Mountain View City Council
April 11, 2023

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

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

Senate Bill 330
Senate Bill (SB) 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would impose or enforce design standards that are not objective design standards on or after January 1, 2020 [Government Code Section 663300 (b)(C)]. The bill also established specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures. Per SB 330, housing developers may submit a “preliminary application” for a residential development project. Submittal of a preliminary application allows a developer to provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development before providing the full amount of DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 268 information required by the local government for a housing development application. The City of Mountain View has developed a preliminary application form consistent with SB 330. In addition, the bill limits the application code-compliance review process (after a project is deemed complete) to 30 days for projects less than 150 units, 60 days for projects greater than 150 units. It also limits residential projects to hold no more than five total public hearings, including Environmental Planning Commission, design review, and City Council.

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

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 269 Permit processing timelines have increased since 2014. However, this has been due to several factors:
 Housing projects since 2014 have generally been larger with more units and complexity than projects prior to 2014.
 Increased complexity of State housing legislation has led to delays of some projects, as developers and City staff have occasionally needed to change course on projects, midreview.  COVID forced the City to adopt new procedures and increased times between submittals for several development applicants. Overall processing times since 2020 have been significantly higher than between 2015 and 2019.

The City is currently conducting studies to improve development review efficiency and reduce timelines. Program 4.1 in this Housing Element is intended to help mitigate this issue.

Table 39: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type Project Type Typical Approvals
Required
Median
Planning
Review Time
(Before 2020)
Median
Building Permit
Review Time
(Before 2020)
Single-Family Home or Duplex Building Permit n/a 5 months Accessory Dwelling Unit Building Permit n/a 4.5 months
Rowhouse, Townhouse, Small-Lot
Single Family (5 or more lots)
Planned Unit
Development Permit
and Tentative Map
(Council approval)
13 months 12 months
Apartments
Standard Zones (R and CRA)
Development Review
Permit, sometimes
Conditional Use Permit
(Zoning Administrator
approval)
13 months 11 months
Precise Plans
Planned Community
Permit (Council
approval)
Condominiums
Same as Apartments
with Tentative Map
(Council Approval)
Same as Apartments
Any project with a Zoning Change
or General Plan Amendment (GPA)
Rezoning or GPA
(Council Approval) 20 months 11 months
Source: City of Mountain View, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 270 Building Permit Processing
Building Permits are reviewed by the same multi-disciplinary team that Planning Permits are. Table 39 shows the median review time of applications before COVID, from first submittal to approval.

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

Codes and Enforcement
The Code Enforcement Division of the City Attorney’s Office is responsible for enforcement of property maintenance, zoning, and building codes throughout Mountain View. Code enforcement is a responsibility shared by many City departments along with cooperation from residents and businesses. Housing Element Program 1.12 Maintenance of Existing Housing Stock was developed to respond to housing code violations. The program will maintain the quality of the existing housing stock by addressing housing code violations as they are reported.

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 271 Table 40: Recent Multi-family Developments in Mountain View Address Number of
Units
2580 California Street 632
400 San Antonio Road 582
555 East Evelyn Avenue 471
500 Ferguson Road 394
2700 West El Camino Real 211
1720 Villa Street 226
2268 West El Camino Real 204
394 Ortega Avenue 144
779 East Evelyn Avenue 116
Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters provide a critical resource for individuals or families experiencing housing instability. Government Code Section 65582(d) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” Effective January 1, 2008, California SB 2 requires all jurisdictions to have a zoning district that permits at least one year-round emergency shelter without a CUP or any other discretionary permit requirements. Jurisdictions must identify a zone where emergency shelters are permitted by-right within one year from the adoption of the housing element.

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

The City’s Zoning Ordinance permits emergency shelters by-right in the MM district which includes objective development and management standards for emergency shelters and are in conformance with State law. In addition, the City’s Zoning Ordinance includes standards for off-street parking in compliance with AB 139/Gov. Code § 65583 subd. (a)(4)(A)) with emergency shelters required to provide thirty-five-hundredths (0.35) of a parking space per individual bed plus one (1) additional space per employee.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 272 The permit processing and development standards encourage and facilitate the development of emergency shelters and no discretionary permits are required for approval of a permanent emergency shelter. The City will continue to monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate emergency shelters and provide information to appropriate organizations that serve the needs of homeless and extremely low-income persons. In addition, the City allows Emergency Shelters with a CUP in all commercial and industrial zoning districts.

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

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

Pursuant to SB 2, the City’s Zoning Ordinance has been updated to treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. For example, if the transitional housing is a multi-family use proposed in a multi-family zone, then zoning treats the transitional housing the same as other multifamily uses proposed in the zone. Per Government Code Section 65582, target population is defined as persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Assembly Bill (AB) 101, passed in 2019, requires that a low barrier navigation center be a use permitted by right in mixed-use zones and non-residential zones permitting multi-unit uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines “low barrier navigation center” as a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. The Housing Element includes an DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 273 implementation program to amend the Planning and Development Code to comply with this new requirement (Housing Element Program 1.1 Update Zoning Ordinance).

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

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

Employee Housing
For consistency with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), the Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 17021.5 requires that employee housing serving six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure and shall be treated subject to the standards for a family dwelling in the same zone. The City does not have any provisions in the Zoning Ordinance addressing employee housing serving six or fewer employees. Further, HSC Section 17021.6 requires that employee housing of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household be considered an agricultural use. The City does not have such provisions in its Zoning Ordinance. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to amend the Planning and Development Code to comply with this new requirement (Housing Element Program 1.1 Update Zoning Ordinance).

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

Effective December 10, 2020, the City Council adopted new zoning regulations to align with recent State laws pertaining to ADUs, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), and multi-family ADUs. The zoning text amendments were made to bring the City into compliance with updated ADU legislation and to be consistent with the General Plan in supporting the policies of the prior Housing Element (2015-2023) by removing constraints to the development of ADUs, as provided in specific Housing DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 274 Element programs. The City finds that ADUs and JADUs are residential uses that are consistent with the allowable density, with the General Plan, and zoning designation for the site, provided the units are located on properties zoned to allow single-family or multi-family dwelling residential uses. While no Planning permit is required, all new ADUs require building permits. ADUs are allowed with ministerial approval only when the site complies with all applicable requirements and a building permit is issued within sixty (60) days of submittal of a complete application. These requirements are not seen as a constraint to the production of ADUs, as the trend for ADUs permitted and constructed have increased each year between 2018 to 2020. The City encourages all applicants to review preliminary ADU plans with Planning staff to ensure the project meets all zoning requirements, prior to preparing detailed construction plans for building permit submittal.

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

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

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

In addition to State regulations, the City adopted a mobile home conversion ordinance (Chapter 28, Article X), which also requires a conversion report and identification of measures to mitigate the impacts of conversions. In recognition of mobile homes’ value as an affordable housing option, the City has a mobile home park General Plan designation and a mobile home park zoning designation that also provide protection for existing mobile home parks. The City requires a Conversion Impact Report to convert a property with a mobile home to another use. Further, to help maintain the DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 275 affordability of mobile homes and provide other protections to mobile home park residents, the City Council adopted the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance in September of 2021.

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

Affordable Housing – State Laws Impacting Local Development Standards Specific housing laws passed during the last housing cycle would revise policies and processes of the City and potentially reduce governmental constraints on housing development. These laws guide the development of recommendations in this update for the 6th cycle. The legislation that impacts residential development standards and potential affordable housing includes though is not limited to:
 AB 686 (Santiago): Places requirements on Housing Elements, and revisions to Housing Elements that occur on and after January 1, 2021, to include an assessment of fair housing within the jurisdiction.
 SB 330 and SB 8 (Skinner): Declares a statewide housing emergency to be in effect until January 1, 2030. To increase the production of housing, the bill suspends certain restrictions on the development of new housing during this period of statewide emergency and expedites local government permitting processes and timeframes. The bill applies to all “housing development projects,” with a special emphasis on projects for very-low-, low-, and moderateincome households and emergency shelters.  AB 2162 (Chiu): Requires that supportive housing be allowed by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential zones that permit multi-family uses. Minimum parking requirements for units occupied by supportive housing residents are prohibited if the development is located within 0.5 mile of a public transit stop.  SB 9 (Atkins): Signed by the California Governor on September 16, 2021, SB 9 requires “a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a singlefamily residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements.” The law also requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements and thus allow, ministerially without CEQA, up to four units on all single-family zoned parcels.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 276 Constraints for Persons with Disabilities
Senate Bill 520, passed in October 2001, requires local housing elements to evaluate constraints for persons with disabilities and develop programs which accommodate the housing needs of disabled persons. Persons with special needs or disabilities have a number of housing needs related to housing accessibility; access to transportation, employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on-site or nearby supportive living services. The following is a description of City regulations, policies, and procedures that support housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

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

The City’s Zoning Ordinance incorporates procedures for reasonable accommodation that comply with State requirements. The process for reasonable accommodation includes submittal of an application form, an administrative review by City Staff, and a decision within 30 days after the application is submitted. An application for a reasonable accommodation is granted if all of the following findings are made:
 The housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual with a disability as defined under the Fair Housing Acts.
 The requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Fair Housing Acts.  The requested reasonable accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
 The requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning.  The requested reasonable accommodation would not adversely impact surrounding properties or uses.
 There are no reasonable alternatives that would provide an equivalent level of benefit without requiring a modification or exception to the City’s applicable rules, standards and practices.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 277 In the past, some zoning codes have included narrow definitions of the term family. The City’s Zoning Code does define the term “family” so as not to discriminate against unrelated persons with disabilities living together.

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

Tree Preservation
The City has a Tree Preservation Ordinance that is intended to prevent uncontrolled and indiscriminate destruction of mature trees in order to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the City. The Ordinance protects Heritage Trees, which are defined as:
 A tree that has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54 inches above the natural grade;
 A multi-branched tree that has major branches below 54 inches above the natural grade with a circumference of 48 inches measured just below the first major trunk fork;  Any quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood), or cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of 12 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade; or  A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit.

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 278 Governmental Constraints Findings
 Overall, Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance generally does not act as a constraint to new housing production. The development standards and parking requirements for the existing six zoning districts that permit residential development are reasonable. When appropriate, the Zoning Administrator may approve a CUP to reduce the number of parking spaces for a development with smaller units. Housing Element Program 1.3 includes a review of development standards to address potential feasibility constraints. In addition, the City of Mountain View is adopting updates to its Zoning Ordinance concurrent with the Housing Element Update to increase residential development capacity.  Although Mountain View’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance could pose a constraint to housing production, the City has experienced significant amounts of market-rate residential construction activity with the inclusionary requirements in place and these requirements remain an important tool for generating affordable housing. Mountain View’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires projects of a certain size to provide at least 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units (or 25 percent for ownership townhouses and rowhouses) as below-market rate or, in the case of a fractional unit (below 0.5 for developments with more than seven units) pay an in-lieu fee. There is also an option for alternatives to the production requirement. In general, this creates more affordable units than with a fee-only system.

Housing Element Program 1.9 states that the City will review and revise the Below-MarketRate program requirements during the planning period to reflect community needs for affordable and market rate housing and will implement actions based on the review as directed by City Council.
 The City’s park land dedication requirements may act as a constraint to housing production but will be addressed through a Housing Element program. The park land dedication in-lieu fee totals approximately $238,987 for a single-family unit, $69,497 for a unit in a small (ten units or less) multi-family project, and $82,591 for a unit in a large (100 units or more) multifamily project. Overall, the City’s park land dedication requirements were found to have a moderate to major impact on residential development costs, depending on the unit type.

Housing Element Program 1.8 will address this potential constraint through a review and revision to the City’s park land dedication requirements to maintain access to high quality open space while reducing the financial impact to residential development.  In compliance with SB 2, Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance allows permanent emergency shelters as a permitted use in the MM zoning district.
 Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance treats transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
 The City’s Zoning Ordinance includes a process for reasonable accommodation requests for people with physical disabilities. Federal and State fair housing laws require jurisdictions to make reasonable accommodations to their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 279 Non-Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors which may constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions, such as the availability of financing and land and construction costs, as well as community opposition to new development.

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

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

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

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

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

The cost of land can vary considerably based on location, lot size, zoning, availability of existing infrastructure, and other factors. Recent sales of sites in Mountain View that are zoned for multi- DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 280 family residential development indicate that typical land prices for multi-family sites are approximately $13 million per acre. Affordable housing developers that were consulted as part of the Housing Element Update process reported that a land cost of $100,000 per unit or more is not unusual in the Mountain View market. The economic analysis that the City conducted as part of this Housing Element Update (see Appendix H) assumed a land cost of $122,000 per unit for multifamily housing. While the available data on single-family land sale costs in Mountain View is limited due to the limited inventory of vacant single-family sites, and land zoned for single-family uses tends to have a lower per-acre cost but a higher per-unit cost than land zoned for multi-family uses.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 281 Requests to Develop Housing Below the Densities Identified in the Sites Inventory Residential development in Mountain View is not likely to be constrained due to requests to develop housing at densities below the densities that are identified in the Housing Element site inventory and analysis. Requests to develop sites at low densities tends to be a constraint to housing production if the market favors lower-density product types, such as detached single-family homes, on sites where higher-density product types, such as multifamily units, are allowed. As evidenced by construction activity in Mountain View during the last Housing Element Cycle and projects currently in the pipeline, there is strong demand for multifamily housing in Mountain View. Meanwhile, there has been virtually no construction of detached single-family homes in Mountain View in recent years. More importantly, the sites inventory for Mountain View’s Housing Element determined the capacity for opportunity sites based on the actual densities of recently-constructed projects in Mountain View, as discussed in the Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory chapter. The sites inventory and analysis demonstrates that the densities used to determine capacity on housing opportunity sites are consistent with densities among recent projects in Mountain View under the same or similar development standards.

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

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

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

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

Construction costs are also high and have increased steadily during recent years. Together, high land and construction costs present barriers to the production of housing in Mountain View. Neighboring jurisdictions face similar constraints, contributing to the regional housing shortage. The City of Mountain View helps to address this constraint by providing funding for affordable housing construction. In addition, Mountain View has increased density in large DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 282 portions of the City through various Precise Plans, which help to reduce the per-unit land cost for both market rate and affordable developments.
 Public opinion, particularly community concern over higher-density development, may constrain housing production in Mountain View. Projects in many jurisdictions, including Mountain View, often encounter some form of resistance from neighbors and residents.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 283 Flooding
Portions of the City are within the 100-year flood zones as determined by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. There are Pipeline projects in the sites inventory that are located in the 100-year flood zone, near US-101 and El Camino Real’s crossing of Permanente Creek. In addition, there is one Opportunity Site in the sites inventory in the flood zone near El Camino Real and Miramonte Avenue.

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix D: Constraints Analysis 284 Soil and Groundwater Contamination
The East Whisman and North Bayshore areas have significant soil and groundwater contamination from previous industrial uses. Commercial sites may also have issues from previous dry cleaning or automotive operations.

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

APPENDIX Housing Sites Analysis E and Inventory
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 286 APPENDIX E: HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS AND

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

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

The analysis presented in this Appendix demonstrates there is an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the City’s housing allocation of 11,135 units, plus a surplus of over 5,459379 additional units (1,280077 of which are low and moderate income units) to actsact as a “buffer” if sites develop to non-residential or at different affordability levels than assumed in the sites inventory. This section is organized by the following topics:
 Summary of the regional context and capacity;
 Sites selection process which includes a description of the methodology and evaluation of site criteria, unit capacity, and sites to accommodate varied income levels; and  Sites inventory which includes the identification of sites by project type categories and evaluation of sites in meeting AFFH requirements.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 287 Table 42: Mountain View’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation Summary Info
Units by Income Group
Total Units
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
City RHNA a 2,773 1,597 1,885 4,880 11,135
Percent of
Total
25% 14% 17% 44% 100%
NOTES: a The RHNA allocation shown was adopted by ABAG on December 16, 2021.

SOURCE: ABAG, December 2021.

Summary of Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
The total realistic development capacity of all sites in the land inventory is listed in Table 43 which provides a summary of the total residential capacity against the City’s 6th cycle RHNA. The total realistic capacity shown is 16,594 514 units, which exceeds the net target of 11,135 units the City is required to accommodate for its RHNA, and also supplements that allocation by representing a 4948 percent buffer, including a 20.522.6 percent buffer on low and moderate income units32. HCD recommends that jurisdictions provide a 15 to 30 percent buffer beyond the minimum RHNA target to comply with the “no net loss” provisions of State Housing Element Law that require the jurisdiction to maintain sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA for the duration of the planning period at every income level. In addition to considering the aggregate number of units that the sites can accommodate, it is necessary to consider the potential for sites to accommodate housing that is affordable to all income levels, in accordance with the RHNA allocations, as discussed in the “Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels” .”. Each of the two primary project types, Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites, are presented in Table 43Table 43 and described in further detail in the “Methodology/Evaluation of Possible Sites” section. As shown in Table 43Table 43, thethere are a number of units from Pipeline Projects alone is equal toincluded that would meet the City’s RHNA. Though these Pipeline units do not fulfill the RHNA allocation at every income level, this demonstrates there are sufficient sites for the City’s RHNA and provides strong evidencehousing needs, demonstrating that there is residential developer interest and economic feasibility for housing development on the types of sites, including non-vacant sites, identified in this inventory. 32 The moderate income buffer alone is 1418 percent. However, program 1.11 includes a process to move lower-income sites to moderate income RHNA if the moderate-income buffer runs out. Therefore a more appropriate measure of the buffer is the combined 20.522.6 percent.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 288 Table 43: Mountain View Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to 6th Cycle RHNA by Income
Summary Info
Units by Income Group
Total Units1
Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Mountain View RHNA 4,370 1,885 4,880 11,135
Capacity from Pipeline
Projects
2,4391,201 499274 8,1974,311 11,1355,78
6 Approved/Under
Construction 447533 247248 2,965984 3,659765
Proposed Projects 1,992668 25226 5,2321,327 7,4762,021
Capacity on Opportunity Sites 3,996 1,650 4,536 10,182
Developable Sites (as of
January 31, 2023)
2,9073,850 1,604577 8524,512 5,3639,939
ADU Projection 48146 3873 1024 96243
Total Capacity (as of January
31, 2023 5,197 1,924 8,847 15,968
Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) from
RHNA +827 +39 +3,967 +4,833
Developable Sites (Rezoning
after January 31, 2023,
including Program 1.1)
250* 296 0 546
Total Capacity 5,394447* 2,141220 9,0598,847 16,594514
Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) from
RHNA
+1,024077* +256335 +4,1793,967 +5,459379
Buffer 23%25%* 1418% 8681% 4948%
* Included in this number are 82 lower-income units on a developable site (400 Moffett Boulevard) rezoned after January 31, 2023. If the surplus of lower-income units falls below 82 prior to approval and certification, there will have been a shortfall, and the City will identify sites to rezone consistent with lower-income shortfall requirements. 57/67 East Evelyn Avenue, another site rezoned after January 31, 2023, with potential for 168 units, is expected to comply with the shortfall requirements.

Source: Environmental Science Associates, December 2022February 2023.

Note: There may be some rounding of total units.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 289 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AB 686 (Santiago) created a new requirement for local jurisdictions to evaluate their Housing Element sites inventories through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. This Housing Element Update addresses these requirements in part by providing data and analysis in the Assessment of Fair Housing section of Appendix B, which informs many of the programs provided in the Housing Plan chapter of this document.

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

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

The only area considered “Low Resource” in the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map is the North Bayshore area, where some (though not a majority) of the lower income sites are located. However, the North Bayshore area has access to a significant number of jobs. It is also the subject of a major precise plan that will bring new development and services to the area, helping to improve access to opportunity. The City prepared and adopted the North Bayshore Precise Plan to create a complete community north of Highway 101, including new neighborhood-serving retail and services, new open spaces, land for a new school, and transit improvements along North Shoreline Boulevard to connect DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 290 the area to the Downtown Transit Center and the rest of the City. The North Bayshore Master Plan, a development framework proposed to implement the vision of the Precise Plan, is already under review, with approval expected in 2023. This Master Plan includes up to 7,000 dwelling units as well as services, open spaces, a school and mobility improvements to vastly improve the quality of life for existing residents north of Highway 101.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on HCD guidance, these projects may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. The following is a description of the subcategories under Pipeline Projects:
 Approved/Under Construction: These projects include those that have been approved or are under construction and will receive a final certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 291 RHNA projection period, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA.
 Proposed Projects: These are projects that are seeking entitlements, including one projectsome projects that requiresrequire rezoning. Project status includes formal applications or pre-applications under review, master plans with development agreements approved or under review (only those portions realistically expected to start construction by 2031), and sites owned by 100 percent affordable housing developers with the intent to submit applications in the next year.. Permits or final certificates of occupancy for these Proposed Projects are expected to be issued in the 6th cycle, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA as well.

Opportunity Sites
Opportunity Sites is the second main project type that includes both vacant and non-vacant sites that have available infrastructure and meet a variety of criteria that make them candidates for residential development during the 6th cycle planning period. The following is a description of the subcategories under the Opportunity Sites.
 Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites: These identified Opportunity Sites are considered vacant or underutilized and are eligible for residential development as is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan. There are some sites that will require rezoning and it is anticipated that these rezonings will have been adopted prior to the start of the 6th cycle while others may be enacted soon after the start of the 6th cycle. These include General Plan Village Center sites, including those south of El Camino Real. Refer to these sections for more information on rezoned sites: “Sites for Rezoning” and “Rezoned Opportunity Sites..” Opportunity Sites also include master plans that have development agreements approved or under review as well as sites owned by 100 percent affordable housing developers with the intent to submit applications during the planning period.  Accessory Dwelling Units: Accessory Dwelling Units are considered opportunities for residential development and are based on projected development during the planning period as is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan.

General Site Evaluation Considerations
This section provides a summary of the evaluation considerations made as part of the analysis and a description of each consideration. As most of the City is already built out with there being limited number of vacant parcels remaining, sites in the inventory primarily include non-vacant parcels that already have access to infrastructure and meet a variety of HCD criteria that make them suitable candidates for housing redevelopment. While sites not included in the sites inventory can also be developed for housing to meet RHNA targets, those sites identified in the inventory are considered optimal and most likely to develop and contribute to housing production in the 6th cycle. The following considerations were evaluated and are described in more detail in the following sections:
 Infrastructure Availability;
 Environmental Constraints;
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 292  Site Status and Capacity (i.e., vacant, underutilized, existing uses, and residential zoning);  Site Size;
 Permitted Density; and
 Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element(s).

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

Environmental Constraints
The analysis of environmental constraints included a review of all parcels identified in the inventory using different GIS-based data screens as well as ABAG’s HESSHousing Element Sites Selection (HESS) tool to determine if sites possess one or more environmental constraint, including hazard risks such as wildfire, sea level rise, earthquake/seismic zones, and landslide risk, orand other restrictive environmental conditions. Overall, the urbanized areas of the City where the sites for the inventory are located do not have special hazard risks or significant environmental challenges.

Where siting housing on parcels with environmental constraints may be unavoidable to accommodate the City’s housing need, risks would be addressed through building codes and other mitigation measures. Refer to the “Environmental Constraints section” in Appendix D for more information.

Site Status and Capacity
After accounting for Pipeline Projects, whose combined unit capacity is equal to the City’s entireremaining RHNA, only low allocation for each income and moderate income RHNA categories remain whichcategory must be met through developable Opportunity Sites in the inventory. The existing characteristics of the site were considered as evaluation criteria for the Opportunity Sites.

Specifically, all residentially zoned sites, either vacant or underutilized, were considered as potential buildable residential sites and were evaluated for site adequacy and capacity. Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2 require that the inventory of suitable land look at criteria for vacant and underutilized sites as outlined below:
 Vacant sites that are zoned for multi-family development  Vacant sites that are not zoned for multi-family development, but that allow such development (such as Precise Plans)
 Underutilized sites that are zoned for residential development and capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 293  Sites that are not zoned for residential development, but can be redeveloped for and/or rezoned for multi-family residential development
 Sites owned or leased by the City that can be redeveloped for multi-family residential development within the housing cycle
 Sites controlled by the State, a city/county, or another public agency where there is agreement/documentation that the site can be developed within the housing cycle  Non-vacant sites require substantial evidence to demonstrate that existing development will not preclude housing production during the planning period A methodology to determine “underutilized” sites was necessary given the City has negligible vacant land. Sites were removed from consideration in the underutilized methodology if sites: did not initially allow residential uses, were historic resources, were sites that support community-serving uses (parks, utilities, transportation, schools, hospitals), had structures that were recently built or modified, and were generally built out to their allowed density. In addition, Opportunity Sites with more than three existing residential uses were removed from consideration since they could result in displacement of rent-controlled units, which is contrary to the City’s goals for affordable housing production. The final sites inventory does not include any sites that have existing residential on site.

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

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

However, these sites are fully encumbered through the end of the 6th cycle. The Downtown Transit Center may have a joint development opportunity this cycle, but it does not currently . It will be rezoned to allow residential, and pursuant to Program 1.1, though it is not necessary to meet the RHNA. Therefore, its zoning Other City-owned sites downtown will be carried out at a time appropriateassessed for theresidential development opportunities pursuant to Program 4.5.

Site Size
Per State law, sites smaller than half an acre or larger than 10 acres are not considered adequate to accommodate lower income housing needs unless it can be demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during prior planning periods, or other evidence is provided that sites at this size can be developed as lower income housing.  Large Sites – There is only one site in the inventory larger than 10 acres, 1500 North Shoreline Boulevard. However, sites that accommodate more than 150 units in the inventory (including those less than 10 acres) use a special methodology that only applies a maximum of 150 lower -income units to any given site. Based on the City’s experience with past residential projects, larger sites tend to include a mix of units affordable to various income levels, rather than 100 percent affordable, so only applying a maximum of 150 lower income sitesunits is consistent with that experience as well as the City’s BMR requirements. In DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 294 addition, the City is only applying a maximum of 150 moderate income units to a given site as well (seerefer to the “Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels” belowsection).
1500 North Shoreline Boulevard is a special case. This site can yield at least 1,732 units when calculating its size with the conservative density of 110 dwelling units per acre based on the North Bayshore Precise Plan (this is a very conservative assumption, treating it like a

3.5 FAR site, when the Precise Plan actually allows up to 4.5 FAR). In addition, a recent study found that up to 2,800 units could be accommodated on the site (Gateway Master Plan, adopted December 7, 2021). The sites inventory further discounts this site’s assumed development based on the potential for a longer phased development on such a large development site. The inventory assumes 800 market rate units, 100 lower income units, and 100 moderate income units, which is less than half the potential development capacity of the site and consistent with the North Bayshore Precise Plan BMR requirements. The City has been meeting with a developer who has shared plans for a potential large residential project at 1500 North Shoreline Boulevard that would likely include more affordable units than have been designated in the inventory for this project. Further, 1500 Shoreline Boulevard is surrounded on all four sides with projects under review.  Small Sites – The sites inventory includes parcels that are less than or slightly greater than one-half acre in size. A screening of these smaller parcels and common ownership was conducted. Where smaller parcels were immediately adjacent to other Opportunity Sites that had the same landowner, these parcels were consolidated to create larger sites, given the likelihood of these consolidated sites being developed together as a single project. Refer to Table 44 for a list of consolidated sites in the inventory.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 295 Table 44: Consolidated Sites
Site Address APN Consolidated
Sites Acres
2630 W EL CAMINO REAL 14816012 A 1.79
FAYETTE DR 14816013 A 0.32
2116 W EL CAMINO REAL 14836028 B 1.00
2100 W EL CAMINO REAL 14836029 B 0.52
2124 W EL CAMINO REAL 14836027 B 0.74
2483 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY 14711025 C 1.34
2485 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WY 14711029 C 0.50
1134 W EL CAMINO REAL 15807026 D 0.64
1128 W EL CAMINO REAL 15807025 D 0.42
S OAK ST 15807007 D 0.10
630 SAN ANTONIO RD 14816016 E 2.82
FAYETTE DR 14816014 E 0.15
1949 W EL CAMINO REAL 17006058 F 0.32
1921 W EL CAMINO REAL 17006060 F 1.30
1935 W EL CAMINO REAL 17006062 F 1.66
800 MAUDE AV 16057012 G 4.97
500 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 16058016 G 5.84
401 ELLIS ST 16058017 G 4.51
885 MAUDE AV 16059005 G 1.03
1764 SHORELINE BL 11610078 H 0.50
1758 SHORELINE BL 11610079 H 0.44
1742 SHORELINE BL 11610080 H 1.86
1674 SHORELINE BL 11610085 H 0.88
1435 Plymouth St 11610101 H 0.99
1397 SHOREBIRD WY 11611021 H 1.99
1383 SHOREBIRD WY 11611022 H 1.62
1390 SHOREBIRD WY 11611025 H 1.80
1375 SHOREBIRD WY 11611028 H 4.88
1345 SHOREBIRD WY 11611038 H 16.90
1220 PEAR AV 11614028 H 1.11
1601 N SHORELINE BL 11614058 H 1.92
1675 SHORELINE BL 11614066 H 1.41
1250 SPACE PARK WY 11614070 H 0.72
1230 PEAR AV 11614095 H 1.10
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 296 Permitted Density
State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a “default density standard” of 30 units per acre for lower income units in a metropolitan jurisdiction such as Mountain View. This is the minimum density that is deemed appropriate in State law to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA. In accordance with the State’s default density standards, sites that could support a minimum of 30 units per acre were considered appropriate for very low and low income units, as well as for moderate income units. All underutilized Opportunity Sites in the inventory can accommodate at least the default density.

Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element(s)
To accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA, sites from the 2014-2022 Housing Element sites inventory were evaluated to determine their viability for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. It was determined that sevenfive sites were identified in the 2014-2022 Housing Element sites inventory, as listed below.
 2026 W El Camino Real (APN 15437018)
 2630 California Street (APN 14815018)
 2633 California Street (APN 14815021)
 384 San Antonio Road (APN 14815022)
 789 E El Camino Real (APN 19801003)

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

There are 1211 other sites from the 2014-2022 Housing Element sites inventory that are found within this 6th cycle’s Pipeline Projects, where projects have been approved, are under construction, or seeking entitlements. While these eleven sites are not in 6th cycle sites inventory, these sites are contributing to this 6th cycle RHNA.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 297 Sites for Rezoning Lower-Income Shortfall
Government Code section 65583.2(h) sets requirements if sites are identified for rezoning to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall. The City’s sites inventory does not have a lower income shortfall, and therefore is not subject to those requirements. Nonetheless, the City is rezoning sites that will contribute to the increase in the RHNA buffer., both for lower-income and moderate-income units. Some of these rezonings will have been adopted prior to the start of the 6th cycle while others may bewere enacted soon after the start of the 6th cycle. These rezonings include the following: and others are planned as part of Program 1.1.  Implementing General Plan Village Center uses and standards at existing underutilized shopping centers throughout the City (including south of El Camino Real where the highest opportunity neighborhoods are located);
 Removing the requirement to obtain legislative approvals in order to build at the highest densities along El Camino Real; and
 Various under review and anticipated affordable housing developments on previously non-residential sites throughout the City.

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 298 Refer to Table 45 for a listing of the relevant City precedents projects, along with details on the project acreage, dwelling units, density achieved, Precise Plan information if applicable, and General Plan land use designation.

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

Example of a precedent project in the El Camino Real
Precise Plan - 2700 West El Camino Real
Example of a precedent project in the
Downtown Precise Plan - 135 Franklin Street
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 299 Table 45: Precedent Projects List
Project Address Project Area
Acreage
Dwelling Units,
excluding
Density Bonus
Density (DU/ac),
excluding Density
Bonus
Zoning/Precise Plan
324 Bryant Street 0.26 7 26.92 Downtown
676 Dana Street 0.25 7 28.00 Downtown
231-235 Hope Street 0.26 9 34.62 Downtown
135 Franklin Street 1.03 51 49.51 Downtown
City Lot 12 (Bryant Street) 1.50 75 50.00 Downtown
400 Logue Avenue 2.54 374 147.24 East Whisman (High Intensity) 320 Logue Avenue 2.15 363 168.84 East Whisman (High Intensity) 819 N Rengstorff Avenue 0.83 36 43.37 CRA
1411-1495 W El Camino Real 1.25 53 42.40 El Camino Real (Low Intensity) 334 San Antonio Road 0.66 42 63.64 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor)
1616 W El Camino Real 0.99 66 66.67 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
1701 W El Camino Real 0.49 54 110.20 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
950 W El Camino Real 0.61 68 111.48 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
394 Ortega Avenue 1.62 144 88.89 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor)
865 E El Camino Real 2.30 150 65.22 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
1720 W El Camino Real 2.43 162 66.67 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 300 Project Address Project Area
Acreage
Dwelling Units,
excluding
Density Bonus
Density (DU/ac),
excluding Density
Bonus
Zoning/Precise Plan
801 W El Camino Real 2.39 164 68.62 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
100 Moffett Boulevard 2.70 184 68.15 Planned Community
2650 W El Camino Real 2.91 193 66.32 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
2268-2280 W El Camino Real 2.61 204 78.16 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
2700 W El Camino Real 2.28 172 75.44 El Camino Real (Medium Intensity)
400-520 San Antonio Road 5.75 432 75.13 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor)
2580 California Street 8.63 632 73.23 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Corridor)
455 San Antonio Road
(Residential portion only) 5.5 330 60 San Antonio (Mixed-Use Center) 601 Escuela Avenue 0.50 25 50.00 El Camino Real (Low Intensity) 1313 and 1347 W El Camino
Real 0.44 18 40.91 El Camino Real (Low Intensity)
730 Central Avenue 0.24 15 62.50 CRA
Notes: Projects labeled as "not a precedent" are not useful for the selection of sites because they were vacant or replaced dwelling units. These projects are useful as development density precedents, however.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 301 Table 46: Realistic Density Assumptions – Non-Rezoning
General Plan
Designation
Maximum
Density –
GP Zoning District
Maximum Density
- Zoning
Characteristic
DU/ac
Target
Percentage
Realistic
Density
General Mixed-Use 1.35 FAR CRA and equivalent 43 DU/ac 43.37 84% 36 Mixed-Use Corridor 1.85 FAR El Camino Real Precise
Plan (Village Center)

1.85 FAR including
required retail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45.15 55% 25
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 302 * This is based on a proportional increase/decrease from the East Whisman Precise Plan (High Intensity) ** These are based on the characteristic projects in El Camino Real Precise Plan (Medium Intensity) and San Antonio Precise Plan (MixedUse Corridor). *** This is based on the characteristic projects in El Camino Real Precise Plan (Low Intensity). **** This is significantly lower than the actual density allowed on these sites. However, this assumes that developments will include a mix of uses that will reduce the developable area of residential (such as office, entertainment, etc.).

Table 47: Realistic Density Assumptions – Rezoning
General Plan
Designation
Maximum
Density - GP Zoning District Maximum Density - Zoning
Characteristic
DU/ac
Target
Percentage
Realistic
Density
Neighborhood
Mixed-Use

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

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

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

17.99 (to 71.97)
84% Increase
of 15 (to
60)
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 303 Example of a precedent project in the El Camino
Real Precise Plan - 1701 West El Camino Real
Example of a precedent project in the San Antonio
Precise Plan – 400 San Antonio Road
Mixed-Use Areas
The precedent projects were evaluated to determine the likely density of 100 percent residential development in each of the zones. However, most sites are within mixed-use zones with there being a possibility that non-residential uses could be built. This likelihood was conservatively set at either 55- 60 percent, 70 percent, or 84 percent depending on the following:
 84 percent: This includes areas with many precedents, specifically the Mixed-Use Corridor General Plan designation areas along the City’s main arterials. Over the last 10 years, 84 percent of development land area in this area was residential, or residential with a trivial amount of commercial that did not reduce the density. This reflects the strong density incentives the City has in these areas (allowing much more residential development than commercial), and developers rarely choose other uses (mostly hotels and very small offices).  70 percent: This reflects areas with fewer precedents, more uncertainty and/or a higher commercial development potential. This is, however, still quite conservative for these areas.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 304 “Park Place,” a downtown multi-family development A rowhouse development on Willowgate Street Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels One of the most important evaluation considerations of the sites selection process is to evaluate a sites’ ability to accommodate households with varying income levels. To satisfy the RHNA requirement, the amount of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units is specified for each site in the inventory. Refer to the HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets at the end of Appendix E for more details. Furthermore, the unit capacity must be maintained throughout the 2023-2031 planning period. Therefore, a buffer of at least 15 percent to 30 percent is generally recommended by HCD, and the Mountain View’s sites inventory buffer is well beyond this recommendation (4948 percent). If sites listed in the inventory are redeveloped with other uses or different income levels than what is identified, the difference can be made up with the buffer sites to ensure there is “No Net Loss” of RHNA capacity at each income level.

Affordability assumptions for Opportunity Sites (excluding ADUs) are outlined in Table 48 by site characteristic and income levels. As mentioned in the “Methodology/Evaluation of Possible Sites” section, State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a default density standard of 30 units per acre for lower-income units in a metropolitan jurisdiction. Opportunity Sites (with the exception of consolidated sites) that are 0.5 to 10 acres that allow for development at 30 units per acre are suitable to accommodate the lower income RHNA, as indicated by HCD. This guidance is based on HCD’s experience that fewer lower income projects are developed with fewer than 50 units or more than 150 units. As a response to this, the City has taken the more conservative approach, which is to limit a single site’s lower income allocation to a range between 50 and 150 units, even though that further disqualifies many sites that are greater than 0.5 acres. No sites less than 0.5 acres can accommodate more than 50 units, unless consolidated. There is only one opportunity siteOpportunity Site greater than 10 acres, (1500 North Shoreline Boulevard), and using this methodology the number of lower income units assumed on the site is consistent with the likely BMR requirement for any project in this location. This splitting of incomes is reasonable because many large developments choose to comply with their below-market-rate housing requirement through land dedication, on which affordable housing developers can build at higher densities than the original development. The North Bayshore and Middlefield Park Master Plans and 1255 Pear Avenue DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 305 are good examples of this. In addition, the City has elected to limit moderate-income allocation to a range between 0 and 150 units, both because this is a more conservative assumption and in order to limit the risk that a single project will require a significant amount of new Housing Element sites under “No Net Loss”.

Table 48: Affordability Assumptions
Site Characteristic Capacity Assumption Income Category Application
Accommodates fewer than 50 units
(includes all sites smaller than 0.5 acres) 100% Moderate Income Units Accommodates between 50 and 150
units 100% Lower-Income Units
Accommodates between 150 and 300
units
150 Lower-Income Units
Remainder Moderate Income Units
Accommodates more than 300 units
150 Lower-income Units
150 Moderate Income Units
Remainder Above Moderate
Income Units
50 percent Threshold of Lower Income Units on Non-vacant Sites State law requires additional analysis of existing uses in the sites inventory if more than 50 percent of the City’s low-income RHNA is accommodated on non-vacant sites. HCD has published guidance for how to determine this, which includes adjustments for proposed lower income projects and ADU capacity, in addition to vacant sites in the inventory. Table 49 shows this analysis based on HCD’s guidance. A substantial amount of the City’s lower-income units (more than 50 percent of the lower income RHNA) are within Pipeline Projects. In addition, the inventory includes affordable ADU units and a vacant Opportunity Site with low income unit capacity. In summary, approximately 43.1 percent of Mountain View’s lower income RHNA is accommodated on non-vacant sites, which is below the 50 percent threshold. Therefore, no additional analysis is needed to support the site inventory’s non-vacant sites.

Table 49: Lower Income Units on Non-vacant Sites
Adjustment Factor Number of Units
Proposed Lower Income Projects 2,439
ADU Capacity (affordable to lower incomes) 48
Capacity on Vacant Sites 0
Total Capacity (not related to non-vacant
sites) 2,487
RHNA on Non-vacant Sites 4,370 – 2,487 = 1,883
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 306 Percentage of Lower Income RHNA
accommodated on Non-vacant sites 1,883/ 4,370 = 43%
“Park Place,” a downtown multi-family development A rowhouse development on Willowgate Street Sites Inventory
A summary of all sites identified by project type categories identified in the Mountain View 6th cycle Housing Element sites inventory for the 2023-2031 planning period is provided in this section.

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

Table 49: Sites Inventory Summary
Project Category
Type
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above ModerateIncome Capacity
Realistic Capacity
Total (Units)
Pipeline Projects 2,4391,201 499274 8,1974,311 11,1355,786 Opportunity Sites 2,9554,246 1,642946 8624,536 5,45910,728 Sub Total
(A) 5,394447 2,141220 9,0598,847 16,594514
6th cycle RHNA (B) 4,370 1,885 4,880 11,135
RHNA Buffer
(A-B) +1,024077 +256335 +4,1793,967 +5,459379
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 307 Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites
If a housing element relies on non-vacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of its RHNA for lower income households, the housing element must describe findings with substantial evidence that the use on sites will likely be discontinued. As described by HCD, substantial evidence can include several different factors, including 1) market conditions and development trends that show comparable non-vacant uses in the jurisdiction have been redeveloped into housing, 2) site specific information such as expiring leases, dilapidated building conditions, development agreements to develop the site, and landowners expressing development interest, and 3) a programmatic response that supports the redevelopment of non-vacant sites. The City of Mountain View is a predominately built out city with limited vacant land, and as a result, the sites inventory relies on non-vacant sites for more than 50 percent of lower income units. Analysis of the sites inventory has been conducted to provide substantial evidence supporting the likelihood that non-vacant uses will likely discontinue during the 6th cycle.

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

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

State law requires each jurisdiction to include a land inventory to identify specific sites that are suitable for residential development and demonstrate that sufficient land is zoned to provide housing capacity that is adequate to meet the RHNA for each income level. The lack of vacant land in Mountain View and the relatively high value of new residential development means that the City If a housing element relies on non-vacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more or its RHNA for lower income households, the housing element must describe findings with substantial evidence that the use on sites will be discontinued. Examples of substantial evidence include expiring leases, dilapidated building conditions, development agreements to develop the site, and letters with owners expressing development interest. The City of Mountain View’s reliance on non-vacant sites for lower income units in the sites inventory, as defined by HCD, does not meet this 50 percent threshold. The City’s reliance on non-vacant sites for lower income units is 43.1 percent. Refer to the “50 percent Threshold of Lower Income Units on Non-vacant Sites” section for more information on this topic.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 308 consistently sees the redevelopment of underutilized sites, including ones that contain functioning residential and commercial uses. such as multi-tenant shopping centers, motels, office and R&D buildings, auto service facilities, parking lots, among other uses. Refer to Table 50 for a list of nonresidential uses that existed in the year or two before applications were submitted on select precedent and pipeline projects, consistent with those existing uses found on Opportunity Sites, furthering the point that existing uses are not a limitation to redevelopment. This is a strong indicator that development of residential uses on underutilized, non-vacant sites with existing uses is occurring and will continue to be an ongoing trend given the scarcity of vacant land in the City. Based on this, the non-vacant Opportunities Sites included in the inventory do not face impediments to residential development due to existing land uses.

Table 50: Non-Residential Previous Uses on Select Precedent and Pipeline Projects Address Previous Use
1001 N Shoreline Blvd Large parking lot serving a recent office development 1100 La Avenida 1-story light industrial with multiple tenants 1313 and 1347 W El Camino Real 1-story small retail center with multiple tenants 1411-1495 W El Camino Real Three one-story retail buildings fully occupied with multiple tenants
2645 Fayette Drive 2-story light industrial building, fully occupied with one tenant
334 San Antonio Rd Operating gas station
400 Logue Avenue
1-story research and development use fully occupied
with an existing tenant
901 E El Camino Real Operating 2-story hotel
City Lot 12 (Bryant St) Public parking lot
355-401 E Middlefield Rd Two 1-story light industrial buildings occupied with existing tenants
615-749 W El Camino Real Operating 1-story bank and fast-food restaurant 96 W El Camino Real Operating 1-story mortuary
320 Logue Ave
1-story multi-tenant office building with some tenant
spaces available
685 E Middlefield Rd Occupied multi-tenant 2-story office buildings 1265 Montecito Ave Occupied office building
87 E Evelyn Avenue Public parking lot
950 W El Camino Real Fast food restaurant
865 E El Camino Real Billiard hall and occupied 2-tenant retail building 801 W El Camino Real Several small, occupied retail buildings 100 Moffett Boulevard Occupied social service office and car repair DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 309 400-520 San Antonio Road Multiple office and light industrial buildings, tire store, multi-tenant retail (mostly occupied)
601 Escuela Avenue Small retail strip center occupied with multiple tenants

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

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

 Precedent and Pipeline Projects show that multi-family developments replaced or will replace in this 6th cycle a broad array of different non-residential land uses, including multi-tenant shopping centers, motels, office and R&D buildings, among other uses. Refer to Table 51 for a list of non-residential uses that existed in the year or two before applications were submitted on select Precedent and Pipeline Projects, consistent with those existing uses found on Opportunity Sites, furthering the point that existing uses are not a limitation to redevelopment. This is a strong indicator that development of residential uses on DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 310 underutilized, non-vacant sites with existing uses is occurring and will continue to be an ongoing trend given the scarcity of vacant land in the City. Based on this, the non-vacant Opportunities Sites included in the inventory do not face impediments to residential development due to existing land uses.

Of the 93 sites in the inventory, existing uses share common characteristics with those previous uses found on Precedent and Pipeline Projects. Below is a list of such characteristics and the number of sites in the inventory with these characteristics. While the characteristics are generally described separately, more than one site may present multiple characteristics; therefore, the numbers presented are not intended to add up to 93126, the number of sites in the inventory. Refer to the HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets at the end of this Appendix E to find details, including existing uses and data by address and APN, for sites in the inventory. o 1 Opportunity Site is vacant with no signs of site infrastructure or improvements present; a chain link fence surrounds the site
16  Opportunity Sites are underutilized and fall short of the site’s development potential. A majority of these sites have low FARs (less than 0.35 FAR for office or retail or less than 0.5 FAR for industrial or Research and Development). Sites with exceptions to this criteria, though demonstrate other suitable characteristics, include 1) sites that were built before 1986 and/or have tenant vacancies including 910 El Monte Avenue, 2483 Old Middlefield Way, 2320 W El Camino Real, 2124 W El Camino Real, 1952 W El Camino Real, 897 Leong Drive, 850 Leong Drive, and 223 Moffett Blvd, and 2) sites that have approved or pending development agreements as part of multi-year master plans including 1742 Shoreline Blvd, 500 E Middlefield Rd, 885 Maude Ave, and 401 Ellis St.
 19 Opportunity Sites have some level of tenant vacancy and/or property marketing based on a desktop windshield survey and/or through other research. Sites with tenant vacancies were included in the inventory, in part, because of their market influenced redevelopment potential and evidence that existing uses onsite may no longer be viable.  85 Opportunity Sites are parking lots while 16 sites are auto service related including gas stations, tire stores, and car wash establishments. Parking lots along with auto service related uses have been or will be redeveloped into housing in Mountain View, as evidenced by the projects listed in Table 50 including 1001 N Shoreline Blvd, 334 San Antonio Rd, City Lot 12 (Bryant St), and 87 E Evelyn Avenue. Market trends and the high demand for housing are expected to result in the continued redevelopment of these types of uses into housing.  2 Opportunity Sites are hotels with low FARs, including 55 Fairchild Drive where the property owner has expressed development interest and 850 Leong Drive which was built in 1973 and has a 0.37 FAR, and where the property owner has also expressed development interest.

The reuse of an existing 2-story hotel (901 E El Camino Real) as affordable housing, as listed in Table 50, provides evidence that existing hotel uses do not limit redevelopment or reuse potential.
 Similar to projects that include the redevelopment of retail uses such as 615-749, 1313- 1347, and 1411-1495 W El Camino Real and 601 Escuela Avenue as listed in Table 50, 37 Opportunity Sites have retail tenants (including banks and personal services). Market trends DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 311 and the high demand for housing are expected to result in the continued redevelopment of retail uses into housing.
 42 Opportunity Sites have industrial and/or office uses in buildings built before 1986, uses in buildings which are not a constraint to redevelopment, based on the types of projects included in Table 50 that had or have industrial or office uses in older buildings, such as 1100 La Avenida, 2645 Fayette Drive, 355-401 E Middlefield Rd, 320 Logue Ave, 685 E Middlefield Rd, 1265 Montecito Ave, and 400-520 San Antonio Road. Additionally, a portion of the Opportunity Sites that have industrial and/or office uses are included in master plans that have development agreements that are either approved or under review.  14 Opportunity Sites are small multi-tenant sites that generally have older, one-story buildings with low FARs. These characteristics are compounding factors that, along with described market trends, are evidence of the redevelopment potential of these sites. Multitenant redevelopment projects presented in Table 50 include 865 E El Camino Real, 801 W El Camino Real, and 601 Escuela Avenue.
o 12 Opportunity Sites are one-story (with the exception of 1280 Space Park Way which is two-stories) buildings with FARs below 0.5; buildings are older and have been built prior to 1986 (with the exception of 1350 Pear Avenue which has tenant vacancy)
o 13 Opportunity Sites are gas stations or auto service related; these one-story facilities were built in the 1960s (with the exception of 1288 W El Camino Real which was built in the 1970s) and generally have FARs below 0.15 (with the exception of a

0.27 tire store at 30-40 W El Camino Real)
o 5 Opportunity Sites are parking lots
o 6 Opportunity Sites are in poor condition (signs of graffiti, boarded up windows) and/or have chain link fences surrounding the site
o 41 Opportunity Sites are single retail tenants (including banks and personal services) and exhibit other characteristics described above, such as having tenant vacancy, is a gas station or auto service related, and/or is in poor condition Table 51: Non-Residential Previous Uses on Select Precedent and Pipeline Projects Address Previous Use
1001 N Shoreline Blvd Large parking lot serving a recent office development
1100 La Avenida 1-story light industrial with multiple tenants 1313 and 1347 W El Camino Real 1-story small retail center with multiple tenants 1411-1495 W El Camino Real Three one-story retail buildings fully occupied with multiple tenants
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 312 Address Previous Use
2645 Fayette Drive 2-story light industrial building, fully occupied with one tenant
334 San Antonio Rd Operating gas station
400 Logue Avenue
1-story research and development use fully
occupied with an existing tenant
901 E El Camino Real Operating 2-story hotel
City Lot 12 (Bryant St) Public parking lot
355-401 E Middlefield Rd Two 1-story light industrial buildings occupied with existing tenants
615-749 W El Camino Real Operating 1-story bank and fast-food restaurant 96 W El Camino Real Operating 1-story mortuary
Middlefield Park Master Plan
Broad range of occupied and vacant 1-story
light industrial buildings, plus a 4-story and a 3-
story Class A office building built in 1997
North Bayshore Master Plan
Broad range of occupied and vacant 1- to 2-
story office, light, and commercial industrial
buildings
320 Logue Ave
1-story multi-tenant office building with some
tenant spaces available
685 E Middlefield Rd Occupied multi-tenant 2-story office buildings 1265 Montecito Ave Occupied office building
67 E Evelyn Avenue
1- to 2-story light industrial with multiple tenants,
with tenant spaces available
87 E Evelyn Avenue Public parking lot
950 W El Camino Real Fast food restaurant
865 E El Camino Real Billiard hall and occupied 2-tenant retail building
801 W El Camino Real Several small, occupied retail buildings 100 Moffett Boulevard Occupied social service office and car repair 400-520 San Antonio Road Multiple office and light industrial buildings, tire store, multi-tenant retail (mostly occupied)
601 Escuela Avenue
Small retail strip center occupied with multiple
tenants
 The sites inventory includes ten parcels thatWhile some opportunity sites have had recent tenant improvements valued between $5 million and $10 million, that did not appear to constrain developer interest in the site for residential development. For example, the 401 Ellis Street had a recent tenant improvement valued at over $8 million, though it is included DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 313 in the first phase of the Middlefield Park Master Plan and expected to be redeveloped for residential during the cycle.
 10 Opportunity Sites are occupied by larger shopping centers (i.e., more than 2 acres) with multiple tenants (i.e., more than three). However, all of these sites are underutilized with low FARs and have older buildings. They also have large parking lots that may be able to accommodate stand-alone residential developments. Furthermore, five of the ten large shopping center parcels are within two consolidated sites that have common ownership, increasing the likelihood of development to occur under one project (for each landowner). Six of the ten parcels are located in high opportunity areas. Given these conditions, these sites have been included in the inventory. However, the full unit capacity of these sites based on their General Plan land use designation, size, and density has not been applied. Instead, a more conservative estimate was calculated to heavily discount the capacity by 80 percent, yielding a reduced capacity of 303 units (rather than 1,515 units). Refer to Table 52Table

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

These trends are expected to continue leading to even more opportunities for the redevelopment of commercial properties.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 314 New Housing at the San Antonio Village Center

Source: Merlone Geier Partners Source: Brookfield
New Housing at the San Antonio Village Center
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 315 Table 51: Capacity Discount on Multi-tenant Opportunity Sites Site Address
APN Consolidated
Sites
General Plan Land
Use Designation Acres Maximum Density
Unit
Capacity
Unit
Capacity
with 80%
Discount
Located in
High
Opportunity
Area
2630 W EL CAMINO
REAL
14816012 A
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 1.79 47-93 108 22
FAYETTE DR 14816013 A Mixed-Use Corridor 0.32 63-89 30 6 2600 W EL CAMINO
REAL
14816015
Not
Applicable
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 0.50 47-93 19 4
1910 W EL CAMINO
REAL
15436018 Not
Applicable
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 2.47 47-93 149 30
1949 W EL CAMINO
REAL
17006058 F
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 0.32 47-93 255 51 Yes
1921 W EL CAMINO
REAL
17006060 F
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 1.30 47-93 481 96 Yes
1935 W EL CAMINO
REAL
17006062 F
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 1.66 47-93 19 4 Yes
1504 GRANT RD 19312001 Not
Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor 5.08 ~72 78 16 Yes
121 E EL CAMINO
REAL
19742004 Not
Applicable
Mixed-Use Corridor
(ECR Village Center) 7.96 47-93 99 20 Yes
789 E EL CAMINO
REAL
19801003
Not
Applicable Mixed-Use Corridor 4.59 65-111 277 55 Yes
Sum Total 1,515 303
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 316 Existing leases or other contracts in non-vacant sites have been considered. ItSite-Specific Information
Beyond market conditions and development trends, other site-specific conditions found in select sites, as outlined below, make them viable for inclusion in the inventory and provide evidence that discontinuation of the existing use during the 6th cycle is probable. These factors include dilapidated building and site conditions, development agreements, landowners expressing development interest, and expiring lease data. While existing leases or other contracts in non-vacant sites have been considered, it is important to note that leases and contracts related to privately owned properties are not public information, and the City does not have any power to require or compel property owners to provide this information. ThroughHowever, through public listings, the City has identified that nearly a quarterone fifth of the non-vacant sites in the inventory are up for lease. Additionally, the shift toward residential and mixed-use development on commercially zoned sites is reflectivehave some level of broader national trends in the shifting retail market. The expansion of online retailing has had major impacts on consumer behaviors and greatly reduced demand for brick-and-mortar retail.

These trends are expected to continue leading to even more opportunities for the redevelopment of commercial properties.tenant or site vacancy.

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

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

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

Refer to "Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites” for a summary of the unit capacity for these sites and HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets at the end of this Appendix E for a list of all Opportunity Sites and its attributes.
 19 Opportunity Sites are included in master plans, including the Middlefield Park Master Plan which has an approved development agreement in place and North Bayshore Master Plan which has an application for development agreement submitted. As a result, existing uses do not limit the redevelopment potential of these sites and their inclusion in master plans is evidence of their likely redevelopment. More information about the master plans is provided in the next section “Unit Capacity by Project Type”, under the heading “Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites”.
 Opportunity Sites have buildings that are older with many of them nearing the end of their lifespan. All Opportunity Sites were built before 1986. Exceptions include 1) 1350 Pear DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 317 Avenue which was built in 1987 and has tenant vacancy based on the desktop windshield survey, 2) 2116 W El Camino Real which is vacant with a fence around the property, 3) 2105 Old Middlefield Rd which was built in 1988, has tenant vacancies, and has support by the landowner to have their site included in the inventory, 4) 401 E Middlefield which has had previous applications for residential development on the site, and 5) sites that have approved or pending development agreements as part of multi-year master plans including 500 E Middlefield Rd, 401 Ellis St, 1758 Shoreline Blvd, 1742 Shoreline Blvd, and 1435 Plymouth St. The age of these buildings along with market trends and the demand for housing are evidence that the existing uses are not likely to limit the redevelopment of these sites into housing. Additionally, while the site dimensions at 1350 Pear Ave may appear to constrain development, the City has seen an affordable housing development application on a parcel with tighter dimensions--89 W El Camino Real.
 In addition to most sites having older buildings on the property, 9 Opportunity Sites are in visibly poor condition that have deferred maintenance and/or have chain link fences surrounding the site. These sites include 2320 W El Camino Real, 2124 W El Camino Real, 2116 W El Camino Real, 2100 W El Camino Real, 2090 W El Camino Real, 2026 W El Camino Real, 624 W El Camino Real, 282 E Middlefield Rd, and 897 Leong Drive. All of these parcels also have site vacancy or some amount of tenant vacancy, which suggest that the existing use may no longer be viable. Three of nine of these Opportunity Sites are vacant with no signs of site infrastructure or improvements present. These vacant sites include 282 E Middlefield Rd, 870 Leong Drive, and 1255 Pear Ave (affordable housing dedicated site).

Vacant parcels are considered suitable sites to meet a locality’s housing need.  Several property owners have expressed interest in redevelopment and/or are supportive of their site being included in the inventory. Properties include 1500 Shoreline Boulevard (cinema complex), 223 Moffett Blvd (multi-tenant retail), 2105 Old Middlefield (shopping center), and 55 Fairchild Drive (hotel). This demonstrates the feasibility of redevelopment of these sites, regardless of their existing uses.

Programmatic Response
In addition to the site characteristics described above that mirror the conditions found in recent City redevelopment and Pipeline projects, several Housing Element programs have been established to facilitate development of the Opportunity Sites. Applicable programs are listed below. Refer to Chapter 3: Housing Plan, for full program descriptions.  Program 1.7 Monitor and Promote Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessor Dwelling Units and SB9 Developments
 Program 2.2 Pilot ADU & SB9 Financial Incentives Program  Program 4.5 Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers Unit Capacity by Project Type
The following are summaries of the key findings for each of the project types: Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites, including Opportunity Sites that do not and do require rezonings and ADUs. Refer to Table 49 for the sites inventory summary and Figure 95 for an overview map of all sites in the DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 318 inventory (ADUs excluded). This inventory was developed based on HCD requirements for locations and affordability levels as well as City goals focusing on sites that have residential capacity under the current zoning and areas that have had undergone robust community engagement, such as Precise Plan areas. Sites that would cause high residential displacement were avoided.

A rowhouse development in the South Whisman
neighborhood.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 319 A rowhouse development in the South Whisman
neighborhood.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 320 Figure 95: Housing Sites Overview
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 321 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 322 Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects include those that have been approved, permitted, or received a final certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projection period (which started on June 30, 2022).

Based on HCD guidance, these Pipeline Projects are not considered sites in the inventory; however, these sites may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. Refer to Figure 94Figure 96 for all Pipeline Project locations, including approved and, under construction, and proposed projects.

Approved/Under Construction: Pipeline Projects include a subcategory of projects that have been approved or are under construction and will receive a final certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the RHNA projection period, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA. Projects in this category conform with the current General Plan and zoning, therefore no rezoning is required. A total of 3,659765 units are listed in Table 53Table 52, which summarizes those projects that are approved or are under construction, by address and site status.

Affordability assumptions are based on approved entitlements and include deed-restricted units per BMR requirements. Projects under construction that will receive a final certificate of occupancy during the projection period include: 1001 N Shoreline Boulevard, 1255 Pear Avenue, 777 W Middlefield Road, 851-853 Sierra Vista Avenue, 950 W El Camino Real, 1720 Villa Street, 2580- 2590 California Street, and 555-557 E Evelyn Avenue. Remaining projects in this subcategory have been approved and are listed as such in Table 53.Table 52. Expected completion dates are provided in this table as well. Approved/under construction projects are made up of 53 sites on parcels totaling approximately 81 acres, as shown in Figure 96. While some neighborhoods have more approved/under construction project units than others, Table 53 demonstrates how units at varied income levels appear and are distributed in each of the City’s recognized neighborhoods.

Approximately 55 percent of approved/under construction projects are located in the City’s Precise Plan areas, including Downtown, East Whisman, El Camino Real, San Antonio, Villa Mariposa, and North Bayshore, where robust community engagement has already occurred to vet areas that would support residential development. Refer to Table 54.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 323 Table 52: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summary by Project Address Address
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Total
Capacity
Expected
Completion
Date (Year)
Projects that
contain Deedrestricted
Affordable Lower
Income Units
Site Status
1001 N Shoreline Blvd 20 20 263 303
2024(apt)
2025(condos) Yes
Under
Construction
1100 La Avenida 100 0 0 100 2024 Yes Approved
1255 Pear Ave 0 0 220 220 2024 Yes
Under
Construction
1313 and 1347 W El
Camino Real 2 0 22 24 2024 Yes Approved
1411-1495 W El Camino
Real 0 5 48 53 2024 Yes Approved
1720 Villa Street 3 0 204 207 2023 Yes
Under
Construction
1958 Latham St 0 0 6 6 2024 No Approved
198 Easy Street 0 0 4 4 2024 No Approved
2580-2590 California Street 14 18 600 632 2023 Yes
Under
Construction
2645 Fayette Drive 5 0 33 38 2025 Yes Approved
334 San Antonio Rd 10 3 49 62 2026 Yes Approved
400 Logue Avenue 24 38 346 408 2025 Yes Approved
555 East Evelyn Avenue 0 0 471 471 2023 No
Under
Construction
555 W Middlefield Rd 32 16 275 323 2029 Yes Approved
570 Rengstorff Ave 0 0 15 15 2024 No Approved
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 324 Address
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Total
Capacity
Expected
Completion
Date (Year)
Projects that
contain Deedrestricted
Affordable Lower
Income Units
Site Status
601 Escuela Ave 2 2 21 25 2025 Yes Approved
773 Cuesta Drive 0 0 3 3 2024 No Approved
777 W Middlefield Rd 0 144 364 508 2025 Yes
Under
Construction
828-836 Sierra Vista Ave
and 1975/1979 Colony St
1 0 14 15 2024 Yes Approved
851-853 Sierra Vista
Avenue
0 0 6 6 2023 No
Under
Construction
901 E El Camino Real 45 0 0 45 2023 Yes Approved
950 West El Camino Real 70 0 1 71 2022 (August) Yes
Under
Construction
City Lot 12 (Bryant St) 119 1 0 120 2026 Yes Approved
1265 Montecito Ave 84 1 0 85 2026 Yes Approved
730 Central Ave 2 0 19 21 2026 Yes Approved
Grand Total 447533 247248 2,965984 3,659765
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 325 Table 53: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summarized by Neighborhood
Neighborhood Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Net
New Units
Central Neighborhoods 194 3 226 423
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 45 0 471 516
Moffett/Whisman Road 7678 218 1,252271 1,546567
Monta Loma/Farley/Rock Street 185 01 20 21106
North Bayshore 100 0 220 320
San Antonio/Rengstorff 29 21 703 753
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 2 5 73 80
Grand Total 447533 247248 2,965984 3,659765
Table 54: Approved/Under Construction Pipeline Projects Summarized by Precise Plan
Precise Plan Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Net New
Units
Downtown 119 1 0 120
East Whisman 24 38 346 408
El Camino Real 119 7 92 218
North Bayshore 100 0 220 320
San Antonio 29 21 682 732
Villa Mariposa 3 0 204 207
Not in Precise Plan 53139 180181 1,421440 1,654760
Grand Total 447533 247248 2,965984 3,659765
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 326 Figure 96: Pipeline Projects

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis and Inventory 327 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 328 Proposed Projects: Proposed Projects are Pipeline Projects that are seeking entitlements, including those where formal applications or pre-applications have been submitted. Building permits or final certificates of occupancy for these Proposed Projects are expected to be issued in the 6th cycle, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA. Proposed Projects also include land dedications for 100 percent affordable housing projects, and sites owned by affordable housing developers who have plans in place for developing these sites within this planning period. ­­There are 6614 parcels, totaling approximately 18224.5 acres, that yield 7,4762,021 units identified as Proposed Projects in the sites inventory. This subcategory yields the greatest unit capacity and fulfills more than half the RHNA requirement. This demonstrates there is continued interest and desire to develop housing on non-vacant parcels with existing residential and nonresidential uses in the City. With the exception of 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue, 1012 Linda Vista, and 87 E Evelyn Ave, all Proposed Projects do not require rezoning as these sites conform to the current General Plan and zoning. Refer to Table 55 for all Proposed Projects.

Table 55: Proposed Pipeline Projects Summary by Address Site Address/
Intersection
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Expected
Entitlement
Date
(Year)
Projects
that
contain
Deedrestricted
Affordable
Lower
Income
Units
1255 Pear Ave
(Affordable
Housing
Dedication)
112 0 0 112 2024 Yes
1332 Park Dr 0 0 2 2 2023 No
355-401 E
Middlefield Rd 92 58 466 616 2023 Yes
615-749 W El
Camino Real 33 0 266 299 2023 Yes
730 Central Ave 2 0 19 21 2022 Yes
89 W El Camino
Real
61 0 0 61 2024 Yes
918 Rich Ave 3 1 24 28 2023 Yes
96 W El Camino
Real
70 0 0 70 2024 Yes
Middlefield Park
Master Plan
338 0 750 1088 2022 Yes
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 329 Site Address/
Intersection
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Expected
Entitlement
Date
(Year)
Projects
that
contain
Deedrestricted
Affordable
Lower
Income
Units
North Bayshore
Master Plan
528 167 2670 3365 2023 Yes
320 Logue Ave 30 25 309 364 2023 Yes
685 E Middlefield
Rd
138 0 690 828 2023 Yes
266/272 Tyrella
Ave
6 0 36 42 2024 Yes
1265 Montecito
Ave
84 1 0 85 2022 Yes
1012 Linda Vista 69 0 0 69 2023 Yes
67 E Evelyn
Avenue
126 0 0 126 2024 Yes
87 E Evelyn
Avenue
150 0 0 150 2024 Yes
57 E Evelyn
Avenue
42 0 0 42 2024 Yes
1020 & 1040 Terra
Bella Ave
78108 0 0 78108 2023 Yes
1020 & 1040 Terra
Bella Ave
30 0 0 30 2023 Yes
Grand Total 1,992668 25226 5,2321,327 7,4762,021
Lower and moderate-income units among the Proposed Projects are based on submitted applications, site capacities and other available information. While the ultimate number of units may change a small amount based on unforeseen circumstances, these projects are committed to very nearly the identified number of lower- and moderate-income units based on the City’s BMR requirements, ownership by non-profit affordable developers, and current Council goals.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 330 Many units occur in two master plans involving long, multi-year Development Agreements:

Middlefield Park (East Whisman Precise Plan) and North Bayshore. Applications have been submitted for these Master Plans which include the proposed housing units as described below.

Both plans are multi-year developments and will provide a combination of affordable and marketrate housing. The City is not taking credit for 100 percent of the build-out of the Master Plans (only the portion reasonably expected to occur within an 8-year period or by 2031). Refer to the City of Mountain View homepage at www.mountainview.gov for more information on these master plans.

For more details on the unit distribution of Proposed Projects, refer to Table 57 and Table 58.  North Bayshore Master Plan: A formal application for this Proposed Project was submitted in September 2021. It includes a Development Agreement for 30 years.

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

Table 56: Proposed Pipeline Projects Summarized by Neighborhood Neighborhood
Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Net New
Units
Moffett/Whisman Road 92 58 466 616
Central Neighborhoods 70 0 0 70
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 318150 0 0 318150
Moffett/Whisman Road 691351 25 1,804035 2,5201,411
Monta Loma/Farley/Rock Street 84 1 0 85
North Bayshore 640 167 2,670 3,477
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 331 Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 97 1 292 390
Grand Total 1,992668 25226 5,2321,327 7,4762,021
Table 57: Proposed Pipeline Projects Summarized by Precise Plan Precise Plan Sum of Lower
Income Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Net
New Units
East Whisman 598168 8325 2,215999 2,8961,192
El Camino Real 164 0 266 430
North Bayshore 640 167 2,670 3,477
Not in Precise Plan 590336 21 8162 673399
Grand Total 1,992668 25226 5,2321,327 7,4762,021
Proposed Projects – Rezoning Required (Affordable Development): Proposed Project sites identified within this subcategory require rezoning, which, except for 1020 & 1040 Terra Bella Avenue, will bewere completed concurrently with the Housing Element and prior to the beginning of the 6th cycleapproved on February 14, 2023. They are sites that the City or affordable housing developers have acquired with the intent to redevelop, as shown in Table 59.Table 58. Where the City is proactively rezoning, applicants will likely use the SB 35 process and the City and developer can be confident that they will proceed within the timeframe of the Housing Element. For 1020 & 1040 Terra Bella Avenue, the rezoning process is occurring with the development approvals, which is nearly complete.tentatively scheduled for March 28, 2023. The number of units assumed on each site are based on discussions with the developers and are corroborated by the capacities of nearby and similar affordable housing developments. Sites in this subcategory include six sites on parcels totaling approximately 7.4 acres. Refer to Figure 97.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 332 Table 58: Proposed Pipeline Projects (Rezoning) Summarized by Project Address Site Address
Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Sum of Total Unit
Capacity
1020 & 1040 Terra Bella
Ave
108 0 0 108
1265 Montecito Ave 84 1 0 85
57 E Evelyn Avenue 42 0 0 42
67 E Evelyn Avenue 126 0 0 126
87 E Evelyn Avenue 150 0 0 150
1012 Linda Vista 69 0 0 69
Grand Total 579 327 10 0 580327
ManySeveral of the Pending Proposed Projects described above are 100 percent affordable developments. While these projects are at different points in the review process, all are expected to be developed within the 6th Cycle, even though they depend on City action, including funding, to proceed. Table 60Table 59 shows the status and steps necessary to bring these developments to fruition. A tentative timeline is also shown. In addition, Programs 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 2.1, 2.2,

4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. ensure that these projects will continue to move forward.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 333 Table 59: Status and Expected Timeline of Major Proposed Affordable Developments Address Sponsor City Subsidy
Expected
Affordable
Units
Estimated
Construction
Start
Next Steps
(planning entitlement, building plans preparation,
building permit issuance, construction. etc.)
1265
Montecito
Avenue
Charities $16 million 85 2023
 Rezoning and entitlement
completed December 2022
 Building Permit and secure non-City
funding — approx. 1 year
89 W. El
Camino Real
First
Community
Housing
pending NOFA
committee 61 2024/2025
 Plan development and NOFA Process — less
than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
96 W. El
Camino Real Danco pending NOFA committee 70 2024/2025
 Plan development and NOFA Process — less
than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
1020 Terra Bella
Avenue Alta $13.5 million 108 2023/2024
 Plan development, rezoning and NOFA
Process — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
87 E. Evelyn
Avenue
TBD pending
development
agreement
150 2025/2026  City-leased with intent to own & will be rezoned with Housing Element Update
 Select developer— less than 1 year
 Plan preparation & funding—approx. 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
57-67 E. Evelyn
Avenue
Charities pending NOFA
committee
168 2025/2026  Will be rezoned with Housing Element Update  Plan development and NOFA Process — TBD
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 334 Address Sponsor City Subsidy
Expected
Affordable
Units
Estimated
Construction
Start
Next Steps
(planning entitlement, building plans preparation,
building permit issuance, construction. etc.)
1012 Linda
Vista Avenue
Alta pending NOFA
committee
69 2024/2025  Will be rezoned with Housing Element Update  Plan development and NOFA Process — less
than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
 Building Permit and secure non-City funding —
approx. 1 year
Pear Ave.

Sobrato
Dedication
TBD not yet known 112 2028  Staging for nearby development - 2 years
 Select developer(s)— less than 1
year
 Plan preparation & funding — less
than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1
year
 Building Permit —approx. 1 year
Middlefield
Park Master
Plan
TBD not yet known 338 2027 – if land
is dedicated
in 2023
 Council Action on Master Plan —
2022; Construction of the Master
Plan anticipated to start in 2023.
 Land dedication anticipated in
Master Plan— 3 years
 City to select nonprofit
developer(s)— approximately 1
year
 Plan preparation & funding — less
than 1 year
 Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1
year
 Building Permit — 6-9 months for
each site
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 335 Address Sponsor City Subsidy
Expected
Affordable
Units
Estimated
Construction
Start
Next Steps
(planning entitlement, building plans preparation,
building permit issuance, construction. etc.)
North Bayshore
Master Plan
TBD not yet known 695 Phase 1:
2028/2029, if
land is
dedicated by
2026
Phase 2: by
2031, if land is
dedicated by
2029
 Council action on Master Plan —
2023
 Land dedication anticipated in
Master Plan— Phase 1 by 2026;
Phase 2 tentatively by 2029
 Start construction within two years
from land dedication
Source: City of Mountain View, 2022.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 336 Developable, Underutilized Opportunity Sites
These sites were filtered and selected as described in the “Site Selection Process” section, and will support multi-family housing at a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Almost all of these sites (95 percent) are within the recently updated Precise Plans for Downtown, East Whisman, El Camino Real, Evandale, Grant-Phyllis, North Bayshore, and San Antonio, which are well distributed throughout the City as illustrated in Figure 97. As shown in Table 60 and Table 61, the Opportunity Sites identified will provide capacity to develop at least 5,36310,485 units across all City neighborhoods, within sixseven Precise Plans.

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

 North Bayshore Master Plan: A formal application for this Proposed Project was submitted in September 2021. It includes a Development Agreement for 30 years which totals 7,000 units over that time. As of January 1, 2023, the application proposes approximately 534 lower-income units, 140 moderate-income units and 2,671 above-moderate-income units for the first two phases of the eight-phase plan. This is the amount assumed during the 2023- 2031 planning period, and represents less than half of the anticipated units the project that is counted for this cycle. This is reasonable because this Master Plan and Development Agreement includes a phasing plan that requires construction of residential early in the entitlement period. In addition, the moderate-income units are conservatively not counted, because they are not required to meet the 15% minimum requirement. The following is the anticipated timeline for development of the affordable units:
o Land dedication anticipated in Master Plan— Phase 1 by 2026; Phase 2 tentatively by 2029
o Start construction within two years from land dedication  Middlefield Park Master Plan: A formal application for this Proposed Project was submitted in September 2020 and a 20-year Development Agreement has been approved, including 1,900 total units. The approved plan includes 338 to 380 lower-income units and 850 above-moderate income units in the first phase of the four-phase plan. This is the portion of the units expected to be built within the 8 year planning period. This is reasonable because this Master Plan and Development Agreement includes a phasing plan that requires construction of residential early in the entitlement period. The following is the anticipated timeline for development of the affordable units:
o Land dedication anticipated in Master Plan— 3 years
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 337 o City to select nonprofit developer(s)— approximately 1 year o Plan preparation & funding — less than 1 year
o Entitlement (SB 35) — less than 1 year
o Building Permit — 6-9 months for each site
Program 4.5 commits to facilitating and moving quickly on the development of the affordable units in these projects, which are provided as dedicated land, as soon as it is dedicated to the City.

Table 60: Opportunity Sites Summary by Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Sum of Low
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of Net
New
Capacity
Central Neighborhoods 12758 102141 0 229199
Grant Road/Sylvan Park 303445 7669 0 379514
Moffett/Whisman Road 1,079567 297612 521,041 1,4283,220 Monta Loma/Farley/Rock
Street
66 85106 0 151172
North Bayshore 4131,059 192 8003,471 1,4054,722
San Antonio/Rengstorff 536 585530 0 1,121066
Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis 383369 267223 0 650592
Grand Total 2,9074,100 1,604873 8524,512 5,36310,485
Table 61: Opportunity Sites Summary by Precise Plan
Precise Plan
Sum of Low
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Sum of Net
New
Capacity
Downtown 0 68 0 68
East Whisman 9971,485 263396 521,041 1,3122,922
El Camino Real 957848 778736 0 1,735584
Evandale 0 136 0 136
Grant – Phyllis 201 12179 0 322280
North Bayshore 4131,059 192 8003,471 1,4054,722
San Antonio 191 119 0 310
Not in Precise Plan 148316 125207 0 273523
Grand Total 2,9074,100 1,604873 8524,512 5,36310,485
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 338 Figure 97: Summary of Opportunity Sites
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 339 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 340 Rezoned Opportunity Sites
Some Opportunity Sites were rezoned as a result of stakeholder input that was gathered during the development of the sites inventory process. These Many of these Opportunity Sites are consistent with General Plan direction and have been rezoned concurrent with this Housing Element Update before or just after the beginning of the 6th cycle (though some actions will not take effect while others will be rezoned shortly after the start of the cycle)33.

These sitesrezonings include the following:
 Existing shopping centers that were identified as “Village Centers” in the 2030 General Plan, where new residential development could be integrated into redeveloped neighborhood centers with a mix of uses.
 El Camino Real ”Village Centers” that already allow up to 2.3 FAR through a legislative “floating zone” process—a process that is superseded by State law and the General Plan.  Implementing General Plan Village Center uses and standards at existing underutilized shopping centers throughout the City (including south of El Camino Real where the highest opportunity neighborhoods are located) – Adopted February 14, 2023 (January 24, 2023 for Grant Park Plaza);
 Removing the requirement to obtain legislative approvals in order to build at the highest densities along El Camino Real – Adopted January 24, 2023;  Two sites, 57 and 67 E Evelyn Avenue, that were purchased by affordable housing developers with the intent to develop lower-income units on these parcels within the planning period - Adopted February 14, 2023; and
 Rezonings included in Program 1.1: Nine sites within the Moffett/Whisman Road neighborhood and one site (1702 Miramonte Ave) in the Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis neighborhood that will be rezoned. These sites are not needed to meet a RHNA shortfall and there is sufficient buffer at all income levels within the City’s sites inventory.– currently unscheduled but targeted for completion by December 31, 2024.

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

Rezoned Opportunity Sites within that have been rezoned prior to the General Plan Village Centers and El Camino Real Village Center sites start of the planning period or will be rezoned include a total of 2437 parcels and yield 6401,467 units total. As mentioned above, none of these sites are needed to meet a lower-income RHNA shortfall as of January 31, 2023. Refer to Table 63Table 62 and Figure 97.

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 341 Table 62: Rezoned Opportunity Site Summarized by Designation Rezoning Status*
Sum of
Lower
Income
Units
Sum of
Moderate
Income
Units
Sum of
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Sum of Total Unit
Capacity
General Plan Village Center
Opportunity sites rezoned as
of January 31, 2023 283610 192311 0 475921
Opportunity Sites rezoned as
February 14, 2023 250 65 0 315
El Camino Real Village
CenterOpportunity Sites that
require future rezoning 1060 59231 0 165231
Grand Total 389860 251607 0 6401,467
*None of these rezoning sites are needed to meet a lower-income RHNA shortfall.

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

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

Table 63: Accessory Dwelling Units BuiltPermitted in Prior Housing Element Cycle Year 20182020 20192021 20202022 Total
Building
Completed
ADUs
Permitted
5 18 5 31 12 42 22 91
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 342 Based on the trend of the 12 ADUs built in 2020, which is more than double from the prior year, the inventory assumed 96 ADUs total (12 units multiplied over an 8-year planning period). It is anticipated that a similar number of ADUs and JADUs, if not more, will be permitted and built in Mountain View during each year in the 6th cycle, with additional improvements to be made to ADU processes and public education, and through expanding policies and programs to further advance ADU/JADU development (for more information, refer to the Policies & Programs section of the Housing Element).

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

Table 65The City issued a total of 91 ADU permits combined in 2020, 2021, and 2022, as shown in Table 63. This averages approximately 30.33 ADU permits per year (91 permits divided by 3 years).

Multiply this average, 30.33 ADUs, by the eight-year planning period, for a total of 243 ADUs projected over the 6th Cycle.

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

Refer to Chapter 3: Housing Plan for more details.
 Housing Element Program 1.7: Monitor and Promote Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, and SB9 Developments
 Housing Element Program 2.2: Pilot ADU & SB9 Financial Incentives Program Table 64: Accessory Dwelling Units Projected Over the Planning Period Income
Category
Very
Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Total ADUs 2473 2473 3873 1024 96243
Percentages 2530% 2530% 4030% 10% 100%
Source: ABAG. September 8, 2021. Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units. http://21elements.com/documentsmainmenu3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 343 Evaluation of Sites Inventory Through the Lens of AFFH
AB 686 (Santiago) created a new requirement for local jurisdictions to evaluate their Housing Element sites inventories through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The law requires that the site inventory be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with the local jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. HCD’s guidance on implementation of the requirement for the sites inventory analysis states that it should address:
 Improved Conditions: A discussion of how the sites are identified in a manner that better integrates the community with a consideration for the historical patterns and trends, number of existing households, the magnitude (e.g., number of units) of the RHNA by income group and impacts on patterns of socio-economic and racial concentrations.  Exacerbated Conditions: Similar to above, an explanation of identified sites relative to the impact on existing patterns of segregation and number of households relative to the magnitude (e.g., number of units) of the RHNA by income group.  Isolation of the RHNA: An evaluation of whether the RHNA by income group is concentrated in areas of the community.
 Local Data and Knowledge: A consideration of current, planned and past developments, investment, policies, practices, demographic trends, public comment and other factors.  Other Relevant Factors: Any other factors that influence the impacts of the identification of sites to accommodate the regional housing need on socio-economic patterns and segregation.

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

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

While Mountain View also does not have any areas that meet the technical definition for RCAAs, Figure 64 in Appendix B shows that most of the Census Tracts in Mountain View with high proportions of White residents also have relatively high median household incomes. The following DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 344 subsection evaluates the site inventory in relation to areas with concentrations of White residents.

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

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

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

Table 65 shows the existing distribution of housing units in Mountain View in relation to the nonWhite share of the population in each Block Group. As shown, almost half (48 percent) of all existing housing units in Mountain View are located in Census Block Groups in which non-White residents constitute 55 to 65 percent of the Block Group’s population. Among units in approved projects, pipeline projects, and available sites outside of the North Bayshore area, 7574 percent of lowerincome units are located in Census Block Groups where non-White residents constitute 55 to 65 percent of the Block Group’s population, meaning that approximately three quarters of all lowerincome units in the site inventory outside of the North Bayshore area are located in areas with a racial and ethnic mix that is fairly typical for Mountain View.

As shown in Table 65, approximately 29 percent of existing housing units are located in Block Groups in which non-White residents constitute 65 percent of the population or more. Among lowerincome units in the site inventory outside of the North Bayshore area, 1921 percent would be located in these Block Groups, meaning that the site inventory does not overly concentrate affordable units in Block Groups with existing concentrations of non-White households.

Table 65 also demonstrates that the units in the site inventory are disproportionately located outside of areas with particularly small non-White populations. As shown, 23 percent of existing housing DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 345 units in Mountain View are located in Block Groups in which non-White residents comprise less than 55 percent of the population. Among units in the site inventory, sixfive percent of lower-income units (excluding those in the North Bayshore area) would be located in Block Groups in which non-White residents comprise less than 55 percent of the population. This is due largely to the challenges associated with identifying viable housing opportunity sites in areas south of El Camino Real, which is where most of the City’s majority-White Block Groups are located. This Housing Element Update includes programs that will help to facilitate affordable housing production South of El Camino Real by allowing affordable multifamily housing in the R1 district when constructed in conjunction with non-profit religious and community assembly uses on large sites (Program 1.4) and facilitating ADU production and SB9 projects (Programs 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2). Units that would be facilitated through these programs are not captured in the site inventory.

Table 65: Distribution of the Sites Inventory by Block Group Racial and Ethnic Composition, Excluding the North Bayshore Area
Block Group Racial and Ethnic
Composition Existing Housing Units (a) Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (b) Less than 55% Non-White 23% 65%
55%-65% Non-White 48% 7574%
65% or more Non-White 29% 1921%
Notes:
(a) Excludes existing households in the Census Block Group that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Block Group is analyzed separately.
(b) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. Excludes units in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Census Tract is analyzed separately.

Sources: US Census, 2020; BAE 2022.

In addition to the units evaluated in Table 65, the site inventory also includes 5,202042 units in the Census Block Group that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. Within this Block Group, non-White residents comprise an estimated 69 percent of the population, higher than is typical within Mountain View. It should be noted that most if not all of the existing housing units in this Census Tract are in a mobile home park, which likely provides a comparatively affordable housing option. The 5,202042 units in the site inventory are equal to approximately 14 times the number of existing units in this Census Tract. Of these units in the site inventory in this Census Tract, most (3,690691 units) are anticipated to be affordable to above moderate-income households, with the remainder affordable to low-income or moderate-income households. The inclusion of a significant number of above moderate-income units in this area along with the smaller share of low- and moderate-income units will prevent a concentration of lower-income units in this Census Tract.

Figure 98 further demonstrates the findings described above. The figure shows the sites in the site inventory, including approved projects, pending projects, and opportunity sites, as well as the nonWhite share of the population in each Census Tract. In addition, the map also shows religious sites, DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 346 on which the development of affordable housing will be facilitated by Program 1.4, and areas zoned for single-family use, which are potential sites for ADUs and SB9 projects that will be facilitated by Programs 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2. As shown, the sites are not concentrated in any one area of the City, nor are sites concentrated in areas with particularly high concentrations of non-White residents. The figure demonstrates that there is a shortage of sites in the Census Tracts with particularly low concentrations of non-White residents. However, the map also demonstrates that much of these Census Tract are zoned for single-family use, enabling the creation of affordable units through ADUs or SB9 projects in these areas. These Census Tracts also include religious sites that could be potential future sites for affordable housing. The site inventory does not include ADUs, SB9 projects, or housing that could be built on religious sites, and therefore these units would be additive to units built on sites in the inventory.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 347 Figure 98: Housing Sites by Share of Non-White Population DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 348 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 349 Concentrations of Poverty Level and Low and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods Overall, Mountain View has very low levels of poverty, and its areas of highest concentration of households with income below poverty level only reach a maximum of 16.4 percent. There is a grouping of lower-income RHNA sites in one of two Census Tracts with between 10.0 and 16.4 percent poverty; however, sites are predominantly located in areas with poverty below 10 percent.

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

Excluding units in the North Bayshore area, approved projects, pending projects, and available sites in the site inventory, 5354 percent of lower-income units are in Census Tracts in which less than 35 percent of households have low or moderate incomes. This means that the lower-income units in the site inventory are disproportionately located in Census Tracts with relatively low existing concentrations of low- and moderate-income households.

Table 66: Distribution of the Sites Inventory by Census Tract Low- and ModerateIncome Composition, Excluding the North Bayshore Area Census Tract Income Composition Existing Housing Units (a) Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (b)
Less than 35% Low/Moderate Income 49% 5354%
35% or higher Low/Moderate Income 51% 4746%
Notes:
(a) Excludes existing households in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Census Tract is analyzed separately.
(b) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. Excludes units in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Census Tract is analyzed separately.

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

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

As shown in Table 67, an estimated 53 percent of households in Census Tract 5046.01 are low or moderate-income households, making this one of the Census Tracts with the largest concentrations of low- and moderate-income households in Mountain View. This is likely because the most if not all of the existing housing units in this Census Tract are in a mobile home park, which tend to provide a DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 350 comparatively affordable housing option. In total, there are an estimated 370 existing households in this Census Tract.

Among approved projects, pipeline projects, and units on available sites, 2927 percent of the units in this Census Tract would consist of low- or moderate-income units, a significantly lower proportion than among existing households in this Census Tract. Assuming no change in the household income distribution among existing units in the Census Tract, the addition of these units would result in an estimated 3129 percent of households in the Census Tract having low or moderate incomes. As shown in Table 66 above, approximately half of all households in Mountain View live in Census Tracts in which 35 percent of households have low or moderate incomes, meaning that the construction of the units in the site inventory would make the concentration of low- and moderateincome households in the North Bayshore area lower than the existing concentration in most areas of the City.

Table 67: Site Inventory Distribution of Low- and Moderate-Income Units, North Bayshore Area
Existing Housing Units Units in Site Inventory Total
All Units 370 5,202042 5,572412
Low-Income & ModerateIncome Households/Units (a) 196 1,512351 1,708547 % Low/Moderate Income 53% 2927% 3129%
Note:
(a) The number of low/moderate-income units among existing units is estimated based on the share of existing households in the Census Tract with low or moderate incomes.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 351 Figure 99: Housing Sites by Share of Low- and Moderate-Income Households DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 352 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 353 Environmental Conditions (CalEnviroscreen)
Sites are well distributed, with significant concentrations of RHNA sites in areas with the lowest percentile (best) scores. There are also concentrations of sites in the City’s areas that have higher percentile scores; however, the City’s percentile scores rise only to 50.5 percent at their highest, meaning that these sites are in areas that still rank well on a statewide basis. Some areas with high CalEnviroScreen scores, most notably the North Bayshore area, are anticipated to accommodate a portion of the City’s RHNA. These areas have high CalEnviroScreen scores largely due to the proximity to Highway 101. While the site inventory does include affordable units in these areas, most of these units are anticipated to be affordable to above moderate-income households. Therefore, the site inventory does not concentrate affordable units in areas with high CalEnviroScreen scores.

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

Construction of the units in the site inventory will help to improve access to opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing in Mountain View. With the exception of units in the North Bayshore Master Plan area, more than half (5152 percent) of all lower-income units in the site inventory are located in “highest resource” areas and 4443 percent are located in “high resource” areas, while five percent are located in “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” areas, as shown in Table 68.

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 354 Table 68: Site Inventory Distribution by TCAC/HUD Opportunity Area, Excluding the North Bayshore Area
Opportunity Index Designation Existing Housing Units (a) Lower-Income Units in Site Inventory (b)
Highest Resource 41% 5152%
High Resource 45% 4443%
Moderate Resource (rapidly changing) 14% 5%
Low Resource 0% 0%
Notes:
(a) Excludes existing households in the Census Block Group that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. This Block Group is analyzed separately.
(b) Includes units in approved projects, pending projects, and available sites. Excludes units in the Census Tract that encompasses the North Bayshore Master Plan. These Census Tracts are analyzed separately.

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

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

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 355 Figure 100: Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 356 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 357 Education Domain Scores
The geographic distribution of units in the site inventory will help to improve access to opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing in Mountain View. As shown in Table 69, approximately half (50 percent) of all existing housing units in Mountain View are located in Census Tracts with an Educational Domain score under 80 percent, with the remainder (50 percent) in Census Tracts with an Education Domain score of 80 percent or higher. Among lower-income units in the site inventory, 65 percent are located in Census Tracts with an education domain score of 80 percent or higher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

While the site inventory does not concentrate sites for affordable units in areas with existing concentrations of non-White households, it also does not include a significant number of sites in predominantly White areas. This is due primarily to the challenges associated with identifying housing opportunity sites in areas south of El Camino Real, an area that is characterized by high- DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 358 value single-family homes, where most of the predominantly White Census Block Groups in Mountain View are located. While the site inventory does identify some sites within this area, due to the high value of the existing homes and challenges with site assembly, much of this area would be unlikely to meet HCD’s criteria for lower-income housing opportunity sites even if rezoned at to allow for higher densities. This Housing Element Update includes programs that will help to facilitate affordable housing production South of El Camino Real by allowing affordable multifamily housing in the R1 district when constructed in conjunction with non-profit religious and community assembly uses on large sites (Program 1.4) and facilitating ADU production and SB9 projects (Programs 1.6,

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

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

During the public review process for the Housing Element Update, some stakeholders commented that they wished to see more housing Opportunity Sites identified in the more affluent neighborhoods south of El Camino Real. and around Downtown. In response to those comments, the Housing Sites inventory process included an evaluation of additional sites south of El Camino Real, including religious sites and shopping centers, and Downtown, including additional City- and government-owned sites. In addition, many programs have special focus on these areas to increase affordable housing.
 While religious sites did not meet the Opportunity Sites criteria, primarily because there are few precedents involving church sites and multi-family development, the Housing Element includes a program (1.4) to allow religious sites additional density when constructing affordable housing developments on their land.
 Several shopping centers south of El Camino Real were identified as “Village Centers” in the 2030 General Plan, where new housing could be allowed in the context of redeveloped neighborhood shopping sites. Zoning amendments adopted with the Housing Element Update implemented this General Plan direction. These sites were included in the sites DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 359 inventory if they are consistent with the underutilized sites methodology (see Rezoned Opportunity Sites section).
 In addition,Program 1.1 includes rezonings of several sites in high-opportunity areas, including the area does include Downtown Transit Center, which may be an opportunity for a substantial amount land zoned R3 (Multiple Family), primarily justjoint development with CalTrain, and other nonresidential sites south of El Camino Real. The sites inventory is not targeting rezoning of land zoned R1 (Single Family) in , such as 1949 Grant Road and offices near Blossom Valley Shopping Center.
 Program 1.3 includes increases to densities in R2 districts with a focus on areas with the best access to high opportunity areas.
 Program 1.11 will track and ensure no net loss of lower-income unit capacity in areas south of El Camino Real. Although and around Downtown.
 Though there are practical reasons for this, such as is a lack of vacant/underutilized land in the R1 district that meets the State’s criteria for housing sites (e.g., larger than one-half acre, vacant, likely to redevelop in the 2023-2031 time period), there are still opportunities for new housing for lower-income households in the form of potential Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units that could be added to existing single-family lots, as well as the potential for some densification of the neighborhood through the provisions of SB9.

Programs 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2 incentivize these types of projects.

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

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

 The Downtown Transit Center, which may be an opportunity for a joint development with CalTrain; and
 Other nonresidential sites south of El Camino Real, such as 1949 Grant Road and offices near Blossom Valley Shopping Center.
 Program 4.5 includes working towards at least 65 lower-income units in Downtown, which is among the highest-opportunity and lowest non-white population areas of the City. This may include use of City-owned sites.

Summary of Conclusions and Approach to Policies and Programs The sites inventory and the housing development opportunities that it provides will help to affirmatively further fair housing. Overall, the sites inventory does not exacerbate fair housing issues, such as contribute to R/ECAPS, RCAAs, or racial or ethnic isolation or segregation; nor does it overly concentrate lower income housing Opportunity Sites in any single area of the City. It does not concentrate lower-income housing Opportunity Sites in areas that already have significant concentrations of poverty or areas of racial or ethnic isolation or segregation. In contrast, DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 360 opportunities for housing development for lower-income households are identified in areas with high opportunity and good access to jobs, transportation, and a healthy environment.

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

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

DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 361 HCD Sites Inventory Spreadsheets
This space intentionally left blank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HCD Sites Inventory Table A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 368 HCD Sites Inventory Table B: this is intentionally blank

HCD Sites Inventory Table C
Zoning Designation
From Table A, Column G
and Table B, Columns L and N
(e.g., "R-1")
General Land Uses Allowed (e.g., "Low-density residential") R1
Low-Density Residential, up to approximately 6 DU/ac -
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV3SIMIR1ZODIST
R2
Medium Low-Density Residential, up to approximately 12 DU/ac - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV4ONTMIR2ZODIST
R3-1
Medium Density Residential, up to approximately 35 DU/ac - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV5MUMIR3ZODIST
R3-1.25
Medium Density Residential, up to approximately 35 DU/ac - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV5MUMIR3ZODIST
R3-2
Medium Density Residential, up to approximately 22 DU/ac - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV5MUMIR3ZODIST
R3-3sd
Medium Density Residential, up to approximately 15 DU/ac - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV5MUMIR3ZODIST
P
Planned Community (Planned Development zoning), uses depend on approval -
CN
Neighborhood-serving commercial -
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVCOZO_DIV4COIGCNZODIST
CRA
Multi-family residential up to 43 DU/ac, office, commercial, hotels, etc - https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVCOZO_DIV6CORETECRZODIST
MM
Industrial -
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinance s?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVIINZO_DIV5GEINMMZODIST
P(19) - Downtown Precise Plan
Downtown Mixed Use (commercial, office, multi-family residential) - https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29 P(27) - Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan
Shopping center (commercial); General Plan allows residential up to 1.85 FAR and Precise Plan will be amended -
P(38) - El Camino Real Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.35/1.85/2.3 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
P(39) - North Bayshore Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.85/3.5/4.5 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
P(40) - San Antonio Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.85/2.35 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
P(41) - East Whisman Precise Plan
Multi-family residential up to 1.85/2.5/3.5 FAR (depending on area), office, commercial, hotels, etc -
DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix E: Housing Sites Analysis 369

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 370 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 371 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 401 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 402 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 403 DRAFT Mountain View Housing Element | Appendix G: City of Mountain View Mulitfamily Housing Violation Checklist 404 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.