MOUNTAIN VIEW 2065 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 17005026 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 1.32 one-story single tenant daycare center - FAR: 0.248; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 66 0 0 66 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 2080 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.45 single tenant, self car wash - FAR: 0.149; Year Built: 1968 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 22 0 22 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
209 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
94043-3909 16028004 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~45 0.55 one-story single tenant fast food - FAR: 0.161; Year Built: 1984 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 17 0 17 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.35). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 2090 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437007 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.56 one-story single tenant, fountain store - FAR: 0.043; Year Built: 1958; building is not well maintained/ boarded up windows Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 27 0 27 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 2098 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2104 15437008 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.45 one-story single tenant fast food - FAR: 0.1; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 22 0 22 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 2100 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1612 14836029 B Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.52 one-story vacant, single tenant retail - FAR: 0.176; Year Built: 1960; chain link fence surrounds the parcels at 2116 and 2100 W El Camino Real; 2116, 2100, and 2124 W El Camino Real are under the same ownership Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 31 0 0 31 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 2105 Old Middlefield 94303 14712041 Not Applicable General Mixed-Use (not zoned for residential) CS 0 ~43 0.73 one-story shopping center (restaurants, salon, vacant retail space) - FAR: 0.260; Year Built: 1988; landowner is supportive of site being in inventory Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 021 021 Opportunity Site - Rezoned February 14, 2023 Rezoned to allow residential at approximately ~43 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.MOUNTAIN VIEW 2116 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1612 14836028 B Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 1.00 one-story vacant, single tenant retail - FAR: 0.17; Year Built: 1995; chain link fence surrounds the parcels at 2116 and 2100 W El Camino Real; 2116, 2100, and 2124 W El Camino Real are under the same ownership Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 60 0 0 60 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 2124 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1612 14836027 B Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.74 one-story vacant, single tenant retail - FAR: 0.402; Year Built: 1960; chain link fence surrounds the adjoining parcels at 2116 and 2100 W El Camino Real; 2116, 2100, and 2124 W El Camino Real are under the same ownership Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 43 0 0 43 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 215 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2605 19304006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 41-50 0.39 one-story single tenant tire store - FAR: 0.077; Year Built: 1959 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 12 0 12 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 223 Moffett Blvd 94043-4723 15844004 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (Moffett) CRA 0 ~72 0.22 one-story retail spaces (flower shop and gym) - FAR: 0.669; Year Built: 1962; landowner is supportive of site being in inventory Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 15 0 15 Opportunity Site - future rezoning (rezoning not needed to meet RHNA shortfall) MOUNTAIN VIEW 2312 ALMA ST 94043 14736037 Not Applicable Neighborhood Mixed-Use CN 0 ~30 0.97 one-story retail (salon, insurance, restaurants) - FAR: 0.211; Year Built:1960 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 20 0 20 Opportunity Site - Rezoned February 14, 2023 Rezoned to allow residential at approximately ~30 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.MOUNTAIN VIEW 2320 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1420 14836001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.40 one-story vacant single tenant retail - FAR: 0.39; Year Built: 1969; a chain link fence surrounds the site Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 24 0 24 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 239 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2605 19304018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 41-50 0.28 one-story single tenant liquor store - FAR: 0.183; Year Built: 1971 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 8 0 8 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 2464 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1421 14828005 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.61 one-story six-unit retail (beauty, wellness, acupuncture, restaurant) - FAR: 0.167; Year Built: 1984 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 037 037 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
2483 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY
94043-2330 14711025 C General Mixed-Use CRA 0 43 1.34
one-story restaurant with two-story office behind - FAR: 0.384; Year Built: 1973; tenant vacancy signs at both 2483 and 2485 Old Middlefield Way which have the same ownership Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 48 0 0 48 Opportunity Site
MOUNTAIN VIEW
2485 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY
94043-2316 14711029 C General Mixed-Use CRA 0 43 0.50
one-story vacant service/light industrial building - FAR: 0.375; Year Built: 1963; tenant vacancy signs at both 2483 and 2485 Old Middlefield Way which have the same ownership Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 18 0 0 18 Opportunity Site
MOUNTAIN VIEW
2495 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY
94043-2316 14711034 Not Applicable General Mixed-Use CRA 0 43 0.56 one-story single tenant liquor store - FAR: 0.168; Year Built: 1977 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 20 0 20 Opportunity Site MOUNTAIN VIEW 2560 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1307 14821008 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Center P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0 ~65 0.75 one-story single tenant restaurant - FAR: 0.175; Year Built: 1981 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 29 0 29 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (2.35). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 2600 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816015 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.50 one-story bank that is part of a multi- tenant shopping center - FAR: 0.19; Year Built: 1972 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0606 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 2630 CALIFORNIA ST 94040-1206 14815018 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0 63-89 1.05 one-story retail (laundromat, convenience store, auto parts) - FAR: 0.193; Year Built: 1900 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 63 0 0 63 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.MOUNTAIN VIEW 2630 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-1117 14816012 A Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 1.79 one-story pharmacy that is part of a multitenant shopping center - average FAR: 0.15 for adjoining sites at 2630 W El Camino Real and Fayette Drive (APN 14816013); Year Built: 1972; part of a consolidated site with common ownership with potential to develop as one project Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 22 0 22 Opportunity Site - 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 2633 CALIFORNIA ST 94040-1205 14815021 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0 63-89 0.40 one-story single tenant restaurant - FAR: 0.099; Year Built: 1964 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 24 0 24 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 282 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
94043-3910 16026007 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~45 1.19 vacant; chain link fence surround the site; no site infrastructure or improvements is present Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 37 0 37 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.35). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 286 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2606 15805113 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 41-50 0.43 one-story single tenant restaurant - FAR: 0.146; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 13 0 13 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
295 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
94043-3909 16028005 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~45 0.45 one-story single tenant restaurant/deli - FAR: 0.09; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 14 0 14 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.35). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW
295 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
16028006 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~45 0.13 one-story single tenant restaurant/deli - FAR: 0.09; Year Built: 1980 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 3 0 3 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.35). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 298 SAN ANTONIO RD 94040-1212 14815017 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0 63-89 0.53 one-story medical offices - FAR: 0.298; Year Built: 1965 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 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 30 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 15801001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.36 one-story single tenant tire store - FAR: 0.27; Year Built: 1965 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 021 021 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 318 Moffett Blvd 94043 15326006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (Moffett) CRA 0 ~72 0.12 single story medical office - FAR: 0.277; Year Built: 1950 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0808 Opportunity Site - future rezoning (rezoning not needed to meet RHNA shortfall) HCD Sites Inventory Table A
MOUNTAIN VIEW
325 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
94043 16052010 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 2.05 one-story light industrial - FAR: 0.373; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 10 0 160 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (2.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW
335 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
94043-4028 16052011 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 0.93 one-story light industrial - FAR: 0.357; Year Built: 1982 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 72 0 0 72 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (2.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW
345 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
94043-4067 16052012 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 1.07 one-story light industrial - FAR: 0.339; Year Built: 1959 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 84 0 0 84 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (2.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 384 SAN ANTONIO RD 94040-1214 14815022 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0 63-89 0.98 one-story single tenant bank - FAR: 0.252; Year Built: 1971 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 58 0 0 58 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 40 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040 15801002 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.20 one-story single tenant tire store - FAR: 0.27; Year Built: 1965 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 012 012 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 400 A MOFFETT BL 94043 15324016 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor CN 0 ~72 1.64 one-story 4-unit commercial (beauty, cleaners, mini-mart, gun shop) - FAR: 0.196; Year Built: 1969 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 82 0 0 82 Opportunity Site - Rezoned February 14, 2023 Rezoned to allow residential at approximately ~72 DU/ac. Rezoning not necessary to meet RHNA.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 401 E Middlefield Rd 94043 16052021 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 147 - 169 4.00 one-story light industrial building - FAR: 0.35; Year Built: 1997; previous applications for residential development on this site, withdrawn due to historic significance of adjacent site Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 150 139 439 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 401 ELLIS ST 94043-2243 16058017 G East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 4.51 multi-story office building - FAR: 0.519; Year Built: 1998; Approved development agreement includes demolition of this building for residential development in Phase 1 (expected by 2026) Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0450 450 Opportunity Site - Middlefield Park Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Number of Dwelling units based on approved Master Plan.
MOUNTAIN VIEW
450 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
94043-4006 16053006 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 147 - 169 1.00 one-story light industrial - FAR: 0.307; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 110 0 0 110 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW
460 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
94043-4032 16053005 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 147 - 169 1.27 one-story light industrial/service agency office - FAR: 0.333; Year Built: 1977 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 139 0 0 139 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 475 ELLIS ST 94043-2203 16058011 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 4.49 one-story light industrial - FAR: 0.335; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 150 52 352 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (2.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 495 MOFFETT BL 94043-4727 15849002 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor CRA 0 ~72 0.96 gas station - FAR: 0.04; Year Built: 1968 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 048 048 Opportunity Site - future rezoning (rezoning not needed to meet RHNA shortfall)
MOUNTAIN VIEW
500 E MIDDLEFIELD RD
94043-2243 16058016 G East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 5.84 multi-story office building - FAR: 0.537; Year Built: 1998; Approved development agreement includes demolition of this building for residential development in Phase 1 (expected by 2026) Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 400 400 Opportunity Site - Middlefield Park Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (3.5). Number of Dwelling units based on approved Master Plan.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 55 Fairchild Drive 94043-2013 16001011 Not Applicable Neighborhood Commercial P(32) - Evandale 0 43 1.15 two-story hotel with five structures - FAR 0.340; Year Built: 1986; property owner has expressed in residential development Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 034 034 Opportunity Site - future rezoning (rezoning not needed to meet RHNA shortfall) MOUNTAIN VIEW 57 E Evelyn Avenue 94041 16065009 Not Applicable High Density Residential R4 0 80 0.56 one-story industrial garage with parking lot - FAR: 0.16; Year Built: 1950; purchased by affordable housing developer Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 42 0 0 42 Opportunity Site - Rezoned February 14, 2023 Rezoned from MM to R4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 595 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2641 19303044 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 41-50 0.40 one-story single tenant paint store - FAR: 0.26; Year Built: 1981 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 12 0 12 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 608 SAN ANTONIO RD 94040-1304 14816017 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan 0 63-89 1.03 one-story single tenant bank - FAR: 0.222; Year Built: 1970 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 61 0 0 61 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW
615 S RENGSTORFF AV
94040-2105 15437009 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.60 one-story four-unit commercial (convenience, restaurant, beauty, laundry) - FAR: 0.207; Year Built: 1974 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 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 624 W EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2508 15806006 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 41-50 0.28 one-story vacant, single tenant car service building - FAR: 0.159; Year Built: 1958; building is not well maintained/ boarded up windows Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0909 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 630 SAN ANTONIO RD 94040 14816016 E Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 2.82 one-story vacant, single tenant grocery store - FAR: 0.292; Year Built: 1972 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 20 0 170 Opportunity Site - 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 67 E Evelyn Avenue 94041 16065002 Not Applicable High Density Residential R4 0 80 1.68 one to two-story light industrial with multiple tenants; some tenant spaces available - FAR: 0.38; Year Built: 1962; purchased by affordable housing developer Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 126 0 0 126 Opportunity Site - Rezoned February 14, 2023 Rezoned from MM to R4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 785 CASTRO ST 94041-2013 15809009 Not Applicable Downtown Mixed- Use P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan 0 50 0.28 one-story vacant offices - FAR: 0.30; Year Built: 1970 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0808 Opportunity Site MOUNTAIN VIEW 789 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2833 19801003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 4.59 electronics store with other retail tenants - FAR: 0.275; Year Built: 1971; located in high opportunity area Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 55 0 0 55 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.
HCD Sites Inventory Table A
MOUNTAIN VIEW 800 MAUDE AV 94043-4022 16057012 G East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 4.97 three office spaces with industrial uses - FAR: 0.327; Year Built: 1968; Approved development agreement includes dedication of a portion of this property to the City for affordable housing in Phase 1 (expected by 2026) Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 179 0 0 179 Opportunity Site - Middlefield Park Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (2.5). Number of Dwelling units based on approved Master Plan.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 810 MIRAMONTE AV 94040-2514 18902024 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.32 one-story single tenant auto repair - FAR: 0.081; Year Built: 1963 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 15 0 15 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 815 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059001 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 0.93 one-story church office - FAR: 0.21; Year Built: 1962 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 72 0 0 72 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (2.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 820 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2836 16110003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 1.37 one story four-unit commercial (restaurant, beauty salon, chiropractors) - FAR: 0.235; Year Built: 1971 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 68 0 0 68 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 825 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2807 19807003 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.29 one-story single tenant restaurant - FAR: 0.095; Year Built: 1968 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 14 0 14 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 830 Leong Drive 94043-2062 15319003 Not Applicable Neighborhood Commercial P(32) - Evandale 0 43 0.78 gas station - FAR: 0.061; Year Built: 1973 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 023 023 Opportunity Site - future rezoning (rezoning not needed to meet RHNA shortfall) MOUNTAIN VIEW 831 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2807 19807004 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 1.16 one-story single tenant used goods retail - FAR: 0.231; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 58 0 0 58 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 835 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059002 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 0.90 one-story light industrial office - FAR: 0.381; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 70 0 0 70 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (2.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 850 Leong Drive 94022 15319002 Not Applicable Neighborhood Commercial P(32) - Evandale 0 43 1.26 two story hotel - FAR: 0.379; Year Built: 1973 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 037 037 Opportunity Site - future rezoning (rezoning not needed to meet RHNA shortfall) MOUNTAIN VIEW 855 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059003 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 0.97 one-story light industrial office - FAR: 0.369; Year Built: 1966 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 76 0 0 76 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (2.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 870 Leong Drive 94043-2062 15319001 Not Applicable Neighborhood Commercial P(32) - Evandale 0 43 1.22 vacant lot with a gate around it - FAR: 0.072; Year Built:1972 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 036 036 Opportunity Site - future rezoning (rezoning not needed to meet RHNA shortfall)
MOUNTAIN VIEW 875 MAUDE AV 94043-4021 16059004 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 0.96 one-story vacant light industrial office - FAR: 0.39; Year Built: 1963 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 74 0 0 74 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (2.5). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 885 MAUDE AV 94043 16059005 G East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~112 1.03 single-story industrial building- FAR: 0.358; Year Built: 1963; Approved development agreement includes dedication of a portion of this property to the City for affordable housing in Phase 1 (expected by 2026) Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 159 0 0 159 Opportunity Site - Middlefield Park Master Plan Maximum Density set by FAR (2.5). Number of Dwelling units based on approved Master Plan.
MOUNTAIN VIEW 891 E EL CAMINO REAL 94040-2807 19807008 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.40 one-story single tenant rental car location - FAR: 0.059; Year Built: 1963 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 20 0 20 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 897 Leong Drive 94043-2042 16001009 Not Applicable Neighborhood Commercial P(32) - Evandale 0 43 0.23 one-story bar and retail space, buildings are vacant and in poor condition - FAR: 0.408; Year Built: 1951 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0606 Opportunity Site - future rezoning (rezoning not needed to meet RHNA shortfall)MOUNTAIN VIEW 910 EL MONTE AV 94040-2319 17006007 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center) P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 1.10 one-story single tenant office supply store - FAR: 0.424; Year Built: 1952; located in a high opportunity area and adjacent to existing residential Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 66 0 0 66 Opportunity Site - 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 975 BAY ST 94040-2626 19314001 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (ECR Village Center)
P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.39 single tenant self car wash - FAR: 0.095; Year Built: 1965 Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 023 023 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 FAYETTE DR 94040 14816013 A Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan
0 63-89 0.32
parking lot (serving adjacent multi-tenant retail) - average FAR: 0.15 for adjoining sites at 2630 W El Camino Real and Fayette Drive (APN 14816013); Year Built: Not Applicable (no building on site); part of a consolidated site with common ownership with potential to develop as one project Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 4 0 4 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW FAYETTE DR 94040 14816014 E Mixed-Use Corridor P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan
0 63-89 0.15
parking lot (serving adjacent retail) - FAR: 0; Year Built: Not Applicable (no building on site) Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 9 0 0 9 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 Moffett Blvd 94043 15326005 Not Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor (Moffett) CRA 0 ~72 0.13 parking for APN 15326005 - FAR: N/A; Year Built: N/A Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0909 Opportunity Site - future rezoning (rezoning not needed to meet RHNA shortfall) MOUNTAIN VIEW N WHISMAN RD 94043 16028003 Not Applicable East Whisman Mixed-Use P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan 0 ~45 0.50 parking lot for fast food at 209 W Middlefield Road - FAR: 0; Year Built: Not Applicable (no building on site) Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 15 0 15 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.35). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on a proportional increase or decrease of similar district’s precedent projects.
MOUNTAIN VIEW S OAK ST 94041 15807007 D Mixed-Use Corridor P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan 0 65-111 0.10 parking lot for medical office at 1128 W El Camino Real - FAR: Not Applicable; Year Built: Not Applicable Yes - current No - Privately- Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5005 Opportunity Site Maximum Density set by FAR (1.85). Maximum dwelling units per acre shown is based on the range of precedent projects.
HCD Sites Inventory Table A
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 349 HCD Sites Inventory Table B: this is intentionally blank
HCD Sites Inventory Table C
Zoning Designation
From Table A, Column G
and Table B, Columns L and N
(e.g., "R-1")
General Land Uses Allowed (e.g., "Lowdensity residential") CN
Neighborhood-serving commercial (Residential mixed-use added February 14, 2023) -
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?n odeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVCOZO_DIV4COIGCNZODIST
CO
Small offices -
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?n odeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVCOZO_DIV5COFICOZODIST
CRA
Multi-family residential up to 43 DU/ac, office, commercial, hotels, etc - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?n odeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVCOZO_DIV6CORETECRZODIST
CS
Commercial services, such as auto repair and contractors (Residential mixed-use added February 14, 2023) -
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?n odeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVCOZO_DIV7CORVCSZODIST
R4
Residential up to 80 DU/ac -
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?n odeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV6HINSR4ZODIST
P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan Downtown Mixed Use (commercial, office, multi-family residential) - https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29700 P(27) - Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan
Shopping center (commercial); General Plan allows residential up to 1.85 FAR (Residential mixed-use added February 14, 2023) -
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=2773 P(32) - Evandale Precise Plan Various. Area A (location of sites) allows neighborhood commercial and hotels - https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=2776 P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.35/1.85/2.3 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29701 P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.85/3.5/4.5 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29702 P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.85/2.35 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29703 P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.85/2.5/3.5 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=32005 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 350 Sites for Emergency Shelters
Pursuant to AB2339 (Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) and (7)), the City must identify sites and zoning districts for emergency shelters.
The land area need for emergency shelter sites is based on the latest point-in-time count (published in the 2022 Santa Clara County Point-in-Time Report on Homelessness, from Applied Survey Research and the County of Santa Clara), any pipeline funded rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing units in the City, and a ratio determined by State law. These are summarized in Table 70 below. It should be noted that this is a conservative estimate since the units in Table 70 may be expected to house more than one person.
Table 70: Need for Emergency Shelters
2022 Point-In-Time Count (Unsheltered) 206
Pipeline Rapid Rehousing and Permanent Supportive Housing (See Table 71) 174
Remaining Need 32
Land Area Needed (based on 200 sq. ft per person) 6,400 sq. ft.
Table 71: Pipeline Rapid Rehousing and Permanent Supportive Housing Project Units
Crestview (901 E. El Camino Real) 20
Lot 12 20
1265 Montecito Avenue 41
1100 La Avenida 30
1020 Terra Bella Avenue 27
1012 Linda Vista Avenue 16
96 W. El Camino Real 20
Total Units 174
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 351 The following site can accommodate an emergency shelter and is greater than 6,400 square feet. 860 Bay Street, APN 158-01-039
This is a vacant 10,900 square foot site in the El Camino Real Precise Plan. It has excellent access to transit, since it is 550 feet walking distance from a VTA route 22 stop (the most frequent service in Santa Clara County) with service to Downtown Mountain View and other major commercial and job centers throughout the South Bay and Peninsula. It is less than a 1,500 foot walk to two major shopping centers with groceries (Nob Hill, 99 Ranch, Nijiya), a pharmacy (Walgreens), and myriad other goods and services. It is less than a mile to El Camino Hospital, a major facility with emergency services and Palo Alto Medical Foundation, another major medical facility. Mental health services are provided at the Community Health Awareness Council, less than a half mile away.
Program 1.1 will rezone the El Camino Real Precise Plan consistent with AB2339, allowing emergency shelters without a conditional use permit and identifying objective standards.
APPENDIX
Summary of Public Input F
Countywide Meeting Summary
Mountain View: Introducing the Housing Element Update
A series of countywide meetings about the Housing Element update were held from August to September 2021. Each meeting offered Spanish‐language interpretation and provided community members with an introduction the Housing Element update, why it matters, information on the Let’s Talk Housing outreach effort and countywide trends. Breakout room discussions with individual cities and towns followed.
Who We Heard From
In total 832 registered for the series. Of those who registered for the series, the majority identified as White and over half were 50 years or older. Over sixty percent lived over 21 years within the county, and over half were homeowners.
How long have you lived in
County?
Don't live here 0‐5 years 6‐10 years
11‐20 years 21+ years
5%
62%
30%
3%
Living Situation
Live with friends or family Own Rent Other
1%
21%
69%
2% 7%
Type of Home
ADU Apartment Single family home Mobile or Manufactured home Other Countywide Meeting Summary
Mountain View was part of the August 30th, 2021 introductory meeting, along with Milpitas, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. This meeting offered Vietnamese interpretation in addition to Spanish, courtesy of the City of Milpitas, and outreach for the meeting was conducted in the three languages. Twenty‐seven people who registered for the August 30th meeting identified as living in Mountain View. Of the Mountain View participants, half indicated owning their home. A majority of them indicated that they lived in an apartment or condo and one indicated living in a mobile or manufactured home. Half of participants were between the ages of 30‐49 and half identified as White.
What We Heard
Main Meeting
People were asked to share a word in the chat describing housing now at the beginning of the meeting, and the housing they envisioned in their communities ten years from now.
Now In 2030
English‐language Breakout Session
In the breakout session, participants expressed that they valued living in Mountain View. However, they recognized that there is a substantial imbalance between jobs and housing. They also shared a desire for more walkable and connected neighborhoods, particularly in neighborhoods with more affordable housing options like rowhouses. Participants identified parking as an inefficient use of land that contributes to pollution and raises rental prices as well. Ideas to address these needs included rezoning land for five times the City’s allocated RHNA number to build in a buffer since only 20% of the available sites were developed during the last RHNA cycle.
Spanish‐language Breakout Session
Mountain View residents participating in the Spanish‐language breakout room recognized recent efforts the City has made to boost affordable housing and expressed appreciation for them. At the same time, they acknowledged that much more is needed. They expressed the need for the City to preserve mobile homes, as they are one of the few remaining affordable housing options for many immigrant low‐wage workers. Other housing challenges they recognized are the lack of housing Countywide Meeting Summary
options for older adults and young people, and the lack of options and services for people who are homeless. Participants pointed out that there often isn’t enough of an effort to engage young people in housing discussions and suggested the City focus on engaging them as well. Among ideas to address Mountain View’s housing challenges were: promoting affordable housing opportunities and removing barriers to apply for them, preservation of mobile home parks, a community or tenant opportunity to purchase program, and a young adult housing program.
Post Event Survey
The post‐event survey reflected the variety of opinions present on issues ranging from a desire to preserve communities as they are, to an appeal for more and diverse housing everywhere in the county. Community members responded that they valued the space and the information provided within it and would like to have longer times for such community discussions in the future so all participants can share their thoughts. Additionally, they suggested the City target outreach for future housing element engagement opportunities to the local day worker center and the Mobile Home Alliance.
Mountain View Appendix
Main Meeting
Questions from Feedback form
NA
Breakout Room Chat and/or Notes
Questions:
N/A
Comments
N/A
Responses to facilitator questions:
What is working in Mountain View? (In the chat, share a word or two about what you value or love about your community and it’s housing.)
Rowhouses: Nice rowhouses but disconnected ‐ uncomfortable walking environment. Would like to see neighborhoods that are walkable, and also connect to somewhere. This would allow less parking.
I am a part of a housing association that focuses on community organizing. It’s great to be in these kinds of meetings. Mountainview has to add 11,135 housing units according to the RHNA 2023‐2031 plan. Of those, 2,773 have to be for very low income houses.
There’s several affordable housing units and Mountainview has mobile parks. Someone in the chat (Doris) mentioned this in the chat: she asked if the housing elements can be applied to mobile homes.
If the owner of the mobile home park for personal reasons decides that he has to get rid of the property. That creates anguish because sometimes they are parks of more than 200 mobile homes. I think it is important to think about the needs of these mobile home parks.
2. What are some of our key housing needs, challenges and opportunities? (In the chat, share a word or two about our key housing needs, challenges or opportunities.) A single parking spot can increase rent by $3000 per year and also contributes to pollution Need enough development in an area to support businesses, etc., to create more walkable areas Jobs/Housing imbalance: Google putting up offices, etc.
A lot of offices being built, every office built makes the job/housing balance worse We’re way behind on park space ‐ City keeps collecting in‐lieu fees It seems that 11,000 additional units is not very high nor is the percentage of housing separated for low income units. What do you think? I think the number is too low ‐ I think the city is trying to help I think the challenges Hispanic families have is the high cost of housing in Mountainview. For example, someone in the elderly, 80 years old, applied for support (to rent an inexpensive apartment) and was asked to have 40 thousand in the bank and that exceeds our ability to pay. She applied to Affordable Housing and was told that she did not have sufficient funds. Hopes are dashed by those high standards If someone has a good credit history, it should be enough. The two dads ‐ dad and mom ‐ have to work and the children are often left alone in order to pay the rent. Family time is sacrificed.
In Mountain View I see that the city is making an effort to support us but there are obstacles that we must work on to move forward together.
There is a housing program: if someone is going to build, the owner can offer to make the units affordable. I see that as positive. It is working well. There are several elements that I do not know but I
3. What ideas or suggestions do you have to help meet our housing needs? (In the chat, share any ideas or suggestions you have to help meet our housing needs. ) Only developed 20% of inventory sites in last RHNA cycle, need to zone for 5x RHNA in order to accommodate (LA model), we should do the same, otherwise rent will keep going up because not Building in a buffer
When an owner decides to sell their property, it would be good if they had contemplated offering the city to work with the city in order to serve the needs of the community. But I see that sometimes they prefer to offer it to other private / for‐profit actors. It would be good to enter into negotiations to San José has a similar program. It gives the option to NGOs or non‐profit organizations. Perhaps Mountain View will be encouraged to adopt something similar.
I am concerned about homeless street dwellers. I want them to have a home. I don't see it much but once in a while I have seen it near my home. It is not a problem of a single city ‐ it is of the whole My daughter told me that it would be good to have a program for young people who want to be able to save for their housing needs. It is important to involve young people.
4. How can we make sure we hear from our entire community? Neighborhood meetings: neighborhood associations ‐ Reach out to ones you have contacts for that have regular meetings and make sure community knows about plans that affect that particular I think it is important to spread the word. I did not know about this Housing Elements process. As we were told, it only happens every 8 years. Perhaps my colleagues had problems entering through Zoom.
I think there were several steps and it would be easier not to have the registration process but to simply be able to access with a single button. That can help those struggling with technology and with We use email or whatsapp. The city of Mountain View has a WhatsApp of ambassadors and with great pride I am part of that group. There is another group of “Mountain View High School parents” and I am also part of that group. Churches and other community groups can also help spread the word.
5. What Kind of Housing Do We Have in the Future (Let’s return to it being 2030, and how we’ve accomplished a lot! In the chat, share with us a word or two about your vision for the housing in our No responses
It's 2030, and we've accomplished a lot! What kind of housing is in our community now? No responses
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WORKSHOP #1
September 23, 2021 - 6:30-8:00pm
The purpose of the Housing Element Update Workshop was to provide an overview of the intention, components, and process of a Housing Element Update and gather questions and comments from participants about housing concerns, goals, and characteristics. Feedback received will inform the content of future outreach events, and will guide in preparing the Housing Element Update.
The meeting was held via Zoom on Thursday, September 23, 2021 from 6:30-8:00pm and was facilitated by City staff and the consultant team. Live simultaneous Mandarin interpretation was available, and there were approximately 40 public participants. The format of the meeting is described in the agenda below:
● Welcome & Introductions & Live Poll: Demographic Questions ● Housing Element Update Presentation: Overview of the Project & Process ● Live Poll: Housing Questions
● Small Group Discussion Breakout rooms
● Small Group Report Out
● Closing and Next Steps
ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: A total of 60 individuals registered; 38 attended Presenters
● City – Ellen Yau
● BAE– Stephanie Hagar
● Plan to Place – Dave Javid
Consultant Team
● BAE – Stephanie Hagar
● ESA - Evan Wasserman
● Plan to Place – Dave Javid, Paul Kronser, Rachael Sharkland Housing Element Update Workshop #1 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Dave Javid and Ellen Yau opened the meeting by welcoming attendees, giving an agenda overview, and opening the demographic live poll (see results below). After the poll closed, Stephanie Hagar delivered a presentation offering an overview of the Housing Element Update project and process, which was recorded and will be posted on the website for public access.
After the presentation, Dave gave an overview of the small group breakout logistics and opened the second live poll to garner feedback related to housing priorities.
Demographic Poll Results (Full results in appendix)
● Age:
○ 36% of the attendees were between the ages of 26-45;
○ 29% were between 46-64;
● Race and Ethnicity:
○ 50% White
○ 32.1% Asian
● Do you currently rent or own the home you live in?
○ 53.6% Own
○ 39.3% Rent
● What type of housing do you live in?
○ 46.4% Home/ Duplex
○ 39.3% Apartment
● Which bracket best describes your household income
○ 78.6% $100,000 or more
○ 17.9% $60,000 to $99,999
● Which of the following describes why you decided to attend tonight’s workshop? (May select more than one)
○ 82.1% I live in Mountain View
○ 14.3% I want to know more about the Housing Element Update Process Housing Poll Results (Full results in appendix)
● How satisfied are you with your current housing situation? ○ 32% Satisfied
○ 25% Somewhat satisfied
● How satisfied are you with the affordability of housing in Mountain View? ○ 46.4% Dissatisfied
○ 25% Somewhat dissatisfied
● How satisfied are you with the variety of housing types that are available in Mountain View?
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 2
○ 35.7% Dissatisfied
○ 21.4% Somewhat dissatisfied
● How do you feel about the amount of new housing that has been built in Mountain View during the past few years?
○ 46.4% Too little has been built
○ 21.4% Somewhat too much has been built
● How Well do you think Mountain View provides access to housing and opportunity for all segments of the population, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, disability, status etc? ● 46.4% Neutral
● 25% Not Well
The majority of the meeting was devoted to gathering input from meeting participants through facilitated small group discussions. Feedback was recorded in a virtual whiteboard in response to the discussion prompts below The summary below provides a high-level overview of themes that emerged from the break-out discussions.
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 3
BREAK OUT DISCUSSION PROMPTS AND SUMMARY
The following questions were asked in each small break out room. Participants were encouraged to raise their virtual hands and offer verbal responses, or could respond via Chat.
The Main Takeaways section below provides a high level summary of responses collected from each of the 3 breakout rooms. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of breakout rooms in which the referenced comment was expressed.
Discussion Prompts:
1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Mountain View?
2. What do you think Mountain View should do to address Housing needs or goals?
3. What characteristics do you want to see in housing over the next 10 years?
4. What suggestions do you have for Mountain View to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?
Main Takeaways:
1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Mountain View? ○ We need more affordable housing. (3)
○ There is a lack of Senior housing. (1)
○ We need more types of housing at all income levels. (3) ○ The lack of housing at all levels is largely because it isn't legal according to planning and zoning code to build at needed densities. (1) ○ The densities needed to make building housing profitable for a developer aren’t permitted. (1)
○ The City should thoughtfully locate new housing units and consider existing housing stock, co-location with jobs and transit. (3)
○ City should concentrate higher density housing in Precise Planned areas / planned communities. (1)
○ We have an imbalance between office space and housing (office space outcompetes housing). (2)
○ Minimum parking requirements, setbacks, and height requirements are too restrictive and prevent housing from being built. (1)
○ Concern expressed around buildings 3 stories and higher directly adjacent to single family homes. (2)
○ We should reduce the costs and time it takes to build in order to incentivize housing at all levels. (2)
2. What do you think Mountain View should do to address Housing needs or goals? ○ Support expressed for exploring rezoning as a strategy to allow for higher densities. (3)
○ The City should simultaneously plan for more infrastructure when planning for housing (i.e. wider roads, more parks, sidewalks, better connection to public transit, schools and other services). (2)
○ The City should fund down payment assistance programs. (1) ○ The City should make it easier to develop smaller, infill sites. (2) ○ The City should change regulations, especially parking requirements (lower or unbundle) to encourage housing construction. (2)
○ The Housing element should address the difficulty of production, because lack of supply is one of the main issues. (2)
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 4
○ Concern expressed about parking and traffic congestion. (2) ○ The Housing Element should include non-traditional housing types (ie. stacked flats, co-ops, and ADUs). (2)
○ Building new housing is an opportunity for more walkable/interconnected neighborhoods. (1)
○ The City needs to do more precise plans, and less broad sweeping changes on rezoning / new construction due to the wide variety of housing types co-existing already. (1)
3. What characteristics do you want to see in housing over the next 10 years? ○ The City should focus on the mitigation/ elimination of homelessness. (2) ○ Tech companies are one of the main pressures increasing housing costs. (2) ○ Desire to see corporate/tech neighbors paying for infrastructure, housing, transit and other public services. (2)
○ Focus on continued support for more diverse demography in Mountain View; diversity is an asset. (2)
○ I would like to see environmentally responsible development (recycled water, solar etc.). (2)
4. What suggestions do you have for Mountain View to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?
○ City should solicit feedback from everyone who works in Mountain View, survey at offices/ employers. (2)
○ There should be more outreach to renters (eg. posting ads on Craigslist, mailers in utility bills). (2)
○ The City should reach out to leverage neighborhood associations. (1) ○ City should try to reach out to future/ potential residents. (1) ○ Please offer Spanish interpretation. (1)
○ Reach out to Mountain View Day worker center, grocery stores, mobile home alliance, CSA’s, rent relief, next door and community forums, connect with different faith communities, and contact authors of
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6786z5j9 (1).
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 5
APPENDIX
LIVE POLL: DEMOGRAPHIC RESULTS
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 6
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 7
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 8
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 9
LIVE POLL: HOUSING RESULTS
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 10
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 11
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 12
Housing Element Update Workshop #1 13
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM SUMMARY
September 23, 2021 - January 2nd, 2022
The purpose of the Housing Element Update is to guide how the City seeks to produce new housing, preserve existing housing, ensure fair access to housing, prevent displacement of existing residents, and meet other critical housing needs over the next 8 years as required by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development. To gather feedback and reach a broader audience, an online feedback form was prepared to gather input from the Mountain View community in addition to other engagement efforts.
The online feedback form was made available on the project website (www.mvhousingelement.org) from September 23rd, 2021 through January 2nd, 2022. The survey link was shared at community events (e.g. Monster Bash, Tree Lighting), via social media and community chat groups, published in City publications, and sent to stakeholders and interested parties who signed up for project notifications. A total of 343 responses were received in English, Russian, Spanish and Chinese. Feedback received will inform the content of future outreach efforts, and will guide the development of the Housing Element.
The following questions were included in the online feedback form.
1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Mountain View (select top 5)?
2. What do you think Mountain View should do to support more housing construction?
3. What do you think Mountain View should do to make housing more affordable ?
4. What do you think Mountain View should do to provide more housing for residents with special housing needs?
5. What do you think Mountain View should do to protect existing renters and homeowners?
6. What characteristics do you want to see in housing over the next 10 years?
7. What suggestions do you have for Mountain View to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?
8. What is one thing that you think is most important for us to consider as part of the Housing Element Update?
9. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Below is a summary of the input received through the multiple choice questions, followed by common themes captured from the open ended “Other” option that accompanied each question (see complete list of responses at www.mvhousingelement.org). Numbers in parentheses after each common theme indicates the number of responses that were accounted for.
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 1
ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM SUMMARY: MULTIPLE CHOICE
QUESTIONS 1-5
1. WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE MOST CRITICAL HOUSING ISSUES IN MOUNTAIN VIEW (SELECT TOP 5)?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Need for Complementary Infrastructure/Services to Support Housing (5) ○ Excessive Development (5)
○ Neighborhood Preservation (5)
○ Need for Innovation and Diversity in Housing Types (4) ○ Environmental Quality (e.g. open space, trees) (4)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 2
2. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO SUPPORT MORE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Limit Housing Growth (11)
○ Allow/Encourage Mixed Use (4)
○ Reduce/Remove Governmental Constraints (4)
○ Redevelop Obsolescent Offices with Housing (3)
○ Advocate for Regional Cooperation (3)
○ Ensure Adequate Infrastructure to Support Housing (3) ○ City As Developer (3)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 3
3. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Build More Housing (5)
○ Not The City's Role/Do Nothing (5)
○ Provide Incentives and Streamline Approvals (3)
○ Focus Housing Near Transit (2)
○ Improve Transit Service (2)
○ Leverage Public Land for Affordable Housing (2)
○ City As Developer (2)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 4
4. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING FOR RESIDENTS WITH SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Nothing Needs To Be Done (7)
○ Advocate for Regional Cooperation (4)
○ Not Familiar With Issue/Needs (3)
○ Provide Funding for Accessible Housing (3)
○ Develop Accessible Housing (2)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 5
5. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD DO TO PROTECT EXISTING RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS?
● Common themes for open-ended response for ‘Other’:
○ Nothing Needs to be Done (11)
○ Control Costs or Provide Financial or Displacement Assistance (5) ○ Preserve Neighborhoods (5)
○ Create Local Funding Mechanism (3)
○ Enforce Existing laws/policies (3)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 6
OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS 6-9 - COMMON THEMES FOR
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
6. WHAT CHARACTERISTICS DO YOU WANT TO SEE IN HOUSING OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS?
○ More Supply and Density
○ Affordable Housing Across Socio-Economic Spectrum
○ Small-Scale Infill/Existing Neighborhood Preservation ○ Transit-Oriented Development
○ Diverse Housing Options (e.g. special needs housing)
○ Maintain Quality of Life and Environment
○ Limit Growth and Density
○ Quality and Unique Design
○ Evaluate Review Process/Fees/Regulations
7. WHAT SUGGESTIONS DO YOU HAVE FOR MOUNTAIN VIEW TO SOLICIT ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE?
○ Comments received regarding what groups the City should outreach to:
■ Community Organizations/Neighborhood Groups (8)
■ Workers/Businesses (5)
■ Families with children (4)
■ Renters (4)
■ Low-Income/Unhoused (3)
■ Homeowners (3)
○ Comments received on the best methods to take feedback from the community:
■ Community Meetings/Workshop/Pop-ups (8)
■ Surveys (5)
■ Go to existing meetings (2)
○ Comments received on the best method to conduct outreach:
■ Direct Mailing (11)
■ Social Media//Online/Email (6)
■ City Bills & Newsletter/City Locations (e.g. Library/Senior Center) (6) ■ Article (3)
■ Door to Door (flyers, solicitors) (2)
○ Other comments regarding additional feedback suggestions:
■ More of it (2)
■ Provide more education resources (2)
8. WHAT IS ONE THING THAT YOU THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONSIDER AS PART OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE?
○ Focus new housing on Affordability Across Socio-Economic Spectrum (44) ○ Comments about R3 Zoning Update (32)
○ Increase the quantity and density of new housing. (30) Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 7
○ Focus on new low and/or medium density housing to preserve the existing neighborhoods. (18)
○ Promote new housing near transit centers and create walkable developments. (14)
○ When adding new housing, provide additional infrastructure to support the added residents. (11)
○ Protect the quality of life and environment of Mountain View. (11) ○ Develop funding programs for affordable housing. (8)
○ Provide programs that protect renters. (6)
○ Streamline the approval process for new building and development. (6) ○ Ensure the safety of Mountain View residents.(6)
○ Reduce parking standards for new developments. (5)
○ Include adequate parking for new development. (3)
9. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
○ Limit the density and height of new development/housing. (32) ○ Build more housing in general. (22)
○ Provide more housing that is affordable for families, seniors, disabled, workers, and service providers. (19)
○ Thank you for providing opportunities for community feedback. (17) ○ New housing should be environmentally sensitive. (14) ○ Preserve the City characteristics. (9)
○ New housing should be able to limit the need for automobile use. (5) ○ Protect existing renters from future rent increases.(4) ○ Provide more outreach and education on housing opportunities and existing issues facing Mountain View residents. (4)
○ Recreational Vehicles (RVs) should not be allowed Citywide and should not take up parking needed for Mountain View residents. (3)
○ Ensure that Mountain View is a safe community. (2)
○ The City should work on streamlining the development process and reduce costs associated with building. (2)
Housing Element Update - Feedback Form Summary 8
APPENDIX City of Mountain View
Multi-Family Housing G Violation Checklist
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 381 APPENDIX G: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MULTIFAMILY HOUSING VIOLATION CHECKLIST DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 382 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 383 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 384 APPENDIX Economic Analysis of H Governmental Requirements Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Governmental Constraints for Rowhomes and Multifamily Rental Housing Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint Summary Description of Governmental Constraint Purpose of Governmental Constraint Potential Impacts on Development
Feasibility
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation*
Affordable
Housing
On-site
Inclusionary
Housing
Requirements
The City's inclusionary housing (IH) program requires
developers to provide a percentage of below market rate (BMR) units on-site that are affordable to households at specified income levels. Developers can alternatively
meet this obligation via land dedication, payment of BMR in-lieu fees or other strategies if approved by the City Council.
Providing new BMR housing affordable to a
broad range of local residents and workers
helps meet RHNA goals and other important
State, regional and local policy objectives.
Reduces land values to property owners,
increases development costs, affects market
rate unit pricing, and/or lowers
developer/investor returns. (If developers
cannot meet underwriting criteria or achieve
adequate returns to attract investment, then
development will not proceed.)
Major
Affordable
Housing
BMR In-Lieu
Housing Fee
The City has adopted a BMR in-lieu housing fee to help
fund affordable housing in the City. The housing fee is paid by developers that are unable to fully meet the
inclusionary housing requirement on-site or via land
dedication.
" " Major
Park Land
Dedication Inlieu Fee
Park land dedication in-lieu fee is based on residential land value, which varies by residential density and
geography. In FY 21/22, fee ranges from $57,500 to
$73,200 per market rate unit (see Exhibit 3).
Expanding park land provides new open space
and recreational resources to residents and
students of the local school districts.
Reduces developable land area for housing and
increases development costs for market rate
housing. (See Exhibit 3)
Park Land
Dedication
Park land dedication requirement varies by residential
density with ratio of .0060 acres of parkland per market rate unit for development of 13 du/acre or greater.
Affordable housing is exempt from park land dedication
requirement.
" "
POPA Credit Privately owned/publicly accessible (POPA) open space that meets specific criteria for recreational and open
space use is eligible for a land dedication or fee credit up to seventy-five (75) percent of the value of the land
devoted to the POPA open space.
" "
Schools School Impact
Fees
School fee is based on Statewide Level 1 fee of
$4.08/SF, distributed to the two school districts.
Improving academic resources and school
facilities is important to maintaining quality
public education.
Increases development costs. Minimal
Schools Parcel tax All parcels in Mountain View pay a parcel tax to fund schools. " Increases annual costs of owning or operating housing, which reduces capacity to secure funding to help pay for development costs.
Minimal
Schools Additional
annual
assessments or
taxes
Local school districts are considering levying additional assessments or special taxes to help fund schools. " " Major Parks
Moderate to Major
(rowhome),
Major (multifamily
Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Governmental Constraints for Rowhomes and Multifamily Rental Housing Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint Summary Description of Governmental Constraint Purpose of Governmental Constraint Potential Impacts on Development
Feasibility
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation*
Transportation Citywide TIF City has adopted a citywide transportation impact fee (TIF) for residential development.
Enhancing multi-modal transportation networks
helps achieve circulation, Single Occupancy
Vehicle (SOV) and climate goals.
Increases development costs. Minimal
Transportation TDM - Transit
Pass
City requires a transportation management analysis for
new development, which often includes adoption of a
transportation demand management (TDM) program that
may include offering a free transit pass to residents.
Implementing a TDM program helps achieve
circulation, Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV)
and climate goals while reducing parking needs.
Increases annual costs of owning or operating
housing, which reduces capacity to secure
funding to help pay for development costs.
Minimal
Transportation TDM- Other
TDM measures
including TMA
Other TDM measures include an onsite TDM coordinator,
TDM electronic signage, shuttles, and/or participation in a Transportation Management Association (TMA).
" " Moderate
Community
Benefits
Provision of
community
benefits
City requires that developers provide community benefits in order to secure certain development approvals,
including increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
Enhancing community amenities, such as
providing space for local organizations and
businesses, helps meet community goals.
Increases development costs and may change
the amount of land available for new housing
units, parks and community amenities.
Minimal
Development
Requirements
Increased
Parking
Requirements
Parking requirements range from 1-2 spaces/unit
depending on housing type and bedroom size. Guest
parking requirements range from .15 to .60 spaces per
unit. Model parking standard requires 1 space for
studio/one-bedroom units, 2 parking spaces for two
bedroom or larger units, with 15% of required spaces for guests.
Providing on-site parking may reduce parking
pressures on surrounding neighborhoods.
Increases amount of parking, which affects
building construction, increases development
costs and may change the amount of land
available for new housing units, parks and
community amenities, plus inhibit reaching multimodal transportation and climate goals.
Moderate
Development
Requirements
Design,
Building,
Infrastructure
Requirements
City requires developer to meet numerous design,
building and infrastructure requirements, which could
result in increased development costs as predevelopment progresses
Enhancing design and building standards, such
as REACH codes, helps meet planning, design
and climate goals.
Increases development costs and may change
the amount of land available for new housing
units, parks and community amenities.
Minimal
Development
Requirements
Extended
Development
Schedule
City requirements and/or processing time frames may
increase the time it takes for developers to receive land use, design, infrastructure, permitting, plan check, and construction related approvals.
Allows additional staff review to help assure
housing meets pertinent land use, design,
infrastructure, and building standards
Increases carrying costs for land and
predevelopment expenses and/or increases
construction costs due to extended schedule.
Moderate
* Minimal - increases development costs less than 1%, Moderate - increases development costs between 1% to 5%, Major - increases development costs by 5% or more.
Source: City of Mountain View Municipal Code, FY 2021/22 Master Fee Schedule and Below Market Rate (BMR) Program, California Housing and Community Development Department.
Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 2
Summary Financial Evaluation of Governmental Constraints Based on Cost Impact Per Housing Unit Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Rowhome Unit Multifamily Rental Unit
Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint
Increase in Development
Costs and Obligations Key Assumptions
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation
Affordable
Housing
On-site
Inclusionary
Housing
Requirements and
BMR In-lieu Fee
Provision of BMR units on-site
that are priced or rented for
less than development cost or
fee payment
Housing BMR in-lieu fee for
rowhome at
$131.06/habitable SF and
multifamily rental at
$100.66/habitable SF
$ 196,600 13.9% $ 80,500 9.3% Major
Park Land
Dedication and Inlieu Fee
Park land dedication or
payment of fee per market
rate unit
See Exhibit 3– Scenario 1
Park Land
Dedication
Proportion of site to be
dedicated.
See Exhibit 3– Scenario 2
POPA Credit Proportion of site to be
dedicated.
See Exhibit 3– Scenario 3
Schools School Impact Fees School impact fee per unit Level 1 fee cost of $4.08/assessable SF
$ 6,120 0.4% $ 4,080 0.5% Minimal
Schools Parcel tax Annual parcel tax payment Parcel tax of $191 per parcel $ 3,141 0.2% $ 16 0.0% Minimal Schools Additional annual
assessments or
taxes
Potential increase in annual
costs associated with new
school funding
Projected at $5,000/year for
rowhome and $4,000/year for
multifamily
$ 82,200 5.8% $ 65,800 7.6% Major
Transportation Citywide TIF Impact fee per unit TIF for rowhome at $5,188/unit and multifamily
rental at $2,905/unit
$ 5,188 0.4% $ 2,905 0.3% Minimal
Transportation TDM - Transit Pass Annual cost of VTA transit pass (discounted for larger
residential developments)
VTA Smart Pass at
$135/year X 2 persons for
rowhome and $135/year X
1.5 persons for multifamily
$ 4,400 0.3% $ 3,300 0.4% Minimal
Transportation TDM- Other TDM
measures including
TMA
Annual contribution to TMA
and other TDM measures
TDM/TMA contribution
estimated at
$100/month/unit.
$ 19,700 1.4% $ 19,700 2.3% Moderate
Moderate to Major
(rowhome),
Major (multifamily)
Parks $57,500-
$74,400 4.1%-5.3% $51,600-$73,200 6.0%-8.5%
Seifel Consulting, Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 2
Summary Financial Evaluation of Governmental Constraints Based on Cost Impact Per Housing Unit Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis Rowhome Unit Multifamily Rental Unit
Constraint
Category
Governmental
Constraint
Increase in Development
Costs and Obligations Key Assumptions
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Cost
Impact Per
Unit
Percent
of Dev't
Cost
Significance of
Constraint Based
on Cost Evaluation
Community
Benefits
Community benefit
payment or
contribution
Cost of community benefits ECRPP community benefit
payment at $6.60/SF for
multifamily but may be lower
elsewhere.
$ - 0.0% $ 5,280 0.6% Minimal
Development
Requirements
Increased Parking
Requirements
Parking increase of .4 spaces
per unit
Estimated increase in parking
development cost based on
0.4 spaces @
$60,000/space.
$ 24,000 1.7% $ 24,000 2.8% Moderate
Development
Requirements
Design, Building,
Infrastructure
Requirements
City design, building and/or
infrastructure requirements
that increase development
costs
Estimated increase at 1% of
building related costs.
$ 6,000 0.4% $ 5,000 0.6% Minimal
Development
Requirements
Extended
Development
Schedule
Increased development costs
due to delays in City approval.
Schedule extended by 4
months multiplied by 50% of
land and construction costs
at 10% equity carrying cost.
$ 16,000 1.1% $ 9,000 1.0% Moderate
Translation of Annualized Cost to Development Cost
Loan Constant as Proxy for Annual Cost 6.08% (4.5% interest, 30 year amortization) Source: City of Mountain View Municipal Code, FY 2021/22 Master Fee Schedule and Below Market Rate (BMR) Program, California Housing and Community Development Dept.
Seifel Consulting Inc. 4/29/22
Exhibit 3
Evaluation of Alternative Park Land Dedication Scenarios Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis R3 Zoning R3 Zoning R4 or ECR & SA PP NBPP, EWPP
Rowhome Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily
Assumed Density per Acre 20 du/acre 30 du/acre 75 du/acre 125 du/acre Park Land Dedication Density Category 13-25 du/acre 26+ du/acre 26+ du/acre 26+ du/acre Park Land Dedication Requirement 0.006 acres/unit 0.006 acres/unit 0.006 acres/unit 0.006 acres/unit Scenario 1– Fee Only – Developments less than 50 units, on Small Sites and/or Undesirable Park Locations (Most Projects) Value per Acre (per Master Fee Schedule) $ 9,580,000 per acre $ 10,450,000 per acre $ 12,200,000 per acre $ 12,200,000 per acre Park Land Fee Per Market Rate Unit $ 57,500 per unit $ 62,700 per unit $ 73,200 per unit $ 73,200 per unit Scenario 2– Park Land Dedication + Fee With Allowed Increase in Density for Multifamily (6 Acre Developments) Assumed Parcel Area 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres
Potential Housing Units 120 180 450 750
Park Land Requirement 0.50 acres 0.92 acres 2.29 acres 3.82 acres Percent of Site Required for Park 8% 15% 38% 64%
Onsite Park Land Dedication 0.40 acres 0.60 acres 0.60 acres 0.60 acres Percent of Site Dedicated as Park 7% 10% 10% 10%
Remaining Development Potential 5.60 acres 5.40 acres 5.40 acres 5.40 acres Density (Increased for Multifamily) 20 du/acre 33 du/acre 83 du/acre 139 du/acre Housing Units on Remaining Acreage 112 units 180 units 450 units 750 units Percent Affordable 25% 15% 15% 15%
Affordable BMR Units 28 units 27 units 68 units 113 units Market Rate 84 units 153 units 382 units 637 units
Remaining Park Land Requirement 0.10 acres 0.32 acres 1.69 acres 3.22 acres Total Cost of Park Land Plus Fee $ 4,828,000 $ 3,323,000 $ 20,642,000 $ 39,308,000 Per Market Rate Unit $ 57,500 per unit $ 21,700 per unit $ 54,000 per unit $ 61,700 per unit Potential Decrease in Units from Park Land
Dedication Reduced Project Value (Market Rate Units) $ - 8 units $ - 0 units $ - 0 units $ - 0 units Scenario 3– POPA Land Dedication + Fee With Allowed Increase in Density for Multifamily (6 Acre Developments) Assumed Parcel Area 6 acre 6 acre 6 acre 6 acre
Park Land Requirement 0.51 acres 0.92 acres 2.29 acres 3.82 acres POPA Dedication 0.6 acres 0.9 acres 0.9 acres 0.9 acres Potential POPA Dedication Credit 0.45 acres 0.675 acres 0.675 acres 0.675 acres Percent of Property as POPA 10% 15% 15% 15%
Remaining Development Potential
(Deducting 50% of POPA) 5.70 acres 5.55 acres 5.55 acres 5.55 acres Density (Increased for Multifamily) 20 du/acre 32 du/acre 81 du/acre 135 du/acre Housing Units on Remaining Acreage 114 units 180 units 450 units 750 units Percent Affordable 25% 15% 15% 15%
Affordable BMR Units 29 units 27 units 68 units 113 units Market Rate 85 units 153 units 382 units 637 units
Remaining Park Land Requirement 0.06 acres 0.24 acres 1.62 acres 3.15 acres Total Cost of POPA Plus Fee $ 6,323,000 $ 2,539,000 $ 19,727,000 $ 38,393,000 Per Market Rate Unit $ 74,400 per unit $ 16,600 per unit $ 51,600 per unit $ 60,300 per unit Potential Decrease in Housing Units from
POPA Dedication 6 units 0 units 0 units 0 units
Source: City of Mountain View Municipal Code and FY 2021/22 Master Fee Schedule.
Exhibit E
Modifications to March 8, 2023, Draft of the City of Mountain View 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031
Page numbers reference Exhibit D – March 8th Draft Housing Element 2023-2031 • Added or deleted text to the March 8th Draft presented to EPC, and includes EPC recommended edits
• Gray highlighted text means added or deleted after EPC Recommendation on March 15th Chapter 1, Page 18
The sites inventory portion of the Housing Element Update also responds to input received during the public engagement process. Some specific sites were removed from the inventory in response to input from property owners and the general public that redevelopment was unlikely on those sites.
The City is undertaking a voluntary rezoning effort, not required to meet RHNA, concurrent with the Housing Element Update to increase the capacity in the sites inventory and include additional sites throughout the City, including south of El Camino Real, even though the inventory can reasonably achieve the RHNA without these rezonings. While there are still fewer sites south of El Camino Real compared to the remainder of the City, the site inventory identifies all sites south of El Camino Real with a reasonable likelihood of generating affordable units consistent with HCD guidance regarding likelihood and viability of redevelopment with affordable units.
Chapter 1, Page 20
The City is developing policies and ordinances intends to consider other specific actions that were requested by members of the public but that are not explicitly included in the Housing Plan chapter of this Housing Element Update. Many of these actions will require further analysis by City staff, additional public engagement, and consideration by City Council before the City can define specific future outcomes, and therefore are not included in the Housing Plan at the level of specificity that some of the public comments requested.
Chapter 3, Page 30
Goal 1: An increase in the quantity and diversity of housing options, focusing on active nodes, and walkable neighborhoods with amenities and services.
To achieve this goal, the City will acquire/preserve existing housing units ; address, remove, or mitigate constraints to housing production,; and produce new affordable units.
Chapter 3, Page 34
1.1 Zoning Ordinance Update for Consistency with State Laws Update the Zoning Ordinance to address consistency with the following State laws and HCD guidance:
a) Add provisions for Low-Barrier Navigation Centers in compliance with AB 101 (2019)
b) Add provisions for Employee Housing in compliance with Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq)
c) Add provisions to allow mobilehome parks in all residential zones in compliance with Government Code 65852.7
d) Amend ordinance to add definition of residential care homes and allow residential care homes as a permitted use regardless of the number of residents. e) Amend ordinance to remove unnecessary findings associated with Reasonable Accommodation permits to remove constraints to housing for special needs populations (Program 2.3)
f) Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow emergency shelters by right consistent with AB2339. At minimum, this will include the El Camino Real Precise Plan (consistent with the analysis provided in the sites inventory, Appendix E).
g) Ensure zoning and general plan for all sites is consistent with the Housing Element site inventory and pipeline projects. The following areas will be rezoned, even though they cover more parcels than the site inventory:1
a. Leong Drive and Fairchild Drive properties at the west end of the Evandale Precise Plan (up to at least 43 DU/ac) – the rezoning will also identify which sites will have required neighborhood commercial
b. 1702 Miramonte, 777 Cuesta Drive, and 1949 Grant Road (up to a least 30 DU/ac) c. Moffett Boulevard (up to at least 1.85 FAR, approximately 72 DU/ac) – the rezoning will also identify which sites will have required neighborhood commercial d. 677-699 Calderon Ave (up to at least 30 DU/ac) – with required neighborhood commercial
e. Mountain View Transit Center (up to at least 75 DU/ac)-- in addition, the City will continue to work with and facilitate Caltrain in the development of residential on this site, possibly with other uses
Objectives and Metrics:
• Update the Zoning Ordinance as needed to fully accommodate the City's 6th Cycle RHNA. • Update the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with recent legislation, Government Code and Health and Safety Code regulations.
Milestone and Timeframe:
• Adopt zoning updates for AB 2339 by March 31, 2024
• Adopt general zoning updates by December 31, 2024
• Adopt zoning updates needed for any sites included in the sites inventory by December 31, 2024. If a pipeline rezoning project is not approved by this date, those units will be removed from the buffer. If there is no buffer remaining, then additional sites will be identified through the “no net loss” process.
• Adopt zoning updates annually as necessary to respond to future changes in State law (ongoing).
1 The rezonings cover more parcels than the sites inventory to provide additional housing opportunities, especially in high-opportunity areas.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: Development Services Fund (DSF) and General Fund AFFH Program: Housing Mobility
Chapter 3, Page 35
1.3 Review and Update Ordinance and Precise Plan Residential Standards Review development standards to ensure they reflect contemporary building types, improve ease of implementation and improve consistency across districts. a) Ensure development projects can meet their allowed densities. Conduct a development prototype study, update definitions as necessary for consistency between plans and districts, and revise multifamily development standards in major districts (including R3) and Precise Plans to ensure projects can, at minimum, meet their allowed density and are economically feasible, where possible through reductions of physical development standards. Economic feasibility and the cumulative effects of standards will be inputs in the reduction of standards. Where appropriate, calibrate standards to lot size. Focus on standards with the greatest feasibility impacts on underutilized sites, such as open area, parking, and building coverage.
b) Compile, evaluate and refine requirements outside the Zoning Ordinance, including Heritage tree preservation and Public Works standards and requirements. c) Ensure that zoning code is updated to reflect densities and other standards as required by state law (e.g., SB 478).
d) Adopt a TDM Ordinance that provides clear requirements for residential trip reduction across all precise plans and zoning districts and update precise plans as needed. Through the ordinance, study the cost of TDM requirements on typical residential developments, and allow residential developers to meet TDM goals through lower-cost options. Update the zoning ordinance to allow residential parking reductions for projects that implement TDM and exempt parking requirements from projects meeting enhanced TDM criteria (Program
1.2).
e) Study live-work as an allowed residential use near retail areas, major corridors and other viable locations.
f) Identify additional Gatekeeper exemptions for residential projects based on location, size, affordability and other policy goals.
g) Hold at least one Gatekeeper meeting per year, which may be limited to residential or residential mixed-use projects only, creating greater opportunities for project-specific rezonings.
h) Conduct a review of R2 zoned properties. For all properties, upzone to either allow density greater than typical R1 properties under development similar to SB9 (at least four units per typical parcel, plus ADUs), or integrate the sites into the R3 zone. Sites selected to integrate into the R3 zone should be based on affirmatively furthering fair housing, access to transit, schools and services and other policy goals.
Objectives and Metrics
• Streamline the development review process by updating definitions for standards such as height, open area, common usable open area, floor area ratio, personal storage, pavement coverage and building coverage, and ensuring definitions are consistent with contemporary building types and across the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plans. • Reduce government constraints in multifamily zoning districts (R3, R4, CRA) and four Precise Plans (El Camino Real, San Antonio, North Bayshore and East Whisman) by ensuring that projects can build up to their allowed density, and committing to objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that will facilitate and accommodate development at the maximum density permitted on the site. by reducing standards that have the greatest feasibility impacts on underutilized sites • Reduce government constraints by allowing reduced parking for projects that implement TDM.
• Expand small business access and opportunities by creating live-work spaces in appropriate residential areas
• Increase residential zoning capacity in the R2 zone in locations that further access and fair housing goals.
• Create increased opportunities for project-specific rezonings through the Gatekeeper process Milestones and Timeframe
• Hold an annual Gatekeeper meeting, which may be limited or focused on residential or residential mixed-use projects at Council discretion, and begin accepting Gatekeeper applications before June 30, 2024
• Conduct prototype study and evaluate standards outside the Zoning Ordinance by June 30, 2025
• Update Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plans to reflect reduced standards and live-work by December 31, 2025
• Adopt a Citywide TDM ordinance by December 31, 2026
Responsibility: Planning Division, Community Services Department and Public Works Department Potential Funding: Development Services Fund (DSF)
AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Access to Opportunity
Chapter 3, Page 38
1.7. Monitor and Promote Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and SB9 Developments
Although the City already has a successful ADU/JADU program, t The City will make the following additional program enhancements to further promote them ADUs/JADUs:
a) Develop an ADU/JADU/SB9 Monitoring Survey to collect data from project applicants during the building permit application process in order to enhance the existing tracking of
ADUs/JADUs/SB9 production with more details such as occupancy status and rent levels at time of occupancy.
b) Utilize the data collected from the Monitoring Survey to better understand the income groups they serve and inform future improvements to the outreach and educational efforts c) Continue to track and monitor the number and rents of ADUs/JADUs/SB9 Developments proposed and constructed and the progress of meeting RHNA assumptions of 30 12 units per year.
d) Participate in the Santa Clara County Collaborative’s development of an ADU Program and Resource Center which includes a countywide ADU website, plans gallery, guidebook, spotlight stories, calculator, and other tools to increase awareness and provide online assistance tools.
Objectives and Metrics:
• Maintain or increase ADU/JADU production in typically high-resource single-family neighborhoods where otherwise net new housing units may not occur and improve residential mobility and access to opportunity.
• Enable the construction of at least 243 net new units through ADUs/JADUs/SB9 during the planning period through promotion, assistance and other tools. • Determine the obstacles affecting affordable ADU/JADU/SB9 production through monitoring and data collection and alleviate them as needed.
• Streamline ADU and SB9 development through pre-approved design resources.
Milestone and Timeframe:
• Implement ADU monitoring survey by December 31, 2024
• Update City webpage with resources developed by the Collaborative by December 31, 2023.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Potential Funding: General Fund
Chapter 3, Page 39
1.8 Park Land Ordinance Update
a) Complete Phase 2 of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance update and the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Analysis that would support fee reductions could include:
• Review of best-practices for parkland acquisition funding • Pursuit of grants and other funding sources
• Review of the City’s population density assumptions
• Opportunities for private development to provide public open space through existing zoning requirements (e.g., POPAs)
• Development incentives and exceptions to standards for public open space
b) Adopt a Nexus Study that compares the City’s in-lieu fee to other cities, incorporates other sources of funding, revises valuation methodology, considers all or partial payment of fees at project occupancy, incorporates new sources of funding, other opportunities for public open space, and other factors listed above for the adoption of lower residential park in-lieu fees. Prior to the adoption of these fees, reevaluate the cumulative impact of all residential fees.
This responds to input received from market-rate housing developers during the outreach process (see Chapter 1: Introduction, Public Participation section).
Objectives and Metrics: Reduce constraints on residential development by reviewing and revising the park land dedication requirements to maintain access to high quality open space while reducing the financial impact to residential development. Reduce the monetary parkland in-lieu fee payment by at least 20%, on average, across a range of typical residential projects, through reduced fees as determined by the Nexus Study and/or through other ways for developments to receive parkland credit and thereby reduce fees through relaxing regulations on the size and type of privately owned, publicly accessible (POPA) areas and/or allowing parkland credit for new pedestrian connections and trails.
Milestone and Timeframe:
• By December 31, 2024, adopt the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (addressing anticipated open space needs and long-term funding strategies) • By December 31, 2025, adopt the Nexus Study, reduced fees, alternate mitigations and/or other programs to reduce costs on residential.
Responsibility: Community Services Department, Public Works Department and Planning Division Potential Funding: Park Land Dedication Fund and Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund
Chapter 3, Page 47
2.1. Subsidize and Support Affordable Housing Programs
Make funding available and support programs that allow for the City to increase the number of affordable housing units for underserved populations, including:
1. Deeper affordability levels such as extremely low income (ELI) and below
2. Supportive housing, such as rapid rehousing or permanent supportive housing (PSH), for unhoused community members,
3. larger units to serve larger households,
4. people with special needs, including a range of disabilities, and
5. homeownership programs for lower and middle income residents.
Objectives and Metrics:
• Make more housing available to households otherwise left out of the Mountain View housing market, such as whether the calculation of BMR prices/rents cause a barrier to qualifying for the units because HCD income levels increase faster than the incomes of our residents who seek BMR housing.
• Mitigate displacement from a range of unit types, including apartments and mobile homes, through community-centered programs, possibly including COPA/TOPA or community land trusts.
• Produce at least 200 supportive housing units for households who have experienced homelessness.
• Increase the share of two and three-bedroom units in the City’s affordable housing stock. • Increase the number of ownership opportunities for middle-income households, and market those opportunities to historically excluded populations. • Increase the number of units built for special needs populations and market those units to organizations that support disabilities.
Milestone and Timeframe:
• Funding opportunities will be made available ongoing via the City’s NOFA process and other programs.
• Ongoing evaluation of needed units for populations with special needs, and funding opportunities through the City’s NOFA process as needed and available • Staff will evaluate innovative programs over the housing element period, bringing findings to the Council as appropriate. This will include research as part of the 2022-2024 Breakthrough Grant to identify and implement affordable housing funding programs, displacement response strategy, and outreach/education/community building efforts. This may include study sessions on affordable housing and displacement. Once research is complete, if directed to pursue further, develop program with 5 years. • Update Council on the suitability of community land trusts or COPA/TOPA to address unmet needs. If directed by Council, develop program within 5 years.
Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division
Potential Funding: General Fund and local housing funds AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Access to Opportunity, Displacement Prevention
Chapter 3, Page 47
2.6 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Continue to prepare and update the City's Assessment of Fair Housing and implement actions as necessary to remove barriers to fair housing choice, as required by HUD and State Housing Element law.
Objectives and Metrics:
• Remove impediments to fair housing and provide equitable access to housing and opportunity.
• Improve access to affordable housing in the City’s high-opportunity neighborhoods through implementation of programs 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.11, 2.2 and 4.5. • In addition to 65 units through Program 1.4, and 120 units (based on half the City’s R1 properties) expected south of El Camino Real Precise Plan through Program 1.7, the City will develop and adopt incentives and zoning to facilitate property owners south of the El Camino Real Precise Plan (other than churches) to dedicate land to affordable housing developers or build affordable housing. The incentives and zoning will target the development, in expectation, of at least 100 additional affordable units.
Milestone and Timeframe:
• Update Assessment of Fair Housing as required by HUD with the first update completed in 2023, and subsequent updates based on HUD guidance.
• Implement necessary actions continuously as needed.
• Develop and adopt incentives and zoning changes by December 31, 2024. If 40 units are not proposed by December 31, 2027, or if those units do not proceed, the City will conduct further outreach to determine policies that would better encourage these projects and address government constraints. The City will either adopt these policies or other policies that reduce constraints on affordable housing south of the El Camino Real Precise Plan by December 31, 2028.
Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods Division and Planning Division Potential Funding: CDBG/HOME funds and Development Services Fund AFFH Program: Housing Mobility, Access to Opportunity, Place-Based Strategies, Displacement Prevention
Chapter 3, Page 48
3.1 Homelessness Prevention and Services for the Unhoused a) Develop and implement a strategy to support those who are unhoused and prevent people from becoming unhoused
b) Continue to partner with the Mountain View Los Altos Community Services Agency (CSA), LifeMoves and similar agencies that provide services and/or shelter to the unhoused community members, such as offering financial support and advertising available programs to residents living in the City.
c) Participate in regional homeless programs that support short-term shelter and transitional housing programs that accommodate families and individuals from Mountain View. d) Allow emergency shelters pursuant to AB 2339 (see program 1.1) Objectives and Metrics:
• Prevent households from becoming homeless, for example, fewer evictions than in the past • Available safety net services for those who need them (such as shelter) - maintain at least 100 shelter or interim housing spots
• A range of housing options to move households from homelessness to permanent housing, including the development of at least 200 supportive housing units • Mobility out of homelessness and into permanent housing, with data showing households moving from shelter and interim housing to Mountain View-based permanent housing Milestone and Timeframe:
• Develop strategy by December 31, 2024. Strategy will address critical programs to prevent and respond to homelessness including:
o Funding for rental assistance or financial assistance programs to prevent homelessness, which the City funds annually. Preferences for new housing for households who experienced or are at risk of experiencing displacement at Citysubsidized housing developments or in BMR units o Funding and incentives for the development of shelter, interim housing, and supportive housing, including via City funds and federal funds o The creation of comprehensive pathways for households to move from homelessness to City-subsidized supportive housing units
o New and expanded partnerships to address populations at risk of homelessness and continue to work with the County and to fund countywide shelters and beds for survivors of such as domestic violence victims, especially women and children. • Annually support CSA, LifeMoves and other partner agencies as part of Annual Plan. • Regularly support the development of permanent housing via regular NOFA process or through marketing City-owned sites.
• See program 1.1 for AB2339 timeframe
Responsibility: City Manager’s Office and Housing and Neighborhoods Division Potential Funding: Local housing funds and CDBG/HOME funds AFFH Program: Displacement Prevention
Chapter 3, Page 49
3.2 Displacement Prevention and Mitigation
Prevent/mitigate displacement of households, including those in mobile homes, and prevent the loss of naturally occurring affordable units. Conserve and improve existing affordable housing stock.
Objectives and Metrics:
• Prevent displacement through rent stabilization,; deed restriction,; and housing preservation work,; community ownership models to acquire/preserve at least 50 housing units that would remain affordable (e.g., around 30% of household income) ,; and/or Opportunity to Purchase Act (OPA) Programs,. These measures should include a range of units, such as apartments, mobile homes, and different unit sizes. Eviction levels should not increase or preferably should be lowered.
• Replace all rent-stabilized units through SB 330 and enforce right of first refusal. Develop local replacement requirements to replace demolished rent-stabilized units – details to be determined pending Council evaluation of replacement requirement options, where legally feasible
• Assist all displaced eligible tenants in receiving SB 330/Tenant Relocation Assistance to partially mitigate displacement impacts. Evaluate the efficacy of TRAO in meeting antidisplacement goals, such as being able to stay in Mountain View • Apply for outside funding sources (Programs 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4) and develop funding partnerships to invest at least $10 million to support the preservation/acquisition of naturally affordable units via the community ownership model. • Create a community ownership action plan for a community ownership model/structure that, with community partners, could address housing needs that aren't met through traditional affordable housing and that could take part in preservation and acquisition activities. The action plan will identify the City’s and other organizations’ responsibilities, establish a schedule such that acquisition could occur within two years, depending on the timing of funding opportunities and the fulfillment of other organizations’ responsibilities. • Assist tenants in understanding their housing rights via the Housing and Eviction Help Center (Program 2.5).
• Inform property owners of their responsibilities related to just cause evictions and habitability under the CSFRA, MHRSO, and relevant state laws, via regular webinars (Programs 1.12 and
2.5)
• Maintain habitability of naturally occurring affordable housing via regular code enforcement through the multi-family housing inspection program.(Program 1.12) • Provide benefits and relocation assistance to displaced residents to partially mitigate impacts of displacement, with the goal of having a comprehensive strategy to prevent displacement before the expiration of SB 330. Strategies may include:
o Temporary relocation
o Realistic options for exercising right of first refusal o Pathways to affordable housing
o Preservation of “naturally affordable” housing
o Connections to owners of developments with vacant “naturally affordable” units • Study amendments to the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MHRSO) such that reduce annual allowable allowed rent increases are consistent with or less than comparable jurisdictions with rent control for mobile home parks.
• Assist in preserving at least two naturally occurring affordable housing projects during the planning period, and aim to preserve more, to both preserve units and create a viable space for displaced residents to move. Provide support to community groups on potential acquisition/preservation opportunities.
Milestone and Timeframe:
• Continuously enforce the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA), Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MHRSO), Condominium Conversion Ordinance (CCO), and relevant state tenant protection laws • Create community ownership action plan by June 30 December 31, 2025. • Study updates to MHRSO regarding allowed rent increases and adopt (if directed by Council) by March December 31, 20275.
• Evaluate the efficacy of TRAO by December 31, 2024. Continuously monitor conditions to identify need for updates to TRAO, including potential necessary increases in assistance. • Develop funding strategy for affordable housing preservation by December 31, 2025. • As part of the Displacement Response Strategy project, propose anti-displacement strategies to Council in 2023, including local replacement requirements and community ownership models and Opportunity to Purchase Act (OPA) Programs. Develop comprehensive potential “alternatives to displacement,” via first right of refusal requirements, displaced-resident preferences, partnerships with developers on alternative units for displaced residents, and plans for unit preservation by 2028.
• Target expenditure of funds to assist in preserving at least two naturally occurring affordable housing projects during the planning period.
Responsibility: Housing and Neighborhoods and Planning Divisions Potential Funding: Local housing funds and CDBG/HOME funds AFFH Program: Place-Based Strategies, Displacement Prevention Chapter 3, Page 59
Schedule
Date Program/Task Responsibility
Short-term - 4.1: Compliance with new transparency
requirements for posting all zoning,
development standards and fees on the
City’s website
Building
- 4.8: Share a copy of the updated Housing
Element to school districts
Planning
- 4.9: Share a copy of the updated Housing
Element to water/sewer utility staff
Planning
December 2023 − 1.7 Update City webpage with ADU
resources developed by the Santa Clara
County Collaborative
Planning
- 1.9: Complete first review BMR Phase 2
program
Housing
- 2.6: Update Assessment of Fair Housing Housing
- 3.2 Propose anti- displacement response
strategies to Council
Housing
- 4.7: Compile and maintain contact list for
community engagement
Housing and
Planning
March 2024 - 1.1 Zoning Ordinance Update for AB 2339 Planning June 2024 - 1.3 Establishing Gatekeeper schedule and
begin accepting Gatekeeper applications
Planning
- 2.3: Produce and distribute Reasonable
Accommodation information materials
Planning
- 4.1: Review and update NOFA process Housing, Planning - 4.1: Implement electronic review software Building, Planning December 2024 - Various Zoning Ordinance Updates:
o 1.1: Zoning Ordinance Update for
Consistency with State Laws
o 1.2: Eliminate minimum Parking
Standards for Residential in TransitOriented Areas, Affordable Housing Developments, and Other Cases
o 1.4: Religious and Community Assembly
Sites for Housing
Planning
- 1.7: Implement ADU monitoring survey Planning
- 1.8 Adoption of Parks and Recreation
Strategic Plan
Community
Services
- 1.12: Outreach to tenant and landlords
about tenants’ rights under CSFRA
Housing
- 2.1: Update Council on innovative affordable
housing programs, including assessment of
CLTs, COPA/TOPA
Housing
- 2.6: Develop and adopt incentives and
zoning changes (AFFH)
Planning
- 3.1: Develop Homelessness Prevention and
Services for the Unhoused strategy
Housing and City
Manager’s Office
- 3.2: Evaluate the efficacy of TRAO by
December 31, 2024.
Housing
- 4.1 Implement the following 2021 Matrix
Study Recommendations:
o Implement online permitting system
(ProjectDox)
o Streamline City’s contract process
for consultant services
IT, Finance,
Housing, Building,
and Planning
o Establish and publish formal
planning application review
timelines
o Standardize development permitrelated comment letters o Create a dashboard for
implementation of Matrix Study
recommendations
o Conduct a Development Services
Fund Fee Study and update the
Master Fee Schedule
- 4.2 Participate in planning process for a
2024 regional housing funding measure
City Manager’s
Office
March 2025 - 3.2 Update the MHRSO Housing
June 2025 - 1.3: Conduct prototype study for residential standards
Planning
− 1.5: Inform property owners about nonconforming density updates to Zoning Ordinance
Planning
− 3.2 Develop community ownership action
plan
Housing
December 2025
− 1.1: Rezoning sites to be included in Sites
Inventory
Planning
− Various Zoning Ordinance Updates:
o 1.3: Review and Update Ordinance
and Precise Plan Residential
Standards`
o 1.5: Non-conforming R1 and R2
Multifamily Developments
Planning
- 1.8 Adopt reduced fees, alternate
mitigations and/or other programs to
reduce costs on residential development
Planning
- 2.2: Perform needs assessment for Pilot
ADU & SB9 Financial Incentives Program
Housing
- 3.2 Develop funding strategy for affordable
housing preservation
Housing
- 4.1 Implement the following 2021 Matrix
Study Recommendations:
o Expand GIS system for the public
o Create dashboard with historic and
current performance indicators for
development review process (IT,
Housing, Building, and Planning)
- 4.3 Complete evaluation of new funding
sources
Housing
- 4.4: Secure funding to support identified
near-term pipeline projects
Housing
- 4.6: Meet with major employers to partner
on workforce housing
Planning
December 2026 - 2.2: Develop pilot ADU & SB9 grant program informed by needs assessment
Housing
- Various Zoning Ordinance Updates
(Planning, unless specified below):
o 1.2 and 1.3: TDM Ordinance (Public
Works)
o 1.6: SB9 DUO Subdivisions (Public
Works)
o 4.1: Review Zoning Ordinance
processes and approval bodies
Planning, unless
specified
December 2027 - 3.2 Study updates to MHRSO
- 1.4 Conduct outreach and adopt additional
policies for affordable housing south of ECR
Housing
- 4.5 Identify the remaining Downtown
affordable units needed and/or issue RFP
Planning and
Public Works
December 2028 - 1.9: Complete second review BMR Phase 2 program, including:
o 2.4: Evaluate effectiveness of efforts
to increase equitable access to
housing.
o 2.5: Perform self-evaluation on fair
housing practices.
Housing
- 2.2: Assess pilot ADU & SB9 grant program
for continuation
Housing
- 2.6: Develop and adopt additional
incentives and zoning changes if metrics
aren’t met (AFFH)
Planning
- 3.2 Develop comprehensive “alternatives to
displacement” strategy
Housing
- 4.4 Secure additional funding to meet City’s
anti-displacement goals
Housing
December 2029 - 2.1: Develop program for innovative housing solutions based on research and findings
Housing