Mountain View City Council
April 11, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing, 2015-2023
In 2012, the Mountain View City Council approved a 19-unit, three-story, “co-housing” development project over an underground garage at 445 Calderon Avenue, which included moving an existing historic home on-site. The project is marketed as a new, “old-fashioned” neighborhood of energy-efficient condominiums and common facilities, homes that promote collaboration and community, in a convenient walkable downtown location. The City expects that a number of the units will be inhabited by senior residents, although the project is not age-restricted. To approve the project, the City also approved a density bonus to allow a BMR unit to be located in the historic home on-site.In 2017, LinkedIn prepaid a portion of its $16 million housing impact fee obligation that would have been part of its project approval by investing $10 million in the Housing Trust Silicon Valley Tech Fund. By prepaying, the funds are able to become available to affordable housing developers sooner. The fund provides short-term loans for land acquisition and other related costs for developments in Mountain View. In 2017, the City Council approved the North Bayshore Precise Plan, which includes an innovative affordable housing program that has provisions for both rental and ownership housing at various income levels, achieved through a Bonus FAR mechanism.

In 2019, the City Council approved a 716-unit apartment building that includes 144 moderate-income units available for Mountain View Whisman School District teachers and City staff housing. In 2020, the City applied with LifeMoves to State Project HomeKey Program to rapidly deploy modular units to provide interim housing for unhoused seniors and families who may be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. THe project was awarded 11.95 million in capital funds and 2.4 million in operating funds. This was a highly competitive program and to staff's knowledge, one of the only funded projects to use modular housing approach statewide. In 2021 the City Council reserved CDBG and HOME funds to support the conversion of the Crestview Hotel into permanent housing, largely for families and individuals at risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness. The City also supported the County's application for state funds for this project. The hotel conversion will make it possble to make units available more quickly and affordably. The City also worked on a Memorandum of Understanding with the County for its Measure A funds, which provides a programmatic approach to funding multiple City projects.

Units for Large Housholds
Ensure at least 25 percent of the units in a subsidized family housing development have three or more bedrooms to accomodate large families if City provides financial assistance. Consider alternatives to preserve and rehabilitate apartments with large family units Ongoing, 2015-2023
MidPen Housing received entitlements in January 2018 for a NOFA project to increase affordable units on the project site located at 460 North Shoreline Boulevard. A total of 50 new studios to three-bedroom units for low-income households were approved, and construction is anticipated to begin in early 2019. ROEM Development Corporation included 45 two-bedroom and 15 three-bedroom units for its Evelyn Family Apartments located at 779 East Evelyn Avenue, which opened early 2019. Several of the housing developments in the pipeline include units for large housholds.

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

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

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

Boomerang Funds Ensure 20% of net "Boomerang" funds are utilized for low and moderate income housing. Ongoing, 2015-2023 In June 2015, the City of Mountain View committed to reserve “Boomerang” funds to be used for eligible housing related activities. The City has committed an amount equal to 20 percent of all funds distributed to the City as a taxing entity under the redevelopment dissolution laws. Beginning in the 2016-17 budget, an ongoing set-aside of $51,000 was approved. In addition to the Boomerang funds, the successor agency has been receiving loan repayments from former redevelopment housing activities. Close to $1 million has accumulated since 2011 and the City will use these funds for affordable housing and plans to use up to $250,000 for eligible homeless services in the coming years. $1 milion of the successor agency funds have been reserved for affordable houinsg which will be built on Lot 12.

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City continues to work with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara to promote affordable housing opportunities in Mountain View and to coordinate support of Mountain View’s affordable housing units through the Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program. The City also continues to work closely with the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing on funding opportunities for Mountain View’s affordable developments including Measure A projects, as well as Project HomeKey. Staff participates in regional discussions to monitor new regulations and possible collaboration on preparation of the federal Fair Housing Assessment, and to share information and strategies for addressing affordable housing, homelessness, fair housing, and other issues of common concern. The City worked on an agreement with the County (expected to be approved in 2022) to leverage $80 million in County 2016 Measure A funds for various housing sites with permanent supportive and rapid reuhousing units in the City, for up to 200 units.

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

Ongoing, 2015-2023
In 2010, the City Council adopted a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO) requiring developers to pay for relocation assistance to very low- or extremely low-income households displaced by new development. In June 2014, the Council amended the ordinance to increase the amount of assistance and to make households up to 80 percent AMI eligible for relocation assistance. Also, eligible tenants will receive the cash equivalent of three months median market-rate rent for a similar apartment instead of two months of the tenant’s current rent.On November 8, 2016, the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) was adopted by voters to regulate rent increases and to provide justcause eviction provisions. Staff has implemented the CSFRA, including convening a Rental Housing Committee, establishing an operating budget, and developing policies and procedures for petitions. In April 2018, the City Council amended the TRAO to bring it in line with the CSFRA, which increased the eligibility threshold to 120 percent AMI. The new ordinance redefines an eligible rental unit as one covered under the CSFRA or containing three or more units on one parcel of land not covered by the CSFRA. It also introduces First Right of Return benefits. In 2019, the TRAO was utilized in fourteen development projects to assist with the relocation of 69 displaced households.

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

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

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

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

Ongoing, 2015-2023
On an annual basis, the City of Mountain View Fire Department conducts inspections of multi-family rental units throughout the City. Staff is also available to address complaints as they are reported. For calendar year 2021, City staff conducted interior inspections of approximately 4 properties. Inspections inside apartment units were stopped in March 2020 as a safety precaution due to COVID. Staff did conduct approximately 842 common area inspections at apartment buildings in 2021.

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

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

Home Repair Assistance
Continue to provide annual funding for home reapir services, such as the Minor Home Repair Access Program to support lowerincome households. Ongoing, 2015-2023 The City coordinates with firms to operate a minor home repair program for lower-income households. Under the program, low-income homeowners may receive minor repairs and low-income homeowners and tenants can request accessibility modifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reduced or Modified Parking Requirements
Review parking demand analyses for specific projects, as they are submitted, and work with housing developers to identify opportunities for reduced or shared parking requirements. Analyze and reduce, where appropriate. Parking requirements as part of the San Antonio and El Camino Real Precise Plan updates and future comprehensive Zoning Code update.

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City continues to work with developers to reduce the parking standards where appropriate. For example, ROEM Development Corporation requested a reduced parking ratio for their 116 unit affordable development located at 779 East Evelyn Avenue. A lower parking ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit instead of the 2.10 spaces per unit required by the City Code was approved with the project by the City Council.The North Bayshore Precise Plan and East Whisman Precise Plan include reduced parking requirements and Transportation Demand Management measures for new residential development.

Second Units
Track the number of second units proposed and constructed during the planning period. Evaluate the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee, as it applies to second unit development, and adjust the application of the fee, if necessary.

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

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

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

Streamlined Entitlement
Process
Assign a primary contact for new subsidized housing developmemnts to assist with all necessary entitlements and city processes. Hold pre-application development meetings.

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

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

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

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

Ongoing, 2015-2023
City staff actively updates a list of proposed and approved projects on the Planning Division website and provides project notices at various points during the development review process. Depending on the size of the development, the City encourages developers to communicate and share information with groups regarding their proposed projects. For affordable developments, the City proactively schedules neighborhood meetings to receive feedback from the neighborhood on the proposed development. This has been an effective tool to engage the community and seek input on affordable developments in the City.

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

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

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

Ongoing, 2015-2023
As part of the recent General Plan update, the City revised the General Plan conservation and safety policies to consider flood risks as they relate to future land use decisions. The Infrastructure and Conservation and Public Safety Elements have been updated to identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. Additionally, these Elements identify information regarding flood hazards, including, but not limited to, flood hazard zones, National Flood Insurance Program maps published by FEMA, information about flood hazards designated floodway maps, dam failure inundation maps, areas subject to inundation in the event of the failure of levees or floodwalls, etc., as listed in Section 65302(g)(2). These Elements establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objective for the protection of the community from the unreasonable risks of flooding.

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

Ongoing, 2015-2023
City of Mountain View is an active participant in the creation of new transitional and supportive housing facilities to address homelessness, through regional collaboration and cooperation with nonprofit agencies, housing developers, and other jurisdictions. Throughout the planning period, City staff attended quarterly meetings held by the CDBG Coordinators group in addition to meeting with nonprofit agencies and developers to identify possible projects that could be implemented in future years.The City currently supports, and will continue to provide oversight for, the two transitional homes located within the City: (1) Alice Avenue Transitional Home, which serves up to five formerly homeless persons; and (2) Quetzal House, a local youth shelter and transitional home operated by the Bill Wilson Center that serves about 40 to 50 homeless youth annually. In an effort to further help end chronic homelessness, the City has funded the San Antonio Place Efficiency Studios that include 10 units for persons transitioning out of homelessness. The City continues to look for opportunities to fund supportive housing units within the City in new affordable developments. In 2020, the CIty continued to fund basic human needs and essential services for those unhoused and living in Mountain View. Additionally, the City has committed funding for its Project Home Key initiative, which provides interim housing for unhoused persons. As part of the the City's comprehensive response to the pandemic, COuncil approved over $3.8 million composed of various funding sources for the City's COVID-19 rent relief program, administered by Community Services Agency (CSA). In October 2016, the City identified potential short-term homelessness response and longer-term homeless housing strategies for Council consideration.

Short-term responses include funding outreach workers and case workers to identify homeless individuals; to connect them with housing and services as appropriate; and to respond to the human service needs of those living in vehicles/RVs. A strategy to respond the longer-term housing needs of the homeless is being developed based on Council input. .(see more below) In 2019, Council adopted a safe parking ordinance that establishes health and safety guidelines for safe parking facilities in the City. In addition, the City is in the process of establishing two public parking lots as safe parking sites.In 2020, the City opened two public parking lots as safe parking sites and financially supported operatinos at a third safe parking site. In 2021, the City supported the opening of a 100-room transitional housing site funded by the City, County, State Project Homekey and private sources, run by LifeMoves.

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

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

The City has successfully initiated the development of a range of subsidized housing, including units for special-needs groups. Whenever feasible, projects are located near transit and other services; however the high cost and limited availability of land make siting requirements difficult. On January 22, 2013, the City Council approved a development for 27 studios for the developmentally disabled at 1585 West El Camino Real, which is a highfrequency transit route. This project completed construction in September 2015. Palo Alto Housing has also received a funding appropriation in the amount of $8 million to develop 67 studio units at 1701 West El Camino Real. At least 39 of these units will be reserved for veterans. In 2021, 950 W. El Camino Real - a City funded affordable housing multi family development - opened along a high-frequency transit route. 15 of the 70 affordable units are set asid for adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The City also expects several pipeline projects - with set-asides for permanent supportive housing - to provide units for special needs populations. The LifeMovesMountain View Homekey project provides 100 units to serve unsheltered persons, seniors, and families.

The City also assists developers through the entitlement process by providing a streamlined time frame for approval.The City continues to work with various partners, including nonprofit developers, the County, and the Housing Authority, to determine potential opportunities to develop affordable housing, including housing for extremely low-income households, special needs, and the homeless.

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

Ongoing, 2015-2023
Throughout the planning period, the City has provided funding to Project Sentinel, who is an active member of the Santa Clara County Fair Housing Task Force. The Santa Clara County Fair Housing Task Force meets quarterly to coordinate and collaborate on the promotion of fair housing. Through the Task Force, priorities have been established for fair housing outreach and education. Resources have also been identified within the municipalities, the community, and private industry that can be used to affirmatively further fair housing.Information from the Task Force is distributed by Project Sentinel and City staff regarding activities that are performed to implement Task Force objectives.Project Sentinel also works closely with the Fair Housing Law Project (FHLP) and has asked the City to provide roughly $3,000 per year in in-kind services to support FHLP housing legal services for Mountain View residents. The FHLP attorneys provide guidance to Project Sentinel's housing counselors and take many cases that are not considered by other attorneys in private practice, including cases involving reasonable accommodation/disability, overly restrictive rules of conduct/familial status, and similar issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every five years as required by HUD
The City completed its update of the Analysis of Impediments (AI) in 2016. The actions to address identified needs are being implemented during the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan cycle. Key City actions to remove barriers include adoption of a reasonable accommodation section in the Zoning Ordinance in 2015 and continued funding for fair housing counseling, education and enforcement. In 2016, the City funded this agency in an amount of $25,000 for fair housing services.In 2019, the City monitored potential changes in requirements for Fair Housing plans for entitlement jurisdictions receiving CDBG/HOME funding. It is anticipated that the City will begin the update of its Fair Housing Plan as part of explore development of the regional consortium. In 2020, the City as part of the regional consortium process began development of its Analysis of Impediments/Fair Housing Plan for the 2020-2025 period.

Employee Housing Act Ensure zoning ordinance consistency with State law.

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

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

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

Ongoing, 2015-2023
The City’s Green Building Code and Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations require new developments to incorporate green building techniques. The City provides information to developers on design techniques to implement Green Building Code and Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations. The City also encourages new projects to be developed with green building principles during the review process and through policies in the new precise plans. Additionally, the North Bayshore Precise Plan has more stringent requirements for higher FAR projects, to establish the area as a leader in sustainability. In 2016 the City also amended its Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations to further encourage water conservation.

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

Ongoing, 2015-2023
Established in 2008, the City has adopted a Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to establish a program for the recycling and salvage of construction and demolition (C&D) debris. C&D debris comprises a significant portion of the waste stream that can be diverted from the landfill, thereby conserving resources, protecting our environment, and extending landfill life. The ordinance requires at least 50 percent of the debris from construction, renovation, and demolition projects be diverted from landfills through salvage and recycling practices. The program makes it easy and convenient for property owners, general contractors, and subcontractors to meet their responsibilities under the ordinance.The City currently has information about the program posted on their website. To comply with the ordinance, developers are encouraged to contact the City's exclusive hauler, Recology, for roll-off box service. Using Recology is beneficial to the developers as the paperwork is then complete by the City, materials may be mixed together in one box, and boxes are recycled at SMaRT stations. The program allows the City to verify the hauling and processing of boxes, achieving a 78 percent diversion rate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX
Housing Needs Assessment B
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 78 APPENDIX B: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
California Housing Element law requires local governments to adequately plan for the existing and projected future housing needs of their residents, including the jurisdictions’ fair share of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). A complete and thorough analysis must include both a quantification and a descriptive analysis of the specific housing needs that currently exist and those that are reasonably anticipated within the community during the planning period, as well as the resources available to address those needs. The following section summarizes information regarding existing and projected housing needs in Mountain View broken down into the following categories:
 Population and Household Characteristics
 Economic and Employment Characteristics
 Housing Stock Characteristics
 Housing Costs and Affordability
 Housing and Special Needs Populations
 Assessment of Fair Housing
 Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
Summary of Findings
Major findings from the following Housing Needs Assessment include:
 Mountain View experienced significant population growth between 2010 and 2020, outpacing the rate of growth Santa Clara County and the Bay Area overall during this period.

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

Programs in the Housing Plan in this Housing Element Update that further the City’s ongoing displacement mitigation efforts include Programs 1.5, 1.12, 2.1, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, and 4.2.  Mountain View residents face extremely high housing costs, including for both ownership and rental units. The City’s high cost for housing is likely due to a range of factors, including DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 79 Mountain View’s position as a significant job center in Silicon Valley. The pace of job growth has exceeded the rate of growth in households in Mountain View and there are more people that work in Mountain View than there are employed residents, creating strong demand for housing. Program 4.6 addresses the impact of jobs on housing costs.  Compared to the surrounding region, Mountain View has a higher proportion of non-Hispanic White residents, and growth among other racial and ethnic groups has been slower in Mountain View compared to the surrounding region. These trends are likely due largely to the high cost of housing in Mountain View, coupled with wage and income gaps between racial and ethnic groups. The Housing Plan that is included in this Housing Element Update includes several programs to facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing in Mountain View, including Programs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12,

2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4.
 Consistent with the City’s high housing costs, many lower-income households in Mountain View experience high housing cost burdens that can put these households at risk for displacement and make it difficult for these households to afford housing costs along with food, healthcare, and other basic needs. High housing cost burdens have a disproportionate impact on large households, seniors, persons with disabilities, and Hispanic and Latinx individuals. The City can help to address housing needs among these groups by undertaking displacement prevention efforts as well as facilitating the production and preservation of affordable housing. This Housing Element Update includes several related actions that the City will take as part of the Housing Plan, including programs that facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing as well as those that address displacement, as noted above.
 Mountain View offers relatively high access to opportunity, including in areas with comparatively large non-White populations and areas with lower-income residents. The only area considered “Low Resource” in the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map is the North Bayshore area, but that area has access to the greatest number of jobs is the subject of a major precise plan that will bring new development and services to the area, helping to improve access to opportunity.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 80 Note on Data Sources
The following housing needs assessment relies upon data from a variety of sources, including but not limited to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), Decennial Census, and Local Employment Housing Dynamics (LEHD); the U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD) Comprehensive Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data set; the California Department of Finance (DOF); the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data; the City of Mountain View; and other sources as noted in the tables and figures. Much of the data was compiled by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) specifically for use in Housing Elements. Information sourced from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which rely on samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that the data represent estimates, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. This analysis uses the five-year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for smaller communities such as Census tracts and block groups, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly. In contrast, the decennial Census attempts to survey 100% of the population. Only basic limited data from the 2020 Census were available at the time of analysis.

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

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

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

Despite these data challenges, the primary findings from the Housing Needs Assessment remain relevant for addressing housing needs in Mountain View over the next eight years. For example, while some data on housing costs in Mountain View reflect pre-pandemic conditions, the following sections also provide data on residential rental rates in Mountain View as of 2021 that indicate that rental rates have begun to recover from the impacts of the pandemic. This suggests that Mountain View continues to be a high-cost housing market in which lower-income households will experience affordability challenges and displacement risk. Input from a variety of groups that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update underscored that high housing costs and displacement risk continue to be key issues affecting Mountain View residents, particularly among racial and ethnic minority groups and special-needs populations. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has not fundamentally altered the factors that lead to disparities in access to opportunity, such as historic patterns of segregation and wage and income gaps. While the specific data points DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 81 may differ somewhat from current conditions, these differences would not substantially alter the findings presented in this section or the appropriateness of related actions that are included in the Housing Plan.

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

As of 2020, Mountain View had a population of 81,302 residents, as reported in Table 2. Mountain View’s population makes up 4.2% of the total population in Santa Clara County. From 1990 to 2000, the population in Mountain View increased by 5.0%, while it increased by 4.7% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population in Mountain View increased by

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

Table 2: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 2000 2010 2020
Mountain View 67,365 70,708 74,066 81,302
Santa Clara County 1,497,577 1,682,585 1,781,642 1,945,166 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,784,348 7,150,739 7,703,016
Sources: California Department of Finance, E-4 series; BAE, 2021.

Household Growth Trends
Since 2000, Mountain View’s number of households has grown slower than its population, increasing by 9.4% compared to the population growth rate of 15.0%. This household growth rate is slower than that of Santa Clara County (13.7%) or the Bay Area (11.6%). As shown in Table 3, in 2020 Mountain View had 34,184 households, which make up 5.3% of the total households in Santa Clara County. From 1990 to 2000, the number of households in Mountain View increased by 4.2%, while growth slowed to 2.3% between 2000 to 2010.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 82 Table 3: Household Growth Trends
Geography 1990 2000 2010 2020
Mountain View 29,990 31,242 31,957 34,184
Santa Clara
County 520,180 565,863 604,204 643,265
Bay Area 2,245,865 2,466,020 2,606,288 2,752,510
Sources: California Department of Finance, E-5 and E-8 series; BAE, 2021.

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

In Mountain View, the median age in 2000 was 34.6; by 2019, this figure had increased slightly to approximately 34.8 years. Between 2010 and 2019, Mountain View experienced a significant increase in the number of residents between the ages of 25 and 34 (see Table 4). With the exception of the 45 to 54 age category, all other groups showed an increase in population.

Table 4: Population by Age, 2010-2019
Age Group
2010 2019 2010-2019
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Age 0-14 12,568 17.0% 14,087 17.3% 1,519 12.1%
Age 15-24 7,428 10.0% 7,936 9.7% 508 6.8%
Age 25-34 15,637 21.1% 19,243 23.6% 3,606 23.1%
Age 35-44 12,940 17.5% 13,520 16.6% 580 4.5%
Age 45-54 10,294 13.9% 9,922 12.2% -372 -3.6%
Age 55-64 7,353 9.9% 7,993 9.8% 640 8.7%
Age 65+ 7,846 10.6% 8,955 11.0% 1,109 14.1%
Total, All Ages 74,066 100.0% 81,656 100.0% 7,590 10.2% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B01001; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 83 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs because this information provides a starting point to assess how housing needs and access to opportunity may differ between racial and ethnic groups.

According to data from the 2020 Decennial Census, 40.1% of residents in Mountain View identify as non-Hispanic White (see Figure 1). Non-Hispanic Asian/Asian Pacific Islander (API) residents account for 35.2% of the population, while Hispanic/Latinx residents account for an additional 17.2%. Since 2000, the number of residents in Mountain View identifying as White has decreased by 15.4%—and concurrently the number residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased by 55.8%. In absolute terms, the Asian/API, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, NonHispanic population decreased the most (see Table 26 below for the change in absolute numbers).

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

Figure 1: Population by Race, 2000-2020
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

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

3.2% 3.9% 6.0%

0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

20.8%

26.2%

35.2% 2.4%

2.0%

1.4%

55.2% 46.0%

40.1%

18.3% 21.7% 17.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2020 Share of Population
Hispanic or Latinx
White, NonHispanic
Black or African
American, NonHispanic
Asian / API, NonHispanic
American Indian
or Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Other Race or
Multiple Races,
Non-Hispanic
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 84 Household Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help shed light on the level of housing insecurity – the ability or lack thereof for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters face greater displacement risks from increases in housing costs or redevelopment, and displacement among renters was noted as a key issue during the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update. As shown in Figure 2, Mountain View has a much larger share of renter households than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area overall. Approximately 58% of households in Mountain View are renters, compared to 44% of households in Santa Clara County and in the Bay Area overall.

Figure 2: Household Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003; BAE, 2021.

A large majority (82%) of the renter households in Mountain View reside in multifamily housing units, and only 17% of renters live in single-family homes (see Table 5). Unsurprisingly, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multifamily housing.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 85 Table 5: Tenure by Housing Type
Housing Type
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
Number Percent Number Percent
Detached Single-Family 1,633 8.3% 7,784 55.4%
Attached Single-Family 1,715 8.7% 2,820 20.1%
Multifamily Housing 16,148 82.0% 2,525 18.0%
Mobile Homes 201 1.0% 927 6.6%
Boat, RV, Van, or Other 3 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total, All Unit Types 19,700 100.0% 14,056 100.0%
Universe: Occupied housing units.

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

Figure 3: Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Figure omits data on persons living in boats, RVs, vans, or other similar structures due to the lack of a statistically valid sample. Persons living in RVs or other vehicles on the street are not included in the Census housing unit count and are instead generally included in the Census’ group quarters homeless population.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 86 Household Income Distribution
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state. In Mountain View, 63% of households have incomes greater than 100% of Area Median Income (AMI), compared to 55% in Santa Clara County and 52% regionally (see Figure 4).

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

Figure 4: Households by Household Income Level
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 87 Table 6 reports Mountain View households by HUD-defined income category based on household income as a percentage of the HUD Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI). As shown in the table, approximately 30.8% of all households in Mountain View qualify as lower income, meaning they have incomes that are equal to or less than 80% of the HAMFI. This includes 13.8% of households that have extremely low incomes (incomes less than or equal to 30% of HAMFI), 8.1% that have very low incomes (incomes greater than 30 but less than or equal to 50% of HAMFI), and 8.8% that have low income (incomes greater than 50 but less than or equal to 80% of HAMFI).

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

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly exceeds the amount of housing that is available and affordable for these households. The data in Table 6 indicate that lower-income households in Mountain View are disproportionately renters, who currently make up 67.8% of all lower income households in the City. An estimated 36% of all renter households in Mountain View have incomes less than or equal to 80% of HAMFI. By comparison, approximately 23.6% of the City’s owner households are considered lower income.

Table 6: Household Income Level by Tenure
Household Income
Category
Renter Households Owner Households Total Households
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
<=30% HAMFI (see
note)
3,160 16.2% 1,469 10.4% 4,629 13.8%
>30%, <=50% HAMFI 1,930 9.9% 800 5.7% 2,730 8.1%
>50%, <=80% HAMFI 1,910 9.8% 1,055 7.5% 2,965 8.8%
>80, <=100% HAMFI 1,360 7.0% 833 5.9% 2,193 6.5%
>100% HAMFI 11,090 57.0% 9,940 70.5% 21,030 62.7%
Total 19,450 100.0% 14,097 100.0% 33,547 100.0%
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI), often referred to as simply Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas. The numbers in the table may not sum to the totals shown due to independent rounding.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 88 Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs
Due to their limited financial resources, extremely low-income households (those with incomes below 30 percent of the area median income) face particular challenges in securing suitable, affordable housing.

Household Income
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state.1
The current (2022) area median annual income in Santa Clara County is $168,500.2 For extremely low-income households, this translates to an income of $55,550 or less for a four-person household or $35,400 or less for a one-person household. Households with extremely low-incomes have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance such as supplemental security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance are considered extremely low-income households. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farm workers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively low and stagnant wages in many industries.

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

Table 7: Examples of Low Wage Occupations
Occupation Title Median Hourly Wage
Hotel and Resort Clerks $14.45
Child Care Workers $13.83
Housekeepers $14.94
Manicurists and Pedicurists $13.34
1 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 2 Based on HCD Income Limits for 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 89 Occupation Title Median Hourly Wage
Hosts and Hostesses $12.91
Education, Training, and Library Workers $28.47
Agricultural Graders and Sorters $12.77
Waiter and Waitresses $13.16
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers $13.47
Source: Employment Development Department, 2020-2022 Occupational Employment Projections for California.

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 90 Table 8: Housing Cost Burdens for Extremely Low Income Households, City of Mountain View
Renter
Households
Owner
Households All Households
# % # % # %
Extremely Low-Income Households (a) 3,040 100.0% 1,325 100.0% 4,365 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 320 10.5% 290 22.0% 610 14.0% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 380 12.5% 205 15.5% 585 13.4% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 2,020 66.4% 700 53.0% 2,720 62.4% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 320 10.5% 125 9.5% 445 10.2% Total Households (b) 19,695 100.0% 14,015 100.0% 33,705 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 12,150 61.7% 10,215 72.9% 22,365 66.4% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 3,720 18.9% 2,275 16.2% 5,995 17.8% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 3,505 17.8% 1,395 10.0% 4,900 14.5% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 320 1.6% 125 0.9% 445 1.3% Notes:
(a) Households with incomes equal to 30% of HAMFI (HUD Area Median Family Income) based on CHAS data, which reflect HUDdefined household income limits. (b) Totals may not equal the sum of individual figures due to independent rounding.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 91 Table 9: Extremely Low-Income Households by Race and Ethnicity, City of Mountain View
Race/Ethnicity
Total Households ELI Households Share Below
30% AMI # % # %
White 17,725 53.9% 2,185 50.6% 12%
Black/African American 665 2.0% 100 2.3% 15%
Asian 10,035 30.5% 1,035 24.0% 10%
American Indian 15 0.0% 0 0.0% 0%
Pacific Islander 45 0.1% 10 0.2% 22%
Hispanic 4,425 13.4% 990 22.9% 22%
Total Households (a) 33,715 100.0% 4,360 100.0% 13%
Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Numbers may not match other tables due to independent rounding. HAMFI refers to HUD Area Median Family Income. (a) Figures may not sum to total due to independent rounding.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 92 Table 10: Housing Problems by Race and Ethnicity for ELI Households, Mountain View
Race/Ethnicity
ELI Households ELI Households with
Housing Problems (a)
ELI Households with
Severe Housing
Problems (b)
# % # % # %
White 2,185 50.6% 1,660 76.0% 1,255 57.4%
Black/African
American
100 2.3% 65 65.0% 65 65.0%
Asian 1,035 24.0% 725 70.0% 635 61.4%
American Indian 0 0.0% 0 n.a. 0 n.a.

Pacific Islander 10 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Hispanic 990 22.9% 870 87.9% 775 78.3%
Total ELI Households (c) 4,360 100.0% 3,345 76.7% 2,760 63.3% Notes:
(a) Household has one or more housing problems. Housing problems include: Lack of complete kitchen, Lack of complete plumbing facility; More than one person per room; Cost burden greater than 30% of income. (b) Severe housing problems include lack of complete kitchen; lack of complete plumbing facility; more than 1 persons per room; cost burden greater than 50% of income.
(c) Figures may not sum to total due to independent rounding.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 93 Economic and Employment Characteristics
Resident Employment by Industry
According to 2015-2019 ACS, there are approximately 47,660 employed civilian residents aged 16 and older in Mountain View. The top three industries in terms of employing residents are Financial and Professional Services, Health and Educational Services, and Manufacturing, Wholesale and Transportation (see Figure 5). The largest proportion of employed residents in Mountain View, nearly one-third, work in Financial & Professional Services. While this is also the largest category in the county and the region, only about one-fourth of all employed residents in those two geographies work in this industry grouping. The Health & Educational Services category is the second most prevalent sector of employment for all three areas. Mountain View has a notably greater proportion of employed residents working in the Information industry than both comparison geographies, highlighting its robust technology sector.

Figure 5: Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over.

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

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

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

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area Share of Employed Residents Other
Arts, Entertainmnt,
Recreation, Accomm
& Food Services
Retail
Manufacturing,
Wholesale &
Transportation
Information
Health & Educational
Services
Financial &
Professional Services
Construction
Agriculture & Natural
Resources
47,657 999,094 4,024,097
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 94 Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. To some extent the Bay Area regional transportation system is set up for a flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis illustrates, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are unbalanced at a sub-regional scale.

One measure of this dynamic is the relationship between those workers living in a city and those workers employed in a city. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” workers. Based on 2015-2019 ACS data, there are 47,657 resident workers3 and 95,818 persons working4 in Mountain View. With a ratio of workers employed in the city to working residents of 2.01, Mountain View is a net importer of workers.

Long-term employment growth has been strong in Mountain View. Based on the U.S. Census Local Employment Housing Dynamics (LEHD) data from 2002 to 2018, Mountain View gained a total of 39,272 jobs, an increase of approximately 74.2% (see Figure 6).5 While the number of jobs and the number of workers in a given community may be balanced, that community may offer employment for relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pentup demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions.
3 Based on residents 16 and over who worked during the ACS reference week, as shown in ACS Table B08128 for 2015- 2019. May exclude some workers who were employed buy not working during the reference week; these additional workers were counted in the industry tabulation. These persons may work anywhere, including outside their place/city of residence. In the case of multiple jobs, this is the job where the respondent worked the most hours during the reference week.
4 Workers by place of work includes those who worked in that place (e.g., Mountain View) during the ACS reference week, as shown in ACS Table 08604 for 2015-2019. These persons may live anywhere. In the case of multiple jobs, this is the job where the respondent worked the most hours during the reference week. 5 The job totals reported here may differ from the number of workers reported above as the source for the time series is from administrative records, while the data on workers is from a survey.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 95 Figure 6: Jobs in Mountain View
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 96 Mountain View has both a jobs-housing imbalance, reflected in a high ratio of jobs relative to housing units, and a jobs-housing mismatch, with housing costs that are not aligned with the incomes for a portion of the workers that work in Mountain View. Figure 7 shows the ratio of jobs to workers in Mountain View broken down by different wage groups. A value of 1 means that the city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region. In Mountain View, the ratio of jobs to workers is significantly higher across all wage groups. The figure shows that the highest ratio of jobs to workers is for workers with wages over $3,333 per month, which is likely due large part to a significant number of relatively high-wage jobs in Mountain View, rather than a mismatch between wages and housing costs that is more significant than the mismatch for other income groups. Meanwhile, jobs with wages that are under $3,333 per month comprise a comparatively small proportion of total jobs in Mountain View, leading to a lower ratio of jobs to workers in that income range. Most Mountain View workers with incomes under $3,333 per month, as well as many with incomes above this amount, likely struggle to find affordable housing in Mountain View’s high-cost housing market.

Figure 7: Ratio of Jobs to Workers, by Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 97 The jobs-household ratio in Mountain View has increased significantly in recent years, from 1.68 in 2002 to 2.74 jobs per household in 2018. Imbalances between jobs and workers can directly influence housing demand and affordability in a community. New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work. This dynamic not only means many workers might need to prepare for long commutes and time spent journeying to work, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for those workers. As shown in Figure 8, Mountain View has a much higher jobs-household ratio than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area as a whole. The slow rate of household growth relative to job growth in Mountain View, together with Mountain View’s low residential vacancy, could indicate that housing production has not kept pace with job growth in the City, which is often a key factor that leads to high housing costs. Mountain View residents and other participants in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update highlighted jobshousing imbalance and mismatch as key factors contributing to high housing costs in Mountain View.

Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; Notes: The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobshousehold ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 98 Mountain View’s East Whisman Precise Plan includes a Jobs-Housing Linkage requirement that requires residential development to accompany any new office development over 0.4 FAR (approximately the current intensity of office in the area), with the effect that no more than approximately 30 percent of any such development can be net new office. Developers of nonresidential projects are required to provide a Jobs-Housing Linkage Plan with a phasing or housing delivery plan that proposes how the project applicant will facilitate residential development in the Precise Plan Area. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that any new office development is accompanied by residential development to foster a more balanced jobs-housing mix. The North Bayshore Precise Plan has a similar policy. During a Study Session for the Housing Element Update, the Environmental Planning Commission cited this policy as a potential template for future zoning actions in Mountain View to improve jobs-housing balance.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 99 Figure 9: Housing Units by Type, 2010-2020
Universe: Housing units
Sources: California Department of Finance, E-5 series; BAE, 2021.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 100 Figure 10: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034; BAE, 2021.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 101 proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.7 Excluding those units that are not available for rent or for sale, a review of detailed vacancy data from the 2015-2019 ACS indicates that only

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

Figure 11: Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004; BAE, 2021.

Housing Permits
Between 2015 and July 2021, the City of Mountain View issued permits for construction of 5,084 housing units. Most of these permits, about 90.6 percent, were for above moderate-income housing.

As shown in Table 11, Mountain View has exceeded its 5th Cycle Housing Element RHNA for above moderate-income housing but lags behind in units permitted for other income groups. A total of 459 permits (9.1 percent) were issued for low-income or very low-income housing. Moderate income permits made up just 0.4% of the total number of permits. Many cities in high-cost areas have limited tools to facilitate the production of moderate-income housing because rents and sale prices for market-rate units typically exceed affordability thresholds for moderate-income households, while 7 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 102 affordable housing financing sources fund lower-income units but not moderate-income units. This creates a gap between the income levels served by subsidized affordable units and the income levels served by market-rate units, which is often referred to as the “missing middle” in housing production.

Table 11: Housing Permitting
Income Group Permits % Attained
Above Moderate-Income Permits 4,607 421.5%
Moderate Income Permits 18 3.4%
Low Income Permits 215 43.7%
Very Low-Income Permits 244 30.0%
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and July 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 103 that a “serious” rating in this inspection program does not necessarily equate to substandard housing conditions; rather, these properties may require some improvement or maintenance, or have potential safety concerns, but do not necessarily have structural decay or uninhabitable conditions. A complete checklist for the program can be found in Appendix G. A better indicator of housing with potentially substandard conditions is the number of properties that were issued a “Compliance Order” which is the first level of escalated enforcement action. Escalated enforcement occurs when the routine inspection and re-inspection process do not result in compliance OR unsafe conditions may dictate urgent repairs or other action to protect tenants. Examples include structural conditions, failing decks, failing stairways, and fire alarm and sprinkler systems that are not operable. According to the Fire Department, only five properties were issued a Compliance Order in the last five years. This represents less than one percent of the City’s multifamily housing structures.

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

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 104 Multifamily Housing Inspection Program per year on average, suggesting a total of 240 units over the eight-year Housing Element Planning Period. In addition, 5,123 multifamily units in Mountain View have potential earthquake vulnerabilities due to woodframe soft stories. This suggests a total of up to 5,363 multifamily rental units in Mountain View with potential rehabilitation needs. However, this is almost certainly an overestimate, as not all buildings with Compliance Orders are in need of substantial rehabilitation and many buildings with woodframe soft stories may have already been retrofitted. The Housing Plan in this Housing Element Update includes Program 3.2, which includes providing City funds to assist in preserving at least two naturally occurring affordable housing projects during the planning period.

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

Mountain View has high home sale prices and owner-occupied homes are generally in good condition. Rehabilitation of existing units is typically undertaken as needed by private homeowners, sometimes in connection with a transfer of ownership. Rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing has not been cited as a major issue during the public engagement process for this Housing Element Update. As noted in the introduction to this Housing Element Update, the public engagement process included a Community Feedback Form to obtain input on critical housing issues. One portion of the form asked respondents to identify up to five of the most critical housing issues in Mountain View. The housing issue that respondents identified the least frequently was “Not enough financial assistance for lower-income homeowners that need to make home repairs.” Figure 12: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 105 Housing Costs and Affordability
Residential Home Sale Prices
Overall, home values in Mountain View are much higher than the countywide and regional averages and are unaffordable to most of the households and workers in the City and region (see Figure 13).

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

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

Figure 13: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 106 Based on American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2015-2019 (inflation-adjusted to 2019 values), the largest proportion of homes, about 25 percent, was valued at more than $2 million (see Table 12). By comparison, the largest share of units was valued between $1,000,000 and $1,500,000 in the county and between $500,000 and $750,000 in the region. The limited number of lower-value homes in Mountain View indicates a lack of units affordable to middle and lowerincome households interested in homeownership. Housing prices have increased significantly during the pandemic, fueled in part by historically low mortgage rates. In addition, the pandemic is believed to have contributed to high housing costs by increasing demand for homes that provide more space for working from home, particularly single-family homes with yards, encouraging many buyers to enter the home sale market for the first time. Meanwhile, there was a shortage of supply as fewer existing homeowners were listing homes for sale. According to data from Redfin, the median single-family home sale prices in Mountain View was $2.014 million in March 2022, up from $1.473 million in March of 2019. Individuals that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update noted that high home costs prevent many households from having the ability to purchase a home in Mountain View.

Table 12: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Home Value
Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $250K 888 6.3% 19,359 5.4% 93,478 6.1%
$250K to $500K 519 3.7% 22,636 6.3% 249,138 16.3%
$500K to $750K 968 6.9% 64,280 17.8% 345,087 22.5%
$750K to $1M 1,737 12.4% 79,354 22.0% 307,689 20.1%
$1M to $1.5M 3,263 23.2% 82,485 22.8% 274,733 17.9%
$1.5M to $2M 3,112 22.1% 40,175 11.1% 120,970 7.9%
More than $2M 3,569 25.4% 52,816 14.6% 140,860 9.2%
Total 14,056 100.0% 361,105 100.0% 1,531,955 100.0%
Universe: Owner-occupied units.

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

Residential Rents
Similar to home sales prices, residential rental rates have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state. Between 2009 and 2019, the median rent increased by 78.9% in Mountain View, from $1,328 to $2,376 per month, according to ACS data (see Figure 14). This rate of increase was greater than in Santa Clara County, where the median rent increased by 67.7 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 107 percent, from $1,285 to $2,155, or regionwide, where the median rent increased from $1,196 in 2009 to $1,849 in 2019, an increase of 54.6% over the same period. Input obtained during the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update indicates that rents have continued to increase in more recent years.

Figure 14: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 108 Table 13: Monthly Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units Contract Rent
Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $1,000 1,048 5.4% 27,896 10.2% 190,335 16.3%
$1,000 to $1,500 1,491 7.7% 33,902 12.4% 220,281 18.9%
$1,500 to $2,000 3,731 19.2% 55,666 20.4% 265,903 22.8% $2,000 to $2,500 4,566 23.5% 58,293 21.4% 201,746 17.3% $2,500 to $3,000 3,598 18.5% 46,239 17.0% 135,830 11.7% $3,000 to $3,500 2,849 14.7% 29,415 10.8% 85,150 7.3%
$3,500 or more 2,119 10.9% 20,957 7.7% 66,440 5.7%
Total 19,402 100.0% 272,368 100.0% 1,165,685 100.0%
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056; BAE, 2021.

Data on residential rents in Mountain View between 2019 and 2021 indicate that while the COVID19 pandemic had a significant impact on market-rate rents, rents have begun to rebound, approaching pre-pandemic levels. The rent data in Table 13 come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which does not fully reflect current rents. Table 14 presents more current rent data for Mountain View from CoStar, a private data vendor. According to CoStar, Mountain View’s multifamily inventory included 15,678 market-rate rental units as of the third quarter of 2021, an increase of about 1.4% from third quarter 2019. The majority of inventoried rental units are either one-bedroom or two-bedroom units, which make up about 39.5% and 34.3% of the multifamily rental stock, respectively. The average monthly asking rent per unit was $2,851 across all units at the end of the third quarter of 2021. This is an increase of 6.8% from Q3 2020 rents, but a 3.8% decrease from Q3 2019 rents, which may be due to the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on rental housing. These impacts are also reflected in recent changes in the average vacancy rate. The multifamily vacancy rate was 6.3% at the end of the third quarter of 2019, growing to 11.4% at the end of the third quarter of 2020. As of the third quarter of 2021, the average multifamily vacancy rate was 9.4 percent, 3.1 percentage points above the rate at the end of the third quarter of 2019. These data suggest that the rental housing market is continuing to recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and may continue to experience higher vacancies and lower rental rates in the near term as a result. However, even at these lower rental rates the average rent for multifamily rental units in Mountain View is substantially higher than many lower-income households can afford.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 109 Table 14: Market-Rate Multifamily Rent Summary, Q3 2021 Multifamily
Residential
Summary
All Unit Types Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-or-more
Bedroom
Inventory 15,678 3,365 6,197 5,379 737
% of Units 100.0% 21.5% 39.5% 34.3% 4.7%
Vacancy Rate 9.4% 7.0% 10.7% 9.6% 6.9%
Average Monthly
Asking Rent (per
unit)
Q3 2021 Rent $2,851 $2,111 $2,528 $3,233 $4,183
Q3 2020 Rent $2,670 $1,914 $2,385 $3,026 $3,888
Q3 2019 Rent $2,965 $2,203 $2,672 $3,318 $4,300
Q3 2020 – Q3 2021 %
Change 6.8% 10.3% 6.0% 6.8% 7.6%
Q3 2019 – Q3 2021 %
Change -3.8% -4.2% -5.4% -2.6% -2.7%
Sources: CoStar Group; BAE, 2021.

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

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

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

17.4% have a cost burden of 30% to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 110 categories (see Figure 15). For example, 66.9% of Mountain View households with income less than 30% of HAMFI are severely cost-burdened. For Mountain View residents above 100% of HAMFI, only

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

Figure 15: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI).

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 111 When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Mountain View, 19.0% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while only 11.2% of owners are severely cost-burdened (see Figure 16). Additionally, 18.2% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing, compared to only

16.7% of those that own.

Figure 16: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 112 Large family households of five or more persons often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing. The higher costs associated with homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing disproportionate cost burdens compared to the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

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

Figure 17: Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 113 Senior households also have special housing needs and are disproportionately cost burdened compared to the total population. Based on 2013-2017 CHAS data, 40.5% of senior households were cost burdened compared to 31.9% of total households. When cost-burdened seniors, especially those on a fixed income, are no longer able to make house payments or rents, displacement from their homes can occur. This puts further stress on the local rental market and forces long-time residents out of the community they call home. Because of this, understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance. About 46.9% of seniors with incomes less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors with incomes more than 100% of AMI, about 90.6% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 114 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and most often occurs when demand for housing in a city or region is high. Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household exceeds the number of people the home they occupy was designed to hold. This report uses the Census Bureau definition of overcrowding, which is more than one occupant per room (including bedrooms, living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms, and other rooms but not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, units with more than 1.5 occupants per room are considered severely overcrowded.

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

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

Figure 19: Overcrowding by Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 115 In many cities, overcrowding is more prevalent among those who are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to spread out costs and make it possible to stay in their communities or large households living in small units relative to their household size to afford housing. In Mountain View, approximately 11.2% of renter households are overcrowded (more than one occupant per room), compared to just 1.5% for those who own their homes. In addition, approximately 4.9% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to only 0.2% of owner households (see Figure 20).

Figure 20: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 116 Similar to cost burden, overcrowding often disproportionately impacts lower income households.

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

Figure 21: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI).

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 117 Assisted Housing At-Risk of Conversion
California Government Code Section 65583 requires that housing elements identify all assisted rental housing units within the jurisdiction that are at risk of converting to market rate within ten years of the beginning of the Housing Element Planning period. Many subsidized affordable housing developments receive government funding that requires units be made affordable for a specified amount of time. Typically, assisted units are potentially considered to be at risk of converting to market rate if they are subject to local affordability requirements that will soon expire, or if the affordable units were financed using sources that required affordability for a set period that will soon expire. However, units that are potentially at risk for these reasons may not actually be at risk of conversion, particularly in cases where the units are owned by a nonprofit or other entity that is dedicated to preserving the units as affordable housing. Table 15 presents an inventory of the existing assisted affordable units in Mountain View, including information on affordability time period requirements associated with different funding sources. As shown, none of the subsidized units have affordability terms that would expire in the next ten years. In addition, all of the units are located within 100% affordable developments that are owned by non-profit and mission-driven affordable housing developers who would be likely to extend the affordability restrictions beyond the expiration date associated with the funding sources.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 118 Table 15: Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing Units, 2021 Source: City of Mountain View.

Risk
Status
ELI VLI LI 2023-
2032
Maryce Freelen Place Apartments (Latham Park Apts) CDBG 2044 2230 Latham Street HOME 2025
LIHTC 2027
San Veron Park Apartments
807 San Veron Avenue
Monte Vista Terrace Apartments
1101 Grant Road
Sierra Vista One Apartments
1909 Hacket Avenue
Ginzton Terrace Apartments CDBG 2038
375 Oaktree Drive CCRC 2023
HOME 2071
LIHTC 2048
Shorebreeze Apartments (Mountain View Apts) CDBG Indefinitely 460 N. Shoreline Blvd HOME 2027
LIHTC 2027
San Antonio Place Apartments CDBG 2052
210 San Antonio Circle HOME 2057
Tyrella Gardens Apartments CDBG 2058
449 Tyrella Avenue LIHTC 2059
Paulson Park I & II (New Central Park) CDBG 2034
111 Montebello Avenue HOME 2073
50 Sierra Vista & 1929 Hackett Avenue LIHTC 2029
The Fountains Apartments (San Ramon) HOME 2044
2005 San Ramon Ave LIHTC 2019
Franklin Street Apartments BMR 2066
135 Franklin Street CDBG 2066
RDA 2066
Studio 819 Apartments
819 N. Rengstorff Ave
1585 Studios BMR 2069
1581-85 W. El Camino Real HOME 2069
1701 ECR
1701 W. El Camino Real
Evelyn Family Apartments
779 E. Evelyn Avenue
Total 1,381 1,358 428 685 245
2072 No Risk
116 114 0 12 102 BMR 2072 No Risk
67 66 39 10 17 BMR
2068 No Risk
27 26 16 10 0 No Risk
49 48 13 35 0 BMR
51 50 15 35 0 No Risk
124 123 0 84 39 No Risk
253 251 32 219 0 No Risk
56 55 0 43 12 No Risk
120 118 36 82 0 No Risk
120 119 103 11 5 No Risk
2070 No Risk
107 106 0 53 53 No Risk
34 27 18 7 2 CDBG
2044 No Risk
150 149 149 0 0 LIHTC 2060 No Risk
32 32 7 10 15 CDBG
75 74 0 74 0 No Risk
Project Total
Units
Assisted
Units
Affordability Level Funding
Source
Expiration
Date
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 119 The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Based on this data from 2020, there are 1,460 assisted units in Mountain View in the Preservation Database. Of these units, all are at low risk of conversion.12 Table 16: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area
Low 1,460 28,001 110,177
Moderate 0 1,471 3,375
High 0 422 1,854
Very High 0 270 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 1,460 30,164 116,459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 120 Housing and Special Needs Populations
Large Households
As mentioned earlier, large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger unit sizes, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In Mountain View, slightly more than half of large households with five or more persons are renters, as shown in Figure

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

Figure 22: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009; BAE, 2021.

Needs and Resources. The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community. Large family households are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms, of which there are 13,054 units in Mountain View. Among the 12,629 large units with three or more bedrooms that are occupied, 2,983 units (23.6%) are renter occupied and 9,646 units (76.4%) are owner occupied (see Figure 23). While the data DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 121 in Figure 22 and Figure 23 indicate that Mountain View has a relatively large inventory of rental units with two or more bedrooms relative to the number of renter households with three or more people, City staff report that there is a shortage of deed-restricted affordable units with two or more bedrooms for lower-income families. This represents a challenge for larger lower-income households that are in need of affordable housing.

The Housing Plan Chapter of this Housing Element Update includes actions that will facilitate the production of larger deed-restricted affordable housing in Mountain View. These actions include eliminating parking standards for 100% affordable housing developments, which may help to improve the feasibility of constructing larger affordable units. In addition, Program 2.1 includes a commitment to making funding available and support programs to increase the number of affordable units for underserved populations, including larger households. One of the goals of Program 2.1 is to increase the share of two- and three-bedroom units in the City’s affordable housing stock. In addition to these actions in the Housing Plan, the City will continue to implement its inclusionary housing ordinance, which requires that BMR inclusionary units are comparable to market-rates units in a development in terms of the number of bedrooms. Therefore, to the extent that market-rate developments include larger units, inclusionary units in these developments will also include large units.

Figure 23: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Occupied housing units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 122 Female-Headed Households with Children
Family households13 headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. While Mountain View has significantly fewer family households than the County and the region (56.5% compared to 71.8% and 66.4 percent, respectively), over ten percent of local households are families with a single parent. Mountain View has a higher proportion of single-person households and non-family households (such as cohabiting roommates) than the County and the region. Single-person households are likely to seek smaller units than larger households, and non-family households of more than one person may seek different types of units than family households (e.g., two non-cohabiting adults may seek not just separate bedrooms but also separate bathrooms).

Figure 24: Household Type
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 123 Needs and Resources. Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

According to 2019 ACS data, there are more female-headed households with children (at 57.5 percent) than without children (at 42.5 percent) in Mountain View. In addition, 227 (16.4 percent) of all female-headed households with children, fall below the federal poverty line, while 76 (7.4 percent) of all female-headed households without children, live in poverty (see Figure 25). For many lower-income female-headed households with children in the high-cost Bay Area housing market, finding affordable housing is likely to be a key housing concern.

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

Mountain View has well over a thousand existing deed-restricted affordable units, with many more anticipated to be constructed during the planning period. As shown in Table 15, there are 1.358 affordable units in assisted affordable developments in Mountain View, including 428 units for extremely low-income households, 685 units for very low-income households, and 245 units for low-income households. All of these units are anticipated to remain affordable throughout the Housing Element period. Other deed-restricted affordable units in Mountain View include BMR units that were provided in market-rate developments in accordance with the City’s inclusionary requirements. While there are no units reserved for female-headed households, it is likely that some of these units provide housing for a portion of Mountain View’s lower-income female-headed households with children. In addition, the City has thousands of affordable units in the development pipeline, as detailed in Appendix E. The Housing Element also includes multiple programs to facilitate the production of additional affordable housing units during the upcoming planning period.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 124 Figure 25: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status
Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 125 Figure 26: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 126 The Housing Plan chapter of this Housing Element Update includes programs to further address senior housing needs. These include removing potentially subjective findings from the City’s reasonable accommodation procedures and providing informational materials on these procedures as well as a range of programs to support the development and preservation of both deed-restricted and naturally occurring affordable housing. Many of the affordable housing units that will be developed over the planning period will be well-suited to the needs of seniors, and some of the preserved units may also provide affordable housing for seniors. In addition, the Housing Plan includes programs to facilitate the production of multifamily housing in general, including both market-rate and affordable housing. New multifamily properties will be required to include accessibility features in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and adaptability features in accordance with the Fair Housing Amendments Act.

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

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

28. As shown in Figure 27, this proportion is slightly lower than the proportions in Santa Clara County (8.0 percent) and the Bay Area (9.6 percent), potentially due to high housing costs in Mountain View, as individuals with disabilities tend to have lower incomes on average than the population as a whole.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 127 Figure 27: Population by Disability Status
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18101; BAE, 2021.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 128 Figure 28: Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types: Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 129 In Mountain View, out of the population of 298 people with a developmental disability, about

50.3% are children below the age of 18, while adults account for the remaining 49.7% (see Table 17).

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

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

The most common living arrangement for individuals with developmental disabilities in Mountain View is the home of a parent, family, or guardian. As shown in Table 18, approximately 82.3% of the individuals with developmental disabilities residing in Mountain View currently live with a parent, family, or guardian, while 12.9% live in an independent or supported living facility. Many people with developmental disabilities have extremely low incomes, making it difficult to find housing in Mountain View’s high-cost housing market.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 130 Table 18: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Total
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 255
Independent /Supported Living 40
Other 10
Community Care Facility 5
Foster /Family Home 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

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

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

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

1.1 will update the reasonable accommodation procedures to removing unnecessary findings that could be a constraint to providing reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. In addition, Program 1.1 will amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance to permit residential care homes as a permitted use regardless of the number of residents. Program 2.1 in the Housing Plan states that the City will make funding available to support a range of DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 131 housing needs, including permanent supportive housing and housing for people with special needs. Program 2.5 states that the City will fund fair housing education, enforcement, and counseling to prevent fair housing violations and provide financial support for tenant/property owner mediation and eviction protection, which can help to prevent displacement among individuals with developmental disabilities. Program 3.1 states that the City will develop and implement a strategy to prevent people from becoming unhoused. In addition, many of the other programs in the Housing Plan that will facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing can also help to address housing needs among individuals with developmental disabilities.

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

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 132 Table 19: Point-In-Time Count, 2015-2019
2015 2019
2015-2019 Change
Number Percent
City of Mountain View
Sheltered 5 32 27 540%
Unsheltered 271 574 303 112%
Total 276 606 330 120%

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 133 Figure 29: Homelessness by Household Type & Shelter Status, Santa Clara County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 134 Figure 30: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 135 Table 20: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Academic Year Mountain View Santa Clara County Bay Area 2016-17 24 2,219 14,990
2017-18 46 2,189 15,142
2018-19 na 2,405 15,427
2019-20 161 2,297 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography. 2018-19 data not available for Mountain View.

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

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 136 Needs and Resources. Mountain View has taken significant actions to address the needs of persons experiencing homelessness, expending over $9.9 million from 2016 to 2021 (not including permanent housing funds). This includes a strong continuum of programs, from prevention, the provision of basic needs, shelter, safe parking, interim housing, to permanent supportive housing, as described below:
 Prevention: The City regularly funds rent relief programs to prevent homelessness.

During the pandemic, the City funded over $3.8 million in rent relief and financial support. It also opened the Housing and Eviction Help Center, which helped families apply for rent relief and obtain legal services to avoid homelessness. The City also funds a number of support services in the community to help lower-income households stay stably housed.
 Basic Needs: The City also funds basic needs services to support those who are unhoused, including shower and laundry services, as well as health services.  Shelter: The City hosts a winter shelter funded by the County of Santa Clara. The City also hosts two transitional homes: (1) Alice Avenue Transitional Home, which serves up to five formerly homeless persons; and (2) Quetzal House, a local youth shelter and transitional home operated by the Bill Wilson Center that serves about 40 to 50 homeless youth annually.
 Safe Parking: To address the large population of households living in vehicles, the City partnered with the County of Santa Clara and a local nonprofit safe parking provider to provide safe parking and a range of other services to support unstably housed residents on a path to permanent housing. Overnight safe parking programs were launched at faith-based locations and grew to several lots leased by the City. The program has since grown to become the largest safe parking provider in the region with the capacity for up to 101 vehicles (includes both faith-based lots). The City also adopted a Safe Parking Ordinance to facilitate the creation of safe parking locations on private lots in 2019. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City extended the safe parking program to operate 24/7.
 Interim Housing: In 2020, the City applied with LifeMoves to the State Project HomeKey Program to rapidly deploy modular units to provide interim housing for unhoused seniors and families who may be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. The project was awarded $11.95 million in capital funds and $2.4 million in operating funds. The City leveraged additional City, County, and philanthropic funds to open the program in record time.
 Permanent Housing: Finally, the City is committed to providing permanent supportive housing aimed at formerly homeless households. The City funded both San Antonio Place and Eagle Park, both of which include supportive units for formerly homeless households. The City has also committed to funding at least 200 supportive housing and rapid rehousing units for formerly homeless households in Mountain View. In 2022, the City entered into an $80 million MOU with the County to leverage County Measure A funds for this effort. In 2021 and 2022, Mountain View City Council reserved CDBG and HOME funds to support the conversion of the Crestview Hotel into DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 137 permanent housing, largely for families and individuals at risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness. This project also received Project Homekey funds, as well as County support. The hotel conversion will make it possible to make supportive housing available more quickly and affordably.

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

This is due in part to the regional nature of homelessness and the significant difficulties associated with addressing this need. The Housing Plan component of this Housing Element Update includes Programs 2.1, 3.1, and 4.3 to address the needs of homeless individuals and families, as well as Programs 1.5, 1.12, 2.1, 2.5, 3.2, 4.2, and 4.4 to prevent displacement that could lead to homelessness.

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

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

Table 22: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Employment in Mountain View, 2019

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 138 In Mountain View, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year, or in the preceding three school years, as shown in Table 23. These data further demonstrate that Mountain View does not have a significant farmworker community. In the Bay Area, there has been a decline of 14.1% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year, and the change at the county level was a 49.7% decrease.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 139 Figure 31: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Santa Clara County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

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

Because Mountain View is not in close proximity to a large number of agricultural jobs, Mountain View is not an ideal location for housing that is targeted to farmworkers. Any farmworkers that currently live in Mountain View or are seeking housing in Mountain View are likely interested in permanent housing in a location with access to schools and other amenities. These residents could be served by Mountain View’s existing affordable housing DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 140 stock or new affordable units that will be built in Mountain View during the upcoming Housing Element Cycle. As noted above, there are well over a thousand existing deed-restricted affordable units in Mountain View, with many more in the development pipeline.

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

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

Figure 32: Population with Limited English Proficiency
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 141 Needs and Resources. The data presented above indicate residents with limited English proficiency comprise a small share of Mountain View’s population. Individuals that participated in the public engagement process for the Housing Element Update noted that language barriers can prevent lower-income households from accessing subsidized housing.

Program 2.4 seeks to address this barrier by providing increased interpretation services for the City’s BMR application process. Program 2.5 states that the City will fund fair housing education, enforcement, and counseling to prevent fair housing violations and provide financial support for tenant/property owner mediation and eviction protection, which can help to address fair housing violations among persons with limited English proficiency.

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

The law also requires that all Housing Elements completed as of January 1, 2021 or later include an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) that is consistent with the core elements of the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule from July 2015. The following section summarizes key findings from the Assessment of Fair Housing, which was completed in accordance with current HCD guidance regarding the application of the new AB686 requirements, as well as a detailed reading of the California Government Code.16 The main sources of information for the following analysis are the U.S. Census Bureau (including the Decennial Census and the American Community Survey), the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources Tool, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 15 California Government Code § 8899.5 (a)(1)
16 Olmstead, Z. (April 23, 2020). AB 686 Summary of Requirements in Housing Element Law Government Code Section 8899.50, 65583(c)(5), 65583(c)(10), 65583.2(a).

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 142 (DFEH), HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), and the City of Mountain View.

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

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

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

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

Table 24: FHEO Fair Housing Complaints by Resolution Type, 2013-2020 Sources: HUD, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, 2021; BAE, 2021.

Total, Percent
Resolution 2013-2020 of Total
Conciliated/settled 9 64.3%
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 0 0.0%
No cause determination 3 21.4%
Withdrawn after resolution 2 14.3%
Withdrawn without resolution 0 0.0%
Total, Closed Complaints 14 100%
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 143 In addition to data from the FHEO, this analysis also reviewed data from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). As reported in Table 25, there were a total of three complaints in Mountain View between 2018 and 2020, covering four basis types and eight discriminatory practices (a single complaint can include more than one of each of these two categories). All three of the complaints were found to have no cause.

Table 25: DFEH Fair Housing Complaints, 2018-2020
Note:
(a) Each complaint may involve more than one basis type or discriminatory practice, but there is only one resolution per complaint.

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

While these data suggest that fair housing complaints that arise in Mountain View are relatively rare, the overwhelming majority of fair housing issues are not typically captured in fair housing complaints. In part, this is because many fair housing issues go unreported due to a lack of awareness of fair housing laws, fear of retaliation, or other factors that prevent individuals from coming forward. More broadly, fair housing issues include a range of factors that limit access to opportunity, often with disparate impacts on communities of color, people with disabilities, those with limited English proficiency, and other vulnerable populations. The fair housing complaint system is not designed to address the majority of these factors, and Total, Percent
Basis Type (a) 2018-2020 of Total
Ancestry 0 0.0%
Disability 2 50.0%
Familial status 1 25.0%
National origin/color/race 1 25.0%
Other 0 0.0%
Sexual harassment-Quid Pro Quo 0 0.0%
Total, All Basis Types 4 100%
Discriminatory Practice (a)
Denied equal terms and conditions 1 12.5%
Denied reasonable accommodation 0 0.0%
Denied reasonable accommodation for a disability or medical cond. 1 12.5% Denied rental/lease/sale 0 0.0%
Evicted 1 12.5%
Harassed 0 0.0%
Subjected to discriminatory zoning/land use 1 12.5%
Subjected to restrictive rule/covenant 2 25.0%
Subjected to discriminatory statements/advertisements 1 12.5% Other 1 12.5%
Total, All Practices 8 100%
Resolution
No cause determination 3 100.0%
Voluntary mediation 0 0.0%
Withdrawn after resolution 0 0.0%
Total, All Resolutions 3 100%
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 144 therefore provides information on only a small component of potential fair housing issues. The remainder of this section provides additional data and analysis to assess potential fair housing issues and identify factors that may limit access to opportunity.

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

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

Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
Race and Ethnicity
As noted above, Mountain View has a slightly larger proportion of its population that identifies as Non-Hispanic White than the County and Bay Area region, and the share of residents that identify with other racial and ethnic groups has increased more slowly in Mountain View than in the County and region over recent years. As shown in Table 26, approximately 40.1% of residents in Mountain View were non-Hispanic White in 2020, compared to 30.8% of residents in the two-county region. Non-Hispanic Asian residents account for approximately 34.9% of the citywide population, while Hispanic and Latino residents comprise an additional 17.2 percent. In both Mountain View and the region, the small Black Non-Hispanic population has been declining, and the Asian Non-Hispanic population has increased substantially. The number of persons identifying as Some Other Race or Two or More Races has also increased both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of the overall population in both the City and the two-county region. The Hispanic population has increased absolutely in both geographies, but its proportion of the total has decreased in Mountain View. This is in contrast to the twocounty region, where the Hispanic proportion of the total population increased slightly between DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 145 2000 and 2020. These trends may be due at least in part to the high cost of housing in Mountain View relative to the County and region overall, coupled with wealth and income gaps between racial and ethnic groups. It should be noted that, as illustrated in the table below, some groups have very limited populations in the City, which means that a small change in absolute numbers among these groups has a significant impact on the percentage change in the population of these groups.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 146 Table 26: Mountain View Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 - 2020 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000 SF3 Table P7, 2010 SF1 Table P8, and 2020 PL 94-171, Table P2; BAE, 2022.

Not Hispanic nor Latino by Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White 39,029 55.2% 34,052 46.0% 33,008 40.1% (6,021) -12.8% (1,044) -3.1% Black or African American 1,674 2.4% 1,468 2.0% 1,155 1.4% (519) -12.3% (313) -21.3% Native American Indian & Alaska Native 164 0.2% 116 0.2% 101 0.1% (63) -29.3% (15) -12.9% Asian 14,513 20.5% 19,064 25.7% 28,760 34.9% 14,247 31.4% 9,696 50.9% Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 160 0.2% 372 0.5% 215 0.3% 55 132.5% (157) -42.2% Some other race alone 221 0.3% 241 0.3% 557 0.7% 336 9.0% 316 131.1% Two or more races 2,036 2.9% 2,682 3.6% 4,374 5.3% 2,338 31.7% 1,692 63.1% Subtotal, Not Hispanic nor Latino 57,797 81.7% 57,995 78.3% 68,170 82.8% 10,373 0.3% 10,175 17.5% Hispanic or Latino 12,911 18.3% 16,071 21.7% 14,206 17.2% 1,295 24.5% (1,865) -11.6% Total, All Races 70,708 100.0% 74,066 100.0% 82,376 100.0% 11,668 4.7% 8,310 11.2% Not Hispanic nor Latino by Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White 1,096,637 45.9% 930,518 37.2% 831,610 30.8% (265,027) -15.1% (98,908) -10.6% Black or African American 68,253 2.9% 61,094 2.4% 56,849 2.1% (11,404) -10.5% (4,245) -6.9% American Indian & Alaska Native 6,816 0.3% 5,167 0.2% 4,261 0.2% (2,555) -24.2% (906) -17.5% Asian 567,084 23.7% 741,400 29.7% 981,182 36.3% 414,098 30.7% 239,782 32.3% Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 14,152 0.6% 16,136 0.6% 14,785 0.5% 633 14.0% (1,351) -8.4% Some other race alone 5,739 0.2% 6,586 0.3% 16,035 0.6% 10,296 14.8% 9,449 143.5% Two or more races 72,956 3.1% 77,480 3.1% 117,236 4.3% 44,280 6.2% 39,756 51.3% Subtotal, Not Hispanic nor Latino 1,831,637 76.6% 1,838,381 73.5% 2,021,958 74.9% 190,321 0.4% 183,577 10.0% Hispanic or Latino 558,109 23.4% 661,712 26.5% 678,743 25.1% 120,634 18.6% 17,031 2.6% Total, All Races 2,389,746 100.0% 2,500,093 100.0% 2,700,701 100.0% 310,955 4.6% 200,608 8.0% Change, 2000-2020
City of Mountain View
San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Change, 2010-2020
2000
2000
2010 2020 Change, 2010-2020
2010 2020 Change, 2000-2020
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 147 Historic Patterns of Racial Discrimination
While Mountain View today is a racially diverse community, historic patterns of discrimination have helped to shape disparities between neighborhoods as well as between Mountain View and the region. Citywide, the proportion of the population that identifies as White nonHispanic is only about 40% of the total, well above the 31% proportion regionally. However, this proportion has been declining over the last several decades, just more slowly than in the region overall.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 148 past and ongoing efforts to address the need for affordable housing in the City, and the Housing Plan section of this Housing Element Update includes new and continued actions to improve the affordability of housing in Mountain View.

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

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

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

Table 27: Dissimilarity Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census, Table P2; BAE, 2022. 21 Cloud Nine Technologies and Brent Mast, (2017). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) Data Documentation. HUD Office of Policy Development and Research, and Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dissimilarity Index
Racial and/or Ethnic Group 2010 2020
Black or African American alone 32.7 25.7 American Indian and Alaska Native alone 38.7 55.0 Asian alone 18.8 14.4
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 47.0 44.4 Some other race alone 31.1 24.7 Two or more races 11.9 11.0 Hispanic or Latino 36.7 29.6 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 149 Isolation Index
The other key metric recommended under the federal AFFH rule is the Isolation Index, which compares a group’s share of the overall population to the average share within a given block group. Ranging from 0 to 100, the isolation index represents the percentage of residents of a given race or ethnicity in a Block Group where the average resident of that group lives, correcting for the fact that this number increases mechanically with that group’s share of the overall study area’s population. Using Hispanic or Latino residents as an example, the isolation index of 7.8 indicates that the average Hispanic or Latino resident in 2020 lives in a Block Group where the Hispanic or Latino share of the population exceeds the overall citywide average by 7.8 percent. Isolation index values close to zero indicate that members of that minority group live in relatively integrated neighborhoods. 22 23 Table 28 summarizes isolation index scores by racial and ethnic group. The data indicate that most residents live in areas with relatively high degrees of racial and ethnic integration. The isolation indexes decreased in most groups between 2010 and 2020. None of the scores indicate a high degree of isolation for any group in either 2010 or 2020.

Table 28: Isolation Index, Mountain View, 2010 and 2020 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census, Table P2; BAE, 2022.

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

The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Available at:
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/census/glaeser.pdf
Isolation Index
Racial and/or Ethnic Group 2010 2020
Non-Hispanic White 7.8 3.8
Black or African American alone 0.7 0.5
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.1 0.4
Asian alone 3.5 3.2
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.7 0.4
Some other race alone 0.2 0.3
Two or more races 0.3 0.5
Hispanic or Latino 12.2 7.8
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 150 As shown above in Table 26, approximately 60% of Mountain View’s population is non-White.

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

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

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

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

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

1.4% of the citywide population as of 2020. By Block Group, the percentage ranges from 0.1% to four percent (see Figure 39). In the two-county region, the range by Block Group is from zero to 19 percent, as shown in Figure 40. The Block Groups with high concentrations are clustered in and around northern neighborhoods in Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and San Jose.

The largest minority group in Mountain View is the Non-Hispanic Asian population, which makes up 35% of the citywide population. The proportion of non-Hispanic Asians by Block Group varies from 15% to nearly 60 percent, with the highest concentrations found near the San Antonio and Whisman Station neighborhoods (see Figure 41). In the two-county region, the proportion of the population that is non-Hispanic Asian ranges from less than one percent to nearly 92 percent. The Block Groups with the highest concentrations are located in and around the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, Cupertino, Foster City, Millbrae, and Daly City (see Figure 42)
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 151 The Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander population in Mountain View is extremely small, making up just 0.1% of the citywide population as of 2020. By Census Glock Group the proportions range from none to two percent (see Figure 43). Regionally, the highest Block Group concentration is 14 percent, with high concentrations in East Palo Alto, San Mateo, and San Bruno (see Figure 44).

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

The non-Hispanic Some Other Race Alone population in Mountain View is another very small cohort, as seen in Figure 47. The percentage by Block Group ranges from zero to just 2.2 percent. Regionally, the percentage by Block Group ranges from zero to six percent (see Figure 48). The Block Groups with the highest concentrations of non-Hispanic Some Other Race populations are located in northern San Mateo County in Burlingame, San Bruno, and San Mateo.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 152 Implications of Geographic Distribution of Residents by Race and Ethnicity for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing through the Housing Element Update. Affirmatively furthering fair housing through the Housing Element Update includes taking actions that overcome patterns of segregation. The primary mechanism that a local jurisdiction can use to overcome existing patterns of racial or ethnic segregation is to identify affordable housing opportunity sites throughout the community, rather than concentrating affordable housing in areas with existing concentrations of racial and ethnic minority residents. As shown in Figure 97 below and discussed in Appendix E, the housing sites inventory that is included in this Housing Element Update identifies sites throughout the City where affordable housing could be built and does not concentrate affordable housing opportunity sites in areas with disproportionate concentrations of racial or ethnic minority groups.

The housing site inventory shown in Appendix E helps to affirmatively further fair housing as it relates to the four Block Groups identified above that have a disproportionate share of Latino residents. These four block groups currently account for an estimated 9.6 percent of all existing housing units in Mountain View. Of the housing sites identified in Appendix E, sites in these four Block Groups account for 1.2 percent of lower-income units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. This means that these Block Groups have a disproportionately low share of the lower-income units in the site inventory relative to the number of existing units in these Block Groups.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 153 Figure 33: Census Block Groups by% Non-White, Mountain View Note: Includes all categories except White non-Hispanic persons.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 154 Figure 34: Census Block Groups by% Non-White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Note: Includes all categories except White non-Hispanic persons.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 155 Figure 35: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic White, Mountain View Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 156 Figure 36: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 157 Figure 37: Census Block Groups by% Hispanic or Latino, Mountain View Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 158 Figure 38: Census Block Groups by% Hispanic or Latino, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 159 Figure 39: Census Block Groups by Non-Hispanic Black, Mountain View Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 160 Figure 40: Census Block Groups by Non-Hispanic Black, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 161 Figure 41: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Asian, Mountain View Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 162 Figure 42: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Asian, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 163 Figure 43: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander, Mountain View
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 164 Figure 44: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 165 Figure 45: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Native American, Mountain View
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 166 Figure 46: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Native American, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 167 Figure 47: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Other Race Alone, Mountain View
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 168 Figure 48: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Other Race Alone, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 169 Figure 49: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Persons of Two or More Races, Mountain View
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 170 Figure 50: Census Block Groups by% Non-Hispanic Persons of Two or More Races, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 171 Persons with a Disability
Regional Trends. As discussed in the housing needs assessment, approximately 5,700 residents in Mountain View are estimated to have one or more of the six disability types specified by the American Community Survey. Compared to Santa Clara County, Mountain View has a smaller proportion of the population living with a disability at 7% compared to 8% in the County overall. Additionally, there are 11 Census Tracts in the County with proportions of the population living with a disability over 15%, and none of those Census Tracts are located in the City of Mountain View.

Trends over Time. The proportion of the population living with a disability remained relatively unchanged from 2010 to 2019. The share of the population living with a disability decreased in the City of Mountain View from 7.2% in 2010 to 7.0% in 2019. Meanwhile, the share of the population living with a disability increased in the County overall from 7.9% to 8.0%.

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

8.2% to 15.8% of the civilian noninstitutionalized population having one or more type of disability. The Census Tracts with highest proportion of those with a disability (about ten percent) are located around the western portions of the city. As shown in Figure 52, the San Mateo and Santa Clara County Region shows some Census Tracts with high proportions of disabled persons, though all of the Census Tracts report having less than 20% of the noninstitutionalized civilian population with a disability.

Specifically, Census Tracts 5093.03 and 5094.04 have 10.1% and 10.4% of the population living with a disability. Tract 5093.03 is just north of El Camino Real and has a cluster of apartments, commercial uses, and the Mountain View Community Center. Additionally, the Mountain View Senior Center is nearby to east. This concentration of housing suitable for residents with a disability and the proximity to services such as the community and senior center may account for the higher concentration of residents living with a disability in this area.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 172 Figure 51: Population with a Disability by Census Tract, Mountain View Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 173 Figure 52: Population with a Disability by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

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

Mountain View has a lower proportion of married-couple households than Santa Clara County overall and the Bay Area, with 45.3% of households reporting as married-couple families compared to 57% for the county and 51% of the region. Although a minority of households are characterized as married-couple, most children under 18 in Mountain View live in these DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 174 households. Overall, 13.8% of households with children in Santa Clara County are singlefemale households compared to 12.3% in the City of Mountain View.

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

Patterns across Census Tracts. By Census Tract, between 56.9% and 96.4% of children under 18 reside in married-couple households (as shown in Figure 53), with no areas with a majority of children in living in single-parent or other non-married couple households. The highest concentrations of children under 18 in married couple households are in the northern and southern portions of Mountain View. The tracts with the highest share of households with children under 18 in married-couple households are Tract 5046.01 (94%) and Tract 5098.01 (92%). Tract 5046.01 is in the far north of the city along the Bay and home to Google, Intuit, NASA, and Microsoft campuses. Tract 5098.01 is in the southwest of the city and is comprised of single family detached homes west of Miramonte Avenue and north of Cuesta Drive.

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

Households with only one parent or guardian present, especially female-headed households, are more likely to face problems in finding affordable housing. Figure 55 shows the distribution in Mountain View of the percent of children in female-headed households with no spouse or partner present in Mountain View. The proportion of children in female-headed households with no spouse or partner present by Census Tract ranges from zero to 37.2 percent. Three Tracts show concentrations greater than 20 percent, located around the center of the City or near San Antonio Center. The highest concentration, at 37.2 percent, is located in Tract 5092.01, bordered by North Shoreline Boulevard, the Central Expressway, Route 85, and US 101. The second highest is Tract 5095 (29%) which is located just north of El Camino Real. This Tract is home to several apartment communities, single family homes, Mariano Castro Elementary, Mountain View Academy, and the Khan Lab School. Additionally, the Public Library and Downtown Mountain View are nearby to the east. The third highest is Tract 5094.04 (25%) which is home to the San Antonio Center, the community center, and several apartment communities.

In the two-county region, the proportion of children in female-headed households with no spouse or partner present by Census Tract ranges from zero to 44.7% (see Figure 56). Only four Tracts have concentrations over 40 percent. These tracts can be found in San Jose and Redwood City.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 175 Figure 53:% of Children in Married-Couple Households, 2015-2019, Mountain View
Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 176 Figure 54:% of Children in Married-Couple Households, 2015-2019, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 177 Figure 55:% of Children in Single-Female Headed Households, Mountain View Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 178 Figure 56:% of Children in Single-Female Headed Households, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 179 Income
Regional Trends. As shown in Table 29, the median annual household income in Mountain View during the 2015-2019 ACS survey period was $139,720 (2019 dollars), compared to $123,700 in the two-county region. Approximately 47% of the City’s households had incomes of $150,000 or more, compared to 41.4% of households in the two-county region. At the lower end of the income scale, roughly one-fifth of the households in both geographies had incomes less than $50,000.

Table 29: Household Income Distribution and Median Income, 2015-2019 Note: Incomes are in 2019 dollars.

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

Figure 61 shows the percentage of the population living in poverty by Census Tract in Mountain View. According to 2015-2019 ACS data, approximately 6.7% of the citywide population lives below the federal poverty limit compared to 7.5% in Santa Clara County.

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

Between 2010 to 2019, it is estimated that the poverty rate in the City of Mountain View decreased from 7.1% to 6.7%. Similarly, the poverty rate in Santa Clara County decreased from 10.5% in 2010 to 7.5% in 2019.

Household Income Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $14,999 1,808 5.4% 48,211 5.3%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,418 4.2% 38,244 4.2%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,360 4.0% 39,964 4.4%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,916 5.7% 58,461 6.5%
$50,000 to $74,999 2,926 8.7% 96,299 10.7%
$75,000 to $99,999 2,711 8.0% 91,657 10.1%
$100,000 to $149,999 5,840 17.3% 156,622 17.3%
$150,000 and above 15,777 46.7% 374,300 41.4%
Total Households 33,756 100.0% 903,758 100.0%
Median Household Income
San Mateo and Santa
Mountain View Clara Counties
$139,720 $123,699
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 180 Patterns across Census Block Group and Census Tract. Figure 57 below shows the geographic distribution of households by median household income by Block Group in Mountain View.

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

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

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

6.5% to 59.9 percent. In the two-county region, the percentage ranges from two to 94% (see Figure 60). There are four Census Tracts in Mountain View where a majority (greater than 50 percent) of the population is low- to moderate-income. These lower-income Tracts are located in the western and northern portions of the City. The western Tracts with majority low- to moderate-income households have a concentration of apartments, the San Antonio Shopping Center, the Community Center, and the Senior Center. The north tract is the location of Google, Intuit, NASA, and Microsoft campuses.

By Census Tract, the poverty rate ranges from 1.5% to 16.4%. The two Tracts with the highest proportions of the population with incomes below the poverty level (greater than 10%) are located in the San Antonio and Monta Loma/Farley/Rock areas. In the two-county region, the percent of the population living in poverty by Census Tract ranges from zero to 43.6 percent.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 181 Figure 57: Distribution of Median Household Income by Block Group, Mountain View
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample period; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 182 Figure 58: Distribution of Median Household Income by Block Group, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample period; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 183 Figure 59:% of Low to Moderate Income Population by Census Tract, Mountain View
Sources: HUD; U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2011-2015 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 184 Figure 60:% of Low to Moderate Income Population by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: HUD; U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2011-2015 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 185 Figure 61: Poverty Status by Census Tract, Mountain View Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample period; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 186 Figure 62: Poverty Status by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample period; BAE, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 187 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
To assist communities in identifying racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (also known as RCAPs and ECAPs), HUD developed a definition that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold, as well as a poverty test. The racial and ethnic concentration threshold requires that an RCAP or ECAP have a non-White population of 50% or more. The poverty test defines areas of “extreme poverty” as those where 40% or more of the population lives at or below the federal poverty line, or those where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. Based on these criteria, there are no R/ECAP areas in Mountain View. There are a small number of R/ECAP areas in the larger two-county region in central San Jose and in Gilroy (see Figure 63).

Figure 63: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; HUD; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 188 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 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.

Total
Total Below Poverty
Racial/Ethnic Group Population Poverty Rate
White alone 44,333 2,583 5.8%
Black or African American alone 1,268 134 10.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native 324 101 31.2%
Asian alone 25,958 1,684 6.5%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 246 12 4.9%
Some other race alone 5,411 800 14.8%
Two or more races 3,754 164 4.4%
Total, All Races 81,294 5,478 6.7%
Hispanic or Latino 14,757 1,823 12.4%
Not Hispanic or Latino 66,537 3,655 5.5%
Total, All Ethnicities 81,294 5,478 6.7%
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 189 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence R/ECAPs show one side of concentrations by race and wealth. On the other side are “areas of affluence” where non-minority affluent populations are concentrated. HCD devised a measure which calls out Census tracts with relatively high concentrations of both White population and higher household incomes, as detailed in the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool. These areas are designated as “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence,” or RCAAs. There are no RCAAs in Mountain View or the larger two-county region.

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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 190 Figure 64: Distribution of Non-Hispanic White Population by Median Income, City of Mountain View
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 191 Figure 65: Distribution of Non-Hispanic White Population by Median Income, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 192  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 higherincome 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 I-280 corridor and west of US 101, as well as additional areas in Foster City and parts of Redwood City.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 193 Figure 66: 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, Mountain View Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 194 Figure 67: 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 195 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 Imai Elementary.

Source: Mountain View Whisman School District.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 196 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
Source: Los Altos School District
25 This is the total enrollment not just of Mountain View resident students.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 197 Figure 70: Junior High School Boundaries Map for the Los Altos School District
Source: Los Altos School District
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 198 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 199 Figure 71: Mountain View Whisman Elementary School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2020-21
Sources: California Department of Education, Ed-Data; BAE, 2021.

27.5% 25.4%

44.6%

3.4% 3.9%

10.6%

35.1%

13.6%

0.8% 1.6%

0.6%

6.0%

0.7%

1.7%

17.4%

29.9%

7.3%

64.5%

87.9%

33.6%

10.9%

44.9%

18.2%

12.7%

12.5%

9.8%

1.6%

12.4% 15.7%

11.0%

34.3% 27.3% 32.5%

22.3%

5.9%

29.3%

35.1%

23.3%

1.8% 3.1% 2.5% 0.7%

8.1%

2.5%

5.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Benjamin
Bubb
Elementary
Edith
Landels
Elementary
Amy Imai
Elementary
Gabriela
Mistral
Elementary
Mariano
Castro
Elementary
Monta
Loma
Elementary
Stevenson
Elementary
Theuerkauf
Elementary
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Two or More Races
White
All Other Groups
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 200 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
Sources: California Department of Education, Ed-Data; BAE, 2021.

38.0%

51.0%

43.2%

31.9%

23.5%

29.7% 24.8%

30.9%
0…

0.7%

0.3%

0.6% 1.0%

0.6%

7.5%

9.3%

5.9%

16.4%

2.1%

5.3% 20.7% 4.0%

9.8%

8.9%

14.6% 11.8%

14.1%

17.7%

8.8%

15.9%

40.3%

27.0% 33.5% 37.5%

57.3%

45.0% 42.0% 48.6%

3.7% 3.1% 2.4% 1.9% 3.0% 1.3% 3.1% 0.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Oak Avenue
Elementary
LASD Virtual Covington
Elementary
Almond
Elementary
Gardner
Bullis
Elementary
Loyola
Elementary
Santa Rita
Elementary
Springer
Elementary
Asian Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Two or More Races White All Other Groups DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 201 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
Sources: California Department of Education, Ed-Data; BAE, 2021.

10.0% 15.9%

32.2% 35.9%

2.2%

0.9%

0.4%

1.2% 43.1%

40.8% 8.8% 3.5%

14.0% 13.2%

13.6% 12.3%

24.6% 27.6%

42.5% 44.9%

6.0% 1.6% 2.6% 2.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Crittenden Middle Isaac Newton
Graham Middle
Ardis G. Egan Junior
High
Georgina P. Blach
Junior High
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Two or More Races
White
All Other Groups
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 202 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
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.

23.2%

2.8%

27.5%

1.3%

1.0%

21.7%

74.6% 27.6%

10.1%

4.2%

6.3%

39.8%

14.1%

36.1%

3.9% 1.4% 1.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Mountain View High Alta Vista High Los Altos High
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Two or More Races
White
All Other Groups
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 203 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 moderateincome 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 204 Figure 75: TCAC Education Domain Score, Mountain View
Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 205 Figure 76: TCAC Education Domain Score, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; BAE, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 206 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::jobs-proximity-index/about. The index is currently based on U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data from 2014.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 207 Figure 77: Jobs Proximity Index Score, Mountain View
Source: HUD, based on U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2014 Data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 208 Figure 78: Jobs Proximity Index Score, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Source: HUD, based on U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2014 Data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 209 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 210 Figure 79: VTA System Map
Source: https://vta.org/, October 11, 2021.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 211 Figure 80: Caltrain System Map
Source: https://www.caltrain.com/
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 212 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 costburdened 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 213 Figure 81: % of Income to Housing + Transportation for a Typical Moderate-Income Household in Mountain View
Source: Housing + Transportation Index, Center for Neighborhood Technology.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 214 Figure 82: % of Income to Housing + Transportation for a Typical Moderate-Income Household in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Source: Housing + Transportation Index, Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Access to a Clean Environment
CalEnviroScreen provides a methodology to assist in identifying whether a local community is disproportionately burdened by pollution. For every Census Tract in the state, CalEnviroScreen produces a score using environmental, health, and socioeconomic information derived from government sources, with higher scores associated with a higher pollution burden. The original layer was developed by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on behalf of the California Environmental Protection Agency and released in early 2017.31 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 215 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 lowerincome 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 moderateincome 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 216 Figure 83: Areas of High Pollution in Mountain View
Source: DRAFT CalEnviroScreen Version 4.0.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 217 Figure 84: Areas of High Pollution in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Source: DRAFT CalEnviroScreen Version 4.0.

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

Minority Homeownership Rates
According to the available data from the 2015-2019 ACS, the Mountain View homeownership rate is 42 percent, compared to 58% in the two-county region. The lower homeownership rate in Mountain View is reflected across all racial and ethnic groups. Table 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 218 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

(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.

City of Mountain View
Household Tenure Total Ownership
Householder by Race Owner Renter Households Rate
White Alone 8,852 11,310 20,162 43.9%
Non-Hispanic White Alone 8,223 9,340 17,563 46.8%
Black or African American Alone 104 454 558 18.6%
Asian Alone 4,539 5,934 10,473 43.3%
Some other race alone (a) 258 1,460 1,718 15.0%
Two or more races 303 542 845 35.9%
Total, All Races 14,056 19,700 33,756 41.6%
Hispanic or Latino 914 3,535 4,449 20.5%
San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Household Tenure Total Ownership
Householder by Race Owner Renter Households Rate
White Alone 292,001 185,848 477,849 61.1%
Non-Hispanic White Alone 252,655 136,015 388,670 65.0%
Black or African American Alone 7,747 15,123 22,870 33.9% Asian Alone 181,128 116,583 297,711 60.8%
Some other race alone (a) 25,300 50,676 75,976 33.3%
Two or more races 13,472 15,880 29,352 45.9%
Total, All Races 519,648 384,110 903,758 57.5%
Hispanic or Latino 65,796 101,870 167,666 39.2%
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 219 Figure 85: Disposition of Home Loans by Race/Ethnicity in Mountain View, 2020 Notes:

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

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

Prevalence of Housing Problems
Table 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 220 Table 32: Housing Problems Rate by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View Notes:

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

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

Table 33: Severe Housing Problems Rate by Race/Ethnicity, Mountain View Notes:

Housing problems include lack of complete kitchen; lack of complete plumbing facility; more than 1.5 persons per room; cost burden greater than 50% of income. Includes all households within incomes at or below 100% of area median income. Figures may not sum to total due to rounding. Cells highlighted in red indicate sub-groups for which the rate of housing problems exceed the average rate of a given income group by ten percentage points or more.

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

Housing Cost Burden
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.

Percent of AMI Total (b)
Race/Ethnicity 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-100% ≤ 100% AMI
White 76.0% 73.1% 65.9% 56.2% 69.1%
Black/African American 65.0% 90.0% 0.0% 28.6% 58.7%
Asian 70.0% 85.6% 73.5% 59.2% 72.0%
American Indian n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. n.a.

Pacific Islander 0.0% n.a. n.a n.a. 0.0%
Hispanic 87.9% 89.7% 78.8% 59.4% 82.7%
Subtotal, Housing Problems 76.7% 81.3% 72.4% 55.6% 72.9% Average Rate +10% 86.7% 91.3% 82.4% 65.6% 82.9%
Percent of AMI Total
Race/Ethnicity 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% ≤ 100% AMI
White 57.4% 46.2% 27.3% 15.1% 40.0%
Black/African American 65.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.9%
Asian 61.4% 56.8% 45.1% 18.4% 49.0%
American Indian n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Pacific Islander 0.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0% Hispanic 78.3% 69.0% 43.8% 18.8% 59.6%
Subtotal, Severe Housing Problems 63.3% 53.7% 37.1% 15.1% 46.5% Average Rate +10% 73.3% 63.7% 47.1% 25.1% 56.5%
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 221 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 twobedroom condominium units. Partly due to the characteristics of the housing stock, home sale prices in this area tend to be lower than the citywide average, so it is noteworthy that such a high proportion of homeowners are overpaying for housing in this Census Tract.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 222 Figure 86: Overpayment by Renters, Mountain View
Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 223 Figure 87: Overpayment by Homeowners, Mountain View

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 224 Figure 88: Overpayment by Renters, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 225 Figure 89: Overpayment by Homeowners, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 226 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 227 Figure 90: Overcrowded Households, Mountain View
Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 228 Figure 91: Overcrowded Households, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 229 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 Notes:

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

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)

42.7%

57.3%

25.8%

74.2%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Latinx Percent of Population Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 230 Figure 93: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County
Notes:

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

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 8.1% 5.0% 18.8% 43.9% 24.3% 0.5% 36.8% 2.5% 44.5% 15.7%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%
American Indian or
Alaska Native
(Hispanic and NonHispanic)
Asian / API (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
Black or African
American (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Other Race or
Multiple Races
(Hispanic and NonHispanic) Percent of Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 231 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
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.

Household Income Brackets (a) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent HH Income <=30% HAMFI (b) 3,040 100.0% 1,325 100.0% 4,365 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 320 10.5% 290 22.0% 610 14.0% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 380 12.5% 205 15.5% 585 13.4% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 2,020 66.4% 700 53.0% 2,720 62.4% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 320 10.5% 125 9.5% 445 10.2% HH Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI (b) 1,785 100.0% 840 100.0% 2,625 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 250 14.0% 335 39.9% 585 22.3% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 545 30.6% 355 42.3% 900 34.4% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 985 55.3% 150 17.9% 1,135 43.3% HH Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI (b) 1,700 100.0% 830 100.0% 2,530 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 335 19.7% 450 54.2% 785 31.0% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 995 58.5% 125 15.1% 1,120 44.3% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 370 21.8% 255 30.7% 625 24.7% HH Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI 1,240 100.0% 950 100.0% 2,190 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 445 35.9% 595 62.6% 1,040 47.5% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 700 56.5% 240 25.3% 940 42.9% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 95 7.7% 115 12.1% 210 9.6% HH Income >100% HAMFI (b) 11,930 100.0% 10,075 100.0% 22,005 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 10,800 90.5% 8,545 84.9% 19,345 87.9% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 1,100 9.2% 1,350 13.4% 2,450 11.1% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 35 0.3% 175 1.7% 210 1.0% Total Households (b) 19,695 100.0% 14,015 100.0% 33,705 100.0% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 12,150 61.7% 10,215 72.9% 22,365 66.4% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 3,720 18.9% 2,275 16.2% 5,995 17.8% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 3,505 17.8% 1,395 10.0% 4,900 14.5% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 320 1.6% 125 0.9% 445 1.3% Renter Households Owner Households All Households
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 232 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 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 233 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 | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 234 Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Key Actions

1. The high cost of
housing in Mountain
View contributes to
disparities in access
to opportunity and
racial and ethnic
segregation.

Mountain View generally has low levels of segregation within City limits and offers high access to opportunity citywide, including in areas with large non-White and/or lower-income populations. However, there are some areas of Mountain
View with comparatively high concentrations of non-White residents, while residents in many of the high-cost singlefamily neighborhoods south of El Camino Real are disproportionately White. In addition, the City’s high housing costs makes it more difficult for lower-income and
moderate-income households to find housing in Mountain
View, which is a primary factor that has led Mountain View to be less racially and ethnically diverse than the region.

Because Mountain View provides high access to opportunity but lower levels of diversity than the region overall, barriers to securing housing in Mountain View also create disparities in access to opportunity at the regional level. The City of Mountain View undertakes numerous actions to facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing,
which help to mitigate these disparities.

1.2: Eliminate Minimum Parking Standards for Residential in TransitOriented Areas, Affordable Housing Developments, and Other Cases

1.3: Review and Update Ordinance and Precise Plan Residential Standards

1.4: Religious and Community Assembly Sites for Housing

1.6: SB9 DUO Subdivisions

1.7: Monitor and promote Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and SB9 Developments

1.8: Park Land Ordinance Update

1.9: BMR Program Review

1.10: Density Bonus

1.11: No Net Loss of Housing Element Sites

2.2: Pilot ADU & 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

4.2: Federal, State, and Regional Policy Initiatives

4.3.: Financial Support for Subsidized Housing

4.7: Neighborhood Engagement

2. Many lowerincome Mountain View
residents have been
impacted by
displacement, while
others currently face
displacement risk.

Many lower-income residents in Mountain View experience high housing cost burdens, putting them at risk of
displacement. In addition, prior to the implementation of SB 330, many Mountain View residents have been displaced
due to the demolition of rent-stabilized units and
redevelopment of these sites as higher-cost rental and
townhome developments. Mountain View’s Community
Stabilization and Fair Rent Act, Mobilehome Rent
Stabilization Ordinance, and Tenant Relocation Ordinance help to prevent or mitigate the impact of displacement of existing residents. SB 330 and other changes to State law have largely prevented ongoing demolition of rent-stabilized units and other lower-cost rental units in Mountain View.

1.5: Non-conforming R1 and R2 Multifamily Developments

1.12 Maintenance of Existing Housing Stock

2.1: Subsidize and Support Affordable Housing Programs

2.5: Mediation and Fair Housing Programs

2.6: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

3.1: Homelessness Prevention and Services for the Unhoused

3.2: Displacement Prevention and Mitigation

4.2: Federal, State, and Regional Policy Initiatives

4.4: Partnerships to Support Affordable Housing

4.5: Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment 235 Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Key Actions

3. Mountain View’s
high-cost housing
market
disproportionately
impacts non-White
and special needs
households, who tend
to have lower incomes
and therefore a
disproportionate need
for affordable housing.

Many special needs populations and households, such as
persons with disabilities, seniors on fixed incomes, and single parent households, tend to have low incomes and are therefore disproportionately impacted by the high cost of housing in Mountain View. As a result, special needs
populations and non-White residents are impacted by
Mountain View’s high housing costs to a greater degree than other households. The City of Mountain View undertakes a range of actions to facilitate the production and
preservation of affordable and special needs housing, and the Housing Element includes several policies to advance these goals.

1.1 Zoning Ordinance Update for Consistency with State Laws

1.2: Eliminate Minimum Parking Standards for Residential in TransitOriented Areas, Affordable Housing Developments, and Other Cases

1.3: Review and Update Ordinance and Precise Plan Residential Standards

1.4: Religious and Community Assembly Sites for Housing

1.7: Monitor and promote Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and SB9 Developments

1.8: Park Land Ordinance Update

1.10: Density Bonus

1.11: No Net Loss of Housing Element Sites

2.1: Subsidize and Support Affordable Housing Programs

2.2: Pilot ADU & 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 specialneeds groups face a
mismatch between
the supply of housing
in Mountain View and
the type of housing
needed to address
their specific needs.

Mountain View has a shortage of affordable housing options for some households and individuals with special housing needs, including lower-income large family households,
individuals with disabilities, individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and those in need of supportive services. Market-rate units do not typically address these special needs, while significant funding gaps lead to a shortage of affordable units to address these needs. These challenges are not unique to Mountain View, and Mountain View has engaged in actions to address these gaps, such as participating in two State Homekey applications.

1.1 Zoning Ordinance Update for Consistency with State Laws

2.1: Subsidize and Support Affordable Housing Programs

2.3: Reasonable Accommodation

2.6: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

3.1: Homelessness Prevention and Services for the Unhoused

4.3.: Financial Support for Subsidized Housing

4.7: Neighborhood Engagement

APPENDIX
Projected Housing Needs C
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix C: Projected Housing Needs 237 APPENDIX C: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
A key component of any Housing Element Update is identifying adequate sites to address the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines state-wide projected housing needs and allocates new housing unit target numbers to regional councils of government (COGs). State law (California Government Code Section 65584) provides for COGs to then prepare and adopt plans that assign a “fair share” of the region’s housing construction need to each city and county. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the COG that determines fair-share portions of state allocations for the City of Mountain View.

The City’s RHNA requirements for the 2023-2031 Housing Element projection period are summarized in Table 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 2,773 25%
Low 1,597 14%
Moderate 1,885 17%
Above Moderate 4,880 44%
TOTAL 11,135 100%
Source: ABAG, 2021.

Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households
Although the RHNA does not include allocations for extremely low-income households, Housing Element Law requires that jurisdictions estimate the need for housing units affordable to extremely low-income households and plan to accommodate this need. Extremely low-income households are those with income less than 30% of area median income. In Santa Clara County, 30% of the AMI is the equivalent to an annual income of $49,700 for a family of four. Households with extremely low incomes have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as supplemental security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance, are considered extremely low-income households. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix C: Projected Housing Needs 238 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.

APPENDIX
Housing Constraints D
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 240 APPENDIX D: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Sections 65583(a)(5) and 65583(a)(6) of the California Government Code state that the purpose of a Housing Element is to identify governmental and non-governmental factors (constraints) that inhibit the development, maintenance, or improvement of housing. The Housing Element must analyze “potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified for persons with disabilities, land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.” Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take action on any unnecessary constraints and to mitigate or remove them. A thorough understanding of the constraints to development can help to create appropriate policy responses to mitigate constraints and also make it easier and more affordable to affirmatively further fair housing development.

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

Governmental Constraints
Government regulations are required because the housing market on its own does not produce the range of housing to meet the spectrum of 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 241  “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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 242  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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 243 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 244  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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 245 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, multimodal 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 246 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 247 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 248 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 249 Table 36: Off-Street Parking Requirements
Housing Unit Parking Required Bicycle Parking Required
Accessory Dwelling
1 space per unit, except near
public transit or where the
ADU is replacing a garage or
where other conditions apply
None
Multi-family (R3 & R4)
Studio: 1.5 spaces per unit, 1
space shall be covered
1-bedroom unit less than or
equal to 650 sf; 1.5 spaces
per unit, 1 space shall be
covered
1-bedroom unit greater than
650 sf; 2 spaces per unit, 1
space shall be covered
Units with 2 or more
bedrooms: 2 spaces per unit,
1 space shall be covered.

Guest parking: 15% of the
parking spaces required will
be reserved for guest
parking(a)
1 space per unit; 1 space per
10 units for guest parking
Multi-Family (El Camino Real
and San Antonio)
Studio and 1-bedroom: 1
space per unit
2-bedroom and larger: 2
spaces per unit
Guest parking: 15% of the
parking spaces required will
be reserved for guest parking
1 space per unit; 1 space per
10 units for guest parking
Multi-Family (North Bayshore
and East Whisman)
Various maximums apply and
no minimums Varies
Rooming and Boarding
Houses Parking Study Required Parking Study Required
Senior Care Facility Parking Study Required Parking Study Required Senior Congregate Care 1.15 spaces per unit (half
spaces covered) 2% of vehicle spaces
Single-Family/Duplex 2 spaces per unit (1 covered) None Efficiency Studios 1 space per unit, plus 1 space
per non-resident employee(b) 1 space per 10 units
Small Lot, Single-Family
2 spaces per unit (1 covered).

0.5 spaces per unit for guest
parking
None
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 250 Housing Unit Parking Required Bicycle Parking Required
Townhouse
2 spaces per unit (1 covered).

0.6 spaces per unit for guest
parking
1 space per unit
Rowhouse
Studio: 1.5 spaces per unit
1-Bedroom or more: 2 spaces
covered per unit; 0.3 spaces
per unit for guest parking
1 space per unit
Source: Mountain View City Code Section A36.37.040, 2021.

Notes:
(a) The Zoning Administrator may increase the parking requirement to 2.3 spaces per unit if needed to ensure adequate guest parking. Refer to Mountain View City Code Section A36.37.040 on model parking standards for details. Parking standards may differ between Precise Plans.
(b) Reduction of up to 0.5 spaces may be granted through the conditional use permit process.

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

The City modified several parking requirements for both parking and bicycle parking to align with model parking standards for multi-family residential projects. These parking standards put in place lower parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The model parking standard requires one parking space for studio and one-bedroom units, two parking spaces for two-bedroom units or more units, and 15 percent of the required vehicle spaces available for guests. This standard was adopted in the El Camino Real and San Antonio Precise Plans. Housing Element Program 1.3 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 251 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 verylow-income tenants, with two income levels provided for a weighted average income level at less than or equal to 65 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). The weighted average approach provides developers flexibility. Ownership units other than rowhouses and townhouses must include 15 percent of the total number of ownership units affordable to moderate-income households, to a minimum of two income levels, with a weighted average income level of 100 percent AMI. Rowhouse or townhouse ownership units in residential developments must provide a 25 percent on-site requirement to moderate-income households with 15 percent affordable to a weighted average of 100 percent AMI and 10 percent affordable to a weighted average of 135 percent AMI. All BMR units provided by developers must be integrated throughout the development and be comparable to market rate units in terms of size and design.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 252 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 253 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 254 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 255 Table 37: Estimated Residential Development Impact Fees Fee Type SingleFamily(1)
Multi
Family
Small (2)
Multi Family Large(3)
Entitlement Fee(4) -- $2,841 $45,000
Building Permit Fee/Construction
Fee (5) $14,720 $137,000 $278,900
Impact Fees(6) $71,347 $550,700 $7,899,900
Other Fees(7) $152,920 $4,356 $35,250
Total $238,987
$694,967
(or
$69,497
per unit)
$8,259,050 (or $82,591 per
unit)
Source: City of Mountain View.

Notes:
1 Based on a 2,600 square foot house
2 Based on 10 units (2 bedroom 9,000 square foot unit and 3 bedroom 12,000 square foot unit) 3 Based on 100 units
4 May include the following: Development Review Permit or Planned Community Permit, Heritage Tree Removal, Cost Recovery. 5 May include the following: Plan Check Fee, Building Permit Fees, Electrical Fee, Mechanical Fee, Plumbing Fee, Land Use document.
6 May include the following: Water Capacity Fee, Sewer Capacity Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Frees, School Impact Fee.
7 May include the following: Excavation Permit for new utility services and driveway, BMR In-Lieu Fees, Improvement Plan Check and Construction Inspection.
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. Other 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 256 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 257 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 258 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 publiclyaccessible 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 259 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 260 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 261 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 262 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 263 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 264 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 265 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 Residential FAR Maximum FAR with Bonus
El Camino Real Precise Plan 1.35 1.85
San Antonio Precise Plan 1.35 1.85 – 2.35
North Bayshore Precise Plan 1.0 1.85 – 4.5
East Whisman Precise Plan 1.0 1.35 – 3.5
Design Review by DRC
The Development Review Committee (DRC) considers a proposed project’s conformance with Cityadopted 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 266 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 267 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 268 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, midreview.  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 Project Type Typical Approvals
Required
Median
Planning
Review Time
(Before 2020)
Median
Building Permit
Review Time
(Before 2020)
Single-Family Home or Duplex Building Permit n/a 5 months Accessory Dwelling Unit Building Permit n/a 4.5 months
Rowhouse, Townhouse, Small-Lot
Single Family (5 or more lots)
Planned Unit
Development Permit
and Tentative Map
(Council approval)
13 months 12 months
Apartments
Standard Zones (R and CRA)
Development Review
Permit, sometimes
Conditional Use Permit
(Zoning Administrator
approval)
13 months 11 months
Precise Plans
Planned Community
Permit (Council
approval)
Condominiums
Same as Apartments
with Tentative Map
(Council Approval)
Same as Apartments
Any project with a Zoning Change
or General Plan Amendment (GPA)
Rezoning or GPA
(Council Approval) 20 months 11 months
Source: City of Mountain View, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 269 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 270 Table 40: Recent Multi-family Developments in Mountain View Address Number of
Units
2580 California Street 632
400 San Antonio Road 582
555 East Evelyn Avenue 471
500 Ferguson Road 394
2700 West El Camino Real 211
1720 Villa Street 226
2268 West El Camino Real 204
394 Ortega Avenue 144
779 East Evelyn Avenue 116
Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters provide a critical resource for individuals or families experiencing housing instability. Government Code Section 65582(d) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” Effective January 1, 2008, California SB 2 requires all jurisdictions to have a zoning 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 271 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 272 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 273 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 274 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
Park Name Address Number of
Units
Moorpark Mobile Home Park 501 Moorpark Way 138
Sahara Village Mobile Home Park 191 El Camino Way 206
New Frontier Mobile Home Park 325 Sylvan Avenue 141
Santiago Villa Mobile Home Park 1075 Space Parkway 358
Sunset Estates Mobile Home Park 433 Sylvan Avenue 144
Moffett Mobile Home Park 440 Moffett Boulevard 143
TOTAL 1,130
Source: City of Mountain View, 2021.

Affordable Housing – State Laws Impacting Local Development Standards Specific housing laws passed during the last housing cycle would revise policies and processes of the City and potentially reduce governmental constraints on housing development. These laws guide the development of recommendations in this update for the 6th cycle. The legislation that impacts residential development standards and potential affordable housing includes though is not limited to:
 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 moderateincome 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 275 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 276 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 277 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 278 Non-Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors which may constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions, such as the availability of financing and land and construction costs, as well as community opposition to new development.

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

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

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

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

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

The cost of land can vary considerably based on location, lot size, zoning, availability of existing infrastructure, and other factors. Recent sales of sites in Mountain View that are zoned for multi- DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 279 family residential development indicate that typical land prices for multi-family sites are approximately $13 million per acre. Affordable housing developers that were consulted as part of the Housing Element Update process reported that a land cost of $100,000 per unit or more is not unusual in the Mountain View market. The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update (see Appendix H) assumed a land cost of $122,000 per unit for multifamily housing. While the available data on single-family land sale costs in Mountain View is limited due to the limited inventory of vacant single-family sites, and land zoned for single-family uses tends to have a lower per-acre cost but a higher per-unit cost than land zoned for multi-family uses.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 280 Requests to Develop Housing Below the Densities Identified in the Sites Inventory Residential development in Mountain View is not likely to be constrained due to requests to develop housing at densities below the densities that are identified in the Housing Element site inventory and analysis. Requests to develop sites at low densities tends to be a constraint to housing production if the market favors lower-density product types, such as detached single-family homes, on sites where higher-density product types, such as multifamily units, are allowed. As evidenced by construction activity in Mountain View during the last Housing Element Cycle and projects currently in the pipeline, there is strong demand for multifamily housing in Mountain View. Meanwhile, there has been virtually no construction of detached single-family homes in Mountain View in recent years. More importantly, the sites inventory for Mountain View’s Housing Element determined the capacity for opportunity sites based on the actual densities of recently-constructed projects in Mountain View, as discussed in the Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory chapter. The sites inventory and analysis demonstrates that the densities used to determine capacity on housing opportunity sites are consistent with densities among recent projects in Mountain View under the same or similar development standards.

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

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

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

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

Construction costs are also high and have increased steadily during recent years. Together, high land and construction costs present barriers to the production of housing in Mountain View. Neighboring jurisdictions face similar constraints, contributing to the regional housing shortage. The City of Mountain View helps to address this constraint by providing funding for affordable housing construction. In addition, Mountain View has increased density in large DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 281 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 | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 282 Flooding
Portions of the City are within the 100-year flood zones as determined by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. There are Pipeline projects in the sites inventory that are located in the 100-year flood zone, near US-101 and El Camino Real’s crossing of Permanente Creek. In addition, there is one Opportunity Site in the sites inventory in the flood zone near El Camino Real and Miramonte Avenue.

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 283 Soil and Groundwater Contamination
The East Whisman and North Bayshore areas have significant soil and groundwater contamination from previous industrial uses. Commercial sites may also have issues from previous dry cleaning or automotive operations.

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

APPENDIX Housing Sites Analysis E and Inventory
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 285 APPENDIX E: HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS AND

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

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

The analysis presented in this Appendix demonstrates there is an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the City’s housing allocation of 11,135 units, plus a surplus of 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 Staterequired 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 286 Table 42: Mountain View’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation Summary Info
Units by Income Group
Total Units
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
City RHNA a 2,773 1,597 1,885 4,880 11,135
Percent of
Total
25% 14% 17% 44% 100%
NOTES: a The RHNA allocation shown was adopted by ABAG on December 16, 2021.

SOURCE: ABAG, December 2021.

Summary of Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
The total realistic development capacity of all sites in the land inventory is listed in Table 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 287 Table 43: Mountain View Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to 6th Cycle RHNA by Income
Summary Info
Units by Income Group
Total Units1
Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Mountain View RHNA 4,370 1,885 4,880 11,135
Capacity from Pipeline
Projects
1,201 274 4,311 5,786
Approved/Under
Construction 533 248 2,984 3,765
Proposed Projects 668 26 1,327 2,021
Capacity on Opportunity Sites 3,996 1,650 4,536 10,182
Developable Sites (as of
January 31, 2023)
3,850 1,577 4,512 9,939
ADU Projection 146 73 24 243
Total Capacity (as of January
31, 2023 5,197 1,924 8,847 15,968
Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) from
RHNA +827 +39 +3,967 +4,833
Developable Sites (Rezoning
after January 31, 2023,
including Program 1.1)
250* 296 0 546
Total Capacity 5,447* 2,220 8,847 16,514
Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) from
RHNA
+1,077* +335 +3,967 +5,379
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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 288 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AB 686 (Santiago) created a new requirement for local jurisdictions to evaluate their Housing Element sites inventories through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. This Housing Element Update addresses these requirements in part by providing data and analysis in the 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 289 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 290 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 291  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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 292  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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 293 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 294 Table 44: Consolidated Sites
Site Address APN Consolidated
Sites Acres
2630 W EL CAMINO REAL 14816012 A 1.79
FAYETTE DR 14816013 A 0.32
2116 W EL CAMINO REAL 14836028 B 1.00
2100 W EL CAMINO REAL 14836029 B 0.52
2124 W EL CAMINO REAL 14836027 B 0.74
2483 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY 14711025 C 1.34
2485 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY 14711029 C 0.50
1134 W EL CAMINO REAL 15807026 D 0.64
1128 W EL CAMINO REAL 15807025 D 0.42
S OAK ST 15807007 D 0.10
630 SAN ANTONIO RD 14816016 E 2.82
FAYETTE DR 14816014 E 0.15
1949 W EL CAMINO REAL 17006058 F 0.32
1921 W EL CAMINO REAL 17006060 F 1.30
1935 W EL CAMINO REAL 17006062 F 1.66
800 MAUDE AV 16057012 G 4.97
500 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 16058016 G 5.84
401 ELLIS ST 16058017 G 4.51
885 MAUDE AV 16059005 G 1.03
1764 SHORELINE BL 11610078 H 0.50
1758 SHORELINE BL 11610079 H 0.44
1742 SHORELINE BL 11610080 H 1.86
1674 SHORELINE BL 11610085 H 0.88
1435 Plymouth St 11610101 H 0.99
1397 SHOREBIRD WY 11611021 H 1.99
1383 SHOREBIRD WY 11611022 H 1.62
1390 SHOREBIRD WY 11611025 H 1.80
1375 SHOREBIRD WY 11611028 H 4.88
1345 SHOREBIRD WY 11611038 H 16.90
1220 PEAR AV 11614028 H 1.11
1601 N SHORELINE BL 11614058 H 1.92
1675 SHORELINE BL 11614066 H 1.41
1250 SPACE PARK WY 11614070 H 0.72
1230 PEAR AV 11614095 H 1.10
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 295 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 296 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 297 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 298 Table 45: Precedent Projects List
Project Address Project Area
Acreage
Dwelling Units,
excluding
Density Bonus
Density (DU/ac),
excluding Density
Bonus
Zoning/Precise Plan
324 Bryant Street 0.26 7 26.92 Downtown
676 Dana Street 0.25 7 28.00 Downtown
231-235 Hope Street 0.26 9 34.62 Downtown
135 Franklin Street 1.03 51 49.51 Downtown
City Lot 12 (Bryant Street) 1.50 75 50.00 Downtown
400 Logue Avenue 2.54 374 147.24 East Whisman (High Intensity) 320 Logue Avenue 2.15 363 168.84 East Whisman (High Intensity) 819 N Rengstorff Avenue 0.83 36 43.37 CRA
1411-1495 W El Camino Real 1.25 53 42.40 El Camino Real (Low Intensity) 334 San Antonio Road 0.66 42 63.64 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor)
1616 W El Camino Real 0.99 66 66.67 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
1701 W El Camino Real 0.49 54 110.20 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
950 W El Camino Real 0.61 68 111.48 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
394 Ortega Avenue 1.62 144 88.89 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor)
865 E El Camino Real 2.30 150 65.22 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
1720 W El Camino Real 2.43 162 66.67 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
801 W El Camino Real 2.39 164 68.62 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 299 Project Address Project Area
Acreage
Dwelling Units,
excluding
Density Bonus
Density (DU/ac),
excluding Density
Bonus
Zoning/Precise Plan
100 Moffett Boulevard 2.70 184 68.15 Planned Community
2650 W El Camino Real 2.91 193 66.32 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
2268-2280 W El Camino Real 2.61 204 78.16 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
2700 W El Camino Real 2.28 172 75.44 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
400-520 San Antonio Road 5.75 432 75.13 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor)
2580 California Street 8.63 632 73.23 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor)
455 San Antonio Road
(Residential portion only) 5.5 330 60 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Center) 601 Escuela Avenue 0.50 25 50.00 El Camino Real (Low Intensity) 1313 and 1347 W El Camino
Real 0.44 18 40.91 El Camino Real (Low Intensity)
730 Central Avenue 0.24 15 62.50 CRA
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 300 Table 46: Realistic Density Assumptions – Non-Rezoning
General Plan
Designation
Maximum
Density –
GP Zoning District
Maximum Density
- Zoning
Characteristic
DU/ac
Target
Percentage
Realistic
Density
General Mixed-Use 1.35 FAR CRA and equivalent 43 DU/ac 43.37 84% 36 Mixed-Use Corridor 1.85 FAR El Camino Real Precise
Plan (Village Center)

1.85 FAR including
required retail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.35 FAR 65 **** 60% 39
Downtown MixedUse References
Downtown
Precise
Plan
Downtown Precise Plan Varies - most sites
are 50 DU/ac

45.15 55% 25
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 301 * 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 (MixedUse 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
General Plan
Designation
Maximum
Density - GP Zoning District Maximum Density - Zoning
Characteristic
DU/ac
Target
Percentage
Realistic
Density
Neighborhood
Mixed-Use

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

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

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

17.99 (to 71.97)
84% Increase
of 15 (to
60)
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 302 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 MixedUse 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 303 “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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 304 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
Site Characteristic Capacity Assumption Income Category Application
Accommodates fewer than 50 units
(includes all sites smaller than 0.5 acres) 100% Moderate Income Units Accommodates between 50 and 150
units 100% Lower-Income Units
Accommodates between 150 and 300
units
150 Lower-Income Units
Remainder Moderate Income Units
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
Project Category
Type
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above ModerateIncome Capacity
Realistic Capacity
Total (Units)
Pipeline Projects 1,201 274 4,311 5,786
Opportunity Sites 4,246 1,946 4,536 10,728
Sub Total
(A) 5,447 2,220 8,847 16,514
6th cycle RHNA (B) 4,370 1,885 4,880 11,135
RHNA Buffer
(A-B) +1,077 +335 +3,967 +5,379
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 305 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 306 Table 50: Non-Residential Previous Uses on Select Precedent and Pipeline Projects Address Previous Use
1001 N Shoreline Blvd Large parking lot serving a recent office development 1100 La Avenida 1-story light industrial with multiple tenants 1313 and 1347 W El Camino Real 1-story small retail center with multiple tenants 1411-1495 W El Camino Real Three one-story retail buildings fully occupied with multiple tenants
2645 Fayette Drive 2-story light industrial building, fully occupied with one tenant
334 San Antonio Rd Operating gas station
400 Logue Avenue
1-story research and development use fully occupied
with an existing tenant
901 E El Camino Real Operating 2-story hotel
City Lot 12 (Bryant St) Public parking lot
355-401 E Middlefield Rd Two 1-story light industrial buildings occupied with existing tenants
615-749 W El Camino Real Operating 1-story bank and fast-food restaurant 96 W El Camino Real Operating 1-story mortuary
320 Logue Ave
1-story multi-tenant office building with some tenant
spaces available
685 E Middlefield Rd Occupied multi-tenant 2-story office buildings 1265 Montecito Ave Occupied office building
87 E Evelyn Avenue Public parking lot
950 W El Camino Real Fast food restaurant
865 E El Camino Real Billiard hall and occupied 2-tenant retail building 801 W El Camino Real Several small, occupied retail buildings 100 Moffett Boulevard Occupied social service office and car repair 400-520 San Antonio Road Multiple office and light industrial buildings, tire store, multi-tenant retail (mostly occupied)
601 Escuela Avenue Small retail strip center occupied with multiple tenants

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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 307 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 308  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. Multitenant 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 309 New Housing at the San Antonio Village Center

Source: Merlone Geier Partners Source: Brookfield
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 310 Table 51: Capacity Discount on Multi-tenant Opportunity Sites Site Address
APN Consolidated
Sites
General Plan Land
Use Designation Acres Maximum Density
Unit
Capacity
Unit
Capacity
with 80%
Discount
Located in
High
Opportunity
Area
2630 W EL CAMINO
REAL
14816012 A
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 1.79 47-93 108 22
FAYETTE DR 14816013 A Mixed-Use Corridor 0.32 63-89 30 6 2600 W EL CAMINO
REAL
14816015
Not
Applicable
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 0.50 47-93 19 4
1910 W EL CAMINO
REAL
15436018 Not
Applicable
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 2.47 47-93 149 30
1949 W EL CAMINO
REAL
17006058 F
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 0.32 47-93 255 51 Yes
1921 W EL CAMINO
REAL
17006060 F
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 1.30 47-93 481 96 Yes
1935 W EL CAMINO
REAL
17006062 F
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 1.66 47-93 19 4 Yes
1504 GRANT RD 19312001 Not
Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor 5.08 ~72 78 16 Yes
121 E EL CAMINO
REAL
19742004 Not
Applicable
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 7.96 47-93 99 20 Yes
789 E EL CAMINO
REAL
19801003
Not
Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor 4.59 65-111 277 55 Yes
Sum Total 1,515 303
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 311 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 | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 312 (cinema complex), 223 Moffett Blvd (multi-tenant retail), 2105 Old Middlefield (shopping center), and 55 Fairchild Drive (hotel). This demonstrates the feasibility of redevelopment of these sites, regardless of their existing uses.

Programmatic Response
In addition to the site characteristics described above that mirror the conditions found in recent City redevelopment and Pipeline projects, several Housing Element programs have been established to facilitate development of the Opportunity Sites. Applicable programs are listed below. Refer to Chapter 3: Housing Plan, for full program descriptions.  Program 1.7 Monitor and Promote Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessor Dwelling Units and SB9 Developments
 Program 2.2 Pilot ADU & SB9 Financial Incentives Program  Program 4.5 Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers Unit Capacity by Project Type
The following are summaries of the key findings for each of the project types: Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites, including Opportunity Sites that do not and do require rezonings and ADUs. Refer to Table 49 for the sites inventory summary and Figure 95 for an overview map of all sites in the inventory (ADUs excluded). This inventory was developed based on HCD requirements for locations and affordability levels as well as City goals focusing on sites that have residential capacity under the current zoning and areas that have undergone robust community engagement, such as Precise Plan areas. Sites that would cause high residential displacement were avoided.

A rowhouse development in the South Whisman
neighborhood.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 313 Figure 95: Housing Sites Overview
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 314 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 Pipeline Projects are not considered sites in the inventory; however, these sites may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. Refer to Figure 96 for all Pipeline Project locations, including approved, under construction, and proposed projects.

Approved/Under Construction: Pipeline Projects include a subcategory of projects that have been approved or are under construction and will receive a final certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the RHNA projection period, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA. Projects in this category conform with the current General Plan and zoning, therefore no rezoning is required. A total of 3,765 units are listed in Table 52, which summarizes those projects that are approved or are under construction, by address and site status. Affordability assumptions are based on approved entitlements and include deed-restricted units per BMR requirements. Projects under construction that will receive a final certificate of occupancy during the projection period include: 1001 N Shoreline Boulevard, 1255 Pear Avenue, 777 W Middlefield Road, 851-853 Sierra Vista Avenue, 950 W El Camino Real, 1720 Villa Street, 2580-2590 California Street, and 555-557 E Evelyn Avenue. Remaining projects in this subcategory have been approved and are listed as such in Table 52. Expected completion dates are provided in this table as well.

Approved/under construction projects are made up of 53 sites on parcels totaling approximately 81 acres, as shown in Figure 96. While some neighborhoods have more approved/under construction project units than others, Table 53 demonstrates how units at varied income levels appear and are distributed in each of the City’s recognized neighborhoods. Approximately 55 percent of approved/under construction projects are located in the City’s Precise Plan areas, including Downtown, East Whisman, El Camino Real, San Antonio, Villa Mariposa, and North Bayshore, where robust community engagement has already occurred to vet areas that would support residential development. Refer to Table 54.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 315 Table 52: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summary by Project Address Address
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Total
Capacity
Expected
Completion
Date (Year)
Projects that
contain Deedrestricted
Affordable Lower
Income Units
Site Status
1001 N Shoreline Blvd 20 20 263 303
2024(apt)
2025(condos) Yes
Under
Construction
1100 La Avenida 100 0 0 100 2024 Yes Approved
1255 Pear Ave 0 0 220 220 2024 Yes
Under
Construction
1313 and 1347 W El
Camino Real 2 0 22 24 2024 Yes Approved
1411-1495 W El Camino
Real 0 5 48 53 2024 Yes Approved
1720 Villa Street 3 0 204 207 2023 Yes
Under
Construction
1958 Latham St 0 0 6 6 2024 No Approved
198 Easy Street 0 0 4 4 2024 No Approved
2580-2590 California Street 14 18 600 632 2023 Yes
Under
Construction
2645 Fayette Drive 5 0 33 38 2025 Yes Approved
334 San Antonio Rd 10 3 49 62 2026 Yes Approved
400 Logue Avenue 24 38 346 408 2025 Yes Approved
555 East Evelyn Avenue 0 0 471 471 2023 No
Under
Construction
555 W Middlefield Rd 32 16 275 323 2029 Yes Approved
570 Rengstorff Ave 0 0 15 15 2024 No Approved
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 316 Address
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Total
Capacity
Expected
Completion
Date (Year)
Projects that
contain Deedrestricted
Affordable Lower
Income Units
Site Status
601 Escuela Ave 2 2 21 25 2025 Yes Approved
773 Cuesta Drive 0 0 3 3 2024 No Approved
777 W Middlefield Rd 0 144 364 508 2025 Yes
Under
Construction
828-836 Sierra Vista Ave
and 1975/1979 Colony St
1 0 14 15 2024 Yes Approved
851-853 Sierra Vista
Avenue
0 0 6 6 2023 No
Under
Construction
901 E El Camino Real 45 0 0 45 2023 Yes Approved
950 West El Camino Real 70 0 1 71 2022 (August) Yes
Under
Construction
City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 119 1 0 120 2026 Yes Approved
1265 Montecito Ave 84 1 0 85 2026 Yes Approved
730 Central Ave 2 0 19 21 2026 Yes Approved
Grand Total 533 248 2,984 3,765
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 317 Table 53: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summarized by Neighborhood
Neighborhood Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Net
New Units
Central Neighborhoods 194 3 226 423
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 45 0 471 516
Moffett/Whisman Road 78 218 1,271 1,567
Monta Loma/Farley/Rock Street 85 1 20 106
North Bayshore 100 0 220 320
San Antonio/Rengstorff 29 21 703 753
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 2 5 73 80
Grand Total 533 248 2,984 3,765
Table 54: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summarized by Precise Plan
Precise Plan Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Net New
Units
Downtown 119 1 0 120
East Whisman 24 38 346 408
El Camino Real 119 7 92 218
North Bayshore 100 0 220 320
San Antonio 29 21 682 732
Villa Mariposa 3 0 204 207
Not in Precise Plan 139 181 1,440 1,760
Grand Total 533 248 2,984 3,765
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 318 Figure 96: Pipeline Projects
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 319 Proposed Projects: Proposed Projects are Pipeline Projects that are seeking entitlements, including those where formal applications or pre-applications have been submitted. Building 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. There are 14 parcels, totaling approximately 24.5 acres, that yield 2,021 units identified as Proposed Projects in the sites inventory. With the exception of 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue, 1012 Linda Vista, and 87 E Evelyn Ave, all Proposed Projects do not require rezoning as these sites conform to the current General Plan and zoning. Refer to Table 55 for all Proposed Projects.

Table 55: Proposed Pipeline Projects Summary by Address Site Address/
Intersection
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Expected
Entitlement
Date
(Year)
Projects
that
contain
Deedrestricted
Affordable
Lower
Income
Units
1332 Park Dr 0 0 2 2 2023 No
615-749 W El
Camino Real 33 0 266 299 2023 Yes
89 W El Camino
Real
61 0 0 61 2024 Yes
918 Rich Ave 3 1 24 28 2023 Yes
96 W El Camino
Real
70 0 0 70 2024 Yes
320 Logue Ave 30 25 309 364 2023 Yes
685 E Middlefield
Rd
138 0 690 828 2023 Yes
266/272 Tyrella
Ave
6 0 36 42 2024 Yes
1012 Linda Vista 69 0 0 69 2023 Yes
87 E Evelyn
Avenue
150 0 0 150 2024 Yes
1020 & 1040 Terra
Bella Ave
108 0 0 108 2023 Yes
Grand Total 668 26 1,327 2,021
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 320 Lower and moderate-income units among the Proposed Projects are based on submitted applications, site capacities and other available information. While the ultimate number of units may change a small amount based on unforeseen circumstances, these projects are committed to very nearly the identified number of lower- and moderate-income units based on the City’s BMR requirements and current Council goals.

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

Table 56: Proposed Pipeline Projects Summarized by Neighborhood Neighborhood
Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Net New
Units
Central Neighborhoods 70 0 0 70
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 150 0 0 150
Moffett/Whisman Road 351 25 1,035 1,411
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 97 1 292 390
Grand Total 668 26 1,327 2,021
Table 57: Proposed Pipeline Projects Summarized by Precise Plan Precise Plan Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Net
New Units
East Whisman 168 25 999 1,192
El Camino Real 164 0 266 430
Not in Precise Plan 336 1 62 399
Grand Total 668 26 1,327 2,021
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 321 Proposed Projects – Rezoning Required (Affordable Development): Proposed Project sites identified within this subcategory require rezoning, which, except for 1020 & 1040 Terra Bella Avenue, were completed concurrently with the Housing Element and approved on February 14, 2023. They are sites that the City or affordable housing developers have acquired with the intent to redevelop, as shown in Table 58. Where the City is proactively rezoning, applicants will likely use the SB 35 process and the City and developer can be confident that they will proceed within the timeframe of the Housing Element. For 1020 & 1040 Terra Bella Avenue, the rezoning process is occurring with the development approvals, which is tentatively scheduled for March 28, 2023. The number of units assumed on each site are based on discussions with the developers and are corroborated by the capacities of nearby and similar affordable housing developments. Sites in this subcategory include six sites on parcels totaling approximately 7.4 acres. Refer to Figure 97.

Table 58: Proposed Pipeline Projects (Rezoning) Summarized by Project Address Site Address
Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Total Unit
Capacity
1020 & 1040 Terra Bella
Ave
108 0 0 108
87 E Evelyn Avenue 150 0 0 150
1012 Linda Vista 69 0 0 69
Grand Total 327 0 0 327
Several of the Proposed Projects are 100 percent affordable developments. While these projects are at different points in the review process, all are expected to be developed within the 6th Cycle, even though they depend on City action, including funding, to proceed. Table 59 shows the status and steps necessary to bring these developments to fruition. A tentative timeline is also shown. In addition, Programs 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. ensure that these projects will continue to move forward.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 322 Table 59: Status and Expected Timeline of Major Proposed Affordable Developments Address Sponsor City Subsidy
Expected
Affordable
Units
Estimated
Construction
Start
Next Steps
(planning entitlement, building plans preparation,
building permit issuance, construction. etc.)
89 W. El
Camino Real
First
Community
Housing
pending NOFA
committee 61 2024/2025
 Plan development and NOFA Process — less
than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
96 W. El
Camino Real Danco pending NOFA committee 70 2024/2025
 Plan development and NOFA Process — less
than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
1020 Terra Bella
Avenue Alta $13.5 million 108 2023/2024
 Plan development, rezoning and NOFA
Process — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
87 E. Evelyn
Avenue
TBD pending
development
agreement
150 2025/2026  City-leased with intent to own & will be rezoned with Housing Element Update
 Select developer— less than 1 year
 Plan preparation & funding—approx. 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
1012 Linda
Vista Avenue
Alta pending NOFA
committee
69 2024/2025  Will be rezoned with Housing Element Update  Plan development and NOFA Process — less
than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
Source: City of Mountain View, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 323 Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites
These sites were filtered and selected as described in the “Site Selection Process” section, and will support multi-family housing at a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Almost all of these sites (95 percent) are within the recently updated Precise Plans for Downtown, East Whisman, El Camino Real, Evandale, Grant-Phyllis, North Bayshore, and San Antonio, which are well distributed throughout the City as illustrated in Figure 97. As shown in Table 60 and Table 61, the Opportunity Sites identified will provide capacity to develop at least 10,485 units across all City neighborhoods, within seven Precise Plans.

Nineteen Opportunity Sites occur in two master plans involving long, multi-year development agreements: Middlefield Park (East Whisman Precise Plan) and North Bayshore. These master plans are large, complex, multi-year development proposals initiated by the property owner. They are zoning-compliant and do not require legislative approvals. Applications have been submitted for these Master Plans which include the proposed housing units as described below. Both plans are multi-year developments and will provide a combination of affordable and market-rate housing. The City is not taking credit for 100 percent of the build-out of the Master Plans (only the portion reasonably expected to occur within an 8-year period or by 2031). Refer to the City of Mountain View homepage at www.mountainview.gov for more information on these master plans. For more details on the unit distribution of Proposed Projects, refer to Table 55 and Table 56.

 North Bayshore Master Plan: A formal application for this Proposed Project was submitted in September 2021. It includes a Development Agreement for 30 years which totals 7,000 units over that time. As of January 1, 2023, the application proposes approximately 534 lower-income units, 140 moderate-income units and 2,671 above-moderate-income units for the first two phases of the eight-phase plan. This is the amount assumed during the 2023- 2031 planning period, and represents less than half of the anticipated units the project that is counted for this cycle. This is reasonable because this Master Plan and Development Agreement includes a phasing plan that requires construction of residential early in the entitlement period. In addition, the moderate-income units are conservatively not counted, because they are not required to meet the 15% minimum requirement. The following is the anticipated timeline for development of the affordable units:
o Land dedication anticipated in Master Plan— Phase 1 by 2026; Phase 2 tentatively by 2029
o Start construction within two years from land dedication  Middlefield Park Master Plan: A formal application for this Proposed Project was submitted in September 2020 and a 20-year Development Agreement has been approved, including 1,900 total units. The approved plan includes 338 to 380 lower-income units and 850 above-moderate income units in the first phase of the four-phase plan. This is the portion of the units expected to be built within the 8 year planning period. This is reasonable because this Master Plan and Development Agreement includes a phasing plan that requires construction of residential early in the entitlement period. The following is the anticipated timeline for development of the affordable units:
o Land dedication anticipated in Master Plan— 3 years
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 324 o City to select nonprofit developer(s)— approximately 1 year o Plan preparation & funding — less than 1 year
o Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
o Building Permit — 6-9 months for each site
Program 4.5 commits to facilitating and moving quickly on the development of the affordable units in these projects, which are provided as dedicated land, as soon as it is dedicated to the City.

Table 60: Opportunity Sites Summary by Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Sum of Low
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Net New
Capacity
Central Neighborhoods 58 141 0 199
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 445 69 0 514
Moffett/Whisman Road 1,567 612 1,041 3,220
Monta Loma/Farley/Rock
Street
66 106 0 172
North Bayshore 1,059 192 3,471 4,722
San Antonio/Rengstorff 536 530 0 1,066
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 369 223 0 592
Grand Total 4,100 1,873 4,512 10,485
Table 61: Opportunity Sites Summary by Precise Plan
Precise Plan
Sum of Low
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Net New
Capacity
Downtown 0 8 0 8
East Whisman 1,485 396 1,041 2,922
El Camino Real 848 736 0 1,584
Evandale 0 136 0 136
Grant – Phyllis 201 79 0 280
North Bayshore 1,059 192 3,471 4,722
San Antonio 191 119 0 310
Not in Precise Plan 316 207 0 523
Grand Total 4,100 1,873 4,512 10,485
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 325 Figure 97: Summary of Opportunity Sites

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 326 Rezoned Opportunity Sites
Some Opportunity Sites were rezoned as a result of stakeholder input that was gathered during the development of the sites inventory process. Many of these Opportunity Sites have been rezoned concurrent with this Housing Element Update before or just after the beginning of the 6th cycle.

These rezonings include the following:
 Implementing General Plan Village Center uses and standards at existing underutilized shopping centers throughout the City (including south of El Camino Real where the highest opportunity neighborhoods are located) – Adopted February 14, 2023 (January 24, 2023 for Grant Park Plaza);
 Removing the requirement to obtain legislative approvals in order to build at the highest densities along El Camino Real – Adopted January 24, 2023;  Two sites, 57 and 67 E Evelyn Avenue, that were purchased by affordable housing developers with the intent to develop lower-income units on these parcels within the planning period - Adopted February 14, 2023; and
 Rezonings included in Program 1.1: Nine sites within the Moffett/Whisman Road neighborhood and one site (1702 Miramonte Ave) in the Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis neighborhood that will be rezoned. These sites are not needed to meet a RHNA shortfall and there is sufficient buffer at all income levels within the City’s sites inventory.– currently unscheduled but targeted for completion by December 31, 2024.

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

Opportunity Sites that have been rezoned prior to the start of the planning period or will be rezoned include a total of 37 parcels and yield 1,467 units total. As mentioned above, none of these sites are needed to meet a lower-income RHNA shortfall as of January 31, 2023. Refer to Table 62 and Figure

97. DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 327 Table 62: Rezoned Opportunity Site Summarized by Designation Rezoning Status*
Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Sum of Total Unit
Capacity
Opportunity sites rezoned as
of January 31, 2023 610 311 0 921
Opportunity Sites rezoned as
February 14, 2023 250 65 0 315
Opportunity Sites that require
future rezoning 0 231 0 231
Grand Total 860 607 0 1,467
*None of these rezoning sites are needed to meet a lower-income RHNA shortfall.

Accessory Dwelling Unit
Accessory dwelling unit is a subcategory under the Opportunity Sites project type. An evaluation was conducted to determine the projected number of ADUs to be built within the planning period.

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

Table 63: Accessory Dwelling Units Permitted in Prior Housing Element Cycle Year 2020 2021 2022 Total
ADUs
Permitted 18 31 42 91
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 328 The City issued a total of 91 ADU permits combined in 2020, 2021, and 2022, as shown in Table 63.

This averages approximately 30.33 ADU permits per year (91 permits divided by 3 years). Multiply this average, 30.33 ADUs, by the eight-year planning period, for a total of 243 ADUs projected over the 6th Cycle.

The affordability assumption for ADUs in the City is based on an ABAG regional analysis of existing ADUs in the region. The results of this analysis determined that the following affordability assumptions for ADUs in the ABAG region are as follows: 30 percent of ADUs to very low income, 30 percent to low-income households, 30 percent to moderate-income households, and 10 percent to above-moderate-income households. Based on this allocation, which has been adopted by many other ABAG jurisdictions for their ADU affordability assumptions for this 6th cycle, the City of Mountain View projects 73 very low income ADUs, 73 low-income ADUs, 73 moderate-income ADUs, and 24 above-moderate-income ADUs. Refer to Table 64. Furthermore, a number of Housing Element programs have been created to promote the development of ADUs, including those below.

Refer to Chapter 3: Housing Plan for more details.
 Housing Element Program 1.7: Monitor and Promote Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, and SB9 Developments
 Housing Element Program 2.2: Pilot ADU & SB9 Financial Incentives Program Table 64: Accessory Dwelling Units Projected Over the Planning Period Income
Category
Very
Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Total ADUs 73 73 73 24 243
Percentages 30% 30% 30% 10% 100%
Source: ABAG. September 8, 2021. Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units. http://21elements.com/documentsmainmenu3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file Evaluation of Sites Inventory Through the Lens of AFFH
AB 686 (Santiago) created a new requirement for local jurisdictions to evaluate their Housing Element sites inventories through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The law requires that the site inventory be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with the local jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. HCD’s guidance on implementation of the requirement for the sites inventory analysis states that it should address:
 Improved Conditions: A discussion of how the sites are identified in a manner that better integrates the community with a consideration for the historical patterns and trends, number of existing households, the magnitude (e.g., number of units) of the RHNA by income group and impacts on patterns of socio-economic and racial concentrations.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 329  Exacerbated Conditions: Similar to above, an explanation of identified sites relative to the impact on existing patterns of segregation and number of households relative to the magnitude (e.g., number of units) of the RHNA by income group.  Isolation of the RHNA: An evaluation of whether the RHNA by income group is concentrated in areas of the community.
 Local Data and Knowledge: A consideration of current, planned and past developments, investment, policies, practices, demographic trends, public comment and other factors.  Other Relevant Factors: Any other factors that influence the impacts of the identification of sites to accommodate the regional housing need on socio-economic patterns and segregation.

Overall, the Sites Inventory supports the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing through the Housing Element Update process. The following discussion evaluates how the housing sites inventory for the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element relates to various measures of affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Mountain View does not have any areas that qualify as R/ECAPS; thus, there is no concern about the distribution of lower-income RHNA sites potentially exacerbating R/ECAPS.

While Mountain View also does not have any areas that meet the technical definition for RCAAs, Figure 64 in Appendix B shows that most of the Census Tracts in Mountain View with high proportions of White residents also have relatively high median household incomes. The following subsection evaluates the site inventory in relation to areas with concentrations of White residents.

The findings from that subsection also generally apply to the distribution of sites in relation to areas that have both a high concentration of White residents and a high median household income.

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

While lower-income RHNA sites are not found on every City block, they are distributed across all seven City neighborhoods. Table 65 provides an analysis of the site inventory in relation to the share DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 330 of the population that is comprised of non-White residents. This analysis excludes the Census Block Group where the North Bayshore Master Plan is located (Census Tract 5046.01, Block Group 1), which is analyzed separately below. This Block Group is unique from the remainder of the City in that the units in the site inventory that would be located in this Block Group would significantly outnumber the existing units in the Block Group. As a result, construction of the units in the site inventory could have a significant effect on the racial and ethnic mix in the Block Group as new households move into new units. This potential change could occur even with no change in the composition of the existing households in the Block Group, most or all of which live in a mobile home park and would be subject to various protections under the Mountain View Municipal Code. The existing mobile home park is anticipated to remain throughout the planning period.

Table 65 shows the existing distribution of housing units in Mountain View in relation to the nonWhite share of the population in each Block Group. As shown, almost half (48 percent) of all existing housing units in Mountain View are located in Census Block Groups in which non-White residents constitute 55 to 65 percent of the Block Group’s population. Among units in approved projects, pipeline projects, and available sites outside of the North Bayshore area, 74 percent of lower-income units are located in Census Block Groups where non-White residents constitute 55 to 65 percent of the Block Group’s population, meaning that approximately three quarters of all lower-income units in the site inventory outside of the North Bayshore area are located in areas with a racial and ethnic mix that is fairly typical for Mountain View.

As shown in Table 65, approximately 29 percent of existing housing units are located in Block Groups in which non-White residents constitute 65 percent of the population or more. Among lowerincome units in the site inventory outside of the North Bayshore area, 21 percent would be located in these Block Groups, meaning that the site inventory does not overly concentrate affordable units in Block Groups with existing concentrations of non-White households.

Table 65 also demonstrates that the units in the site inventory are disproportionately located outside of areas with particularly small non-White populations. As shown, 23 percent of existing housing units in Mountain View are located in Block Groups in which non-White residents comprise less than 55 percent of the population. Among units in the site inventory, five percent of lower-income units (excluding those in the North Bayshore area) would be located in Block Groups in which non-White residents comprise less than 55 percent of the population. This is due largely to the challenges associated with identifying viable housing opportunity sites in areas south of El Camino Real, which is where most of the City’s majority-White Block Groups are located. This Housing Element Update includes programs that will help to facilitate affordable housing production South of El Camino Real by allowing affordable multifamily housing in the R1 district when constructed in conjunction with non-profit religious and community assembly uses on large sites (Program 1.4) and facilitating ADU production and SB9 projects (Programs 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2). Units that would be facilitated through these programs are not captured in the site inventory.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 331 Table 65: Distribution of the Sites Inventory by Block Group Racial and Ethnic Composition, Excluding the North Bayshore Area
Block Group Racial and Ethnic
Composition Existing Housing Units (a) Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (b) Less than 55% Non-White 23% 5%
55%-65% Non-White 48% 74%
65% or more Non-White 29% 21%
Notes:
(a) Excludes existing households in the Census Block Group that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Block Group is analyzed separately.
(b) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. Excludes units in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Census Tract is analyzed separately.

Sources: US Census, 2020; BAE 2022.

In addition to the units evaluated in Table 65, the site inventory also includes 5,042 units in the Census Block Group that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. Within this Block Group, non-White residents comprise an estimated 69 percent of the population, higher than is typical within Mountain View. It should be noted that most if not all of the existing housing units in this Census Tract are in a mobile home park, which likely provides a comparatively affordable housing option. The 5,042 units in the site inventory are equal to approximately 14 times the number of existing units in this Census Tract. Of these units in the site inventory in this Census Tract, most (3,691 units) are anticipated to be affordable to above moderate-income households, with the remainder affordable to low-income or moderate-income households. The inclusion of a significant number of above moderate-income units in this area along with the smaller share of low- and moderate-income units will prevent a concentration of lower-income units in this Census Tract.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 332 Figure 98: Housing Sites by Share of Non-White Population DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 333 Concentrations of Poverty Level and Low and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods Overall, Mountain View has very low levels of poverty, and its areas of highest concentration of households with income below poverty level only reach a maximum of 16.4 percent. There is a grouping of lower-income RHNA sites in one of two Census Tracts with between 10.0 and 16.4 percent poverty; however, sites are predominantly located in areas with poverty below 10 percent.

Table 66 demonstrates that the units in the site inventory – including all approved projects, pending projects, and units on available sites – would help to affirmatively further fair housing by expanding low-income housing opportunities in areas with comparatively low proportions of low- and moderateincome households. The table shows that approximately half (49 percent) of households in Mountain View live in Census Tracts where less than 35 percent of households have low or moderate incomes.

Excluding units in the North Bayshore area, approved projects, pending projects, and available sites in the site inventory, 54 percent of lower-income units are in Census Tracts in which less than 35 percent of households have low or moderate incomes. This means that the lower-income units in the site inventory are disproportionately located in Census Tracts with relatively low existing concentrations of low- and moderate-income households.

Table 66: Distribution of the Sites Inventory by Census Tract Low- and ModerateIncome Composition, Excluding the North Bayshore Area Census Tract Income Composition Existing Housing Units (a) Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (b)
Less than 35% Low/Moderate Income 49% 54%
35% or higher Low/Moderate Income 51% 46%
Notes:
(a) Excludes existing households in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Census Tract is analyzed separately.
(b) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. Excludes units in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Census Tract is analyzed separately.

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

The analysis shown in Table 66 excludes the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan area (Census Tract 5046.01). As noted above, this Census Tract is unique from the remainder of the City in that the units in the site inventory that would be located in this Census Tract would significantly outnumber the existing units in the Tract. As a result, construction of the units in the site inventory would likely have a significant effect on the income distribution in the Census Tract as new households move into new units that target households at a range of income levels.

As shown in Table 67, an estimated 53 percent of households in Census Tract 5046.01 are low or moderate-income households, making this one of the Census Tracts with the largest concentrations of low- and moderate-income households in Mountain View. This is likely because the most if not all of the existing housing units in this Census Tract are in a mobile home park, which tend to provide a DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 334 comparatively affordable housing option. In total, there are an estimated 370 existing households in this Census Tract.

Among approved projects, pipeline projects, and units on available sites, 27 percent of the units in this Census Tract would consist of low- or moderate-income units, a significantly lower proportion than among existing households in this Census Tract. Assuming no change in the household income distribution among existing units in the Census Tract, the addition of these units would result in an estimated 29 percent of households in the Census Tract having low or moderate incomes. As shown in Table 66 above, approximately half of all households in Mountain View live in Census Tracts in which 35 percent of households have low or moderate incomes, meaning that the construction of the units in the site inventory would make the concentration of low- and moderate-income households in the North Bayshore area lower than the existing concentration in most areas of the City.

Table 67: Site Inventory Distribution of Low- and Moderate-Income Units, North Bayshore Area
Existing Housing Units Units in Site Inventory Total
All Units 370 5,042 5,412
Low-Income & ModerateIncome Households/Units (a) 196 1,351 1,547 % Low/Moderate Income 53% 27% 29%
Note:
(a) The number of low/moderate-income units among existing units is estimated based on the share of existing households in the Census Tract with low or moderate incomes.

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

Figure 99 further demonstrates the findings described above. The figure shows the sites in the site inventory, including approved projects, pending projects, and opportunity sites, as well as the share of low- and moderate-income households in each Census Tract. The map also shows religious sites, where the development of affordable housing will be facilitated by Program 1.4, and areas zoned for single-family use, which are potential sites for ADUs and SB9 projects that will be facilitated by Programs 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2. Apart from the North Bayshore area, the map does not show any significant concentrations of units in areas with large existing concentrations of low- and moderateincome households. Within the North Bayshore areas, most new units are anticipated to be affordable to above moderate-income households, as discussed above, and therefore the addition of units in that portion of the City would not increase the existing concentration of low- and moderateincome households in this area. The map also demonstrates that many of the Census Tracts with low proportions of low- and moderate-income households are zoned for single-family use and include religious sites, and therefore could be potential locations for the construction of affordable units through ADUs, SB9 projects, or development of affordable housing on religious sites.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 335 Figure 99: Housing Sites by Share of Low- and Moderate-Income Households DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 336 Environmental Conditions (CalEnviroscreen)
Sites are well distributed, with significant concentrations of RHNA sites in areas with the lowest percentile (best) scores. There are also concentrations of sites in the City’s areas that have higher percentile scores; however, the City’s percentile scores rise only to 50.5 percent at their highest, meaning that these sites are in areas that still rank well on a statewide basis. Some areas with high CalEnviroScreen scores, most notably the North Bayshore area, are anticipated to accommodate a portion of the City’s RHNA. These areas have high CalEnviroScreen scores largely due to the proximity to Highway 101. While the site inventory does include affordable units in these areas, most of these units are anticipated to be affordable to above moderate-income households. Therefore, the site inventory does not concentrate affordable units in areas with high CalEnviroScreen scores.

Access to Opportunity (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas)
The TCAC/HUD Opportunity Index designates most of Mountain View as either a “highest resource,” “high resource,” or “moderate resource (rapidly changing).” The exception is the Census Tract that is located north of Highway 101, which encapsulates the North Bayshore Master Plan Area. The North Bayshore area currently has access to a significant number of jobs and is the subject of a major precise plan that will bring new development and services to the area, helping to improve access to opportunity. The City prepared and adopted the North Bayshore Precise Plan to create a complete community north of Highway 101, including new neighborhood-serving retail and services, new open spaces, land for a new school, and transit improvements along North Shoreline Boulevard to connect the area to the Downtown Transit Center and the rest of the City. The North Bayshore Master Plan, a development framework to implement the vision of the Precise Plan, is already under review, with approval expected in 2023. This Master Plan includes up to 7,000 dwelling units as well as services, open spaces, a school and mobility improvements to vastly improve the quality of life for existing residents north of Highway 101.

Construction of the units in the site inventory will help to improve access to opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing in Mountain View. With the exception of units in the North Bayshore Master Plan area, more than half (52 percent) of all lower-income units in the site inventory are located in “highest resource” areas and 43 percent are located in “high resource” areas, while five percent are located in “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” areas, as shown in Table 68.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 337 Table 68: Site Inventory Distribution by TCAC/HUD Opportunity Area, Excluding the North Bayshore Area
Opportunity Index Designation Existing Housing Units (a) Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (b)
Highest Resource 41% 52%
High Resource 45% 43%
Moderate Resource (rapidly changing) 14% 5%
Low Resource 0% 0%
Notes:
(a) Excludes existing households in the Census Block Group that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Block Group is analyzed separately.
(b) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. Excludes units in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. These Census Tracts are analyzed separately.

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

Figure 100 further demonstrates the findings described above. The figure shows the sites in the site inventory, including approved projects, pending projects, and opportunity sites, as well as the TCAC Opportunity Index score in each Census Tract. The map also shows religious sites, where the development of affordable housing will be facilitated by Program 1.4, and areas zoned for singlefamily use, which are potential sites for ADUs and SB9 projects that will be facilitated by Programs

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 338 Figure 100: Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 339 Education Domain Scores
The geographic distribution of units in the site inventory will help to improve access to opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing in Mountain View. As shown in Table 69, approximately half (50 percent) of all existing housing units in Mountain View are located in Census Tracts with an Educational Domain score under 80 percent, with the remainder (50 percent) in Census Tracts with an Education Domain score of 80 percent or higher. Among lower-income units in the site inventory, 65 percent are located in Census Tracts with an education domain score of 80 percent or higher.

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

Table 69: Site Inventory Distribution by Education Domain Score Census Tract Education Domain Score Existing Housing Units Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (a)
Less than 80% 50% 35%
80% or higher 50% 65%
Note:
(a) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites.

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

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

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

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

While the site inventory does not concentrate sites for affordable units in areas with existing concentrations of non-White households, it also does not include a significant number of sites in predominantly White areas. This is due primarily to the challenges associated with identifying housing opportunity sites in areas south of El Camino Real, an area that is characterized by high- DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 340 value single-family homes, where most of the predominantly White Census Block Groups in Mountain View are located. While the site inventory does identify some sites within this area, due to the high value of the existing homes and challenges with site assembly, much of this area would be unlikely to meet HCD’s criteria for lower-income housing opportunity sites even if rezoned at to allow for higher densities. This Housing Element Update includes programs that will help to facilitate affordable housing production South of El Camino Real by allowing affordable multifamily housing in the R1 district when constructed in conjunction with non-profit religious and community assembly uses on large sites (Program 1.4) and facilitating ADU production and SB9 projects (Programs 1.6,

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

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

During the public review process for the Housing Element Update, some stakeholders commented that they wished to see more housing Opportunity Sites identified in the more affluent neighborhoods south of El Camino Real and around Downtown. In response to those comments, the Housing Sites inventory process included an evaluation of additional sites south of El Camino Real, including religious sites and shopping centers, and Downtown, including additional City- and government-owned sites. In addition, many programs have special focus on these areas to increase affordable housing.
 While religious sites did not meet the Opportunity Sites criteria, primarily because there are few precedents involving church sites and multi-family development, the Housing Element includes a program (1.4) to allow religious sites additional density when constructing affordable housing developments on their land.
 Several shopping centers south of El Camino Real were identified as “Village Centers” in the 2030 General Plan, where new housing could be allowed in the context of redeveloped neighborhood shopping sites. Zoning amendments adopted with the Housing Element Update implemented this General Plan direction. These sites were included in the sites DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 341 inventory if they are consistent with the underutilized sites methodology (see Rezoned Opportunity Sites section).
 Program 1.1 includes rezonings of several sites in high-opportunity areas, including the Downtown Transit Center, which may be an opportunity for a joint development with CalTrain, and other nonresidential sites south of El Camino Real, such as 1949 Grant Road and offices near Blossom Valley Shopping Center.
 Program 1.3 includes increases to densities in R2 districts with a focus on areas with the best access to high opportunity areas.
 Program 1.11 will track and ensure no net loss of lower-income unit capacity in areas south of El Camino Real and around Downtown.
 Though there is a lack of vacant/underutilized land in the R1 district that meets the State’s criteria for housing sites (e.g., larger than one-half acre, vacant, likely to redevelop in the 2023-2031 time period), there are still opportunities for new housing for lower-income households in the form of potential Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units that could be added to existing single-family lots, as well as the potential for some densification of the neighborhood through the provisions of SB9. Programs 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2 incentivize these types of projects.
 Program 4.5 includes working towards at least 65 lower-income units in Downtown, which is among the highest-opportunity and lowest non-white population areas of the City. This may include use of City-owned sites.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 342 HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets
This space intentionally left blank

Jurisdiction
Name
Site
Address/Inter
section
5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly- Owned Site Status Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Optional
Information 1 Optional Information 2 Optional Information 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW 100 SAN ANTONIO CL 94040-1210 14817001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0 63-89 0.51 one-story glass retailer/service - FAR: 0.258; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 0 30 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.MOUNTAIN VIEW 101 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2701 19742003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.58 gas station - FAR: 0.063; Year Built: 1967 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 35 0 35 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects. Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing approximately 65-111 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.MOUNTAIN VIEW 1010 EL MONTE AV 94040-2321 17007067 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 41-50 0.31 gas station - FAR: 0.074; Year Built: 1955 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 10 0 10 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.35). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1060 LA AVENIDA 94043-1422 11614107 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~71 1.24 one-story light industrial/consultant office - FAR: 0.364; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 61 0 0 61 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1070 LA AVENIDA 94043-1422 11614108 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~71 1.07 one-story USPS Carrier Annex - FAR: 0.334; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 53 0 0 53 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1080 LA AVENIDA A 94043-1422 11614109 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~71 0.92 one-story light industrial/medical clinic - FAR: 0.331; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 45 0 45 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1090 LA AVENIDA 94043-1422 11614110 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~71 0.96 one-story light industrial space - FAR: 0.31; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 47 0 47 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW
110 N RENGSTORFF AV
94043-4222 14736025 Not Applicable Neighborhood Mixed-Use CN 0 ~30 0.44 gas station - FAR: 0.028; Year Built:1958 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0909 Opportunity Site - Rezoned February 14, 2023 Rezoned to allow residential at approximately ~30 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW
112 N RENGSTORFF AV
94043-4222 14736038 Not Applicable Neighborhood Mixed-Use CN 0 ~30 1.72 one-story restaurant and vacant fitness center - FAR: 0.268; Year Built:1960 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 036 036 Opportunity Site - Rezoned February 14, 2023 Rezoned to allow residential at approximately ~30 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1128 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2518 15807025 D Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.42 one-story single tenant medical office - FAR: 0.285; Year Built: 1945 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 21 0 0 21 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1134 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2518 15807026 D Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.64 two-story vacant offices - FAR: 0.154 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 32 0 0 32 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 121 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2701 19742004 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 7.96 large multi-tenant shopping center with one-story buildings (pharmacy and various other retail uses) - FAR: 0.257; Year Built: 1966; located in high opportunity area Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 96 0 0 96 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects. Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing approximately 65-111 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1220 GRANT RD 94040-3227 19314011 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(27) - GrantPhyllis Precise Plan
0 ~72 0.36 gas station - FAR: 0.131; Year Built:1963 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 018 018 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Rezoned to allow residential at approximately ~72 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1220 PEAR AV 94043-1440 11614028 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~157 1.11 single story industrial use building - FAR: 0.347; Year Built: 1977; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to dedicate this site to the City for affordable housing as part of Phase 1 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 118 0 0 118 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1230 PEAR AV 94043-1441 11614095 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~157 1.10 single story industrial use building - FAR: 0.287; Year Built: 1976; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to dedicate this site to the City for affordable housing as part of Phase 1 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 113 0 0 113 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1250 Grant Road 94040-3227 19314012 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(27) - GrantPhyllis Precise Plan
0 ~72 5.62
one-story multi-tenant retail (supermarket, UPS store, grocery store) - FAR: 0.23; Year Built: 1971 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 61 0 211 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Rezoned to allow residential at approximately ~72 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1250 SPACE PARK WY 94043-1434 11614070 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~157 0.72 office space with industrial nonmanufacturing - FAR: 0.416; Year Built: 1959; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to dedicate this site to the City for affordable housing as part of Phase 2 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 73 0 0 73 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW
1255 Pear Ave (Affordable Housing Dedication)
94043 11614094 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~157 1.90 vacant; dedicated to City for affordable housing (cannot be used for anything else) Yes - current Yes - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 112 0 0 112 Opportunity Site - affordable housing dedication Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Number of dwelling units based on capacity analysis provided during entitlement of project that dedicated the property.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1280 SPACE PARK WY 94043-1434 11614071 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~157 0.98 two-story light industrial/science laboratory - FAR: 0.42; Year Built: 1959 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 107 0 0 107 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1288 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2402 15430044 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.96 gas station - FAR: 0.059; Year Built: 1972 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 48 0 48 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

HCD Sites Inventory Table A

MOUNTAIN VIEW
1345 SHOREBIRD WY
94043-1339 11611038 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~71 16.90 four separate office buildings with industrial uses, outdoor recreation spaces, designated bird nesting area, and associated parks; FAR: .323; Year Built: 1984; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential and a range of other uses and dedicate a portion of it to the City for affordable housing as part of Phase 2 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 37 0 284 321 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1350 PEAR AV 94043-1302 11614114 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~157 0.84 one-story vacant, multi-tenant light industrial - FAR: 0.332; Year Built: 1987; Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 92 0 0 92 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW
1375 SHOREBIRD WY
94043-1368 11611028 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~157 4.88 office building with industrial uses - FAR: 0.352; Year Built: 1983; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential and dedicate a portion of it to the City for affordable housing as part of Phase 2 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 110 0 247 357 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW
1383 SHOREBIRD WY
94043-1339 11611022 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~202 1.62 office building with industrial uses - FAR: 0.351; Year Built: 1982; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential as part of Phase 2 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 338 338 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW
1390 SHOREBIRD WY
94043-1338 11611025 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~202 1.80 office building - FAR: 0.282; Year Built: 1982; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential as part of Phase 1 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0345 345 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW
1397 SHOREBIRD WY
94043-1339 11611021 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~202 1.99 office building with industrial uses - FAR: 0.318; Year Built: 1982; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential as part of Phase 1 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0270 270 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1398 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2404 15430015 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 41-50 0.53 one-story six-unit commercial (beauty, computer service, vaping, fitness) - FAR: 0.282; Year Built: 1975 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 16 0 16 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.35). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1435 Plymouth St 94043-1227 11610101 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~202 0.99 multi-tenant retail space with five spaces including restaurants and spaces with vacancies - FAR: 0.204: Year Built: 1990; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to dedicate this site to the City for an affordable housing project as part of Phase 1 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 83 0 0 83 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1500 SHORELINE BL 94043-1314 11613030 Not Applicable North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~157 15.75 one-story single tenant cinema; FAR: 0.10; Year Built: 1986; property owner has expressed interest in residential development Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 100 100 800 1000 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects. Due to large size, potential density reduced by approximately half.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1504 GRANT RD 94040-3214 19312001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(27) - GrantPhyllis Precise Plan
0 ~72 5.08
large multi-tenant shopping center with one-story buildings (grocery and various other retail uses) - FAR: 0.242; Year Built: 1973; located in high opportunity area Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 51 0 0 51 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Rezoned to allow residential at approximately ~72 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1601 N SHORELINE BL 94043-1315 11614058 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~202 1.92 two buildings with industrial uses - FAR: 0.216; Year Built: 1962; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential as part of Phase 1 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0321 321 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1674 SHORELINE BL 94043-1316 11610085 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~202 0.88 single story office building - FAR: 0.339; Year Built: 1983; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential as part of Phase 1 of a multiyear master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0112 112 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1675 SHORELINE BL 94043-1336 11614066 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~202 1.41 two office spaces with industrial nonmanufacturing uses - FAR: 0.293; Year Built: 1958; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential as part of Phase 1 of a multiyear master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0273 273 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1702 Miramonte Ave 94040-3701 18906017 Not Applicable Office CO 0 ~30 0.75 one-story dental office - FAR: 0.335; Year Built: 1955 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 015 015 Opportunity Site - future rezoning (rezoning not needed to meet RHNA shortfall) MOUNTAIN VIEW 1708 MIRAMONTE AV 94040-3763 18906096 Not Applicable Neighborhood Mixed-Use CN 0 ~30 0.32 gas station - FAR: 0.08; Year Built:1955 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0606 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Rezoned to allow residential at approximately ~30 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1742 SHORELINE BL 94043-1318 11610080 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~202 1.86 multi-story office building - FAR: 0.389; Year Built: 1996; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential as part of Phase 1 of a multiyear master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0297 297 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1758 SHORELINE BL 94043-1318 11610079 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~202 0.44 office building - FAR: 0.227; Year Built: 2001; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential as part of Phase 1 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 92 92 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

HCD Sites Inventory Table
A
MOUNTAIN VIEW 1764 SHORELINE BL 94043-1318 11610078 H North Bayshore Mixed-Use P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan 0 ~202 0.50 bike path and open space; property owner has submitted application for development agreement to develop this site with residential as part of Phase 1 of a multi-year master plan Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 92 92 Opportunity Site - North Bayshore Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (4.5). Number of dwelling units based on Master Plan submittal as of January 1, 2023.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1901 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.27 one-story single tenant rental car location - FAR: 0.11; Year Built: 1958 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 16 0 16 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects. Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing approximately 65-111 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.MOUNTAIN VIEW 1905 LATHAM ST 94040-2107 15436007 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.74 one-story retail (convenance, laundromat, restaurants) - FAR: 0.266; Year Built: 1964 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 37 0 37 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1910 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 2.47 one-story six-unit retail (furniture, restaurants, fitness) with tenant vacancy - FAR: 0.318; Year Built: 1984 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 0 30 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects. Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing approximately 65-111 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.MOUNTAIN VIEW 1921 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006060 F Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 1.30 one-story multi-tenant retail (pet store, pool store, auto parts, shipping) - average FAR: 0.22 for 1949, 1921 and 1935 W El Camino Real; Year Built: 1984; part of a consolidated site with common ownership with potential to develop as one project; located in high opportunity area Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 16 0 0 16 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects. Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing approximately 65-111 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1935 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006062 F Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 1.66 one-story multi-tenant retail (pet store, pool store, auto parts, shipping) - average FAR: 0.22 for 1949, 1921 and 1935 W El Camino Real; Year Built: 1984; part of a consolidated site with common ownership with potential to develop as one project; located in high opportunity area Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 20 0 0 20 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects. Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing approximately 65-111 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1949 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2216 17006058 F Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.32 one-story multi-tenant retail (pet store, pool store, auto parts, shipping) - average FAR: 0.22 for 1949, 1921 and 1935 W El Camino Real; Year Built: 1984; part of a consolidated site with common ownership with potential to develop as one project; located in high opportunity area Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0404 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects. Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing approximately 65-111 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1952 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436014 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 1.03 one-story party supply store; property owner is marketing the site - FAR: 0.444; Year Built: 1959 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 61 0 0 61 Opportunity Site - Rezoned as of January 31, 2023 Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects. Rezoned to 2.3 FAR, allowing approximately 65-111 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1953 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2262 17005016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.46 one-story single tenant deli - FAR: 0.084; Year Built: 1970 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 23 0 23 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 1962 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2002 15436012 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.80 one-story single tenant restaurant - FAR: 0.123; Year Built: 1971 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 40 0 40 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 200 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2606 15805112 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 41-50 0.45 one-story single tenant fast food - FAR: 0.131; Year Built: 1969 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 14 0 14 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.35). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 2020 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.64 one-story retail (restaurant, florist, vacuum store) - FAR: 0.077; Year Built: 1951 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 32 0 32 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 2026 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.52 vacant one-story restaurant - FAR: 0.172; Year Built: 1952; site is surrounded by a chain link fence; the building has not been well maintained (signs of graffiti)/boarded up windows Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 26 0 26 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 2034 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437015 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.73 one-story single tenant mattress store - FAR: 0.221; Year Built: 1960 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 36 0 36 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.