final certificates of occupancy for these Proposed Projects are expected to be issued in the 6th cycle, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA as well.

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

Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites: These identified Opportunity Sites are considered vacant or underutilized and are eligible for residential development as is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan. There are some sites that will require rezoning and it is anticipated that these rezonings will have been adopted prior to the start of the 6th cycle while others may be enacted soon after the start of the 6th cycle. These include General Plan Village Center sites, including those south of El Camino Real. Refer to these sections for more information on rezoned sites: " Sites for Rezoning" and " Rezoned Opportunity Sites." Opportunity Sites also include master plans that have development agreements approved or under review as well as sites owned by 100 percent affordable housing developers with the intent to submit applications during the planning period.

Accessory Dwelling Units: Accessory Dwelling Units are considered opportunities for residential development and are based on projected development during the planning period as is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan.

General Site Evaluation Considerations
This section provides a summary of the evaluation considerations made as part of the analysis and a description of each consideration. As most of the City is already built out with there being limited number of vacant parcels remaining, sites in the inventory primarily include non -vacant parcels that already have access to infrastructure and meet a variety of HCD criteria that make them suitable candidates for housing redevelopment. While sites not included in the sites inventory can also be developed for housing to meet RHNA targets, those sites identified in the inventory are considered optimal and most likely to develop and contribute to housing production in the 6th cycle. The following considerations were evaluated and are described in more detail in the following sections:

Infrastructure Availability;
Environmental Constraints;
Site Status and Capacity ( i. e., vacant, underutilized, existing uses, and residential zoning); Site Size;
Permitted Density; and
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element( s).

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

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

Refer to the " Environmental Constraints" in Appendix D for more information.

Site Status and Capacity
After accounting for Pipeline Projects, the remaining RHNA allocation for each income category must be met through developable Opportunity Sites in the inventory. The existing characteristics of the site were considered as evaluation criteria for the Opportunity Sites. Specifically, all residentially zoned sites, either vacant or underutilized, were considered as potential buildable residential sites and were evaluated for site adequacy and capacity. Government Code Sections 65583( a)( 3) and 65583.2 require that the inventory of suitable land look at criteria for vacant and underutilized sites as outlined below:

Vacant sites that are zoned for multi -family development Vacant sites that are not zoned for multi -family development, but that allow such development ( such as Precise Plans)
Underutilized sites that are zoned for residential development and capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity Sites that are not zoned for residential development, but can be redeveloped for and/ or rezoned for multi -family residential development
Sites owned or leased by the City that can be redeveloped for multi -family residential development within the housing cycle
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

Sites controlled by the State, a city/ county, or another public agency where there is agreement/ documentation that the site can be developed within the housing cycle Non -vacant sites require substantial evidence to demonstrate that existing development will not preclude housing production during the planning period A methodology to determine " underutilized" sites was necessary given the City has negligible vacant land. Sites were removed from consideration in the underutilized methodology if sites: did not initially allow residential uses, were historic resources, were sites that support community -serving uses parks, utilities, transportation, schools, hospitals), had structures that were recently built or modified, and were generally built out to their allowed density. In addition, Opportunity Sites with more than three existing residential uses were removed from consideration since they could result in displacement of rent -controlled units, which is contrary to the City' s goals for affordable housing production. The final sites inventory does not include any sites that have existing residential on site.

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

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

However, these sites are fully encumbered through the end of the 6th cycle. The Downtown Transit Center may have a joint development opportunity this cycle. It will be rezoned to allow residential pursuant to Program 1. 1, though it is not necessary to meet the RHNA. Other City -owned sites downtown will be assessed for residential development opportunities pursuant to Program 4. 5.

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

Large Sites - There is only one site in the inventory larger than 10 acres, 1500 North Shoreline Boulevard. However, sites that accommodate more than 150 units in the inventory including those less than 10 acres) use a special methodology that only applies a maximum of 150 lower -income units to any given site. Based on the City' s experience with past residential projects, larger sites tend to include a mix of units affordable to various income levels, rather than 100 percent affordable, so only applying a maximum of 150 lower income units is consistent with that experience as well as the City' s BMR requirements. In addition, the City is only applying a maximum of 150 moderate income units to a given site as well refer to the " Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels" section). 1500 North Shoreline Boulevard is a special case. This site can yield at least 1, 732 units when calculating its size with the conservative density of 110 dwelling units per acre based DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

on the North Bayshore Precise Plan ( this is a very conservative assumption, treating it like a

3. 5 FAR site, when the Precise Plan actually allows up to 4. 5 FAR). In addition, a recent study found that up to 2, 800 units could be accommodated on the site (Gateway Master Plan, adopted December 7, 2021). The sites inventory further discounts this site' s assumed development based on the potential for a longer phased development on such a large development site. The inventory assumes 800 market rate units, 100 lower income units, and 100 moderate income units, which is less than half the potential development capacity of the site and consistent with the North Bayshore Precise Plan BMR requirements. The City has been meeting with a developer who has shared plans for a potential large residential project at 1500 North Shoreline Boulevard that would likely include more affordable units than have been designated in the inventory for this project. Further, 1500 Shoreline Boulevard is surrounded on all four sides with projects under review.

Small Sites - The sites inventory includes parcels that are less than or slightly greater than one- half acre in size. A screening of these smaller parcels and common ownership was conducted. Where smaller parcels were immediately adjacent to other Opportunity Sites that had the same landowner, these parcels were consolidated to create larger sites, given the likelihood of these consolidated sites being developed together as a single project. Refer to Table 44 for a list of consolidated sites in the inventory.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 293 Resolution No. 18781

Table 44: Consolidated Sites
2630 W EL CAMINO REAL

FAYETTE DR
2116 W EL CAMINO REAL
2100 W EL CAMINO REAL
2124 W EL CAMINO REAL
2483 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY
2485 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY
1 134 W EL CAMINO REAL
1 128 W EL CAMINO REAL

S OAK ST
630 SAN ANTONIO RD

FAYETTE DR
1949 W EL CAMINO REAL
1921 W EL CAMINO REAL
1935 W EL CAMINO REAL
800 MAUDE AV
500 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
401 ELLIS ST
885 MAUDE AV
1764 SHORELINE BL
1758 SHORELINE BL
1742 SHORELINE BL
1674 SHORELINE BL
1435 Plymouth St
1397 SHOREBIRD WY
1383 SHOREBIRD WY
1390 SHOREBIRD WY
1375 SHOREBIRD WY
1345 SHOREBIRD WY
1220 PEAR AV
1601 N SHORELINE BL
1675 SHORELINE BL
1250 SPACE PARK WY
1230 PEAR AV
MI 14816012 A 1. 79
14816013 A 0. 32
14836028 B 1. 00
14836029 B 0. 52
14836027 B 0. 74
1471 1025 C 1. 34
1471 1029 C 0. 50
15807026 D 0. 64
15807025 D 0. 42
15807007 D 0. 10
14816016 E 2. 82
14816014 E 0. 15
17006058 F 0. 32
17006060 F 1. 30
17006062 F 1. 66
16057012 G 4. 97
16058016 G 5. 84
16058017 G 4. 51
16059005 G 1. 03
11610078 H 0. 50
11610079 H 0. 44
11610080 H 1. 86
11610085 H 0. 88
11610101 H 0. 99
11611021 H 1. 99
11611022 H 1. 62
11611025 H 1. 80
11611028 H 4. 88
11611038 H 16. 90
11614028 H 1. 11
11614058 H 1. 92
11614066 H 1. 41
11614070 H 0. 72
11614095 H 1. 10
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 294 Resolution No. 18781

Permitted Density
State law ( Government Code Section 65583. 2( c)( 3)) establishes a " default density standard" of 30 units per acre for lower income units in a metropolitan jurisdiction such as Mountain View. This is the minimum density that is deemed appropriate in State law to accommodate the City' s lower income RHNA. In accordance with the State' s default density standards, sites that could support a minimum of 30 units per acre were considered appropriate for very low and low income units, as well as for moderate income units. All underutilized Opportunity Sites in the inventory can accommodate at least the default density.

Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element( s)
To accommodate the 2023- 2031 RHNA, sites from the 2014- 2022 Housing Element sites inventory were evaluated to determine their viability for the 2023- 2031 Housing Element planning period. It was determined that five sites were identified in the 2014- 2022 Housing Element sites inventory, as listed below.
2026 W El Camino Real ( APN 15437018)
2630 California Street ( APN 14815018)
2633 California Street ( APN 14815021)
384 San Antonio Road ( APN 14815022)
789 E El Camino Real ( APN 19801003)
The zoning status for these sites had changed since the 5th cycle Housing Element, allowing a higher density and therefore increasing the potential housing capacity of these sites. Based on this circumstance, HCD considers these sites that have been rezoned since the last cycle as " new sites" and not sites that were used in a prior Housing Element. The following is a timeline of the subsequent rezonings for these five sites, which are incorporated and categorized as new sites in the 6th cycle sites inventory.

October 14, 2014: The previous Housing Element was adopted, which assumed the sites were zoned " CRA".

November 17, 2014: The El Camino Real Precise Plan was adopted and replaced the " CRA" zoning.

December 2, 2014: The San Antonio Precise Plan was adopted and also replaced the " CRA" zoning.

January 31, 2015: This was the start of the 5th cycle.

There are 11 other sites from the 2014- 2022 Housing Element sites inventory that are found within this 6th cycle' s Pipeline Projects, where projects have been approved, are under construction, or seeking entitlements. While these eleven sites are not in 6th cycle sites inventory, these sites are contributing to this 6th cycle RHNA.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 295 Resolution No. 18781

Sites for Rezoning Lower -Income Shortfall
Government Code section 65583. 2( h) sets requirements if sites are identified for rezoning to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall. The City' s sites inventory does not have a lower income shortfall, and therefore is not subject to those requirements. Nonetheless, the City is rezoning sites that will contribute to the increase in the RHNA buffer, both for lower -income and moderate -income units. Some of these rezonings will have been adopted prior to the start of the 6th cycle while others were enacted soon after the start of the 6th cycle and others are planned as part of Program 1. 1.

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

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

Over 90 Mountain View residential and mixed -use precedent projects were initially analyzed to calculate the realistic density based by zone or General Plan land use designation for the Opportunity Sites ( excluding the ADUs). These precedent projects have applicable zones and General Plan land use designations, consistent with the sites in the inventory. As an example, there are no Medium Density Residential parcels in the inventory and as a result, these precedent projects are not shown.

Refer to Table 45 for a listing of the relevant City precedents projects, along with details on the project acreage, dwelling units, density achieved, Precise Plan information if applicable, and General Plan land use designation.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 296 Resolution No. 18781

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

Example of a precedent project in the El Camino Real
Precise Plan - 2700 West El Camino Real
Example of a precedent project in the
Downtown Precise Plan - 135 Franklin Street
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 297 Resolution
No.
18781
Page
359
of
483
Table 45: Precedent Projects List
pi324 Bryant Street
676 Dana Street
231- 235 Hope Street
135 Franklin Street
City Lot 12 ( Bryant Street)
400 Logue Avenue
320 Logue Avenue
819 N Rengstorff Avenue
1411- 1495 W El Camino Real
334 San Antonio Road
1616 W El Camino Real
1701 W El Camino Real
950 W El Camino Real
394 Ortega Avenue
865 E El Camino Real
1720 W El Camino Real
801 W El Camino Real

0. 26

0. 25

0. 26

1. 03

1. 50

2. 54

2. 15

0. 83

1. 25

0. 66

0. 99

0. 49

0. 61

1. 62

2. 30

2. 43

2. 39
7 7
9 51
75 374
363
36 53
42 66
54 68
144
150
162
164

26. 92

28. 00

34. 62

49. 51

50. 00
147. 24
168. 84

43. 37

42. 40

63. 64

66. 67
110. 20
111. 48

88. 89

65. 22

66. 67

68. 62
Downtown
Downtown
Downtown
Downtown
Downtown
East Whisman ( High Intensity)
East Whisman ( High Intensity)
CRA
El Camino Real ( Low Intensity)
San Antonio ( Mixed - Use
Corridor)
El Camino Real ( Medium
Intensity)
El Camino Real ( Medium
Intensity)
El Camino Real ( Medium
Intensity)
San Antonio ( Mixed - Use
Corridor)
El Camino Real ( Medium
Intensity)
El Camino Real ( Medium
Intensity)
El Camino Real ( Medium
Intensity)
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution
No.
18781
Page
360
of
483
Project Address
Project Area
Acrea • e
Dwelling Units,
excluding
Density ( DU/ ac),
excluding Density
100 Moffett Boulevard
2650 W El Camino Real
2268- 2280 W El Camino Real
2700 W El Camino Real
400- 520 San Antonio Road
2580 California Street
455 San Antonio Road
Residential portion only)
601 Escuela Avenue
1313 and 1347 W El Camino
Real
730 Central Avenue

2. 70

2. 91

2. 61

2. 28

5. 75

8. 63

5. 5

0. 50

0. 44

0. 24
184
193
204
172
432
632
330
25 18
15 68. 15

66. 32

78. 16

75. 44

75. 13

73. 23
60 50. 00

40. 91

62. 50
Planned Community
El Camino Real ( Medium
Intensity)
El Camino Real ( Medium
Intensity)
El Camino Real ( Medium
Intensity)
San Antonio ( Mixed - Use
Corridor)
San Antonio ( Mixed - Use
Corridor)
San Antonio ( Mixed - Use
Center)
El Camino Real ( Low Intensity)
El Camino Real ( Low Intensity)
CRA
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution
No.
18781
Page
361
of
483 Table 46: Realistic Density Assumptions - Non -Rezoning General Mixed -Use 1. 35 FAR
Mixed -Use Corridor 1. 85 FAR
East Whisman
Mixed -Use
North Bayshore
Mixed - Use

1. 0 FAR +
Precise
Plan Bonus

1. 0 FAR +
Precise
Plan Bonus
Mixed -Use Center 2. 35 FAR
Downtown Mixed -
Use
References
Downtown
Precise
Plan
CRA and equivalent 43 DU/ ac
El Camino Real Precise
Plan ( Village Center)

1. 85 FAR including
required retail
El Camino Real Precise 1. 85 FAR
Plan ( Medium Intensity)
San Antonio Precise Plan 1. 85 FAR
Mixed - Use Corridor)
El Camino Real Precise 1. 35 FAR
Plan ( Low Intensity)
CRA ( Moffett Blvd)
East Whisman Precise
Plan ( High Intensity)
43 DU/ ac

3. 5 FAR
East Whisman Precise 2. 5 FAR
Plan ( Medium Intensity)
East Whisman Precise 1. 35 FAR
Plan ( Village Center)
North Bayshore Precise 3. 5 FAR
Plan ( General)
North Bayshore Precise 1. 85 FAR
Plan ( Edge)
San Antonio Precise Plan 2. 35 FAR
Mixed -Use Center)
Downtown Precise Plan Varies - most sites
are 50 DU/ ac

43. 37

53. 98

71. 97

71. 97

45. 74

62. 5
157
no example
projects*; 112
no example
projects***; 45
no example
projects*; 157
no example
projects**; 71
65 ****

45. 15
84% 36
84% 45
84% 60
84% 60
84% 38
84% 36
70% 110
70% 79
84% 38
70% 110
70% 50
60% 39
55% 25
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution
No.
18781
Page
362
of
483 This is based on a proportional increase/ decrease from the East Whisman Precise Plan ( High Intensity) These are based on the characteristic projects in El Camino Real Precise Plan ( Medium Intensity) and San Antonio Precise Plan ( Mixed - Use Corridor).

This is based on the characteristic projects in El Camino Real Precise Plan ( Low Intensity).

This is significantly lower than the actual density allowed on these sites. However, this assumes that developments will include a mix of uses that will reduce the developable area of residential ( such as office, entertainment, etc.).

Table 47: Realistic Density Assumptions - Rezoning
Neighborhood
Mixed - Use
Mixed - Use
Corridor
Residential

1. 05 FAR Updated CN District 1. 05 FAR

1. 85- 2. 3 FAR Grant -Phyllis Precise Plan 1. 85 FAR
or Moffett Boulevard
El Camino Real Precise
Plan ( Village Center)
Increase of 0. 45
FAR ( to 2. 3 FAR
including retail)
30 72
Increase of

17. 99 ( to 71. 97)
Ai 70%
r
70%
I
84% Increase
of 15 ( to
60)
21 50
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

Example of a precedent project in the El Camino
Real Precise Plan - 1701 West El Camino Real
Example of a precedent project in the San Antonio
Precise Plan - 400 San Antonio Road
Mixed -Use Areas
The precedent projects were evaluated to determine the likely density of 100 percent residential development in each of the zones. However, most sites are within mixed -use zones with there being a possibility that non- residential uses could be built. This likelihood was conservatively set at either 55- 60 percent, 70 percent, or 84 percent depending on the following:
84 percent: This includes areas with many precedents, specifically the Mixed -Use Corridor General Plan designation areas along the City' s main arterials. Over the last 10 years, 84 percent of development land area in this area was residential, or residential with a trivial amount of commercial that did not reduce the density. This reflects the strong density incentives the City has in these areas ( allowing much more residential development than commercial), and developers rarely choose other uses ( mostly hotels and very small offices). 70 percent: This reflects areas with fewer precedents, more uncertainty and/ or a higher commercial development potential. This is, however, still quite conservative for these areas.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

Mit: jimiiii.......

Park Place," a downtown multi -family development A rowhouse development on Willowgate Street Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels One of the most important evaluation considerations of the sites selection process is to evaluate a sites' ability to accommodate households with varying income levels. To satisfy the RHNA requirement, the amount of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units is specified for each site in the inventory. Refer to the HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets at the end of Appendix E for more details. Furthermore, the unit capacity must be maintained throughout the 2023- 2031 planning period. Therefore, a buffer of at least 15 percent to 30 percent is generally recommended by HCD, and the Mountain View' s sites inventory buffer is well beyond this recommendation ( 48 percent). If sites listed in the inventory are redeveloped with other uses or different income levels than what is identified, the difference can be made up with the buffer sites to ensure there is " No Net Loss" of RHNA capacity at each income level.

Affordability assumptions for Opportunity Sites ( excluding ADUs) are outlined in Table 48 by site characteristic and income levels. As mentioned in the " Methodology/ Evaluation of Possible Sites" section, State law (Government Code Section 65583.2( c)( 3)) establishes a default density standard of 30 units per acre for lower -income units in a metropolitan jurisdiction. Opportunity Sites ( with the exception of consolidated sites) that are 0. 5 to 10 acres that allow for development at 30 units per acre are suitable to accommodate the lower income RHNA, as indicated by HCD. This guidance is based on HCD' s experience that fewer lower income projects are developed with fewer than 50 units or more than 150 units. As a response to this, the City has taken the more conservative approach, which is to limit a single site' s lower income allocation to a range between 50 and 150 units, even though that further disqualifies many sites that are greater than 0. 5 acres. No sites less than 0. 5 acres can accommodate more than 50 units, unless consolidated. There is only one Opportunity Site greater than 10 acres ( 1500 North Shoreline Boulevard), and using this methodology the number of lower income units assumed on the site is consistent with the likely BMR requirement for any project in this location. This splitting of incomes is reasonable because many large developments choose to comply with their below -market -rate housing requirement through land dedication, on which affordable housing developers can build at higher densities than the original development. The North Bayshore and Middlefield Park Master Plans and 1255 Pear Avenue are good examples of this. In DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

addition, the City has elected to limit moderate -income allocation to a range between 0 and 150 units, both because this is a more conservative assumption and in order to limit the risk that a single project will require a significant amount of new Housing Element sites under " No Net Loss".

Table 48: Affordability Assumptions
Accommodates fewer than 50 units
includes all sites smaller than 0.5 acres)
Accommodates between 50 and 150
units
Accommodates between 150 and 300
units
100%
100%
150
Remainder
Moderate Income Units
Lower - Income Units
Lower - Income Units
Moderate Income Units
Sites Inventory
A summary of all sites identified by project type categories identified in the Mountain View 6th cycle Housing Element sites inventory for the 2023-2031 planning period is provided in this section.

Figure 95 presents an overview map of the identified housing site locations within Mountain View excluding ADUs), and Table 49 outlines the unit capacity by income level for each of the two main project types.

Table 49: Sites Inventory Summary
rojec Category
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above oderateIncome Capacity
Pipeline Projects
Opportunity Sites
Sub Total
A)
6th cycle RHNA ( B)
RHNA Buffer
A- B)
1, 201
4, 246
5, 447
4, 370
1, 077
274
1, 946
2, 220
1, 885
335
4, 311
4, 536
8, 847
4, 880
3, 967
5, 786
10, 728
16, 514
11, 135
5, 379
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 304 Resolution No. 18781

Suitability of Non -Vacant Sites
If a housing element relies on non -vacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of its RHNA for lower income households, the housing element must describe findings with substantial evidence that the use on sites will likely be discontinued. As described by HCD, substantial evidence can include several different factors, including 1) market conditions and development trends that show comparable non -vacant uses in the jurisdiction have been redeveloped into housing, 2) site specific information such as expiring leases, dilapidated building conditions, development agreements to develop the site, and landowners expressing development interest, and 3) a programmatic response that supports the redevelopment of non -vacant sites. The City of Mountain View is a predominately built out city with limited vacant land, and as a result, the sites inventory relies on non -vacant sites for more than 50 percent of lower income units. Analysis of the sites inventory has been conducted to provide substantial evidence supporting the likelihood that non -vacant uses will likely discontinue during the 6th cycle.

Market Conditions and Development Trends
Demand for residential development within Mountain View is evident based on the volume of development applications the City has seen and housing trends throughout the Bay Area and California as a whole. Mountain View' s location within the greater San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley has a significant impact on the demand for housing. Job growth, employment opportunities, and the dynamic economy that characterize the region result in a strong demand for residential development. The creation of housing has not kept up with the demand, so demand has only grown.

This demand for housing has influenced trends that include the redevelopment of non -vacant sites into housing. These trends are evidenced in the precedent and pipeline projects. Compared to its neighboring jurisdictions, Mountain View has one of the highest RHNA in Santa Clara County, third to the City of Sunnyvale and City of Santa Clara, whose land area however exceeds Mountain View' s by approximately 46 percent and 33 percent, respectively.

State law requires each jurisdiction to include a land inventory to identify specific sites that are suitable for residential development and demonstrate that sufficient land is zoned to provide housing capacity that is adequate to meet the RHNA for each income level. The lack of vacant land in Mountain View and the relatively high value of new residential development means that the City consistently sees the redevelopment of underutilized sites, including ones that contain functioning residential and commercial uses such as multi -tenant shopping centers, motels, office and R& D buildings, auto service facilities, parking lots, among other uses. Refer to Table 50 for a list of nonresidential uses that existed in the year or two before applications were submitted on select precedent and pipeline projects, consistent with those existing uses found on Opportunity Sites, furthering the point that existing uses are not a limitation to redevelopment. This is a strong indicator that development of residential uses on underutilized, non -vacant sites with existing uses is occurring and will continue to be an ongoing trend given the scarcity of vacant land in the City. Based on this, the non -vacant Opportunities Sites included in the inventory do not face impediments to residential development due to existing land uses.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

Table 50: Non - Residential Previous Uses on Select Precedent and Pipeline Projects 1001 N Shoreline Blvd
1 100 La Avenida
1313 and 1347 W El Camino Real
1411- 1495 W El Camino Real
2645 Fayette Drive
334 San Antonio Rd
400 Logue Avenue
901 E El Camino Real
City Lot 12 ( Bryant St)
355- 401 E Middlefield Rd
615- 749 W El Camino Real
96 W El Camino Real
320 Logue Ave
685 E Middlefield Rd
1265 Montecito Ave
87 E Evelyn Avenue
950 W El Camino Real
865 E El Camino Real
801 W El Camino Real
100 Moffett Boulevard
400- 520 San Antonio Road
601 Escuela Avenue
Large parking lot serving a recent office development
1- story light industrial with multiple tenants
1- story small retail center with multiple tenants
Three one-story retail buildings fully occupied with
multiple tenants
2- story light industrial building, fully occupied with one tenant
Operating gas station
1- story research and development use fully occupied
with an existing tenant
Operating 2- story hotel
Public parking lot
Two 1- story light industrial buildings occupied with
existing tenants
Operating 1- story bank and fast-food restaurant
Operating 1- story mortuary
1- story multi -tenant office building with some tenant spaces available
Occupied multi -tenant 2- story office buildings
Occupied office building
Public parking lot
Fast food restaurant
Billiard hall and occupied 2- tenant retail building
Several small, occupied retail buildings
Occupied social service office and car repair
Multiple office and light industrial buildings, tire store, multi -tenant retail ( mostly occupied)
Small retail strip center occupied with multiple tenants Non -vacant, Opportunity Sites in the inventory were screened based on the criteria described in the General Site Evaluation Considerations" section. Online tools, including Google Earth and Google Street View whereby a desktop windshield survey was conducted, were used to verify uses and conditions of buildings or lots on non -vacant sites. Several salient characteristics stood out among the redeveloped sites seen in precedents projects and the soon to be developed pipeline projects that are consistent with sites in the inventory. Below is a list of such characteristics and the number of sites in the inventory with these characteristics. While the characteristics are generally described DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

separately, more than one site may present multiple characteristics; therefore, the numbers presented are not intended to add up to 126, the number of sites in the inventory. Refer to the HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets at the end of this Appendix E to find details, including existing uses and data by address and APN, for sites in the inventory.

Opportunity Sites are underutilized and fall short of the site' s development potential. A majority of these sites have low FARs ( less than 0. 35 FAR for office or retail or less than 0.5 FAR for industrial or Research and Development). Sites with exceptions to this criteria, though demonstrate other suitable characteristics, include 1) sites that were built before 1986 and/ or have tenant vacancies including 910 El Monte Avenue, 2483 Old Middlefield Way, 2320 W El Camino Real, 2124 W El Camino Real, 1952 W El Camino Real, 897 Leong Drive, 850 Leong Drive, and 223 Moffett Blvd, and 2) sites that have approved or pending development agreements as part of multi -year master plans including 1742 Shoreline Blvd, 500 E Middlefield Rd, 885 Maude Ave, and 401 Ellis St.
19 Opportunity Sites have some level of tenant vacancy based on a desktop windshield survey and/ or through other research. Sites with tenant vacancies were included in the inventory, in part, because of their market influenced redevelopment potential and evidence that existing uses onsite may no longer be viable.
5 Opportunity Sites are parking lots while 16 sites are auto service related including gas stations, tire stores, and car wash establishments. Parking lots along with auto service related uses have been or will be redeveloped into housing in Mountain View, as evidenced by the projects listed in Table 50 including 1001 N Shoreline Blvd, 334 San Antonio Rd, City Lot 12 ( Bryant St), and 87 E Evelyn Avenue. Market trends and the high demand for housing are expected to result in the continued redevelopment of these types of uses into housing. 2 Opportunity Sites are hotels with low FARs, including 55 Fairchild Drive where the property owner has expressed development interest and 850 Leong Drive which was built in 1973 and has a 0.37 FAR, and where the property owner has also expressed development interest.

The reuse of an existing 2- story hotel ( 901 E El Camino Real) as affordable housing, as listed in Table 50, provides evidence that existing hotel uses do not limit redevelopment or reuse potential.

Similar to projects that include the redevelopment of retail uses such as 615-749, 1313- 1347, and 1411- 1495 W El Camino Real and 601 Escuela Avenue as listed in Table 50, 37 Opportunity Sites have retail tenants ( including banks and personal services). Market trends and the high demand for housing are expected to result in the continued redevelopment of retail uses into housing.
42 Opportunity Sites have industrial and/ or office uses in buildings built before 1986, uses in buildings which are not a constraint to redevelopment, based on the types of projects included in Table 50 that had or have industrial or office uses in older buildings, such as 1100 La Avenida, 2645 Fayette Drive, 355- 401 E Middlefield Rd, 320 Logue Ave, 685 E Middlefield Rd, 1265 Montecito Ave, and 400-520 San Antonio Road. Additionally, a portion of the Opportunity Sites that have industrial and/ or office uses are included in master plans that have development agreements that are either approved or under review.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

14 Opportunity Sites are small multi -tenant sites that generally have older, one- story buildings with low FARs. These characteristics are compounding factors that, along with described market trends, are evidence of the redevelopment potential of these sites. Multi - tenant redevelopment projects presented in Table 50 include 865 E El Camino Real, 801 W El Camino Real, and 601 Escuela Avenue.

While some opportunity sites have had recent tenant improvements valued between $ 5 million and $ 10 million, that did not appear to constrain developer interest in the site for residential development. For example, the 401 Ellis Street had a recent tenant improvement valued at over $ 8 million, though it is included in the first phase of the Middlefield Park Master Plan and expected to be redeveloped for residential during the cycle. 10 Opportunity Sites are occupied by larger shopping centers ( i. e., more than 2 acres) with multiple tenants ( i. e., more than three). However, all of these sites are underutilized with low FARs and have older buildings. They also have large parking lots that may be able to accommodate stand- alone residential developments. Furthermore, five of the ten large shopping center parcels are within two consolidated sites that have common ownership, increasing the likelihood of development to occur under one project ( for each landowner). Six of the ten parcels are located in high opportunity areas. Given these conditions, these sites have been included in the inventory. However, the full unit capacity of these sites based on their General Plan land use designation, size, and density has not been applied. Instead, a more conservative estimate was calculated to heavily discount the capacity by 80 percent, yielding a reduced capacity of 303 units ( rather than 1,515 units). Refer to Table 51. This discount acknowledges the constraint of multitenant retail centers for redevelopment.

Nonetheless, in the last 15 years, the City' s largest multiple tenant shopping center has had significant redevelopment. San Antonio Center is a prime example of redevelopment that occurred on sites that supported existing larger and multiple tenants, including a Sears, Rite Aid, Ross, BevMo, Kohls, and many small retail spaces. Phases of this project have been completed, are under construction, or under review. At full build out, the San Antonio Village Center will include over 300 residential units, a neighborhood center, a grocery store, specialty retail, class A office, a hotel, a cinema, a parking structure and an elementary school. See images from the project below. Additionally, the shift toward residential and mixed -use development on commercially zoned sites is reflective of broader national trends in the shifting retail market. The expansion of online retailing has had major impacts on consumer behaviors and greatly reduced demand for brick -and -mortar retail. These trends are expected to continue leading to even more opportunities for the redevelopment of commercial properties.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 308 Resolution No. 18781

New Housing at the San Antonio Village Center
Source: Merlone Geier Partners Source: Brookfield
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 309 Resolution
No.
18781
Page
371
of
483
121 EEL CAMINO
REAL
789 E EL CAMINO
REAL
Sum Total
Table 51: Capacity Discount on Multi -tenant Opportunity Sites Tri• General Plan Land
Use Designation
Acres
Maximum
Density
Unit
Capaci
Unit
Capacity
with 80%
Discount
Located in
High
Opportunity
Area
2630 W EL CAMINO
REAL

FAYETTE DR
2600 W EL CAMINO
REAL
1910 W EL CAMINO
REAL
1949 W EL CAMINO
REAL
1921 W EL CAMINO
REAL
1935 W EL CAMINO
REAL
14816012
14816013
14816015
15436018
17006058
17006060
17006062
1504 GRANT RD 19312001
19742004
19801003
A
A
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
F
F
F
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Mixed -Use Corridor
ECR Village Center)
Mixed - Use Corridor
Mixed - Use Corridor
ECR Village Center)
Mixed - Use Corridor
ECR Village Center)
Mixed -Use Corridor
ECR Village Center)
Mixed - Use Corridor
ECR Village Center)
Mixed -Use Corridor
ECR Village Center)
Mixed -Use Corridor
Mixed - Use Corridor
ECR Village Center)
Mixed - Use Corridor

1. 79 47- 93 108 22

0. 32 63- 89 30 6

0. 50 47- 93 19 4

2. 47 47- 93 149 30

0. 32 47- 93 255 51

1. 30 47- 93 481 96

1. 66 47- 93 19 4

5. 08 - 72 78 16

7. 96 47- 93 99 20

4. 59 65- 111 277 55
1, 515 303
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: mousing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781

Site -Specific Information
Beyond market conditions and development trends, other site -specific conditions found in select sites, as outlined below, make them viable for inclusion in the inventory and provide evidence that discontinuation of the existing use during the 6th cycle is probable. These factors include dilapidated building and site conditions, development agreements, landowners expressing development interest, and expiring lease data. While existing leases or other contracts in non -vacant sites have been considered, it is important to note that leases and contracts related to privately owned properties are not public information, and the City does not have any power to require or compel property owners to provide this information. However, through public listings the City has identified that nearly one fifth of the non -vacant sites in the inventory have some level of tenant or site vacancy. 19 Opportunity Sites are included in master plans, including the Middlefield Park Master Plan which has an approved development agreement in place and North Bayshore Master Plan which has an application for development agreement submitted. As a result, existing uses do not limit the redevelopment potential of these sites and their inclusion in master plans is evidence of their likely redevelopment. More information about the master plans is provided in the next section " Unit Capacity by Project Type", under the heading " Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites".

Opportunity Sites have buildings that are older with many of them nearing the end of their lifespan. All Opportunity Sites were built before 1986. Exceptions include 1) 1350 Pear Avenue which was built in 1987 and has tenant vacancy based on the desktop windshield survey, 2) 2116 W El Camino Real which is vacant with a fence around the property, 3) 2105 Old Middlefield Rd which was built in 1988, has tenant vacancies, and has support by the landowner to have their site included in the inventory, 4) 401 E Middlefield which has had previous applications for residential development on the site, and 5) sites that have approved or pending development agreements as part of multi -year master plans including 500 E Middlefield Rd, 401 Ellis St, 1758 Shoreline Blvd, 1742 Shoreline Blvd, and 1435 Plymouth St. The age of these buildings along with market trends and the demand for housing are evidence that the existing uses are not likely to limit the redevelopment of these sites into housing. Additionally, while the site dimensions at 1350 Pear Ave may appear to constrain development, the City has seen an affordable housing development application on a parcel with tighter dimensions--89 W El Camino Real.

In addition to most sites having older buildings on the property, 9 Opportunity Sites are in visibly poor condition that have deferred maintenance and/ or have chain link fences surrounding the site. These sites include 2320 W El Camino Real, 2124 W El Camino Real, 2116 W El Camino Real, 2100 W El Camino Real, 2090 W El Camino Real, 2026 W El Camino Real, 624 W El Camino Real, 282 E Middlefield Rd, and 897 Leong Drive. All of these parcels also have site vacancy or some amount of tenant vacancy, which suggest that the existing use may no longer be viable. Three of nine of these Opportunity Sites are vacant with no signs of site infrastructure or improvements present. These vacant sites include 282 E Middlefield Rd, 870 Leong Drive, and 1255 Pear Ave ( affordable housing dedicated site).

Vacant parcels are considered suitable sites to meet a locality' s housing need.

Several property owners have expressed interest in redevelopment and/ or are supportive of their site being included in the inventory. Properties include 1500 Shoreline Boulevard DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element I Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory Resolution No. 18781