EPC 2014-04-16 Item 5.1 Staff Report - Exhibit 1elm 11lto
�1
2015 -2023
Housing Element
Prepared For: City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Prepared By: Environmental Science Associates (ESA)
550 Kearny Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 1
City of Mountain View
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Mountain View 2015 -2023 Housing Element
2
20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
Acknowledgements
City Council
Christopher Clark, Mayor
John McAlister, Vice Mayor
Margaret Abe -Koga, Councilmember
Ronit Bryant, Councilmember
Jac Siegel, Councilmember
John Inks, Councilmember
R. Michael Kasperzak, Jr., Councilmember
Environmental Planning Commission
Robert Cox, Chair
Lisa Matichak, Commissioner
Margaret Capriles, Commissioner
Todd Fernandez, Commissioner
Ellen Kamei, Commissioner
Kathy Trontell, Commissioner
City Manager's Office
Daniel H. Rich, City Manager
Community Development Department
Randy Tsuda, Community Development Director
Martin Alkire, Principal Planner
Margaret Netto, Planner
Linda Lauzze, Neighborhood Services Manager
Vera Gil, Housing Project Manager
Regina Adams, Senior Planner
Eric Anderson, Associate Planner
Consultant Team
Lloyd Zola, Project Director
Alexa Washburn, Project Manager
Sarah Walker, Deputy Project Manager
Leslie Lowe, CEQA Task Leader
Arlene Granadosin, Project Planner
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 3
City of Mountain View
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Mountain View 2015 -2023 Housing Element
[ �
20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......... .......... .............................. ............................... 9
1.1 - Role and Content of Housing Element ................................................. ..............................9
1.2 - Public Participation ................................................................................ ...............................
10
1.3 - Organization of the Housing Element ................................................ ...............................
12
1.4 - Consistency with the General Plan ....................................................... .............................13
2. Housing Plan ...................................................... .............................15
2.1 - Goals, Policies and Programs ................................................................ .............................15
3. Quantified Objectives ........................................ .............................43
4. Housing Needs Assessment ............................. .............................45
4.1 - Demographic Trends .............................................................................. .............................45
4.2 - Employment Trends ................................................................................. .............................52
4.3 - Housing Stock Characteristics ............................................................... .............................56
4.4 - Market Conditions and Affordability .................................................... .............................61
4.5 - Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion ............................................... ...............................
71
4.6 - Special Needs Groups .......................................................................... ...............................
72
5. Projected Housing Needs .................................. .............................87
5.1 - Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ....................................... .............................87
5.2 - Housing Needs for Extremely Low - Income Households .................... .............................88
6. Housing Constraints ........................................ ...............................
91
6.1 - Governmental Constraints ..................................................................... .............................91
6.2 - Non - Governmental Constraints ......................................................... ..............................1
15
6.3 - Environmental Constraints .................................................................. ..............................1
19
7. Housing Resources ............. ............................... ............................123
7.1 - Sites Inventory .......................................................... ............................... ............................123
7.2 - General Environmental Constraints ...................... ............................... ............................162
7.3 - Financial Resources ................................................ ............................... ............................164
7.4 - Energy Conservation Opportunities ..................... ............................... ............................167
8. Progress Report .................. ............................... ............................171
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 5
City of Mountain View
Appendix A: Public Outreach ............................. ............................205
Appendix B: Summary of City Zoning Standards ........................209
Appendix C: General Plan Consistency Matrix ............................ 219
List of Tables
Table 3 -1: Quantified Objectives ................................................................... .............................44
Table 4 -1: Population Growth Trends, 1990- 2010 ........................................ .............................46
Table 4 -2: Household Growth Trends, 1990- 2010 ......................................... .............................46
Table 4 -3: Projected Household Growth, 2010- 2040 .................................. .............................47
Table 4 -4: Household Tenure, 2000 and 2010 .............................................. .............................48
Table 4 -5: Household Composition, 2000 and 2011 ................................... .............................49
Table 4 -6: Age Distribution, 2010 .................................................................... .............................50
Table 4 -7: Household Income, 2011 .............................................................. .............................51
Table 4 -8: Employment by Sector, 2011 ....................................................... .............................53
Table 4 -9: Projected Job Growth, 2010- 2040 ............................................... .............................55
Table 4 -10: Age of Housing Stock, 2011 ........................................................ .............................56
Table 4-11: Tenure by Number of Units in Structure, 2011 .......................... .............................58
Table 4 -12: Building Permits by Building Type (a) .......................................... .............................59
Table 4 -13: Average Household Size, 2011 .................................................. .............................60
Table 4 -14: Median Housing Rental Rates, 2005 - 2013 ................................ .............................62
Table 4 -15: Inventory of Rental Units, 2013 ................................................... .............................62
Table 4 -16: Median Housing Unit Values, June 2013 .................................. .............................64
Table 4 -17: Occupancy Status by Tenure, 2011 .......................................... .............................64
Table 4 -18: County Household Income Limits, 2013 ................................... .............................65
Table 4 -19: Housing Affordability by Income Group, 2013 ........................ .............................67
Table 4 -20: Summary of Housing Overpayment, 2010 ............................... .............................68
Table 4 -21: Overcrowding by Tenure, 2011 ................................................. .............................69
Table 4 -22: Inventory of Affordable Housing Units, 2013 ............................ .............................71
Table 4 -23: Elderly Households by Tenure, 2010 .......................................... .............................73
Table 4 -24: Housing Problems for Senior Residents, 2009 ........................... .............................74
Table 4 -25: Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly ................................. .............................75
Table 4 -26: Subsidized Rental Housing for Seniors ....................................... .............................76
Table 4 -27: Disability Status of Non - Institutionalized Persons, 2011 .......... .............................77
Table 4 -28: Residential Facilities and Group Homes, 2013 ........................ .............................78
Table 4 -29: Developmentally Disabled Residents by Age, 2013 .............. .............................79
Table 4 -30: Household Size by Tenure, 2010 ................................................. .............................80
Table 4 -31: Cost Burden by Household Income Level for Large Households, 2009...........81
Table 4 -32: Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms, 2011 ........................ .............................82
Table 4 -33: Santa Clara County Homeless Survey, 2013 ........................... .............................84
Table 5 -1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2014- 2022 ........................ .............................88
Table 5 -2: Housing Problems for All Households, 2010 ................................ .............................89
Table 6 -1: Off - Street Parking Requirements ................................................. .............................97
20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
Table 6 -2: Estimated Residential Development Impact Fees .................. ............................103
Table 6 -4: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type ...................... ............................108
Table 6 -5: Mountain View Mobile Home Parks ......................................... ..............................1
1 1
Table 7 -1: Achievable Residential Density for Completed Projects, 2007 -2013 ...............126
Table 7 -2: Sites for Lower Income Households (0- 80% AMI) .................... ............................149
Table 7 -3: Sites for Moderate Income Households (80 -120 %AMI) ........... ............................155
Table 7 -4: Sites for Households Above Moderate Income Households (120 %+ AMI) ......159
Table 7 -5: Summary of Unit Capacity by Site Area .... ............................... ............................161
Table 8 -1: 2007 -2014 Housing Accomplishments ........ ............................... ............................172
Table A -1: Housing Element Stakeholder Groups ....... ............................... ............................205
Table B -1: R1 Zoning District Development Standards .............................. ............................210
Table B -2: R1 Zoning District Minimum Lot Areas ....................................... .............................21
1
Table B -3: R2 Zoning District Development Standards ............................. .............................21
1
Table B -4: R2 Zoning District Minimum Lot Areas ......... ............................... ............................212
Table B -5: R3 Zoning District Development Standards .............................. ............................212
Table B -6: R3 Zoning District Minimum Lot Areas ......... ............................... ............................213
Table B -7: R4 Zoning District Development Standards .............................. ............................214
Table B -8: RMH Zoning District Development Standards .......................... ............................215
Table B -9: CRA Zoning District Development Standards .......................... ............................216
Table B -10: Companion Unit Development Standards ............................. ............................217
Table C -1: General Plan Consistency Matrix ............... ............................... ............................221
List of Exhibits
Figure 4 -1: Annual Median Home Price, 2000 - 2013 .................................... .............................63
Figure 4 -2: Examples of Household Income in Santa Clara County ........ .............................66
Figure 6 -1: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs ................ ............................... 118
Figure 7 -1: City of Mountain View 2014 -2022 RHNA ... ............................... ............................123
Figure 7 -2: Site Inventory for Lower Income Households (0 -80% of AMI) ...........................131
Figure 7 -3: Site Inventory for Moderate Income Households (80 -120% of AMI) ................153
Figure 7 -4: Site Inventory for Above Moderate Households (120 %+ AMI) .........................157
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t %
City of Mountain View
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Mountain View 2015 -2023 Housing Element
8 20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
1. Introduction
1.1 - Role and Content of Housing Element
The Housing Element establishes a comprehensive, long -term plan to address the housing
needs of the City of Mountain View. Along with six other mandated elements, the State
requires that a Housing Element be a part of the General Plan. Updated every eight years,
the Housing Element is Mountain View's primary policy document regarding the
development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the
population. Per State Housing Element law, the document must:
• Outline a community's housing production objectives;
• List policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing goals;
• Examine the need for housing resources in a community, focusing in particular on
special needs populations;
• Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels;
• Analyze the potential constraints to production; and
• Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other components of the General
Plan.
1.1.1- Authority
Housing elements are required as a mandatory element of General Plans by Sec. 65580(c)
of the Government Code. In 1980, the State Legislature passed a bill (AB2853) establishing
the majority of the requirements for housing element content including: the needs
assessment; goals, objectives and policies; and implementation program. Since that time,
the Legislature has made a number of modifications to the law, which are reflected in this
update.
1.1.2 - Status
This document is an update to the Housing Element of the City of Mountain View General
Plan. The 2007 -2014 Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2011
and certified by the State on January 6, 2012. This updated Housing Element focuses on
housing needs from January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023, in accordance with the
Housing Element planning period for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions established by
State law.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 9
City of Mountain View
1.1.3 - New State Legislation
The Housing Element addresses new State legislation, which mandates that the following
reforms be included to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. This
new legislation targets five specific areas including:
AB 162: Requires the City, upon adoption of the Housing Element, to identify specific
flood hazard zones in the Land Use Element and specific floodwater and
groundwater recharge areas in the Conservation and Safety Elements.
SB 244: Requires the City, upon the adoption of a Housing Element, to update the
Land Use Element to include data and analysis, goals, and implementation
measures regarding unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy communities and their
infrastructure needs.
SB 812: In addition to the existing special needs groups, the City must include an
analysis of the housing needs for developmentally disabled persons.
- AB 1867: Under certain conditions, the City can now count multi -unit homeownership
units that have been converted to affordable units toward their RHNA allocation.
• SB375 Implications: For jurisdictions that do not submit their adopted 2014 -2021
housing element update within 120 days of the October 2013 deadline, their housing
element updates revert to a four -year cycle.
1.2 - Public Participation
To solicit community input for the 2015 -2023 Housing Element update, the City organized
several community events targeting different segments of the local population. In October
2013, the City held an initial community workshop during a regularly scheduled
Environmental Planning Commission meeting. Approximately 50 community organizations,
non - profits, housing developers and other interest groups were sent an invitation letter as
well as a flyer to post at their organization. Flyers were also posted at City Hall and on the
City website to encourage community participation. Groups invited to the meeting
included, but were not limited to:
Advocates for Affordable Housing
Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
Mountain View Senior Advisory Committee
Tri- County Apartment Association
Santa Clara County Housing Authority
Homebuilders Association of Northern California
• League of Women Voters
• Joint Venture Silicon Valley
• Alpha Omega Group
• Bridge Housing
11 Charities Housing
Habitat for Humanity
At the workshop a presentation was given on the Housing Element process, contents,
demographic changes since 2007 and accomplishments achieved during the 4th Housing
Element planning period. Approximately 12 organizations and residents were present and
spoke about housing issues in the community. Comments focused on a variety of topic
areas including: housing for extremely low- income households, removing the cap on
10 20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View -
efficiency studios, involving the school districts in the housing planning process, focusing
housing aid to Mountain View teachers and public safety workers, and housing types
appropriate for the growing senior population. During the meeting the Environmental
Planning Commission discussed the issue of housing supply in response to growing demand,
and requested that opportunities for increased affordable housing development be
considered by Staff, such as an Affordable Housing Overlay district. Comments from this
initial meeting were reflected in the development of the Housing Plan through specific
programs and policies, including:
Below Market Rate Program (Program 1.1)
Extremely Low - Income Housing (Program 1.2)
Partnerships with subsidized housing developers (Program 1.3);
Innovative housing programs (Program 1.10);
Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing (Program 1.12)
BMR Preference Program (Programs 2.2 and 2.3);
Cap on Efficiency Units (Program 4.3)
School Impacts (Program 4.6)
Following the October Environmental Planning Commission workshop, a second community
meeting to address the housing needs of special resident groups was scheduled for
December 12, 2013. The workshop was held in the evening at the City of Mountain View
Senior Center with dinner and childcare provided for attendees. Invitation flyers were
prepared and distributed in English, Spanish, Russian and Chinese and City Staff actively
contacted local churches and residents groups in person and via telephone to ensure they
were available to participate.
During the meeting a general presentation was provided to introduce information on the
Housing Element update process, housing programs offered by the City, as well as the San
Antonio Precise Plan update and El Camino Real Precise Plan update. The precise plan
updates were included as a discussion topic in the workshop as they contain a number of
housing sites and are anticipated to accommodate a significant portion of the City's
residential development in the future. To help facilitate the meeting, the City contracted
with Project Sentinel, a local non - profit organization that provides fair housing and
facilitation services to the community. Project Sentinel facilitators were present at the
meeting to translate materials into Spanish, Russian and Chinese. Following the
presentation overview attendees were asked to participate in small groups to share their
opinions on several housing related questions.
At the December 12, 2013 meeting residents expressed concern regarding the following
issues:
Housing diversity is decreasing as new development is driving up costs and pushing
lower income families out. In some instances, rents are doubling - up to $4,000 for a 2
bedroom apartment.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 11
City of Mountain View
A variety of housing types is essential to serve a variety of income levels and to
protect the working and middle class. One method discussed to achieve this could
be rent stabilization /rent ceilings to prevent evictions.
New housing is generally high -end and geared toward professionals in the
technology sector, as older buildings that are more affordable are demolished or
rehabilitated. One solution discussed could be to involve corporations in the process
of developing housing.
• Mountain View needs to invest in their transportation infrastructure to address
commute times. Currently, lower- income workers, i.e. retail workers, are driving in
from the Central Valley which is unsustainable.
• It is essential that the City address NIMBYs to ensure affordable housing
development. The City should provide residents with a better understanding of the
tools available to the City to provide affordable units.
1.3 - Organization of the Housing Element
Following this introduction, the Housing Element includes the following major components:
Section 2: Housing Plan. A series of goals, policies, and programs to address the
City's housing needs.
Section 3: Quantified Objectives. An estimate of the anticipated and potential
housing development during the planning period, including units assisted through
programs;
Section 4: Housing Needs Assessment. An analysis of the City's housing needs,
considering demographic and employment trends, market conditions, and special
needs populations.
Section 5: Projected Housing Needs. A discussion of Mountain View's housing needs
during the current planning period, as determined by the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA).
Section 6: Housing Constraints. An analysis of governmental and non - governmental
constraints to housing production
Section 7: Housing Resources. An analysis of the City's ability to satisfy its RHNA unit
allocation for the 2015 -2023 planning period.
Section 8: Review of Prior Housing Element. A review of the 2007 -2014 Housing
Element, including an analysis of the effectiveness and appropriateness of each
program established for the previous housing element planning period.
12 20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
1.4 - Consistency with the General Plan
State Law requires that General Plan elements be "integrated, internally consistent and
compatible statement of policies." This implies that all elements have equal legal status
and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element must be
consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and closely
coordinated with the Mobility Element of the City's General Plan.
During the previous planning period, the City of Mountain View updated its General Plan, in
tandem with the 2007 -2014 Housing Element. As such, the 2030 General Plan goals and
policies and potential land use changes were being developed to be internally consistent
with the Housing Element update. As this document is a streamlined update of the previous
Housing Element, many of the values expressed - affordability, preservation of the existing
housing stock and neighborhoods, environmentally - sensitive and efficient development
patterns, provision of a broad range of housing types - are also reflected in the established
General Plan elements. The City's 2030 General Plan references and builds upon the goals,
policies, and programs outlined in the 2007 -2014 Housing Element, which will be carried
forward in the 2015 -2023 update.
The following sections present General Plan goals that align with the Housing Element,
focusing on the following Elements: Land Use and Urban Design; Mobility; Infrastructure,
Resources, and Conservation; and Public Safety. Table C -1 in Appendix C illustrates the
consistency between Housing Element implementation programs and the General Plan
goals below.
1.4.1 - Land Use and Urban Design
1. Open and inclusive planning processes.
2. Effective coordination with regional agencies and other local governments on
planning issues.
3. A diverse, balanced, and flexible mix of land uses that supports a strong economy,
complete neighborhoods, transit use and community health.
4. Distinctive neighborhoods that preserve and enhance the quality of life for
residents.
5. Neighborhood- serving retail and mixed -use centers located throughout the City.
6. A vibrant downtown that serves as the center for Mountain View social and
civic life.
7. Buildings that enhance the public realm and integrate with the surrounding
neighborhood.
8. High quality, sustainable, and healthy building design and development.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 13
City of Mountain View
1.4.2 - Mobility
1. Innovative strategies to provide efficient and adequate vehicle parking.
2. Achievement of state and regional air quality and Greenhouse Gas Reduction
targets.
1.4.3 - Infrastructure, Resources and Conservation
1. Reduced waste and continued environmentally responsible solid waste disposal
practices through city programs, services and plans, and through supply -chain
management, education and advocacy.
2. Effective and comprehensive programs that encourage water use efficiency,
water conservation, and the use of alternative water supplies.
3. Reduce the City of Mountain View's per capita water use to meet or exceed
State goals.
4. Increased energy efficiency and conservation throughout the City.
5. Strategies that support renewable sources of energy to meet current and future
demand.
6. A built environment that supports ecological and human health.
7. Environmental stewardship that recognizes the importance of addressing
climate change and community commitment to sustainability.
1.4.4 - Public Safety
1. A well - prepared community that has taken steps to minimize risks from
environmental and human - induced disasters.
2. Minimize impacts of natural disasters.
14 20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
2. Housing Plan
........................... ...............................
2.1- Goals, Policies and Programs
The City of Mountain View continuously strives to facilitate and encourage housing that
fulfills the diverse needs of the community. To achieve this goal the Housing Plan identifies
long -term housing goals and shorter -term policies to address the identified housing needs.
The goals and policies are then implemented through a series of housing programs.
Programs identify specific actions the City plans to undertake toward achieving each goal
and policy.
The goals, policies, and programs within the Housing Plan build upon the identified housing
needs in the community, constraints confronting the City, and resources available to
address the housing needs. This Plan will guide City housing policy through the 2015 -2023
planning period.
The Goals, Policies, and Programs outlined below reconcile and consolidate the information
in various documents, community workshops, and public hearings into a single set of Goals,
Policies, and Programs for the City of Mountain View. The reference documents and events
are:
City of Mountain View Housing Element, 2007 -2014;
Comments from the October 16, 2013 EPC Housing Element Study Session;
Comments from the December 12, 2013 Community Workshop;
Housing Element Chapter 4, Needs Assessment; and
Housing Element Chapter 5, Constraints Analysis.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 15
City of Mountain View
Goal 1: Support the production of new housing units
serving a broad range of household types and
incomes.
Policy 1.1: Ensure that adequate residential land is available to accommodate
the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Policy 1.2: Work towards meeting the City's Quantified Objectives for production,
rehabilitation, and preservation during the 2015 -2023 Housing Element
2015 -2023 planning period.
Policy 1.3: Encourage a mix of housing types, at a range of densities, that serves
a diverse population, including units serving both young and mature
families, singles, young professionals, single - parent households, seniors,
and both first -time and move -up buyers.
Policy 1.4: Provide higher density housing near transit, in the Downtown, near
employment centers, and within walking distance of services.
Policy 1.5: Support the development of both rental and ownership housing
serving a broad range of incomes, particularly extremely low -, very
low -, and low- income households.
Policy 1.6: Ensure new residential development integrates with and improves the
character of existing neighborhoods.
Implementation Programs
Program 1.1 - Financial Support for Subsidized Housing
To encourage and support the development of subsidized affordable housing, the City
has established a Below- Market -Rate (BMR) program, a Rental Housing Impact Fee
ordinance, and Housing Impact Fee ordinance. The BMR program requires all new
housing developments over a certain unit count provide at least 10 percent of their
units to low- and moderate - income households or pay fees in lieu of the housing units.
The Housing Impact Fee is assessed per square foot on all new office, industrial, hotel,
and retail development in Mountain View. Similarly, the Rental Housing Impact Fee is
assessed based on habitable square footage within new apartment development in
Mountain View. All of these affordable housing initiatives provide funds for subsidized
housing serving lower- income households. During the 2015 -2023 planning period, the
16 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
City will continue to provide financial support to local subsidized housing developments
using local funds such as BMR In -Lieu Fees, and Impact Fees.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division and Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds, including funds collected from the
Below- Market -Rate (BMR) program, the Rental Housing Impact Fee ordinance, and
Housing Impact Fee ordinance.
Objectives:
Administer funds, as they become available, to support housing
development, housing programs, and rehabilitation activities. Prioritize
funding opportunities for lower income and special needs population groups.
Program 1.2 - Extremely Low - Income Housing
The City will initiate partnerships and continue to work with affordable housing
developers to assist the development of housing affordable to extremely low- income
households. When funding is available, the City of Mountain View will initiate a process
(i.e., Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)) to inform and select a qualified developer
to pursue developments, including leveraging the local affordable housing funds,
assisting in the application for State and federal financial resources, and offering a
number of incentives such as fee deferrals, streamlined processing and modified
parking and development standards.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds
Objectives:
Initiate partnerships, wherever possible, between various governmental,
financial, and developmental sectors to coordinate subsidized housing
development that meets the needs of extremely low- income residents.
When local funds are available, initiate a process to inform subsidized housing
developers and encourage the development of housing projects with units
for extremely low- income residents.
Consider the feasibility of allocating additional funding to a proposed
subsidized project to increase the number of units for extremely low- income
households.
Program 1.3 - Partnerships with Subsidized Housing Developers
To facilitate and support the development of affordable housing units, the City will
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 Housing Element 17
P-4. City of Mountain View
establish partnerships with subsidized housing developers providing assistance, when
feasible, with financing, land acquisition, and technical support through the entitlement
process. Specifically, the City will collaborate with affordable housing developers to
optimize their eligibility for financing under various federal, State, County and private
programs.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds
Objectives:
Encourage affordable housing developers to work with outside funding
sources to leverage the City's local housing funds to the maximum extent
possible.
Assess the feasibility of using available City -owned properties as subsidized
housing sites, when appropriate and feasible.
Hold meetings to inform developers of the application procedures and the
City's affordable housing priorities, as part of the funding selection process.
Program 1.4 - Update Zoning Ordinance
The City of Mountain View recognizes that the 2030 General Plan and City's Zoning
Ordinance are crucial tools that guide development in the City. When the City Council
adopted the 2030 General Plan in 2012, additional opportunities for development, were
created through the introduction of new mixed -use land use designations. The City
anticipates a comprehensive Zoning Code update to occur by 2017 to ensure
consistency between the new General Plan land use designations and the City's
development standards. Once the Zoning Code is updated for consistency with the
General Plan, the City will periodically review and update the Zoning Code, as
necessary.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Annual review of 2030 General Plan implementation; Update Zoning
Code by 2017, Review annually for consistency.
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Complete a comprehensive Zoning Code update by 2017 to ensure
consistency with the 2030 General Plan.
Review 2030 General Plan Implementation on an annual basis.
Upon completion of the Zoning Code update, review on an annual basis for
consistency and to address any changes to State law.
18 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View �ntt .-.,
Program 1.5 - Lot Consolidation
The City will continue to encourage lot consolidation when smaller, underutilized
parcels adjacent to each other are redeveloped. Staff will work with applicants on a
preliminary basis for no cost prior to application submittal. The lot consolidation
procedure will be posted on the City website and discussed with developer during the
informal review process. The City will continue its sliding scale density that allows higher
density with consolidation of lots in the R3 zoning district and the Downtown Precise
Plan; maintaining the minimum 1 -acre lot size in the R4 zoning district; and consider
amending the CRA standards to allow increased densities as lots are consolidated.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund and Local housing funds
Objectives:
Encourage lot consolidation of smaller parcels to accommodate projects at
a density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre or higher.
Provide incentives and entitlement assistance, when feasible, to promote the
consolidation of lots to develop a larger housing project.
Program 1.6 - Underutilized Sites
The City will proactively encourage the development of underutilized sites specifically in
the CRA Zoning District and Downtown Areas. To achieve this, the City has identified
appropriate sites and regulatory incentives within the Housing Element to assist
developers. The City will evaluate, periodically, whether the incentives provided are
appropriate to ensure that new residential development within these areas is occurring.
As necessary, the City will modify this program to ensure that infill development remains
a realistic and viable development strategy.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Monitor the supply of underutilized sites throughout the City and within the
Housing Element to ensure opportunities are available to encourage a variety
of housing types.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 19
City of Mountain View
Program 1.7 - Density Bonus
During the 2007 -2014 planning period, the City of Mountain View revised their density
bonus ordinance to be consistent with State law, which included decreasing the
number of affordable units a developer must provide to receive a density bonus and
allowing up to three regulatory concessions. The updated ordinance is intended to
facilitate the development of housing for low and very low- income households that is
restricted for a period of no less than 45 -55 years. The City will promote the use of the
density bonus ordinance in conjunction with the CRA and Downtown districts.
Information on the ordinance will be provided at City Hall and online at the City's
website to promote the application of this ordinance for the development of
affordable units.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Continue to promote the updated density bonus ordinance that offers
bonuses for the provision of affordable housing, depending on the amount
and type of subsidized housing provided, consistent with revised Government
Code §65915.
Program 1.8 - Federal and State Policy Initiatives
City Staff will monitor legislation regarding financing and housing development and will
continue to support, expand, or develop financing programs for subsidized housing
programs as applicable legislation is adopted.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division and Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund and Local housing funds
Objectives:
Monitor legislation regarding financing and housing development.
20 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Program 1.9 - Project Design and Integration
The 2030 General Plan established specific goals and policies focused on how
buildings should relate to public streets and their surrounding neighborhoods through
design strategies and pedestrian improvements. General Plan policies address
building heights and setbacks, the provision of public space, transit oriented
development, and strategies to promote pedestrian mobility. New zoning regulations
will be developed to provide more specific standards to implement these General
Plan goals and policies.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
As projects are submitted Planning Staff will review General Plan policies and
zoning code regulations and design standards to ensure that transitions
between proposed developments and existing neighborhoods are
appropriate.
Program 1.10 - Innovative Housing Programs
To accommodate individuals with special housing needs the City will allow and
encourage the development of innovative housing programs such as co- housing,
shared housing, and intergenerational housing. Planning Staff will review and revise the
zoning code to allow for these alternative types of housing development and provide
technical assistance to developers seeking to build innovative housing projects.
Additionally, on a project by project basis, the City will be flexible with development
standards such as reduced parking standards and setbacks in order to facilitate the
construction of innovative housing programs.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Review residential development standards to ensure that there is flexibility in
the Zoning Code to allow for innovative housing types such as co- housing,
shared housing, and intergenerational housing.
Conduct meetings with housing developers to review land and financial
resources, development incentives and the City's entitlement process to
permit alternative and innovative housing developments.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 21
City of Mountain View
Program 1.11— Units for Large Households
It is important to create diverse housing opportunities to ensure that market -rate and
subsidized units constructed in the City are available for families, as well as the other
special needs groups. The City will continue to provide incentives to encourage
subsidized and market rate housing developers to provide units in their projects that
serve large families
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division and Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds
Objectives:
Ensure at least 25 percent of the units in a subsidized family housing
development have three or more bedrooms to accommodate large families
if City provides financial assistance.
Consider alternatives to preserve and rehabilitate apartments with large
family units when the City receives proposals to redevelop these apartment
22 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Goal 2: Provide assistance to households at different
income levels to address their housing needs.
Policy 2.1: Assist extremely low -, very low -, low -, and moderate - income
households in renting or purchasing a home in Mountain View.
Policy 2.2: Support opportunities for community service workers, such as City and
other public agency staff, teachers, and public safety personnel, to
live in Mountain View.
Policy 2.3: Give priority for subsidized housing to persons who live or work in
Mountain View whenever legally feasible.
Iml2lementation Programs
Program 2.1 - Homebuyer Assistance Programs
Due to the high cost of housing in the region it is difficult for low and moderate - income
households to afford home prices in Mountain View. The City will continue to financially
support the Housing Trust Fund's homebuyer assistance programs and other federal,
State, and local programs that enable moderate - income households to purchase
homes.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds
Objectives:
Support Housing Trust Fund homebuyer assistance programs and other
federal, State and local programs that enable households to purchase
homes.
Programs 2.2 — Priorities for Affordable Units
The City requires housing impact fees and BMR in -lieu fees to mitigate the impact of
new development on the need for affordable housing in Mountain View. The City's
BMR program will continue to give priority to these essential service providers, such as
public safety officers and teachers, and to people who live and work in Mountain View.
Subsidized apartment projects will give preference to those persons who live and work
in Mountain View. When BMR units and subsidized projects are complete, notices will
2015 -2023 Housing Element 23
P-4. City of Mountain View
be sent to Mountain View residents, workers, individuals on an interest lists, school
districts, businesses, and public service agencies. The City will also notice the availability
of these affordable units through ads in local papers, multilingual outreach, signs and
information posted on the project site, outreach through churches and other non - profit
organizations, the City's website, and announcements.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds
Objectives:
Implement the City's preferences for new BMR ownership and rental units as
specified in the BMR Administrative Guidelines.
Give preference to people who live or work in Mountain View when units
become available in subsidized rental housing developments.
Do extensive advertising and outreach whenever new BMR or subsidized units
become available and waitlist are opened for existing affordable units.
Program 2.3 - Partnership with County Agencies
As a means of further leveraging housing assistance, the City will work with the Housing
Authority of the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara County Office of Affordable
Housing, and other similar regional agencies to promote resident awareness of housing
assistance programs. These programs include, but are not limited to:
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program for First -time Buyers
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Program
Shelter Plus Care Program
Project -Based Assistance and Moderate Rehabilitation Programs
Family Self- Sufficiency Program
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Increase resident awareness about housing programs offered by County and
regional agencies by providing information at City Hall and on the City's
website, when funding is available.
24 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Program 2.4 - Tenant Relocation Assistance Program
Implement the City's Tenant Relocation Assistance Program Ordinance, requiring
developers to provide relocation assistance to very low- income tenants who are
displaced by redevelopment or condominium conversion projects.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds
Objectives:
Enforce the Tenant Relocation Assistance ordinance.
Consider updates to the Tenants Relocation Assistance Ordinance when
there are major changes to the rental market, the economy, or development
activity.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 25
City of Mountain View
Goal 3: Conserve and improve Mountain View's
housing stock.
Policy 3.1: Maintain and improve housing in Mountain View to meet health,
safety, fire and other applicable codes and standards.
Policy 3.2: Continue and /or create programs to maintain or improve the
character and quality of existing housing and neighborhood
environments.
Policy 3.3: Work with subsidized housing owners and property managers to retain
units with expiring affordability contracts.
Policy 3.4: Preserve the City's existing mobile home parks as vital source of
affordable housing for a variety of income categories.
Policy 3.5: Promote a balance of rental and ownership opportunities in the City.
Iml2lementation Programs
Program 3.1- Code Enforcement Program
The Mountain View Municipal Code provisions were adopted by the City Council to
maintain a healthy, safe and clean environment, carry out established land use policy,
and to preserve the quality -of -life for the community. The Mountain View Municipal
Code includes and incorporates Zoning provisions, and the Uniform Fire, Building,
Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes. To enforce the Municipal Code, Code
Enforcement inspectors addresses complaints as they are reported by residents or City
Staff.
Responsibility: Code Enforcement Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
• Maintain the quality of the existing housing stock by addressing housing code
violations as they are reported.
26 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Program 3.2 - Multi- family Housing Inspection Program
To promote maintenance of existing multi - family housing and protect residents, the
City's Fire Department shall, on an annual basis, conduct inspections of multi - family
rental units throughout the City.
Responsibility: Fire Department
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Continue annual inspections of multi - family rental properties throughout the
City to ensure property owners and management companies comply with
the California Building Code and the City's Municipal Code.
Program 3.3 - Opportunities for Rehabilitation
To preserve the affordable housing stock and increase affordable housing units, the City
shall support efforts to rehabilitate apartments by collaborating on applications for state
and federal funding or direct financial assistance.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds
Objectives:
Collaborate with affordable housing developers on funding applications or
when feasible offer direct financial assistance.
Program 3.4 - Home Repair Assistance
The City contracts with the public service agencies to provide minor home repairs and
access improvements for low- income and /or disabled residents. Through the Home
Repair and Home Access Program, the City provides assistance to qualified
homeowners with minor home repairs and modifications that make their units livable
and /or accessible. Repair services typically include: leaking faucets, broken water
heaters, broken windows, broken doors or lock sets, and other types of minor repairs.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: HOME
Objectives:
2015 -2023 Housing Element 27
City of Mountain View
Continue to provide annual funding for home repair services, such as the
Minor Home Repair and Home Access Program to support lower- income
households.
Program 3.5 - Condominium Conversion
The conversion of rental housing to market rate condominiums has been an issue,
historically during strong housing markets. To preserve the City's rental housing and
prevent displacement, the City will continue to regulate condominium conversions per
the City's Municipal Code. Currently, the City prohibits conversion of apartments to
condominiums if the number of apartments citywide falls below 15,373 units.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Continue to regulate conversions of rental multi - family units to condominiums
per the Municipal Code (Chapter 28, Article VIII).
Program 3.6 - Preservation of Subsidized Housing Stock
To preserve existing affordable units, the City will monitor subsidized housing developments
to ensure that subsidized units are rented to the appropriate targeted income level and
that properties are maintained in good condition. The City has posted their AB 987
Affordable Housing Database on its website and will continue to monitor affordable housing
units including units at -risk of losing their affordability status. New affordable units will also be
added to the table and monitored annually to ensure they meet affordability requirements.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds
Objectives:
Maintain a list of subsidized units throughout the City, including their
affordability levels and monitor affordability covenants.
Continue to update and post the City's AB 987 Affordable Housing Database
online and track affordable housing units.
Work with owners of at -risk units to determine if City housing funds could be
used to preserve subsidized units.
28 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Program 3.7 - Mobile Home Parks
As part of the 2030 General Plan update, the City continued to preserve the "Mobile Home
Park" land use designation to protect mobile home housing. This designation is shown on the
General Plan Land Use map and any proposals to convert or eliminate a mobile home use
from a property would require a General Plan amendment in addition to a Zoning Code
amendment. Additionally, proposals to displace a mobile home park would require a
conversion impact report as well as multiple review and approval processes before a
conversion could be approved. The City will continue to allow and preserve mobile homes
as a valuable housing resource as identified in the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division and Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Preserve mobile home parks in the City by enforcing the provisions
established by the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Mobilehome Park
Conversion Ordinance.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 29
City of Mountain View
Goal 4: Address, remove, or mitigate constraints to
housing production.
Policy 4.1: Periodically review and revise the City's development standards, if
necessary, to facilitate quality housing for all income levels.
Policy 4.2: Provide incentives, such as reduced parking standards and /or
flexibility in other development standards, to facilitate the
development of housing that is affordable to lower and moderate -
income households.
Policy 4.3: When feasible, consider reducing or deferring development fees and
continue streamlining the entitlement process to facilitate the provision
of affordable housing.
Implementation Programs
Program 4.1- Residential Development Standards
City Staff will periodically review residential development standards to identify standards
that may constrain the development of affordable housing and housing for special groups,
such as disabled individuals. The City is committed to address any constraints identified in
Chapter 6, Housing Constraints, and will continue to minimize the potential impediments to
affordable housing production.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: The City will review development standards annually throughout the
planning period.
Potential Funding Source: General Fund and Local housing funds
Objectives:
Review development standards annually, to identify constraints and remove
or offset constraints, where possible.
Program 4.2- Reduced or Modified Parking Requirements
The City recognizes the importance of allowing for flexibility in development standards,
specifically parking requirements, to reduce constraints to higher density housing. To
facilitate and encourage a variety of housing opportunities, the City will continue to review
applications for reduced or modified parking on a case -by -case basis. Specifically, Planning
Staff will consider shared parking in mixed -use developments that include residential units,
and reduced parking standards in senior and subsidized projects as well as higher- density
30 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View -
residential projects near transit or services. Any reductions for projects should be supported
by a parking demand analysis that evaluates the feasibility and impacts of lower parking
ratios with strategies for reducing parking demand.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 - 2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
• Review parking demand analyses for specific projects, as they are submitted,
and work with housing developers to identify opportunities for reduced or
shared parking requirements.
Program 4.3 - Second Units
The City recognizes that second units provide a unique opportunity to create affordable
units in residential areas particularly for elderly residents. Consequently, during the 2007 -2014
planning period, Staff reviewed the second unit ordinance to ensure compliance with State
law. During the 2015 -2023 planning period, Staff will conduct a study that evaluates the
options, benefits, and impacts of modifying the Municipal Code (Chapter 36, Article XII,
Section A36.12.040) to remove constraints that may limit the construction of second units. If
the study supports removal of these constraints, the City should implement this change to
the Municipal Code.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 - 2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Track the number of second units proposed and constructed during the
planning period.
Program 4.4 - Streamlined Entitlement Process
Mountain View will continue to implement permit streamlining, which includes monitoring
the development review process to reduce impediments to affordable housing, providing
sufficient Staff resources to ensure an efficient development review processes, including
updating the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plans to ensure consistency with the 2030
General Plan.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds and General Fund
Objective:
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 31
City of Mountain View
Assign a primary contact for new subsidized housing developments to assist
with all necessary entitlements and city processes.
Hold pre - application development meetings.
Program 4.5 - School District Coordination
To ensure that school districts are aware of the long range planning efforts occurring in the
City and can provide adequate facilities to accommodate growth, Staff will communicate
with the local school districts regarding potential new housing developments.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objective:
Provide a copy of the Housing Element to school districts serving the City.
Share information on new residential developments including number of units
and bedrooms and demographic information with school districts.
Program 4.6 - Neighborhood Engagement
Continue to notify neighborhoods of proposed residential projects and rezoning, and
continue to encourage developers to engage neighborhoods early in the planning
process.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objective:
Encourage housing developers to communicate and share information with
groups regarding their proposed projects.
Program 4.7 - Water and Sewer Service Provider Coordination
In accordance with Government Code Section 65589.7, as revised in 2005, immediately
following City Council adoption, the City will deliver a copy of the 2015 -2023 Housing
Element to all public agencies or private entities that provide water or sewer services to
properties within the City of Mountain View.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timing of Implementation: By January 31, 2015
Funding Source: General Fund
32 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View �nt--
Objective:
Ensure that water and sewer providers are aware of the City's plans for
residential development throughout the City.
Program 4.8 - Flood Management
In accordance with Government Code Section 65302, as part of the recent General Plan
update, the City revised the General Plan conservation and safety policies to consider flood
risks as they relate to future land use decisions. The Infrastructure and Conservation and
Public Safety Elements have been updated to identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors,
riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of
groundwater recharge and storm water management. Additionally, these Elements identify
information regarding flood hazards, including, but not limited to flood hazard zones,
National Flood Insurance Program maps published by FEMA, information about flood
hazards, designated floodway maps, dam failure inundation maps, areas subject to
inundation in the event of the failure of levees or floodwalls, etc. as listed in Section
65302(g)(2). These Elements establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objectives
for the protection of the community from the unreasonable risks of flooding. The City will
continue to utilize information from the General Plan and consider flood risks in all future
land use decisions.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timing of Implementation: Ongoing, 2015 - 2023
Funding Source: General Fund
Objective:
Ensure that flood risks are considered when making land use decisions,
including the selection of sites to accommodate the City's RHNA allocation.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 33
City of Mountain View
Goal 5: Support fair and equal housing
opportunities for all segments of the community.
Policy 5.1: Support programs to address discrimination in the sale, rental and
development of housing.
Policy 5.2: Support mediation programs between housing providers and tenants.
Policy 5.3: Encourage and support the maintenance /preservation and
development of subsidized housing that serves low- income
households, seniors, disabled individuals, the homeless, larger
households, and other special needs populations.
Implementation Programs
Program 5.1— Emergency Resources to Prevent Homelessness
In 2006, the City Council adopted the 2006 -2011 Affordable Housing Strategies which
included funding for the Emergency Rental Voucher Program operated by the Community
Services Agency (CSA) of Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. This program
provides one -time emergency rental assistance to low- income households and motel
vouchers for persons who need emergency short term housing. The City also provides
financial support for organizations that provide short -term shelter, supportive and transitional
housing, and emergency assistance to persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness,
including runaway youth.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds
Objective:
Continue to partner with the Mountain View Los Altos Community Services
Agency (CSA) or similar agencies that provide services to the homeless, by
offering financial support and advertising available programs to residents
living in the City.
Continue to fund the provision of shelter and support services for the
homeless such as the Emergency Housing Consortium, the Community
Services Agency's Emergency Assistance Program, Graduate House, and
Quetzal House.
Participate in regional homeless programs that support short -term shelter and
transitional housing programs, such as the Clara -Mateo homeless shelter
which accommodates families and individuals from Mountain View.
34 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Program 5.2 - Special Needs Housing
City Staff will continue to build relationships with non - profit agencies, other jurisdictions, and
developers on regional approaches to housing persons with physical or mental disabilities,
victims of domestic violence, and the homeless with special needs to provide supportive or
transitional housing.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division and Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: CDBG and Local housing funds
Objective:
Encourage the development of special needs housing with convenient
access to services, public facilities, and transit.
Support developers of special needs housing facilities through the application
process for federal, State and similar funding sources or through direct
financial assistance from local housing funds.
Provide technical assistance through the entitlement process, as projects are
submitted for review.
When feasible, use CDBG funds to support agencies providing housing
services to special needs populations.
Program 5.3 - Mediation and Fair Housing Programs
The City will maintain and promote a non - discriminatory environment in all aspects of the
private and publicly funded housing markets in Mountain View and to foster compliance
with the non - discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The City intends to continue
its ongoing support of fair housing services to address local fair housing complaints and
educate tenants and landlords about their rights.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: Local housing funds
Objective:
Continue to fund fair housing education, enforcement, and counseling.
Provide financial support to mediate housing issues involving City residents.
Continue to support Santa Clara County Fair Housing Task Force activities.
Provide information about tenant and landlord housing rights at City Hall, on
the City's website and in other public places to increase awareness.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 35
City of Mountain View
Program 5.4 - Reasonable Accommodation
To ensure that sufficient provisions are provided by the City to facilitate a resident's request
for "reasonable accommodation" the City updated the Municipal Code to establish
procedures, in accordance with fair housing and disability laws. On December 10, 2013,
City Council approved amendments to the Municipal Code to provide for policies,
procedures, and fees for reasonable accommodation in order to promote equal access to
housing. Policies and procedures indicate the qualifying individuals who may request a
reasonable accommodation (i.e., persons with disabilities, family- members, landlords, etc.)
and specific procedures that must be followed. The City will provide information on the City
website and at public counters to inform residents of the procedures for requesting
reasonable accommodation.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objective:
Provide information to residents on reasonable accommodation procedures
at public counters and on the City website.
• Promote rehabilitation programs and resources for accessibility modifications
and improvements.
Program 5.5 - Senior Housing
The City of Mountain View has an array of housing options for its senior population, including
subsidized units in senior residential communities, life -care facilities, and assisted living
facilities. Leveraging various federal, State, County and private funding is critical to
maximize the development of affordable units, including units for seniors. The City will
continue to work with developers to leverage outside funding sources and will provide
additional resources, such as permitting assistance, zoning tools and land resources when
feasible.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division and Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objective:
Study the need and feasibility of zoning code amendments, such as
permitting the development of senior housing in specific areas of the
community, including residential and commercial zones at higher densities
than are traditionally allowed.
Encourage developments with subsidized senior units to locate near services,
public facilities, transit, and the Mountain View Senior Center.
36 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Program 5.6 - Senior Care Facilities
As the senior population in Mountain View is expected to grow substantially during the
planning period, the City will allow for seniors to age in place by encouraging a continuum
of senior care facilities including senior residential communities, life care facilities, or assisted
living facilities. To achieve this, the City will consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to
establish development standards for senior care facilities.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objective:
Study the appropriateness and effectiveness of amending the Zoning
Ordinance to establish development standards for senior care facilities.
Program 5.7 - Housing for Developmentally Disabled Persons
The housing needs of persons with disabilities, in addition to basic affordability, range from
slightly modifying existing units to requiring a varying range of supportive housing facilities. To
facilitate the development of units to accommodate persons with developmental
disabilities, the City shall reach out to developers of supportive housing to encourage
development of projects targeted for persons with developmental disabilities.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division and Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objective:
Assist developers to apply for available State and Federal monies in support
of housing construction and rehabilitation targeted for persons with
disabilities, including developmental disabilities.
Initiate a cooperative outreach program with the San Andreas Regional
Center to inform people when new housing becomes available for
developmentally disabled persons.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 37
City of Mountain View
Program 5.8 - Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)
Every five years, as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the City of Mountain View prepares an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice. The Al is a report that seeks to identify the various factors that may affect fair
housing choice in the City and includes an action plan to overcome them. During the 2015-
2023 planning period, the City will continue to prepare and update the City's Al, as required
by HUD.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division
Timeframe: Every five years as required by HUD
Potential Funding Source: CDBG /HOME funds
Objective:
Continue to prepare and update the City's Analysis of Impediments very five
years, as required by HUD.
38 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Goal 6: Promote environmentally sensitive and
energy- efficient residential development,
remodeling, and rehabilitation.
Policy 6.1: Support environmentally sustainable practices in all aspects of
residential development.
Policy 6.2: Promote and support State and local programs for energy
conservation and renewable energy system installation in existing
homes.
Implementation Programs
Program 6.1- Green Building Principles
The City has adopted a Green Building Code and Water Conservation in Landscape
Regulation ordinance to require green building techniques in new development. The City
will provide technical assistance to developers regarding design techniques to implement
the Green Building Code and Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations. The City will
work with subsidized developers to incorporate these elements in their developments when
feasible, and will consider providing assistance to these projects to support green building
principles.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Implement changes to local building codes based on State Green Building
Code requirements.
Provide technical assistance to housing developers to implement the Green
Building Code and Water Conservation in Landscape Regulation ordinance.
Identify opportunities for innovative approaches and /or remove constraints to
green - building in new and existing residential buildings.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 39
City of Mountain View
Program 6.2- Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance
Continue to implement the Construction and Demolition Ordinance, adopted in September
2008, which requires that 50 percent of construction and demolition debris be recycled or
reused. The City provides information on the Public Works Department website and contact
information if assistance is needed.
Responsibility: Planning Division and Public Works
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Implement the Construction and Demolition Ordinance to ensure effective
demolition and construction recycling.
• When appropriate incentivize use of recycled and rapidly renewable building
materials.
Program 6.3 - Staff Training on Green Building Practices
To effectively maintain an awareness of new legislation and practices regarding green
building practices Staff will continue to attend meetings, conferences and other related
events. On a regular basis Staff will also review the Green Building Code and Water
Conservation in Landscape Regulations to ensure they are up to date with the latest
advancements and State Green Building Code requirements.
Responsibility: Planning Division and Building Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Encourage City Staff to attend conferences, training sessions, and other
events to learn and stay informed on new green initiatives and technologies.
Hold in -house training sessions to facilitate inter - department cooperation on
green building practices.
40 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Program 6.4 - Energy Efficiency
Encourage and support energy- efficiency improvements and modifications for existing and
proposed subsidized housing units and low- income households.
Responsibility: Neighborhoods and Housing Division and Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: HOME funds and Local housing funds
Objectives:
Encourage residential developers to maximize energy conservation through
proactive site, building and building systems design, materials and equipment
to maximize energy efficiency.
Encourage the use of Energy Star appliances and materials in subsidized
housing developments.
Encourage use of upgraded insulation, advanced air infiltration reduction
practices (air sealing), and Low -E double -pane windows.
Promote use of energy efficient lighting including fluorescent.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 41
City of Mountain View
Goal 7: Maintain an updated Housing Element that
is monitored, reviewed, and effectively
implemented.
Policy 7.1: Prepare a Housing Element implementation plan and complete an
annual review.
Policy 7.2: Provide appropriate Staff and budget to implement the Housing
Element.
Implementation Programs
Program 7.1- Annual Monitoring and Review
Continue the City's annual review of its Housing Element programs as required by
Government Code section 65400. Planning Staff will prepare an annual report to be
presented to the Environmental Planning Commission and City Council on the results of
Housing Element implementation for each calendar year.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Per Government Code Section 65400, annually review the Housing Element
and submit findings to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and HCD.
Program 7.2 - City Council Goal Setting
Following the submittal of the annual report to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development, Mountain View Planning Staff will provide City Council with a
copy to ensure consistency between the Housing Element and other activities occurring in
the City.
Responsibility: Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2015 -2023
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Objectives:
Incorporate Housing Element programs and recommendations from the City's
annual monitoring and review process into the City Council's goal- setting
process
42 2015 -2023 Housing Element
3. Quantified Objectives
................ ...............................
HCD requires all jurisdictions to provide an estimate on how many units are likely to be
constructed, rehabilitated, or conserved /preserved by income level during the Housing
Element planning period. The quantified objectives do not represent a ceiling on
development, but rather set a target goal for the jurisdiction to achieve based on available
resources and constraints of the local housing market. These production targets differ from
the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2014 -2022, which addresses the
capacity for accommodating new units, rather than actual unit construction. Table 3 -1
outlines the City's proposed housing production, rehabilitation, and preservation objectives
for the current Housing Element planning period.
In total, the City estimates construction of approximately 1,315 units over the 2015 -2023
planning period, including 270 units for extremely low -, very low -, and low- income
households. These targets conservatively fall below the City's RHNA allocation due to the
economic constraints outlined in Section 6.2, which are expected to hinder the production
of both subsidized and market -rate housing.
Within Table 3 -1, preservation refers to the extension of affordability contracts on subsidized
housing developments through City contributions for building repairs. In effect, the City
contribution maintains these units as affordable housing stock by extending the affordability
contract. As the City has no units at -risk to convert to market -rate during the planning
period, no units are allocated for this row.
The final objective is rehabilitation, which may apply to market rate units that are
rehabilitated for use as subsidized housing as well as units that are rehabilitated under the
Home Repair Assistance Program for very low- and low- income households. During the
2015 -2023 Housing Element planning period the City anticipates that approximately 470
units will be rehabilitated through existing programs.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 43
City of Mountain View
Table 3 -1: Quantified Objectives
Program 1.1 - Financial Support 75 150
0 0 0 225
for Subsidized Housing
Program 3.5 - Condominium 0 5
0 0 0 5
Conversion
Program 4.3 —Second Units 0 20
20 20 0 60
New market -rate housing(b) 0 0
0 25 1,000 1,025
Total New Construction(c) 75 175
20 45 1,000 1,315
CONSERVATION
Program 3.6 - Preservation of 0 0
0 0 0 0
Subsidized Housing Stock
Total Conservation(d) 0 0
0 0 0 0
REHABILITATION
Program 3.3 - Opportunities for 10 310
Rehabilitation
0 0 11 320
Program 3.4 - Home Repair 50 50
Assistance
50 . 0 11 150'
Total Rehabilitation(e) 6P 360
50 IM 0 .` 470,
Source: City of Mountain View, 2014.
Notes:
Since ABAG does not assign a RHNA allocation for extremely low- income units, the City assumes that its need for ELI
households for the planning period is 50% of its assigned low- income RHNA allocation.
(b) Market -rate housing includes units for which no subsidy is provided,
but rather the owner or renter pays the market -based or
value for the unit.
(c) Construction objectives represent the number of units the City realistically expects might be constructed within the planning
period, as opposed to the "units accommodated by opportunity sites"
which includes the City's remaining RHNA.
(d) The conservation objective is consistent with the City's total count of affordable units that are permanent, but could
potentially be at -risk units.
° CDBG and /or HOME funding received during the planning period
may be used to fund projects that improve and maintain
the quality of the City's housing stock and residential infrastructure.
The rehabilitation objective is consistent with the City's
Housing Plan.
44 2015 -2023 Housing Element
4. Housing Needs Assessment
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and
demographic conditions in Mountain View, assess the demand for housing for households
at all income levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs
populations. The Needs Assessment is intended to assist Mountain View in developing
housing goals and formulating policies and programs that address local housing needs.
To facilitate an understanding of how the characteristics of Mountain View are similar to, or
different from, other nearby communities, this Needs Assessment presents data for Mountain
View alongside comparable data for Santa Clara County and, where appropriate, for the
San Francisco Bay Area as a whole.
This Needs Assessment incorporates data from numerous sources, including the United
States Census; the Association of Bay Area Governments; and a variety of real estate online
resources. Whenever possible, the Needs Assessment presents recent data that reflects
current market and economic conditions. However, in most cases, the 2010 U.S. Census
and the 2007-2011 American Community Survey provide the most reliable and up to date
data.
4.1- Demographic Trends
4.1.1 - Population Growth Trends
Mountain View is a city with an estimated population of 74,066 residents, according to the
2010 U. S. Census. As shown in Table 4 -1, the City has experienced moderate growth since
1990, with a population increase of roughly ten percent. As a City with limited vacant land
to accommodate new residential development, Mountain View did not grow as rapidly as
Santa Clara County or the Bay Area as a whole. The County's population has increased by
19.3 percent since 1990, while the Bay Area grew by 18.7 percent during the some period.
Mountain View also grew at a slower pace than neighboring cities Cupertino, Palo Alto,
and Sunnyvale. Between 1990 and 2010, Cupertino's population increased by 45 percent,
while the number of residents in Palo Alto and Sunnyvale grew by 15 percent and almost 20
percent, respectively.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 45
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -1: Population Growth Trends, 1990 -2010
Jurisdiction ,,&.r7�rcent Change
Ih
Mountain View 67,460 70,708 1 74,066 I 4.7% 9.8%
Cupertino
40,263
Palo Alto
55,900
Sunnyvale
117,229
Santa Clara County
1,497,577
Bay Area(a)
6,023,577
50,546
58,418
15.6%
45.1%
58,598
64,538
10.1%
15.4%
131,760
140,482
6.60
19.80
1,682,585
1,786,927
6.20
19.30
6,783,760
7,151 ,000
5.4%
18.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010.
(a) Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma Counties.
4.1.2 — Household Growth Trends
The Census Bureau defines a "household" as a person or group of persons living in a housing
unit, as opposed to persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, convalescent
homes, or prisons. According to the 2010 Census, Mountain View contained approximately
31,957 households. The number of households in the City, County, and region has generally
increased at a slower pace than population growth since 1990. The number of households
in Mountain View increased by almost 7 percent between 1990 and 2010, while the County
and Bay Area household total grew by 15 percent and 16 percent, respectively.
Table 4 -2: Household Growth Trends, 1990 -2010
Jurisdiction •
Percent Change
��� ••�
Mountain View 29,990
31,242
31,957 'W-2.2% —jW6.6 %-W
Cupertino 16,055
18,204
20,176 10.8% 25.7%
Palo Alto 25,188
25,216
25,797 2.4% 2.3%
Sunnyvale 50,789
52,539
53,155 1.2% 4.7%
Santa Clara County 520,180
565,863
599,652 5.9% 15.3%
Bay Area(a) 2,246,242
2,466,019
2,608,000 I 5.8% 16.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010.
(a) Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano,
Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma Counties. Totals may
vary as different data sources are utilized.
46 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
4.1.3 — Household Growth Projections
Table 4 -3 presents household growth projections for Mountain View, Santa Clara County,
and the nine county Bay Area between 2005 and 2035. Table 4 -3 also presents projections
for the jurisdictions directly surrounding Mountain View, including Cupertino, Palo Alto, and
Sunnyvale. These figures represent the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
estimates benchmarked against the 2010 Census and a variety of local sources.
The number of households in the City of Mountain View is expected to grow to 41,790, or
roughly 33 percent, between 2010 and 2040. ABAG projects Santa Clara County as a
whole will experience a slightly high increase around 37 percent, while the Bay Area as a
whole is expected to grow at a slower pace of 27 percent. In comparison to surrounding
jurisdictions, Mountain View's household growth (33 percent) between 2010 and 2040 is
projected to outpace growth in Cupertino, where the number of households is anticipated
to increase by 24 percent. The number of households in Mountain View is expected to grow
at a similar pace to Palo Alto (33 percent) but slower than Sunnyvale which is anticipating a
37 percent increase.
Table 4 -3: Projected Household Growth, 2010 -2040
.. =
Mountain View 31,469
Cupertino 20,176
Palo Alto 25,797
Sunnyvale 53,155
Santa Clara County 599,652
sm
41,790
25,050
34,360
72,760
819,130
.
4,874
8,563
19,605
219,478
- -
32.7
24.20
33.20
36.90
36.60
Bay Area(a) 2,667,340 3,308,1 10 700,090 26.80
Source: US Census, 2010. "Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Strategy ", Plan Bay Area, Adopted July, 18, 2013.
(a) Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma Counties. Totals may
vary as different data sources are utilized.
The preferred land use and transportation investment strategy for Plan Bay Area is largely
based on the information and projections established for each jurisdiction within the Jobs -
Housing Connection Strategy. The Jobs - Housing Connection Strategy, published in May
2012, also serves as the land -use element of the Draft Preferred Scenario for the Bay Area's
first Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) mandated by Senate Bill 375. As shown in Table
4 -3, the Strategy is based on a model that anticipates aggressive household growth within
the City of Mountain View, and other urban jurisdictions of the Bay Area. Specifically, for the
City of Mountain, between 2010 and 2040, the model assumes that roughly 10,000
households will be added to the City, equating to a growth rate of roughly 33 percent.
Referring back to Table 4 -2, household growth in the City between 2000 and 2010 increased
by roughly 2 percent and only 7 percent between 1990 and 2010. Based on the historical
growth trends experienced in Mountain View, the City feels that the households growth
projections presented in the Jobs - Housing Connection Strategy may be an overestimate of
2015 -2023 Housing Element 47
P-4'. City of Mountain View
the development that will realistically occur in the City between 2010 and 2040.
Furthermore, it is important to note that actual household growth will be largely influenced
by market conditions and other financial factors which often occur in cycles resulting in
booms as well as busts.
4.1.4 - Homeownership Rate
Housing "tenure" distinguishes between owner - occupied housing units and renter - occupied
units. Mountain View has a relatively low homeownership rate compared to Santa Clara
County and the rest of the Bay Area. The low homeownership rate may be a reflection of
the City's housing stock where in 2010 roughly 40 percent were single - family homes. In 2010,
approximately 42 percent of Mountain View households owned their homes while 59
percent of County households and 60 percent of Bay Area households were homeowners.
The City's homeownership rate has increased gradually since 1990, at which time only 38
percent of households in Mountain View owned their homes. This increase coincides with a
similar increase in the percentage of the single - family ownership homes.
Despite the slight increase in the percent of homeowners in the City since 1990, Mountain
View's homeownership rate was lower than in other neighboring cities in 2000 and 2010.
Approximately 48 percent of households in Sunnyvale owned their own homes. In addition,
the majority of households in Cupertino and Palo Alto were homeowners; the
homeownership rate in Cupertino and Palo Alto was 64 percent and 57 percent,
respectively.
Table 4 -4: Household Tenure, 2000 and 2010
Mountain View
41.5%
58.5%
42.2%
57.8%
Cupertino
63.30
36.70
64.20
35.80
Palo Alto
56.8%
46.2%
57.4%
42.6%
Sunnyvale
47.6%
52.4%
48.3%
51.7%
Santa Clara County
59.8%
40.2% �I
58.7%
41.3%
Bay Area(a)
56.40
43.60
60.30
39.70
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, and 2010.
(a) Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma Counties
4.1.5 - Household Composition
Average household size is a function of the number of people living in households divided
by the number of occupied housing units in a given area. In Mountain View, the average
household size in 2010 was 2.32, lower than the Santa Clara County figure of 2.89. Because
population growth has outpaced the increase in households in Mountain View and the
County, the average household size has increased slightly for both jurisdictions since 2000.
48 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
The smaller household sizes in Mountain View can be attributed to the higher proportion of
single - person households, and the prevalence of smaller rental units in the City. Generally,
single - person households comprised 36 percent of all Mountain View households,
compared to just 23 percent of Santa Clara County households and 27 percent of
households in the Bay Area. Mountain View is also characterized by a higher proportion of
non - family households.' As shown in Table 4 -5, approximately, 45 percent of households in
Mountain View were non - family households in 2011. By comparison, approximately 30
percent and 35 percent of households in the County and Bay Area were non - family
households, respectively.
Table 4 -5: Household Composition, 2000 and 2011
WV_
Mountain View
Santa Clara County
Bay Area(a)
vigil
I Non-Family Non-Family
51% 49% 54% 46%
700
65%
300 700
35% . 65%
300
350
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, and 2007 -2011 American Community Survey.
(a) Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma Counties.
4.1.6 - Age Distribution
Mountain View's higher percentage of renters and single - person households, along with the
City's smaller household size suggests that many younger workers live in the City. The age
distribution of Mountain View residents supports this notion. As shown in Table 4 -6, the City
has a lower proportion of children under the age of 18 years old (21 percent) than Santa
Clara County (27 percent) and the Bay Area (25 percent). In addition, Mountain View's
percentage of young adult residents between the ages of 25 and 44 years old is
significantly higher than the County and regional proportions. Interestingly, as compared to
the previous planning period, when the City had a higher median age (38.1 years) than
Santa Clara County (36.7 years), the City and County experienced the same median age
(36 years) in 2010.
1 The U.S. Census Bureau defines a non - family household as a householder living alone or with nonrelatives only.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 49
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -6: Age Distribution, 2010
TIMM
1
Mountain View 914P
0-161111161-11 Mm
Bay Area(a)
Preschool, under 5 years
6.7%
7.1%
6.3%
School Age, 5 -19 years
14.8%
20.0%
19.1%
College Age, 20 to 24 years
5.5%
6.7%
6.2%
Young Adults, 25 to 44 years
38.8%
31.7%
27.3%
Middle Age, 45 to 64 years
22.8%
24.9%
28.0%
Senior Citizens, 65 and over
11.4%
9.6% I
I 13.1%
Total
100%
100.07
I 100%
,
Median Age
36.0
36.0
I
I 38.9
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Demographic Profile Data.
(a) Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma Counties
4.1.7 - Household Income
According to the 2007-211 ACS estimates, the 2010 median household income in Mountain
View was $91,446. This figure is slightly higher than the Santa Clara County median
household income of $89,064, but higher than the Bay Area median of $77,395.
Given Mountain View's relatively small household sizes, it is surprising that the City's median
household income is higher than the County's. Generally, these statistics indicate that on a
per capita basis, Mountain View residents are wealthier than the County as a whole. Table
4 -7 compares household income for Mountain View, Santa Clara County and the Bay Area
region.
50 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -7: Household Income, 2011
Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey Estimates.
(a) Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma Counties
4.1.8 — Key Demographic Findings
Mountain View has experienced more moderate growth compared to Santa Clara
County and the Bay Area as a whole. Between 1990 and 2010, the City's population
increased by almost 9 percent, from 67,460 to 73,394. During the some period, the
number of residents living in the County and Bay Area increased by 19 percent and
18 percent, respectively.
Mountain View is characterized by a lower homeownership rate and higher
proportion of single - person and non - family households. Approximately 42 percent
of Mountain View households owned their home in 2010, compared to 59 percent of
Santa Clara households. Single- person households comprise 36 percent of all
households in the City, while 23 percent of Santa Clara County households are one -
person households. As a result of the higher proportion of single - person and non -
family households, the City's average household size of 2.32 is smaller than the
County and Bay Area's average household size. These trends suggest that many
younger workers live in the City. In fact, Mountain View's percentage of residents
between the ages of 25 and 44 years old is 7 percent higher than the County and 10
percent higher than the regional proportion. This finding points to the value of
programs that support the development of a range of housing types, including
affordable rental housing, more ownership housing, and larger rental units. The goals
and policies in Section 2 of this Housing Element address this need, specifically Goal
1 and its associated policies and programs, which support the production of new
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 51
Number of Households
31,469
559,652
2,608,000
< $10,000
4.0%
3.8%
3.9%
$10,000 - $14,999
3.4%
3.1%
3.7%
$15,000 - $24,999
6.70
6.30
7.20
$25,000 - $34,999
6.4%
6.1%
7.2%
$35,000 - $49,999
8.1%
9.0%
10.8%
$50,000 - $74,999
13.3%
14.1%
16.5%
$75,000 - $99,999
11.4%
12.7%
12.9%
$100,000 - $149,000
18.8%
19.1%
,
17.9%
$150,000+
27.8%
25.9%
J
20.0%
Total Reporting
100%
100%
100%
Median Income
$91,446
$89,064
j
$77,395
Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey Estimates.
(a) Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma Counties
4.1.8 — Key Demographic Findings
Mountain View has experienced more moderate growth compared to Santa Clara
County and the Bay Area as a whole. Between 1990 and 2010, the City's population
increased by almost 9 percent, from 67,460 to 73,394. During the some period, the
number of residents living in the County and Bay Area increased by 19 percent and
18 percent, respectively.
Mountain View is characterized by a lower homeownership rate and higher
proportion of single - person and non - family households. Approximately 42 percent
of Mountain View households owned their home in 2010, compared to 59 percent of
Santa Clara households. Single- person households comprise 36 percent of all
households in the City, while 23 percent of Santa Clara County households are one -
person households. As a result of the higher proportion of single - person and non -
family households, the City's average household size of 2.32 is smaller than the
County and Bay Area's average household size. These trends suggest that many
younger workers live in the City. In fact, Mountain View's percentage of residents
between the ages of 25 and 44 years old is 7 percent higher than the County and 10
percent higher than the regional proportion. This finding points to the value of
programs that support the development of a range of housing types, including
affordable rental housing, more ownership housing, and larger rental units. The goals
and policies in Section 2 of this Housing Element address this need, specifically Goal
1 and its associated policies and programs, which support the production of new
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 51
City of Mountain View
housing units serving a broad range of household types and incomes.
In 2010, the City's median household income of $91,446 was slightly higher than the
County median and more than $10,000 higher than the Bay Area's median
household income. On a per capita basis, Mountain View residents are generally
wealthier than the County as a whole. These findings would be expected given the
City's smaller average household size. The goals and policies in Section 2 of this
Housing Element address the housing needs of a diversity of households, notably
Goal 1, which encourages a mix of housing types for various groups, including lower -
income households.
The number of households in Mountain View's population is expected to grow at a
slower rate than Santa Clara County, but faster than the Bay Area overall between
2010 and 2040. ABAG projects the City will add an estimated 10,321 households,
equating to 33 percent growth, between 2010 and 2040. By comparison, Santa
Clara County is expected to grow at a faster rate of 37 percent, while the Bay Area
as a whole is expecting a slightly lower rate of 27 percent. These projections
highlight the need to carefully plan for household growth in Mountain View. Goal 1
in the City's Housing Plan addresses housing production, and indicates the need for
housing serving a variety of incomes.
4.2 - Employment Trends
To better understand the housing needs of the City, this section presents data illustrating
employment of residents living in the City by industry and the availability of jobs within the
City. Both factors play a role in the need for housing as the type of employment is often
linked to ability to pay and the types of jobs offered within a community may influence the
types of housing needed to promote a healthy jobs -to- housing ratio.
4.2.1 — Employment Characteristics
According to the 2007 -2011 ACS, the civilian labor force in the City of Mountain View
includes roughly 44,161 residents age 16 and older. Of this total roughly 40,935 residents are
employed, while approximately 3,226 are unemployed, resulting in an unemployment rate
of 5.4 percent. As shown in Table 4 -8, Mountain View residents are employed in diverse
industries.
52 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -8: Employment by Sector, 2011
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
78
0.20
Construction
1,224
3.0%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance
7,805
19.1%
Manufacturing
6,509
15.9%
Wholesale trade
873
2.1%
Retail trade
2,884
7.0%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
1,037
2.5%
Information
3,001
7.3%
Finance and insurance, real estate and rental leasing
1,825
4.5%
Professional, scientific, management, and administrative services
9,773
23.9%
Arts, entertainment and recreation
3,322
8.1%
Public administration
678
1.7%
Other professions
1,926
4.7%
Total (civilian employed population)
40,935
100570
Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates.
According to Table 4 -8, the largest percentage (24 percent) of employed residents is
employed in the Professional, scientific, management, and administrative services industry.
There are also high numbers of residents employed in the educational services, and health
care and social assistance (19 percent) and manufacturing (16 percent) sectors. In
comparison to Santa Clara County the unemployment rate in Mountain is slightly lower; 5.4
percent in Mountain View as compared to 5.8 percent for the County.
4.2.2- Local Employment Opportunities
According to the Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Strategy for Plan Bay
Area, the City of Mountain View had approximately 47,800 jobs in 2010. Employment in
Mountain View is concentrated in the information sector and the professional, scientific,
and technical services sector, each representing 20 percent of the City's jobs. The
information sector in particular has grown substantially in the previous decade. Much of the
growth of this sector, which includes information services such as internet publishing and
web search portals, can be attributed to the growth of technology companies. At the
some time, other industries, which may be associated with somewhat lower- paying jobs,
have also seen increases in the number of employees, including the wholesale trade
industry, and accommodation and food services. Despite recent decreases in employment,
the manufacturing industry, and the health care and social assistance industry have a large
presence in Mountain View. These sectors each represent roughly 10 percent of the City's
employment.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 53
City of Mountain View
4.2.3 - Jobs- Housing Balance
At a regional scale, a jobs- housing imbalance results in longer commutes and increases
traffic congestion and transportation - related environmental impacts. Local jurisdictions can
help address this issue by attempting to strike a local balance between local jobs and
housing. Moreover, having a mix of residential and commercial uses helps to buffer a
community against economic downturns, and provides a broader tax base. The jobs -
housing ratio compares the number of employed residents to the number of jobs in the City.
Mountain View can be characterized as a "job rich" community, where the number of jobs
exceeds the number of employed residents. Over time, this ratio has varied in tandem with
economic cycles. In 1990 the jobs to employed residents ratio was 1.44. This ratio rose to
1.47 in 2000 during the "dot -com boom," then fell to 1.24 in 2003 due to the "dot -com bust."
By 2008, the ratio grew to 1.41, but still remained below 2000 levels. Over time, the City has
also encouraged infill development, rezoned former commercial and industrial properties,
and increased densities to address the jobs- housing imbalance.
It should be noted that it often makes sense to look at jobs- housing balance across a larger
geographic area rather than strictly based on jurisdictional boundaries. For instance, the
City of Los Altos, which lies to the south of Mountain View, is a largely residential community.
Mountain View effectively serves as Los Altos' job center, providing employment - generating
space for Los Altos residents. When Mountain View and Los Altos are considered together,
the two cities combined have a ratio of approximately 1.3 jobs per employed resident.
4.2.4 - Employment Projections
Mountain View has experienced strong employment growth in recent years. The number of
jobs in Mountain View grew by 19 percent between 2003 and 2008, more than three times
the growth in Santa Clara County as a whole. In 2010, the Jobs - Housing Connections
Strategy estimates that Mountain View had a total of 47,800 jobs.
Table 4 -9 presents job growth projections for Mountain View, Santa Clara County, and the
nine county Bay Area between 2005 and 2035. Table 4 -9 also presents projections for the
jurisdictions directly surrounding Mountain View, including Cupertino, Palo Alto, and
Sunnyvale.
Job growth is expected to continue to outpace population and household growth in
Mountain View, compounding the "jobs rich" nature of the City. ABAG expects the City to
experience a 33 percent increase in jobs between 2010 and 2040. ABAG projects Santa
Clara County and the Bay Area region as a whole will experience a similar increase, both
around 33 percent. In comparison to surrounding jurisdictions, Mountain View's household
growth (33 percent) between 2010 and 2040 is projected to outpace growth in all three
jurisdictions including Cupertino (28 percent), Palo Alto (30 percent) and Sunnyvale (28
percent). Cupertino and Sunnyvale, similar to Mountain View, are expecting job growth to
outpace population and household growth, increasing the jobs -rich nature of both cities.
54 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -9: Projected Job Growth, 2010 -2040
Jurisdiction
�.�
Mountain View
47,800 63,380 15,570 32.6%
Cupertino
25,990 33,350 7,360 28.30
Palo Alto
89,370 119,030 29,650 29.80
Sunnyvale
74,610 95,320 20,710 27.7%
Santa Clara County
926,260 1,229,800 303,530 32.80
Bay Area(a)
3,385,300 4,505,220 1,1 19,920 33.1%
Source: US Census, 2010. "Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Strategy ", Plan Bay Area, Adopted July, 18, 2013.
(a) Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma Counties.
4.2.5- Key Employment Findings
Employment in Mountain View is concentrated in the information sector and the
professional, scientific, and technical services sector. These industries each represent 20
percent of the City's jobs. The information sector has grown substantially since 2003, with a
294 percent increase in jobs, and includes information services such as internet publishing
and web search portals. The manufacturing industry and the health care and social
assistance industry also have a large presence in Mountain View, each representing 10
percent of the City's job base. Other industries, which may be associated with somewhat
lower- paying jobs, have also seen increases in the number of employees - employment in
the wholesale trades increased by 26 percent while accommodation and food services
employment grew by 19 percent.
Job growth is expected to continue to outpace population and household growth in
Mountain View. ABAG expects the City to experience a 33 percent increase in jobs
between 2010 and 2040. Again, this trend supports the need for housing production
to serve the City's growing workforce.
The civilian labor force in the City of Mountain View includes roughly 44,161
residents, of which roughly 40,935 residents are employed, while approximately
3,226 are unemployed, resulting in an unemployment rate of 5.4 percent. The largest
percentage (24 percent) of employed residents is employed in the professional,
scientific, management, and administrative services industry. There are also high
numbers of residents employed in the educational services, and health care and
social assistance (19 percent) and manufacturing (16 percent) sectors.
Mountain View can be characterized as a "job rich" community, where the number
of jobs exceeds the number of employed residents. The ratio between jobs and
housing has varied in conjunction with the economy. In 1990 the jobs to employed
residents ratio was 1.44. In 2000, the ratio of jobs to employed residents stood at 1.47,
a high ratio due to the dot -com boom. This ratio subsequently fell to 1.24 following
the dot -com bust in 2003. Over the next five years, the ratio rose once more to 1.41,
though remained below the ratio in 2000. Because the number of jobs in Mountain
2015 -2023 Housing Element 55
City of Mountain View
View exceeds the number of employed residents, there is ongoing need for housing
production to serve the City's workforce. The goals and policies in Section 2 of this
Housing Element, speak to this need to support the development of housing that
serves a variety of income groups, including both subsidized and market rate units.
4.3 - Housing Stock Characteristics
An analysis of household characteristics provides important information on the housing
needs of the community. Income and affordability are best measured at the household
level, as are the special needs of certain groups, such as large families, female- headed
households or very low- income households.
4.3.1 - Housing Stock Conditions
As shown in Table 4 -10, the largest proportion of Mountain View homes (25 percent) were
built between 1970 and 1979. Another 22 percent of homes were constructed between
1960 and 1969. Overall, roughly 74 percent of the City's housing stock was built before 1980.
Table 4 -10: Age of Housing Stock, 2011
2000 to 2004 - 1,062
1990 to 1999 2,591
1980 to 1989 1 4,123
1970 to 1979
8,187
1960 to 1969
■
.
7,414
1950 to 1959
■
.
6,048
1940 to 1949
■
1,382
1939 or earlier
■
1,255
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey.
(a) Does not include mobile homes
or manufactured housing units.
rcei
1n%
F 3.0%
3.20
7.80
12.5%
24.8%
22.40
18.30
4.20
3.80
Unless carefully maintained, older housing stock can create health, safety, and problems for
occupants. Generally, housing policy analysts believe that even with normal maintenance,
dwellings over 40 years of age can deteriorate, requiring significant rehabilitation.
Approximately 48 percent of homes in Mountain View are 40 years old or older and may
require additional maintenance and repair.
Notwithstanding this finding, the City's housing stock remains in relatively good condition.
56 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View -'
Data on the number of units which lack complete plumbing and kitchen facilities are often
used to assess the condition of a jurisdiction's housing stock. The 2007-2011 ACS estimates
that roughly 85 households or 0.3 percent of all households in the City lack complete
plumbing facilities. Similarly, an estimated 138 households or 0.4 percent of all households in
the City lack complete kitchen facilities.
According to the City of Mountain View 2010 -2015 Consolidated Plan, a tight rental housing
market in the City resulted in a sharp increase in rental housing demand that prompted
owners to invest in properties needing rehabilitation. For example, during the previous
planning period there was an upgrade to a number of apartment complexes along
California Avenue. As a result, housing units in the City are generally in good condition.
Nonetheless, there are a moderate number of soft -story buildings in the City, which can be
extremely vulnerable to collapse and failure during earthquakes. Soft -story buildings are
low -rise, multi -story (two to three stories), wood frame structures, typically with an open wall
condition on the first floor to accommodate tuck -under parking, leading to seismic
weakness. According to a survey completed by San Jose State University Collaborative for
Disaster Mitigation, of the 584 multi - family buildings in Mountain View, 111 are soft -story
buildings. This represents 19 percent of the multi - family buildings in the City. By comparison,
36 percent of multi - family buildings in Santa Clara County were identified as soft -story in the
survey. The 11 1 soft -story buildings in Mountain View contained 1,129 units, representing 7
percent of all units in multi - family buildings in the City.2
City Code Enforcement Staff indicated that a majority of dilapidated housing units in
Mountain View are found in older, multi - family structures. In particular, there are several
multi - family structures in R -1 zoning districts that have fallen into disrepair. These multi - family
structures, which are not permitted in the R -1 district, have a nonconforming status that
allows them to continue their existing use.
In addition to dilapidated multi - family housing, Code Enforcement Staff reported that
several neighborhoods have scattered cases of housing units and complexes in disrepair.
Neighborhood residents reported similar concerns at the community workshops organized
for the General Plan update. These homes are typically found in neighborhoods
undergoing a transition to newer housing stock. As this transition occurs and new owners
purchase the properties, the older units are often demolished and replaced.
In order to ensure proper maintenance of its multi - family housing stock, the City periodically
inspects each multi - family structure under the Hotel, Motel, and Multiple - Family Housing
Inspection Program. Individual units are inspected for building, housing, and fire code
violations. If units are found to be in violation of Municipal Code, owners are notified and
have 30 days to make repairs to the units.
2 San Jose State University Collaborative for Disaster Mitigation. Inventory of Soft -First Story Multi - Family Dwellings in Santa
Clara County. June 20, 2003.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 57
City of Mountain View
4.3.2 - Units by Structure Type
Between 1990 and 2010, the number of housing units in Mountain View rose from 29,990 to
31,242, a 5 percent gain. Because the City has few vacant parcels, Mountain View's
housing stock expanded at a slower pace than the County and region. The number of
residential units in Santa Clara County grew by 15 percent while the Bay Area housing stock
increased by 16 percent for the some time period.
Table 4 -11: Tenure by Number of Units in Structure, 2011
Owner- Occupied
1- detached or attached
. 2 - 4 units
374
I 1 % �
7,057
I 1 %
5 or more units
1,688
5%
14,789
2%
Other Unit Types
809
3%
14,730
2%
Renter - Occupied
18,192
58%
247,755
41%
1- detached or attached
3,171
10%
74,601
12%
2 - 4 units
2,123
7%
38,534
6%
5 or more units
12,736
40%
131,663
22%
Other Unit Types
162
>1%
2,957
>1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 -2011 American Community Survey
As shown in Table 4 -11, the largest proportion of housing units in the City is in large multi-
family buildings (defined as structures with five or more units); 45 percent of units fall within
this category. By comparison, only 24 percent of units in the County are in large multi - family
structures. An additional 8 percent of Mountain View units are in small multi - family buildings
(containing two to four units).
While a majority of housing units in Santa Clara County and in the Bay Area are single - family
detached units, only 30 percent of Mountain View units fall within this category. Another 13
percent of Mountain View housing units are single - family attached units (i.e., townhouses,
rowhouses, and duplexes). Mobile homes represent the smallest share of the City's housing
stock at just 3 percent of all units.
Single- family attached units in Mountain View experienced the greatest growth between
2000 and 2010, increasing by 9 percent. Units in large multi - family buildings experienced the
second largest increase during this period at 4 percent. Mountain View's stock of units in
small multi - family buildings actually decreased slightly between 2000 and 2008. This finding
58 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
is consistent with reports from the City that smaller multi - family buildings have been
redeveloped with a variety of housing types such as condominiums, townhomes,
rowhouses, and small -lot single - family development.
4.3.3 - Building Permit Trends
Building permit trends demonstrate that while Mountain View experienced growth in multi-
family units between 2007 and 2012, prior to that new residential development had largely
focused on single - family homes (detached and attached). Since 2000, 31 percent or 792
units constructed in the City of Mountain View were for single - family units (see Table 4 -12).
Another 1,637 units were completed in multi - family buildings with five or more units in the
City between 2000 and 2012. It is important to note, that developments with 5 or more units
may include attached rowhouses and townhomes in the total.
Table 4 -12: Building Permits by Building Type (a)
01"W
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Source: CA Dept. of Finance, 2009 and 2013; City of Mountain View
(a) Includes only "finaled" building permits that are deemed complete by the City and reported to the Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
4.3.4 - Household Size
Household size is an important indicator of a source of population growth. A City's average
household size is also an indicator of the character and size of households, which represent
the most basic unit of demand for housing. Although there can be more than one
household in a housing unit, which is a trend that is increasing regionally, the measure of
persons per household provides not only an indication of the number of persons residing in a
household organizing unit, but the number of persons living in a housing unit. Average
household size can be both a result and indicator of housing affordability and other
2015 -2023 Housing Element 59
2006
95
120
215
■
2007
74
271
377
■
2008
88
NEI
0
11
99
■
2009
28
'.
2
82
112
■
2010
42
=I.
27
22
91
■
2011
62
-.
4
307
373
■
2012
48
-.
18
368
434
.
Total
792
-.
83
1,637
2,512
EA
Source: CA Dept. of Finance, 2009 and 2013; City of Mountain View
(a) Includes only "finaled" building permits that are deemed complete by the City and reported to the Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
4.3.4 - Household Size
Household size is an important indicator of a source of population growth. A City's average
household size is also an indicator of the character and size of households, which represent
the most basic unit of demand for housing. Although there can be more than one
household in a housing unit, which is a trend that is increasing regionally, the measure of
persons per household provides not only an indication of the number of persons residing in a
household organizing unit, but the number of persons living in a housing unit. Average
household size can be both a result and indicator of housing affordability and other
2015 -2023 Housing Element 59
P-4'. City of Mountain View
household economic conditions.
According to the US Census between 2000 and 2010, the average household size in
Mountain View increased slightly from 2.25 to 2.32 persons per household. However, as
noted in Table 4 -13, among neighboring cities, Mountain View had the lowest persons per
household compared to all neighboring cities. The persons per household among
neighboring cities range from a low of 2.44 persons per household in the City of Palo Alto to
a high of 2.83 persons per household in the City of Cupertino. The County of Santa Clara
had 2.89 persons per household in 2010.
Table 4 -13: Average Household Size, 2011
4.3.5 - Key Housing Stock Findings
• Although the housing stock in Mountain View continues to age, the City's homes
generally remain in good condition. Approximately 49 percent of homes in the City
are 40 years old or older. However, according to the 2010 Census, less than one
percent of housing units lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. Although there
are scattered examples of units that have fallen into disrepair, overall the housing
stock in Mountain View is in good condition. Due in part to a strong housing market
and increased demand for housing, owners have been compelled to invest in and
maintain their properties over time. Goal 3 of this Housing Element seeks to maintain
the condition of the City's housing stock through a series of policies and
implementation programs.
Compared to Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, Mountain View has a higher
proportion of units in large multi - family buildings and a smaller percentage of
detached single - family homes. Approximately 47 percent of the City's housing units
are in large multi - family and 30 percent are single - family detached units. Overall,
there were 31,469 occupied housing units in Mountain View in 2010, an increase of 2
percent since 2000.
Building permit data indicates that new residential development in Mountain View
was largely focused on detached and attached single - family homes before 2005,
but that in recent years the number of multi - family structures constructed has
increased substantially. Since 2000, 49 percent or 1,294 units constructed in the City
C0 2015 -2023 Housing Element
ca tiI0JIF7ca
■i iI_Yan•Ji•i
Mountain View
2.25
2.32
Cupertino
2.75
2.83
Palo Alto
■�
2.30
2.44
Sunnyvale
■■
2.49
2.59
Santa Clara County
■■
2.92
2.89
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 -2011
American Community
Survey
4.3.5 - Key Housing Stock Findings
• Although the housing stock in Mountain View continues to age, the City's homes
generally remain in good condition. Approximately 49 percent of homes in the City
are 40 years old or older. However, according to the 2010 Census, less than one
percent of housing units lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. Although there
are scattered examples of units that have fallen into disrepair, overall the housing
stock in Mountain View is in good condition. Due in part to a strong housing market
and increased demand for housing, owners have been compelled to invest in and
maintain their properties over time. Goal 3 of this Housing Element seeks to maintain
the condition of the City's housing stock through a series of policies and
implementation programs.
Compared to Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, Mountain View has a higher
proportion of units in large multi - family buildings and a smaller percentage of
detached single - family homes. Approximately 47 percent of the City's housing units
are in large multi - family and 30 percent are single - family detached units. Overall,
there were 31,469 occupied housing units in Mountain View in 2010, an increase of 2
percent since 2000.
Building permit data indicates that new residential development in Mountain View
was largely focused on detached and attached single - family homes before 2005,
but that in recent years the number of multi - family structures constructed has
increased substantially. Since 2000, 49 percent or 1,294 units constructed in the City
C0 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
of Mountain View were for single - family units and 1,295 units were completed in
multi - family buildings with five or more units. Given the limited supply of vacant land
in Mountain View and the need to provide a variety of housing types, the City will
need to consider strategic production and location of higher density housing.
Housing Element Goal 1 and its associated policies and programs, which address the
need for the production of new housing and locating higher density development
near transit, Downtown, employment centers, and services.
Mountain View is unique compared with neighboring cities such as Palo Alto,
Sunnyvale, Cupertino and Los Altos. Mountain View has a higher share of multi - family
units than neighboring communities and a lower average household size. In
addition, Mountain View has an older stock of multi - family rental units that are
affordable to lower- and moderate - income households. Mountain View provides a
diversity of housing types from affordable multi - family rental units, to entry level
condominiums, to single - family homes.
4.4 - Market Conditions and Affordability
This section of the Needs Assessment discusses housing market conditions in Mountain View.
This information evaluates how the private housing market provides for the needs of various
economic segments of the local population.
4.4.1 - Rental Market Trends
A review of rental market conditions in Mountain View was conducted using online data to
determine the affordability and availability of rental units in the City. As shown in Table 4 -14,
Mountain View had an average rent of $2,239 for the second quarter of 2013 according to
DataQuick reports.
During the previous Housing Element planning period, rents increased steadily, an indicator
of a strong rental market. Looking at longer -term trends, Mountain View and Santa Clara
County rents have risen and fallen in tandem with the economic cycle. Average rents
peaked in 2008 at $1,744, fell to $1,567 by 2009 in the wake of the economic downturn, and
have since risen steady by roughly $700 over 4 years. Table 4 -14 further illustrates the
changes in average rent as compared to Santa Clara County.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 61
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -14: Median Housing Rental Rates, 2005 -2013
qu&99��
10 111 LO NLWI LO It* 1L 019111 L�
2005
$1,320
$1,308
2006
$1,514
$1,428
2007
$1,732
$1,594
2008
$1,744
$1,688
2009
$1,567
$1,549
2010
$1,588
$1,562
2011
$1,807
$1,747
2012
$2,058
$1,938
2013
$2,239
$2,062
Source: DctcQuick, 2013.
As shown in Table 4 -14, the median rent for Mountain View has historically been on par with
rents asked throughout Santa Clara County. Typically the average rent for the City as
compared to the County was within $50 -100. However, more recently with the recovery of
the economy rents in Mountain View have increased rapidly and are roughly $200 more
than those asked for Santa Clara County as a whole. To further assess rental conditions in
the City, rental information for Mountain View was obtained from internet rental listings.
Table 4 -15 presents results of the rental survey by unit type, including apartments,
condominiu ms/town homes, and single - family homes.
Table 4 -15: Inventory of Rental Units, 2013
3+
25 $750 - $3,775 $2,295
15 $2,055 - $5,785 $2,880
3 $2,450 - $6,065 $4,090
1 2 $1,600 - 3,400 $2,500
5 $2,150- $4,950 $3,470
3 $3,900 - $9,085 $3,930
Single Homes - 2 $5,900 $1,698
- 6 $3,875 - $8,500 $6,200
Source: Trulia.com, Accessed on August 22, 2013.
C2 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
4.4.2 - Home Sale Trends
While many other markets in California and across the country saw home values fall in 2008,
sales prices in Mountain View remained relatively strong over the last 5 years. As shown in
Figure 4 -1, median sales prices in Mountain View started around $749,000 in 2008, falling to
$525,000 by 2010 in light of the economic downturn. As the economic climate has improved
over the last three years, median sales prices have recovered quickly jumping to $700,000 in
2011 and almost $860,000 by 2013. Generally, according to statistics generated by
DataQuick Information Systems, the median sales price for a single - family home increased
by 106 percent from $412,000 in 2000 to $860,000 in 2013.
Figure 4 -1: Annual Median Home Price, 2000 -2013
$1,000,000
$900,000
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: Trulia.com, Accessed on August 22, 2013.
Table 4 -16 provides home sale activity for Mountain View and neighboring cities for the
second quarter of 2013. As shown, the median sales price for new and resale single - family
homes and condominiums in Mountain View in June 2013 had increased in zip codes 94040
and 94043, by 13 percent and 3 percent respectively, and declined by 16 percent in zip
code 90401 in a year over year comparison. By comparison, the City of Cupertino saw a
modest increase of 4.5 percent in sales price, while Sunnyvale saw larger increases up to 49
percent in the 94089 zip code. The median sales price in Palo Alto fell by 32 percent in the
94301 zip code and 5 percent in the 94036 zip code.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 63
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -16: Median Housing Unit Values, June 2013
Zip . . Homes Per . .
•.
94040 32 $1,265,000 13.5% $882
Mountain View 94041 3 $660,000 -16.5% $632
94043 32 $672,500 3.5% $627
Cupertino 95014 45 $1,150,000 4.5% $770
Palo Alto 94301 11 $1,340,000 -32.6% $1,320
94306 20 $1,300,000 -5.8% $1,160
94085 16 $682,500 43.8% $558
Sunnyvale 94086 15 $810,000 22.7% $682
94087 51 $1,194,000 28.2% $736
94089 14 $745,000 49.1% $421
Santa Clara County All 1,905 $655,000 19.1% N/A
Source: DataQuIck, www.DQNews.com. Accessed August 20, 2013
4.4.3 - Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status
Table 4 -17 presents housing vacancy conditions in Mountain View according the 2007-2011
American Community Survey. A low vacancy rate indicates that the demand for housing
exceeds the available supply, typically resulting in higher housing prices. According to the
2007 -2011 ACS, Mountain View's vacancy rate of 4.8 percent was parallel to the overall
vacancy rate for Santa Clara County.
Table 4 -17: Occupancy Status by Tenure, 2011
.. - - ___FSanta Clara County
Occupied Housing Units 31,469 95.2% 599,652 95.3%
Vacant Housing Units 1,570 4.8% 29,796 4.7%
Total 33,039 100% 629,448 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey.
Ownership Housing. Housing economists generally consider a 2 percent vacancy rate
for homeownership units as sufficient to provide adequate choice and mobility for residents.
According to the 2010 Census, Mountain View's vacancy rate for homeownership units was
0.6 percent. Vacancy in 2010 was also low in Santa Clara County at 1.0 percent. The low
homeownership vacancy rate in Mountain View in 2010 is indicative of the tight housing
market as technology companies continue to expand in the Silicon Valley region.
64 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Rental Housing. A rental vacancy rate of 5 percent is considered sufficient to provide
adequate choice and mobility for residents. In 2010, Mountain View's rental vacancy rate
stood at 1.9 percent, compared to 1.7 percent for the County. These rates fall below the 5
percent benchmark for a "healthy" rental market. Generally through, Mountain View's
rental vacancy rate is consistent with rental markets throughout the region. Despite the
City's relatively strong ownership market, the regional trends, including uncertainty in the
labor market, continue to compel many households to continue to rent. In addition, current
lending practices that require higher down payments to buy a home compel people to
continue to rent.
4.4.4 - Housing Affordability for Various Income Groups
Affordability is generally discussed in the context of households with different income levels.
Households are categorized as extremely low- income, very low- income, low- income,
moderate - income, or above moderate - income, based on household size and percentages
of the Area Median Income (AMI). These income limits are established annually by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Federal, state, and
local affordable housing programs generally target households up to 120 percent of AMI,
with a particular focus on households up to 50 percent of AMI. Table 4 -18 provides the
maximum income limits for a four - person household in Santa Clara County in 2013.
Table 4 -18: County Household Income Limits, 2013
Extremely Low - Income
Very Low - Income
Low - Income
Moderate - Income
Median
Oho to 30% AMI $30,400
31 % to 50% AMI $50,650
51 % to 80% AMI $75,050
81 % to 120% AMI $111,430
100% $101,300
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2013; ESA, 2013.
(1) Based on the 2013 Area Median Income of $101,300 for a family of 4 living in Santa Clara County.
These income groups can also be viewed as households with various occupational mixes.
Figure 4 -2 provides representative households for Santa Clara County, with hypothetical
jobs and family compositions, as examples of the various household types in various income
categories.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 65
City of Mountain View
Figure 4 -2: Examples of Household Income in Santa Clara
County
Moderate - Income Household (80% - 120% AMI)
Estimated Annual Income: $81,040 - $121,560
One parent works as an elementary school teacher, the other
works as a secretary; they have two children.
Low - Income Household (50% - 80% AMI)
• • Estimated Annual Income: $50,650 - $81,040
One parent works as an office building janitor, the other
works as a childcare provider; they have two children
Very Low - Income Household (Up to 50% AMI)
• Estimated Annual Income: Up to $50,650
Single- parent works as a retail clerk and is the only
source of financial support in the family; the family has
one child.
Sources: California Deportment of Housing and Community Development, 2013
4.4.5 - Ability to Pay for Housing
Table 4 -19 shows affordability scenarios for four - person households with very low -, low -, and
moderate - incomes. The maximum affordable sales price was calculated using household
income limits published by HCD, conventional financing terms, and assuming that
households spend 30 percent of gross income on mortgage payments, taxes, and
insurance. Home sale data for Mountain View was obtained from DataQuick Information
Systems.
As shown in Table 4 -16 the median sales price for single - family homes in Mountain View
ranged from $660,000 to $1,265,000 in August 2013. By comparison, the highest cost
residence that a moderate - income family could afford is $615,671. This analysis indicates
that for all, but above moderate - income households, current market prices present a
serious obstacle to single - family homeownership.
In reviewing these findings, it is important to note that credit markets have tightened in
tandem with the decline in home values. As such, although homes have become more
affordable, lender requirements for a minimum down payment or credit score may present
a greater obstacle for buyers today. More accessible home loan products are available,
including Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans. FHA loans are insured by the federal
government, and have traditionally allowed lower- income households to purchase a home
66 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
that they could not otherwise afford. However, interviews with lenders suggest that many
households are not aware of these programs. Moreover, many loan officers prefer to focus
on conventional mortgages because of the added time and effort associated with
processing and securing approval on a FHA loan.
Table 4 -19: Housing Affordability by Income Group, 2013
Extremely Low (0 -30% MFI)
Two Person (1 bedroom)
Three Person (2 bedrooms)
Four Person (3 bedrooms)
Five Person (4 bedrooms)
Very Low (30 -50% MFI)
One Person (Studio)
Two Person (1 bedroom)
Three Person (2 bedrooms)
Four Person (3 bedrooms)
Five Person (4 bedrooms)
Lower (50 -80% MR)
One Person (Studio)
Two Person (1 bedroom)
Three Person (2 bedrooms)
Four Person (3 bedrooms)
Five Person (4 bedrooms)
Moderate - income (81 -120%
MR)
One Person (Studio)
Two Person (1 bedroom)
Three Person (2 bedrooms)
Four Person (3 bedrooms)
Five Person (4 bedrooms)
30% AMI
$2,127
$2,482
$135
$405
$452,164
$97,248
$13,293
$ 332
$ 332
$50
$80
$47,112
$282
$15,192
$ 380
$ 380
$75
$90
$50,017
$305
$17,091
$ 427
$ 427
$100
$95
$54,086
$327
$32,821
$ 821
$ 821
$125
$100
$138,670
$696
50% AMI
$35,455
$886
$886
$50
$115
$167,974
$836
$40,520
$1,013
$1,013
$50
$115
$197,459
$963
$45,585
$1,140
$1,140
$100
$130
$211,808
$1,040
$50,650
$1,266
$1,266
$125
$140
$233,143
$1,141
$54,702
$1,368
$1,368
$175
$145
$243,924
$1,193
80 %AMI
$56,728
$1,418
$1,418
$48
$150
$284,242
$1,371
$64,832
$1,621
$1,621
$85
$165
$319,194
$1,536
$72,936
$1,823
$1,823
$125
$190
$351,234
$1,698
$81,040
$2,026
$2,026
$175
$210
$382,110
$1,851
$87,523
$2,188
$2,188
$200
$220
$411,701
$1,988
110% AMI
$85,092
$2,127
$2,482
$135
$405
$452,164
$97,248
$2,431
$2,836
$135
$405
$534,721
$109,404
$2,735
$3,191
$157
$475
$595,857
$121,560
$3,039
$3,546
$211
$571
$643,487
$131,285
$3,282
$3,829
$238
$628
$689,973
$1,992
$2,296
$2,578
$2,828
_ $3,044
Source: Compiled by ESA.
Notes:
(a) Definition of affordable housing cost per Health and Safety Code Section 50053
(b)Property taxes and insurance based on averages for the region.
(c) Calculation of affordable home sales prices based on a down payment of 20 %, annual interest rate of 5 %, 30 -year
mortgage, and monthly payment 30% of gross household income.
(d) Based on 2013 Santa Clara County MFI $101,300 and 2013 HCD State Income Limits.
(e) Monthly affordable rent based on payments of no more than 30% of household income.
In comparison to Table 4 -15, which presents market rate rents for three - bedroom, two -bath
apartments Table 4 -19 shows that a four - person household.3 Maximum affordable monthly
3Three- bedroom, two -bath units were used for this analysis to reflect space needs of a 4- person household. This is an industry
2015 -2023 Housing Element 67
P-4. City of Mountain View
rents assumed that households pay 30 percent of their gross income on rent and utilities.
According to Trulia.com, the average monthly rent for a three - bedroom, two -bath unit in
Mountain View in August 2013 ranged from $4,090 for a three bedroom apartment to $6,200
for a 3 bedroom house. This analysis suggests that very low- and low- income renters must
pay in excess of 30 percent of their incomes to compete in the current market without some
form of rental subsidy. The gap is especially large for very low- income households who
have to pay over 50 percent of their income to afford the average market rent for a unit
that is likely not large enough. This analysis suggests that only above moderate - income
households can afford the average monthly rent in Mountain View.
4.4.6 - Overpayment
According to HUD standards, a household is considered "cost- burdened" (i.e., overpaying
for housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing - related costs.
Households are "severely cost burdened" if they pay more than 50 percent of their income
on housing costs. The 2010 Census reports that 38 percent of renters and 40 percent of
homeowners were overpaying for housing in Mountain View. Throughout Santa Clara
County, 46 percent of renters and 49 percent of homeowners were cost - burdened
according to the 2007-2011 ACS.
Table 4 -20: Summary of Housing Overpayment, 2010
Extremely Low - Income (0 -30% MFI)
2,740
805
3,545
Number with cost burden > 30%
727o
677o
717o
Number with cost burden > 50%
647o
5370
6170
Very Low - Income (31 -50% MFI)
2,290
1,085
3,375
Number with cost burden > 30%
817o
6570
7670
Number with cost burden > 50%
407o
417o
407o
Low - Income (51 -80% MFI)
1,840
870
2,710
Number with cost burden > 30%
647o
497o
607o
Number with cost burden > 50%
1 170
297o
177o
Moderate - Income (81 %+ MFI)
1,545
790
2,335
Number with cost burden > 30%
507o
467o
477o
Number with cost burden > 50%
170
267o
970
Total Households
18,120
12,915
31,205
Number with cost burden > 30%
347o
3570
347o
Number with cost burden > 50%
167o
147o
157o
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS), 2006 -2010.
According to the most recent Comprehensive Housing Survey prepared using the 2006 -2010
ACS, the majority of low -, very low -, and extremely
low- income households were either cost-
standard approach to analyzing affordability
C8 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View -
burdened or severely cost - burdened in Mountain View. In total, 81 percent of very low -
income renters and 65 percent of low- income homeowners overpaid for housing in
Mountain View in 2010. The housing cost burden was particularly pronounced for extremely
low- and very low- income households.
Current economic conditions, particularly as they relate to job losses and unemployment, as
a result of the Economic Downturn of 2008, may result in an increase of overpayment in
Mountain View and throughout Santa Clara County. However, more recent data on the
percent of households experiencing housing cost burden is unavailable. This Housing
Element Update includes a number of implementation programs intended to facilitate
affordable housing to lower- income households. The City allocates most of its affordable
housing funds for households earning less than 80 percent of the County median income,
with an emphasis on very low- and extremely low- income households.
4.4.7 — Overcrowding
A lack of affordable housing can result in overcrowded households. The U.S. Census defines
"overcrowding" as more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens.
Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered to be severely overcrowded.
Table 4 -21 illustrates the overcrowding rate among renters and owners in Mountain View.
According to the 2007 -2011 ACS, six percent of the City's renter households were
overcrowded, and three percent of all renter households were considered to be severely
overcrowded. In comparison, 0.9 percent of owner households were estimated to be
overcrowded, with 0.4 percent considered to be severely overcrowded. During the current
economic downturn, the presence of overcrowding may have increased due to rising
unemployment and foreclosures.
Overall, Santa Clara County households experienced overcrowding at a higher rate than
Mountain View households. Three percent of owner households and 12 percent of renter
households county -wide were overcrowded in 2011.
Table 4 -21: Overcrowding by Tenure, 2011
om Units Households mmmFota everely
Housing Overcrowded Percentage Overcrowded
Households
Renters 18,192 1,160 6.4% 564 3.1%
Owners 13,277 119 0.9% 47 0.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 69
City of Mountain View
4.4.8 - Key Housing Market and Affordability Findings
• Home sales price and rent trends in Mountain View are indicative of the City's strong
residential market. Generally, the median sales price for a single - family home in
Mountain View increased by 106 percent from $412,000 in 2000 to $847,000 in 2013.
While many other markets in California and across the country have seen home
values fall during the current economic downturn, sales prices in Mountain View
remained relatively strong over the last decade.
• While the median rent was reported to be roughly $2,239 in 2013, a survey of rental
listings posted showed market rate rents were substantially higher. Potential
homebuyers have continued to rent given the ongoing uncertainty in the economy.
Based on a survey of rental units in August 2013, the average monthly rent ranged
from $750 to $10,700 a month. Importantly, rents for larger units were high ranging
from an average of $4,090 for a 3- bedroom apartment to $6,830 for a 3- bedroom
house. This emerging trend is consistent with long -term rental trends in Mountain
View, which show increases and declines in tandem with the economic cycle.
Due to Mountain View's high sales prices and monthly rents, housing remains largely
unaffordable for many very low -, low -, and moderate - income households. Assuming
that households spend 30 percent of gross income on mortgage payments, taxes,
and insurance, the maximum affordable sales price that a moderate - income, four -
person household could afford is $615,671. These findings emphasize the ongoing
need to support the production of affordable subsidized housing in Mountain View,
and programs to assist first -time homeowners in entering the ownership market.
Housing Element Goal 2 and its associated policies and programs addresses this
need through actions that provide assistance to households at different income
levels.
High housing costs can force households to overpay for housing or live in
overcrowded situations. In 2011, 34 percent of renters and 34 percent of
homeowners were overpaying for housing in the City. The housing cost burden was
particularly pronounced for extremely low- and very low- income households in
Mountain View. Six percent of renter households and almost 1 percent of owner
households were overcrowded in the City. Again, this finding indicates the need for
supply- and demand -side affordable housing strategies, as outlined under Goals 1, 2,
and 5 of this Housing Element. These goals aim to support the production of new
housing, provide assistance to households in addressing their housing needs,
preserve subsidized units at risk of conversion to market rate housing, and support fair
and equal housing for all segments of the community.
70 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
4.5 - Assisted Housing at Risk of
Conversion
State Law requires Housing Elements to include an inventory of subsidized affordable
housing developments that could be at -risk of conversion to market rates during the 10 -year
period that follows the adoption of the Element. Many subsidized affordable housing
developments receive government funding that requires units be made affordable for a
specified amount of time. At -risk developments include projects where the required
affordability term is expiring in the next 10 years and could convert to market rate rents. For
those units at -risk of conversion, the Housing Element must estimate the cost to preserve or
replace the at -risk units, to identify the resources available to help in the preservation or
replacement of those units, and to identify those organizations that could assist in these
efforts.
Table 4 -22 presents an inventory of the existing affordable units in Mountain View, including
affordability time period requirements associated with different funding sources expire. As
shown, none of the subsidized units in Mountain View have affordability terms that would
expire in the next 10 years.
Table 4 -22: Inventory of Affordable Housing Units, 2013
....
Total - - Expiration
Project Units Units Source(b) Date(c)
AM M = _E_ 2024)
San Veron Park 11
32 32 23 9 CDBG 2044 No Risk
870 San Vernon Ave
Sierra Vista 1 34 34 34 0 CDBG 2070 No Risk
1909 Hackett Ave
60 LIHTC 2029
Paulson Park Apts I 8
149 148 HOME 2073 No Risk
1 1 1 Montebello Avenue 146
CDBG 2034
Paulson Park Apts 11 104 104 104 103 CDBG 2063 No Risk
90 Sierra Vista Ave 1 1 HOME 2063
Fairchild Apartments 18 18 18 0 Private
159 Fairchild Drive
The Fountains 124 123 112 LIHTC 2019 No Risk
2005 San Ramon Ave 124 HOME 2044
Monte Vista Terrace 150 149 0 60 LIHTC 2060 No Risk
1101 Grant Road
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 71
City of Mountain Vie
Affori
Project Total Assisted Lei
Units Units Very
Low
36
LIHTC
2027 m-
Maryce Freelen Place
74 74 4
HOME
2025
No Risk
2230 Latham Street
30
CDBG
2044
San Antonio Place
CDBG
2052
120 120 118
2
No Risk
210 San Antonio Circle
HOME
2057
5
HOME
2027
Shorebreeze Apts 5
120 120
69
CDBG
Indefinitely
No Risk
460 N. Shoreline Blvd 69
48
LIHTC
2027
Tyrella Gardens
34
CDBG
2058
56 56
No Risk
449 Tyrella Avenue 16
39
LIHTC
2059
53
LIHTC
2048
Ginzton Terrace
107 107
107
CDBG
2038
No Risk
375 Oaktree Drive
M11
107
CCRC
2023
CDBG
Franklin Street Apts
51 51 51
0
RDA
2066
No Risk
135 Franklin Street
BMR
TOTAL 'I
1,139 1,136
Source: City of Mountain View, 2013.
(a) Very low- income housing is for households earning up to 50 percent
of the AMI. Low
- income units
are for households earning
up to 80 percent of the AMI.
(b) Funding source definitions: CDBG - Community Development Block Grant, HOME
- HOME Program Funding, LIHTC -
Low -
income Housing Tax Credits, CCRC - CA Community Reinvestment Corporation
(c) Expiration year refers to the year at which affordability requirements
associated with
various funding sources end and
the
units could be converted to market rate.
4.6 — Special Needs Groups
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires that Housing Elements include "an analysis
of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, large
families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in
need of emergency shelter." This section of the Needs Assessment profiles these
populations with special housing needs.
4.6.1 - Elderly
Many elderly residents face a unique set of housing needs, largely due to physical
limitations, lower household incomes, and health care costs. Unit sizes and accessibility to
transit, health care, and other services are important housing concerns for this population.
Housing affordability also represents a key issue for seniors, many of whom are living on fixed
incomes.
72 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -23: Elderly Households by Tenure, 2010
Householder 15 -64 years
26,885
84.1%
492,244
81.5%
Owner
10,055
37.4%
265,727
53.9%
Renter
16,830
62.6%
226,517
46.1%
Householder 64 -85 years
4,213
13.2%
94,720
15.7%
Owner
2,727
64.7%
71,412
75.4%
Renter
1,486
35.3%
23,308
25.6%
Householder 85+ years
850
2.7%
17,240
2.8%
Owner
550
64.7%
11,159
64.7%
Renter
300
35.30
6,081
35.30
Total
31,957(°)
100%
604,204(°)
100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1
.
(c) The totoI number of households may not match
previous tables
as 2010 Census data was utilized instead of 2007-2011 ACS
data. 2010 Census Summary File 1 data was the
most recent data available at the time
this Element was written.
As Table 4 -23 indicates, 13 percent of householders in Mountain View were between 65
years and 84 years old in 2010 while another 3 percent were 85 years old or over. Santa
Clara County has a slightly higher proportion of elderly householders with a total of almostl8
percent over the age of 65. Nearly 65 percent of households between 65 and 84 years old
in Mountain View owned their homes. While this homeownership rate is substantially higher
than the rate for non - elderly households in the City, it is lower than the rate among elderly
households in Santa Clara County as a whole. The limited supply and high price of
ownership housing in Mountain View, compared to the County, likely contributes to this
trend.
Generally, elderly households tend to pay a larger portion of their income to housing costs
than other households. To better understand the housing problems experienced by elderly
residents in the City, Table 4 -24 provides the percentage of elderly residents by tenure that
struggle with housing as cost burden paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income
toward rent or a mortgage, the percentage by tenure that struggle with housing as severe
cost burden paying more than 50 percent of their monthly income toward rent or a
mortgage and elderly residents with any housing problem. A housing problem is
characterized by HUD as 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit
lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost
burdened. Within the Table a household is said to have a housing problem if they have any
one or more of the identified four problems.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 73
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -24: Housing Problems for Senior Residents, 2009
Extremely Low - Income (0 -30% MFI)
920
2,945
Number with any housing problems
58%
74%
Number with cost burden > 30%
58%
74%
Number with cost burden > 50%
43%
61%
Very Low - Income (31 -50% MFI)
270
1,970
Number with any housing problems
54%
88%
Number with cost burden > 30%
54%
83%
Number with cost burden > 50%
30%
23%
Low - Income (51 -80% MFI)
150
1,255
Number with any housing problems
63%
75%
Number with cost burden > 30%
63%
62%
Number with cost burden > 50%
0%
9%
Moderate - Income (81 %+ MFI)
555
11,455
Number with any housing problems
15%
17%
Number with cost burden > 30%
16%
12%
Number with cost burden > 50%
2%
0%
Total Households
1,895
17,625
Number with any housing problems
45%
38%
Number with cost burden > 30%
46%
34%
Number with cost burden > 50%
26%
14%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS), 2005
-2009.
*Data for 2010 was not available for this specific special needs group.
505
1,040
3'Y85
69%
77%
75%
68%
77%
75%
50%
59%
61%
435
1,030
3,000
63%
57%
77%
63%
57%
74%
24%
32%
26%
330
515
1,770
32%
51%
68%
32%
51%
59%
14%
30%
15%
1,860
9,990
21,445
16%
27%
21%
160
260
190
4%
7%
3%
3,130
12,575
30,200
330
350
370
330
340
340
15%
14%
14%
As Table 4 -24 indicates, 46 percent of elderly renter households in Mountain View overpaid
for housing and 26 percent severely overpaid in 2009. Elderly homeowners in Mountain
View were less cost burdened than elderly renters. Thirty -three percent of elderly
homeowners overpaid for housing while 15 percent severely overpaid. Extremely low and
very low- income elderly renters had the highest incidence of housing cost burden with 68
percent and 63 percent overpaying for housing, respectively.
Mountain View offers a number of housing resources for seniors. As shown in Table 4 -25,
there are 16 Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFEs) with a total capacity of 152
residents. RCFEs provide care, supervision, and assistance with daily living such as bathing
and grooming.
74 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -25: Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly
Aaedita Residential Care Home
Alvin Place Care Home
Casa Pastel Lane
Cypress Manor
Diamond Care Home
Diamond Residential Care
Monte Farley II
Monte Farley Manor Guest Home
Paradise Care Home
Pettis Manor Family #B
Pettis Manor Family #C
Pinehill
Shalom Mountain View
Springer House
Urso's Monte Farley Manor III
Location
1874 Villa Street
2522 Alvin Street
13348 Pastel Lane
467 Sierra Vista Avenue #1
1617 Began Avenue
1309 Brook Place
586 Burgoyne Street
579 Farley Street
1615 Miramonte Avenue
739 -B Pettis Avenue
757 Pettis Avenue
801 Rose Avenue
1007 Miramonte Avenue
1651 Springer Road
381 Farley Street
V
6
15
6
6
6
6
Villa Sienna 1855 Miramonte Avenue 55
Total J 16 Facilities 152 Beds
Sources: California Healthcare Foundation, 2013. State of California Community Care Licensing Division, 2013.
In addition to assisted living facilities, there are a number of affordable independent rental
facilities for seniors (See Table 4 -26). According to Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition, a non-
profit organization that owns and operates six independent senior housing developments in
the City, there is demand for more senior housing in Mountain View. There are waiting lists
for each of the six projects it operates. Turnover at these developments is very low, with
residents staying for ten, twenty, or even thirty years. Often residents do not leave unless
health conditions no longer permit them to live independently.
There are several nonprofit organizations which help seniors secure housing. The Avenidas
Information and Assistance program and the Community Services Agency's Senior Case
Management program provide seniors with information on and referrals for housing
opportunities. Staff at both organizations reported that there is demand for more senior
housing in Mountain View, with the greatest need for affordable senior housing at both
independent and assisted living facilities. While there are a number of subsidized
independent senior housing projects, affordable assisted living in Mountain View is virtually
nonexistent. The six affordable senior housing developments listed in Table 4 -26 do not
provide assisted living services.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 75
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -26: Subsidized Rental Housing for Seniors
W-
L
r
Unit Size
..
Incomes
Served
Paulson Park Apartments 1
0
149
1
150
Up to 60% AMI
Paulson Park Apartments 11
0
89
15
104
Up to 45% AMI
Ginzton Terrace
8
93
6
107
Up to 60 %AMI
Monte Vista Terrace
74
60
16
150
Section 8
Shorebreeze Apartments
0
69
0
69
Up to 60 %AMI
The Fountains
0
124
0
124
Up to 60 %AMI
Total
82
584
38
704
Source: City of Mountain View, 2013.
4.6.2 - Persons with Disabilities
A disability is a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities.
Persons with a disability generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to finding
employment or adequate housing due to physical or structural obstacles. This segment of
the population often needs affordable housing that is located near public transportation,
services, and shopping. Persons with disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair
accessibility or other special features that accommodate physical or sensory limitations.
Depending on the severity of the disability, people may live independently with some
assistance in their own homes, or may require assisted living and supportive services in
special care facilities.
Within the population of civilian, non - institutionalized residents, age five and older, the 2010
U.S. Census reports that 7 percent of Mountain View residents had a disability while closer to
8 percent of Santa Clara County residents had a disability (see Table 4 -27). Seniors (age 65
years and older) represented 31 percent of the City's disabled population.
According to the 2010 Census, cognitive difficulties, which include physical, mental, or
emotional problems, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions
(DREM), represented the most pervasive disability type in Mountain View. Approximately 40
percent of persons with disabilities, between the ages of 16 and 64 years, had employment
disabilities (see Table 4 -27). Another 27 percent of disabled persons in this age group had
an ambulatory difficulty that prevented them from leaving their home to shop, visit the
doctor, or access other services. If should be noted that individuals may have more than
one type of disability.
76 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -27: Disability Status of Non - Institutionalized
Persons, 2011
Persons 18 -64 Years Old 1 ML3,326 .
With Hearing Difficulty
437
0.9%
11,888
With Vision Difficulty
339
0.7%
9,310
With Cognitive Difficulty
841
1.6%
25,582
With an Ambulatory Difficulty
559
1.1%
26,275
With a Self -Care Difficulty
281
0.6%
10,909
With an Independent Living Difficulty
760
1.5%
22,156
Total with a Disability (18 -64 Years Old)
2,090( °)
4.1%
61,096
Persons 65 Years and Over
8,035
i
194,187
With Hearing Difficulty
942
11.7%
26,957
With Vision Difficulty
468
5.8%
11,630
With Cognitive Difficulty
639
8.0%
18,152
With an Ambulatory Difficulty
1,751
21.8%
40,576
With a Self -Care Difficulty
738
9.2%
18,003
With an Independent Living Difficulty
1,429
17.8%
33,595
Total with a Disability (65+ Years Old)
2,517( °)
31.3%
65,258
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 - 2011 American Community Survey.
(1) Rows may not add up to total as individuals may have multiple
disabilities and may be counted
more than once.
1.0%
0.8%
2.2%
2.3%
0.9%
1.9%
5.3%
13.9%
6.0%
9.3%
20.9%
9.3%
17.3%
33.6%
Among seniors with disabilities in Mountain View, the most prominent disability type was an
ambulatory difficulty (22 percent), followed by an independent living difficulty (17 percent)
and a self -care difficulty (9 percent). The distribution of disability types in Santa Clara
County paralleled that of Mountain View.
As shown in Table 4 -28, Mountain View has four licensed community care facilities that
serve individuals with disabilities. Altogether, these facilities have a total capacity of 35
residents. Group homes provide specialized treatment for persons under the age of 18
while adult residential facilities offer care for persons between 18 and 59 years old, including
both developmentally disabled adults and persons suffering from mental illness or
psychiatric disorders.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 77
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -28: Residential Facilities and Group Homes, 2013
Name of Facility "M TVQe of Facili
Green Pastures
730 Cornelia Court
Group Home
6
Bill Wilson Center
209 View Street
Group Home
8
San Antonio Manor
2402 Gabriel Street
Adult Residential
15
Sierra Manor
467 Sierra Vista Avenue
Adult Residential
6
Total
4 Facilities
35
Source: City of Mountain View, 2013.
4.6.3 — Developmentally Disabled Persons
According to Section 4512 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code a "Developmental
disability" means a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years,
continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial
disability for that individual which includes mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and
autism. This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to mental
retardation or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with mental
retardation, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in
nature.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a
conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living
environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may
require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are
provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in
supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person's living
situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.
The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community
based services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their
families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, 4 developmental centers, and 2
community -based facilities. The San Andreas Regional Center is 1 of 21 regional centers in
the State of California that provides point of entry to services for people with
developmental disabilities. The center is a private, non - profit community agency that
contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with
developmental disabilities and their families.
Table 4 -29 provides information from the San Andreas Regional Center on the number of
developmentally disabled individuals in the City of Mountain View. In 2013, there were
approximately 307 individuals actively utilizing services at the Regional Center for a
developmental disability.
78 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -29: Developmentally Disabled Residents by Age,
2013
94040 60 24 42 9 2
94041 26 13 9 5 0
94043 65 19 28 1 4
137
53
117
Total 151 56 79 15 6 307
Source: San Andreas Regional Center, 2013.
To assist with any housing needs for persons with developmental disabilities, the City will
implement programs to coordinate housing activities and outreach with the San Andreas
Center and encourage housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable housing
developments for persons with disabilities, especially persons with developmental
disabilities, and pursue funding sources designated for persons with special needs and
disabilities.
During the 2007 -2014 planning period the City established a partnership First Community
Housing to develop a residential project with 27 units, at] 581-1585 W. El Camino Real that
would specifically serve the developmentally disabled population. The City has allocated
funding for the project including roughly $3.452 million in Below Market Rate and HOME
funds to support the development. It is anticipated that the project will cost roughly $10.5
million total with the remaining funds provided through the 9 percent tax credit program
and the Stanford Housing Fund. The City is committed to providing a variety of housing
types and will continue to work with developers that construct projects that can
accommodate developmentally disabled residents.
4.6.4 — Large Households
The U.S. Census Bureau defines large households as those with five or more persons. Large
households may encounter difficulty in finding adequately- sized, affordable housing due to
the limited supply of large units in many jurisdictions. Additionally, large units generally cost
more to rent and buy than smaller units. This may cause larger families to live in
overcrowded conditions and /or overpay for housing.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 79
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -30: Household Size by Tenure, 2010
1 Person
3,852
2 Persons
4,099
3 Persons
2,209
4 Persons
1,998
5 or more Persons
755
Total
12,913
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
4,739
29.80
7,268
40.1%
11,120
35.80
31.8%
5,747
31.7%
9,846
31.7%
17.1%
2,530
14.0%
4,739
15.3%
15.5%
1,428
7.9%
3,426
11.0%
5.8%
1,149
6.3%
1,904
6.1%
100%
18,122
100%
31,035
100%
As shown in Table 4 -30, a relatively small proportion of households in Mountain View have 5
or more persons. In 2010, roughly 6 percent of renter households and 6 percent of owner
households were large households. By comparison, 12 percent of renter households and 13
percent of owner households in Santa Clara County were large households.
Among large households in Mountain View, renters are more likely to have lower- incomes.
As Table 4 -31 demonstrates, of the large renter households, 62 percent had extremely low -,
very low -, or low- incomes in 2009. By comparison, 19 percent of all large owner households
fell into these income categories. At the some time, however, large owner households were
more likely to overpay for housing than large renter households in every income category.
Cost burden problems were particularly pronounced for extremely low -, very low -, and low -
income owner households and extremely low- and very low- income renter households.
80 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -31: Cost Burden by Household Income Level for
Large Households, 2009
Extremely Low - Income (0 -30% MFI)
Number with any housing problems
100%
74% '
100%
77%
75%
Number with cost burden > 30%
100TO
74 To
100TO
77To
75To
Number with cost burden > 50%
100TO
61 To
100TO
59T6
61 To
Very Low - Income (31-50% MR)
215
1,970
35
1,030
3,000
Number with any housing problems
100TO
88To
71 To
57To
77To
Number with cost burden > 30%
77To
83To
71 To
57To
74 To
Number with cost burden > 50%
0 T
23To
71To
32To
26To
Low - Income (51-80% MR)
215
1,255
0
515
1,770
Number with any housing problems
100TO
75To
0 T
51 To
68To
Number with cost burden > 30%
28To
62To
0 T
51To
59T6
Number with cost burden > 50%
0 T
9 T
0 T
30%
15 To
Moderate - Income (81 %+ MR)
300
11,455
395
9,990
21,445
Number with any housing problems
52%
17To
57To
27To
21 To
Number with cost burden > 30%
20%
12 To
46To
26To
19TO
Number with cost burden > 50%
0 T
0 T
20%
7T6
3%
Total Households
820
17,625
490
12,575
30,200
Number with any housing problems
82To
38To
63To
35T6
37To
Number with cost burden > 30%
46To
34 To
54 To
34 To
34 To
Number with cost burden > 50%
11%
14 To
34 To
14 To
14 To
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2005 -2009.
*Data for 2010 was not available for this specific special needs group.
While there are a higher percentage of large households that rent than large households
that own in Mountain View, the City's housing stock includes more large owner - occupied
units than large renter - occupied units. According to the 2007 -2011 ACS, 68 percent of
owner - occupied units and 14 percent of renter - occupied units had three bedrooms. In
addition, approximately 25 percent of owner - occupied units had four or more bedrooms
while less than 2 percent of renter - occupied units had four or more bedrooms (see Table 4-
32). This finding points to a possible mismatch between the supply and demand for large
rental units. The limited number of large units suggests that large renter households may live
in overcrowded situations.
To accommodate large households, the City of Mountain View actively encourages larger
units for families in both market rate and subsidized housing projects. In 2011, when the City
conducted a NOFA process, proposed projects were required to include larger units for
families as appropriate. As a result the Franklin Street Apartments located at 135 Franklin
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 81
P-4. City of Mountain View
Avenue were constructed, including 32 two - bedroom units and 15 three - bedroom units.
The two other projects that were approved were studio apartments for developmentally
disabled and extremely low- income individuals.
Table 4 -32: Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms, 2011
Bedrooms J&
Occupied Housing Units 13,277 100% 18,192 100% 31,469 100%
No Bedroom 76 5.7% 1,203 6.6% 1,279 4.1%
1- bedroom 666 5.0% 7,853 43.2% 8,519 27.1%
2- bedrooms 3,424 25.8% 6,473 35.6% 9,897 31.3%
3- bedrooms 5,751 43.3% 2,391 13.1% 8,142 25.9%
4- bedrooms 2,714 20.4% 203 1.1% 2,944 9.3%
5 or more bedrooms 646 4.8% 69 0.4% 715 2.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 -201 ]American Community Survey.
4.6.5 — Female - Headed Households
According to the 2010 Census, 29 percent of single - parent female- headed households
nationwide live at or below the federal poverty level, compared to a national poverty rate
of 10 percent. Single mothers have a greater risk of falling into poverty than single fathers
due to factors such as the wage gap between men and women, insufficient training and
education for higher -wage jobs, and inadequate child support. Households with single
mothers also typically have special needs related to access to day care /childcare, health
care, and other supportive services.
The 2010 Census reports for Mountain View, that single - parent, female- headed households,
with children under the age of 18, made up almost four percent of all Mountain View
households. This equates to roughly 1,200 households with single- mothers. By comparison, 5
percent of Santa Clara County households were single - parent, female- headed households.
4.6.6 — Farm Workers
Farmworkers may encounter special housing needs because of their limited income and
seasonable nature of employment. Many farmworkers live in unsafe, substandard and /or
crowded conditions. Housing needs for farmworkers include both permanent and seasonal
housing for individuals, as well as permanent housing for families.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) categorizes farmworkers into three groups: 1)
permanent, 2) seasonal, and 3) migrant. Permanent farmworkers are typically employed
year round by the same employer. A seasonal farmworker works an average of less than
150 days per year and earns at least half of his or her earned income from farm work.
82 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View -
Migrant farmworkers are a subset of seasonal farmworkers, and include those who have to
travel to their workplace, and cannot return to their permanent residence within the some
day.
Santa Clara County and the City of Mountain View, in particular, do not have large
populations of farmworkers. The 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture identified 5,589
farmworkers in Santa Clara County. Approximately half of farmworkers countywide were
permanent employees in 2007. While the USDA does not provide farmworker employment
data on a city level, other data suggests that the City's farmworker population is small.
According to the 2007 -2011 ACS, roughly 0.2 percent of the population in the City is
employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry. (refer to Table 4 -9). No
significant active farming remains in the City today.
4.6.7 — Homeless Persons
The homeless population, including individuals with physical and mental disabilities and
substance abuse problems, has a variety of special housing and service needs. Depending
on an individual's circumstances, these needs may be addressed by emergency shelters,
transitional housing, or supportive housing. The California Health and Safety Code
definitions of emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing are provided
below:
Emergency Shelters. Housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons
that is limited to occupancy of up to six months by a homeless person. No individual
or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay
(Section 50801).
Transitional Housing. Buildings configured as rental housing developments, but
operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and
recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some
predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months (Section
50675.2(h)).
Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by low -
income adults with one or more disabilities, and that is linked to on -site or off -site
services that assist 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 (Section 50675.14(b)).
Because homelessness is a regional issue, data presented in this section is based on statistics
for both the City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County. Demand for emergency and
transitional shelter is difficult to determine given the episodic nature of homelessness.
Generally, episodes of homelessness among families or individuals can occur as a single
event or periodically.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 83
City of Mountain View
Table 4 -33: Santa Clara County Homeless Survey, 2013
Unsheltered Sheltered Total
Household Size
2013 1 Change 2011 1 2013 1 Change 2011 2013 Change
Campbell
103
91
-12
0
0
0
103
91
-12
Cupertino
34
92
58
15
20
5
49
112
63
Gilroy
265
125
-140
255
254
-1
520
379
-141
Los Altos
5
4
-1
0
0
0
5
4
-1
Los Altos Hills
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
Los Gatos
18
11
-7
0
0
0
18
11
-7
Milpitas
139
95
-44
0
0
0
139
95
-44
Monte Serrano
11
1
-10
0
0
0
11
1
-10
Morgan Hill
176
61
-115
35
0
-35
211
61
-150
Mountain View
17
136
119
20
3
-17
37
139
102
Palo Alto
106
145
39
45
12
-33
151
157
6
San Jose
3,057
3,660
603
977
1,110
133
4,034
4,770
736
Santa Clara
132
203
71
264
275
11
396
478
82
Saratoga
7
35
28
0
0
0
7
35
28
Sunnyvale
213
283
70
161
142
-19
374
425
51
Unincorporated
886
730
-156
99
106
7
958
836
-149
Total
5,169
5,674
505
1,898
1,957
59
7,067
7,631
564
Source: Santa Clara County
Homeless
Census,
Applied Survey
Research, 2001 and 2013.
According to the point -in -time count conducted as part of the 2013 Santa Clara County
Homeless Survey there were approximately 7,631 homeless people county -wide living on
the streets, in emergency shelters and in transitional housing. Approximately 1.8 percent of
these individuals, or 139 persons, were located in the City of Mountain View. By
comparison, the Homeless Survey reported 112 homeless individuals in Cupertino, 157
people in Palo Alto, and 425 individuals in Sunnyvale. The larger homeless population in
Palo Alto and Sunnyvale may be due, in part, to the presence of a seasonal emergency
shelter in Sunnyvale, which operates during winter months, and the Opportunity Center in
Palo Alto, which provides services to homeless individuals.
The point -in -time count, however, should be considered a conservative estimate as many
homeless individuals can not be identified or counted, even with the most thorough
methodology. Furthermore, a decrease in homeless counted during the census does not
necessarily signify a decrease in homelessness. Although careful training took place prior to
the count of unsheltered homeless, which includes homeless people who are unlikely to be
found in shelters or in other residential programs within a local homeless assistance network,
it is very difficult to count all homeless individuals living on the streets. In 2013, there were
approximately 136 unsheltered homeless individuals reported in Mountain View by the 2013
84 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View -
Homeless Survey. This represents an increase of 119 persons from the 2011 Homeless Survey,
when only 17 unsheltered homeless individuals were counted in the City. For the some time
period, the number of unsheltered homeless individuals counted in the neighboring
jurisdiction of Cupertino increased from 34 to 92 individuals between the 2011 and 2013
homeless counts. Local homeless service providers believe that the increase in homeless
individuals in Mountain View and Cupertino could be, in part, the result of the transient
nature of homeless persons and the recent economic recession.
As indicated in Table 4 -33, 3 of homeless individuals of the total 139 individuals counted in
Mountain View were sheltered. By comparison, roughly 34 percent of the homeless
individuals counted in Santa Clara County were sheltered. It should be noted that there are
no permanent emergency shelters in Mountain View. However, the Homeless Survey's
count of sheltered homeless individuals and efficiency studios included people in
transitional housing and single resident occupancy units. During the previous planning
period the City approved San Antonio Place which included 118 efficiency studios units
available to shelter extremely low- and low- income residents. Ten of these units have been
set aside for persons transitioning from chronic homelessness.
HUD defines a "chronically homeless" person as an unaccompanied individual with a
disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has
had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. Disabling conditions
include physical, mental and developmental disabilities, as well as alcoholism, drug
addiction, depression, post- traumatic stress disorder, HIV /AIDS, or a chronic health
condition. Thirty percent of homeless individuals in Santa Clara County that were surveyed
in 2013 were considered chronically homeless.
The point -in -time count of homeless individuals was used to calculate an annual estimate of
the number of people who experience homelessness over the course of one year. Using a
HUD - recommended formula, the 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey
estimated that 19,063 persons in the County were homeless on an annual basis. This is a
slight decrease from 21,379 persons in 2011.
The largest proportion of homeless individuals surveyed in the County reported that job loss
was the primary reason for their homelessness; 40 percent of those surveyed had lost their
job. Overall, 74 percent of homeless respondents were unemployed. The second most
common reason for homelessness was alcohol or drug use issues. Approximately 17 percent
of homeless individuals surveyed indicated that alcohol or drug use was the primary cause
of their homelessness.
In addition to the point -in -time survey, the Community Services Agency of Mountain View
(CSA) provides additional information on the number of individuals accessing homeless
services within the community. The Community Services Agency of Mountain View (CSA) is
a local organization offering homeless support services to residents living in the cities of
Mountain View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. According to the CSA's 2012 Annual Report, in
FY 2011 -2012 the organization provides approximately 389 individuals with homeless
assistance services, however this information is not broken down by jurisdiction. Based on
the information provided by the CSA, it is possible that the City of Mountain View's homeless
population may be larger than the 139 homeless individuals counted during the 2013 Santa
2015 -2023 Housing Element 85
P-4. City of Mountain View
Clara County Homeless Census and Survey, however it is difficult to say by what amount. To
assist these individuals, the CSA offer's first month's rent for homeless individuals who are
able to secure permanent housing and also supports clients attempting to access housing
waitlists and advocates.
The Mountain View CSA also previously operated the Alpha Omega Rotating Shelter, a
temporary emergency shelter operated at local churches in Mountain View and Los Altos.
However, this program was discontinued in 2006 due to funding difficulties and a shift
towards a "Housing First" approach to assisting homeless individuals. The Housing First
approach to ending homelessness, an alternative to the emergency shelter system, focuses
on providing homeless people with secure housing first followed by necessary social
services. This approach is based on the belief that individuals are more responsive to
interventions and social services support after they are in their own housing.
While Mountain View currently does not have a permanent emergency homeless shelter,
there is transitional and permanent housing to serve the homeless. The City is also in
compliance with California Senate Bill SB2 which requires cities to identify a zoning district
that permits by right a homeless shelter. The City does have several permanent supportive
housing opportunities, including the Graduate House operated by InnVision, an
organization which provides assistance to homeless and at -risk families and individuals. The
Graduate House offers transitional housing for up to eighteen months for six men and
women. Quetzal House is also located in the City of Mountain View and is a group home
with 10 beds for girls ages 13 -17 who are chronic runaways from the Santa Clara County
Foster Care System.
86 2015 -2023 Housing Element
5. Projected Housing Needs
....................... ...............................
This section of the Housing Element discusses Mountain View's projected housing needs for
the current planning period, which runs from January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023. The
Housing Element planning period is calculated by HCD to start 18 months from the adoption
of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared for the Bay Area, also known as Plan Bay
Area. Plan Bay Area was adopted July 18, 2013. The due date for Housing Elements and the
start of the planning period is therefore, January 18, 2015. HCD, however, rounds dates to
either the 15th or 31st of a month The start date for the Housing Element planning period
was therefore determined to be January 31, 2015. The eight year planning period being
extends from January 31, 2015 to January 31, 2023.
5.1 - Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA)
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of
government (in this case, ABAG) and local governments must collectively determine each
locality's share of regional housing need. For the ABAG region, the RHNA projection period
is January 2014 through October 2022, to allow for synchronization with the population and
employment projects utilized for Plan Bay Area, in compliance with SB 375. The housing
allocations set by ABAG, establish housing production goals for the Housing Element
planning period that runs from January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023. Table 5 -1
presents a summary of ABAG's projected housing need allocation for Mountain View for
2014 to 2022 which is to be accommodated in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element. Importantly,
jurisdictions must demonstrate that they have sufficiently zoned residential land to
accommodate their RHNA.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 87
City of Mountain View
Table 5 -1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2014 -2022
.. - .,. .- . .
IMMOKZ4 IWZ4 . .
Very Low 814
26%
Low 492
15%
Moderate 527
17%
Above Moderate 1,093
420
Total 2,926
100%
Source: Regional Housing Needs Assessment, ABAG, July 2013.
5.2 - Housing Needs for Extremely Low -
Income Households
State law requires Housing Elements to quantify and analyze the existing and projected
housing needs of extremely low- income (ELI) households. HUD defines an extremely low -
income household as one earning less than 30 percent of AMI. Housing need for extremely
low- income households is considered to be a subset of a jurisdiction's very low- income
housing RHNA. For this reason, housing needs for this subset of households are discussed in
this chapter, rather than the special needs populations section of the Needs Assessment.
Extremely low- income households encounter a unique set of housing situations and needs,
and may often include special needs populations or represent families and individuals
receiving public assistance, such as social security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance.
According to income limits published by HUD for Santa Clara County, an extremely low -
income four - person household earned less than $30,400 in 2013. As shown in Table 5 -2,
there were 3,545 extremely low- income households in Mountain View in 2010, including
2,740 renter households and 805 owner households. Extremely low- income households
constituted roughly 11 percent of all households in the City. To better understand the
housing problems experienced by extremely low- income residents in the City, Table 5 -2
provides the percentage of ELI residents by tenure that struggle with housing as cost burden
paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income toward rent or a mortgage, the
percentage by tenure that pay more than 50 percent of their monthly income toward rent
or a mortgage and ELI residents with any housing problem. A housing problem is
characterized by HUD either 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit
lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; or 4) household is cost
burdened.
As shown in Table 5 -2, extremely low- income renters experienced housing problems at a
higher rate than extremely low- income owners. Approximately 72 percent of renters in this
income category were cost burdened, compared to 67 percent of owners.
88 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 5 -2: Housing Problems for All Households, 2010
Extremely Low - Income (0 -30% MR)
Number with any housing problems
Number with cost burden > 30%
Number with cost burden > 50%
Very Low - Income (31 -507o MR)
Number with any housing problems
Number with cost burden > 30%
Number with cost burden > 50%
Low - Income (51 -80% MR)
Number with any housing problems
Number with cost burden > 30%
Number with cost burden > 50%
Moderate - Income (81 -1007o MR)
Number with any housing problems
Number with cost burden > 30%
Number with cost burden > 50%
Total Households
Number with any housing problems
Number with cost burden > 30%
Number with cost burden > 50%
Source: CHAS Data Book, 2006 -2010.
2,740
805
3,545
1,985
555
2,540
1,980
540
2,520
1,750
425
2,175
2,290
1,085
3,375
2,005
710
2,715
1,855
710
2,565
905
445
1,350
1,840
870
2,705
1,425
425
1,850
1,185
425
1,610
210
250
460
1,545
790
2,340
795
390
1,185
750
360
1,110
15
205
220
18,120
12,915
31,035
7,200
4,630
11,830
6,200
4.495
10,700
2,890
1.850
4,745
To estimate the projected housing need for extremely low- income households, 50 percent
of Mountain View's 814 very low- income RHNA units are assumed to serve extremely low -
income households. Based on this methodology, the City has a projected need of 407 units
for extremely low- income households over the 2015 -2023 Housing Element planning period.
Supportive housing provides opportunities for extremely low- income households to transition
into stable, more productive lives. Supportive housing combines safe and stable shelter with
supportive services such as job training, life skills training, substance abuse programs, and
case management services.
Efficiency studios can also provide affordable housing opportunities for extremely low -
income households. During the 2007 -2014 planning period, a new subsidized housing
development with 1 18 efficiency studio units was completed in Mountain View (San Antonio
Place) and a second development with 48 efficiency studios was proposed (819 North
Rengstorff). San Antonio Place provides housing and supportive services for extremely low -
income persons earning as little as 15 percent of the Area Median Income. San Antonio
Place helps prevent individuals from becoming homeless by providing affordable housing
for those with extremely low- incomes and provides a housing resource for homeless persons
2015 -2023 Housing Element 89
e - - °� City of Mountain View
transitioning from temporary housing such as the Graduate House. Efficiency studios are
allowed in the Commercial - Residential Arterial (CRA) zoning district and several Precise Plan
areas in the City. The City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance previously limited the total
number of efficiency units in the City to 180 units (Section A36.42.80B).
However, as the cap was determined to constrain the development of new efficiency
studio projects and the City's ability to provide suitable affordable housing options for
extremely low- income households, the City repealed the section of the Code in December
2013 that established the cap to allow for additional efficiency studios to be constructed.
No limit on the number of efficiency units in the City therefore currently in place, and the
City reviews applications as they are submitted.
The Housing Element also contains several other programs to assist in the development of
housing types to meet the needs of extremely low- income households. Program 1.2
specifically prioritizes the housing needs of extremely low- income households while Program
1.10 encourages the City to explore innovative housing types allowing for flexibility for new
forms of housing development that may better serve lower income and special needs
groups. Program 1.1 reiterates that the City will allocate most of its affordable housing funds
for lower- income households, with an emphasis on very low- and extremely low- income
households.
90 2015 -2023 Housing Element
6. Housing Constraints
Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element
must analyze "potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls,
building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions
required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures." Where constraints
are identified, the City is required to take action to mitigate or remove them.
In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain
the production of affordable housing in Mountain View. These include infrastructure
availability, environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and public
opinion.
6.1- Governmental Constraints
Government regulations can affect housing costs by limiting the supply of buildable land,
setting standards and allowable densities for development, and exacting fees for the use of
land or the construction of homes. The increased costs associated with such requirements
can be passed on to consumers in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential
regulatory constraints include local land use policies (as defined in a community's general
plan), zoning regulations and their accompanying development standards, subdivision
regulations, growth control ordinances or urban limit lines, and development impact and
building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may represent regulatory
constraints.
6.1.1 - Land Use Designations and Zoning
Land use controls take a number of forms which affect the development of housing. One
example of a land use control is the City's General Plan, which establishes the City's overall
vision of preservation and change. On July 10, 2012, the Mountain View City Council
adopted the 2030 General Plan. The updated General Plan includes revised land use
designations that describe the general distribution and intensity of land uses in Mountain
View. To implement the General Plan, Title 26 of the Mountain View Municipal Code (Zoning
Ordinance) identifies corresponding zoning districts. The 2030 General Plan represents a
new vision for the City and identifies several action items that call for the comprehensive
review and update of the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plans including the creation of
several new mixed -use land use designations. In order to focus on the development of three
new Precise Plans for the San Antonio, North Bayshore, and El Camino Real Change Areas,
City Council has directed Staff to deter the comprehensive update to focus on these
individual documents.
The City's residential zoning districts and their respective permitted densities and
development standards are summarized below. In general, residential developers
interviewed for this Housing Element update report that the Mountain View Zoning
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 91
P-4. City of Mountain View
Ordinance does not act as a constraint to new housing production.
Rl Single - Family Residential. The R1 district is intended for detached, single - family
housing and related uses compatible with a quiet, family living environment allowing
up to 6 dwelling units per acre. This district is consistent with the low- density
residential land use designation in the City's General Plan. Minimum lot areas in the
R1 district ranges from 6,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The maximum
building height is 24 feet for single -story homes and 28 feet for two -story structures.
R2 One- and Two - Family Residential. The R2 zoning district, consistent with the
medium -low density residential land use designation of the General Plan, is intended
for single - family dwellings, duplexes, low- density rowhouse and townhouse
developments, small -lot single - family developments and similar and related
compatible uses. This zone allows for up to 12 dwelling units per acre. This district
requires minimum lot sizes of 7,000 square feet and allows maximum building heights
of 24 feet for single -story structures and 30 feet for two -story structures.
R3 Multi- family Residential. The R3 district is intended for multi - family housing
including apartments, condominiums, rowhouse and townhouse development,
small -lot single - family development and similar and related compatible uses. This
district is consistent with the medium, medium -high, and high- density residential land
use designation of the General Plan, which allow up to 25 and 35 dwelling units per
acre respectively. This district accommodates a wide variety of densities through the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, and allows densities of 13 to 46 dwelling
unit per acre. The specific density allowed depends on the lot size with larger
parcels able to achieve higher densities. The minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet.
However, lots in Small -Lot Single - Family, Townhomes, and Rowhouse developments
approved through the PUD process may be smaller. The maximum height is 45 feet,
36 feet to the top of the wall plate.
R4 High Density Residential and Multi- family. The R4 zoning district, consistent with
the General Plan's high density residential land use designation, is intended for multi-
family housing including apartments, condominiums, rowhouse and townhouse
development, small -lot single - family development and similar and related
compatible uses. This district allows for densities of up to 80 dwelling units per acre.
The maximum building height ranges from 62 feet to 70 feet.
RMH Mobile Home Park. The RMH district allows for mobile homes within a mobile
home park or mobile home subdivision with shared recreational and open space
facilities. This district is consistent with the General Plan's mobile home park
residential land use designation. The maximum density in the RHM district is 14
dwelling units per acre.
• CRA Arterial Commercial - Residential. The CRA zoning district, permits a broad range
of commercial, office, and residential uses along the City's major arterials. The
maximum residential density in the CRA district is 43 dwelling units per acre and the
maximum building height is 45 feet, 35 feet to the top of the wall plate. For mixed -
use residential projects the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet
• Companion Units. Companion units, also known as secondary dwelling units or
accessory dwelling units, are permitted in the R1 district. Companion units are
allowed only when the site exceeds the minimum lot size required by 35 percent.
92 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View -
The City assesses park fees for companion units, which typically range from $15,000
to $25,000 a unit. These requirements are not seen as a constraint to the production
of companion units, as approximately 10 new units were constructed since 2007.
Specific development standards for each zone are summarized Appendix B.
6.1.2 - Precise Plans
Precise Plans are a planning mechanism used to coordinate future public and private
improvements on specific properties where special conditions of size, shape, land
ownership, or existing or desired development require particular attention. Precise Plans
can be exclusively residential, commercial, and industrial, or allow a mix of uses. Currently
21 of the 32 Precise Plan areas in the City of Mountain View allow residential uses. Precise
Plans are generally more flexible than traditional zoning standards and are designed to
remove uncertainty around development for particular areas. These Precise Plans contain
broad goals and objectives and establish development and design standards for the
specific locations. The development standards in the Precise Plans have the some legal
status as traditional zoning district standards.
As described in the Housing Resources analysis in Section 7, the majority of the City's sites to
accommodate the remaining housing need fall within seven Precise Plan areas. The
residential development standards for these Precise Plans are summarized below:
Downtown. The Downtown Precise Plan allows residential development up to 30 to
60 units per acre. Parking requirements range from 1.5 spaces per unit for studios
and one - bedroom units to 2.0 spaces per unit for two - bedroom and larger units.
Residential developments must also provide 0.3 spaces per unit for guest parking.
The Precise Plan is subdivided into 10 subareas, each with their own unique
characteristics and development standards. Maximum density in the Precise Plan is
determined by sliding scales for different subareas based on the minimum lot area.
Villa Mariposa. The principally permitted use in the Villa Mariposa Precise Plan Area
is residential development at a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre.
Residential development standards of the R3 District apply in the Plan Area.
Evandale. The objective of the Evandale Precise Plan is to encourage infill
development and redevelopment that integrates the area into the larger Whisman
residential neighborhood. The Precise Plan Area is divided into three subareas, with
one of the subareas allowing residential uses. The maximum residential density
allowed depends on the parcel size. For sites less than 2.5 acres, the maximum
density is 20 to 25 units per acre while sites greater than 2.5 acres are allowed a
maximum density of 26 to 30 units per acre. For both parcel sizes, the residential
density may be increased if at least 20 percent of the units are set aside for lower -
income households, 10 percent for very low- income households, or 50 percent for
elderly households. Site development standards of the R3 District apply to all
principally or conditionally permitted uses in the Precise Plan subarea that allows
residential development.
South Whisman. The South Whisman Precise Plan requires a "master plan" that
2015 -2023 Housing Element 93
City of Mountain View
includes all properties in the 38 -acre Precise Plan Area. The Plan calls for the
creation of a new residential community of up to 1,120 housing units. The
neighborhood shall include a mix of residential densities, ranging from eight to 60
dwelling units per acre, and include small -lot single - family homes and rowhomes
near the existing Whisman Station neighborhood, as well as higher density housing
closer to East Middlefield Road. Small -lot single - family homes in the Plan Area shall
comply with the City's Small -Lot, Single - Family Guidelines while rowhouses must
follow the City's Rowhouse Guidelines. Development of podium townhouses and
stacked flats shall follow the R4 Guidelines.
Evelyn Avenue Corridor. The Evelyn Avenue Corridor Precise Plan is divided into four
subareas, including a Mixed -Unit Residential Area that allows single - family attached
or detached homes and multi - family development at 15 to 25 units per acre and a
Small Lot R -1 Area that allows single - family attached or detached housing at 1 1 units
per acre. The Precise Plan includes development standards for each subarea that
govern minimum parcel size, building height, setbacks, and other site and
development conditions.
Whisman Station. The Whisman Station Precise Plan calls for a mix of low- density
small -lot single - family homes (seven to 10 units per acre), medium - density small -lot
single - family homes (11 to 14 units per acre), medium - density rowhouses (12 to 14
units per acre), and high- density rowhouses (15 to 25 units per acre). A minimum of
50 percent of the Precise Plan's residential land shall be developed with small -lot
single - family homes and a maximum of 50 percent of the residential land shall be
developed with rowhouse units. Height limits range from 2.5 stores or 25 feet for
small -lot single - family homes to 3 stories or 40 feet for high- density rowhouse units.
Ortega Precise Plan. The 394 Ortega Plan calls for a density of approximately 14 units
per acres and allows uses that are permitted in the R3 -3 zoning district. The Precise
Plan also requires that the Hetch- Hetchy right -of -way be fully incorporated into any
new development. An additional density equal to that which is allowed inR3 -3*
Districts (14.4± units per acre) is permitted for each acre of the Hetch- Hetchy right -of-
way.
San Antonio Precise Plan. The recently adopted General Plan established five
"change" areas, where new, higher- intensity land uses are allowed. The San Antonio
Precise Plan is underway for one of these change areas, and will implement
regulations for a mixed -use environment with new multi - family residential, office,
retail and regional commercial development. Under the General Plan, residential
development may occur with intensities of up to 1.85 to 2.35 FAR (approximately 60-
70 units per acre), depending on location. The Precise Plan is expected to be
completed by December 2014.
El Camino Real Precise Plan. El Camino Real was established as a "change area" in
the 2030 General Plan. Change area direction from the plan includes: a diverse mix
of land uses, improved connections to and between neighborhoods, and the
creation of a vibrant, multi -modal corridor. The El Camino Real Precise Plan is under
way and will define zoning regulations, design guidelines and public improvements
along the corridor. Residential development in the El Camino Real Precise Plan will
range from 1.35 FAR to 2.35 FAR (roughly 43 to 80 units per acre). Larger
developments will be required to provide community benefits such as open space,
94 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
affordable housing and mobility improvements. The Plan is expected to be
complete in December 2014.
6.1.3 - Design Guidelines
The City has created design guidelines for different housing types to assist developers with
their design. The City's zoning districts determines which units types are allowed, but the
design guidelines provide developers the City's design expectation for Small -Lot Single -
Family units, Townhomes, Rowhouse and units in the R4 zoning districts. Below is the
description of the different guidelines.
Small -Lot, Single - Family Guidelines.
Small -lot, single - family development are detached single - family homes typically built on lots
of 3,000 to 4,000 square feet with a minimum private yard area of 15' by 15'. With a density
range of 7 to 10 units per acres, it bridges the gap between conventional single - family
homes (1 to 6 units per acre) and multiple family housing, such as townhomes, apartments
and condominiums. The Guidelines are included in Appendix C.
Small -lot, single - family development is permitted in the City's R2, R3 and R4 zoning districts.
A small -lot, single - family development does not comply with many of the standard zoning
requirements of the R2, R3 and R4 and therefore a Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit
is required. The PUD allows exceptions to the standard zoning requirements and is intended
to encourage innovative housing design and to allow variations for properties with unusual
shapes and sizes. In addition to a PUD, a developer would need to obtain a tentative map
for developments with five or more lots and a Development Review Permit (DRP) for site
plan and architectural review of projects.
Small -lot, single - family development is also permitted in the following Precise Plans: P -12
(394 Ortega Precise Plan); P -17 (Villa Mariposa); P -18 (Evelyn Ave Corridor); P -19 (Downtown
Precise Plan); and the P -32 (Evandale Area). The permit process is different in Precise Plans,
but the process timing is similar. In place of a PUD, an applicant would need to obtain a
Planned Community Permit (PCP), a DRP, and either a Parcel Map or Tentative Map.
Townhome Guidelines.
Townhouses are two- to three -story attached dwellings with a private yard area.
Townhouses are intended to provide opportunities for home ownership with many
characteristics of single - family homes, such as large floor area, private yards and ground -
floor front doors. The guidelines require private yards with a minimum 15' dimension.
Attached garages are characteristic of this building type, but parking may also be provided
in detached garages, parking courts or in some combination of garage type, typically on
the same side as the unit entrance. The allowable density is 12 units per acre, but densities
of 14 units per acre may be approved if the proposed average unit size is less than 1,400
square feet, including garage, and the total amount of paving coverage is less than 20
percent of lot area.
Townhomes development is permitted in the City's R2, R3, R4 and CRA zoning districts.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 95
P-4. City of Mountain View
Townhome development does not comply with many of the standard zoning requirements
of the R2, R3, R4 and CRA districts therefore PUD permit is required. The PUD allows
exceptions to the standard zoning requirements and is intended to encourage innovative
housing design and to allow variations for properties with unusual shapes and sizes. In
addition to a PUD, a developer would need to obtain a tentative map for developments
with five or more lots and a Development Review Permit for site plan and architectural
review of projects.
Townhomes are also permitted in the following Precise Plans: P -12 (394 Ortega Precise
Plan); P -17 (Villa Mariposa); P -19 (Downtown Precise Plan); and the P -32 (Evandale Area).
The permit process is a little different in Precise Plans. In place of a PUD an applicant would
need to obtain a PC Permit, a Development Review Permit, and either a Parcel Map or
Tentative Map.
Rowhouse Guidelines.
A rowhouse is a one - family dwelling unit, which is aligned in rows where each unit faces a
street or open space. Rowhouses have alley loaded garages on the opposite side of the
front door. Rowhouses provide ownership opportunities with many characteristics of single -
family homes, such as the privacy of no upstairs neighbors, large floor area, front porches
and attached two -car garages, which differ from the ownership experience of a stacked
flat -style building. The Rowhouse Guidelines recommend a minimum lot size of 0.5 acre and
a minimum lot width of 100'. Rowhouses differ from Townhouses in that Rowhouses can be
built at a higher density and the garages for Rowhouses are in rear of the unit.
Rowhouse development is permitted in the City's R2, R3, R4 and CRA zoning districts.
Rowhouse development does not comply with many of the standard zoning requirements
of the R2, R3, R4 and CRA districts therefore a PUD permit is required. The PUD allows
exceptions to the standard zoning requirements and is intended to encourage innovative
housing design and to allow variations for properties with unusual shapes and sizes. In
addition to a PUD, a developer would need to obtain a tentative map for developments
with five or more lots and a DRP for site plan and architectural review of projects.
Rowhouses are also permitted in the following Precise Plans: P -12 (394 Ortega Precise Plan);
P -17 (Villa Mariposa); P -19 (Downtown Precise Plan); the P -32 (Evandale Area) and the P -35
(Whisman Area Plan). The permit process is a little different in Precise Plans but the timing is
some as a conventional zoning district. In place of a PUD an applicant would need to
obtain a PCP, a DRP and either a Parcel Map or Tentative Map. All which can be
processed concurrently.
R4 Guidelines.
The R4 guidelines (See Appendix C) were developed to encourage high- density residential
development in standard residential zones. The R4 guidelines are intended to provide
guidance to developers who develop stacked flats (apartments and condominiums) and
to better integrate these types of developments into existing neighborhoods.
The R4 guidelines require a one acre minimum lot size and allow for densities up to 60 units
96 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
per acre. R4 development cannot be contiguous to R1 or R2 zoning districts and should be
walking distance of transit stations and nearby arterial streets. The R4 guidelines only apply
to the City's R4 zoning district. If a developer meets all the standards for the district and
does not pursue a tentative map, they would need to obtain a DRP Permit. If a tentative
map is proposed, a developer would need to attain a PUD, DRP Permit and Tentative Map.
6.1.4 - Parking
Parking requirements may serve as a constraint on housing development by increasing
development costs and reducing the amount of land available for project amenities or
additional units. As shown in Table 6 -1, off - street residential parking requirements vary by
housing type. Parking requirements range from one space per unit for efficiency studios to
two spaces for single - family homes and multi - family units with one or more bedrooms. Some
housing types are also required to provide guest parking. In multi - family developments, 15
percent of the required parking spaces must be conveniently located for guest parking.
Other developments such as small -lot single - family homes, townhouses, and row houses
must provide additional guest parking above the parking for the individual units. The
additional guest parking requirements range from 0.3 spaces per unit for row houses to 0.6
spaces per unit for townhouses. The combined off - street parking for residents and guests
ranges from 2.3 spaces per row house unit to 2.6 spaces per townhouse unit. Mountain
View's parking requirements are comparable to or lower than those in nearby jurisdictions
such as Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose. The Zoning Ordinance also
requires bicycle parking for most housing types to encourage alternative forms of
transportation.
Table 6 -1: Off - Street Parking Requirements
ousing Unit
Companion Unit 1 space per bedroom None
Studio: 1.5 spaces per unit
, 1 space shall be covered
1- bedroom unit less than or
equal to 650 sf; 1 space shall
be covered
1- bedroom unit greater than
650 sf -2 spaces per unit. 1
Multi - Family space shall be covered 1 space per unit
Units with 2 or more berooms-
2 spaces per unit, 1 space
shall be covered.
Guest parking: 15% of the
parking spaces required will
be reserved for guest
parking(a)
2015 -2023 Housing Element 97
City of Mountain View
Rooming and Boarding Parking Study Required Parking Study Required
Houses
Senior Care Facility Parking Study Required Parking Study Required
Senior Congregate Care 1.15 spaces per unit (half None
spaces covered)
Single - Family /Duplex 2 spaces per unit (1 covered) None.
Efficiency Studios 1 space per unit, plus 1 space 1 space per 10 units
per non - resident employee( b)
2 spaces per unit (1 covered).
Small Lot, Single - Family 0.5 spaces per unit for guest 1 space per unit
parking
2 spaces per unit (1 covered).
Townhouse 0.6 spaces per unit for guest 1 space per unit
parking
Studio: 1.5 spaces per unit
Rowhouse 1- Bedroom or more: 2 spaces 1 space per unit
covered per unit; 0.3 spaces
per unit for guest parking
Source: Mountain View Municipal Code Section A36.37.040, 2013.
Notes:
(a) The zoning administrator may increase the parking requirement to 2.3 spaces per unit if needed to ensure adequate guest
parking.
(b) Reduction of up to 0.5 spaces may be granted through the conditional use permit process.
The Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in off - street parking requirements through a
Conditional Use Permit. Applicants must demonstrate that changes in conditions or issues
justify a reduction and that the reduction would not result in a parking deficiency. In
addition, the Zoning Ordinance includes several specific exceptions to parking standards.
Efficiency studios require one space per unit. However, the Zoning Administrator may grant
a reduction of up to 0.50 spaces per dwelling unit through a Conditional Use Permit for
efficiency studios that are located in close proximity to a public transit stop and serve a
substantial number of low- and very low- income tenants or seniors. Applicants for a
conditional use permit requesting a parking reduction must submit a parking management
plan that ensures parking space availability.
During the previous planning period the City approved several residential projects with
modified parking requirements. Specifically, in 2013 the City approved a mixed -use
development project, San Antonio Center Phase I, to utilize shared parking based on the
mix of residential and commercial uses. The City also approved a senior housing project at
574 Escuela Avenue with reduced parking standards after researching senior housing
parking utilized in surrounding jurisdictions. Additionally in 2010, the City approved a
subsidized housing project for families at 135 Franklin Street that reduced the number of
required parking spots by 35 as compared to other Downtown projects proposed. In April
98 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
2012, the Environmental Planning Commission also discussed the creation of "Model Parking
Standards" for high density residential projects, which would put in place lower parking
requirements based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The model parking standard
requires one parking space for studio and one - bedroom units, two parking spaces for two -
bedroom units or more units, and 15- percent of the required vehicle spaces available for
guests. The "Model Parking Standard" has been used for several recently approved high -
density residential projects: 865 and 881 El Camino Real, 2650 West El Camino Real, 1720
West El Camino Real, 100 Moffett, and 1984 W El Camino Real.
6.1.5 - Cumulative Impacts of Development Standards
The cumulative impacts of Mountain View's development standards and parking
requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plans do not appear to
unduly constrain residential development in the City. A review of planned and completed
residential developments in Mountain View during the 2007 -2014 planning period indicates
that developers are able to achieve reasonable densities while complying with the required
development standards. Developments in the R1 and R2 zoning districts have historically
achieved an average of 86 percent of the maximum number of units allowed per density
standards. Multi- family developments in the R3, R4, CRA, and Planned Development
districts also historically achieved reasonable densities. Since 2003, projects in these districts
achieved an average of 83 percent of the maximum allowable density.
6.1.6 - Inclusionary Housing
In 1999, the City of Mountain View adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as part of its
Zoning Ordinance. Developers wanting to build three or more ownership units, five or more
rental units, or six or more residential units in a mixed - tenure project must provide at least 10
percent of the total number of dwelling units within the development as below- market rate
(BMR) units. All BMR units provided by developers must be integrated throughout the
development and should be comparable to market -rate units in terms of size and design.
Many other Santa Clara County jurisdictions have inclusionary housing programs with similar
requirements to Mountain View's ordinance. For example, the cities of Sunnyvale and
Santa Clara also have a 10 percent inclusionary requirement, while Cupertino and Palo Alto
have requirements starting at 15 percent of total dwelling units.4
Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing may constrain production of market rate
homes, studies have shown evidence to the contrary. The cost of an inclusionary housing
requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1) developers through a lower return, (2)
landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other homeowners through higher
market rate sale prices. In fact, the cost of inclusionary housing and any other
development fee "will always be split between all players in the development process. "5
However, academics have pointed out that, over the long term, it is probable that
landowners will bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other homeowners or the
4 California Commission for Rural Housing and Non - Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Inclusionary Housing
in California: 30 Years of Innovation, 2003.
5 W.A. Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges." Land Economics 75(3). 1999.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 99
P-4. City of Mountain View
developer.6
In addition, a 2004 study on housing starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities
throughout California with and without inclusionary housing programs evidences that
inclusionary housing programs do not lead to a decline in housing production. In fact, the
study found that housing production actually increased after passage of local inclusionary
housing ordinances in cities as diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento.?
The City of Mountain View recognizes the need for a financially feasible program that does
not constrain production. As such, developers may pay an in -lieu fee when the 10 percent
requirement results in a fraction of a unit or when the price of the homes in the
development is too expensive to be practical for a BMR unit. Currently, developments with
a projected sales price of more than $654,400 per unit may also pay the in -lieu fee rather
than provide units. This sales price ceiling is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the cost
of living. For ownership units, the in -lieu fee is calculated as three percent of the actual
sales price of the unit. BMR in -lieu fees are only allowed for rental projects if the calculation
results in a fraction of a unit. In those rental units comprising the fraction, the BMR fee is
three percent of the appraised value of the fractional units in developments with nine or
more units or 1.5 percent of the appraised value of the fractional units in developments with
five to eight units. The in -lieu fee option offers developers greater flexibility in satisfying their
BMR housing requirements, and helps mitigate potential constraints to production.
The City uses BMR in -lieu fees for new subsidized housing projects that target households
with the greatest housing needs. BMR in -lieu fees allow the city to assist households earning
less than 50 percent of AMI. For example, BMR in -lieu fees will be used for a downtown
family development that will provide rental housing for extremely low- and very low- income
families in Mountain View. This group would generally not be served by BMR units provided
directly by developers. For -sale BMR units typically provides housing for moderate - income
households earning between 80 percent and 120 percent of AMI and rental BMR housing
provides units for households earning between 50 % -80% AMI. In -lieu fees are also used in
conjunction with other outside funding sources such as Low - Income Housing Tax Credits
and State Multi- family Housing Program funds.
One local developer interviewed for the previous Housing Element Update believed that
Mountain View's BMR program works fairly well, reporting several positive aspects of the
policy. The simple in -lieu fee formula based on a percentage of the sales price allows
developers to estimate up -front what their BMR fees will be. In addition, the fact that the in-
lieu fees are collected at the close of escrow helps developers manage their cash flow.
The City has three different sources of local affordable housing funds: BMR in -lieu fees,
Housing Impact Fees on new commercial /office development and Rental Housing Impact
Fees on new apartment development. As of July 1, 2013 the City had a balance of $15.5
million in its Affordable Housing Fund, of which $11.27 million were BMR funds. Of the total
amount in the Affordable Housing Fund, $10.0 million was collected in a single year (Fiscal
Year 2012 -13). The fund balance allows the Council to subsidize new affordable housing
projects and execute other housing initiatives.
6 Mallach 1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985.
7 David Rosen. "Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets." NHC Affordable Housing
100 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View �ntt .-.,
While the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has played an important role in affordable
housing production in Mountain View, the City is continuously reviewing the program
following recent state court decisions regarding inclusionary housing, specifically
Palmer /Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles. The court's 2009 decision in, has
had an impact on the City's ability to enforce the mandatory requirement that affordable
BMR rental units be included in new residential developments.
6.1.7 - Park Dedication
The City of Mountain View requires developers of residential subdivisions as well as single -
family dwellings, duplexes, multi - family dwellings, mobile homes, townhomes, companion
units and other dwelling units to dedicate park land, pay an in -lieu fee, or both as a
condition of approval. If a proposed residential development includes land that has been
designated as a park or recreational facility in the General Plan, the developer may be
required to dedicate land. Developers are required to pay an in -lieu fee if the
development occurs on land on which no park is shown or proposed, where dedication is
impossible, impractical, or undesirable, or if the proposed development contains 50 or
fewer units. The in -lieu fee is based on the fair market value of the land that otherwise
would have been required for dedication.
The required land dedication varies by the proposed subdivision's density, ranging from
0.0081 acres per dwelling unit for low density development (i.e., one to six units per acre) to
.0060 acres for high density development (i.e., more than 26 units per acre). In 2013, the
park land dedication in -lieu fee ranged from approximately $15,000 to $25,000 per unit,
depending on the fair market value of the land. One developer reported that Mountain
View's park in -lieu fee is relatively high because it is tied to the fair market value of land.
The park in -lieu fee has increased in tandem with the escalating land values in the City.
However, Mountain View's park land dedication and in -lieu fees are comparable to similar
requirements established in other Santa Clara County jurisdictions. Like Mountain View, the
City of San Jose also bases its park in -lieu fee on fair market value of land. In 2013, San
Jose's fees were comparable to the fees charged by Mountain View. San Jose's park fees
for single - family detached units ranged from $8,700 to $38,900, depending on the area of
the City. Park fees for multi - family units in San Jose ranged from $6,100 to $27,500,
depending on location and the size of the development.
The City of Palo Alto's park dedication requirements vary depending on whether the
project involves a subdivision or parcel map. The impact fee is much lower than Mountain
View's for projects not requiring a subdivision or parcel map. Palo Alto collects $10,639 per
single - family unit and $6,964 per multi - family unit. However, the requirement is substantially
higher for projects involving a subdivision or parcel map. The City requires developers to
dedicate 551 square feet per single - family unit or pay an in -lieu fee of $56,517. The
requirement for multi - family units is land dedication of 382 square feet per unit or an in -lieu
fee of $38,899 per unit.
During the previous planning period the City of Sunnyvale's parkland dedication in -lieu fee
was slightly lower than Mountain View's; however in 2011 Sunnyvale increased their
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 101
P-4. City of Mountain View
parkland dedication requirement from 3 to 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Sunnyvale
determines the in -lieu fee annually based on the value of land and is approved by the City
Council each fiscal year. The current in -lieu fee is $20,000 per unit for medium and high
density residential development (over 14 dwelling units per acre); however this amount is
expected to double to approximately $40,000 by 2014.
Mountain View allows developers to receive credit for private open space provided within
their developments. Developers may receive credits for up to 50 percent of their park land
dedication requirements for recreational spaces such as turf fields, children play areas,
picnic areas, swimming pools, and recreation areas. The City's ordinance currently
exempts efficiency studios from paying the park in -lieu fee. Companion units (also known
as accessory dwelling units or second units), however, are required to pay the park in -lieu
fee. As noted previously, this requirement can pose a constraint on companion unit
production.
6.1.8 - Fees and Exactions
Like cities throughout California, Mountain View collects development fees to recover the
capital costs of providing community services and the administrative costs associated with
processing applications. New housing typically requires payment of school impact fees,
sewer and water connection fees, building permit fees, wastewater treatment plant fees,
and a variety of handling and service charges. Typical fees collected in the City are
outlined below in Table 6 -2. As shown, fees range from $36,591 per multi - family unit to
$71,616 per single - family home. New condominiums start at $660,000 in Mountain View,
while new single - family homes have an average price of $847,000. Based on these sales
prices, total fees and exactions in the City would represent five to six percent of
condominium sales prices and eight percent of new single - family sales prices. City Staff
report that most development fees in Mountain View are adjusted for cost of living
increases annually.8
a ESA obtained development impact fees and exactions from City of Mountain View Master Schedule of Fees, 2012 -2013,
Mountain View Whisman School District, and Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District.
102 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 6 -2: Estimated Residential Development Impact Fees
-- Amount I ••
Sanitary Sewer Off -site Facilities Fee $0.0069 /Sq.Ff. $13 $IWW$8 9
Sanitary Sewer Existing Facilities Fee $77.25 /Front Foot $3,476 $1,545 $510
Water Main Existing Facilities Fee $89.00 /Front Foot $4,005 $1,780 $588
Off -site Storm Drainage Fee
First Class Rate (direct connection)
Second Class Rate (subdivisions)
Map Checking Fee
Park Land Dedication In -lieu Fee
Below Market Rate In -lieu Fee
Whisman School District Fee
Los Altos Union HS District Fee
Development Review Permit
$0.258 /Net Sq. Ff.
$0.124 /Gross Sq. Ff.
$4,717 (First 2 lots) + $12
each add'I lot
$15,000- 25,000 /u nif
depending on land value
3% of sale price or
appraised value
$2.13 /Sq.Ff.
$1.07 /Sq.Ff.
$1,158 for buildings
< 2,000 Sq. Ff.
$2,315 for buildings >
2,000 Sq. Ff.
-- -- $310
$605 $231 --
$481 $481 --
$20,000 $20,000 $15,000
$25,410 $20,100 $9,000
$4,047
$3,408
$2,556
$2,033
$1,712
$1 ,284
$1,158
$1,158
$2,315
Building Permit Fee Calculated by Building $10,388 $6,261 $5,020
Department
Total $71,616 $56,687 $36,591
Source: City of Mountain View Master Schedule of Fees, 2012 -2013; City of Mountain view Whisman School District, 2013; City of
Mountain view Los Altos Union HS District, 2013.
Notes:
(a) Fees estimated for a 1,900 square foot, 3 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom unit in a 10 -unit subdivision; average valuation of $847,000
according to Zillow.com on August 2013.
(b) Fees estimated for a 1,600 square foot, 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom townhouse unit in a 10 -unit subdivision; average valuation of
$670,000 according to Zillow.com on August 2013.
(c) Fees estimated for a 1,200 square foot, 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom apartment in a 50 unit development; assuming a valuation of
$300,000 per unit in August 2013.
Although development fees and exactions do increase the cost of producing housing,
Mountain View's fees do not appear to create an undue constraint on residential
development in the City. According to area developers, impact fees in Mountain View are
standard and comparable to fees assessed by other Bay Area jurisdictions. The City of San
Jose prepared a Cost of Development survey for fiscal year 2010 -2011 which summarizes
the key fees costs incurred during the development and construction process of five
prototype development projects. According to the survey, Mountain View's development
taxes, impact fees, and service fees for single - family homes and multi - family developments
were in the middle range of the eight cities considered in the study. Mountain View's taxes
and fees for single - family homes were comparable to those in Palo Alto, and higher than
2015 -2023 Housing Element 103
P-4'. City of Mountain View
those in Sunnyvale, San Jose and Morgan Hill. Taxes and fees for multi - family units in
Mountain View were also lower than a number of cities in the County, including Palo Alto,
and comparable to Sunnyvale, San Mateo and Morgan Hill.
The experience of recently approved and developed affordable housing projects in
Mountain View confirms that development fees are largely in -line with standards in
surrounding jurisdictions and do not constitute a constraint to affordable housing
development. For example, one recent project had total development fees of $35,850 per
unit, or 7.8 percent of costs per affordable, multi - family unit. As compared to the 2007 -2014
planning period, development impact fees have risen slightly in line with housing sales
prices. Generally, fees as a percentage of the development cost have been maintained
entering into the 2015 -2023 planning period.
6.1.9 - On- and Off -Site Improvements
Residential developers are responsible for constructing road, water, sewer, and storm
drainage improvements on new housing sites. Where a project has off -site impacts, such as
increased runoff or added congestion at a nearby intersection, additional developer
expenses may be necessary to mitigate impacts. The City's Subdivision Ordinance (Section
28 of the Municipal Code) establishes the on- and off -site improvement requirements that
developers must adhere to. Specifically, subdivision developers must improve all streets,
highways, or public ways that are part of or adjacent to the development. Improvements
may include necessary paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bikeways, catch basins, pipes,
culverts, bridges, storm drains, sanitary sewers and laterals, water mains and services, fire
hydrants, street lighting, street monuments, and street signs and street trees. The Ordinance
requires all underground utilities to be constructed prior to the surfacing of streets, service
roads, alleys, and highways. The minimum standard street width in Mountain View is at least
60 feet. However, in special circumstances, the City Council may authorize a narrower
width. Streets must be aligned to conform to and provide for the continuation of adjacent,
pre- existing streets and must be at least as wide as the pre- existing streets to which they
relate. Mountain View's Department of Public Works, Engineering Division performs
inspections for compliance with regulations and ordinances pertaining to capital projects
and private developments.
Local developers indicated that Mountain View's site improvement requirements are
standard, comparable to other jurisdictions in the area, and do not constitute a significant
constraint to development.
6.1.10 - Processing and Permit Procedures
The City of Mountain View has a unique process for approving new residential
developments. Unlike most cities, where Planning Commissions review and grant approvals
for proposed projects, Mountain View's Environmental Planning Commission is a non -
entitlement body. Instead, the City's Zoning Administrator makes entitlement decisions that
are traditionally held by Planning Commissions in other jurisdictions. The Zoning Administrator
approves residential projects that propose a subdivision of less than five lots. Residential
projects that propose a subdivision five or more lots require City Council approval.
104 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View -
The Zoning Administrator receives design comments and recommendations from the City's
Development Review Committee (DRC). The DRC consists of the Deputy Zoning
Administrator (Staff person) and two advising architects, reviews the architectural and site
design of new projects and improvements to existing sites. The DRC approves smaller
projects such as additions to new single - family and two - family homes in the R3 zoning
district, but makes recommendations for all other types of residential projects.
Projects with 4 or less lots that only require a Parcel Map can be approved by the Zoning
Administrator. Projects with 5 or more parcels require a tentative map and the Zoning
Administrator provides recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then makes
the final decision on the project.
The following unit types are allowed permitted in the City's R2, R3, R4 and CRA zoning
districts: Small -Lot Single - Family, Rowhouses, and Townhomes. Since these unit types do not
meet the development standards in the R2, R3, R4 and CRA districts a PUD Planned Unit
Development permit is required. The PUD allows exceptions to the standard zoning
requirements and is intended to encourage innovative housing design and to allow
variations for properties with unusual shapes and sizes. In addition to a PUD permit, a
developer would need to obtain a tentative map for developments with five or more lots
and a Development Review Permit for site plan and architectural review of projects. The
permits can be processed concurrently and typical takes 9 -12 months.
Small -Lot Single Family, Rowhouses, and Townhomes units in Precise Plans districts require a
Planned Community (PC) Permit. In place of a PUD an applicant would need to obtain a
PC Permit a Development Review Permit and either a Parcel Map or Tentative Map. The
timing for a PC permit is similar to a project with PUD permit and typically takes 9 -12 months
to process.
If a zone change or General Plan amendment is required for a project, the City Council first
considers this "gatekeeper" request. This means the Council decides whether the request
should be processed by Staff. The Council considers estimated resources required to
process the application, estimated cost, existing and scheduled City resource
commitments, and summary of other General Plan, precise plan or zoning considerations
affecting the proposed text amendment. The intent of this process is not to approve or deny
an application, but rather schedule City resources for review of the project. Once a project
has been authorized by Council it will progress through the process as described above.
Design Review by DRC
The DRC considers a proposed project's conformance with City- adopted design guidelines
and the development standards of the zoning district. Mountain View's guidelines are
meant to assist property owners and developers in designing a project to meet the City's
expectations for high - quality development. The City has the following residential guidelines
• Single - Family Home Design Guidelines. These guidelines provide suggestions for new
homes and additions to existing single - family homes in the R1 District.
• Small -Lot, Single - Family Guidelines. Updated in August 2000, these guidelines are
2015 -2023 Housing Element 105
City of Mountain View
for developing small -lot single - family residences in R2 or R3 zoning districts.
Rowhouse Guidelines. Established in April 2005, these guidelines outline the
standards and guidelines for developing residential rowhouses in the R2 or R3
districts.
Townhouse Guidelines. Amended in October 2004, this document outlines the
standards and guidelines for townhouse development in the R2 or R3 districts.
R4 Guidelines. Established in June 2006, this document summarizes the standards
and guidelines for determining potential sites for the R4 High Density District.
In general, the guidelines apply to site development and building design criteria. Site
development guidelines include neighborhood compatibility, connectivity, private and
common usable open space, parking, and utilities. Building design criteria vary by across
the four residential types but include components such as building orientation, massing,
materials, landscaping, rooflines, and garage treatment.
The DRC is intended to be a working meeting between the applicant and Staff, and act as
a collaborative process between the applicant and DRC. According to City Staff, small
projects are generally reviewed and approved by the DRC in one meeting. In the past,
larger projects may have required multiple meetings during which design modifications
were made at the request of the DRC. Developers interviewed early in the Housing Element
Update process indicated that the City's design review system could occasionally prove
time consuming, and require multiple meetings with the DRC. There was not always
consensus within the DRC on what constitutes good architecture and design for projects.
The City recognized this challenge and streamlined the process. Now DRC typically
provides recommendations for residential projects in two meetings. This revision not only
streamlines the process, but also provides developers with greater certainty regarding the
length of their project's design review.
Zoning Administrator Approvals
The Zoning Administrator makes final decisions on single - family residences with major floor
area ratio exceptions, residential development with a subdivision of fewer than five lots,
commercial and industrial projects that conform to the existing zoning, Temporary Use
Permits (including temporary emergency shelters), variances, planned unit developments,
and planned community permits when specified within a precise plan. The Zoning
Administrator makes recommendations for current development projects that require City
Council approval. The Zoning Administrator holds a public hearing before making findings
and determining the conditions of approval.
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 a non - entitlement body that does not review development
projects. As described previously; the Zoning Administrator is responsible for development
106 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
review of projects.
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 map
and 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
DRC and the Zoning Administrator. Council decisions are made based on
recommendations provided by the EPC, DRC and Zoning Administrator, and public input.
Building Permit Processing
The Building Inspection Department currently takes four weeks to review a building permit
application for a single - family home. Building permit applications for planned community
developments take approximately six weeks for the initial review. Subsequent review is a
two -week cycle.
Processing Times
Table 6 -3 presents the typical permit processing time for various approvals in Mountain
View. As shown, actions requiring ministerial review are typically approved within two
weeks. Other approvals have longer processing times. Projects requiring a zoning change,
general plan amendment, or Environmental Impact Report, face entitlement processes of
nine months to one year.
Table 6 -3: Typical Permit Processing Times
Type of Approval Typical Processing Time
Ministerial Review
Conditional Use Permit
Temporary Use Permit
Zoning Change
General Plan Amendment
Design Review
Tentative or Final Subdivision Map
Planned Community Permit
Initial Environmental Study
Environmental Impact Report
Source: City of Mountain View, 2013.
Over the counter - 2 weeks
8 -10 weeks
1 week
9 -12 months
9 -12 months
2 -6 months
3 -6 months
9 -12 months
3 -6 months
9 -12 months
Table 6 -4 provides a summary of the typical approvals required for various housing types.
Single- family homes and companion units are processed over the counter. Subdivisions
2015 -2023 Housing Element 107
P-4. City of Mountain View
require a parcel map or tentative map and can take up to three or four months to process.
Condominiums and Planned Unit Developments require City Council approval and can
take up to one year.
Table 6 -4: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type
Project ow W - Frame
Single - Family Home Over the counter
Companion Unit
Subdivision
Fewer than 5 units
5 units or more
Multi - Family and Mixed Use (R -3 and R -4 districts)
Apartments without a map
Condominiums
PUD
Source: City of Mountain View, 2013.
6.1.11 - Codes and Enforcement
Over the counter
Parcel Map 2 -3 months
Tentative Map 3 -4 months
Zoning Admin approval
6 -8 months
City Council approval
9 -12 months
City Council approval
9 -12 months
Mountain View has adopted the 2010 California Building Code, the 2010 California
Mechanical Code, the 2010 California Plumbing Code, the 2010 California Electrical Code,
the 2010 California Fire Code, the 2010 California Residential Code, , the Mountain View
Green Building Code, the 2008 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6), and the 2009
Handicapped Accessibility Regulations (Title 24). City codes are updated regularly as these
codes and standards are updated at state and national levels.
The City has adopted several minor amendments to the 2010 California Building Code;
however the amendments have been adopted to prevent unsafe or hazardous building
conditions. The City's Building Code is reasonable and would not adversely affect the
ability to construct housing in Mountain View.
6.1.12 - Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types
Multi- family Rental 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 is required for multi - family housing in the R2 and CRA districts.
However, the City has found that multi - family residential uses are desirable in the CRA
zoning district particularly along El Camino Real. The densities of these proposed projects
are consistent with the new 2030 General Plan densities. During the 1999 -2006 planning
period, the City approved roughly 1,040 units in multi - family structures with 5 or more units
108 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
throughout the City. Recent approvals within CRA and Precise plan areas include:
Project
Carmel Village
Madera Apartments
Domus
Manzanita West
Verano on the Boulevard
Mountain View Villas
Address
555 San Antonio Road
455 W Evelyn Avenue
2650 El Camino Real
1720 El Camino Real
865 El Camino Real
574 Escuela
Number of Units
330
203
193
169
150
44 beds
Additional information on recently adopted and constructed multi - family housing
developments in the CRA zone is presented in Table 7 -2 of the Housing Resources section.
Emergency Shelters
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 Conditional Use Permit 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 the most
appropriate zone is the City's General Industrial (MM) district. 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. In total, the district covers 248.6 acres located in two major
areas near the center of the city.
In particular, the MM area surrounding Pioneer Way offers enough capacity for at least one
emergency shelter. The area contains 43.7 acres across 36 parcels with an average size of
1.2 acres. Primary uses in the area include aging industrial buildings suffering from deferred
maintenance, with an average year built of 1967. The buildings are mainly single -story
structures with a significant amount of surface parking on the site. Approximately 43
percent of the total acreage in the Pioneer Way area (19 acres) has an improvement -to-
land ratio below 1.0, an indicator of redevelopment potential as a homeless shelter. These
14 parcels range in size from 0.6 to 2.4 acres, and have an average size of 1.3 acres,
sufficient to accommodate an emergency shelter for the City's homeless population of
139persons, listed on Table 4 -33.9 Additionally, the area is well- served by transit, with the
Evelyn Avenue VTA light rail station adjacent to it, and located approximately '/2 mile from
Downtown, a major transit node.
9 The Santa Clara County Homeless Census found 139 homeless persons in the City in 2013.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 109
P-4. City of Mountain View
The City amended the zoning ordinance in December 201 'Ito permit emergency shelters
by -right in the MM district which included objective development and management
standards for emergency shelters. 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 are met.
Transitional and Supportive Housing
Transitional housing, configured as rental housing, operates under program requirements
that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another
eligible tenant after a predetermined period. In contrast, supportive housing, has no limit on
the length of stay, is linked to on -site or off -site services, and is occupied by a target special
needs population such as low- income persons with mental disabilities, AIDS, substance
abuse, or chronic health conditions. 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 amended the zoning ordinance in December 2011 to treat
transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject only to those restrictions that
apply to other residential uses of the some 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 some as other multi - family uses proposed in the zone.
Efficiency Studios
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 Conditional Use
Permit in the CRA zoning district and with a planned community permit in areas of the
Downtown Precise Plan area that specifically lists efficiency studios as a 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) .
• The City's Zoning Code previously established a cap of 180 new efficiency studios be
developed within the City after December 24, 1992. However, as 118 efficiency
studios were approved as part of San Antonio Place, the City repealed the limit in
2013 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.
110 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
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.
The City of Mountain View currently has approximately 1,200 mobile homes in mobile home
parks. These units make up less than four percent of the City's housing stock.
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 maintains a number of programs to preserve this supply including
Program 1.12 to preserve mobile home and manufactured housing units in the City. The
2030 General Plan update ensured the preservation of "Mobile Home Park" designation as
a separate residential land use category on the General Plan land use map. The City still
requires a Conversion Impact Report to convert a property with a mobile home to another
use.
Table 6 -5: Mountain View Mobile Home Parks
Moorpark Mobile Home Park
Sahara Village Mobile Home Park
New Frontier Mobile Home Park
Santiago Villa Mobile Home Park
Sunset Estates Mobile Home Park
Moffett Mobile Home Park
TOTAL
Source: City of Mountain View, 2013.
&Add;ress Number of
Spaces
191 El Camino Way
206
325 Sylvan Avenue
141
1075 Space Parkway
358
433 Sylvan Avenue
144
440 Moffett Boulevard
143
1,130
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 111
City of Mountain View
6.1.13 - Constraints for Disabled Persons
California Senate Bill 520 (SB 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.
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.
Many jurisdictions do not have a specific process specifically designed for people with
disabilities to make a reasonable accommodations request. Rather, cities provide disabled
residents relief from the strict terms of their zoning ordinances through existing variance or
Conditional Use Permit processes.10 In December 2013, the City amended the zoning
ordinance to incorporate procedures for reasonable accommodation that complies 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.
10 Lockyer, Bill, California Attorney General. Letter to All California Mayors. May 15, 2001.
http: / /caag. state. ca .us /civil rights/ pdf /reasonab_1 .pdf
112 20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations
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.
The City of Mountain View will amend its zoning ordinance to include a definition for the
term "family" that is consistent with State law. The City currently defines a family as "one or
more persons living together (related or unrelated individuals) in a dwelling unit, with
common access to, and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the
dwelling unit and shared household expenses, responsibilities and activities. Family does not
include larger institutional group living situations such as dormitories, fraternities, sororities,
convents, residential care facilities, nor does it include such commercial group living
arrangements as boarding houses, lodging houses and hotels." As a result, there is no
restriction of occupancy of a housing unit by unrelated individuals.
Building Codes and Permitting
The City's Building Code does not include any amendments to the 2010 California Building
Code that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.
6.1.14 - Tree Preservation
The City of Mountain View 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 which has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54
inches above the natural grade;
A multi- branched tree which 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 Development
Review Committee, Zoning Administrator, or City Council. Applications for permits are
approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the official or hearing body which acts on
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 113
P-4'. City of Mountain View
the associated development permit application.
According to City Staff, the City strives to preserve trees where possible. They may require
developers to build around trees. In some cases, developers are allowed to replace trees
at a two -to -one ratio or three -to -one ratio, depending on the type of tree. Because a large
share of residential development in Mountain View involves is infill development involving
demolition and replacement, building footprints are often already in place and tree
preservation issues do not arise as a major concern to developers.
6.1.15 - 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 conditional use permit
to reduce the number of parking spaces for a development with smaller units.
Companion units are allowed in the Rl zoning district when the site exceeds the
required minimum lot size by 35 percent. The City assesses park fees for companion
units, which typically range from $15,000 to $25,000 a unit. These requirements may
act as constraints to the production of companion units; however the City did see
the development of 10 units during the 2007 -2014 planning period.
Mountain View's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance offers sufficient flexibility to
developers and does not pose a constraint to production. Mountain View's
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires projects of a certain size to provide at least
10 percent of the total number of dwelling units as below- market rate or pay an in-
lieu fee. The in -lieu fee option provides developers with greater flexibility in satisfying
their inclusionary housing requirements, and helps mitigate potential constraints to
production.
The City's development impact fees and exactions appear reasonable and
comparable to those of other jurisdictions. The park land dedication in -lieu fee is
comparable to fees in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and San Jose. Overall, development
fees and exactions total approximately $71,616 for a single - family home, $56,687 for
a townhouse, and $36,591 for an apartment unit. Since the previous planning period
development impact fees have increased by less than two percent of the total
amount of fees charged.
Mountain View's unique planning process for approving new residential
developments can help facilitate the entitlement process. The City's Zoning
Administrator makes entitlement decisions that are traditionally held by Planning
Commissions in other jurisdictions. The Zoning Administrator approves residential
projects that propose a subdivision of fewer than five lots. Residential projects that
propose a subdivision five or more lots require City Council approval. The City's
Development Review Committee (DRC) reviews and makes recommendations to
the Zoning Administrator for the architectural and site design of all new projects and
rehabilitation of larger residential projects. The DRC approves smaller projects.
However, local developers have indicated that the design review process with the
114 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View -
DRC can occasionally be time consuming and labor intensive. The City is
considering strategies to streamline this process, as noted in Program 4.5 of this
Housing Plan.
In order to comply with SB 2, Mountain View has amended its zoning ordinance to
permit permanent emergency shelters as a permitted use in the MM zoning district.
• The City has also amended the zoning ordinance to treat transitional and supportive
housing as a residential use, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other
residential uses of the some 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.
6.2 - 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 land and construction costs as well as public support for new
development.
6.2.1 - Housing Market Activity and Availability of
Financing
Following the 2008 recession, housing development is already making a comeback. During
the 2007 -2014 planning period, local residential developer reported that the decline in the
housing market and current economic downturn represented a constraint to new housing
production. Despite high home values in Mountain View through the recession, annual
sales volume decreased between 2004 and 2010. As a result of local, state, and national
housing and economic trends, local developers predicted that for fewer housing units will
be produced from 2010 to 2012. During that time, it was determined that in many cases,
the highest and best use of land was no longer for -sale housing. Since 2012, the housing
market has made a dramatic comeback with housing prices and rents steadily rising which
is one sign of an increased demand for housing. The number of proposed residential
projects in the City, predominately rental housing, has also increased drastically in 2013,
suggesting that residential uses may have regained their value.
According to subsidized housing developers, the availability of financing presents the
biggest barrier to producing new subsidized housing. Local developers reported in 2009,
that there was very little private financing available for both construction and permanent
loans. Construction loans were available in rare cases, because of the capacity of a
development group or the unusual success of a project. However, developers suggest
lenders are currently offering loans up to 50 percent of the building value, compared to 70
to 90 percent historically. Since 2009, construction loans now become easier to qualify for,
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 115
P-4. City of Mountain View
resulting in new residential development activity throughout the City.
In addition to private financing, Federal, state and local public funding sources are critical
resources for the development of housing for households of all incomes. Public sources
supplement as well as leverage private sources for the construction, rehabilitation and
preservation of housing units and for rental and purchase assistance subsidies for tenants
and buyers. Appropriations by Federal, State and local government fluctuate from year to
year, and are not available at a steady level or a level that keeps pace with increases in
development costs, inflation, and rising affordable housing need. Beginning with the
Housing Act of 1937, the federal government has enacted housing legislation in each
decade to acknowledge the need for quality housing for all residents, affirm the federal
government's commitment to addressing the need, and establish programs to support
quality housing. Through tax incentives and expenditures, the federal government supports
homeownership and the development of for -sale, rental and homeless housing and
services.
The most significant federal resources are provided through tax incentives, including tax
credits, tax deductions, and lower tax rates. The federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit
( LIHTC), instituted in 1986, facilitates the investment of cash from private entities who in
return receive a tax credit benefit. In 2005, the federal government provided $121 billion in
such tax incentives. Nationally, the LIHTC has been considered an exceedingly successful
program. Per the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, in 2012, a total of $87 million
in tax credits were allocated to the State of California. While federal allocations to
California for LIHTCs have generally increased over time, fewer low- income units are funded
each year as development costs per unit have increased. LIHTCs are very competitive —
applications typically exceed available funds by two -to -one ratio.
In support of homeownership, the federal government also provides home mortgage
interest and property tax deductions to homeowners, as well as lower tax rates on long term
capital gains. These tax incentives supporting homeownership dwarf the LIHTC, in effect
subsidizing far more households at higher incomes than low- income households. Federal
expenditures in support of affordable housing development and services have declined
significantly in the past two years. Once the fiscal stimulus in the immediate aftermath of the
Great Recession ended, federal housing funds began a steep decline. In the 2012 federal
budget approval process, budget cuts resulted in a 12 percent reduction to HUD's
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund and a 38 percent reduction to HOME
funds.
6.2.2 - Land Costs
Land costs in Mountain View are generally high due to the high demand and limited supply
of available land. Local developers indicated that land prices are slowly adjusting during
this economic downturn. However, developers generally reported that the market is not
efficient and land owners' expectations of what their land is worth declines slowly. Unless
land owners are compelled to sell their property for some reason, many will wait for the
market to recover.
Nonetheless, one developer did report that at the height of the housing boom, land prices
in Mountain View were in the range of $3 million to $4 million per acre, with higher land
116 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View -
values associated with property being developed at higher densities. While prices declined
during the previous planning period to as low as $2.5 million per acre, the recent recovery in
the housing market has seen home prices and consequently land costs skyrocketing back
to pre- recession levels. An informal online survey of land for sale in August 2013, showed 7
parcels for sale ranging from $2 million to $3.5 million per acre.
The cost of land can be a particular constraint to the production of affordable housing in
the City. A local subsidized affordable housing developer indicated that land costs in
Mountain View are higher than in other cities in Santa Clara County such as San Jose,
making the development of subsidized housing more difficult. While land costs in San Jose
are approximately $50,000 per unit, Mountain View land costs range from $60,000 to
$250,000 per unit.
6.2.3 - Construction Costs
Various construction cost estimating firms provide developers and jurisdictions with cost
projections for residential development. For example,
R.S. Means provides construction cost manuals for calculating the average cost per square
foot of residential construction throughout the Northern California region. Region -wide
numbers, however, tend to be diluted by lower cost areas and may not accurately reflect
the higher costs of building in Sana Clara County.
According to 2013 R.S. Means, Square Foot Costs, hard construction costs for one to three
story apartment building range from approximately $141 to $153 per square foot in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Costs for a four to eight story apartment project ranges from $154 to
$168 per square foot. Construction costs, however, vary significantly depending on building
materials and quality of finishes. Parking structures for multi - family developments represent
another major variable in the development cost. In general, below -grade parking raises
costs significantly. Soft costs (architectural and other professional fees, land carrying costs,
transaction costs, construction period interest, etc.) comprise an additional 10 to 15 percent
of the construction and land costs. Owner - occupied multi - family units have higher soft
costs than renter - occupied units due to the increased need for construction defect liability
insurance. Permanent debt financing, site preparation, off -site infrastructure, impact fees,
and developer profit add to the total development cost of a project.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 117
City of Mountain View
Figure 6 -1: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs
$300.00
$250.00
$200.00
$150.00
$100.00
$50.00
$0.00
M M M 'T 'T �0 �0 �0 10 �r� r� 00 00 00 01 01 0 O O N N M
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
° N ° N - Z Q ) 2 0� Q - Z Q ) Q� D� Q
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013.
Lumber
Steel
During the previous planning period, key construction costs (materials and labor) fell
nationally in conjunction with the residential real estate market. Figure 6 -1 illustrates
construction cost trends for key materials based on the Producer Price Index, a series of
indices published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics that measures
the sales price for specific commodities and products. Lumber prices have declined by 12
percent between 2008 and 2013. As shown in Figure 6 -1, steel prices have fallen sharply (23
percent) since January 2008. Despite the decrease in cost for construction materials the
high demand for housing in the South Bay region, allows developers to typically keep
market -rate home prices and rents at high levels.
6.2.4 - 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. This is the case not just in Mountain View, but in many jurisdictions.
Within Mountain View, public opinion on new residential development at a range of
densities varies by neighborhoods. Nevertheless, engagement with the local neighborhood
associations can be critical for projects. According to developers, neighborhood
association concerns can be influential in the City decision making process. Without a
supportive local neighborhood association, projects can face notable challenges in
securing approval.
Extensive community outreach can help to mitigate concern over new residential
development. For example, the developer of an affordable efficiency studio project
reported that proactive efforts to educate and engage the community through numerous
meetings were successful in addressing community concerns. By the time the project went
to the City Council for approval, there were no residents who opposed the project.
118 20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
6.2.5 - Non - Governmental Constraints Findings
Following the decline in housing development due to the economic downturn that
occurred during the previous planning period the housing market is improving
presenting a new set of constraints. It is likely that more housing units will be
produced over the next few years due to the increased demand; however the lack
of available financing resulting from tightening credit markets may still constrain
development. Developers suggest that lenders are currently offering loans up to 50
percent of the building value, compared to 70 to 90 percent historically.
Land costs in Mountain View are generally high due to the high demand and limited
supply of available land. Although land costs are slowly adjusting following the
economic downturn, developers generally reported that the market can be slow to
respond to changes in home values. Land costs can be a particular constraint to
the production of subsidized housing in Mountain View. Program presented under
Housing Element Goals 1, 3 and 4 help address these costs, as well as the financing
challenges discussed above, by supporting the development of subsidized housing.
In previous years, key construction costs fell nationally in conjunction with the
residential real estate market. However, despite the decrease in construction cost,
the high demand for housing in the South Bay region, allows developers to typically
keep market -rate home prices and rents at high levels.
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. 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.
6.3 - 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 may impact future
development of residential units in the City.
6.3.1 — 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 (A -PEFZ) for the San Andreas Fault, and approximately 1 1.2 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 dross the City of Mountain View from the
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 119
P-4. City of Mountain View
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 separate environmental review,
including analysis of increased risks to human health or safety related to fault rupture,
ground shaking, ground failure, and liquefaction.
6.3.2 - Flooding
Portions of the City are within the 100 -year flood zones as determined by FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Maps. Currently, none of the identified Housing Sites are located in a flood
zone. If it is determined that a future housing site or development is located in the flood
zone, that project would need to obtain a flood development permit as described in
Section 8.160 of the Municipal Code. 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
and slope protection by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and future housing
development within the City would not be affected by any levee failures along the creek
channel. Future housing development within the City would not expose residents to flooding
risks as a result of a failure of a levee or dam.
6.3.3 - 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 2010 California Building Code and Chapter 47 in the California
Fire Code and /or any other ordinances adopted by the City of Mountain View thereafter.
6.3.4 - 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
120 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
prior written approval is granted by City Staff. Future housing development in the City would
be required to comply with City policies regulating noise, as well as undergo separate
environmental review, including analysis of the following noise - related topics: exposure of
persons to excessive noise levels, including airport noise; exposure of persons to excessive
ground borne vibration; generation of excessive noise; and increases in ambient noise
levels.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 121
City of Mountain View
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Mountain View 2015 -2023 Housing Element
122 2015 -2023 Housing Element
7. Housing Resources
This section summarizes the land, financial, and administrative resources available for the
development and preservation of housing in Mountain View. The analysis includes an
evaluation of the availability of land resources for future housing development, the City's
ability to satisfy its share of the region's future housing needs, the financial resources
available to support housing activities, and the administrative resources available to assist in
implementing the City's housing programs and policies.
As noted in Section 5, the Housing Element planning period is calculated by HCD to start 18
months from the adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared for the Bay
Area, also known as Plan Bay Area. Consequently, the due date for Housing Elements was
determined to be January 31, 2015 and the Housing Element planning period extends from
January 31, 2015 to January 31, 2023. The 2014 -2022 RHNA allocation must be
accommodated within the 2015 -2023 Housing Element.
7.1- Sites Inventory
As shown previously in Table 5 -1, the City of Mountain View was allocated 2,926 units as
their fair share of the regional housing need assessment. The City's 2014 -2022 RHNA
allocation is also illustrated in Figure 7 -1 below. This allocation includes 814 units for very low -
income households, 492 units for low- income households, 527 units for moderate - income
households and 1,093 units for above moderate - income households. The City is responsible
to plan for new housing development through their zoning code and is required to provide
a sites specific inventory within the 2015 -2023 Housing Element to accommodate their
regional housing needs allocation. The following sections describe the analysis and land
resources available to accommodate the City's 2014 -2022 RHNA.
Figure 7 -1: City of Mountain View 2014 -2022 RHNA
2014 -2022 Regional Housing
Needs Allocation
■ Very Low (814 units)
■ Low (492 units)
Moderate (527 units)
■ Above Moderate (1,093 units)
2015 -2023 Housing Element 123
City of Mountain View
7.1.1 - Site Selection Process
To accommodate the 2014 -2022 RHNA, sites from the 2007 -2014 Housing Resources section
were evaluated to determine their viability for the 2015 -2023 Housing Element planning
period. Where necessary, additional sites were added to accommodate the City's
increased RHNA allocation, and to replace sites that were developed during the previous
planning period. Generally, the sites inventory focuses on properties that are zoned for
housing in the R1, R2, R3, R4, CRA, and within Precise Plan zoning districts that allow
residential uses. The following criteria were used to narrow down the list of sites to properties
that would be more likely to redevelop over the course of this Housing Element planning
period (2015- 2023):
Suitability of non - vacant, underutilized sites. The lack of vacant land in Mountain
View and the relatively high value of new residential development, means that the
City regularly sees the redevelopment of underutilized sites, including ones that
contain functioning residential and commercial uses. The City considered a number
of factors in determining whether non - vacant underutilized sites were appropriate for
redevelopment. This study defines underutilized sites as properties that:
• Show deferred maintenance or remain vacant;
• Show potential for existing uses to be discontinued;
• Have landowners or developers that expressed interest in redevelopment;
• Have existing residential units but could accommodate five or more
additional units under existing zoning;
• Have structural improvement to land value (I /L) ratio of less than 1.0 (meaning
the land is worth more than the existing improvements);
• Have commercial buildings that fall for short of the site's development
potential; and /or
• Have underutilized surface parking lots occupying a major portion of the site.
Non - conforming land uses. Many of the residentially -zoned sites identified have
older non - residential buildings. Again, residential uses are expected to replace
these non - conforming uses over time, due to the comparatively high value of new
residential development in Mountain View.
Common ownership and potential for lot consolidation. Although some sites may be
comprised of multiple parcels, the entire site is considered together due to the
limited number of owners present and the likelihood that the parcels would be
developed together as a single project. For many of the sites identified in the
inventory, landowners and developers have already approached the City to explore
development schemes. In each case, the landowners and developers have been
considering the site as a whole, including all parcels listed in this analysis. The
inventory focused on sites with a maximum of three owners, accounting for the fact
that lot consolidation is more likely with fewer owners. In most cases there are just
one or two owners and in some instances, the City is one of the landowners.
124 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
The City of Mountain View encourages lot consolidation by allowing for higher
density development on larger parcels in some zoning districts and Precise Plan
Areas. For example, in the R3 -1 District, a 15,000 square foot parcel can
accommodate five units (3,000 square feet of lot area per unit). However, for each
additional 1,000 square feet of lot area, a developer can build one residential unit.
A one -acre parcel (43,560 square feet) would be able to accommodate 33 units, or
one unit for every 1,320 square feet. Another way to demonstrate the benefit
associated with lot consolidation is to compare the development potential on two
15,000 square foot parcels with that of one 30,000 square foot parcel. The two
15,000 square foot parcels would each accommodate five units, for a total of 10
units across both properties. On the other hand, a single 30,000 square foot parcel
would be able to accommodate 20 units, double the amount developable if the lots
were not consolidated. As these examples show, this system of increased densities
by parcel size provides incentives for lot consolidation by allowing developers to
reach a particular site's greatest potential in terms of density and total number of
units when individual parcels are consolidated into one larger site. In addition, this
Housing Element includes a Program to encourage lot consolidation through
marketing and technical assistance (see Program 1.5).
Lot area. The inventory concentrated on sites that were 0.5 acres or larger,
recognizing the challenge of site planning on smaller properties. In fact, 33 of the 43
sites identified through the inventory are at least one -acre in size and only one site is
less than 0.5 acres in size.
Permitted density. In accordance with the State's "default density" standards (see
Section 7.1.2), sites that could accept a minimum of 20 units per acre were
considered appropriate for very low- and low- income units. moderate - income
In addition to the criteria discussed above for identified sites, the City considered a number
of factors when determining the number of residential units that could be accommodated
on the selected sites. These factors are described below:
Realistic capacity on residential -only sites. Development standards such as building
height restrictions, minimum setbacks, and maximum lot coverage requirements may
make it difficult for developers to build to the maximum density allowed by the
General Plan and Zoning Code on a particular site. Furthermore, sites that are zoned
for mixed -use development may have commercial space that may reduce the
number of residential units on the site. For the 2015 -2023 sites inventory the City
assumed that developers can maximize their site based on the permitted densities.
This means that sites zoned exclusively for residential development could achieve 85
percent capacity. For example, on a one -acre site, if 20 dwelling units are permitted,
an applicant is permitted to build up to 17 units taking into account that a portion of
the site will be utilized for landscaping, improvements, and other development
requirements.
Residential capacity on mixed -use sites. Mountain View is a desirable residential
market with high demand and low vacancy rates. As mentioned in the Housing
Needs Assessment section, Mountain View rental vacancy rates have historically
been lower than county and state wide figures. Vacancy rates remained low even
2015 -2023 Housing Element 125
City of Mountain View
through the most recent recession. According to the 2010 Census, rental vacancy
rates stood at just 1.9 percent, which is lower than the 5.0 percent benchmark for a
healthy rental market. In addition, in the second quarter of 2013, the median home
sales price in Mountain View was estimated to be around $860,000.
Because of the desirability and high value of residential property in Mountain View,
developers are often reluctant to include ground floor commercial space in
residential buildings, even when land is zoned for mixed -use development. The City
must often encourage or request that ground -floor commercial space be included
in projects, and commercial space typically represents a small proportion of the total
development, typically around ten percent. As shown in the examples provided In
Table 7 -1, this is evident in the mixed -use projects approved in Mountain View since
2007. The City of Mountain View anticipates that this trend may continue and land
zoned for mixed -use will largely remain dedicated to residential uses.
Projects, Table 7-1: Achievable Residential Density for Completed
00
Maximum Actual
Approval Site ctual Units Units /Mc
Project Name Zone Date Area Permitted Developed Permute
Density��� Units
1701 -1707 El Camino Real
CRA
May 2007
0.5 ac
43
16
76%
2545 -2585 Middlefield Rd.
CRA
Oct 2007
1.9 ac
43
75
94%
1984 El Camino Real
CRA
June 2008
2.5 ac
43
81
74%
455 West Evelyn
P(18)
April 2010
3.6 ac
60
203
94%
135 Franklin Street
P(19)
June 2010
1.0 ac
50
50
100%
2545 -2585 Middlefield Rd.
CRA
April 2011
1.9 ac
43
32
40%
2650, 2656 El Camino Real
CRA
June 2012
2.9 ac
60(a)
193
111%
1720, 1730 El Camino Real
CRA
Mar 2013
2.5 ac
60(a)
169
98%
865, 881 El Camino Real
CRA
April 2013
2.3 ac
60(0)
150
109%
Source: City of Mountain View, 2013.
(a) The maximum permitted density was calculated
based on densities
permitted
by the 2030 General Plan, adopted July 2012.
7.1.2 - Zoning to Accommodate Housing for Lower -
Income Households
If is important to note that State law requires the City to identify sites that can
accommodate Mountain View's housing need for very low- and low- income households.
As permitted by State law, Mountain View may utilize "default" density standards to
demonstrate that sites are adequate for lower- income households. As a "suburban"
jurisdiction within the Bay Area Metropolitan Statistical Area, Mountain View's default
density standard is 20 units per acre. Consequently, if a site permits residential densities of at
126 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
least 20 units per acre, units associated with that site may be counted as meeting the
housing need for lower- income households.
Mountain View's R3 -1, R3 -1.25, R3 -1.5, R4, and CRA zoning districts all allow residential
development at 20 or more units per acre. In addition, the Downtown, Villa- Mariposa,
Evandale, South Whisman, Evelyn Avenue, and Whisman Precise Plans all permit residential
densities of at least 20 units per acre in some or all of the Plan area.
7.1.3 - Very Low and Low - Income Housing Sites
As discussed in the previous section, the minimum default density required for the City of
Mountain View to accommodate their lower income RHNA allocation is 20 dwelling units
per acre. To accommodate their 2014 -2022 lower income RHNA allocation the City has
identified eight sites with a CRA zoning designation, which allows up to 60 units per acre,
primarily located along El Camino Real, one of the City's primary mixed -use arterials. The
sites identified contain older commercial buildings, and have great redevelopment
potential. Altogether, the eight CRA sites could accommodate a total of 877 net units.
The CRA sites allow for higher densities up to 60 dwelling units per acre with a (P) district
approval, and are located near services and transit. The challenges of the sites include
potential noise impacts, land use compatibility issues with adjacent commercial uses, and
the irregular shape of some of the lots. Additionally, certain sites require lot consolidation
which can prove challenging.
Despite these issues, the City has a recent successful track record of approving projects in
the CRA zoning district and along El Camino Real. In the past four years, the City has
approved a number of projects in CRA areas, including a 193 -unit apartment project at
2650 El Camino Real, a 169 -unit apartment project at 1720 El Camino Real, a mixed -use
development with 160 units at 1984 El Camino Real, 184 -units at 100 Moffett, and a 150 -unit
apartment complex at 865 El Camino Real. In April of 2011, a 32 -unit residential only project
was approved in the CRA district at 2545 -2585 W. Middlefield Road, and a 26 unit studio
project was approved for developmentally disabled adults at 1581 El Camino Real.
There are also currently 32 Precise Plan areas in the City of Mountain View. Precise Plans are
generally more flexible than traditional zoning standards and establish development and
design standards for specific locations, which have the same legal status as traditional
zoning district standards.
Villa Mariposa (P -17). A two -acre vacant property at 1710 Villa Street, in the Villa -
Mariposa Precise Plan, would accommodate 49 units, with an allowed density of up
to 30 units per acre. The site has one owner, and is adjacent to existing residential
uses.
• Downtown (P -19). The Downtown Precise Plan allows development at 30 -50 units per
acre, and is identified as a potential location for 43 units on three sites. Downtown
sites are located in close proximity to transit and services. The redevelopment of
existing surface lots, as suggested by the sites inventory, could lead to a potential
2015 -2023 Housing Element 127
City of Mountain View
loss of parking spaces serving local businesses. A parking study would be required
when housing is proposed on a surface lot to determine if the loss of spaces would
have a significant impact on the area, and what mitigations would be necessary.
The Downtown Precise Plan requires the sites identified to provide all residential and
commercial parking requirements on site.
Recent redevelopment proposals within the Downtown Precise Plan include a
subsidized housing project has been approved at 135 Franklin Street that would
provide 51 units for households earning up to 60 percent of Area Median Income
(AMI). As another indicator of the City's commitment to development in
Downtown, the City owns the property at 424 -458 Bryant, and previously issued a
Request for Proposals (RFP) for a mixed -use project on- with 58 rental units, including
six units serving very low- and low- income households secured through a
development agreement.
Evandale (P -32). The inventory includes a site in the Evandale Area Precise Plan,
located along Fairchild and Evandale Avenues. These sites could accommodate a
total of 40 units. This capacity assumes a density bonus, assuming that 20 percent of
the units are affordable, 10 percent are for very low- income households, or 50
percent are for seniors, per the Precise Plan. The property contains a small
convenience store and motel. The Precise Plan encourages the area to convert to
residential uses, and the site is adjacent to existing multi - family residential
developments.
South Whisman (P -37). The South Whisman Plan Area encompasses approximately
38 acres, loosely bounded by
Ferguson Drive and Highway 237 to `" ° °M " " °N 5Di��,,
247.257 N.Whlsman PA OO�F
the east, industrial properties frontingo
East Middlefield Road to the north, 231N.Whi°'a°"° f
the Whisman Station residential �a,..,C..e. -
Sh1Oq
neighborhood to the south, and the S 695 E Middlefield Rd
light rail transit line to the west. The AFB $•R�,
South Whisman Precise Plan is
expected to develop in two phases.
r- Suiion
The Precise Plan is intended to guide's 4
the development of a new
p
residential community of up to 1,120
housing units with a mix of housing
types and up to 37,000 square feet of
supporting neighborhood
commercial uses.
The Precise Plan area will generally
include a mix of residential types and
densities, ranging from small -lot single - family and rowhomes near the existing
Whisman Station neighborhood, to higher density development closer to East
Middlefield Road. Phase I allows for densities ranging from 8 to 60 units per acre
(depending on the location within the Plan area), and could accommodate up to
717 units.
The Plan area is within walking distance to the Whisman Light Rail Station and
128 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
adjacent to existing residential development. A developer has expressed interest in
Phase I, which has an office building on -site to be replaced with housing,
demonstrating the viability of these properties for redevelopment.
Figure 7 -2 provides a map illustrating the location of sites appropriate to accommodate the
City's 2014 -2022 very low- and low- income RHNA allocation. As many of the sites are
considered to be underutilized, the City has prepared a detailed analysis of sites
designated as potential locations for very low- and low- income units. Details regarding
environmental and infrastructure conditions at each site were provided by the City's Public
Works Department.
Following the detailed sites descriptions, Table 7 -2 summarizes the sites inventory, providing
the address, parcel numbers, General Plan and zoning designations, lot area, density, and
realistic unit capacity based on ownership patterns. As mentioned previously, Mountain
View's zoning ordinance will be updated to be consistent with the 2030 General Plan,
however, in the interim the calculated maximum residential densities are based on the
General Plan land use designations, which is the current process for approving recent
residential projects in the City. Generally, the 2030 General Plan allows up to 60 dwelling
units per acre in most mixed -use sites locations.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 129
City of Mountain View
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Mountain View 2015 -2023 Housing Element
130 2015 -2023 Housing Element
r
� O
o
00
O �
rr)
VJ
W
O 0
N VJ
U 'j ISO'
1�
O
1�
O
/0
T
V J
N
Q�
J�
b
. r{
w
T e
y �
a� e
Fg +,
v
e p� pa �"srwy
�L 4
w'oer
o
� u"eire
p „J
F: •a a1,1',
48 @ay$ry �Pn
�b
b
a1P 3. A
fib° a.
O
� W
U m a
m N
1
rs
area r
. "y e
v `
•4
�' `A.� \
9 / t,,z
H
c*)
H
v
v
w
on
x
Cn
N
0
N
N
�i
Kill
++
m
v
O
4-j
bbA
o �
w
O
U
W
bJJ
m
O
c�
N
O
N
i
O
N
O
O
U
v
v
W4
on
0
0
m
N
O
N
r-I
O
N
N
c*)
r-I
City of Mountain View
Site 1a: 2246 & 2268 W. El Camino
Real and 2241 & 2243 Latham Street
Lot Area (acres): 1.73
Existing Zoning: CRA and R3 -1.25
Average Allowable Density (units /acre): 60
Realistic Unit Capacity: 48
Site 1 a is comprised of four parcels totaling
m roughly 1.73 acres. Currently three of the
four parcels are within the R3 -1.25 zone and
owned by a one property owner. The
remaining parcel is under a different land
owner and located in the CRA zone. As the
site is designated Mixed Use Corridor in the
General Plan, the site allows for densities up to 60 dwelling units per acre.
Existing structures on Site 1 a include a daycare
and four single - family homes built in the mid -
'I 950's. The four single - family homes are
located on the western portion of the site and
are accessed through a shared driveway off of
Latham Street. The homes are the only single -
family residences in the vicinity, surrounded by
numerous multi - family residential developments
on Latham Street and a mix of higher density
commercial and residential development
along El Camino Real. The value of the land
far surpasses that of the improvements at the
site, with an improvement to land value ratio of
0.08. Given the potential to develop up to 48
units on site, it is reasonable to expect
redevelopment to occur during the Housing
Element planning period. In fact, Planning
Division Staff report that they have received
informal inquiries from developers regarding
Site ]a, further evidence of its suitability for
redevelopment. The site has no apparent
environmental constraints and is well- served by
the necessary infrastructure.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 133
City of Mountain View
Site 2a: 1710 Villa Street
Lot Area (acres): 2.07
Existing Zoning: P -17
Allowable Density (units /acre): 30
Realistic Unit Capacity: 53
Site 2a, which consists of a single parcel, has
one owner, and is currently vacant. The site,
has no apparent environmental constraints
and is well- served by the necessary
infrastructure. Constraints include limited
frontage onto Villa Street, and the site's
adjacency to the Caltrain right -of -way.
134 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 3a: 1057 El Monte Avenue
Lot Area (acres): 1.22
Existing Zoning: R3 -1
Allowable Density (units /acre): 35
Realistic Unit Capacity: 36
Site 3a contains a single -story office building
constructed in 1953. The site's land value
exceeds that of the improvements, with an
improvement to land value ratio of 0.30. The
office building is a non - conforming use, and
the owner is required by the City's Municipal
Code to terminate this use after a certain
period unless a use permit is secured. As
such, the owner has expressed interest in developing the property and potentially
consolidating it with the adjacent parcel at 918 Rich Avenue (Site 4a). Site 3a generally has
adequate infrastructure to serve new development, but minor upgrades maybe necessary.
Site 4a: 918 Rich Avenue
Lot Area (acres): 0.72
Existing Zoning: R3 -1
Allowable Density (units /acre): 35
Realistic Unit Capacity: 21
Site 4a is a vacant property adjacent to
Site 3a at 1057 El Monte Avenue. The
property, which is comprised of a single
parcel, is adequately served by existing
infrastructure, though minor upgrades
may be necessary. Specifically, a
project on this site would require
upgrades to remove the sewer
easement and water main improvements may include extensions to loop the system. These
issues are not expected to pose an undue development constraint. The City reports that
the property owner has expressed interest in developing the site, and has provided
preliminary site plans.
135 2014 -2022 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 5a: 420 San Antonio Road
Lot Area (acres): 6.19
Existing Zoning: CRA
Allowable Density (units /acre): 60
Realistic Unit Capacity: 376 units
proposed by developer in April 2013.
In 2013, the City initiated a gatekeepers
request to review a proposed
development of 376 -units on
approximately 6.2 acres. The site is
currently developed with a large
restaurant, a Tire store, a laundry mat,
and two one -story office buildings.
The project currently proposes densities of roughly 60 dwelling units to the acre, which can
accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA allocation. A project on this site
would be required to contribute toward future utilities. The project is near other significant
residential development, public transit, shops and services.
"ILAU RG
� p Y
N - m
. AMC r�i3gY Sx°n �
136 2015 -2023 Housing Element
W___ '. City of Mountain View
Site 6a: 380 Bryant Street and
California Street
Lot Area (acres): 0.47
Existing Zoning: P -19, Downtown Precise Plan
Allowable Density (units /acre): 38
Realistic Unit Capacity: 9
Site 6a, is a three - parcel site with a single
owner located in the Downtown Precise Plan
Area. The site contains a surface parking lot
with no other existing improvements. Site 6a
has strong access to transit and services and
no apparent environmental constraints. The
City would require studies to verify it is
adequately served by existing water, sewer, and storm systems
necessary.
. Minor upgrades may be
Site 7a: 424 -458 Bryant Street and 907- 941 California Street
Lot Area (acres): 1.45
Existing Zoning: P -19, Downtown Precise Plan
Allowable Density (units /acre): 50
Realistic Unit Capacity: 6 BMR units
Site 7a, in
parking lots
the Downtown Precise Plan Area, consists of a series of City -owned surface
The site is comprised of eight parcels, all owned by the City of Mountain View.
The City recently issued an RFP for a
mixed -use rental project for site that
will include at least 10 percent
affordable units. The estimated unit
capacity for the site is 58 units, of
which six would serve low- income
households under a development
agreement to be prepared for the
project. The site enjoys strong access
to transit and services and has no
apparent environmental constraints.
The City would require studies to be
conducted to verify it is adequately
served by existing water, sewer, and
storm systems. Minor upgrades may
be necessary.
137 2014 -2022 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 8a: 660 & 676 W. Dana Street &
Hope Street
Lot Area (acres): 1.41
Existing Zoning: P -19, Downtown Precise Plan
Average Allowable Density (units /acre): 40
Realistic Unit Capacity: 28
Site 8a consists of four parcels with three
owners, with the City of Mountain View owning
two of the parcels. The site contains a City -
owned surface lot and two single -story
commercial buildings. The buildings were
constructed in 1950 and 1952, and currently
have a number of vacancies. The site has no
apparent environmental constraints, though minor upgrades may be necessary to water
and storm systems. Site 8a is located away from Castro Street, but still enjoys strong access
to transit and services.
138 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 9a: 801 W. El Camino Real
Lot Area (acres): 2.39
Existing Zoning: CRA
Allowable Density (units /acre): 60
Realistic Unit Capacity: 72
Site 9a consists of nine parcels totaling
approximately 2.4 acres. There is great
potential for lot consolidation at the site, with
just three owners, one of which is the City of
Mountain View. The two private owners each
own several parcels while the City owns a
single parcel located at the end of the site.
Site 9a currently contains three older, single -
story commercial buildings (built in 1951, 1955, and 1963), as well as a City -owned surface
parking lot. With its large amount of surface parking, its location at the southern entrance
to Downtown, and the older, low- density commercial buildings on -site, this area represents
a prime redevelopment opportunity. The site is walking distance to the City's downtown
and close to services and transit. While the majority of the parcels are served by California
Water Service Company, the site will most likely require upgrades or conversion to the City
system. No other environmental constraints have been identified.
139 2014 -2022 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 10a: 695 & 749 W. El Camino
Real
Lot Area (acres): 3.09
Existing Zoning: CRA
Allowable Density (units /acre): 60
Realistic Unit Capacity: 93
Site 10a is a two - parcel site with a single
owner. The site currently contains a bank with
a vacant lot, a large surface parking lot, and
a restaurant with deferred maintenance and
numerous Building Code violations. The
buildings located on -site were constructed in
1945 and 1977 and the improvement to land
value ratio is 0.21, a strong indicator of the site's appropriateness for redevelopment. The
site is suitable for the development of higher density housing as it is walking distance to the
City's downtown and close to services and transit. It is well- served by existing infrastructure
and has no apparent environmental constraints.
140 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 11a: 111 -133 W. El Camino Real
Lot Area (acres): 2.75 acres
Existing Zoning: CRA
Allowable Density (units /acre): 60
Realistic Unit Capacity: 82
Site 1 1 a is comprised of six parcels with two
land owners. As five of the parcels are owned
by a single private landowner and the City of
Mountain View owns the sixth parcel, it is likely
that the site could be redeveloped as a single
project. Site 1 1 a currently contains a vacant
lot used for car storage by a local auto dealer.
It is located along a major arterial roadway,
West El Camino Real, well- served by transit and infrastructure, close to the Grant Park Plaza
shopping center, and has no apparent environmental constraints.
Aw -t
r
y1: s
A&
141 2 0 1 4 - 2 0 2 2 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
Site 12a: 228 Evandale Avenue, 236
Evandale Avenue, & 277 Fairchild
Drive
Lot Area (acres): 1.56
Existing Zoning: P -32
Allowable Density (units /acre): 30
Realistic Unit Capacity: 40
Site 12a consists of three parcels totaling 1.56
acres. The site is currently has one owner
increasing the likeliness that the site would be
redeveloped as a single project. As shown
below, on two of the parcels comprising Site
12a there is an aging motel with multiple Building Code violations. The single -story motel
buildings are located along the perimeter of the site surrounding a large surface parking lot.
The third parcel contains a small retail store. The site is adequately served by existing
infrastructure, with only minor upgrades to the water mains along the property frontages.
The property is adjacent to the Middlefield - Ellis - Whisman Superfund Area (MEW Study Area),
further discussed in Section 7.2 of this Housing Element. As such, environmental mitigations
would likely be required during the construction process and as part of the building design.
142 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 13a: South Whisman Area Phase II
(364 Ferguson Drive front half of
property)
Lot Area (acres): 8.96
Existing Zoning: P -37
Allowable Density (units /acre): 35
Realistic Unit Capacity: 276
Site 13a, is a single parcel located in a former
industrial area that has gradually been
converting to residential uses over time. To
further encourage this trend, the City
approved the South Whisman Precise Plan to
facilitate this transition. The property owner concurs with this change and has supported
the Precise Plan goals. Existing uses on the property, which include aging industrial facilities
and office buildings, will be demolished as part of Phase I of the South Whisman Area
project. With the adoption of the Precise Plan in 2009 the current uses became non-
conforming and many of the buildings cannot be re- leased resulting in permanent
vacancies.
The property is in the GTE and MEW Study Areas, further discussed in Section 7.2 of this
Housing Element. As such, environmental mitigations would likely be required during the
construction process and as part of the building design. Development studies have
indicated that sewer and storm systems are required along the property frontage and
downstream. Minor upgrades may be necessary for the water system.
143 2014 -2022 Housing Element
IP1111PI-� I W
City of Mountain View
Site 14a: 861 E. El Camino Real
Lot Area (Acres) : 0.97
Existing Zoning: CRA
Allowable Density (units /acre): 60
Realistic Unit Capacity: 29
Site 14a is a single parcel containing a vacant
single -story furniture store constructed in 1963.
The building has not been occupied in several
years and the parking lot suffers from deferred
maintenance. There are currently residential
uses located to the south of the site. The site is
adequately served by existing sewer and storm
infrastructure and has no known environmental
constraints.
144 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 15a: 1150 -1180 Boranda
Lot Area (Acres) : 2.44
Existing Zoning: R3 -2
Allowable Density (units /acre): 25
Realistic Unit Capacity: 52
Site 15a consists of 5 parcels zoned R3 -2,
which permits densities up to 25 dwelling units
per acre. Existing uses on Site 15a include a
vacant lot and several single - family homes
on the west side of Boranda. Constructed in
the 1930's, the improvement to land ratio for
these parcels is 0.25 or less indicating they
are prime for redevelopment. On the east
side of Boranda, there are two parcels, one
with a single - family home constructed in the
1940's and a single -story multi - family rental
complex constructed in 1958. Combined the
value of the land surpasses that of the
improvements to the site, with an
improvements to land value ratio of 0.34. The
residential structures on this site, generally,
suffer from deferred maintenance and the
City has received inquires about possible
redevelopment of this site to housing. The site
is adjacent to existing residential uses. It is
likely, a project on this site would be required
to contribute to future utilities; however there
are no known environmental constraints.
145 2014 -2022 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 16a: 913 North Rengstorff
Lot Area (Acres) : 0.74
Existing Zoning: R3 -2
Allowable Density (units /acre): 25
Realistic Unit Capacity: 16
Site 16a is a single vacant parcel with no
structural improvements. The site is currently
paved and used for vehicle storage. There
are currently residential uses located to the
south and east of the site with a large
commercial center to the north. As the site
is located along Rengstorff Avenue,
residents would have easy access to the
freeway and major employment centers. It is likely, a project on this site would be required
to contribute to future utilities; however there are no known environmental constraints.
146 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 17a: 2690 W. El Camino Real
Lot Area (Acres) : 1.29
Existing Zoning: CRA
Allowable Density (units /acre): 60
Realistic Unit Capacity: 39
Site 17a consists of two parcels with a single
land owner, located on the southeast
corner of El Camino Real and Del Medio
Avenue. The site currently includes a
brushless carwash constructed in 1968. The
majority of the site is paved parking with
the car wash facility located in the center
of the site. The combined land to
improvement ratio is roughly 0.06, which is
extremely low. There are currently multi - family residential uses surrounding the site on all
sides, and the proposed El Camino Real Precise Plan would provide incentives to
encourage the redevelopment of the site to a higher density use. It is likely, a project on this
site would be required to contribute to future utilities; however there are no known
environmental constraints.
rr-- -,
4J
147 2014 -2022 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Site 18a: 282 -384 San Antonio
Lot Area (Acres) : 4.13
Existing Zoning: CRA
Allowable Density (units /acre): 60
Realistic Unit Capacity: 123
Site 18a consists of six parcels with CRA
zoning located in the western half of
the City along San Antonio Road.
While the parcels are not currently
held under a single owner it is still likely
gw - that redevelopment of the site could
occur as one comprehensive project.
;.. The site allows up to 60 dwelling units
per acre and multi - family
development at higher densities is already under construction across San Antonio. Existing
uses on Site 18a include: a gas station, a restaurant constructed in 1964, an auto repair
business, a Bank of America that is likely to relocate and a music school. All the buildings are
single story with large surface parking areas. The value of the land surpasses that of the
improvements to the site, with a value ratio of 0.68; however the improvement to land ratio
varies from parcel to parcel. Additionally, several of the commercial businesses on this site
suffer from deferred maintenance. The site is adjacent to existing residential uses, including
the recently constructed, Carmel the Village multi - family apartments located at 555 San
Antonio. The site has no apparent environmental constraints and is well- served by the
necessary infrastructure.
148 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Table 7 -2: Sites for Lower Income Households (0- 80% AMI)
149 2014 -2022 Housing Element
14836025
0.25
8
2246 and
Daycare
Two
Adequately
2268 W. El
14836026
Mixed
xed Use
CRA,
0. 5
20
and 4
Owners;
served. Minor
la
60 DUA
single-
None
Camino
14836037
Corridor
R3 -1.25
0.40
12
family
48 Net
upgrades may
Real
homes
units
be necessary.
14836038
0.42
13
Subfofal
1.73
48
Medium
Adequately
Density
Vacant
One
served. Minor
2a 1710 Villa
15402001
Residentia
P -17
30 DUA
2.07
53
Parcel
Owner
upgrades may
None
I
be necessary.
Subfofal
2.07
53
Water main
improvements
1 -story
needed,
Medium
office
Remove sewer
3a
18933027
High
R3 -1
35 DUA
1.22
36
building
One
easement,
None
Mon
Mon te e
Residentia
built in
Owner
Other
I
1953
improvements
may be
necessary.
Subfofal
1.22
36
Water main
improvements
needed,
Medium
High
Vacant
One
Remove sewer
4a 918 Rich
18933028
R3 -1
35 DUA
0.72
21
easement,
None
Residentia
Parcel
Owner
Other
improvements
may be
necessary.
Subfofal
0.72
21
14816032
1.06
32
14816034
0.19
6
One
Restauran
Owner -
14816039
0.04
1
t, laundry
Study for
Adequately
orh
420 San
Sa
14816040
ood Miii
od M xed
CRA
60 DUA
1.92
58
mat and 2
376 unit
served. Minor
None
Antonio
one -story
rental
upgrades may
14816041
Use
0.57
17
office
units
be necessary.
buildings
under -
14816042
1.22
37
way
14816043
1.19
36
Subtotal
6.19
376(6)
Depending on
15812039
0.17
3
the size of the
Downfow
project
380
6a
n Mixed
P -19
38 DUA
Vacant
One
improvements
None
Bryant
Owner
Use
may be
15812040
0.14
3
required. Water
and sewer
149 2014 -2022 Housing Element
`- City of Mountain View
150 2015 -2023 Housing Element
Subfofal
0.47
9
1581 1033
0.11
4
RFP for
15811034
0.11
4
mixed use
project
Depending on
1581 1035
0.03
1
with 6
the size of the
424 -458
units for
project
Bryant
15811036
Downtow
0.07
3
city
VL
improvements
7a
and 907-
n Mixed
P -19
50 DUA
owned
income
to the
None
941
1581 1037
Use
0.16
7
parking lot
and 52
downtown grid
California
15811038
0.17
7
units for
may be
moderat
required.
15811039
0.12
5
e in
15811055
0.68
27
come
Subfofal
1.45
6(b)
15822018
0.15
3
City
owned
Adequately
660 &
15822019
Downtow
0.26
5
parking
Two
served. Minor
8a
n Mixed
P -19
40 DUA
lot,
None
a
Dana
15822020
Use
0.38
8
restaurant
Owners
upgrades may
be necessary.
/office
15822025
0.62
12
building
Subfofal
1.41
28
18901024
0.38
11
18901125
0.51
15
18901126
0.25
8
Some parcels
Vacant lot
Two
still served by
18901127
0.51
15
private
the California
90
801 W
Camino o
18901128
Mixed Use
CRA
60 DUA
027
8
°m
com
owners
Water Service
None
Corridor
.etail
and City
Company and
Real
al /retail
18901133
0.13
4
buildings
owned
will need to be
lots
converted to
18901 148
0.12
4
the City system.
18901152
0.11
3
18901153
0.11
3
Subtotal
2.39
72
695 & 749
19302049
1.93
58
Bank,
Adequately
W El
Mixed Use
restaurant
One
served. Minor
l0a
Camino
dor
Corridor
CRA
60 DUA
and a
Owner
upgrades may
None
19302050
1.16
35
Real
vacant lot
be necessary.
Subfofal
3.09
93
19313009
0.14
4
19313010
0.35
11
One City
111 -133
owned
Adequately
W El
19313030
Mixed Use
038
.
1 1
lot and
served. Minor
110
CRA
60 DUA
Vacant
None
Camino
19313031
dor
Corridor
0.71
21
one
upgrades may
Real
private
be necessary.
19313032
0.57
17
owner
19313033
0.59
18
Subfofal
2.75
82
150 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Motel and
228 & 236
I ouu /UI I
Medium -
a small
One
U.Jb
IJ
retail store
Ev dale,
16007012
High
Corridor
Real
0.09
2
12a
277
are necessary.
P -3
30 DUA
Sewer and storm
Office
Fairchild
16007013
Residential
building,
0.17
0.90
23
Walking
One
upgrades to
MEW Study
distance to
Subtotal
1.56
40
Rail station
364
may also be
and surface Owners upgrades may
pg y
necessary.
parking be necessary.
14815021
Ferguson
Adequately
Medium -
Appliance
One
served. Minor
store
(Soman
upgrades may
None
TOTAL 43.6
be necessary.
13a
16061037
16061037
De I
P -37
35 DUA
8.96
276
Area
(a) Assumes a conservative buildout of 50% of
Residential
85% of the maximum buildout of residential
only sites although historic land use and entitlement patterns in Mountain View show much higher capacity for residential development on
mixed use sites. Net existing units.
Phase II)
(b)The total number of projected units may not equal the rows added due to net unit calculations or projects proposed on -site.
Subtofa1
8.96
276(6)
861 E El
Mixed Use
14a
Camino
19807005
CRA
60 DUA
0.97
29
Real
Corridor
Subtotal
0.97
29
19308002
0.53
11
19308003
0.65
14
Medium
15a
1 150 -1 180
19308004
Density
R3 -2
25 DUA
0.37
8
8oranda
Residential
19307021
0.43
9
19307022
0.46
10
Subtotal
2.44
52
Medium
913 North
16a
Rengstorff
15302039
Density
R3 -2
25 DUA
0.74
16
Residential
Motel and
Adequately
plan identified
served. Minor
a small
One
fire flow
MEW Study
retail store
Owner
deficiency.
area
Corridor
Real
Water upgrades
Owner upgrades may
14816004
0.26
are necessary.
be necessary.
Subtotal 1.29
Sewer and storm
Office
0.84
water upgrades
building,
0.17
needed. Minor
GTE and
Walking
One
upgrades to
MEW Study
distance to
Owner
water system
areas
Rail station
CRA 60 DUA
0.66
may also be
and surface Owners upgrades may
pg y
necessary.
parking be necessary.
14815021
0.40
Adequately
Appliance
One
served. Minor
store
Owner
upgrades may
None
TOTAL 43.6
be necessary.
Single- Adequately
family Three served. Minor None.
homes Owners upgrades may
be necessary.
Single
Adequately
Family One
served. Minor
Owner
upgrades may None.
Vehicle
be necessary.
Storage Lot
CRA 60 DUA
151 2 0 1 4 - 2 0 2 2 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
None.
None.
Subtotal 0.74
16
2690 W El 14816001
1.03
31
Adequately
Mixed Use
17a Camino
CRA 60 DUA
One served. Minor
Car W ash
Corridor
Real
Owner upgrades may
14816004
0.26
8
be necessary.
Subtotal 1.29
31
14815015
0.84
25
14815016
0.17
5
One -story
commercial Adequately
282 -384 14815018 Mixed Use
1.05
32
buildings Multiple served. Minor
18a San Corridor
Antonio 14815020
CRA 60 DUA
0.66
20
and surface Owners upgrades may
pg y
parking be necessary.
14815021
0.40
12
_ 14815022
0.98
29
L
Subtotal 4.1
123
TOTAL 43.6
1,388
I
Source: City of Mountain View, 2014
(a) Assumes a conservative buildout of 50% of
the maximum density on mixed use sites and
85% of the maximum buildout of residential
only sites although historic land use and entitlement patterns in Mountain View show much higher capacity for residential development on
mixed use sites. Net existing units.
(b)The total number of projected units may not equal the rows added due to net unit calculations or projects proposed on -site.
151 2 0 1 4 - 2 0 2 2 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
None.
None.
W, City of Mountain View
In total, the sites described above have a net realistic capacity of 1,388 units, which is
sufficient to satisfy the City's need to accommodate 814 very low and 492 low- income units
(at total need of 1,306 units).
7.1.4 - Moderate - Income Housing Sites
For the 2015 -2023 planning period the City was assigned 527 units to accommodate
moderate - income households, which are households earning between 80 to 120 percent of
the area median income. The City has identified sites that are zoned R -3 and sites within
precise plan areas to accommodate their moderate - income RHNA allocation.
To accommodate moderate - income housing development the sites inventory identifies five
sites designated for mixed use and residential, all within precise plan areas. In total, the
analysis concludes that these properties allow densities between 25 and 60 dwelling units
per acre and can accommodate 645 units. Permitted densities are based on the lot size
and a sliding scale which permits higher densities on larger lots and new residential projects
would largely occur on underutilized properties that require redevelopment.
Figure 7 -3 illustrates the location of sites that can accommodate the development of
housing for moderate - income households, while Table 7 -3 provides a detailed status of
each site, including: parcel number, location, acreage, realistic development capacity
and information on the existing on site uses.
152 2015 -2023 Housing Element
r
s~
o
+� O
� N
� o(0
U �
O
O
V
I�
�-I
O
�-I
O
�-I
O
T
I�
I
l ,�
w
0
e
� t
4
I� jrr a
Alamo Ct
N
4GUS�
F
c � a
'o
E m
� J V
°m 00 a
e ^bapnHS
O
i� �en,wro�
K]PaoO
� �p eue�og
a
c*)
H
s~
v
v
w
on
s~
x
N
O
N
r-I
O
N
v
0
j-
w
O
U
114
r
O
b-0
s
W
bJJ
m
O
c�
N
O
N
i
O
N
O
O
U
v
v
W4
on
0
0
N
N
O
N
r-I
O
N
Lf)
City of Mountain View
Table 7 -3: Sites for Moderate Income Households (80- 120 %AMI)
Subtotal 4.00 96(b)
. TOTAL M"U 5
Source: City of Mountain View, 2014.
Notes:
(a) Assumes a conservative buildout of 50% of the maximum density on mixed use sites and 85% of the maximum buildout of residential
only sites although historic land use and entitlement patterns in Mountain View show much higher capacity for residential development on
mixed use sites. Net existing units.
(b)The total number of projected units may not equal the rows added due to net unit calculations or projects proposed on -site.
2014 -2022 Housing Element 155
394
14829021
1.58
47
Single-
Adequately
t b
Ortega
Mixed Use
P -12
60
family
One owner
served. Minor
No
Precise
14829024
Corridor
162
49
homes
upgrades may
Plan
.
be necessary.
Subfofal
3.19
96
15811033
0.11
3
PW D would
1581 1034
0.11
3
require studies
to determine
1581 1035
0.03
1
capacity.
424 -458
Water and
Bryant St.
1581 1036
0.07
2
RFP for mixed
sewer may
2b
and 907-
Downtown
P -19
50
City owned
use rental
need
None
941
15811037
Mixed Use
0.16
4
parking lot
project. All lots
upgrades.
California
owned by City.
St.
Some
15811038
0.17
4
upgrades
completed as
1581 1039
0.12
3
part of 1997
CIP.
15811055
0.68
17
Subfofal
1.45
50(b)
Adequately
2580
Mixed Use
Grocery
One owner,
served. Minor
3b
California
14817003
Center
P -9
60
3.63
306
Store
Study for
upgrades may
None
Street
a
units underway
be necessary.
Subfofal
3.63
306(6)
Walking
Sanitary sewer
Whisman
Medium
distance to
master plan
4b
Precise
16061027
Density
P -35
25
2.01
97
Vacant
light rail station
requires
GTE area
Plan
Residential
Study for 96
upgrade of
rowhome units
underway
sewer main.
Subfofal
2.01
97(b)
Sewer and
storm drain
South
Medium
One Owner,
upgrades are
Whisman
High
Office
Study for 96
necessary.
GTE and
5b
Area
16061037
Density
P -37
35
4.00
119
Building
rowhome units
Minor
MEW study
Phase II
Residential
underway
upgrades may
area
be needed for
the water
system.
Subtotal 4.00 96(b)
. TOTAL M"U 5
Source: City of Mountain View, 2014.
Notes:
(a) Assumes a conservative buildout of 50% of the maximum density on mixed use sites and 85% of the maximum buildout of residential
only sites although historic land use and entitlement patterns in Mountain View show much higher capacity for residential development on
mixed use sites. Net existing units.
(b)The total number of projected units may not equal the rows added due to net unit calculations or projects proposed on -site.
2014 -2022 Housing Element 155
P-4'. City of Mountain View
In total, the sites described above have a net realistic capacity of 645 units, which is
sufficient to satisfy the City's need to accommodate 527 moderate - income units.
7.1.5 — Above Moderate - Income Housing Sites
For the 2015 -2023 planning period the City of Mountain View was assigned a total of 1,093
units to accommodate above moderate households. These are households earning more
than 120 percent of the area median income. To facilitate the development of above
moderate - income housing, the City has identified sites that permit lower density residential
uses within the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts and the South Whisman Phase I Precise Plan area.
As the City's above moderate - income RHNA allocation is higher for the 2015 -2023 planning
period, the City has added seven new potential sites to accommodate their RHNA
allocation.
The 2009 -2014 sites inventory previously identified five sites to accommodate the City's 4th
cycle RHNA allocation. During the previous planning period, these sites were not
developed; consequently, they have remained in the inventory for the 2015 -2023 planning
period as viable sites. Of the five original sites, four are zoned R1 or R2, which allows for
development between 4 and 12 units per acre. These residentially zoned sites can
accommodate a total of 89 units under currently permitted densities. The City's R1 and R2
zoning districts offers a range of density options as permitted densities are calculated on a
sliding scale based on the size of the lot. Due to the high cost of land in Mountain View and
the relatively low densities in these districts, the analysis assumes all units produced on these
sites are market rate.
To accommodate additional units, the City added seven new sites for the 5th planning
period. Of the new sites identified, six are zoned for mixed use and allow up to 60 units per
acre based on the 2030 General Plan and one site is zoned R -3, which allows up to 25 units
per acre. Figure 7 -4 illustrates the location of sites that can accommodate the
development of housing for above moderate - income households, while Table 7 -4 provides
a detailed status of each site, including: parcel number, location, acreage, realistic
development capacity and information on the existing on site uses.
156 2014 -2022 Housing Element
3 ^
v
a
•'y O
o
N
O
yrQ
W ^ j
O �
� O
x
U �
r1—j
` V
5O
1 n1'
W
O
a
1�
O
1�
O
W
uu�
1W'
T
��/--�
( J
`W
f
b,C
• r{
w
U
r
UI
b�
L R�
pY ��M11 Q
tl 4
w kle e6 �� o '$ L
�S r
o
a
'a
4 U d
o '
O
Q r -
U v
U) N
fLl,l �ii
J02c.�oN o
\Va�D
7,
s W� e.
n
H
v
v
w
O
x
N
O
N
r-I
O
N
114
r
Kill
++
m
v
O
4-j
bbA
o �
w �
o [�
U
W
bJJ
m
O
c�
N
O
N
i
O
N
O
O
U
v
v
W4
on
0
0
N
N
O
N
r-I
O
N
00
Lf)
City of Mountain View IIIl
Table 7 -4: Sites for Households Above Moderate Income
Households (120 %+ AMI)
2015 -2023 Housing Element 159
313 and
15326040
Low and
R2
12 DUA
0.7
7
333 Stierlin
Medium
Single -
Adequately
lc
Rd and
15326011
Low
R1
6 DUA
0.3
2
family
One owner- Net
served. Minor
None
980
Dens dHome
7 units
upgrades may
Central
Residential
be necessary.
Ave
15326012
R1
6 DUA
0.2
1
Subfofal
0.7
7
Water and
storm drain
Low
Single-
One owner- Net
upgrades
2c
1991 Sun
19740027
Density
R1 -10
4 DUA
5.0
17
family
16 units
needed.
None
MorAve
Residential
Home
Other
upgrades may
be necessary.
Subfofal
5.0
16
Medium
Adequately
3c
450 N.
16016044
Low
R2
12 DUA
6.4
65
Vacant
One owner
served. Minor
MEW study
Whisman
Density
upgrades may
area
Residential
be necessary.
Subfofal
6.4
65
South
16060003
10.6
Sewer and
Whisman
Medium
Office
storm drain
Phase l
16060007
16060007
7.9
buildings
upgrades
GTE and
4c
364 -500
Density
P -37
8 -60 DUA
717
and vacant
needed.
MEW study
Ferguson
16060015
Residential
0.7
land
Other
area
Dr.
upgrades may
16061055
9.7
be necessary.
Subfofal
28.9
717
One owner;
Adequately
1 101 El
Mixed Use
Study for 52
served. Minor
5c
Camino
18902030
Corridor
CRA
60 DUA
0.9
52
Carwash
condominium
upgrades may
None
Real W
units underway
be necessary.
Subfofal
0.9
52
Mixed Use
One owner;
Adequately
870 El
Corridor/
R2 -9
15-60
180 -unit
Study for 333
served. Minor
6c
Camino
161 11011
Medium
and
DUA
9.3
333
apartment
apartment units
upgrades may
None
Real E.
Density
R3 -2
building
resulting in a net
be necessary.
Residential
of 153 units
Subfofal
9.3
153(6)
Medium
Single
One owner;
Adequately
7c
858 Sierra
15302021
Density
R3 -2
25 DUA
0.6
13
Family
Study for 4
served. Minor
None
Vista Ave.
Residential
Home
single - family
upgrades may
units underway
be necessary.
Subfofal
0.6
13
2015 -2023 Housing Element 159
City of Mountain View
715 E. El Lucky's Adequately
8c Camino 19801003 Mixed Use CRA 60 DUA 4.6 138 Grocery One owner, served. Minor None.
Real Corridor Store to be upgrades may
relocated be necessary.
Su bfofa I 4.6 138
2026 W El Vacant Adequately
Mixed Use served. Minor
9c Camino 15437018 CRA 60 DUA 0.5 16 commercial One owner None.
Real Corridor buildings upgrades may
be necessary.
L Su bfofa I 0.5 16
TOTAL 56.9 1,176
Source: City of Mountain View, 2014.
(a) Assumes a conservative buildout of 50% of the maximum density on mixed use sites and 85% of the maximum buildout of residential
only sites although historic land use and entitlement patterns in Mountain View show much higher capacity for residential development on
mixed use sites. Net existing units.
(b)The total number of projected units may not equal the rows added due to net unit calculations or projects proposed on -site.
In total, the sites described above have a net realistic capacity of 1,176 units, which is
sufficient to satisfy the City's need to accommodate 1,093 above moderate - income units.
160 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
7.1.6 - Summary of Sites Analysis
The sites identified above can accommodate an estimated 3,209 units. Table 7 -5 indicates
that the sites identified could collectively accommodate 1,388 very low- and low- income
units, 645 moderate - income units, and 1,176 above - moderate - income units. Given these
figures, the sites inventory indicates that the City has a surplus of 283 units over its RHNA
requirement under existing zoning and General Plan land use designations, with an excess
unit capacity in each income group.
All unit counts expressed here are net of any existing units on the site, and assume that
mixed use sites are built to a conservative50 percent of the maximum permitted density and
residential sites are built to 85 percent of their maximum permitted density. Table 7 -5
summarizes the number of sites and units that could be accommodated in each zone as
compared to the City's 2014 -2022 RHNA allocation.
Table 7 -5: Summary of Unit Capacity by Site Area
R -1
iC1
0
0
17 "
17
R -2
(C)
0
0
71
71
R -3
(d)
125
0
I 13
138
El Camino Real /CRA
60 DUA
877
0
359
1,236
Precise Plan Areas
San Antonio Center (P9)
60 DUA
0
306
0
306
Ortega (P12)
14 DUA
0
96
0
96
Villa- Mariposa (P17)
30 DUA
53
0
0
53
Downtown (P19)
50 DUA
43
50
0
93
Evandale (P32)
30 DUA
40
0
0
40
Whisman Station (P35)
25 DUA
0
97
0
97
South Whisman (P37)
60 DUA
267
96
717
1,080
Subtotal (b)
1,388
645
1,176
3,209
2014 -2022 RHNA
1,306
527
1,093
2,926
TOTAL (surplus)
82
118
I 83
283
Source: City of Mountain View, 2014.
(a) Assumes buildout at 50% of the maximum density on
mixed use sites and 85% buildout on residentially zoned sites based on
historic land use and entitlement patterns in Mountain View.
Net existing units.
(b) Sum of income columns and total rows may not be consistent due to rounding.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 161
City of Mountain View
7.2 - General Environmental Constraints
7.2.1 - Environmental Contamination
A number of the sites identified above are within the Middlefield - Ellis - Whisman Superfund
Area (MEW Study area). The MEW Study Area formerly contained several manufacturing
and industrial facilities, including semiconductor, other electronics, and metal finishing
facilities in an area bound by US 101, N. Whisman, Ellis Street and E. Middlefield Road. While
in operation, these former facilities required the storage, handling, and use of a variety of
chemicals, particularly volatile organic compounds (VOCs). During operations, some of the
chemicals leaked or were otherwise released to the ground, impacting soil and
groundwater. In 1981 and 1982, investigations in the area of these facilities indicated that
the toxic materials had led to a contaminated groundwater plume. The MEW Study Area is
currently under the oversight of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and includes three National Priorities List (NPL) sites, including Fairchild Semiconductor
Corporation, Raytheon Company Superfund site; and Intel Corporation; and portions of the
former Naval Air Station Moffett Field Superfund site.'' The area is currently under
remediation.
As described above, two of the identified development sites for very low- and low- income
housing fall within the MEW Study Area - Sites 12a and 13a. In addition, the MEW Study
Area also contains a small section of the South Whisman Precise Plan and a small section of
above moderate - income Site 5b as well as two above moderate - income Sites 3c and 4c.
Other housing sites are within the GTE Government Systems area, which is an area roughly
bound by Central Expressway, N. Whisman Road, Ferguson Road and about a quarter mile
south of E. Middlefield Road. Similar to the MEW, this area contained several manufacturing
and industrial facilities that leaked or released chemicals into the soils, particularly VOCs.
The GTE area is under the oversight of the EPA and the area is undergoing remediation by
the parties responsible. One of the sites identified for very low -and low- income households
(Site 13a) falls within the GTE Area, as does the South Whisman and Whisman Precise Plan
areas (moderate- income Sites 4b and 5b and above moderate - income site 4c).
The environmental conditions presented by the MEW Study Area and GTE Area do not pose
an undue constraint to development, though would likely add some marginal development
cost to these properties. Although no evidence exists of specific concentrations of toxic
materials on any given site, location in the MEW Study Area and the GTE Area requires
environmental mitigation. This finding is based on an Initial Study commissioned by the City
of Mountain View to examine the environmental impacts of rezoning 291 Evandale Avenue
(within the MEW Study Area). The Study found that environmental impacts associated with
residential development on the property would either be less- than - significant or less -than-
significant- with - mitigation. Required mitigation measures to address possible contamination
on the property include:
"The NPL list is the list of hazardous waste sites in the United States eligible for long -term remediation action financed under the
federal Superfund, or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) program to clean up
abandoned hazardous waste sites.
162 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Completion of a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Compliance with all applicable State and local regulations pertaining to hazardous
materials
Safe removal of asbestos
Preparation of a Health and Safety Plan
Additional control measures to prevent exposure to toxic materials, namely:
• The parking garage will be constructed on a continuous concrete slab
• An uninterrupted vapor barrier shall be installed below the concrete slab of
the garage
• The garage will be adequately ventilated
• Elevators shall be constructed so as not to interrupt the vapor barrier and shall
not open into enclosed spaces.
The Initial Study finds that implementation of these actions would reduce the impact to a
less- than - significant level.
As evidence of the development potential of these properties, the City has approved
projects in the MEW Study Area. Most recently, these include a residential project at 291
Evandale Avenue. In addition, in 2006, a total of 35 rowhomes and small -lot single - family
homes were constructed at 180 -216 Evandale, a portion of which is in the MEW Study Area.
Moreover, the presence and location of the MEW Study Area has been well documented
since the early- 1980's. As such, developers account for any added mitigation costs in their
negotiations with land owners in the MEW Study Area, and local land values reflect these
added costs.
As described above, the Whisman, and South Whisman Precise Plans are within the GTE
area. The South Whisman Precise Plan EIR stated that due to groundwater contamination,
similar mitigations as for 291 Evandale would need to be implemented during construction
and as part of the project, in order to reduce impacts to a less- than - significant level. Again,
the presence and implications of any toxics are well documented, and are not expected to
present an undue constraint on development, as they would be accounted for in the area
land values. Developer interest in the South Whisman Precise Plan area (as discussed in
Section 5.3) evidences the development potential of the property. In addition, the
Whisman Precise Plan is almost built out except for a 1.90 acre site and is located in the GTE
Area.
7.2.2 - Other Environmental Conditions
Other environmental conditions which relate to development potential on the identified
sites are listed below:
An initial environmental analysis indicates that none of the potential sites are located
2015 -2023 Housing Element 163
City of Mountain View
within the 100 -year flood zone.
All of the sites are located in urbanized areas along major streets and transit
corridors. For this reason, many of these sites are unlikely to provide suitable habitat
for special- status species.
None of the potential sites are identified as prime farmland, unique farmland, or
farmland of statewide importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency.
There are no known active faults within the City, and the fault rupture hazard for the
City is considered to be very low.
None of the housing sites would be located within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for
Moffett Field Airfield or Palo Alto Airport.
Many of the sites currently contain commercial and residential uses, which would
indicate a general absence of significant environmental concerns that would
preclude redevelopment for housing, with the potential exception of cultural
resources.
An environmental review has been undertaken for a number of the potential housing sites in
response to proposed projects or amendments to existing plans. These environmental
review documents include the following:
South Whisman Precise Plan - Environmental Impact Report (EIR) found no impacts
that would preclude the development of new housing.
450 North Whisman - Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
2545 & 2551 W. Middlefield Road - MND
135 Franklin Street - MND
As specific development projects are proposed, CEQA environmental review will be
required, and the City would determine at that time the appropriate environmental review
document.
7.2.3 - Infrastructure Constraints
As a mature, urban, and built -out community, the City of Mountain View is well- served by
existing infrastructure systems. As described in Tables 7 -3 through 7 -5, the City anticipates
that minor upgrades (e.g., expanded sewer and water hookups to the trunk line) would be
needed to develop any of the sites for residential uses.
7.3 — Financial Resources
The City of Mountain View has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources
for affordable housing activities. These include programs from federal, state, local, and
private resources.
164 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Federal Block Grant Program Funds
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local
governments for housing and community development activities for low- income persons
through a number of different grant programs, including the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME programs. The CDBG program supports both housing and
non - housing community development activities while the HOME program funds affordable
rental and ownership housing projects. During fiscal year 2013 -2014, the City of Mountain
View received $565,424 in new CDBG funds and $220,902 in new HOME funds. If the City
continues to receive similar allocations, Mountain View will have approximately $3.5 million
in CDBG funds and $1.5million in HOME funds over the 2015 -2023 planning period.
Revitalization District Set Aside Fund
California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) previously required that the City of
Mountain View's Downtown Revitalization District Authority set aside 20 percent of tax
increment revenues for affordable housing activities that benefit low -and moderate - income
households. The Revitalization District Set Aside Fund has been an important source of
funding for affordable housing in Mountain View. Four projects providing 447 subsidized
units have been completed with assistance from the LMIHF since 1997. Over $3 million of
tax increment revenues supported these four projects.
On Dec. 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled to uphold ABx1 26, which dissolved all
redevelopment agencies (RDAs) in the State. A companion bill, ABx1 27, which would have
allowed the RDAs to continue, was also declared invalid by the court. The court's decision
required that all RDAs within California be eliminated no later than February 1, 2012. On
February 1, 2012, the City of Mountain View Downtown Revitalization District Authority was
dissolved. The City established a Successor Agency responsible for all enforceable
obligations owed.
While the City of Mountain View Downtown Revitalization District Authority has been
dissolved the City does still receive funds for housing activities through its Below- Market -Rate
(BMR) Housing, Housing Impact Fee, and the Rental Housing Impact Fee programs,
discussed in more detail below. While the City has historically been able to rely on these
funding sources, new case law, including Palmer /Sixth Street Properties, L.P. et al. v. City of
Los Angeles, has called into question the City's ability to enforce its existing BMR programs
and ordinances on rental projects. The Palmer case contends that an inclusionary housing
ordinance that requires developers to provide affordable housing units at regulated rents in
order to obtain project approval is hostile to the right afforded under the Costa - Hawkins Act
to establish the initial rental rate for a dwelling or unit. Consequently, the City is unable to
require BMR rental units. In FY 2012 -2013 the City had approximately $10 million in its
Affordable Housing Fund to be utilizes for affordable housing related activities.
Below Market Rate In -Lieu Fees
The City of Mountain View's Inclusionary Housing program allows developers to pay in -lieu
fees rather than provide BMR ownership units in most circumstances. The in -lieu fees are
calculated as three percent of the sales price of ownership units. City Staff reports that
2015 -2023 Housing Element 165
City of Mountain View
many developers opt to pay the in -lieu fee to comply with the inclusionary housing
program. In -lieu fees are used to support new subsidized housing projects affordable to
very low -, low -, and moderate - income households.
Housing Impact Fees
The City collects a housing impact fee on new non - residential projects. An updated nexus
study was prepared and Housing Impact Fees were increased on December 11, 2013. The
impact fee is assessed on a per square foot basis on new office, industrial, hotel, and retail
development in Mountain View. Housing impact fee revenues are used to construct,
acquire, rehabilitate, or subsidize very low -, low -, and moderate - income housing. The
update 2013 fees were set at $5.00 to $10.00 per square foot fee for Office /High
Tech /Industrial development and $1.27 to $2.53 per square foot for
Commercial /Retail /Entertainment and Hotel development. These fees are adjusted
annually based on the percentage change in the consumer price index for the San
Francisco - Oakland -San Jose area.
Rental Housing Impact Fees
A new Rental Housing Impact Fee was adopted by the City on December 11, 2013. The
fee was based on a nexus study that concluded new apartment development impacts
the demand for affordable housing in Mountain View. The fee was adopted to help
mitigate this impact. The Rental Housing Impact Fee will also be used for projects and
programs serving very low -, low- and moderate - income households. In 2013, the updated
fee was $10 per square foot of habitable space and is adjusted annually based on the
percentage change in the consumer price index for the San Francisco - Oakland -San Jose
area.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the LIHTC program has been used in combination with
City and other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing
for lower- income households. The program allows investors an annual tax credit over a ten -
year period, provided that the housing meets the following minimum low- income
occupancy requirements: 20% of the units must be affordable to households at 50% of area
median income (AMI) or 40% of the units must be affordable to those at 60% of AMI. The
total credit over the ten -year period has a present value equal to 70% of the qualified
construction and rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors
at a syndication value.
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program
The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program was created by the federal government,
but the program is locally administered by the County of Santa Clara to assist first -time
homebuyers in qualifying for a mortgage. The IRS allows eligible homebuyers with an MCC
to take 20% of their annual mortgage interest as a dollar- for - dollar tax credit against their
federal personal income tax. This enables first -time homebuyers to qualify for a larger
mortgage than otherwise possible, and thus can bring home ownership within reach.
166 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
Section 8 Assistance
The Section 8 program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very low -
income persons in need of affordable housing. Section 8 funds are administered by the
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County. This program offers a voucher that pays the
difference between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (i.e.,
30% of their income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost above
the payment standard but the tenant must pay the extra cost. It is estimated that between
700 and 800 vouchers are issued to families in Mountain View annually.
7.4 - Energy Conservation Opportunities
As shown below, a number of local initiatives are currently underway in the City of Mountain
View that relate to energy conservation and development.
7.4.1 - Mountain View sustainability Program
On August 27, 2007, the Mountain View City Council allocated $173,000 to initiate the
Environmental Sustainability Program. This created a fund for implementation of
sustainability projects, and funded a full -time Sustainability Coordinator for one year. It was
supplemented in the subsequent Fiscal Year with additional funds for the Environmental
Sustainability Program, including continuation of funding for the Sustainability Coordinator
Staff position. Initiation of the Environmental Sustainability Program was the precursor to the
efforts described below, including the creation of the Environmental Sustainability Task
Force and the Council Environmental Sustainability Committee; adoption of the
Environmental Sustainability Action Plan; and inclusion of sustainability as an important
component of the General Plan Update, including the creation of a Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Program.
7.4.2 - Environmental sustainability Task Force
In January 2008, the Mountain View City Council created an Environmental Sustainability
Task Force (ESTF), and in October 2008 it accepted the ESTF's Final Report. The ESTF was
tasked with creating recommendations for making Mountain View more environmentally
sustainable, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It was comprised of more than
65 volunteers, including local business representatives, technical experts, residents and City
Staff. The 1 1 ESTF working groups produced detailed recommendations in the Final Report,
in the following areas of sustainability:
Baseline and Measurements;
Adaptation to Climate Change;
Water Availability and Use;
Waste, Waste Reduction and Recycling;
2015 -2023 Housing Element 167
City of Mountain View
Energy and Renewable Energy;
Transit and Transportation;
Land Use Planning;
Built Environment;
Suburban Natural Ecosystems and Biodiversity;
Sustainable Quality of Life; and
Community Outreach and Green Business.
In all, the 1 1 topics in the ESTF Final Report included a total of 89 policy recommendations to
City Council. Since the ESTF Final Report was prepared by a diverse group of citizens, Staff
members and professionals offering pro bono help, the topics have varying levels of detail,
scenario development and City- specific data.
7.4.3 - Council Environmental Sustainability Committee
and Environmental Sustainability Action Plan
Upon receipt of the ESTF Final Report, the City Council appointed three council members to
the Council Environmental Sustainability Committee which was tasked with evaluating the
89 recommendations and prioritizing which to include in a draft Environmental Sustainability
Action Plan. With input from Staff, the Council Environmental Sustainability Committee
identified 25 of the ESTF's original 89 proposed actions as feasible priorities to be completed
over the next three fiscal years. These 25 priority actions are included in the committee's
Environmental Sustainability Action Plan, which received full Council approval in March
2009. Priority actions related to residential development in Mountain View follow below.
The Environmental Sustainability Committee is an ongoing group and effort within the City.
Green Building Standards. The City has developed green building standards for
residential buildings to meet the State - mandated greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction
requirements.
Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance. The City adopted the State model
ordinance for water conservation landscaping. The model ordinance requires major
new projects and re- landscaping projects to develop irrigation budgets and plans
consisting of water - efficient irrigation systems and drought - tolerant plants.
Staff Training on Green Building Practices. The City has instituted ongoing training for
City Staff on current green building practices.
The Housing Element programs under Goal 6 build on these actions. Additional City policies
related to energy conservation were being developed as part of the Mountain View
General Plan update,. These policies include efforts to improve pedestrian and bicycle
access, encourage transit ridership, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated
greenhouse gas emissions in the City, and cultivate land use patterns that encourage a
sustainable transportation system. These include compact design, connectivity, a mix of
uses, neighborhood centers, walkability, and a sense of place.
168 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
7.4.4 - Energy Upgrade Mountain View
Energy Upgrade Mountain View (EUMV) is a partnership among the City of Mountain View,
Acterra, and Home Energy Analytics intended to help residents save money on their energy
bills through low- and no -cost actions. EUMV is a free web - based, interactive program
designed to specifically help the City of Mountain View reduce its carbon footprint by
working with individual households. Eligible residents, both renters and owners, are able to
sign up through the EUMV Navigator online system which will then assist residents to analyze
four categories of energy use:
Base Load — energy continuously consumed in a home, 24 hours a day, such as the
energy used by a refrigerator or by electronic devices that stay plugged in.
• Variable Load — energy chosen to use in a home, such as turning on lights or
watching TV.
Heating and Cooling— seasonal energy used by a heating and cooling systems.
Swimming Pools— energy consumed primarily by a pool pump, pool heater or spa.
The EUMV Navigator will break down energy usage into each of these categories and
shows which are costing the homeowner the most. They will then receive recommendations
for lowering their energy use within all categories relevant to their home. Acterra
representatives are made available to assist homeowners when needed. To date EUMV has
helped Mountain View residents save almost $80,000 on their utility bills and eliminated
almost 17,500 Watts of phantom energy.
7.4.5 - Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC)
The Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC) is a local code that includes green
building measures for all new construction and some residential additions and
commercial /industrial tenant improvements. The green building requirements exceed the
state - mandated California Green Building Code (CALGreen) to meet larger sustainable
efforts of the City Council and the community of Mountain View.
The MVGBC references third -party rating systems LEED and GreenPoint Rated (GPR) and
requires projects to "meet the intent" of the referenced system at a certain level. Projects
are required to incorporate green building measures into their project design, construction
and building operations. No project is required to obtain formal certification from the U.S.
Green Building Council or Build It Green. Additionally, projects are required to exceed the
2008 Energy Code, by a specific percentage, and comply with the mandatory measures of
the CALGreen Code.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 169
City of Mountain View
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Mountain View 2015 -2023 Housing Element
170 2015 -2023 Housing Element
8. Progress Report
Section 65581 of the Government Code underscores the need for the periodic review of the
Housing Element. This process of review and evaluation permits local officials to evaluate
trends in the community and to initiate new programs that will further housing goals. The
City established five objectives to be achieved in the previous planning period. For each
objective, housing programs were established to assist the City in realizing their objectives.
Table 8 -1 provides a brief description of the housing programs outlined in the previous
Element, the program's objective and the progress /status of the program. In providing the
status of the program the table will indicate whether the program will be carried into the
next planning period.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 171
City of Mountain View
Table 8 -1: 2007 -2014 Housing Accomplishments
1.1 - Below- Market -Rate Progress and Effectiveness: From 2007 to 2013, the City utilized roughly $30
Program
million in housing fund expenditures toward the development of four new
residential projects with affordability covenants. These projects include:
Objective: Use BMR in lieu
• Paulson Park, a 104 unit senior community completed in 2008;
fees to support the
• Franklin Street Apartments, a 51 -unit complex for families completed
development of new
in 2013;
subsidized housing serving
• 819 North Rengstorff Avenue, 49 workforce studio units for very low-
lower-income households.
and extremely low-income residents estimated to be complete in
Provide 150 newsubsidized
2015;
units utilizing fees collected
• First Community Housing, a 27 studio unit project for the
into the Housing Fund. No
developmentally disabled estimated to be complete in 2015.
later than 2013, evaluate
These four projects were assisted by the City's Affordable Housing Fund
and, if necessary, update
which uses BMR In -Lieu funds, Housing Impact Fees, Rental Housing Impact
the Below Market Rate
Fees, CDBG and HOME funds, and previously Revitalization Set -Aside funds
Housing Ordinance and
to leverage additional funding for the construction and rehabilitation of
Guidelines.
affordable housing. In total, since 2007, the City has provided funding
critical to support the development of approximately 231 affordable units.
In addition to the projects that opted to pay the developers in -lieu fee,
several developments have been approved where the developer has
voluntarily provided BMR rental units. These projects include:
• Madera Apartments (7 units)
• 865 East El Camino Real (4 units)
• 1720 -1730 West El Camino Real (5 units)
• 2650 West El Camino Real (8 units)
• 1984 El Camino Real (7 units)
During the planning period, the approval of these four projects has
committed the developers to the creation of 24 new affordable units
within market rate projects.
As of July 2013 the City had roughly $9,200,000 in their Affordable Housing
Fund available to provide additional subsidized housing units or assist with
other housing initiatives.
Appropriateness: Throughout the planning period, the City has continued
to implement the BMR program, and collects BMR in -lieu fees to support
the development and rehabilitation of affordable housing. This program is
integral to the development of future housing g, especially given the loss
of redevelopment set -aside funds. The City will continue to enforce the
BMR Program to the best of their ability, in light of the impacts from the
Palmer /Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles case. As the City has a
number of funding sources for their Affordable Housing Fund, this program
will be consolidated with Programs 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of the 2007 -2014
Housing Plan and will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as
Program 1.1.
172 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
1.2 - Housing Impact Fees
Progress and Effectiveness: The City currently collects Housing Impact Fees
and Rental Housing Impact Fees to address the impact on the demand for
Objective: Staff estimates a
affordable housing, when new non - residential uses and market -rate
maximum potential of $5
apartments are developed. Prior to 2012, the amount of Housing Impact
million of Housing Impact
Fees collected was small, roughly $500,000; however in FY 2012 -2013 the
Fee funds may be collected
City collected roughly $2.3 million in Housing Impact Fees as development
in upcoming years,
activities increased in the City. In addition, roughly $1 million was also
dependant on pipeline
collected through the Rental Housing Impact Fee, which was established
projects.
December 11, 2012.
and contributions to the
As reported for Program 1.1, the City utilized roughly $30 million in housing
Santa Clara County Housing
fund expenditures toward the development of four new residential
Trust Fund.
projects with affordability covenants on 231 units. The City's housing fund
includes funds collected from the Housing Impact Fee and Rental Housing
Impact Fee.
Appropriateness: Throughout the planning period the City has continued
to implement and collect a Housing Impact Fee and Rental Housing
Impact Fee to support the development and rehabilitation of affordable
housing. This program is integral to the development of future housing
especially given the loss of redevelopment set -aside funds. As the City has
a number of funding sources for their Housing Fund, this program will be
consolidated Wfh Programs 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan
and will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.1.
1.3 - Financial Support for Progress and Effectiveness: As reported for Program 1.1, the City utilized
Subsidized Housing
roughly $30 million in housing fund expenditures toward the development
of four new residential projects with affordability covenants on 231 units.
Objective: Continue to
These four projects were completed through developer partnerships with
provide financial support to
the City typically providing close to half the necessary funding for the
local subsidized housing
project. The City's housing fund includes funds collected from a variety of
developments using housing
sources including BMR in -lieu fees and Housing Impact Fees.
funds such as BMR In -Lieu
Fees, Housing Impact Fees,
In addition to funding new housing construction the City also contributed
Revitalization District funds,
on an annual basis roughly $150,000 to the Santa Clara Housing Trust Fund.
and contributions to the
Santa Clara County Housing
Appropriateness: Throughout the planning period the City has continued
Trust Fund.
to provide financial support to local subsidized housing developments
using public funds including BMR In -Lieu Fees, Housing Impact Fees, and
Revitalization District funds. This program is integral to the development of
future housing especially given the loss of Revitalization District funds. As
this program has the same intent as Programs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of the 2007-
2014 Housing Plan it will be combined and included in the 2015 -2023
Housing Plan as Program 1.1.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 173
City of Mountain View
1.4 - Focus on Lower-
Progress and Effectiveness: As reported for Programs 1.1 and 1.2, the City's
Income Segments
Housing Fund is intended to fund construction, rehabilitation, or assistance
for lower income housing. During the planning period, the City worked Wfh
Objective: Allocate most of
non - profit housing developers to construct and get entitlements for the
the City's affordable
following projects:
housing funds for households
• Paulson Park, a 104 unit senior community completed in 2008;
earning less than 80 percent
• Franklin Street Apartments, a 51 unit complex for families completed
of the County median
in 2013;
income, Wfh an emphasis
• 819 North Rengsforff Avenue, 49 workforce studio units for very low-
on very low and extremely
and extremely low-income residents estimated to be complete in
low-income households.
2015;
serving extremely low
• First Community Housing, a 27 studio unit project for the
income households.
developmentally disabled estimated to be complete in 2015.
In 2011, the City conducted a NOFA process which resulted in the
entitlement of two studio projects. As reported previously, the City
partnered Wfh ROEM Development Corporation and Eden Housing to
construct 49 workforce studios at 819 N. Rengsforff Avenue and has
approved 26 studios for the developmentally disabled in partnership with
First Community Housing. Both projects serve residents that are very low or
extremely low-income.
Appropriateness: As extremely low-income households are a particularly
vulnerable resident group, the City will maintain a program that
specifically targets their specific needs. This program will be continued and
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.2.
174 2015 -2023 Housing Element
Appropriateness: Throughout the planning period, the City focused on
providing a variety of housing opportunities including units for the elderly,
families, the developmentally disabled, extremely low-income residents,
and those at -risk of becoming homeless. To ensure clarity, this program will
be consolidated with Programs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the 2007 -2014 Housing
Plan and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.1.
1.5 - Extremely Low - Income
Progress and Effectiveness: During the 2007 -2014 planning period, the City
Housing
committed to conducting a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process
every three to five years as local housing funds become available to solicit
Objective: Encourage
housing proposals for very -low and extremely low-income households and
development of housing
encourage developers to consider acquisition of identified housing sites for
serving extremely low
their proposals.
income households.
In 2011, the City conducted a NOFA process which resulted in the
entitlement of two studio projects. As reported previously, the City
partnered Wfh ROEM Development Corporation and Eden Housing to
construct 49 workforce studios at 819 N. Rengsforff Avenue and has
approved 26 studios for the developmentally disabled in partnership with
First Community Housing. Both projects serve residents that are very low or
extremely low-income.
Appropriateness: As extremely low-income households are a particularly
vulnerable resident group, the City will maintain a program that
specifically targets their specific needs. This program will be continued and
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.2.
174 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
1.6 - Partnerships with
Progress and Effectiveness: During the planning period, the City worked
Subsidized Housing
with non - profit housing developers to construct the following projects:
Developers
• Paulson Park, a 104 unit senior community completed in 2008;
• Franklin Street Apartments, a 51 unit complex for families completed
Objective: Collaborate with
in 2013;
subsidized housing
• 819 North Rengsforff Avenue, 49 workforce studio units for very low-
developers to optimize their
and extremely low-income residents estimated to be complete in
eligibility for financing under
2015;
various federal, State,
• First Community Housing, a 27 studio unit project for the
County and private
developmentally disabled estimated to be complete in 2015.
programs.
In 2012, the City coordinated with First Community Housing on a 27 -unit
studios project for developmentally disabled adults and with ROEM
Development Corporation and Eden Housing on a 49 -unit workforce
studios project. City Staff and the City Council worked closely with these
developers on funding strategies to make these projects highly
competitive for the 9 percent fax credit allocation. In addition, the Franklin
Street Family Apartments utilized 4 percent fax credits. The Mountain View
City Council was highly supportive and provided substantial base funding
to ensure that these projects were attractive to receive additional outside
funding.
Appropriateness: The City of Mountain View has been strategic and
fortunate to have success collecting fees for their housing fund. The City
has used these funds to leverage various federal, State, County and
private funding to maximize the development of affordable units. For the
upcoming planning period the City will continue to work with developers
to leverage outside funding sources and will provide additional resources,
such as permitting assistance and land resources as outlined in Programs
1.7 and 1.10 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan. This program will be continued
and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.3.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 175
City of Mountain View
1.7 - Low- and Moderate -
Income Subsidized
Ownership Housing
Objective: Work with
developers of subsidized
ownership housing to
promote ownership
opportunities for low and
moderate - income
households by providing
technical assistance
through the entitlement
process and making funding
available for Council
approved subsidized
housing projects.
1.8 - Update Residential
Densities in General Plan
Objective: Use the General
Plan Update opportunity to
target key sites; near transit
and existing services for
higher development that
allows housing and/ or
mixed use.
Progress and Effectiveness: During the previous planning period, the City
reserved funding for a Silicon Valley Habitat for Humanity project as one of
three NOFA projects. City Staff worked Wfh Habitat to develop their
application and complete an historic evaluation of the potential property.
Unfortunately, during the planning process, Silicon Valley Habitat merged
Wfh the East Bay Habitat group and the new Board decided not to pursue
the project due to high development costs.
While the Habitat project was not successfully completed, as mentioned
previously, four other development projects with affordable units have
been either constructed or approved. City Staff worked closely with these
developers on funding strategies to make these projects highly
competitive for the 4% and 9% fax credit allocations, and throughout the
entitlement process.
In FY 2013 -2014, Habitat for Humanity applied for $525,000 in CDBG funds
to convert three market rate condominiums to affordable condominium
units for families. Their application was approved, but changing market
conditions made if difficult to implement their proposed concept.
Appropriateness: The City recognizes that the entitlement process is critical
to the development of new affordable units. Any delay can create new
hurdles or reduce the viability of the project. For the upcoming planning
period the City will continue to assist developers through the entitlement
process reducing time and funds spent during the planning process. This
program will be combined Wfh Programs 1.6 and 1.10 of the 2007 -2014
Housing Plan and continued in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.3.
Progress and Effectiveness: The City's recently approved 2030 General Plan
includes new higher residential densities for specific areas near transit and
existing services, as well as the City's Priority Development Areas. The
General Plan includes six residential designations and six mixed use
designations. Of the new mixed use land use designations, multi - family
residential is allowed in five. Generally, densities in the residential land use
designations range from 1 -6 du /ac for the low density residential
designation to 36 -80 du /ac for the high density residential designation.
Within the mixed use land use designations, densities range from 25 du /ac
to 70 du /ac.
Appropriateness: As this program was completed if will not be included in
the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan. The City will continue evaluate consistency
between the General Plan and Zoning Code and ensure that adequate
sites are available to accommodate the RHNA through other programs.
176 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
1.9 - Update Zoning Progress and Effectiveness: To ensure consistency the Zoning Code update
Ordinance action item is planned following updates to major Precise Plans including
the San Antonio, El Camino Real and North Bayshore areas. These Plans
Objective: Consistency are anticipated to be complete in 2014 and are major residential
between General Plan and development areas.
Zoning Ordinance
2015 -2023 Housing Element 177
Appropriateness: As this program has yet to be completed it will be
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.4.
1.10 - City -Owned Land
Progress and Effectiveness: During the 2007 -2014 planning period, the City
was able to utilize City owned land for the Franklin Street Family
Objective: Consider using
Apartments. Completed in 2013, the 51 -unit project includes 1 -3 bedroom
available City -owned
units for very low and extremely low-income families.
properties as subsidized
housing sites; as sites are
Additionally, City Council policy requires that City property be considered
made available by the
for the development of subsidized housing any time the Council considers
Council advertise these sites
the disposition of City owned land. Since the Franklin Street Apartments
to affordable housing
were developed, no properties have been deemed appropriate for
developers.
residential development.
Appropriateness: The City recognizes that land costs can serve as a
constraint to the development of affordable housing and will attempt to
provide City owned land when feasible and appropriate. For the
upcoming planning period the City will continue to assist developers and
will combine this program Wfh Programs 1.6 and 1.17 of the 2007 -2014
Housing Plan to create a comprehensive approach to providing
developer assistance. This program is included in the 2015 -2023 Housing
Plan as Program 1.3.
1.11 - Lot Consolidation
Progress and Effectiveness: To communicate the City's policy on and
opportunities for lot consolidation, information has been posted and
Objective: The City will
updated on the City's websife. Staff will continue to work with applicants
continue to encourage lot
on a case -by -case basis at no cost to encourage lot consolidation. The
consolidation when smaller,
following projects are either currently going through the approval process
underutilized parcels
or have been recently approved that included lot consolidation: 2650 and
adjacent to each of her are
2656 El Camino Real; 1730 and 1720 El Camino Real; and 865 and 881 El
redeveloped. Staff will work
Camino Real.
Wfh applicants on a
preliminary basis for no cost
Appropriateness: The City recognizes that lot consolidation allows for larger
prior to application
cohesive projects which can allow for higher densities and the inclusion of
submittal.
affordable units. The City will continue to work toward the creation of a
formal process and in the interim will assist developers at no cost early in
the planning process to achieve lot consolidation. This program will be
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.5.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 177
City of Mountain View
1.12 - Underutilized Sites Progress and Effectiveness: During the planning period, the City has
Appropriateness: As Mountain View is largely a built -out community, City
Staff recognizes that the majority of new development will occur through
redevelopment of underutilized sites and likely as mixed use projects to
address the requirements of AB32 and S13375. Staff also understands that
there is an opportunity to guide new growth info appropriate areas by
meeting with developers and identifying sites in the Housing Element for
lower income and market rate units. This program will be combined with
Program 1.13 and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.6.
1.13 - Mixed -Use Sites
strategically worked Wfh developers to focus on the redevelopment of
Objective: The City will
underutilized sites. The following project have recently been approved or
proactively encourage the
submitted for approval: 2650 and 2656 El Camino Real; 100 Moffett
development of
Boulevard, 135 Franklin Street, 1720 and 1730 El Camino Real; and 115
underutilized zoned sites.
Evandale. City Staff continues to promote the redevelopment of
underutilized sites through informal meetings with developers and has
identified appropriate sites in the Housing Resources section to
accommodate the development of a variety of housing types.
Appropriateness: As Mountain View is largely a built -out community, City
Staff recognizes that the majority of new development will occur through
redevelopment of underutilized sites and likely as mixed use projects to
address the requirements of AB32 and S13375. Staff also understands that
there is an opportunity to guide new growth info appropriate areas by
meeting with developers and identifying sites in the Housing Element for
lower income and market rate units. This program will be combined with
Program 1.13 and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.6.
1.13 - Mixed -Use Sites
Progress and Effectiveness: During the planning period, the City has
worked with developers to focus on the redevelopment of underutilized
Objective: Encourage the
sites with mixed use projects. These projects primarily occur in the CRA
development of mixed -use
zoning district and the Downtown Precise Plan area, including 1984 El
sites.
Camino Real and 2650 and 2656 El Camino Real. In addition the City is in
the process of preparing the El Camino Real Precise Plan which will allow
for the development of mixed use projects at higher densities to
implement the 2030 General Plan.
The City has also specifically had success with the development of
affordable units in mixed -use projects as shown by a recent project
completed by ROEM and Eden Housing. The project located at 819 N.
Rengsforff Avenue includes 49 affordable workforce studios with 1,600
square feet of commercial space. The developers submitted for building
permits in July 2013 and construction is expected to be complete by
February 2015.
To encourage new mixed use development the City has posted the
current Housing Element which includes detailed maps with listings of
underutilized lots. The City has continued to monitor the development of
underutilized sites and has seen a strong demand for the development of
sites as mixed use as the economy continues to improve.
Appropriateness: As Mountain View is largely a built -out community, City
Staff recognizes that the majority of new development will occur through
redevelopment of underutilized sites and likely as mixed use projects to
address the requirements of AB32 and S13375. Staff also understands that
there is an opportunity to guide new growth info appropriate areas by
meeting with developers and identifying sites in the Housing Element for
lower income and market rate units. This program will be combined with
Program 1.12 and 1.17 and will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan
as Program 1.6.
178 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
1.14 - Density Bonus
Progress and Effectiveness: Due to funding reductions and Staff cutbacks
the City was unable to complete the Zoning Code amendments in the
Objective: Update the City's
time specified in the Housing Plan. In December 2013, the City updated
Code to be consistent with
the density bonus to be consistent with State law.
the State Density Bonus Law.
construct at densities above what is allowed by the Municipal Code. This
Use the updated density
During the planning period, a density bonus was granted to allow a 27 -unit
bonus provisions to facilitate
residential development consisting of 26 studio units for high functioning
the development of
developmentally disabled individuals and a two- bedroom manager unit,
subsidized housing.
and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove 2 Heritage frees, to
replace a multi - family apartment complex, on a 0.48 -acre site, located on
Objective: Support
the south side of El Camino Real between Rich Avenue and Mountain
legislation to continue,
View Avenue in the CRA (Commercial /Residential Arterial) District.
Appropriateness: The City will continue to work with developers to address
use transitions through the site plan review process and will suggest
mitigation when necessary to provide adequate transitions between
higher and lower density uses. This program will be included in the 2015-
2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.9.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 179
Appropriateness: As the City has completed the required amendments,
this program will be modified to provide information and promote its
application to qualified housing developers. This program is essential to the
development of affordable units, as if allows developers the flexibility to
construct at densities above what is allowed by the Municipal Code. This
program will be modified and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as
Program 1.7.
1.15 - Federal and State
Progress and Effectiveness: The City continuously monitors Federal and
Policy Initiatives
State legislation and is supportive of efforts that involve financing options
for affordable housing. This is an ongoing effort.
Objective: Support
legislation to continue,
Appropriateness: This program will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing
expand, or develop
Plan and Program 1.8.
financing programs for
subsidized housing
programs.
1.16 - Project Design and
Progress and Effectiveness: As many recent housing projects approved by
Integration
the City have proposed higher density development on underutilized sites,
City Staff recognizes that if is critical to provide adequate transitions to
Objective: Work with
existing land uses, particularly single - family neighborhoods. Staff has
developers and the
worked with developers on the following projects providing appropriate
community to ensure new
transitions (i.e. building heights and setbacks) with surrounding
projects provide
neighborhoods: 2650 and 2656 El Camino Real, 865 and 881 El Camino
appropriate transitions with
Real and 1720 and 1730 El Camino Real. All three projects include densities
existing buildings and
around 60 dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the 2030 General
neighborhoods.
Plan, but in some instances adjacent to lower density uses.
Appropriateness: The City will continue to work with developers to address
use transitions through the site plan review process and will suggest
mitigation when necessary to provide adequate transitions between
higher and lower density uses. This program will be included in the 2015-
2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.9.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 179
City of Mountain View
1.17 -Housing in CRA Zoning Progress and Effectiveness: As mentioned previously, the City has worked
District and Downtown Areas closely with developers to focus on the redevelopment of underutilized
To encourage higher density projects in appropriate areas of the City, Staff
posts the current Housing Element which includes detailed maps with
listings of underutilized lots. The City is continuously working with developers
to maximize density and affordability when possible and has seen a strong
demand for the development of sites as mixed use as the economy
continues to improve.
Appropriateness: As Mountain View is largely a built -out community, City
Staff recognizes that the majority of new development will occur through
redevelopment of underutilized sites and likely as higher density, mixed use
projects to address the requirements of AB32 and S13375. Staff also
understands that there is an opportunity to guide new growth info
appropriate areas by meeting with developers and identifying sites in the
Housing Element for lower income and market rate units. This program will
be combined with Program 1.12 and 1.13 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan
and will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.6.
1.18 - Innovative Housing Progress and Effectiveness: In 2012, the Mountain View City Council
Programs
sites with housing within mixed use projects within the CRA zoning district
Objective: Continue to
and the Downtown Precise Plan areas. These projects include, but are not
allow higher- density
limited to: 1984 El Camino Real, 2650 and 2656 El Camino Real, 1720 EL
residential and mixed -use
Camino Real, 1581 El Camino Real, 865 El Camino Real all zoned CRA and
development in the
605 Castro Street in the Downtown Precise Plan area.
Commercial/Residenfial-
convenient walkable downtown location. The City expects that a number
Arferial zoning district and in
The City strongly supports well - planned higher density developments in the
the Downtown Precise Plan.
appropriate areas such as the CRA and Downtown Precise Plan areas.
Examples of the densities recently approved by City Council include 865
and 881 El Camino Real at 65 units /acre (entitled); 1720 and 1730 El
Camino Real at 67 units /acre (approval process stage); and 455 West
Evelyn at 60 units /acre (under construction).
To encourage higher density projects in appropriate areas of the City, Staff
posts the current Housing Element which includes detailed maps with
listings of underutilized lots. The City is continuously working with developers
to maximize density and affordability when possible and has seen a strong
demand for the development of sites as mixed use as the economy
continues to improve.
Appropriateness: As Mountain View is largely a built -out community, City
Staff recognizes that the majority of new development will occur through
redevelopment of underutilized sites and likely as higher density, mixed use
projects to address the requirements of AB32 and S13375. Staff also
understands that there is an opportunity to guide new growth info
appropriate areas by meeting with developers and identifying sites in the
Housing Element for lower income and market rate units. This program will
be combined with Program 1.12 and 1.13 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan
and will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 1.6.
1.18 - Innovative Housing Progress and Effectiveness: In 2012, the Mountain View City Council
Programs
approved a 19 -unit, three -story, co- housing development project over an
underground garage which included moving an existing historic home on-
Objective: Continue to
site. The project located at 445 Calderon Avenue is marketed as a new
encourage innovative
"old- fashioned" neighborhood of energy- efficient condominiums and
housing programs such as
common facilities, homes that promote collaboration and community, in a
co- housing, shared housing,
convenient walkable downtown location. The City expects that a number
and infergenerafional
of the units will be inhabited by senior residents although the project is not
housing.
age- restricted. To approve the project the City also approved a density
bonus to allow a BMR unit to be located in the historic home on -site.
Appropriateness: As the population of the City changes, Mountain View
recognizes that new housing options are needed whether to allow seniors
to age in place, and to create new types of living facilities like co- housing.
This program will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program
1.10.
180 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
1.19 - Larger Family Housing
Progress and Effectiveness: In 2007, the City conducted an RFP process for
the development of a property in the downtown wifh affordable family
Objective: Encourage
housing. Proposed projects were required to include larger units for
subsidized and market rate
families. As a result, the Franklin Street Apartments, located at 135 Franklin
housing developers to
Avenue, were constructed, including 32 two- bedroom units and 15 three -
provide units that serve
bedroom units.
large families as part of their
projects. When the City
Appropriateness: To encourage future development of large units, the City
approves and funds
will continue to require that at least 25 percent of all units in a family
subsidized family housing,
development be 3 bedrooms, if they are assisted by City funds. This
ensure that at least 25
program will be combined wifh Program 6.1 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan
percent of the units are 3-
and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program 1.11.
bedrooms or more to
accommodate large
families.
1.20 - Manufactured
Progress and Effectiveness: Section A 26.12.040 of the Municipal Code
Housing
allows manufactured housing in all residential zones. During the planning
period, the City did not receive an application for the siting of a
Objective: Continue to
manufactured housing unit.
allow manufactured
housing in all residential
Appropriateness: The Cify will continue to allow manufactured housing as
zones.
identified in Section A 26.12.040 of the Municipal Code. This program will
be combined wifh Programs 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan
which address the approval and preservation of mobile homes and
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 3.7.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 181
City of Mountain View
2.1 - First Time Homebuyer Progress and Effectiveness: The City did not implement a First Time
Program Homebuyer program; however the City makes contributions to the Housing
Trust Silicon Valley which offers homebuyer assistance to local residents.
Objective: Explore the
feasibility of implementing a
first -time homebuyer's down
Appropriateness: As homebuyer assistance is available through the
payment assistance
Housing Trust Silicon Valley, this program will not be included in the 2015 -
2023 Housing Plan.
program.
2.2 - Other Buyer Assistance
Progress and Effectiveness: While a city- operated First Time Homebuyer
Programs
program was not established, the City does contribute $150,000 on an
annual basis to the Housing Trust Silicon Valley. A portion of the City's funds
Objective: Support the
are earmarked for their second mortgage program.
Santa Clara County Housing
Trust Fund second mortgage
program and other federal,
Appropriateness: The City will continue to partner with the Housing Trust
State and local programs
Silicon Valley, offering financial support and advertising available
that enable moderate-
programs to residents living in the City. This program will be included in the
income households to
2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 2.1.
purchase homes.
2.3 - BMR Program
Progress and Effectiveness: For BMR units, City has prioritized funding and
Preferences
housing assistance for public safety workers, teachers, and finally persons
who either work or live within Mountain View. The City notices the
Objective: Continue to
availability of BMR units through ads in the local paper, articles in The View,
support the City's BMR
multilingual outreach, signs and information posted on the websife,
program to give priority to
outreach through churches and other non - profit organizations, and web
City of Mountain View
announcements.
public safety workers,
Mountain View public
school teachers, and
Appropriateness: Recognizing the importance of serving existing residents
persons who live or work in
and employees, the City will continue to prioritize assistance for these
Mountain View for housing
groups by focusing marketing efforts as units or funding become available.
units supplied through the
As this program is similar to Programs 2.5 and 2.6 in the 2007 -2014 Housing
Plan, they will be combined and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as
program.
Program 2.2.
2.4 - City Employee Housing
Progress and Effectiveness: Initiated by City Council in 2010, the City has
Loan Program
an established program offering down payment assistance to City
employees with the goal of issuing 2 loans per year. Unfortunately, no
Objective: Develop and
applications were received during the planning period.
implement the City's low-
interest home loan program
that serves City employees.
Appropriateness: During the upcoming planning period, Housing Staff
The City will use Below
expects this program to be discontinued. This program will not be included
Market Rafe (BMR) Housing
in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan.
funds to support this
program.
182 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
2.5 - Outreach to Residents
Progress and Effectiveness: Mountain View currently has an Affirmative
and Workers
Marketing Policy for the sale or lease of all affordable units in single- and
multi - family developments and uses this process for all subsidized projects
Objective: Continue to
and BMR units. The marketing plan requires that all owners of single- and
conduct outreach efforts to
multi - family developments undertake comprehensive outreach measures,
identify and assist Mountain
including but not limited to bilingual flyers, brochures, and
View residents and workers
announcements, distribution, and notification of upcoming sale or lease
who may be eligible for
opportunities in typically underserved areas.
subsidized housing
Mountain View. When appropriate, flyers were sent to teachers working in
developments and
programs, including seniors
The City has also noticed the availability of units through ads in the local
and other special needs
paper, articles in The View, multilingual outreach, signs, and information
communities.
posted on the site, outreach through churches and other non - profit
organizations representing
teachers, public safety
organizations, and web announcements.
Appropriateness: Though the MCC program is limited, it does provide an
opportunity for lower- income households to become first -time home
buyers. As the City has little control over howthe County administers their
programs, this program will be combined into a County partnership
program in which the City will provide information and notice the
availability of County housing programs. This program will be modified, but
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 2.4.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 183
Appropriateness: Recognizing the importance of serving essential
employees providing key public services, the City will continue to prioritize
assistance for these groups, by focusing marketing efforts as affordable
units or funding become available. As this program is similar to Programs
2.3 and 2.6 in the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan, they will be combined and
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 2.2.
2.6 - Partnerships with Other
Progress and Effectiveness: The City has prioritized funding and housing
Local Agencies
assistance for subsidized housing for persons who either work or live within
Mountain View. When appropriate, flyers were sent to teachers working in
Objective: Create outreach
school districts serving Mountain Viewto announce the availability of
partnerships with Mountain
subsided units.
View school districts and
organizations representing
teachers, public safety
Appropriateness: Recognizing the importance of serving essential service
personnel, and other
providers, such as teachers or public safety workers, the City will continue
qualified employees to
to prioritize assistance for these groups by focusing marketing efforts as
increase awareness of
units or funding become available. This program will be included in the
subsidized housing
2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 2.2.
programs.
2.7 - Mortgage Revenue
Progress and Effectiveness: The City currently provides information on the
Bonds and MCCs
County program on their website and provides contact information for the
appropriate representative. As funding sources for the County were
Objective: Continue to refer
impacted during the planning period, it is unclear how active or effective
interested parties to County
the program has been.
who administers program
Appropriateness: Though the MCC program is limited, it does provide an
opportunity for lower- income households to become first -time home
buyers. As the City has little control over howthe County administers their
programs, this program will be combined into a County partnership
program in which the City will provide information and notice the
availability of County housing programs. This program will be modified, but
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 2.4.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 183
City of Mountain View
2.8 -Tenant Relocation
Assistance Program
Objective: Implement the
Tenant Relocation
Assistance Ordinance
adopted by Council,
requiring developers fo
provide relocation
assistance fo very low-
income fenanfs who are
displaced by
redevelopment or
condominium conversion
projects.
Progress and Effectiveness: In 2009, the City Council approved a Tenant
Relocation Assistance Ordinance requiring developers fo pay for
relocation assistance fo very low or extremely low-income households
displaced by new development. During the planning period, this
Ordinance was utilized fo assisf wifh the relocation of about 5 families.
Appropriateness: The Cify will continue fo implement and update the
Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance during the upcoming planning
period. This program will be modified, but included in the 2015 -2023
Housing Plan as Program 2.5.
184 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
3.1 - Multi- family Housing Progress and Effectiveness: On an annual basis the City Fire Marshal
Inspection Program
conducts inspections of multi - family rental units throughout the City. Staff is
Rehabilitation
also available to address complaints as they are reported. A review and
Objective: Continue the
analysis of the program's effectiveness will be complete in 2014.
home inspection program
of subsidized units. The City has used CDBG and HOME funds to
and conduct an analysis of
it once during the Housing
Appropriateness: This program will increase in its effectiveness in the future
Element 2007 -2014 planning
as the age of the housing stock increases. The City will continue to use this
period to review its
program to regulate property maintenance and compliance Wfh the
effectiveness.
California Building Code and the City's Municipal Code. This program will
deteriorating and
neglected apartment
be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program 3.2.
3.2 - Opportunities for
Progress and Effectiveness: The City had a competitive NOFA process for
Rehabilitation
acquisition and rehabilitation projects; however no proposals were
received. Consequently, the City has focused funding on new construction
Objective: Work with
of subsidized units. The City has used CDBG and HOME funds to
subsidized housing
rehabilitate existing subsidized projects and has recently approved State
developers to examine the
bond issuance for a major rehabilitation of the Sierra Vista I family
feasibility of purchasing and
apartments.
rehabilitating seriously
efficiency rehabilitation activities at two subsidized complexes in Mountain
deteriorating and
neglected apartment
Appropriateness: The City will continue to look for opportunities to partner
buildings.
with affordable housing developers to complete a substantial
rehabilitation. Currently, CDBG and HOME funding for this program is
limited; however the City recognizes the importance of maintaining this
program, which will aI low fhem to easily administer funds as they become
available. The City will continue to discuss the potential for conversion of
units from market rate to affordable Wfh housing developers, whenever
possible to identify future opportunities. This program will be included in the
2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program 3.3.
3.3 - Home Repair
Progress and Effectiveness: During the planning period, the City
Assistance
contracted with the Community Services Agency to provide minor home
repairs and access improvements to lower income households. Through
Objective: Continue to
the Home Repair and Home Access Program the City provides assistance
provide funding for home
to low-income homeowners and disabled persons Wfh minor home repairs
repair services, such as the
and modifications that make their units livable and /or accessible. In 2012,
Minor Home Repair and
the City approved the use of CDBG and HOME funds to support energy -
Home Access Program to
efficiency rehabilitation activities at two subsidized complexes in Mountain
support lower- income
View to maintain and extend the useful life of 106 units affordable to very
households.
low-income households: San Veron Park (32 family rental units) and
Maryce Freelen Place (74 family rental units) apartment complexes. The
City also provided oversight on green rehabilitation activities that were in
progress at The Fountains (124 very low and low-income senior units).
Appropriateness: For the upcoming planning period, the City will continue
to part ner with an agency to provide minor home repairs and access
improvements to lower income households. This program will be included
in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program 3.4.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 185
City of Mountain View
3.4 - Soft Story Buildings Progress and Effectiveness: Due to funding reductions and Staff cutbacks
the City was unable to complete a study to evaluate the policy options,
Objective: Conduct a study opportunities, and constraints for retrofitting soft -story buildings in the
that evaluates the City's fimeframe specified. This action is expected to occur in the FY 2014 -2015.
policy options, opportunities,
and constraints for Appropriateness: This program will not be included in the 2015 -2023
retrofitting soft -story Housing Element. If necessary the City will create a new program to
buildings in Mountain View.
address the findings of the report.
3.5 - Subsidized Housing
Maintenance
Objective: Ensure that City -
subsidized housing projects
are well maintained.
Progress and Effectiveness: The City annually monitors subsided housing
projects, and each development is required to be maintained through
regulatory and loan agreements. When applicable, the City addresses
complaints on a case -by -case basis through contact with the property
management Staff. Additionally, when CDBG and HOME funds are
available the City provides financial support for the rehabilitation of
affordable housing projects.
In the previous decade, the City has provided Sierra Vista Apartments with
$355,000 in CDBG funding to rehabilitate the property in two separate loan
agreements. The Sierra Vista Apartment complex is a 34 -unit development
located at 1909 Hackett Avenue that is affordable to low and very low
income residents. The first loan from the City of $100,000 included an
agreement that is set to terminate in September 2019 and a second loan
of $255,000 included an affordability agreement that will terminate in
January 2032.
As the Sierra Vista I development is now 39 years old and no major
upgrades have occurred since its development, the City has established a
partnership with Charities Housing to leverage $11 million in fax credits and
bonds to complete a substantial rehabilitation. Amendments to the
existing two affordability agreements will extend the affordability
covenants until 2070.
Appropriateness: To preserve and encourage affordable housing in the
City, Mountain View recognizes the importance of maintaining existing
projects. The City will continue to address complaints as they are reported
and will utilize CDBG or HOME funds when they are available to assist with
more major rehabilitations. This program will be included in the 2015 -2023
Housing Plan as Program 3.3.
186 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
3.6 - Condominium
Progress and Effectiveness: The City continues to regulate condominium
Conversions
conversions on a project -by- project basis per the City's Municipal Code.
Currently, the City prohibits conversion of apartments to condominiums if
Objective: Continue to
the number of apartments cifywide falls below 15,373 units. In March 2014,
regulate conversions of
there were an estimated 15,269 apartments in the City. With the number of
rental multi - family units to
development applications under review, it is possible that 15,373 threshold
condominiums per the
will be surpassed by the end of the year. If and when, that occurs the City
Municipal Code (Chapfer
will consider conversions on a case -by -case basis.
28, Arficle VIII).
Appropriateness: The City will continue to regulate condominium
conversions on a project -by- project basis per the City's Municipal Code.
This program will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program
3.5.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 187
City of Mountain View
4.1 - Mobile Home Park Progress and Effectiveness: The 2030 General Plan includes a specific
Land Use Category "Mobile Horne Park" land use category, to assist with the preservation of
the City's existing mobile home parks.
Objective: Retain "Mobile
Home Park" as a separate Appropriateness: The City will continue to allow and preserve mobile
residential land use homes as identified in the General Plan and Zoning maps. This program will
category on the General be combined with Programs 1.19 and 4.2 to cohesively address
Plan land use map. manufactured housing and mobile home conversion and included in the
2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 3.7.
4.2 - Conversion Impact Progress and Effectiveness: Proposals to modify or eliminate a mobile
Report
home park from a property would require a General Plan amendment,
Zoning amendment and Mobile Home Park Conversion Impact Report.
Objective: Require a
Consequently, proposals to displace a mobile home park would require
conversion impact report
extensive analysis and multiple review and approval processes.
before approving a mobile
websife. For the 2014 -2021 Housing Plan this program will be continued but
home park conversion.
Appropriateness: The City will continue to allow and preserve mobile
4.4 - Rehabilitation to
homes as identified in the General Plan and the Municipal Code. This
Subsidized Affordable
program will be combined with Programs 1.19 and 4.1 to cohesively
Housing
address manufactured housing and mobile home conversion and
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 3.7.
4.3 - Preservation of
Progress and Effectiveness: As shown in Table 3.19 of the 2007 -2014 Housing
Subsidized Affordable
Element, the City had no affordable housing units at risk of conversion
Housing Stock
during the planning period.
Objective: Preserve
affordable housing stock.
Appropriateness: To preserve and encourage affordable housing in the
City, Mountain View recognizes the importance of monitoring existing
subsidized projects. The City will continue maintain an inventory of
subsidized units and will continue to post an AB 987 database on their
websife. For the 2014 -2021 Housing Plan this program will be continued but
included as Program 3.6 in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan.
4.4 - Rehabilitation to
Progress and Effectiveness: As reported under Program 3.5, the City has
Subsidized Affordable
initiated a part nership Wfh Charity Housing to leverage $11 million in fax
Housing
credits and bond monies to complete rehabilitation 34 -units of affordable
housing known as Sierra Vista I.
Objective: Support efforts to
rehabilitate buildings to
increase the supply of
Appropriateness: As this program is similar to Program 3.5, these two
subsidized housing through
programs will be combined and continued in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan
collaborations on
as part of Program 3.3.
applications for state and
federal funding or direct
financial assistance.
188 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
5.1 -Shared Parking
Progress and Effectiveness: The City reviews opportunities for shared
parking on a project by project basis. During the previous planning period
Objective: Consider shared
the City approved the San Antonio Shopping Center at the intersection of
parking on a project -by-
San Antonio Road and El Camino Real to allow shared parking. The project
project basis, in mixed -use
includes 330 rental units, a 65,000 square foot Safeway store and 69,000
developments that include
square feet of other commercial uses. This program provides flexibility for
residential units.
developers and allows for higher utilization of a site requiring less space
5.2 - Reduced Parking for
reserved for parking.
Appropriateness: The City recognizes the importance of allowing for
flexibility in their development standards to encourage and facilitate the
development of housing for seniors and lower income households.
Consequently, the City will continue to review applications for reduced
parking standards based on parking studies and other applicable data.
This program will be combined with Programs 5.1 and 5.3 of the 2007 -2014
Housing Plan and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program
4.2.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 189
Appropriateness: The City recognizes the importance of allowing for
flexibility in their development standards to encourage and facilitate the
development of higher density housing. Consequently, the City will
continue to review applications for shared parking on a case -by -case
basis. This program will be combined with Programs 5.2 and 5.3 of the 2007-
2014 Housing Plan, and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as
Program 4.2.
5.2 - Reduced Parking for
Progress and Effectiveness: The City reviews opportunities for reduced
Senior and Subsidized
parking in senior and family subsidized projects, on a case -by -case basis.
Housing
During the previous planning period, the City Council approved a senior
assisted living project at 574 Escuela Ave. The project includes 44 beds;
Objective: Continue to
however only 14 parking spaces were required for employees and visitors.
allow reduction of required
While the City does not have an established parking standard specific to
parking for senior and
senior housing, the approved parking ratio is consistent with other projects
subsidized housing projects
approved in surrounding communities. In addition to the senior living
on a project -by- project
facility, the City approved a 51 -unit, subsidized family apartment complex,
basis.
located at 135 Franklin Street, with a reduced parking ratio of 1.8 spaces
per unit. The reduced ratio was calculated based on a parking study
completed analyzing similar subsidized family apartment projects.
Appropriateness: The City recognizes the importance of allowing for
flexibility in their development standards to encourage and facilitate the
development of housing for seniors and lower income households.
Consequently, the City will continue to review applications for reduced
parking standards based on parking studies and other applicable data.
This program will be combined with Programs 5.1 and 5.3 of the 2007 -2014
Housing Plan and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program
4.2.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 189
City of Mountain View
5.3 - Reduced Parking Near Progress and Effectiveness: The City reviews opportunities for reduced
Transit and Services
parking for projects near transit and other public services, on a case -by-
case basis, dependent on parking studies and other related analysis.
Objective: Consider
During the previous planning period, several high density residential
reduction of required
projects near transit and services were approved, or are currently going
parking for higher- density
through the approval process, with parking reductions, including, but not
residential projects near
limited to: 865 and 881 El Camino Real, 2650 and 2656 El Camino Real,
transit or services on a
1720 and 1730 El Camino Real, 455 West Evelyn, and San Antonio Phase I.
project -by- project basis.
At the April 18, 2012 EPC Study Session, the Commission reviewed the
"Model Parking Standard" for high- density residential projects. The City's
modified parking standard allow for a reduction in the requirements
permitting one parking space for studios and one - bedroom units, two
parking spaces for fwo- bedroom or more units, and 15 percent of the
required vehicle spaces available for guests.
5.4 - School Impacts
Objective: Communicate
Wfh the local school districts
about potential new
housing developments to
identify potential impacts to
schools.
Appropriateness: In light of S13375, Mountain View is committed to
encouraging the development of higher density uses never transit and
incenfivizing projects that reduce vehicle trips and allow residents to utilize
public transit. As the City has two Calfrain stations and many bus routes,
there are numerous opportunities to encourage higher density
developments near transit. The City will continue to review applications for
reduced parking standards, on a case -by -case basis. This program will be
combined with Programs 5.1 and 5.2 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan and
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program 4.2.
Progress and Effectiveness: Depending on the size and impact of a
development project the City encourages developers to work with the
school districts to ensure that facilities are available to new residents.
During the previous planning period, the San Antonio Phase I development
project worked with the local schools to identify potential impacts to local
schools, consistent Wfh State law. School impact fees continue to be
collected for new development projects City -wide, and projects are
analyzed through the environmental review process for potential impacts
consistent with State law.
Appropriateness: To ensure that adequate school facilities are available
the City will continue to require developers to analyze facility availability
through the environmental review process and will require developers to
pay fees consistent with State law. This program will be included in the
2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 4.5.
190 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
5.5 - Cap on Efficiency Units
Progress and Effectiveness: During the 2007 -2014 planning period, a new
subsidized housing development with 118 efficiency studio units was
Objective: Prepare a study
completed in Mountain View (San Antonio Place) and a second
evaluating the feasibility
development with 48 workforce studios was proposed (819 North
and impacts of amending
Rengsforff). San Antonio Place provides housing and supportive services
the Municipal Code
for extremely low-income persons earning as little as 15 percent of the
(Chapter 36, Arficle XII -C,
Area Median Income. San Antonio Place helps prevent individuals from
Section A36.42.080) to raise
becoming homeless by providing affordable housing for those with
or eliminate the cap on the
extremely low-incomes and provides a housing resource for homeless
number of efficiency studios
persons transifioning from temporary housing such as the Graduate House.
allowed in the City.
In December 2013, the City addressed companion units as part of a minor
benefits, and impacts of
Efficiency studios are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the
modifying the Municipal
Commercial - Residential Arterial (CRA) zoning district and several Precise
Code (Chapter 36, Arficle
XII, Section A36.12.040) to
Plan areas in the City. The City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance
remove constraints that may
previously limited the total number of efficiency units in the City to 180 units
limit the construction of
(Section A36.42.80B). However, as the cap was determined to constrain
companion units.
the development of new efficiency studio projects and the City's ability to
provide suitable affordable housing options for extremely low-income
households, the City repealed the section of the Code that established the
cap allowing for additional efficiency studios to be constructed. No limit is
currently in place and the City reviews applications as they are submitted.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 191
Appropriateness: In December 2013, City effectively removed the
identified potential constraint to the development of efficiency units and
has successfully approved workforce projects including single room
occupancy units. For the 2015 -2023 planning period the City will modify this
program to monitor the number of units developed and included as
Program 4.3.
5.6 - Constraints on
Progress and Effectiveness: During the previous planning period
Companion Units
approximately 10 companion units were approved by City Staff. In 2013,
the City initiated a study of Municipal Code (Chapter 36, Arficle XII,
Objective: Conduct a study
Section A36.12.040) to address potential constraints to companion units.
that evaluates the options,
In December 2013, the City addressed companion units as part of a minor
benefits, and impacts of
Zoning Code update to clarify applicable code sections.
modifying the Municipal
Code (Chapter 36, Arficle
XII, Section A36.12.040) to
Appropriateness: The City recognizes second units as an affordable
remove constraints that may
housing option and will continue to allow for second units to be
limit the construction of
constructed. This program will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as
companion units.
Program 4.3.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 191
City of Mountain View
5.7 - Entitlement Process Progress and Effectiveness: During the 2007 -2014 planning period, the City
192 2015 -2023 Housing Element
modified the development review process by allowing 'Gatekeeper'
Objective: Identify and
projects (projects that require rezoning or a General Plan amendment) a
implement strategies to
streamlined development review process (one reviewing body instead of
streamline the entitlement
two). Several Precise Plans underway (North Bayshore, El Camino Real, and
and building permit process.
San Antonio) are in the process of being updated which will also provide a
Engagement
more streamlined permit process by clarifying development expectations
consistent with the 2030 General Plan.
192 2015 -2023 Housing Element
Appropriateness: The City will continue to analyze their development
review process to identify additional strategies to streamline the review
process. This program will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as
Program 4.4.
5.8 - Neighborhood
Progress and Effectiveness: City Staff actively updates a list of proposed
Engagement
and approved projects on their Planning Division websife and notices
projects at various points during the development review process.
Objective: Continue to
Depending on the size and impact of a development project the City also
notify neighborhoods of
encourages developers to engage neighborhoods early in the planning
proposed residential
process to identify any potential issues.
projects and rezoning, and
continue to encourage
developers to engage
Appropriateness: To ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods, the
neighborhoods early in the
City will continue to encourage developers to engage residents early in
planning process.
the planning process. This program will be included in the 2015 -2023
Housing Plan as Program 4.6.
192 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
6.1 - Larger Units Progress and Effectiveness: As mentioned previously for Program 1.19, the
City of Mountain View actively encourages larger units for families in both
Objective: Encourage market rate and subsidized housing projects. In 2007, when the City
subsidized and market rate conducted an RFP process for subsidized family housing, proposed
housing developers to projects were required to include units for large families. As a result the
provide units that serve Franklin Street Apartments located at 135 Franklin Avenue were
larger families as part of constructed, including 32 two- bedroom units and 15 three - bedroom units.
their projects.
Appropriateness: To encourage future development of large units, the City
will continue to require that at least 25 percent of all units in a subsidized
family development are 3 bedrooms, if they are assisted by City funds. This
program will be combined Wfh Program 1.19 of the 2007 -2014 Housing
Plan and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program 1.11.
6.2 - Emergency Rental
Progress and Effectiveness: In 2006 the City Council adopted the 2006-2011
Assistance and Housing
Affordable Housing Strategies which included funding for the Emergency
Voucher Programs
Rental Voucher Program operated by the Mountain View Los Altos
Community Services Agency (CSA) This program provides one time
Objective: Provide funding
emergency rent assistance to low-income households and motel vouchers
for the Emergency Rental
for persons who need emergency short term housing The goal of this
Assistance and Housing
program is to prevent households from losing their housing and to prevent
Voucher programs
homelessness. The typical assistance provided to a household is $500 to
operated by the
$700. Since its inception the program has provided assistance to roughly
Community Services
300 individuals annually. The City of Mountain View currently provides BMR
Agency (CSA) to assist very
funds (approximately $30,000 annually) to support this program.
low and extremely low-
income households, and to
help protect households
Appropriateness: The City will continue to partner with of her agencies to
from homelessness.
offer financial support to very low and extremely low-income households
in need of emergency housing. This program will be combined with
Programs 6.3 and 6.4 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan and included in the
2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 5.1.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 193
City of Mountain View
6.3 - Emergency Resources Progress and Effectiveness: The City of Mountain View is an active
for Homeless
Objective: Continue fo
support efforts fo provide
short -term shelter and
emergency assistance fo
persons who are homeless
or at risk of homelessness.
participant in the creation of new fransifional and supportive housing
facilities fo address homelessness, through regional collaboration and
cooperation wifh non - profit agencies, housing developers, and other
jurisdictions. Throughout the planning period, City Staff attended quarterly
meetings held by the CDBG Coordinators group, in addition fo meeting
Wfh non - profit agencies and developers fo identify possible projects that
could be implemented in future years.
The City currently supports, and will continue fo provide oversight for, the
two transitional homes locafed wifhin the City: 1) Alice Street Transitional
Home which serves up fo five formerly homeless persons and 2) Quetzal
House, a local youth shelter and transitional home operated by the Bill
Wilson Center that serves about 40 -50 homeless youth annually. And in an
effort fo further help end chronic homelessness, the City has funded the
San Antonio Place Efficiency Studios that include 10 units for persons
fransifioning out of homelessness.
Appropriateness: The City will continue allocate funding for transitional and
Appropriateness: The Cify will continue fo partner and provide funding for
other agencies that assist homeless persons or those at risk of
homelessness. This program will be combined Wfh Programs 6.2 and 6.3 of
the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as
Program 5.1.
194 2015 -2023 Housing Element
supportive housing as well as emergency shelters that provide short term
housing and emergency assistance fo homeless individuals and those at
risk of becoming homeless. This program will be combined wifh Programs
6.2 and 6.4 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan and included in the 2015 -2023
Housing Plan as Program 5.1.
6.4 - Regional Homeless
Progress and Effectiveness: In addition fo the Emergency Renfal Voucher
Programs
Program operated by the Mounfain View Los Alfos Community Services
Agency (CSA), the City also provides funding and advertises the CSA's
Objective: Continue fo
Alpha Omega Homeless Services program. CSA homeless case managers
participate in regional
assist homeless individuals by providing information on how fo locate and
homeless programs and fo
secure affordable housing; information and assistance wifh public
support short -term shelter
transportation; and assistance wifh benefits and health services. Financial
and transitional housing
assistance is available for one month's rent once that individual has
programs.
secured employment and a place fo live fhaf fifs wifhin their budget. Food
is also available for them through the CSA's Food & Nutrition Center.
Appropriateness: The Cify will continue fo partner and provide funding for
other agencies that assist homeless persons or those at risk of
homelessness. This program will be combined Wfh Programs 6.2 and 6.3 of
the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as
Program 5.1.
194 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
6.5 - Supportive and Progress and Effectiveness: As reported under Program 1.6, in 2012, the
Transitional Housing City coordinated with First Community Housing on a 27 -unit studios project
for developmentally disabled adults, and ROEM Development Corporation
Objective: Support and Eden Housing, on a 49 -unit workforce studios project. City Staff worked
developers of transitional closely with these developers on funding strategies to make these projects
and supportive housing highly competitive for the 9% fax credit allocation. The Mountain View City
facilities through Council was highly supportive and provided substantial base funding to
applications for State and ensure that these projects were successful in securing 9% fax credit
federal funding or direct financing.
financial assistance.
As reported under Program 1.1, from 2007 to 2013, the City provided
funding for transitional and supportive housing facilities, including: $9
million in BMR funds for the 49 workforce studios on Rengsforff and $4.6
million in BMR and HOME funds for the 27 -unit project for the
developmentally disabled. In 2006 the City also provided $5.4 million in
CDBG, HOME and RDA funds for San Antonio Place, a project with 120
subsidized efficiency studios.
Appropriateness: The City of Mountain View has been strategic and
fortunate to have success collecting fees for their housing fund, and
leveraging these local funds with various federal, State, County and
private funding. It is critical to maximize funding for transitional and
supportive housing, which often requires high subsidies. For the upcoming
planning period, the City will continue to work with developers to leverage
outside funding sources and will provide additional resources, as outlined
in Programs 6.14 and 6.15 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan. This program will
be continued and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 5.2.
6.6 - Emergency Homeless Progress and Effectiveness: To fully implement the 2007 -2014 Housing
Shelters as Permitted Use. Element the City of Mountain View adopted Ordinance 12.12 on
December 11, 2012 to comply with the requirements of S132.
Objective: Identify
Emergency Homeless Appropriateness: As the City has completed the required rezoning to
Shelters as a permitted use comply with S132, this program will not be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing
in a zoning district within one
year of the adoption of the Element.
City's Housing Element.
6.7 - Regulation of Progress and Effectiveness: To fully implement the 2007 -2014 Housing
Supportive and Transitional Element the City of Mountain View adopted Ordinance 12.12 on
Housing December 11, 2012 to comply with the requirements of S132.
Objective: Facilitate the Appropriateness: As the City has completed the required rezoning to
development of compliance with S132, this program will not be included in the 2015 -2023
emergency, transitional,
and supportive housing. Housing Element.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 195
City of Mountain View
6.8 - Mediation and Fair Progress and Effectiveness: The City of Mountain View has a strong
Housing Programs
commitment to fair housing practices, and places a high priority on
promoting and ensuring open and free choice in housing for all persons. If
Objective: Continue
is the City's intent to maintain and promote a non - discriminatory
outreach to educate
environment in all aspects of the private and publicly funded housing
tenants about existing
markets in Mountain View and to foster compliance with the non -
mediation and fair housing
discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act. During the planning
programs. Continue to
period, the City contracted wifh Project Sentinel, providing roughly $30,000
support the City's volunteer
annually, in funding for housing - related services. Project Sentinel is a non -
mediation program through
profit corporation, whose primary function is to assist individuals with
public and private
housing discrimination complaints, rental issues including repairs, deposits,
agencies.
privacy, and conflict mediation. Information for Project Sentinel is provided
on the City's websife along with information regarding fair housing
services.
Project Sentinel has provided the following fair housing services in the City
of Mountain View:
• Conducted frainings and informational community meetings to
increase community awareness of fair housing services and
rights /responsibilities;
• Published fair housing brochures that are available at City Hall and
other public facilities such as the Senior Center, Library, and
Community Center;
• Held at least 4 fair housing presentations for community groups or
organizations;
• Published fair housing ads in local newspapers, including non -
English newspapers on an on -going basis; and
• Additionally, the City's Outreach Workers will continue to distribute
information (in various languages) about fair housing services to
non - English speaking segments of the community.
Appropriateness: The City recognizes that equal access to housing is
fundamental to meeting essential needs and pursuing personal,
educational, employment and other goals. The City will continue to
provide funding for fair housing and mediation services and will sponsor
events to educate renters about housing discrimination. This program will
be combined with Program 6.9 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan, as Project
Sentinel is the City's liaison to the Santa Clara County Fair Housing Task
Force, and will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program
5.3.
196 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
6.9- Fair Housing Task Force
Progress and Effectiveness: Throughout the planning period, the City has
provided funding to Project Sentinel who is an active member of the Santa
Objective: Continue to
Clara County Fair Housing Task Force. The Santa Clara County Fair Housing
participate in a countywide
Task Force meets quarterly to coordinate and collaborate on the
fair housing collaborative
promotion of fair housing. Through the task force, priorities have been
task force that will work
established for fair housing outreach and education. Resources have also
toward improvements in fair
been identified within the municipalities, the community, and private
housing services.
industry that can be used to affirmatively further fair housing. Information
Objective: Amend the
from the Task Force is distributed by Project Sentinel and City Staff
Municipal Code to provide
regarding activities are performed, to implement Task Force objectives.
Project Sentinel also works closely with the Fair Housing Law Project (FHLP)
and has asked the City to provide roughly $3,000 per year in in -kind
services to support FHLP housing legal services for Mountain View residents.
The FHLP attorneys provide guidance to Project Sentinel's housing
counselors and take many cases that are not considered by other
attorneys in private practice, including cases involving reasonable
accommodation /disability, overly restrictive rules of conduct /familial status
and similar issues.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 197
Appropriateness: The City will continue to fund Project Sentinel who will
continue to participate in the Fair Housing Task Force with the goal of
improving fair housing services offered to Mountain View residents. This
program will be combined with Program 6.8 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan
and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 5.3.
6.10 - Reasonable
Progress and Effectiveness: The City has no special zoning or land use
Accommodation
restrictions that regulate the development of housing for persons with
disabilities. In December 2013, the City updated the Zoning Code
Objective: Amend the
ordinance to establish a procedure to address requests for reasonable
Municipal Code to provide
accommodation. The City has achieved their objectives.
an exception to allow equal
access for persons with
disabilities.
Appropriateness: For the 2015 -2023 planning period the City will promote
the adopted reasonable accommodation procedures on the Cifywebsife
and at City Hall. This program will be modified and included in the 2015-
2023 Housing Plan as Program 5.4.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 197
City of Mountain View
6.11- Senior Housing
Progress and Effectiveness: During the planning period, the City supported
Objective: Encourage a
the development of 104 new units for seniors within the Paulson Park II
Objective: Support
project. The project utilized CDBG and HOME funds to construct new units
developers of subsidized
next to an existing senior housing development.
senior housing facilities
there are also 6 subsidized rental properties in the City with a total of 704
through applications for
State and federal funding,
Appropriateness: The City of Mountain View has been strategic and
or with direct financial
fortunate to have success collecting fees for their housing fund. The City
assistance.
has used these funds to leverage federal, State, County and private
funding to maximize the development of affordable units, including units
for seniors, particularly those living on a limited income. For the upcoming
planning period, the City will continue to work with developers to leverage
outside funding sources to create new subsidized senior housing facilities,
6.13 - Senior Housing Near
as outlined in 1.7, 1.10 and 6.5 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan. This program
Senior Center
will be continued and included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program
5.5.
6.12- Senior Care Facilities Progress and Effectiveness: The City of Mountain View understands the
198 2015 -2023 Housing Element
importance of affordable housing options and desire for seniors to age in
Objective: Encourage a
place. To accommodate the aging population the City has a number of
continuum of senior care
housing options. There are 16 small assisted facilities for seniors in the City
facilities in Mountain View
with a total capacity of 152 beds. In addition the smaller facilities available
such as a senior residential
there are also 6 subsidized rental properties in the City with a total of 704
community, life care facility,
units. These larger complexes have units with one to two bedroom
or assisted living facility.
apartments and have deed restrictions to ensure affordability. On
December IL 2012 the City Council also approved a 44 -unit assisted living
project for seniors located at 574 Escuela Avenue. This project is in close
proximity to the Senior Center, Castro Park, and other shops and services.
Appropriateness: The City will continue to monitor the senior population
and its needs for the 2015 -2023 planning period through Program 5.6.
6.13 - Senior Housing Near
Progress and Effectiveness: On December 11,2012, the City Council
Senior Center
approved a Senior Assisted Living Facility at 574 Escuela, which is
305 feet from the Senior Center.
Objective: Encourage senior
housing near the Senior
Center.
Appropriateness: While if is ideal to locate senior housing in close proximity
to the Senior Center, the value and availability of land poses to be a
potential constraint to the implementation of this program. This program
will not be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element; however the City
will continue to facilitate the development of senior housing by partnering
with developers to leverage funding, and will ensure that proposed senior
developments are located in areas walkable to services, shops, and the
senior center if possible.
198 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
6.14 - Regional Solutions to Progress and Effectiveness: The City is an active member of the CDBG
Special Needs Housing
Coordinators group, and participates through Project Sentinel in the Fair
Housing Task force. These groups are both regional efforts that include
Objective: Continue to work
leaders from the corporate, educational, and labor communities, as well
with non - profit agencies,
as community fair housing advocates and local jurisdictions providing key
other jurisdictions, and
opportunities to network, share information, and coordinate on projects.
developers on regional
During the planning period, the City successfully supported and funded
approaches to housing
the development of four subsidized projects, including units for the
persons with physical or
developmentally disabled, seniors, and extremely low-income individuals.
mental disabilities, victims of
The City was also able to successfully approve units for large families and
domestic violence, and the
encouraged the development of affordable apartments within market
homeless.
rate projects. Using CDBG and HOME funds, the City was also able to
for person with physical,
allocate funds to provide services to victims of domestic violence, and
mental, and victims of
legal services for seniors.
6.16 - Home Repair /Home Progress and Effectiveness: As reported for Program 3.3, the City contracts
Access Program
Appropriateness: For the 2015 -2023 planning period the City will continue
to work with non - profit agencies, other jurisdictions, and developers on
Objective: Continue to fund
regional approaches to housing. This program will be combined with
the Home Repair /Home
Programs 6.5 and 6.15 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan and included in the
Access Program that assists
2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 5.3.
6.15 -Special Needs
Progress and Effectiveness: As mentioned in Program 6.14, the City has
Housing
successfully initiated the development of a range of subsidized housing
make their homes
including units for special needs groups. Whenever feasible projects are
Objective: Encourage
located near transit and other services, however the high cost and limited
development of special
available of land, makes siting requirements difficult. On January 22, 2013,
needs housing (e.g. housing
the City Council approved a 27 -unit studio unit project for the
for person with physical,
developmentally disabled at 1581 El Camino Real West. The City also
mental, and victims of
assists developers through the entitlement process by providing a
domestic violence) within
streamlined timeframe for approval.
convenient access to
services, public facilities,
and transit.
Appropriateness: For the 2015 -2023 planning period, the City will continue
to encourage the development of special needs housing with convenient
access to services, public facilities, and transit whenever feasible. This
program will be combined with Program 6.5 and 6.14 and included in the
2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 5.3.
6.16 - Home Repair /Home Progress and Effectiveness: As reported for Program 3.3, the City contracts
Access Program
with the Community Services Agency to provide minor home repairs and
access improvements to lower income households. Through the Home
Objective: Continue to fund
Repair and Home Access Program the City provides assistance to low-
the Home Repair /Home
income homeowners and disabled persons with minor home repairs and
Access Program that assists
modifications that make their units livable and /or accessible. From 2008 to
lower- income homeowners
2014 the City allocated $30,000 in CDBG funds to assist up to 75 households
with minor renovations to
annually with minor repairs to their homes.
make their homes
accessible.
Appropriateness: As this program is similar to Program 3.3, it will be
combined and included under Goal 3 in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 199
City of Mountain View
6.17 - CDBG and HOME
Progress and Effectiveness: On an annual basis the City applies for CDBG
Programs
and HOME funds directly from HUD. During the planning period the City
received the following allotments:
Objective: Apply annually
CDBG HOME
for the City's maximum
FY 2008 -2009 $701,715 $419,657
entitlements under the
Federal Community
FY 2009 -2010 $684,538 $470,648
Development Block Grant
FY 2010-2011 $741,398 $469,145
and HOME programs.
FY 2011 -2012 $619,167 $414,395
FY 2012 -2013 $501,180 $218,447
FY 2013 -2014 $565,424 $220,902
Appropriateness: As the City annually applies for their maximum
entitlements under the Federal Community Development Block Grant and
HOME programs, this program is not necessary and will not be included in
the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as a standalone program, but rather
incorporated into other programs as a funding source.
6.18 - Federal Funds for
Progress and Effectiveness: Typically, the City's CDBG and HOME funds are
Special Needs Housing
allocated to projects or activities that benefit low-income households or
special needs populations. The City completes an annual report on CDBG
Objective: 50% of CDBG
and HOME expenditures that highlight the projects and organizations
and HOME grants for lower-
funded. On average, about 75 percent of CDBG and 90 percent of HOME
income households,
funds are used for the development or maintenance of affordable
homeless people, and
housing.
special need populations.
Appropriateness: As CDBG and HOME funds are intended to serve low-
income and special needs groups, this program will be removed and
CDBG and HOME funds will instead be noted as a funding source for
programs that serve low-income and special needs populations.
6.19 - Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing
Objective: Continue to
prepare and update the
City's Al, as required by
HUD.
Progress and Effectiveness: The City's most recent Analysis of Impediments
(AI) document was updated in FY 2010-11. The actions to address
identified needs will be implemented during the remainder of the 2010 -15
Consolidated Plan cycle. It is expected that the next Al update will occur
in FY 2015 -2016 and will be implemented during the 2015 -2020
Consolidated Plan cycle.
Appropriateness: This program will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing
Element as Program 5.8.
200 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
7.1 -Green Building Progress and Effectiveness: The City has adopted a Green Building Code
Principles and Wafer Conservation in Landscape Regulations to require new
developments fo incorporate green building techniques. The City provides
Objective: Continue fo information fo developers on design techniques fo implement the Green
encourage developers fo Building Code and Wafer Conservation in Landscape Regulations. From
use green building 2009 fo 2013, the City provided funding fo three existing subsidized housing
principals. developments fo complete efficiency upgrades, benefiting 230 very low-
income households. The City also encourages new projects fo be
developed Wfh green building principles incorporated.
Appropriateness: The Cify will continue fo implement the Wafer
Conservation in Landscape Regulations for all projects during the
upcoming planning period. This program will be combined Wfh Programs
7.1 and 7.2 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan and will be included in the 2015-
2023 Housing Plan as Program 6.1.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 201
Appropriateness: The Cify will continue fo encourage developers fo use
green building principals. This program will be combined Wfh Programs 7.2
and 7.3 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan and will be included in the 2015-
2023 Housing Plan as Program 6.1.
7.2 - Green Building
Progress and Effectiveness: As projects are proposed, the City has
Standards
continued fo implement the City's Green Building Code.
Objective: Continue fo
implement the City's Green
Appropriateness: The Cify will continue fo implement the Green Building
Building Code for all
Code for all projects during the upcoming planning period. This program
projects.
will be combined with Programs 7.1 and 7.3 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan
and will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 6.1.
7.3 - Water Conservation
Progress and Effectiveness: As mentioned previously, the City has adopted
Landscaping Ordinance
a Green Building Code and Wafer Conservation in Landscape Regulations
fo require new developments fo incorporate green building techniques. As
Objective: Continue fo
projects are proposed the City has continued fo implement their Wafer
implement the Wafer in
Conservation in Landscape Regulations reviewing applications for
Landscaping Regulations,
consistency. In 2011 and 2012, the City approved $489,857 for wafer
adopted in May 2010 the
conservation upgrades fo San Vernon Park Apartments and Maryce
regulations intention is fo
Freelen Place Apartments. Combined, these developments provide 106 -
reduce wafer waste in
units for very low-income households. In April of each year the City holds
landscaping.
free water -wise landscape classes and if's Green Garden Showcase wifh
local gardens that are wafer efficient.
Appropriateness: The Cify will continue fo implement the Wafer
Conservation in Landscape Regulations for all projects during the
upcoming planning period. This program will be combined Wfh Programs
7.1 and 7.2 of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan and will be included in the 2015-
2023 Housing Plan as Program 6.1.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 201
City of Mountain View
7.4 - Construction and
Progress and Effectiveness: Established in 2008, this City has adopted a
Demolition Debris Diversion
Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance. The purpose of
Ordinance
the ordinance is to establish a program for the recycling and salvage of
construction and demolition (C &D) debris. C &D debris comprises a
Objective: Recycle or reuse
significant portion of the waste stream that can be diverted from the
50 percent of construction
landfill, thereby conserving resources, protecting our environment, and
and demolition debris.
extending landfill life. The ordinance requires at least 50% of the debris
Objective: Continue to train
from construction, renovation and demolition projects be diverted from
City Staff on current green
landfills through salvage and recycling practices. The program makes if
building practices.
easy and convenient for property owners, general contractors and
subcontractors to meet their responsibilities under the ordinance.
The City currently has information about the program posted on their
websife. To comply with the ordinance, developers are encouraged to
contact the City's exclusive hauler, Recology, for roll -off box service. Using
Recology is beneficial to the developers as the paperwork is then
complete by the City, materials may be mixed together in one box, and
boxes are recycled at SMaRT stations. The program also allows the City to
verify the hauling and processing of boxes, achieving a 78% diversion rate.
Appropriateness: The City will continue to encourage Staff to stay informed
of current trends in green building practices throughout the upcoming
planning period. This program will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing
Plan as Program 6.3.
202 2015 -2023 Housing Element
Appropriateness: The City will continue to promote the Construction and
Demolition Debris Diversion ordinance during the upcoming planning
period. This program will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as
Program 6.2.
7.5 - Staff Training on Green
Progress and Effectiveness: To effectively maintain an awareness of new
Building Practices
legislation and practices regarding green building practices Staff attends
meetings, conferences and other related events. On a regular basis Staff
Objective: Continue to train
also reviews the Green Building Code and Wafer Conservation in
City Staff on current green
Landscape Regulations to ensure they are up to date with the latest
building practices.
advancements.
Appropriateness: The City will continue to encourage Staff to stay informed
of current trends in green building practices throughout the upcoming
planning period. This program will be included in the 2015 -2023 Housing
Plan as Program 6.3.
202 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
7.6 - Energy Efficiency
Progress and Effectiveness: During the 2007 -2014 planning period the City
used CDBG and HOME funds for the greening and sustainable
Objective: Encourage and
rehabilitation of two affordable apartment complexes: Maryce Freelen
support energy - efficiency
Place (74 very low-income family units) and San Veron Park (32 very low
improvements and
income townhome family units). The City also utilized funds to provide
modifications for existing
oversight on green rehabilitation activities that are in progress at Maryce
subsidized housing units and
Freelen Place, San Veron Park and The Fountains (124 very low and low-
low-income households.
income senior units) complexes. All three properties were funded in FY
2009 -10 for the removal of dilapidated and deteriorated windows and
frames and the installation of new energy - efficient windows and casings.
The HOME - funded window installation for the Fountains and San Veron
Park properties was completed in March 2012. For the Maryce Freelen
project, the FY 2009 -10 funding consisted of $165,512 in CDBG -R Stimulus
funds approved by Council on April 28, 2009 and $253,345 in capital CDBG
entitlement funds. Up to $18,390 in CDBG stimulus funds were reserved for
administration for that project. In addition to the activities mentioned
above, the City has also completed energy efficiency upgrades to various
City facilities, including the California Street parking structure, the
Municipal Operations Center Building B, the Community Center, the
Center for Performing Arfs, and City Hall.
Appropriateness: To create additional opportunities for subsidized housing
developments to incorporate energy efficient design and wafer
conservation measures the Cify will continue to investigate funding sources
and offer city leveraged funds when appropriate. This program will be
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element as Program 6.4.
2015 -2023 Housing Element 203
City of Mountain View
8.1 - Annual Monitoring and Review
Progress and Effectiveness: In April 2013, the City prepared
an annual report on the progress toward implementation
Objective: Continue the City's annual review
of the 2007 -2014 Housing Plan. This report was presented
of its Housing Element programs. Prepare an
to the Environmental Planning Commission and City
annual report to the Environmental Planning
Council and submitted to the State Department of
Commission and City Council on the results
Housing and Community Development on April 2, 2013.
of Housing Element implementation for the
past year.
Appropriateness: As required by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development, Mountain View
Planning Staff will continue to monitor and report on the
implementation of their Housing Element by April l It of
each year. This program will be included in the 2015 -2023
Housing Plan as Program 7.1.
8.2 - City Council Goal Setting
Progress and Effectiveness: Based on the annual report
prepared for HCD, the City fakes info account funding
Objective: Consistency between Housing
opportunities and actions necessary to implement the
Element and other City goals.
Housing Element, ensuring consistency with other
established goals.
Appropriateness: Following the submittal of the annual
report to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development, Mountain View Planning Staff
will provide City Council Wfh a copy to ensure
consistency between the Housing Element and other
activities occurring in the City. This program will be
included in the 2015 -2023 Housing Plan as Program 7.2.
204 2015 -2023 Housing Element
Appendix A: Public Outreach
........................... ...............................
This appendix contains the following materials to illustrate the City's effort to conduct quality
community outreach efforts with regard to the Housing Element update process:
1. List of Stakeholders contacted
2. Meeting flyer for the October 11, 2013 Environmental Planning Commission meeting
3. Comment card provided at the meeting and online
4. Flyers for the December 12, 2013 community meeting in English, Spanish, Chinese
and Russian.
Table A -1: Housing Element Stakeholder Groups
M -
Advocates for Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing and Valley Transportation Authority
Alpha Omega Group
Avenidas
Barry Swenson Builders
Bridge Housing
California Apartment Association
Catholic Charities
Charities Housing
Classics Communities
Community Services Agency
Community Solutions
EHC Life Builders
Habitat for Humanity Silicon Valley
Home Builder's Association of Northern California
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara
Housing First
Inn Vision
Joint Venture Silicon Valley
League of Women Voters
Legal Aid of Santa Clara County
Los Altos School District
M.H. Podell Company
Mental Health Advocacy Project
J
Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition
Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
Mountain View Whisman School District
Mountain View /Los Altos Union High School District
Neighborhood Housing Services of Silicon Valley
Nuestra Casa
Opportunity Fund
Ross Construction
Sacred Heart Community Services
San Andreas Regional Center
SC Unified School District
SCC Office of Veteran Services
Senior Adults Legal Assistance
Shelter Network
Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Step Up Silicon Valley
SummerHill Homes
Tri- County Apartment Association
Trinity United Methodist Church
Ujirani Center
Unity Care Group
VA Palo Alto Hospital
2015 -2023 Housing Element 205
City of Mountain View
Please join us at the upcoming
community workshop:
Environmental Planning Commission Study Session
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
7:00 pm
The workshop will be held at:
City Council Chambers
Mountain View City Hall
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Included in this workshop will be:
• Purpose and intent of the Housing Element
• Why and how often the Housing Element is updated
• Benefits of Housing Element certification
• The contents of the Housing Element
• Recent demographic and housing trends in Mountain View
& UNTq�?,
c�9BACUUIIn • GPI.
206 2015 -2023 Housing Element
City of Mountain View
_Ali"'��t ►!
cit of mountai iew
COMMENT CARD
Narne /Organization Date
Address
Email Address Telephone
What do you see as the greatest housing need or issue in Mountain View?
What potential opportunities exist to address housing needs in Mountain View?
ESA
550 Kearny Street
SUlte 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
I_III
F
F
2015 -2023 Housing Element 207
City of Mountain View
The City of M —Main View is hosting a community workshop 1. discuss the 2015 -= Housing
Element update. This workshop wlll provide information about the Housing Elemeni update
process. the State-mandated Housing Plan and updates to the El Camino Real and San
Antonio Precise Plans. Padicipanis will be able to provide input on housing - related issues
through small group discussions. The workshop will be held:
Thursday, December 12, 2013"
6:00 p.m.
City of Mountain View Senior Center
266 Escuela Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94040
please cont.ct Margaret Ne110 at {6501 903 -6306, or
Margaret.Netto ®mountainview.gov.
AAmnrvncrpayna r. Maymr« -Bua npoeogm co6powne o6uyecreexrvocru a �opme cemnvapo, rvo xorapom
byger Ha co5p - 5ygei pane
rvHMepmnuy o npo�yecce o6HOegervnv nenorxe�rna o n e. 06 o6aroreneHOm ena w a KwyQopHna
n m n e o6 yrarvennn Aerannnerx nnanoa pace eon €I Camino Real n $an Antonio.
Y—T Hxom npaeocr ®nverca eov wxcrvocro npoeecrn encxyccun s Ha6onswux rpynnax a srvecm ceon exnan
s oficyxeenne --p-- Aare n metre co6panna:
City of Mountain View Senior Center
266 Escuela Avenue
Mountain View. CA 0.0
no .— eonpoc ., a —a sa Aono VIT-1 -0 nnctwpr✓,auneA, Ell
05paulaHrece K Margaret Netto no T—C$ Y (6.r-0) 9036306. HnN
Margoret. Netto ®mou main view.gov.
C -upoca rte pyccKOm asaKe 3lwnnre (650) 903 -6145 e.6.4 nnn
nnwnre no anpecy muliilingualcop ®m.untainview.gov
208 2015 -2023 Housing Elegy
El Gobierno de to Ciudad de Mountain View invita a la comunidad a on taller para al logar
sabre los adelantos on at Proyeato de Viviendas (Housing Element) de los ands 2015 -2023.
Este taller M.Oera infpnna0i6n Sabre 105 ade1antp5 on 01 pub,e50 de este proye,do, at Plan
de Vivlendas que exlge el Esfodo y los adelantos en ins Planes all El Cemino Real y $an
Antonio. Los porficipantes tendrdn la oponunidad de dar su opinion en todo to que se refiere
a asuntos de vIA—all en mesa red.nda de peq —i).s grup.s. El taller se Ilevara a cab. e1:
Jueves 12 de diciembre de 2013"
6:00 Pm.
Centro para Personas de la Tercera Edod de Mountain View
Senior Center)
266 ESCuela Avenue
MOurtair View, CA 94040
'Se proveer6 cuidado Intantll y on peq—a o refrigerio
Fn esplftol .116501 90X6145
\4<
Ju
W STr �F#t Lm1 F i�,f�1 Fo14, 77lFiI*Ktg° A2015 -2D23
P1JIFY, Af$EI Camino Real *OSan Antonio 1XIM ftF7,*W IN ARMS].
2013' AF12Al2Q,&JFV9
94
O.L
gl�ffi.'�4firil�ia�$�HIa3�re. �
I111 Margaret Netlo INK
MR. (650)9W 16
ll Mwaaef Henp ®mountaimiew.gov
Appendix B: Summary of City
Zoning Standards
------------
2014 -2021 Housing Element 209
City of Mountain View
Table B -1: R1 Zoning District Development Standards
Other References
See also Design Guidelines for Single Family Homes, Zoning Handbook for the Single Family
Homeowner and Zoning Calculations: Methods, Definitions, and Clarifications.
Lot Area
6,000 sq. ft. minimum for interior lots, 7,000 sq. ft. for comer lots; except for larger area required by
Section A36.12.030.A(1) based on map designation or smaller area approved under Section
Landscaping Required
A36.12.040.D with a PUD permit.
Lot Width
60 feet minimum for interior lots, 70 feet for comer lots; except for greater width required by Sections
Design Guidelines for Single-
A36.12.030.A(1) or.A(2) based on map designation.
Density (maximum)
1 dwelling per parcel, except where a companion unit is allowed in compliance with Section
Second -Sfory Decks
A36.12.040.B.
Floor Area Ratio
0.45 for lots of 5,000 square feet or less
(See Sections A36.12.030.A(4)
0.50 - (0.00001 x Lot Area) for lots between 5,001 and 9,999 square feet
and A36.12.040.1)
are subject to second -story setbacks except that decks and balconies on the rear of a house must be
Examples:
6,000 sq. ft. lot = 0.50 - (0.00001 x 6,000) = 0.44 FAR
Parking
7,500 sq. ft. lot = 0.50 - (0.00001 x 7,500) = 0.425 FAR
Signs
0.40 for lots of 10,000 square feet or greater
Sefbacks
See Section A36.12.040.13 for setbacks applicable to companion units, Section A36.12.040.D for
setbacks applicable to parcels that do not have the required frontage on a public street, Section
A36.12.040.G for setbacks applicable to accessory structures, Section A36.12.040.1 for exceptions to
required setbacks, and Article 36.27 for special street setback provisions that may override the
following front and street side setback requirements. The following setbacks apply to any new
construction, additions or replacement floor area, regardless of the existing building's setbacks.
Fronf 20 ft. minimum for the first floor wall; 5 ft. from the first floor wall for a
second floor over an attached garage, where garage projects forward.
Sides (1 st -story) For lots less than 6,000 sq. ft. or less than 60 ft. wide: 5 ft. minimum
and 10 ft. total for both sides; For lots of 6,000 sq. ft. or more and more
than 60 ft. wide: 5 ft. minimum and 12 ft. total for both sides.
Sides (2nd - story) For lots less than 5,000 sq. ft. or less than 40 feet wide, 5 ft. min. each
side and 12 ft. total for both sides;
For lots 5,000 sq. ft. or more and greater than 40 feet wide, front half of
lot: 7 ft. minimum and 15 ft. total for both sides; Rear half of lot: 12 ft.
minimum on each side;
For lots of 10,000 sq. ft. or more, and greater than 65 ft. wide: 10 ft.
minimum and 25 ft. total for both sides.
Sfreef sides (corner lofs) 15 ft. minimum
Rear 1 story portions of structure: 20% of the lot depth or 15 ft., whichever is
greater, but not more than 40 ft. maximum, required. Encroachment
allowed, see Section A36.12.040.1;
2 story portions of structure: 25% of lot depth, or 20 ft., whichever is
greater, but not more than 40 ft. maximum, required.
Heighf Limifs
See Section 36.40.1 for exceptions to height limits; Section A36.12.040.13 for height limits applicable
to companion units, and Section A36.12.040.G for height limits applicable to accessory structures.
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.030), 2009
210 20 1 4 - 2 0 2 2 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
Principal structures Maximum height for 1 story structure: 24 ft;
Maximum height for 2 story structure: 28 feet;
Maximum 1 st floor height at top of wall plate: 15 ft; maximum 2nd floor
height at top of wall plate: 22 ft.
Landscaping Required
50% of the required front setback area shall be permanently landscaped. Street trees shall be
(See landscaping guidelines in
planted in front of all structures with second story additions.
Design Guidelines for Single-
Family Houses)
Second -Sfory Decks
The total square footage of all decks and balconies located at floor level of the second story cannot
exceed 150 sq. ft. Such decks and balconies are allowed only on the front and rear of houses, except
that on comer lots they are allowed on the side facing the street. Second -story decks and balconies
are subject to second -story setbacks except that decks and balconies on the rear of a house must be
set back 5 ft. in addition to the required rear yard second -story setback and front yard decks and
balconies may be set back as provided for in Section A36.12.040.1.5.
Parking
See Article 36.37 (Parking and Loading).
Signs
See Section 36.9.6 and Article 36.41 (Signs).
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.030), 2009
210 20 1 4 - 2 0 2 2 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
Table B -2: R1 Zoning District Minimum Lot Areas
Zoning Designation Minimum Lot Area Minimum Width
R1 6,000 sq. ft. 60 feet (corner lots: 70 feet)
R 1 -7 7,000 sq. ft. 70 feet
R 1 -8 8,000 sq. ft. 75 feet
R 1 -10 10,000 sq. ft. 80 feet
R 1 -10+ As noted by suffix 80 feet
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.030), 2009.
Table B -3: R2 Zoning District Development Standards
Dwelling Unit Types
The following standards apply to a duplex or two single - family dwellings on a lot.
Lot Area
7,000 sq. ft. minimum or any larger area required by Section A36.12.030.B.1, except
Lot Width
60 feet minimum for interior lots, 70 feet for corner lots; or other width required by
Section A36.12.030.B.1.
Density
1 duplex or 2 single - family dwellings per 7,000 square -foot parcel, maximum, or any
larger area required by Section A36.12.030.B.1. If lot is less than 7,000 square feet,
only one dwelling unit is permitted.
Floor Area Rafio (See Section A36.12.040.1)
0.55 maximum; calculated by dividing total building floor area (including garages) by
total lot area.
Sefbacks (See Figure A36.12 -3)
See Section A36.12.040.1 for exceptions to required setbacks, Section A36.12.040.G
for setbacks applicable to accessory structures, and Article 36.27 for special street
setback provisions that may override the following front and side setback
requirements. The following setbacks apply to any new construction, regardless of the
existing building's setbacks.
Fronf 20 ft. minimum for the first floor wall; 5 ft. from the first
floor wall fora second floor over an attached garage,
where garage projects forward.
Sides (1 sf - story) 5 ft. minimum and 12 ft. total for both sides.
Sides (2nd -story) 7 ft. minimum and 15 ft. total for both sides.
Street sides (corner lofs) 15 ft. minimum.
Rear 1 st story portions of structure: 20% of the lot depth or 15
ft., whichever is greater, but not more than 40 ft.
maximum, required. Encroachments allowed, see
Section A36.12.040.1;
2nd story portions of structure: 25% of the lot depth or 20
ft., whichever is greater, but not more than 40 ft.
maximum, required.
Inferior Minimum separation between principal structures Yz the
sum of the heights of the nearest building walls
measured to top of wall plate, with 12 ft. minimum.
Heighf Limifs
See Section 36.40.1 for exceptions to height limits and Section A36.12.040.G for
height limits applicable to accessory structures.
Principal structures Maximum height for 1 story: 24 feet
Maximum height for 2 stories: 30 feet;
Maximum 1 st floor height at top of wall plate: 15 ft;
maximum 2nd floor height at top of wall plate: 22 ft.
Second -Sfory Decks
The total square footage of all decks and balconies located at floor level of the second
story cannot exceed 150 sq. ft. Such decks and balconies are allowed only on the
front and rear of houses, except that on comer lots they are allowed on the side facing
the street. Second -story decks and balconies are subject to second -story setbacks
except as provided for in Section A36.12.040.1.5.
Landscaping Required (see Landscaping
50% of the required front setback area shall be permanently landscaped. Street trees
section of Design Guidelines for Single - Family
shall be planted in front of all structures with second story additions.
Residential
Parking
See Article 36.37 (Parking and Loading).
Signs
See Section 36.10.6 and Article 36.41 (Signs).
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.030), 2009.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
211
City of Mountain View
Table B -4: R2 Zoning District Minimum Lot Areas
Zoning Designation Minimum Lot Area Minimum Width
R2 7,000 sq. ft. 60 feet corner lots: 70 feet
R2 -8 8,000 sq. ft. 75 feet
R2 -10 10,000 sq. ft. 80 feet
R2 -10+ As noted by suffix 80 feet
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.030), 2009;
Table B -5: R3 Zoning District Development Standards
Dwelling Unit Types
The following standards apply to multi - family housing. Standards for small -lot single - family
45 ft. maximum; 36 ft. maximum to top of wall plate for R3 only.
developments, townhouse and rowhouse developments are listed separately in Sections
55% which shall include a minimum of 40 square feet of private open space (yards, decks,
A36.12.040.J, A36.12.040.K and A36.12.0401, respectively. The Rl standards (Section
balconies) per unit. In R3 -D areas, 35 percent with no private open space requirement.
A36.12.030.A.3) apply when there is only one single - family dwelling on a lot, and the R2
Particular attention shall be given to the inclusion and design of usable common recreation
standards (Section A36.12.030.13.2 apply when there is a duplex or two detached single -
space in projects that may accommodate children of various ages.
family dwellings on a lot.
Lot Area
12,000 sq. ft. minimum except that lots in small -lot single - family, townhouse and rowhouse
recreational equipment) for each unit; typically in garage area. In R3 -D zone, no requirement.
developments approved through a PUD permit may be smaller. See Section A36.12.030.C.3
See Article 36.37 (Parking and Loading).
for lot area required for multiple - family dwellings.
Lot Width
80 ft. or 1/3 the lot depth (up to 200 ft. maximum), whichever is greater.
Lot Frontage
As provided above for lot width, except that lots on cul -de -sacs or curved portions of streets
may have a minimum frontage of 35 feet.
Floor Area Ratio
1.05, maximum.
Setbacks
See Section A36.12.040.G for setbacks applicable to accessory structures, Section
A36.12.040.1 for exceptions to required setbacks, and Article 36.27 for special street setback
provisions that may override the following front and side setback requirements.
(See Figure A36.12 -4)
Front 15 ft., but not less than the height of the adjacent building
wall as measured to the top of the wall plate.
Sides 15 ft. or the height of the adjacent building wall measured
to the top of the wall plate, whichever is greater.
Rear 15 ft. or the height of the adjacent building wall measured
to the top of the wall plate, whichever is greater.
Between principal structures 12 ft., or 1/2 the sum of the height of the nearest opposing
walls, including those that are portions of the same
building separated by a court or other open space.
Site Coverage
35% of site, maximum area covered by structures; in R3 -D zone, 40% of site, maximum area
covered by structures.
Pavement Coverage
20% of site, maximum outdoor area dedicated to automobile use; in R3 -D zone, 30%
maximum outdoor area dedicated to automobile use (see Section A36.30.020.D.1).
Height Limits
See Section 36.40.1 for exceptions to height limits.
45 ft. maximum; 36 ft. maximum to top of wall plate for R3 only.
Open Area
55% which shall include a minimum of 40 square feet of private open space (yards, decks,
balconies) per unit. In R3 -D areas, 35 percent with no private open space requirement.
Particular attention shall be given to the inclusion and design of usable common recreation
space in projects that may accommodate children of various ages.
Personal Storage
500 cubic feet of enclosed and secured storage area for bulky personal effects (such as
recreational equipment) for each unit; typically in garage area. In R3 -D zone, no requirement.
Parking
See Article 36.37 (Parking and Loading).
Signs
See Section 36.1 1.13 Article 36.41 (Signs).
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.030), 2009
212 20 1 4 - 2 0 2 2 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
Table B -6: R3 Zoning District Minimum Lot Areas
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.030), 2009.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 213
Minimum Lot Area Required
(sq. ff.) by
Number of Dwelling Units
Zone
1 unit
2 units
3 units
4 units
5 units
Additional units
R3 -1
5,000
9,000
12,000
14,000
15,000
1,000 per unit
R3 -1.25
5,000
9,000
12,000
14,000
15,250
1,250
R3 -1.5
5,000
9,000
12,000
14,000
15,500
1,500
R3 -2
5,000
9,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2,000
R3 -2.2
5,000
9,000
12,000
14,200
16,400
2,200
R3 -2.5
5,000
9,000
12,000
14,500
17,000
2,500
R3 -3
5,000
9,000
12,000
15,000
18,000
3,000
R3 -4
5,000
9,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
4,000
R3 -D
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
850 square feet for each additional
unit up to 30 units, and 800 square
feet for each additional unit for 31
or more units
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.030), 2009.
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 213
City of Mountain View
Table B -7: R4 Zoning District Development Standards
Criteria Primary Criteria (Required for sites that apply for R4 zoning):
Cannot be contiguous with R 1 or R2 zones;
Minimum site size of at least 1 acre;
Allowed across the street from R 1 zones, only when the street is an arterial (as
identified in the General Plan).
Secondary Criteria (to be considered for sites that apply for R4 zoning): See R4
guidelines.
Dwelling Unit Types The following standards apply to multi - family housing. Standards for small -lot,
single - family developments, townhouse developments and rowhouse developments
are listed separately in Sections A36.12.040.J, A36.12.040.K and A36.12.0401
respectively. The R 1 standards (Section A36.12.030.A.3) apply when there is only
one single - family dwelling on a lot, and the R2 standards (Section A36.12.030.B.2)
apply when there is a duplex or two detached single - family dwellings on a lot.
Lot Area Project area - -1 -acre minimum. Individual lots in small -lot, single - family, townhouse
and rowhouse developments approved through a PUD permit may be smaller.
Lot Width
160 feet, minimum.
Lot Frontage
As provided above for lot width, except that lots on cul -de -sacs or curved portions
of streets may have a minimum frontage of 35 feet.
Density
60 units per acre, maximum.
Floor Area Ratio
1.40 maximum for projects that are equal to or under 40 units per acre;
1.95 maximum for projects between 41 and 50 units per acre;
2.30 maximum for projects that are between 51 and 60 units per acre.
Setbacks
See Section A36.12.040.G for setbacks applicable to accessory structures, Section
Front 15 -foot minimum.
Side 1 to 2 stories - -l0 -foot minimum;
3 stories - -l5 -foot minimum.
Street Side 15 -foot minimum.
Rear 15 -foot minimum.
Height Limits
See Section A36.40.1 for exceptions to height limits.
52 -foot maximum wall height /62 -foot maximum ridge height;
60 -foot maximum wall height /70 -foot maximum ridge height under certain
Across the street from 40 -foot maximum wall height at the facade, with upper
R1 zones floors set back 10 feet from the facade and a maximum
height of 52 feet wall height /62 feet ridge height.
Open Area
30 percent of site, minimum
Private Open Space Average of 40 square feet per unit;
Minimum area shall be 40 square feet, where provided.
Personal Storage
Minimum of 80 square feet enclosed and secured storage area for bulky personal
Parking
See Article A36.37 (Parking and Loading).
Signs
See Article 36.38 (Signs).
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.030), 2009
214 2 0 1 4 - 2 0 2 2 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
Table B -8: RMH Zoning District Development Standards
Setbacks
All structures, including but not limited to mobile homes, shall be setback
from property lines as follows:
(1) Street frontage lot lines: thirty (30) feet
(2) Exterior park lot lines not abutting street lines: ten (10) feet.
Minimum site area
Five (5) acres
Density
A maximum of eight (8) mobile home spaces per acre.
Landscaping
Mobile home parks shall be landscaped as follows:
(1) Street frontages. Required setbacks shall be provided with a landscaped
buffer at least fifteen (15) feet wide, except where cut by access driveways.
Landscaping shall occupy a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the required
street frontage setback area required by subsection El .c. (1), above.
(2) a minimum ten (10) foot wide screen planting shall be established
between the mobile home park and peripheral property lines.
(3) A minimum twenty (20) percent of the total site area for each mobile
home shall be permanently landscaped.
(4) A minimum of forty -five (45) percent of the total common area(s) of a
mobile home park shall be permanently landscaped.
(5) At least one (1) fifteen (15) gallon tree shall be provided on each mobile
home lot.
Fencing
The perimeter of a mobile home park or subdivision shall be enclosed by a
six (6) foot high solid masonry wall (or alternate approved by the zoning
administrator), located at the setback line along street frontages, and
adjacent to property lines not abutting streets.
Signs
Sign area shall be limited to one (1) identification sign of fifty (50) square feet
and one (1) directional sign of twenty -five (25) square feet, subject to zoning
administrator approval.
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.040), 2009
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 215
City of Mountain View
Table B -9: CRA Zoning District Development Standards
Dwelling Unit
The following standards apply to Multi - Family Housing:
Standards
Standards for Townhouse and Rowhouse Developments are listed separately in Section
Lot Area
20,000 square foot minimum, except that lot sizes in Townhouse and Rowhouse
Lot Width
None
Density
43 units per acre maximum
Floor Area Ratio
1.35 maximum for office, retail and housing (office portion shall not to exceed .35 FAR)
Setbacks
See Section A36.12.040.1 for exceptions to required setbacks and Article 36.27 for special
Development
street setback provisions that may override the following front and side setback requirements:
Front 5' behind sidewalk minimum
Rear 15' minimum but not less than the height of the adjacent
wall (measured to top of wall plate)
Sides 15'
Between Principal Structures One -half the sum of nearest opposing walls (measured to
top of wall plate)
Site Coverage None
Pavement Coverage for 25% of site; Zoning Administrator may approve higher percentage in proportion to commercial
Area Dedicated to Auto in mixed use development
Height Limits See Section 36.40.1 for exceptions to height limits.
45' to ridge (35' to top of wall plate) except that buildings with commercial space may be 50'
to ridge; lower height may be required for portions of buildings adjacent to existing residential.
Open Area
45% including 40 square feet of private open area per unit; Zoning Administrator may approve
reduced open area in proportion to commercial space in mixed used development
Personal Storage
80 square feet of enclosed and secured storage area for bulky personal effects (such as
recreational equipment) for each unit; typically in garage area
Parking
See Section 36.37 (Parking and Loading)
Signs for Commercial
See Section A36.38.060.0 (Signs). The Zoning Administrator may modify the sign regulations
Uses in Mixed Use
as appropriate for a development that includes residential uses.
Development
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.14.030), 2009.
216 20 1 4 - 2 0 2 2 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
City of Mountain View
Table B -10: Companion Unit Development Standards
Minimum lot area
35% larger than required by the applicable zone
Gross floor area
700 sq. ft. of habitable floor area, maximum, and 200 sq. ft. for a
garage, maximum, provided the total floor area for the lot does
not exceed the maximums in Section A36.12.030.A.3.
Location of unit
Attached to a Ground level or above the garage.
principal structure
Detached unit Rear half of lot.
Above a detached Rear half of lot.
garage
Site coverage, detached rear-
30% of the rear yard, maximum, including any other accessory
yard units
structures and projections of the primary dwelling.
Setbacks
Side 1 -story structure: 5 ft. minimum, 12 ft.
total;
2 -story over attached or detached garage:
See Section A36.12.030.A.3 for 2nd story
setbacks.
Rear 1 -story: 10 ft. minimum;
2 -story over attached or detached garage:
See Section A36.12.030.A.3 for 2nd story
setbacks.
Interior 10 ft. minimum, from primary dwelling or
other structure, if detached.
Height limit
1 -story detached: 16 ft. maximum and 9 ft. at top of wall plate;
1 -story attached: See Section A36.12.030.A.3 for height limits for
principal structures;
2 -story (over garage): 28 ft. maximum.
Parking
See Article 36.37 (Parking and Loading).
Sources: City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Sec. A36.12.040), 2009
2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 217
City of Mountain View
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Mountain View 2015 -2023 Housing Element
218 20 1 4 - 2 0 2 2 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
Appendix C: General Plan
Consistency Matrix
........................... ...............................
2 0 1 4 - 2 0 2 1 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 219
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Mountain View 2015 -2023 Housing Element
2014 -2021 Housing Element 220
v
.N
f+
w
.N
U
X
• `r{1
f
4-)
5�
[V
W
rr ^j
vJ
• r{
r�
U
r
r�
J�
1�
U
1�
H
N
N
a
w
w N
X X
+'
V
IL
X X
`o
v
`w
W
m
x x x
0
bA
N
O
VI
K
.�
M
Q
d
jN
x
R
�
N
O
a
±' N
X X X X
(V
O
p7 00
X
X
N
0
r
x
N
c
R f0
X X X
7
N
X X X
C
R
d
X X X
N
M
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
C
J N
X
X
L
d
d
�
I
07
c
7
O
t
�
�
0
O
t
N
�
N
E
y
r
R
U
d
Y
C
d
L
R
E
R
R
r
W
O
C
Q
Z,
O
O_
W
N
d
a
0
O
V
o
Y
NR
MA U
O
u)
C Q m
R
w
r
W m m
> 6
O
m 1w
m o
C L N (n N
�
Lp
R Q L
'E
w, w
O
o)
0
C3 (ID
o D N j C
N=
N R Q
U
w O O
3
E ID W O B 3o
U O 3 U m
4
Q
ID
p t/1 (n N -O .�_ -O .� (6 R
m N t/1 o >, m >i m
O o
C t/1 R , O
- N U J mw J t/1
�.w��m�LyO�
y6 N
- N .�
o
-O o
I R O N N
o� D��gOm
���
���
N N 0 o. (n Q LL _6 m
V f/1 N t/1 N V m Q
Q '� N -6 C
m �' .f/1 f/1 m N
C m '� C
N J (Y Q Q
'O Y (n (n
y o
t/1
t/1 O t/1 -6
Q O O
Y R O t/1 J (6 m O
J O O -6 -6 C -O 'w =
a' E N t/1 N U
VI m N >� y0 Q CY O
O Q_
= a R m -6
I C
N C O .O
(n _Q N O C C y
L C d' (6 N U
m O �C m '�
N
R m 0 L L O
'� w N C
O N E_
y 0 .�
�, (6
t/1 C j C N (6 (6 Q t/1 N N t/1 >
O (6 ?i -O -6 'O .O O C
~ N y m
(Y
> f/1
O �6 �
'"' Q '"' Q
N j N (L6
N Q
U >� .-. C
07 = LL LL !�° J O J S' LL !� = s
L .-. C
m O O !�° F
45 C
O = l0 l0 Cg
I L
Cg
IL
O
O N M V LO (O
V LO o I� o m 0
Imo V (�
N M V LO (O OI
N N N N N N N N C9
M M M M M M
V V V V
5O
W
O
N
U
a
a
R
N
v
a
R
C
r
_
O X X X
2
CI
C
R
_
7
r
c
R
d
N
7
a
J
x x x x x x x x
X X
N �
d �
L C
'O =
R
N N N
R N .0
C Q N
U �
o� _
6 C C
C F O
U) y C
Ds E cn °
�
�Q� N m
U Q w
m m
C Y Y 5 '0 O O
0 W O
6 O O C� Q
D D O O W� L
� (6 �cpQ
E V l! CE 0- In V V L5 Z
R N
O7 R
0 O— N M V LO 0 c0
Ix x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
X
a
C
7
E
E
O
V
r
x x x x x x
x x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X X
X
IX X
d
_
R
C
•R
N
7
N
a
R 'O
C �
d C
c E
O N
Q
c E
N 1
R �
r
C w
O y
R O
N R
U
N
O n n L Q
> >
m 6= R U 0
E O C O U d
C _
U r
U = _ -O C �p LL >
O C L C C N N
w w O .� (n T U -O (n M m U m N g C� ' E Q R J� O 'O ll� m
To LO m Q
C a) 0 l F 0 m m ,O 0 0 O d p) p) > R O C O
cw >. >. => Q C C U) N Q -O C O R CC 0 C O U
N N (6Y '0 O R= V T (6 Z N R LL 0
_ C d
m m o Q °) m = c°n .0 .0 .0 .0 U ?' ;o in w
.m Q m -O R C C C m N m -O (6 N N �C�Q N
L-1-- N CO V LO . . W . O2 � � � j � � � W � N CO V LO (O O � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r 0 cci 00
v
v
W
..r
O
x
N
N
O
N
ri
O
N
N
N
N