Atherton City Council
January 18, 2023

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 39
January 2023
housing options in Atherton and other jurisdictions surrounding Ravenswood for families to access once they are displaced.

Atherton is served by the Menlo Park City, Redwood City, and Las Lomitas Elementary School Districts; and the Sequoia Union Unified High School District.

Menlo Park City Elementary experienced an increase in enrollment of 6% from 2010 to 2020, while enrollment in Redwood City Elementary and Las Lomitas Elementary decreased 11% and 16% respectively. This represents a much larger decrease than the one percent decrease experienced in the county.

Enrollment in Sequoia Union Unified High School District increased by 18% from 2010 to 2020. Enrollment at Menlo Atherton High School is approximately 2,400 students, with 5% of those students residing inAtherton.

Enrollment composition by race and ethnicity varies by district. Menlo Park City Elementary and Las Lomitas Elementary have a higher share of White students than San Mateo County (55%, and 53% respectively, v. 26%). Redwood City Elementary has a much higher share of Hispanic students than San Mateo County (70% v. 38%). The enrollment composition in Sequoia Union High School District is similar to the countywide distribution.

Atherton has received an average of 18 short-term enrollments of migrant student workers per year according to California Department of Education data. This is significantly fewer than the county level, which sees an average of 416 per year.

Overall, 29% of public-school students in San Mateo County qualify for reduced lunch.

This number was substantially higher in Redwood City Elementary School District (which includes Atherton’s Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School),, where 56% of students qualify for reduced lunch.. County-wide, 20% of public-school students are English learners. Again, this rate is higher at Redwood City Elementary, where 38% of students are English learners.

In contrast, the share of students who qualify for reduced lunch, are experiencing homelessness, or are English learners is lower in Menlo Park City Elementary and is significantly lower in Las Lomitas Elementary than the countywide share.

Countywide 27% of Hispanic students met or exceeded mathematics testing standards and 40% met or exceeded English testing standards. Hispanic students in Menlo Park City Elementary, Las Lomitas Elementary, and Redwood City Elementary, which includes Atherton’s Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School, performed better

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 40
January 2023
compared to the county (55%, 44%, and 34% respectively in mathematics and 62%, 65%, and 43% in English).

Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Of the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 69% followed by San Mateo Union High with 68%. Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the Sequoia Union district were less likely than their peers of other races and ethnicities to meet the admission standards with rates of 38%, 55%, and 50%, respectively.

Despite the high share of students meeting college admission standards, Sequoia Union has the second to lowest college going rate in the County, at 70%. The highest rate was 77% in San Mateo Union High.

In addition, Sequoia Union district has the highest dropout rate in the County (10%) and dropout rates among Pacific Islander (20%), Hispanic (16%), and Black (12%) students are much higher. Students with disabilities and those learning English dropped out at the highest rate at 24% and 27%, respectively. This is a sign that the district does not offer adequate support for students facing barriers because of their race, language skill, and disability. However, there are promising increases in diversity of school staff that serve as an advantage to a diverse student body.

Another possible reason can be traced to chronic absenteeism, which means students miss more than 10% of school days. 17% of students in the Sequoia Union High School District struggle with chronic absenteeism, which drastically lowers test scores and social engagement with peers and mentors. Black and Hispanic students were more likely to be chronically absent. Schools with more homeless students also saw more chronic absenteeism, illuminating a connection between school performance and stable housing.

Employment. According to ACS data, the top three industries by number of jobs in Atherton include professional and managerial services, health and educational services, and arts and recreation services. In the terms of job holders, the top industries are professional and managerial services, and health and educational services. The chart below shows employment by industry and region.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 41
January 2023
Atherton has a lower job to household ratio at 1.14when compared to the county at

1.59. The town has a slightly higher unemployment rate than the county, but saw a sharp incline in the unemployment rate in 2020 that has yet to return to pre pandemic levels.

TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The entire town area scores more than 0.75 for economic opportunity—highest economic outcome.

HUD’s job proximity index shows the eastern part of the town in relatively close proximity to jobs (score between 60 to 80) while the western part scores between 40 and 60— on a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs.

There are several barriers to high paying jobs for protected classes, most of which can be traced back to educational opportunities and outcomes. As highlighted in the previous education section, Black, Hispanic, and English language learners have the highest school absenteeism and drop out rate in the school district covering Atherton.

The majority of employment in Atherton is in the financial and professional service sector and the health and educational services sector. Most of these jobs likely require education beyond high school. Because Black and Hispanic students are more likely

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 42
January 2023
to drop out, employment options that will provide adequate pay to financially qualify for housing in Atherton are drastically reduced.

In general, new jobs continue to outpace new homes, and especially new affordable homes, in the county. Since 2010, the county has added 100,000 jobs but only 10,000 new homes. Jobs are expected to increase 22 percent between 2020 and 2050. So while residents in the county may technically have more employment opportunities, the lack of affordable housing near these jobs will continue to act as a barrier to accessing these employment opportunities
Transportation. This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves Atherton and the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access in the town. The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.

In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in San Mateo and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to San Mateo County. There were no comments specific to Atherton. “San Mateo’s PCC and County Health System, as well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked cars blocking sidewalk right-of-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate motorized scooters and wheelchairs. Transportation information, emerging mobility providers, and transit fares were other common themes.

While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 43
January 2023
comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”17
A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco Bay, served by MTC.”18
As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.”
The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.19
MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18-month pilot project— in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.20
In 2020, Caltrain voted to close Atherton’s station due to low ridership. There were some residents that thought this would be harmful to those who do not have access to a car or cannot drive, such as the elderly and disabled community; however, there were alternative resources identified such as the nearby Menlo Park Train Station and associated bus lines on El Camino Real and Middlefield Road.21 Environment. TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to 17 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf 18 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
19https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adul ts_and_People_with_Disabilities.html
20 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm 21https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/residents-react-to-plan-to-close-atherton-s-caltrain-stop/article_3070cdd2- d539-11ea-ad6b-4b3eeab63a6c.html

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 44
January 2023
pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.

According to TCAC’s opportunity map, census tracts in Atherton score between 0.25 and 0.75—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes. The census tract scoring between

0.25 and 0.50 is located west of El Camino Real and the census tract to the east scores between 0.50 and 0.75. The town scores the highest on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC).

The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.22
Disparities in access to opportunity. Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resource areas compared to non-Hispanic White residents. The chart below details the percentage of households by race living in resource areas. Note that there are no households in Atherton living in a low resource area. 71% of Hispanic households live in moderate resource areas compared with 29% in high resource areas. Similarly, 77% of Black households live in moderate resource areas and 23% live in high resource areas. Non-hispanic, multiple race households have the highest population in high resource areas, however this population is relatively small with 323 households compared with 4,966 white households. Racial and ethnic minorities living in Atherton are wealthier compared to the county and Atherton is home to a disproportionately small share of residents with limited English proficiency (1% compared to 7% countywide).
22 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 45
January 2023
TCAC’s composite opportunity score for Atherton shows census tracts west of El Camino Real fall within moderate resource areas while the rest is within high resource areas.

The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. The index shows Atherton as a low vulnerability area.

Atherton does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535, “disadvantaged communities are defined as the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”23
Disparities specific to the population living with a disability. Eight percent of the population in Atherton are living with at least one disability, the same share as in the 23 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 46
January 2023
county. The most common disabilities in the town are ambulatory (4.5%), cognitive (3.1%), and hearing (3.0%).

Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.

For the population 65 and over the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases. As mentioned above under access to transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging, therefore this population with a disability is likely to increase.

Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability at 11% compared to 5% for residents without a disability in Atherton—particularly when compared to the county. High unemployment rates among this population points to a need for increased services and resources to connect this population with employment opportunities.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 47
January 2023

3.360 Disparate Housing Needs
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 48
January 2023
Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.

Housing needs. Population growth in Atherton has historically been driven by economic cycles. The town experienced a sharp loss in population between 1999 and 2000 and again between 2009 and 2010. Since 2010 population growth has been slower than the County’s and the town has not reached the population level it had prior to the 2008-09 financial crisis. However, the town does not appear to have experienced a sharp population decrease in 2020 with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since 2015, the housing construction to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households with 78 units permitted for above moderate-income households compared to 35 for very low-income households, 15 for low-income households, and 3 for moderate income households. The Housing Needs Data Report for Atherton indicates new construction is slower than the rest of the Bay Area. 24One example of a group who has found workforce housing hard to come by are the employees of the Atherton Police Department. In 2018, employees advised the City Council that they faced long commutes on top of twelve-hour shifts and had little time to sleep. The commute was necessary because there are limited affordable options in the region for their families. In the past, the town had used a town-owned property in a deed-restricted park as a place for police to sleep. This solution was not sustainable for the town or police officers, who wanted to spend more time with their families instead of commuting.25 This makes recruitment and retention difficult.

The variety of housing types available in the town in 2020 are predominantly single family (98%). Six multi-family homes were added in 2020. Single family detached saw a decline in units and single family attached saw a small incline. Due to its land use 24 Housing Needs Data Report: Atherton, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.
25 Atherton looking for place for officers, dispatchers to sleep between shifts | News | Almanac Online | (almanacnews.com)

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 49
January 2023
zoning and high cost of land, Atherton has developed far fewer multifamily units than the region. .
26 The majority of the housing inventory in Atherton was constructed from 1940 to 1959, with 1,087 units built between 1940 to 1959 compared to 180 units built in 2010 or later.

Compared to San Mateo County, the Town’s owner-occupied housing market has a greater share of units priced above $2 million. Ninety percent (90%) of units in Atherton fall within this price range compared to 19% in the county. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced exponential growth in the town and the county. The town is an outlier, with the Zillow home value index at $6.6 million for Atherton compared to the county’s $1.4 million.

Given the small share of renters in the town, rental price trends are less accurate than the County’s, but appear to have experienced appreciation since 2014. Compared to the county, Atherton has more luxury rental units—67% of units rent for more than $3,000 in the town compared to 22% in the county. A point-in-time Google search found no home for rent under $5,000 per month. Workers would need higher incomes to qualify for rentals available in Atherton–and are thus inclined to seek out homeownership or lower cost rental opportunities in other communities. However, the Town is in the process of implementing a robust and inclusive ADU program that will 26 Housing Needs Data Report: Atherton, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 50
January 2023
facilitate, support, and encourage the development and rental of accessory dwelling units at affordable rates via a HIP Housing Program.

Resident survey data provide evidence of more rental inventory, reporting that owners are renting ADUs to senior family members, students, school faculty, and local service workers at significantly reduced or below market rental prices. Many of these rental opportunities are not marketed in the traditional way using Zillow, Craigslist or other platforms. Rather, because Atherton is a small community, property owners will reach out directly to those in need of such housing solutions or offer housing through a local school’s housing referral program.

Cost burden and severe cost burden. As expected, a low share of households in Atherton are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs— compared to the county (28% v. 37% in the county).

Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. One out of seven households with income below 80% AMI are severely cost burdened— spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs. Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare. Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness. Cost burden suggests that wages have not kept up with housing costs in the area.

When cost burden is broken down by Area Median Income (AMI), there are stark differences. The chart below indicates these disparities. Although those with greater than 100% AMI likely spend the most on housing, their incomes can meet these costs. 80% of those in this group spend 0-30% of their income on housing. In contrast, 88% of those earning 0-30% AMI spend over 50% of their income on housing costs.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 51
January 2023
As mentioned previously, racial and ethnic minorities living in Atherton are wealthier compared to the county. Asian/API and Hispanic households are less likely to be cost burdened than non-Hispanic white households. Households of other or multiple races experience higher rates of cost burden—56% are extremely cost burdened, compared to 16% in the town overall.

There are also differences by tenure. In San Mateo County, 29.6% of homeowners pay more than 35% of their income towards housing and 42.8% of renters pay more than 35% of their income towards housing costs. This is higher than in Atherton, likely because there are more people over 100% AMI. In Atherton, 29% of owner-occupiers pay more than 30% of income towards housing. Statistics on renter income to housing costs are difficult to calculate because of the low number of renters in Atherton, thus 51% of renter cost has not been calculated in ACS data. From what exists, 65% of renteroccupied households pay more than 30% of income on housing costs and 11% pay 30-50% of income on rent.

The map below shows cost burden by census tract. Discrepancies in the percentage of Atherton renters paying more than 30% of their income for rent may be attributed, as has been noted, to the difficulty of calculating these figures based on the low number of renters in Atherton. ACS 5-year 2019 data shows 20-40% of renters in Atherton are paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Atherton is largely surrounded by cost burdened communities. 60-80% of renters are cost burdened in the

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 52
January 2023
East Palo Alto and Redwood City area. It could be that there are more renters in these adjacent communities because Atherton offers few renter-occupied units.Thus residents of San Mateo County who cannot yet afford a house are forced to pay a high cost of housing as renters in areas outside of Atherton. Southwest Atherton has less than 20% of renters who are cost burdened, but is similarly surrounded by communities that have more than 20% of renters that are cost burdened.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 53
January 2023

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 54
January 2023
Cost burden for homeowners is more significant in Atherton. This is not surprising given that there are more owner-occupied single family homes in the town and therefore there is better data on owners than renters. At least 20% of homeowners in Atherton spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Southwest Atherton, which notably had fewer cost burdened renters than other areas of the town, has the town’s highest percentage of homeowners who are cost burdened in the town at 40-60%.

Again, Atherton is surrounded by communities where over 20% of homeowners are cost burdened, suggesting that homeownership is still unaffordable to those even with relatively high incomes.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 55
January 2023

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 56
January 2023
Overcrowding. The vast majority of households (99%) in Atherton are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room.

Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. Other races (21% of households), and Hispanic households (19%), experience the highest rates of overcrowding.

In San Mateo County, 6.9% of households have more than one occupant per room.

This is slightly better than the state average of 8.2%.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to afford the unit. Below, the map shows where overcrowding in the Bay Area is more common. East Palo Alto and Redwood City have the highest percentage of overcrowding in the region, likely because of their high renter population. Multifamily rental units have less bedrooms than single family homes. There are also higher populations of Hispanic residents in these areas. Hispanic households tend to have larger, multigenerational households, which could account for the higher overcrowding rate.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 57
January 2023

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 58
January 2023
Substandard housing. Data on housing conditions are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys. According to data estimates, the share of housing units with substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities in Atherton is zero, despite an aging housing stock.This data estimate is further substantiated by direction from the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer. . This could be because all residents live in moderate or high resource areas where renovations are financially feasible and most residents are homeowners who are able to modify their units. San Mateo County also has a low rate of substandard housing; 99.9% of households have complete kitchen and plumbing facilities.

As shown in the map below, residents who do not have complete kitchen or plumbing utilities tend also to live in severely overcrowded conditions, and are severely cost burdened, Atherton has less than 20% of residents in substandard conditions. In East Palo Alto and Southeast Redwood City, however, 40-60% of all households selected at least one of the substandard housing issues. Substandard housing congregates in areas of low income because these residents do not have the financial leverage to improve housing conditions, have landlords who are unwilling to make improvements, or do not ask for improvements or report conditions in fear of retaliatory eviction.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 59
January 2023

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 60
January 2023
Homelessness. In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county, 40% of these individuals were in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children. These disparities may indicate there are more resources available in the County for families experiencing homelessness as compared to for single individuals experiencing homelessness.

People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native (6% homeless, less than 1% general population), Black (13%, 2%), White (67%, 51%), and Hispanic (38%, 28%) are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population. The disparities by race can be traced back to discrimination in the housing market and the exclusion of non-white populations from high resource areas. There are few housing options for low-income people in the region. Housing that is available at the market rate likely forces people to spend more than 50% of their income on housing, which puts households at risk for homelessness.

People struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental illness (305), and domestic violence (127) represent a substantial share of the homeless population in 2019. This indicates that there are not enough resources or beds for those experiencing mental illness, substance abuse, and domestic violence in the county.

Displacement. Owner households generally enjoy a greater amount of housing stability whereas renter households are more mobile. Atherton has no inventory of income assisted rental units. In San Mateo County, 417 units are at risk, accounting for 8% of the total assisted housing units in the county.

Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
◼ They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 61
January 2023
⮚ Share of very low-income residents is above 20%, 2017 ⮚ AND
⮚ The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
− Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
− They or areas in proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
● Percent change in rent above county median for rent
increases, 2012-2017
OR
◼ Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017” Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.

No census tracts in the town are vulnerable to displacement, however, housing cost burden is a risk for displacement and 88% of residents below 30% AMI pay more than 50% of their income on housing Atherton’s rent’s rental cost is far above regional median rent, suggesting that there is displacement pressure in place. The chart below shows median rent in Atherton, San Mateo County, and the Bay Area. As of December 2022, based on research from local residential rental advertising companies, the average monthly asking rent in Atherton was $24,000 a month.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 62
January 2023
As discussed in the previous section regarding R/ECAPs, Atherton is near edge R/ECAPs in Redwood City and Menlo Park. This suggests that people who may be displaced from Atherton may migrate to these areas and that people within Redwood City and Menlo Park who are displaced cannot access resources within Atherton.

Displacement can also occur because of natural disasters. Atherton is in San Mateo County, which is on the San Andreas fault and therefore has a high likelihood of severe earthquakes. Houses in California are generally made to withstand earthquakes, but those who spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs likely cannot save enough to repair severe damage. This means those of lower income are more at risk of displacement.

Access to mortgage loans. Disparities by race and ethnicity are prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. Hispanic (60% denial rate) and Asian/API (29%) have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019, compared to non-Hispanic White households (18%). These numbers suggest that traditional routes to homeownership are barriers to non-white households. Credit score, assets, and income disparities between races show in denial rates.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 63
January 2023

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 64
January 2023

3.370 Site Inventory Analysis
There are no R/ECAPs or edge R/ECAPS located within the Town of Atherton. Edge R/ECAPS within unincorporated San Mateo County have proximity to portions of Atherton along the western edge of Town bounding El Camino Real.

The complete inventory of identified opportunity sites is included as Appendix 5 and expanded up in section 3.410.

3.380 Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Action Plan The factors contributing to fair housing challenges within Atherton is the high cost of land acquisition, zoning primarily for single family homes, and little affordable housing for those with moderate and low income who work in the town, other than ADUs and housing at local school sites. Per an analysis completed in 2022, the average land acquisition cost for a single acre in Atherton is approximately $7-8 million. The affordability of land is a high bar to the creation of affordable housing and the greatest barrier to development. The best opportunities for affordable housing include ADUs and multi family units on school sites where the land is already owned by the entity.

The Town is continuing to see success in the creation of additional ADU units. The Town estimates that 60% of new rental ADU units will be rented at very low or low-income levels. Based on existing precedent, these units are often used for housing for a senior family member, employees of the homeowner, students, or in other similar circumstances where the renter would otherwise be unable to find similar accommodations locally. Consequently, the ADU occupants do not displace others from low-income housing that is available locally.

ADUs have several other advantages. They can be constructed at significantly lower cost than the cost to build a new multifamily unit. They can be located anywhere within the Town, which means such low-income units are geographically spread throughout Atherton. They are also politically popular and easy to permit.

The Town is implementing several strategies to further utilize ADUs as a tool for providing fair housing opportunities, including:
▪ Expanding community outreach to realize additional ADU development. ▪ Developing assistance programs for JADUs to make alterations easier and more cost effective so that additional units can be developed within the existing building envelope of houses and made available at more affordable rates. ▪ Amending the Zoning title to eliminate the occupancy limitation on other accessory units, such as guest houses and pool houses.
▪ Creating an inventory of existing pool houses and guest houses, and then working with a nonprofit to connect homeowners to prospective renters.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 65
January 2023
▪ Amending the code to increase the height limit to allow ADUs to be constructed above garages.
▪ Amending the zoning code to allow two ADUs to be constructed on a property. ▪ Amending the zoning code to allow multiple ADUs to be rented on a property. ▪ Amending the fee resolution to remove the planning review fees for ADUs. ▪ Adopt an affordable housing impact fee on single family construction. The Town will make available funds from this program to provide very low-income rental assistance for eligible households identified by HIP.

The Town’s complete strategy related to encouraging ADU production and the rental of these units is provided in section 3.812.

Further to provide greater diversity in the housing stock and opportunities for lower income households, the Town has included programs to rezone several properties to allow multi-family housing. These properties have been strategically identified to be near transit and services.

Additionally, the Town will be providing additional fair housing resources and training for property owners, real estate agents, and tenants, per section 3.823 E. This will be provided through a collaboration with other cities and towns, Project Sentinel, or other similar organization. This will provide information on reasonable accommodation and issues related to income and other forms of discrimination. This training could be mandated for multi-family developers, property owners and any resident renting an ADU or similar unit. The Town will also create a webpage to host this information and improve awareness around fair housing training, issues and available programs. The webpage will also provide information on filing fair housing complaints with HCD or HUD.

Lastly, as part of its ADU rental strategy, the Town will implement a program to affirmatively market low-income units to households that are under-represented in the Town in comparison to neighboring jurisdictions and the County. To examine the effectiveness and interest in the ADU strategy, a survey of potential renters in the area, such as employees of homeowners, school and city staff, and elderly individuals is also being pursued.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 66
January 2023

3.400 HOUSING RESOURCES

3.410 Inventory of Sites Suitable for Residential Development

3.411 Parcel-specific List of Available Sites
This section contains an inventory of specific sites suitable for residential development so that a comparison may be made with Atherton’s new construction need by affordability category with its residential development capacity.

The accompanying table (Appendix 5) identifies lands suitable for residential development in Atherton. The HCD Electronic Housing Element Site Inventory Form has been used. Each site is identified by address and assessor’s parcel number and includes the site acreage and existing land use. Existing zoning falls into the categories listed below. It should be noted that Atherton has only four zoning districts, the three listed below plus a Parks and Open Space District.

R-1A (Residential District) - Limits land uses to single-family detached homes on minimum one-acre size lots.

R-1B (Residential District)-Limits uses to single-family detached homes on minimum size 13,500 square foot (0.31 acre) lots.

PFS (Public Facilities and Schools District) - Limits land uses to public and private schools including affiliated residential uses, town hall, library and other similar public and quasipublic uses without limitation on lot size. This district also permits single-family and multifamily residences pursuant to a master plan.

Multifamily Rezonings
Two new multifamily zoning districts are proposed to be adopted following Housing Element certification to provide a range of housing opportunities to the community.

The RM 20 Multifamily District permits multifamily residential uses by right with a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and the RM 10 Multifamily District permits multifamily residential uses by right with a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. The new multifamily zoning districts will allow heights up to 40 feet, adequate setbacks to accommodate the maximum density, parking standards and objective design standards. In addition, to support the development of multifamily housing within the RM 20 Multifamily District, the Town will adopt a lot consolidation program to facilitate consolidation of properties and new housing development. This will include outreach to property owners, an expedited process and waiver of planning review fees.

The 19 properties listed below were prioritized for rezoning because they are located close to services, transit, jobs with adequate access along a public right-of–way.

Multifamily rezone properties:

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 67
January 2023
Address Lot Size Density Development
Potential
1 97 Cebalo 0.37 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
2 98 Cebalo 0.34 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
3 94 Cebalo 0.41 acre 20 units per acre 4 units
4 75 Cebalo 0.934 acre 20 units per acre 9 units
5 8 Selby Lane 0.37 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
6 2 Selby Lane 0.33 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
7 1 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
8 25 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
9 37 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
10 49 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
11 61 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
12 73 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
13 85 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
14 97 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
15 99 Gresham Lane 0.41 acre 20 units per acre 4 units

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 68
January 2023
16 182 El Camino 0.34 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
17 190 El Camiono 0.34 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
18 2 Stockbridge 0.24 acre 20 units per acre 2 units
19 23 Oakwood 1.62 acres 10 units per acre 16 units
The new multifamily districts are further described in Section 3.811 - Housing Programs.

Menlo College – 1000 El Camino Real
Menlo College is a private 4-year college located at 1000 El Camino Real sited on 31 acres of property (including 50% ownership of Cartan Athletic Field and Wunderlich Athletic Field) serving over 800 students. The campus is zoned Public Facilities and Schools (PFS) and abuts the Victoria Manor residential subdivision to the south (R1-A zoning), the MacBain Avenue residences to the west (R1-A zoning), Alejandro Avenue to the north and Menlo School to the south (PFS zoning). The policies within the Housing Element provide that the Town would allow the school development by right at 20 units per acre.

Menlo College currently has 567 beds in 5 residence halls for its students with an additional 288 beds to be added in the fall of 2022, , of which 180 beds remain unfilled, but the College expects them to be filled next year with the students moving into them and freeing up existing affordable housing opportunities in the local community. The on-site student housing frees up housing units in the community and addresses the needs of very-low-income students that were experiencing homelessness. The College also has 25 housing units for its faculty and staff and has a waiting list for more rental needs. Most of those housing units are rented at rates affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

In recent discussions between the College President and Atherton Planning Staff, the President indicated that the College is very interested in providing additional housing on campus. He stated that there is always a demand for additional housing, that the existing units are almost always 100% occupied, and that shortage of affordable housing is a barrier to hiring. Funding has also been a barrier to housing production in the past. Through this Housing Element update process, a group of residents have been formed to assist the College with resources to prepare site feasibility studies and commitment to identify funding sources to build the housing. The attached letter from the College President indicates that the College could support 60 to 90 new multifamily housing units. Letter from the College President is included as an appendix. These sites would contribute to fair housing by accommodating moderate and low income school staff including accessible units. The Town will ensure that there are units for staff

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 69
January 2023
across the income spectrum, from teaching faculty to janitorial staff. This consideration applies to all premises willing to build affordable housing listed below.

The existing PFS zoning requires a conditional use permit for residential uses and allows multifamily residential uses by right (with the provision of very low and low-income units), subject to Planning Commission review of the location, size, proximity to heritage trees and environmental aspects of the project. There are seventeen existing buildings on the campus with a total floor gross area of approximately 307,700 square feet. The total building footprint area is 269,500 square feet resulting in 29% lot coverage. The PFS zone allows 40% lot coverage with no maximum floor area ratio.

The site can accommodate several new buildings. Based on discussions with the College President and a review of site improvements, two viable locations on the property for multifamily housing have been identified.

Site 1: The existing O’Brien surface parking lot at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Alejandra Avenue is approximately 75,000 square feet (1.7 acres) in area. The site is level and currently contains a paved parking lot. The lot is surrounded by mature vegetation. Construction of a multi-family housing building is feasible at this location with podium parking at ground level and 3 stories of housing above, or below grade parking. The town does not have on-site parking requirements.

Parking would be replaced to meet the needs of the college. The Town will rezone this site to permit 40 units per acre by right with objective design standards. The College has expressed interest in developing 60 dwelling units at this site.

Site 2: There are four residences located on the campus in WWII barracks that are currently utilized for faculty housing. Demolition of these residences would accommodate 30 apartment units, resulting in a net increase of 26 multifamily housing units.

Both housing sites on the Menlo College campus are located near a public transportation route (SamTrans bus route on El Camino Real) and would therefore qualify for State mandated reduced parking provisions. To accommodate the new housing development, the zoning will be amended as follows:
● Rezone Site 1 to permit multifamily housing at a density of 40 units per acre and rezone Site 2 to permit multifamily housing at a density of 20 units per acre ● Reduce the minimum front yard setback to 30 feet
● Amend the height limit to allow 4 stories at 48 feet
● Permit multifamily housing by right with objective design standards With the zoning amendment, new multifamily housing would be feasible at the Menlo College campus and would provide housing for a range of income categories, most notable in the very-low to low and moderate income range. The new multifamily housing would also provide accessible units.

Menlo School – 50 Valparaiso Avenue

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 70
January 2023
Menlo School is a private grade 6 - 12 school located at 50 Valparaiso Avenue sited on 26.7 acres of property (including 50% ownership of Cartan Athletic Field and Wunderlich Athletic Field) serving approximately 795 students. The school site is zoned Public Facilities School (PFS) and currently allows for the development of multifamily residential uses. The policies within the Housing Element provide that the Town would allow the school development by right at 20 units per acre.

The school property abuts the Victoria Manor residential subdivision to the east (R1-A zoning), the Michaels Way residential subdivision to the west (R1-A zoning) and Menlo College to the north (PFS zoning). There are eleven existing buildings on the campus with a total gross floor area of 311,574 square feet. Two housing sites have been identified on the Menlo School campus following a review of site improvements:

Site 1: An approximate 56,000 square foot (1.28 acre) surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of the campus with frontage on Valparaiso Avenue and the school entry drive. A 75-foot setback for buildings higher than 22 feet is required by the zoning along the west property line (adjacent to single family homes). An emergency access road required by the Menlo Park Fire District exists within this 75-foot setback (perimeter fire road). At a density of 20- units per acre, this site could yield 25 dwelling units. With the zoning amendment, new multifamily housing would be feasible at the Menlo College campus and would provide housing for a range of income categories, most notable in the very-low to low and moderate income range.

Parking to meet school demand would need to be provided either below grade or in a structure
Site 2: An approximate 44,000 square foot (1 acre) surface parking lot is located in the southeast corner of the campus with frontage on Valparaiso Avenue and the school entry drive. A 75-foot setback for buildings higher than 22 feet is required by the zoning along the east property line. An emergency access road required by the Menlo Park Fire District exists within this 75-foot setback (perimeter fire road). At a density of 20- units per acre, this site could yield approximately 20 dwelling units.

To accommodate the new housing development, the zoning will be amended as follows:
● Rezone sites 1 and 2 to permit multifamily housing at a density of 20 units per acre
● Reduce the minimum front yard setback to 30 feet (along Valparaiso Road) ● Amend the height limit to allow 4 stories of 48 feet
● Permit multifamily housing by right with objective design standards With the zoning amendment, new multifamily housing would be feasible at the Menlo School campus and would provide housing for a range of income categories, most notable in the very-low to low and moderate income range. The new multifamily housing would also provide accessible units.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 71
January 2023
Sacred Heart – 150 Valparaiso Avenue
Sacred Heart Schools is a private preschool, K - 12 institution located at 150 Valparaiso Avenue on 60 acres of property serving approximately 1,195 students. The school site currently allows for the development of multiple-family residential uses, and adjacent parcels that may be acquired by the school in the future would likely be rezoned for such a use. There are currently 5 apartment units on the campus and housing for retired Nuns at Oakwood. The school anticipates this facility being renovated in the future to accommodate faculty housing. The school has a need for faculty and staff housing, although it is not anticipated that the school will develop new housing units during this housing element cycle.

Public Schools
Public schools in Atherton also have an identified critical need for teacher and faculty housing. These schools have the opportunity to create housing using the California Teacher Housing Act of 2016. While the Town’s Housing Element does not account for additional housing at these schools over the 2023-2031 Housing Cycle, it is highly likely that one or more of the institutions below will pursue such housing. All public school sites are shown within the PFS Zone on the following Housing Sites Map. Private school sites are circled.

Menlo-Atherton High School
Menlo-Atherton High School is a public four-year secondary school in the Sequoia Union High School District serving approximately 2,400 students. The school and its athletic fields occupy 38.5 acres at 555 Middlefield Road at the corner of Middlefield and Ringwood Avenue.

Laurel School Lower Campus
Laurel School is a public elementary school in the Menlo Park City School District. Its Lower Campus is on 6 acres at 95 Edge Road in Atherton at the corner of Edge and Ringwood Avenue. The Lower Campus serves approximately 326 students in grades K2.

Encinal School
Encinal School is a public K-5 elementary school in the Menlo Park City School District serving approximately 630 students. It is located on 10 acres at 195 Encinal Avenue at the corner of Encinal and Middlefield Road.

Las Lomitas School
Las Lomitas School is a public TK-3 elementary school in the Las Lomitas Elementary School District serving approximately 485 students. It is located on 9 acres at 299 Alameda de las Pulgas at the corner of Alameda de las Pulgas and Camino Al Lago.

Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 72
January 2023
Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School is a public K-5 elementary school in the Redwood City School District serving approximately 652 students. The portion of the campus within Atherton is located on 5.5 acres at 170 Selby Lane.

CalWater Bear Gulch Reservoir Site – 120 Reservoir Road CalWater owns and operates 99 acres at the Bear Gulch Reservoir in Atherton. The property is located within the Town’s Park and Open Space (POS) zoning district. This district currently allows caretaker housing with a Conditional Use Permit. Due to the high cost of housing and new employee recruitment, CalWater expressed interest in constructing four new affordable housing units at this site. However, this development is not currently planned within the current Housing Element cycle.

Underutilized Parcels (Further Subdivision and/or SB 9 Subdivision) Sixty-seven parcels listed on the table from row 5 (170 Atherton) to row 71 (172 Tuscaloosa) are residential parcels included as underutilized since they are of sufficient size to be further subdivided according to the existing zoning and lot size limits. Seven of these parcels are vacant and have the capacity to yield 8 new dwellings for above moderate-income households if subdivided and developed in accordance with existing zoning regulations or to yield 16 new dwellings for above moderate-income households if subdivided and developed in accordance with SB 9 regulations.

Sixty of these parcels are developed with one single-family house. Those parcels have the capacity to yield 91 net27 new dwellings for above moderate-income households if subdivided and developed in accordance with existing zoning regulations. Under the allowable provisions of SB 9, these 60 parcels could be split further, with each parcel further allowed development capacity of 2-3 net new dwelling units. It follows that under SB 9, if each parcel were to meet the required criteria for an urban lot split, the overall development capacity could yield a total of 91-242 dwelling units.

Including vacant properties, this puts the potential development capacity for the single-family properties listed on the sites inventory at up to 258 units. The Town projects it will net 10 new above moderate income units from the development of vacant parcels and another 48 above moderate units from traditional and SB 9 lot splits.

Complete Electronic Housing Element Site Inventory Form Included as Appendix 5 27 Each parcel contains an existing house which must be demolished to permit subdivision and development with two new houses. Therefore, net yield was determined by subtracting one existing house from the total site capacity.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 73
January 2023
Housing Sites Map

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 74
January 2023
Location of Vacant Parcels

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 75
January 2023

3.414 Environmental Constraints Analysis
The analysis of environmental constraints to development of housing is provided in the discussion below.

1. Areas Subject to Flood Inundation in Event of Dam Failure The areas below Bear Gulch Reservoir and along Atherton Channel are subject to flooding if the Bear Gulch Dam were to fail. This dam is located within about 6,000 feet of the Cañada Fault zone and 10,500 feet of the San Andreas Fault zone28.

Residential development is precluded in the area immediately downstream from the dam by ownership by the California Water Service Company and by open space zoning and General Plan designation. None of these sites are included in the Town’s land inventory.

2. Areas Susceptible to Flooding
According to the Federal Insurance Administration, there are no areas in Atherton identified as flood prone. However, in the 1975 San Mateo County “Seismic and Safety Element” of the General Plan, a few areas in the Town of Atherton were identified as being located within the 100 Year Flood Zone. The main concentration of these areas is along the Atherton Channel with other scattered sites in the area west of El Camino Real. Areas susceptible to flooding do not have any impact on development potential.

3. Areas Subject to Wildland Fire Hazard
Areas identified on the Environmental Constraints map as subject to Wildland Fire Hazard are generally west of Alameda de las Pulgas in the vicinity of Bear Gulch Reservoir and along Walsh Road and Reservoir Road. However, none of the Town is in a High Fire Hazard Zone, as defined. Residential building is precluded around Bear Gulch Reservoir because of its ownership by the California Water Service Company, and the open space zoning and General Plan designation. The adopted Fire Code requires all buildings exceeding 1,000 square feet be sprinklered and that roofs be constructed of fire-resistant materials. All buildings in the wildland interface must have fire sprinklers to protect the interface from a dwelling fire incident. In addition, the Menlo Park Fire Protection District inspects the area annually and recommends homeowners to clear combustible vegetation near structures. This constraint requires mitigation but does not prevent residential construction.

4. Areas Subject to Seismic Activity
San Mateo County is in the vicinity of several known active and potentially active earthquake faults. These include the San Andreas and the Hayward faults. All 28 County of San Mateo Geotechnical Hazard Synthesis Map

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 76
January 2023
properties in Atherton have an equal exposure to seismic activity. This constraint requires mitigation but does not prevent residential construction.

3.415 Infrastructure Description
Adequate infrastructure exists throughout the entire Town to accommodate the existing and planned density of development. This includes existing paved streets, sewer, water supply for domestic and fire suppression purposes and drainage facilities.

Available public services include Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, Building Inspection and Town Administration.

There are no sites in the Town of Atherton identified as available for housing that are in areas not served by public sewer systems. Consequently, there are no sites identified as available for housing for any of the several income level households in areas not served by a public sewer system.

All the housing opportunity sites proposed in this Housing Element are on existing developed property connected or adjacent to all city services. Redevelopment of these infill sites may require infrastructure improvements by the city or the developer to upgrade aging infrastructure or to increase capacity. The provision of on-site improvements, such as streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, utility undergrounding, drainage, water, and sewer infrastructure, are standard conditions of development approval and have not been barriers to housing development in the past. If off-site infrastructure improvements are required, these are the responsibility of the developer if the upgrade is not currently in the Capital Improvement Program.

Water is supplied throughout the town by the Bear Gulch District of the California Water Service. Most of the water provided (93%) is purchased or imported through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, with a remaining 7% supplied by Bear Gulch Reservoir. Cal Water’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan provides detail on available capacity and allocations for each district, with sufficient planned volume through 2045. While planned water capacity is already sufficient to accommodate the town’s RHNA, the town also anticipates greater efficiency of water use resulting from the type of new development proposed. Atherton residences, compared to regional and state averages, use an inordinate amount of water, primarily due to landscaping. As properties are subdivided through SB 9 to create smaller lots, or new units are created with ADUs, the primary source of local water demand will not be increased. It is reasonable to project that new development of smaller units using ADUs and lot splits will serve to reduce average household water consumption. In addition, Cal Water’s management plan projects water consumption for singlePage 179 of 443 Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 77
January 2023
family residences to decrease over time due to improved appliance standards, plumbing codes, and conservation programs.29
Most Atherton residents receive sewer services from West Bay Sanitary District, with a portion of the town served by the Fair Oaks Sanitation District operated by the County of San Mateo. Capacity for new development is generally analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Improvements to sewer infrastructure to accommodate development are incumbent on the developer, and have not been a barrier to projects in the past. Similar to decreases in water use, the town also anticipates reductions in per residence demand for sewer services that will alleviate the demand created by new development.

Per Chapter 727, Statues of 2004 (SB 1087), upon completion of an amended or adopted Housing Element, a local government is responsible for immediately distributing a copy of the element to area water and sewer providers. In addition, water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households.

Chapter 727 was enacted to improve the effectiveness of the law in facilitating housing development for lower-income families and workers. To comply with SB 1087, upon adoption, this Housing Element will be forwarded to the city’s Public Works Department.

3.416 Zoning Appropriate to Accommodate the Development of Housing Affordable to Lower Income Households
The Town is required to provide sites suitable for construction of 204 lower income units (94 very low income, 54 low income and 56 moderate income). As described in section 3.812, based on experience in the last three years of the 5th RHNA cycle, the Town expects an average construction rate of 27 Accessory Dwelling Units per year, or 216 new ADUs during the RHNA 6th cycle. The Town expects that these units will be divided between very low-), low- , moderate- and above moderate- income categories. It is projected that the number of ADUs produced in the lower income levels would be 168 units; 112 very low to low income, - and 56 moderate-income units.

The zoning code would be amended to accommodate construction of these ADUs with increased height limits, removal of occupancy restriction on pool houses and guest houses and permit two ADUs per property.

The Town's distributions of project ADUs by income category are largely based on data contained in ABAG’s technical assistance paper issued September 8, 2021 entitled, “Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units.’ The paper was prepared based on a survey conducted by the Center for Community Innovation at UC Berkeley and utilized HCD’s affordability calculator to determine the appropriate income category. 29 https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/MPS_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 78
January 2023
Atherton is a well-established community with limited land availability, very high housing costs and limited public funding for housing programs. However, the existing land patterns and housing types are very conducive to a successful ADU program.

Minimum lot sizes are larger than average in Atherton thereby providing more opportunities for the construction of ADUs.

In the past two years, a total of 48 new single family homes were built in Atherton and during this same time frame, there were 44 new ADUs, 3 JADUs, and 7 ADUconversions. The Town believes that this nearly one to one ratio exists because the Town recently modified its regulations to encourage the development of ADUs. In addition, a recent community survey with nearly 18% of households responding indicates an interest by over 200 property owners to construct an ADU on their property over the next 8 years. Accordingly, the Town believes that the construction rate of 35 new ADUs per year over the next 8 years is achievable.

While single-family homes and owner-occupied housing with four or fewer units are typically exempt from the federal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) applies to any residence of one or more households that is being offered for rent or sale. If a homeowner occupies their home and rents out a portion of their home to a tenant, FEHA does not apply so long as only one tenant can live in the home with the owner. However, ADUs are considered separate units from the primary dwelling unit on the parcel, and are therefore covered by FEHA. Owners of ADUs cannot discriminate against tenants or prospective tenants because of their status as a member of a protected class.

A second source of housing affordable to lower income households is construction of new multifamily housing on private properties. Nineteen (19) properties have been identified for rezoning to multifamily zoning with densities of 20 units per acre and 10 units per acre. The Town will also adopt an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that would require a minimum of 20% of the multifamily units to be affordable to lower-income households. It is projected that 27 new housing units affordable to above moderateincome households will be constructed on these properties during the 6th RHNA cycle, and 8 units would be constructed affordable to lower-income households pursuant to the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. The Town will also adopt a lot consolidation program to work with property owners to consolidate lots within the RM 20 Zoning District and facilitate new multifamily housing development. In addition to providing housing opportunities to lower income households, new accessible units will also be constructed to provide housing resources for disabled households.

A third source of housing affordable to lower income households is construction of multifamily housing on public and private schools. As described in section 3.813, current zoning permits multifamily housing development on properties in the PFS Zoning District (all public and private schools in Town are zoned PFS). The Town will amend the zoning code to accommodate the new housing development by rezoning the properties to permit 40 units per acre at Menlo College Site 1, 20 units per acre at Menlo College site 2 and 20 units per acre at two Menlo School sites. The zoning will also be amended to increase the height limit and reduce setbacks. The

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 79
January 2023
Town projects construction of 80 units of multifamily housing units at the private school campuses during the 6th RHNA cycle; 40 units for very-low-income and low income households, and 20 units for moderate-income households. These properties would also be subject to the Town’s Inclusionary ordinance, although the schools have expressed need to maintain a higher level of affordability to address their staff housing needs.

3.420 Analysis of Zoning that Encourages and Facilitates a Variety of Housing Types As required by State law, the Town allows factory-built housing or mobile homes on permanent foundations under the same terms applicable to other single-family homes in the R-1A and R-1B zones. The Town does not have architectural review/design review of new homes, nor any specific design guidelines new construction is mandated to follow, and consequently does not impose architectural review on factory-built housing. Lastly, and related, there are no on-site covered parking requirements associated with the construction of any type of new housing.

Currently, multifamily rental housing and single-room occupancy units are permitted in the PFS zones when included in an approved master plan and with a use permit.

The Town will amend the zoning code to allow development of multifamily rental housing by right at 20 units per acre or more on the private school sites and adopt two new multifamily zoning districts, RM 20 and RM 10 on nineteen private properties. The rezoning to allow multifamily housing by right within the PFS zone will remove the private school master plan and use permit process and will streamline the review and approval process for new multifamily housing. Further, the creation of new RM 20 and RM 10 zoning districts will permit multifamily housing by right subject to objective design guidelines. Adding two new multifamily zoning districts in addition to the upzoning at the private schools will encourage and facilitate a variety of housing types available to the community including lower income and accessible units. The creation of these new zoning districts is a substantial step in affirmatively furthering fair housing in Atherton and providing a diversity of housing options for the community.

3.430 Identification of Adequate Sites for Emergency Shelters In 2010, Atherton established a zone that meets requirements set forth in SB2 relating to emergency shelters. The Town amended the existing PFS (Public Facilities and Schools) Zoning District to provide for emergency shelters as an allowable use when located within 500 feet of the Town Civic Center. Within this zone shelters are permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action. The zone contains approximately 6 acres, which can accommodate up to three shelter beds, providing adequate capacity to meet the identified need. A typical shelter approximately 1,000 sq. ft. in size is allowed in this zone by right, and the Town has adopted management and other standards as permitted by State law.

3.440 Identification of Adequate Sites for Transitional and Supportive Housing In June 2010, Atherton amended the zoning code to explicitly state that any use is permitted if required by State law. Under this revision, supportive and transitional housing only need to obtain the same types of permits and approvals as the same

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 80
January 2023
type of residential development in that zone. Residential uses, including transitional and supportive housing, are permitted without discretionary permits in the following zones; R-1A and R-1B; and are permitted with a use permit in the PFS zone.

3.450 Identification of Adequate Sites for Farm Worker Housing As stated in previous sections, there are no agricultural jobs and no farm workers living in Atherton. The closest significant location of agricultural employment is located at least 30-minute drive away. Since there is no need for farm worker housing in Atherton, no sites are identified. See the Housing Needs section for more information on farm workers.

3.460 Other Housing Resources
The Town has no financial resources to spend on affordable housing. However, the Town is willing to consult with other agencies such as the County of San Mateo or nonprofit institutions in the County about resources that might be available to the Town for affordable housing. In addition, the Town has decided to develop a Housing Impact Fee that would be utilized by the Town to encourage and support the development of affordable housing opportunities in Town.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 81
January 2023

3.500 CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING
This section contains analyses of potential governmental constraints contained in the Town ordinances, codes and policies that could constitute a barrier to the maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels.

3.510 Governmental Constraints Analysis

3.511 Land Use Controls
The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of a community are two primary tools for planning and regulating land use.

General Plan - The Town of Atherton updated its General Plan in 2020. The land use character of the Town has remained that of a mainly single family residential and institutional (e.g., schools) nature. The General Plan reveals that a significant constraint to housing development is land availability. There is little vacant developable land in the Town, and most of the Town's land acreage is developed at existing General Plan densities. The lack of land use categories and associated zoning districts that permit multifamily residential development is also considered a constraint to affordable housing development in its traditional sense.

Zoning Ordinance - The Atherton Zoning Ordinance designates land uses, height, bulk, density and parking standards throughout the town. The Zoning Ordinance was designed for consistency with the General Plan. The General Plan's four basic land use designations: Single-Family Residential, Single Family Residential Low Density, Public Facilities and Schools, and Parks and Open Space are directly reflected by the zoning districts of the R-1A (Single Family Residential one acre minimum), R-1B (Single Family Residential – 0.31 acre minimum), PFS (Public Facilities and Schools), and POS (Parks and Open Space). Table HE-4 presents the Atherton Zoning Categories and Standards of density, setbacks, height limits, floor area ratios, lot coverage and parking requirements.

The zoning categories reflect the Town's low-density residential, large lot, single-family character. Commercial and industrial land uses are prohibited. The standards require large setbacks, limited floor area ratios and height restrictions. However, some standards are quite unrestrictive compared to other cities. For example, Atherton does not require on-site parking, nor is architectural or design review required. New single family residential development permits are processed ministerially and most are submitted concurrently for zoning clearing to the Planning Department and building permit issuance to the Building Department which assists in greatly expediting the permitting process. Consistent with State law, the Town allows factory-built housing or mobile homes on permanent foundations under the same terms applicable to other single-family homes.

Currently multifamily residential uses are permitted in the PFS (Public Facilities and Schools) zoning district when associated with primary nonresidential use of property on the same site. As noted previously, multifamily uses in the PFS district would require issuance of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission, but following such approval for

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 82
January 2023
use, could subsequently follow the same concurrent Planning and Building Department development process as described above for single family residential uses. The Town will amend the Zoning Code to alter this process to allow development opportunity at 20 units per acre and 40 units per acre by right for multifamily residential development on the school properties. Further, the Town will create two new multifamily zoning districts, RM 20 and RM 10 that will permit 20 units per acre and 10 units per acre multifamily residential development by right subject to objective design standards and inclusionary housing requirements. This is a substantial step in affirmatively furthering fair housing in Atherton and providing a diversity of housing options for the community.

ADUs are permitted in both the R-1A and R-1B zoning districts. The zoning ordinance was amended in 2003 and again in 2020 to make Accessory Dwelling Units permitted by right in the R-1 districts, exempt the ADU from floor area, and for compliance with State law. An accessory dwelling unit is allowed to encroach on 20 percent of the setbacks as the main dwelling and setbacks may be reduced to 4 feet in compliance with State law, however, may be limited in size to that allowed by State law. Detached accessory dwelling units are limited to 16 feet in height and 1,200 square feet of floor area.

Attached ADUs (additional living quarters inside homes) are permitted by right in both the R-1A and R-1B zoning districts. These may include a bedroom, a bath and kitchen elements (stove, sink, and refrigerator). Accessory dwelling units are commonly constructed in Atherton (approximately 30 - 35 per year).

Currently, the Zoning Title of the Atherton Municipal Code limits full time occupancy “guest houses”, pool houses and similar accessory buildings (occupancy is limited to a maximum of 30-days per year). This could be considered a constraint on the conversion or construction of such accessory buildings to an ADU. During the 2023- 2031 Housing Element cycle the Town will amend the Zoning title to eliminate this occupancy limitation, thus removing this constraint.

TABLE HE-4: ATHERTON'S ZONING CATEGORIES AND STANDARDS
Atherton's Zoning Categories and Standards
Zoning Density
Front Side Rear
Height
Limit FAR Max Lot Coverage
Parking
Required
Arch.

Approv
al Setbacks Setbacks Setbac
ks
R-1A
1 d.u./
acre
(Single Family 60’ 50’ 60’ 30* 18% N/A None None
Residential)
R-1B (Single
Family
Residential)
3 d.u./ac. 30’ 26’ 30’ 28’ 18% N/A None None
PFS (Public
Facilities and
Schools)
None 60’ 75’ 75’ 34’ N/A 40% None None

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 83
January 2023
POS (Parks
and Open
Space)
None 60’ Varies 60’ 34’ N/A 20% None None
* 34’ maximum with increased setbacks and Special Structure Permit The Municipal Code and Ordinance provides a variety of lot sizes with densities ranging from one dwelling unit per five acres to three units per acre. Although the Town's low allowable densities constitute a potential constraint to affordable housing development, the impact is offset somewhat by the relatively large proportion of homes containing accessory dwelling units. In addition, Atherton's single family homes provide opportunities for home sharing. These characteristics of the local housing stock assists the Town in meeting its regional share of affordable housing. Housing associated with the underlying use (including multifamily rental housing and single room occupancy units) is permitted in the PFS (Public Facilities and Schools) Zoning District. As indicated above, the Town will amend the Zoning Code to include two new multifamily zoning districts to provide additional housing opportunities and affirmatively further fair housing. The new zoning districts will allow development up to 40 feet in height with adequate setbacks to accommodate the development and subject to objective design standards.

3.512 Codes and Enforcement
The latest edition of the Uniform Building Code is enforced in Atherton. The Town's Building Department sees that new residences, additions, auxiliary structures, etc., meet all of the latest construction and safety standards. Building permits are required for any construction work. The Town has not adopted any local amendments to the State Housing Law or the Uniform Building Code. The Uniform Building Code is imposed by State law and does not pose an unusually significant constraint to housing development, maintenance or the supply and affordability of housing.

The Town has instituted a code enforcement program. This is primarily a land use enforcement, complaint-based program. Typical complaints and violations relate to noise, construction activity without a Building Permit and parking of contractors’ vehicles and has not resulted in housing being deemed unfit for human habitation or vacated. The code enforcement program does not pose a constraint to housing development, maintenance or the supply and affordability of housing.

3.513 On and Off-Site Improvement Requirements
The on and off-site improvements required for residential development in Atherton are listed below.

Street Width: 20 feet
Curbs and Gutters: Rolled curbs and gutters required for new subdivisions

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 84
January 2023
Sidewalks: Prohibited in new subdivisions.

Water and Sewer Connections: Required
Drainage: Storage improvements required to prevent increased runoff during storm conditions (required by the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board)
Since Atherton is a completely developed urban area, all streets are paved, water mains and sewer trunks have been installed and major drainage improvements are in place. Atherton’s improvement standards are substantially less restrictive than those imposed by many communities, which often require wider streets and additional offsite improvements. The on and off-site improvement requirements do not pose a constraint to housing development, maintenance or the supply and affordability of housing.

3.514 Fees and Exactions
To assist jurisdictions in meeting requirements for analysis of fees and permit processing, 21 Elements released a survey to all jurisdictions in San Mateo County. The survey asked about potential government constraints to housing, including impact fees, entitlement fees, building permit fees, and permit processing times. In conjunction with that survey, 21 Elements hired Century Urban, a San Francisco based real-estate consulting firm, to examine the cost of land and labor for new housing development in the County.

Combined, those two data sets provide a basis for a preliminary examination of constraints for jurisdictions in San Mateo County.

Participation in the 21 Elements government restraints survey was excellent, with 18 of 21 jurisdictions participating. While not all the respondents answered all the questions, the high overall participation results in a meaningful look at the landscape of government-imposed fees in San Mateo County. 21 Elements distributed the survey in November 2021 and accepted results through February 2022.

The survey asked jurisdictions to calculate fees for three hypothetical housing developments: a single-family house, a 10-unit apartment building, and a 100-unit apartment building.

Single-Family Home – Participants were asked to estimate fees for one of two, hypothetical single-family home developments:
● 2,600-square-foot house with 500-square-foot garage. The house is two stories tall with four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The house is constructed on an empty lot in an existing neighborhood and requires no significant grading or other complications.
● 5,000-square-foot house with 1,000-square-foot garage. House is two stories tall with four bedrooms and three bathrooms. The house is constructed on an

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 85
January 2023
empty lot in an existing neighborhood and requires no significant grading or other complications.

Atherton, along with Woodside, and Unincorporated San Mateo, chose to estimate fees for the larger house as more representative of the community.. All other respondents estimated fees for the smaller house. For purposes of comparison, all the data are presented in the same table, regardless of which size hypothetical house was chosen.

Small Multi-Family – Jurisdictions were asked to estimate the fees for a hypothetical development with 10 units with moderate complexity.

Large Multi-Family – Jurisdictions were asked to estimate fees for a 100-unit development.

The Atherton fees estimated for the prototypical single-family project are shown in Table HE-5.

As shown, Town entitlement fees are significantly lower than other communities due to the streamlined and efficient development review process currently practiced.

TABLE HE-5: FEES FOR A HYPOTHETICAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
Entitlement
Fees
Building Permit
Fees
Impact Fees
Other Fees Total
Atherton 1,520 13,363 0 1,058 $15,941
Brisbane 0 4,300 10,608 10,032 $24,940
Burlingame 3,645 49,500 16,280 0 $69,425
Colma 0 6,760 0 0 $6,760
Daly City 0 19,128 15,682 0 $24,202
East Palo Alto 6,342 6,606 51,717 39,576 $104,241
Foster City 3,000 64,886 9,854 0 $67,886
Half Moon Bay 4,019 3,750 36,500 8,300 $52,569

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 86
January 2023
Hillsborough 7,951 48,891 11,904 14,250 $71,092
Millbrae 7,397 -- 83,213 0 $97,756
Pacifica 11,000 10,803 11,922 0 $33,725
Portola Valley 15,954 30,753 0 6,216 $52,923
Redwood City 1,493 4,952 14,350 0 $20,795
San Bruno 5,000 28,000 25,209 0 $58,209
San Mateo 4,979 43,844 50,180 0 $99,003
South San
Francisco
1,490 476 54,944 0 $81,366
Unincorporated San
Mateo
420 28,013 7,996 0 $36,429
Woodside 1,980 35,497 33,480 0 $70,957
Source: 21 Elements.

The total fees per unit are compared to all San Mateo County jurisdictions below in Table HE5.1.

TABLE HE-5.1: TOTAL FEES PER UNIT COMPARISON: SAN MATEO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS (INCLUDES ENTITLEMENT, BUILDING PERMITS, AND IMPACT FEES) Single-Family Small Multi-Unit Large Multi-Unit
Atherton $15,941 No Data No Data

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 87
January 2023
Brisbane $24,940 $11,678 No Data
Burlingame $69,425 $30,345 $23,229
Colma $6,760 $167,210* $16,795
Daly City $24,202 $32,558 $12,271
East Palo Alto $104,241 No Data $28,699
Foster City $67,886 $47,179 $11,288
Half Moon Bay $52,569 $16,974 No Data
Hillsborough $71,092 No Data No Data
Millbrae $97,756 $6,824 $55,186
Pacifica $33,725 $40,151 No Data
Portola Valley $52,923 No Data No Data
Redwood City $20,795 $18,537 $62,696
San Bruno $58,209 $72,148 $39,412
San Mateo $99,003 $133,658 $44,907
South San Francisco $81,366 $76,156 $32,471
Unincorporated San Mateo $36,429 $27,978 $10,012
Woodside $70,957 $82,764 No Data
Source: 21 Elements.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 88
January 2023
Since Atherotn currently does not currently have any multi-family projects there was no data to include. As part of this update, See Policy 3.813 for new Town programs addressing multifamily housing .

Total fees as a percentage of total development costs can be found in Table HE-5.2. Atherton’s fees are calculated to be 0% of total development cost which is among the lowest of the County.

TABLE HE-5.2: TOTAL FEES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS Single-Family Small Multi-Unit Large Multi-Unit
Atherton 0% No Data No Data
Brisbane 1% 1% No Data
Burlingame 3% 4% 3%
Colma 0% 17% 2%
Daly City 1% 4% 2%
East Palo Alto 4% No Data 4%
Foster City 3% 6% 2%
Half Moon Bay 2% 2% No Data
Hillsborough 3% No Data No Data
Millbrae 2% 8% 7%
Pacifica 1% 5% No Data
Portola Valley 1% No Data No Data

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 89
January 2023
Redwood City 1% 2% 8%
San Bruno 2% 8% 5%
San Mateo 4% 14% 6%
South San Francisco 3% 9% 4%
Unincorporated San Mateo 1% 3% 1%
Woodside 2% 9% No Data
Note: The above table is calculated using average soft costs (including an average of jurisdiction charged fees) and average land costs for the county. A more precise determination of fees as a percentage of total development costs can be calculated using jurisdiction specific land costs and fees.

Source: 21 Elements.

Atherton’s fees per unit, including the percentage of total development costs and a comparison to the median of fees are shown in Table HE-5.3.

Table HE-5.3: SUMMARY OF ATHERTON FEES COMPARED TO MEDIAN Project Type Fees Per Unit Percentage of Total
Development Cost
Median of Fees for 21
Jurisdictions
Single Family $15,941 0% $55,566
Multi-Family in Small
Project
No data No data $36,355
Multi-Family in Large
Project
No data No data $28,699
Development Impact Fees are one-time charges levied on new developments and serve as tools to mitigate the impacts of new development by funding a range of capital programs required to address needs related to that development, including transportation, parks, and utilities (such as water, sewer, and storm drain). Other than a park in lieu fee under the Quimby Act for subdivisions, the Town does not currently have any impact fees; however, projects that connect to either sewer district are charged fees and construction costs that are outside of the Town’s control.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 90
January 2023

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 91
January 2023
In Atherton development fees are charged for both planning review and building permits. Planning fees are charged in order to recover the costs associated with the administration of the Town’s land use regulations. Planning fees for review of projects that do not require Planning Commission action (i.e., Staff level) are charged a flat fee shown in the table below.

TABLE HE-7: PLANNING REVIEW FEES (STAFF LEVEL) – 2021-2022 Town of Atherton Planning
Fees (Staff Level) 2021-2022
Type of Fee Fee
New Main
Residence $1,520
Residential
Additions $1,059
Accessory
Buildings & ADUs $1,032
Planning fees for projects that require Planning Commission action consist of a nonrefundable fee and a deposit, against which professional planning staff charge to provide review services. Charges currently range from $125 to $236 per hour depending upon the level of personnel involved in the review. Unused portions of the deposit are returned to the applicant at the end of the process. The fee structure reflects the Town’s actual cost for the service. The Town reviews its fee structure and levels on a regular basis to ensure they reflect the cost of delivering services. Typical planning fees are shown in the table below.

TABLE HE-7.1: PLANNING FEES (PLANNING COMMISSION)– 2021-2022 Town of Atherton Planning
Fees (Planning Commission)
2021-2022
Type of Fee Fee
Conditional Use
Permit $2,823
Variance $2,823
Lot Line
Adjustment $1,629
The Atherton planning fees are less than other San Mateo County jurisdictions, are consistent with similar charges in other small jurisdictions, and do not pose a significant constraint to housing development, maintenance or the supply and affordability of housing. The Town’s policy objectives propose to waive planning fees for new ADUs.

Building fees are charged to cover costs associated with checking that the building plans conform to requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as well as costs associated with conducting building construction inspections. Fees charged for

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 92
January 2023
building permits are based on the valuation of construction. The fee structure reflects the Town’s actual cost for the service. The Town reviews its fee structure and levels on a regular basis to ensure they reflect the cost of delivering services. Currently new construction valuation is determined by use of a standard factor of $350 per square foot for habitable space and $125 per square foot for non-habitable space. The same factor is used for remodeling projects; however, the Building Department has the option to adjust the permitted value to the actual cost of the remodeling provided evidence is presented in the form of an executed contract substantiating the value.

The actual building permit fee is determined using the following formula: where construction is valued over $1,000,000 the fee is calculated as $6,193.74 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.03 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof. An additional 45% of the building permit fee is charged for plan checking. For example, where construction is valued over $1,000,000 the fee is calculated as $6,193.74 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.03 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof. An additional 45% of the building permit fee is charged for plan checking.

While not imposed by the Town, local school districts charge a fee that is based on the square footage of new construction and must be paid prior to issuance of the building permits. The purpose of the fee is to compensate the school districts for the costs associated with the demand for additional services and classroom space generated by new residential construction. The Sequoia Union High School District collects the fees and distributes a portion to one of the three elementary school districts serving Atherton (i.e., Las Lomitas School District, Menlo Park City School District and Redwood City School District). Currently the Sequoia District is $3.79 per square foot of residential construction with $1.52 (40%) distributed to the Sequoia District and $2.27 (60%) distributed to the Menlo Park District, Las Lomitas or Redwood City Districts.

The Town does not have any park, open space, parking or other similar development or impact fees. Nor does it have any in-lieu housing or other fees, below-market-rate housing requirements or specific land dedication requirements for streets, public utility rights-of-way, easements, parks or open space.

A recent survey by 21 Elements30 revealed that a 5,000 square foot house built in Atherton would have construction fees of $16,941 and no entitlement or impact fees (except for school fees, discussed above, which were excluded from the analysis).

The 21 Elements Fee Survey revealed all jurisdictions in San Mateo County who responded to the survey (18 including Atherton) had development fees for single family homes that were higher than Atherton’s; some had fees 2 and 3 times higher.

With fees substantially lower than those of adjacent communities, they do not pose a constraint on housing construction.

3.515 Processing and Permit Procedures
The following table describes the Town's permit process procedures in general. These processes are required for the development of all housing for all income categories. 30 21 Elements: Development Fees Survey Summary, April 2022

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 93
January 2023
Only two levels of residential permit processing are available; a Conditional Use Permit or a Building Permit. The Town does not have an Architectural/ Design Review and does have a staff-level approval process for the construction of new housing which helps both streamline and expedite the permitting process.

Most residential construction, including accessory dwelling units and guest houses (estimated 90 percent to 95 percent of building permits) does not require Planning Commission action or permits. Only Planning Department review of the project for conformance with Town zoning standards and Building Department review for Building Code conformance are required. These reviews for zoning clearance by the Planning Department and permit issuance by the Building Department can be processed concurrently, allowing for a much more efficient and streamlined permitting process than may be typically found in other jurisdictions. Staff routinely provides first round plan review comments within 10-working days and follow-up comments within 5- working days.

Where Conditional Use Permits or Special Structure Permits are required, the process involves submitting an application to the Planning Commission for review of the proposal. Preliminary site plans and elevations are required as part of the submittal.

An advertised public hearing is held by the Planning Commission with mailed notice to all property owners within 500 ft. of the proposed project. Planning Commission meetings are held monthly and the Planning Department has a significantly quick turnaround time from the point of an application submittal to scheduling the item on a Planning Commission agenda. Items are typically heard within 6-weeks of application submittal. Upon Planning Commission approval, plans may be submitted to the Building Department for Building Plan Check and Building Permit issuance.

Building permits must be secured before commencement of any residential construction, reconstruction, conversion, alteration or addition. Approval of permit applications is based on conformity with the Uniform Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance, although the Town has the power to grant variances from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance within the limitations provided in the Ordinance.

The Building Permit process has very little impact on the development of above moderate-income housing in Atherton as evidenced by building activity and the number of replacement housing units being constructed. The Building Department currently has approximately 800 active permits and approximately 25-30 houses are demolished and replaced with new houses each year. While removal of the process and reduction of fees might function to reduce costs slightly, there are many other factors that act to deter development of such housing. Factors such as the high cost of land (currently at about $7-8 million per acre), the limitations on density and nonavailability of funds (e.g., in the private educational institutions and from local public sources) are the most likely deterrents to the development of low and moderateincome housing. The Town will amend the Zoning Code to address the limitations on density with the creation of two new multifamily zoning districts, one at 20 units per acre and the other at 10 units per acre. This significant step will encourage

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 94
January 2023
development of affordable housing and provide more housing choices and opportunities for the community.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 95
January 2023
TABLE HE-8: RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES AND TIMES Residential Permit Processing Procedures and Times
Type of
Construction Use Permit Building Permit
Plan.

Commission
Public Hearing
Typical Time
for Staff Plan
Check &
Building Permit
Issue (weeks)
Single Family
Residential X 4
Accessory
Dwelling Unit X 4
Guest House X 4
Housing on
PFS Sites X X X 9
The Town does not have any overlay zones such as community plan implementation zones, hillside overlay zones or environmentally sensitive areas.

Atherton has only two residential zoning districts; R-1A where the minimum lot size is 1 acre and R-1B where the minimum lot size is 13,500 square feet. Single family detached dwelling units, second dwelling units and guest houses are permitted by right in these districts. Attached and multiple family dwelling units are not currently permitted in either district. All construction in PFS zoning districts, including attached and multiple family dwelling units and single room occupancy units require a conditional use permit. Housing in PFS zoning districts is permitted when the residential use is associated with a conditional or permitted use in that district. Such residential uses are typically associated with private schools. Housing in POS zoning districts is allowed for caretaker housing associated with the primary use on the site.

3.516 Constraints on Persons with Disabilities
Chapter 17.17 of the Atherton Municipal Code entitled “Accessibility” provides for reasonable accommodation to people with disabilities and complies with the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act in the application of the Town’s land use, zoning, rules, policies, practices, and/or procedures.
“A request for reasonable accommodation may include a request for modification or exception to Town land use, zoning or building regulations, rules, policies, practices, and/or procedures that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing. The procedure provides for a staff-level process, conducted by the Town Planner, when the accommodation is related to a physical improvement that cannot be constructed to conform to aTown standard.

Should it be determined that the request is not at a staff-level it is referred to the Planning Commission. The Town Planner is required to make a written determination within 30 days after receipt.” These applications are routinely approved ministerially

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 96
January 2023
by staff for a determination of consistency with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance which states, :this chapter provides a process for individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation for relief from the various land use, zoning, or rules, policies, practices, and/or procedures of the town. It is the policy of the town, pursuant to the Federal Fair Housing Act (as amended), to provide people with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, and procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing.” The application submittal materials and process are objective, streamlined and efficient, and require only a brief written narrative describing the development standard in which an exception is requested, why the reasonable accommodation is being requested and a brief statement from the applicant’s doctor stating the person’s disability. To further reduce any potential constraints, the Town will modify the language within Chapter 17.17 to remove any potential discretionary review from the Planning Commission for such requests and to specify all such requests shall be approved administratively by the Town Planner
Chapter 17.17 also provides a process for requests for reasonable accommodation relating to increased occupancy of a group home.

The Town does not define the term “family” and does not limit the number of unrelated individuals who may reside in a residence. Group homes for six or fewer residents are allowed by right in the single-family residential districts. The Town does not have any spacing or concentration requirements. The Town has only two residential zoning districts; both of which are for single family residences. Therefore, allowances for group homes with more than six residents specifically for the disabled in other zoning districts are not necessary. The Town does not have any parking standards therefore there is no need for relaxed parking standards for persons with disabilities.

Atherton uses the 2022 California Building Code. The adopted Code does not include any amendments that might reduce the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities. Accessibility retrofits are handled through the standard permit process.

However, permits are not required unless thresholds of health, life, and safety are exceeded. The California Building Code provides an option for meeting code requirements, whereby an applicant submits an alternative “methods and means” checklist to the Building Official noting the proposed design, the conventional design, and the rationale for the request.

The development of new multifamily housing will include new accessible housing units.

3.520 Non-Governmental Constraints Analysis

3.521 Land Prices
Land scarcity and high real estate prices are the most significant non-governmental constraints to affordable housing in Atherton. There are virtually no vacant lots in Atherton. Land currently sells for approximately $7-8 million dollars per acre and can

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 97
January 2023
only be acquired by purchase of a developed parcel or by subdividing the property, which also most likely involves the removal of an existing residence. The inventory of sites suitable for residential development described in section 3.4 shows a potential of approximately 91 new parcels that can be created by subdividing existing developed parcels.

3.522 Construction Costs31
Construction costs include both hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, such as architectural and engineering services, development fees and insurance. For multi-family homes in San Mateo County, hard costs account for approximately 65 percent of the building cost and soft costs average around 21 percent (the remaining 14 percent is land costs). For single family homes, hard costs often are roughly 44-59 percent of the total cost, soft costs are 14-17 percent, and land is 24-42 percent.

While multifamily construction is less relevant in most of the town, it is relevant on school facilities. According to housing developers in San Mateo County, construction costs for multi-unit buildings vary based on the form of parking (structured vs. surface) in addition to other environmental factors such as topography, pre-existing structures etc. For smaller and larger multi-unit buildings, costs can range from $633-$1,174 per square foot.

For a 2,600 square foot single-family home the average cost of construction is approximately $600/sf. For a more expensive, 5,000 square foot home, however, the construction costs can average $800-1,000/sf. In general, soft costs add another approximate 20-25% to the subtotal. Such costs are not particularly higher in Atherton than in other surrounding jurisdictions.

3.523 Availability of Financing
The availability of capital to finance new residential development is a significant factor that can impact both the cost and supply of housing. Two types of capital are involved in the housing market: 1) capital used by developers for initial site preparation and construction and 2) capital for financing the purchase of units by homeowners and investors. Interest rates substantially impact home construction, purchase, and improvement costs. Fluctuation in interest rates can have a significant impact on costs for construction or purchase, as well as impact whether a potential buyer can qualify for a loan. Following several years of historically low interest rates, the expectation is that interest rates are likely to rise in 2022 and beyond. 32 31 Century Urban LLC, Memo to Baird + Driskell, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Cost & San Mateo Unit Mix Research, April 7, 2022. 32 4 Kiplinger. Interest Rates: The Fed Gets Aggressive, April 14, 2022, https://www.kiplinger.com/economic-forecasts/interestrates#:~:text=Expect%20the%20Treasury%2010%2Dyear,from%204.2%25%20to%204.7%25.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 98
January 2023
Table 4-11 summarizes the total number of home loans applied for, approved (and originated), and denied within the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland MSA. In 2020, a total of 97,147 applications for home loans were submitted within the MSA. Of these loan applications, over 66% were approved and originated while approximately 11% of applications were denied.

While there are many potential reasons for denial, this percentage of loan approvals and denials vary throughout the MSA by income group. As anticipated, there is a direct relationship between household incomes and home loan application approvals and denials. As depicted in Table HE-9 as household incomes rise, the percentage of home loans denied decreases and the percentage of loans approved increases. Similarly, as household income falls, the percentage of home loan applications denied increases and the percentage of loans approved decreases. This data suggests it is much more difficult for lower-income households in the MSA to obtain home loan financing than higher-income households. This difficulty has the potential to directly affect the production and rehabilitation of housing units serving lowerincome households, throughout the MSA.

TABLE HE-9 DISPOSITION OF APPLICATIONS BY INCOME OF APPLICANT 2020 Income Group Total Loan
Applications
Loans
Originated
Applications
Denied
Percentage
Denied
<50% MFI 6,876 3,095 1,924 28%
50-79% MFI 12,351 7,792 1,793 14.5%
80-99% MFI 5,051 3,371 543 10.7%
100-119% MFI 15,158 10,462 1,502 9.9%
>120% MFI 57,710 39,177 5,059 8.8%
TOTAL 97,147 63,897 10,821 11.1%
Most homes in Atherton are custom-built homes funded by individual households. Financing for this type of construction is more difficult to obtain now that banks have increased their requirements. However, financing is no more of a constraint in Atherton than in other communities in the Bay Area. In fact, loans for individual homes may currently be easier to obtain than loans for speculative housing developments.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 99
January 2023

3.600 REVIEW OF 2015-2022 HOUSING ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE

3.610 Effectiveness of the Element
This update of the Atherton housing element provides an opportunity to reflect on past achievements and challenges, identifying what is working and what is getting in the way in meeting Atherton’s housing needs.

A detailed analysis of the goals, objectives, policies and programs contained in the 2015-2022 Housing Element Update is presented in Table HE-11 below.

3.620 Progress in Implementation
A comparison of the number of projected or planned housing units (i.e., 2015-2022 Housing Need Allocation) with what was actually achieved is summarized in Table HE10 below.

TABLE HE-10: PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION
2015-2022 Actual RHNA Achievement
Income Group 2015-2022
Allocation
Private
Construction
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Program
Total Met (M),
Exceeded (E), or
Fell Short (S) of
Goal
Very Low 35 - 72 72 E
Low 26 - 22 22 S
Moderate 29 - 21 21 S
Above Moderate 3 132 132 E
Totals 93 132 115 247 E
Note: Totals through Dec. 2021
The following summary highlights key accomplishments and challenges from the previous housing element’s planning period (2015 to 2022). This information will help ensure that the updated element for 2023 to 2031 builds on success, responds to lessons learned and positions us to better achieve our community’s housing priorities.

A more detailed program-by-program review of progress and performance is in Table HE-11.

There were a number of notable accomplishments related to implementation of the Atherton housing element over the past eight years:

ADUs (often referred to as second units or in-law units) have become increasingly popular after the Town adopted amendments to the ADU ordinance, most recently in 2020. Prominent Ordinance revisions which support this projection and increased production trend from prior years beyond those amendments as prescribed by

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 100
January 2023
Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 included additional floor area exemption up to 1,200 square feet beyond the first 800 square feet and increased public education on the construction of ADUs. It is noted that throughout 2022, a total of 27 new single family permits were issued and these permits included a total of 26 new ADUs, and 5 ADU conversions. This nearly one to one ratio is a direct correlation to the Town’s encouragement to produce ADUs. The total number of ADUs permitted and/or constructed between 2015 and 2022 (the last year with data available) was more than 125. This exceeded the Town’s RHNA allocation. This is important, not only because ADU construction is the most viable form of new housing in Atherton, but also because rental surveys of ADUs show that these kinds of units are more affordable.

Additionally, results from a recent Town-wide survey indicates significant support for the development of ADUs over the next 8 years showing a more than 200 property owner commitment to do so.

The Town approved dormitory housing consisting of 147 units or a total of 291 beds at Menlo College. Of these, 19 of the units were dedicated for low-income students with incomes at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The new dormitory housing alleviated demand for other units from students and housed a number of students who were previously unhoused.

Construction of new Above Moderate market rate housing also exceeded the Town’s RHNA allocation. A total of 9 net new Above Moderate market housing units were constructed during the 2015-2022 cycle. On the required CA Deptartment of Housing and Community Development (HCD) form the summary Table B only counts newly constructed units and does not account for demolished units. There were 132 new units constructed and 123 existing units demolished.

While the Town has several achievements, there is still work to be done. Some of the challenges that kept the Town from achieving all its housing goals include:

The Town does not have any commercial activity – which means there are no retail sales taxes, commercial development impact fees or other related sources of revenue available to other cities. The Town has very restricted tax revenue. This restricts the option of financial incentives or participation by the Town in building new and affordable housing.

During the Planning Period it was anticipated that new housing would be constructed at Menlo School and Menlo College. A net of eleven new faculty units affordable to very low- and moderate-income households were planned at Menlo School and 79 new units affordable to lower income and moderate-income households were planned at Menlo College. Although the plans for these units remain on the Master Plans for these institutions there were insufficient funds available to construct them during the Planning Period. It is recommended that this program be carried forward and expanded for the 2023-2031 Planning Period.

3.630 Future Opportunities
There are some things already in motion based on existing work efforts and trends and lessons learned that have been considered for incorporation in the updated housing element.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 101
January 2023
● Imposition of an affordable housing impact fee on single family building permits to fund programs to assist in development and assistance for affordable housing.
● Implementation and promotion of SB 9 lot splits.
● Expansion of ADU programs through the consideration of various development and incentive programs.
● Amendment of PFS zoning to permit multi family housing by right ● Creation of new multifamily zoning districts, RM 20 and RM 10 ● Adoption of a new affordable housing Inclusionary Ordinance TABLE HE-11: Analysis of the Objectives, Programs contained in the 2015-2022 Housing Element Update

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 102
January 2023
Housing Element
Program Name/Number
Program Description
and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements
Program Evaluation and
Recommendation

3.710 New Construction, Conservation, and Rehabilitation

3.711 New Construction of
Above Moderate Units
Continue to facilitate and expedite the
development of new above moderateincome housing units in order to achieve the construction of net 3 new above
moderate-income units.
(2015-21) A net of 9 new units were
constructed during this period. Although
the HCD Annual Progress Report shows 132
new units, that does not account for
demolished units. Market has limited
construction to reconstruct 1 unit for each
demolished unit.

Objective met and exceeded.

3.712 New Construction of
Affordable Units
During the previous RHNA cycle the
Town amended the Zoning Ordinance
to remove constraints on the
development of ADUs. During the 2015-
22 cycle the Zoning Ordinance was
amended to conform to new ADU
provisions in State law. Continue to
facilitate and expedite the construction
of new affordable units in order to
achieve 90 new affordable units.
(2015-21) 115 new ADUs were constructed
during this time frame. Construction
increased as a result of zoning ordinance
changes.

Objective met and exceeded. This
program has been effective in
providing housing for lower income
families and individuals. Recommend
continuance.

3.712a Conduct Affordability
Surveys
This program called for housing
affordability surveys to be conducted
every two years. In lieu of conducting
surveys, the Town has chosen to request
affordability information from each new
ADU developer/owner at the time of
Building Permit issuance.
(2015-22) Affordability surveys are required
from each new ADU developer/owner at
the time of Building Permit issuance.

Objective met. This program has been
effective in providing ADU affordability
information. Recommend
continuance.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 103
January 2023

3.712b New Construction of
Affordable Faculty,
Student and Staff
Housing on Private
Schools’ Property
Work and cooperate with Menlo School,
Menlo College and Sacred Heart
Schools to facilitate development of
affordable faculty, student and staff
housing on school properties and
provide incentives for development
through an expedited review process.
(2015-22) In 2020-21 the Town approved
dormitory housing consisting of 147 units or
a total of 291 beds at Menlo College. Of
these, 19 of the units were dedicated for
low-income students with incomes at or less
than 80% of the Area Median Income
(AMI).

Objective partially met. This program
has been effective in providing
housing for 19 lower income students
at Menlo College. Recommend
continuance and adjustment to
encourage additional housing
development.

3.712b
(cont’d)
Additional Affordable
Housing at Oakwood
Community at Sacred
Heart Schools
The Oakwood Community at Sacred
Heart Schools is currently developed
with housing for the retired religious in a
“single room occupancy” style. These
units are all affordable to extremely lowincome households. The program allows for expansion of the housing should
demand warrant.
(2015-22) During the prior RHNA cycle the
Town amended its Zoning Ordinance to
allow multi-family residential uses that
provide housing for very low- and lowincome households. Discretionary review is required related to the location, size,
proximity to heritage trees and
environmental aspects of the project but
may not result in the denial of the use. A
project is currently proposed at Oakwood
consisting of the addition of 5 new rooms
for permanent occupancy and 3 new
guest rooms.

Objective is being met, no changes to
Ordinance are recommended. This
program has been effective in
providing housing for lower income
individuals. Recommend
continuance.

3.712b
(cont’d)
Faculty and Student
Housing
Annually, at the time for review of their
master plans, work with private schools
to facilitate development of affordable,
multifamily faculty, student, and staff
housing on their properties. Achieve
construction of 11 new faculty units at
Menlo School, 79 new faculty and
student units at Menlo College. It is
anticipated that about 1/3 of the units
will be rented in the extremely lowincome category.
(2015-22) The Town has annually worked
with private schools to facilitate
development of affordable, multifamily
faculty, student, and staff housing on their
properties. During this cycle the schools
were only partially able to achieve their
goals due, in part to unavailability of funds.

In 2020-21 the Town approved dormitory
housing consisting of 147 units or a total of
291 beds at Menlo College. Of these, 19 of
the units were dedicated for low-income
students with incomes at or below 80% of
the Area Median Income (AMI).

Objective partially met. Recommend
that Town continue to work with
private schools to meet objectives
and amend the zoning code to
facilitate new housing development.

3.712c Maintain Contact with
Affordable Housing
Developers
Continue to maintain contacts with
agencies and developers of affordable
housing in the mid-peninsula area in
order to consult about resources that
might be available to and from the
Town for affordable housing. Contacts
exist with agencies such as the San
(2015-22) Town Staff continues to maintain
contact with agencies and developers of
affordable housing in the mid-peninsula
area. The Town offers expedited planning
and building processing through use of
contract plan checking services and
support for applications for funding.

Objective met.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 104
January 2023
Mateo County Department of Housing
and Community Development, nonprofit developers such as MidPen Housing, Bridge Housing and Habitat for
Humanity.

3.713 Conservation and
Rehabilitation of
Existing Units
Continue to facilitate and expedite the
rehabilitation and reconstruction of
existing housing through improved
review times and project assistance.
(2015-22) Between 50 and 100 permits
issued each year for improvement,
rehabilitation and conservation of existing
units.

Objective met. Recommend
continued implementation.

3.720 Special Housing Needs
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions, and/or reduced mobility. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. People with disabilities can face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and need specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care. Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity. There are no farmworkers in Atherton, nor any seasonal agricultural work in the vicinity of Atherton. Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. Homelessness remains an urgent challenge throughout the region, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In San Mateo County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.5% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelters. San Mateo County conducted the latest point-in-time (PIT) Count on February 24, 2022. Volunteers were deployed to conduct an observational count of those experiencing unsheltered homelessness. San Mateo County conducted the unsheltered homeless survey through March 3, 2022. In both 2019 and 2022, Atherton had 1 and 3 (respectively) homeless individuals according to the most recent PIT San Mateo County data (https://www.smcgov.org/hsa/2022- one-day-homeless-count). All of these factors were considered in the evaluation of related programs from the past cycle and informed the recommendations as noted below, as well as the development of new programs in Section 3.800.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 105
January 2023

3.721 Seniors See Actions 3.721a through 3.721d
below.

3.721a Residential Care
Facilities
Continue to facilitate the provision of
board and care opportunities,
particularly for seniors, some of whom
may be longtime Atherton residents who
can no longer remain in their homes and
who wish to continue living in Atherton.

State law provides that a residential
care facility (defined as a facility serving
six or fewer persons) is a residential use
and must be permitted wherever
residential uses are allowed, specifically
in the R-1A and R-1B zones.
(2015-22) Zoning Ordinance was amended
in 12/2010 to state that a residential care
facility is a residential use and must be
permitted wherever residential uses are
allowed, specifically in the R-1A and R-1B
zones.

Objective met. Recommend program
continuance.

3.721b Home Repairs
Assistance
Publicize at Town Hall and in the Town's
newsletter home repairs assistance
programs offered by Senior Centers in
the County and the County's Home
Repair Program.
(2015-22) Handouts provided at Town Hall
publicizing repairs assistance programs
offered by Senior Centers in the County
and the County's Home Repair Program.

Publication in Town's newsletter was not
accomplished. Program publicized on
Town website in lieu of in newsletter.

Objective met. Recommend program
continuance.

3.721c Property Tax
Postponement Program
Continue to support the County's
Property Tax Postponement Program to
support seniors in staying in their homes.

Publicize the program at Town Hall and
in the Town newsletter.
(2015-22) City Council's declaration of
support of the County's Property Tax
Postponement Program stated in adopted
Housing Element. Handouts provided at
Town Hall publicizing the program.

Program publicized on Town website in lieu
of in newsletter.

Objective met. Recommend program
continuance.

3.721d Create Senior Friendly
Plan
The Town will create a plan to meet the
needs of the growing senior population,
which will double over the next decade
and a half. The best way to identify the
necessary changes to ensure that
Atherton is senior friendly is to conduct a
thoughtful process, receiving input from
various stakeholders and then identifying
the policies and programs which are
right for Atherton.
(2015-22) This program was not
implemented during this cycle because of
a lack of funding. There appears to be little
interest in developing this type of program
in Atherton.

Objective not met. Recommend
abandon program.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 106
January 2023

3.722 Disabled and
Developmentally
Delayed Persons
See Actions 3.722a through 3.722c
below.

3.722a ADA Compliance Continue to review new residential developments and major remodels for
ADA compliance.
(2015-22) Building Department on-going
program.

Objective met. Recommend program
continuance.

3.722b County Housing
Accessibility for
Disabled Persons
Program
Continue to support the program, direct
inquiries for house modifications for the
disabled to the program and publicize
the program at Town Hall and through
the Town's newsletter.
(2015-22) City Council's declaration of
support of the County Housing Accessibility
for Disabled Persons Program stated in the
adopted Housing Element. Building and
Planning Dept. staff directs inquiries for
house modifications for the disabled to the
program. Handouts provided at Town Hall
publicizing the program. Program
publicized on Town website in lieu of in
newsletter.

Objective met. Recommend program
continuance.

3.722c Information on Housing
and Services Available
for Persons with
Developmental
Disabilities
Work with the Golden Gate regional
center to implement an outreach
program that informs families within the
city on housing and services available
for persons with developmental
disabilities. The program could include
the development of an informational
brochure, including information on
services on the City’s website, and
providing housing-related training for
individuals/families through workshops.
(2015-22) City Council’s declaration of
support for the Golden Gate regional
center to implement an outreach program
that informs families within the City on
housing and services available for persons
with developmental disabilities. Planning
Dept. staff directs inquiries for housing and
services for the developmentally disabled
to the program. Handouts provided at
Town Hall publicizing the program.

Program publicized on Town website in lieu
of in newsletter.

Objective met. Recommend program
continuance.

3.723a Equal Housing
Opportunity
Refer housing discrimination complaints
to Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing.

Disseminate fair housing information at
various sites and through the Town
newsletter and website.
(2015-22) Planning Dept. and City Attorney's
Office on-going program. Fair Housing
information available at Planning Dept. and
City Attorney's office. Program publicized
on Town website in lieu of in newsletter.

Objective met. Recommend program
continuance.

3.724a Emergency Shelters,
Transitional and
Supportive Housing
Continue to support the possibility of
Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing,
and Supportive Housing in Atherton.
(2015-22) During the previous cycle the
Public Facilities and Schools zoning district
was amended to allow emergency shelters
as a non-conditional use when located
within the Town Civic Center property.

Objective met.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 107
January 2023

3.730 Consistency with State Requirements
The Town has had a number of regulations that encourage energy conservation for years. These include permitting solar installations, and promoting through various public education programs, energy efficient design. The Town also requires native landscaping to the greatest extent feasible, which reduces the need for both water and energy. All of these policies and regulations will continue.

3.731 Energy Conservation See Actions 3.731a through 3.731c below.

3.731a Title 24 Compliance Continue to require Title 24 compliance, and disseminate information on other
agency's energy conservation programs,
such as PG&E's solar subsidy program
and energy audits.
(2015-22) Building Dept. continues to require
Title 24 compliance, and disseminate
information on other agency's energy
conservation programs, such as PG&E's
solar subsidy program and energy audits.

Objective met. Recommend
program continuance.

3.731b Green Building Continue to support Green Building in Atherton through upholding the Green
Building Ordinance.
(2015-22) Building Dept. continues to
implement and enforce the Green Building
Ordinance.

Objective met. Recommend
program continuance.

3.731c Energy Conservation
Promotion
Continue to promote energy
conservation through energy audits,
participation in PG&E and Cal Water
programs, and encouraging
conservation retrofits.
(2015-22) Building Dept. and Public Works
Dept. continues to promote energy
conservation through energy audits,
participation in PG&E and Cal Water
programs, and encouraging conservation
retrofits.

Objective met. Recommend
program continuance.

3.731d Employee Housing Ensure that the city is in compliance with State Health and Safety Code Sections
17021.5, which concerns employee
housing that serves six or fewer
employees.
(2015-22) It was determined that the Town is
in compliance with State Health and Safety
Code Sections 17021.5, which concerns
employee housing that serves six or fewer
employees.

Objective met.

3.740 Other Housing Programs

3.741 Shared Housing

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 108
January 2023

3.741a Shared Housing The Town will continue to support the Human Investment Program (HIP), a nonprofit organization that matches people needing housing and people owning a
home who desire additional income
and/or companionship. The Town will
make information about the Home
Sharing program available at Town Hall
and will publicize the effort through the
Town’s newsletter.
(2015-22) Planning Dept. and on-going
program. HIP Home Sharing information
available at Planning Dept. Program
publicized on Town website in lieu of in
newsletter.

Objective met. Recommend
program continuance.

3.750 Program by Program Evaluation and Changes Incorporated in 2023-31 Update See Table 3.710 for 2015-22 Update Programs and Objectives Analysis. The following describes how the objectives and programs of the updated element incorporate changes resulting from the evaluation.

New Construction of Above-Moderate Income Units - The program of providing new construction of Above-Moderate income units has, in the past, depended on the construction of single-family detached homes throughout the Town’s R1-A and R1-B lots. The program has been hampered by the lack of available land and the low density character of the community. New construction invariably results in the demolition of a n existing unit, leading to nearly a net zero increase in housing units. The adoption and implementation of SB 9 by the State of California is projected to allow the creation of additional lots with higher densities and thus permit the development of a greater number of Above-Moderate housing units during the 2023-31 planning period. Further, the Town will create two new multifamily zoning districts, RM 20 and RM 10 that will facilitate the development of additional above-moderate income units.

New Construction of Affordable Units - The program of providing new construction of affordable units has, in the past, depended primarily on the construction of ADUs and JADUs. While the objective was met in the 2015-22 planning period, the RHNA objectives for 2023-31 is markedly higher. Consequently the 2023-31 Update includes Housing Program 3.813 addressing multifamily housing development on school and other properties and creation of two new multifamily zoning districts, RM 20 and RM 10 that will be applied to 19 properties. In addition, an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance will be

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 109
January 2023
adopted which requires a percentage of units to be set aside for lower-income housing. These new programs should be sufficient to meet the 2023-31 objectives for affordable units.

Faculty and Student Housing - The program of providing additional faculty and student housing on or near school campuses and there appears to be a desire on the part of the schools to construct additional faculty and student housing. The 2023- 31 Update includes new programs such as Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that could assist in funding construction and zoning changes such as increased height, reduction of setbacks and similar changes that could allow increased densities, all helping to reduce barriers to development of new faculty and student housing.

Conduct Affordability Surveys - While housing affordability surveys during the 2015-22 planning period have been required as a condition of approval, they typically reflect anticipated rent, and therefore affordability, as opposed to actual affordability. Changes in the 2023-31 Update are proposed that require a survey every two years of actual rents in order to determine the actual affordability level of low and moderate income ADUs, JADUs, multifamily and other known affordable units. This change will provide data that can be used to adjust programs during the planning period, if necessary.

Maintain Contact with Affordable Housing Developers - Atherton management and planning staff have regular contact with developers of affordable housing, exchanging ideas and proposals about expanding affordable housing opportunities in Atherton. This program continues into the 2023-31 planning period in order to take advantage of affordable housing opportunities as they arise.

Conservation and Rehabilitation of Existing Units - The Atherton Planning Department works closely with the Building Department to encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of housing in Town, with particular attention to affordable housing. The Town will continue to assist the property owners and development community in the housing development, conservation and rehabilitation process. The Town will establish a building inspector ombudsman to assist property owners navigate the rehabilitation process. This program continues into the 2023-31 planning period with a projected 50 to 100 permits being issued for improvement, rehabilitation and conservation projects.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 110
January 2023

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 111
January 2023

3.700 HOUSING GOALS, QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES This section contains the Housing Goals, Quantified Objectives and Policies of the Town.

These goals, objectives and policies will be implemented by the Housing Programs described in Section 3.800 of this Element.

3.710 GOAL: FACILITATE THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING TO MEET THE

ABOVE MODERATE INCOME HOUSING NEED IDENTIFIED FOR ATHERTON

3.711 OBJECTIVES
A. Realize the construction of approximately 197 net new housing units in the above-moderate income category in Atherton from 2023-2031.

3.712 POLICIES
A. Within the limitations of the private housing market the Town shall work with private developers to encourage new housing development.

B. Create two new multifamily zoning districts at 20 units per acre and 10 units per acre to facilitate additional housing opportunities for the community.

3.720 GOAL: USE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO MEET A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE TOWN’S MODERATE TO VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSING NEED.

3.721 OBJECTIVES
A. Realize the construction of 280 new accessory dwelling units planned for occupancy by moderate to extremely low-income households in Atherton from 2023-2031.

B. Partner with a non-profit organization to facilitate and promote the availability and rental of ADU and JADU units.

3.722 POLICIES
A. Actively promote the Accessory Dwelling Unit provision of the Atherton Zoning Ordinance by encouraging homeowners and developers to include attached or detached Accessory Dwelling Units in existing or new homes.

B. Comprehensively update the Town’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance to amend any identified zoning development standards which may unduly constrain development of ADUs.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 112
January 2023

3.730 GOAL: FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF FACULTY AND STUDENT HOUSING

ON OR NEAR SCHOOL CAMPUSES TO MEET A PORTION OF THE MODERATE

AND VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSING NEED IDENTIFIED FOR ATHERTON

3.731 OBJECTIVES
A. Encourage the construction of 80 new multifamily housing units at private and public schools in the moderate to very low-income categories in Atherton from 2023-2031.

3.732 POLICIES
A. Encourage schools in Atherton to provide affordable multifamily housing on their campuses.

B. Amend the zoning code to permit multifamily by right subject to objective design standards with increased height limits and reduced setbacks.

3.740 GOAL: FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PRIVATE

PROPERTIES

3.731 OBJECTIVES
A. Realize the construction of 8 new affordable multifamily housing units on private properties in Atherton from 2023-2031.

3.732 POLICIES
A. Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and encourage private property owners to provide affordable multifamily housing on-site.

B. Amend the zoning code to permit multifamily housing by right subject to objective design standards with increased height limits and reduced setbacks.

C. Adopt a Lot Consolidation Program to facilitate lot consolation in the RM 20 zoning district and facilitate new multifamily housing development.

3.750 GOAL: PROMOTE PRIVATE EFFORTS TO CONSERVE AND IMPROVE ATHERTON’S EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY.

3.751 OBJECTIVES

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 113
January 2023
A. Promote the improvement, maintenance and enhancement of the existing housing stock through ongoing private and public rehabilitation efforts, with the objective of processing 1,000 applications for rehabilitation and home improvement between 2023 and 2031.

3.752 POLICIES
A. The Town shall promote conservation and improvement of the condition of its existing affordable housing stock with the goal of conserving all existing affordable units.

3.760 GOAL: ENCOURAGE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO THE MAINTENANCE AND

EXPANSION OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR HANDICAPPED AND LOW AND MODERATE INCOME AND HOMELESS PERSONS.

See discussion in Section 3.720. As such, the following goals, objectives and policies were developed in order to best address and/or enhance meeting the housing needs of handicapped and low and moderate income homeless persons.

3.761 OBJECTIVES
A. Enforce uniform building code regulations regarding provision of access for handicapped in residential structures, where applicable.

B. Support the conservation and development of affordable housing for citizens of modest means.

C. Encourage development of accessible units with all new multifamily housing development.

3.762 POLICIES
A. The Town shall continue to enforce the uniform building code regulations regarding provision of handicapped access in residential structures.

B. The Town shall continue to encourage the production and availability of more affordable housing through the development of new accessory dwelling units, and private and public-school faculty and student housing.

C. The Town shall cooperate with agencies providing emergency shelter, transitional and supportive housing for the homeless and those in crisis.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 114
January 2023

3.770 GOAL: MEET THE NEEDS OF SENIORS, IN LIGHT OF THE PENDING GROWTH OF THIS POPULATION IN SAN MATEO COUNTY.

See discussion in Section 3.720. As such, the following goals, objectives and policies were developed in order to best address and/or enhance meeting the housing needs of seniors.

3.771 OBJECTIVES
A. Assist in meeting the needs of senior residents.

3.772 POLICIES
A. Enforce uniform building code regulations regarding provision of access for handicapped in residential structures, where applicable.

B. Support the conservation and development of affordable housing for seniors with lower incomes.

C. Process requests for accessibility accommodations.

D. Encourage policies that enable seniors to “age in place” as much as possible.

E. Continue to encourage the development of accessory dwelling units, which can provide an affordable option for seniors.

F. Identify and prioritize steps that Atherton can take to meet the needs of seniors.

3.780 GOAL: CONTINUE TO PROMOTE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL PERSONS

REGARDLESS OF RACE, SEX, MARITAL STATUS, ANCESTRY, NATIONAL ORIGIN

OR COLOR

3.781 OBJECTIVES
A. Eliminate discrimination in housing to the extent feasible through Town actions.

3.782 POLICIES
A. The Town shall actively support housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin or color.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 115
January 2023

3.790 GOAL: SUPPORT EFFORTS TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING IN ATHERTON.

3.791 POLICES:

A. Amend the Zoning Code to include two new Multifamily Zoning Districts in addition to amending the code to facilitate multifamily housing development in the PFS zoning district (school properties). This substantial step will facilitate the development of multifamily housing in the community and provide a range of housing options including new affordable housing units and accessible units.

B. Regional Housing Trust Fund or Other Regional Collaboration:

Support a regional Housing Trust Fund that is funded by a diversity of jurisdictions and allocated to communities based on poverty, cost burden, and segregation. The fund could support affordable housing production, community amenities, last/first month’s security deposits, down payment assistance, etc. Pair assistance with affirmative marketing to households with disproportionate housing needs including Black and Hispanic households.

C. Promote Affordable ADUs and JADUs: Develop a program that would connect service providers that help displaced renters with ADU owners in Atherton that want to rent to low-income renters. Develop assistance programs for JADUs to make alterations easier and more cost effective so that additional units can be developed within the existing building envelope of houses and made available at more affordable rates.

D. Rental Assistance Program: The City Council will appoint a committee to convene a discussion with BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) populations who are experiencing comparatively high rates of cost burden to discuss solutions for relief and consider rental assistance programs tailored to extremely high-cost burdened residents.

E. Promote Fair Housing Information: Update the Town’s website to include fair housing including resources for residents who feel they have experienced discrimination, information about filing fair housing complaints with HCE or HUD, and information about protected classes under the Fair Housing Act.

F. Fair Housing Training: The City Council will appoint a committee to partner with Project Sentinel, or another affordable housing organization, to perform fair housing training for property owners, real estate agents and

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 116
January 2023
tenants across the region. Focus enforcement efforts on race-based discrimination and reasonable accommodations.

G. Human Investment Program (HIP) operates a Homesharing Program in the Town. The Homesharing Program places residents seeking housing with residents open to sharing (renting) a portion of their home. Five residents contacted HIP Housing to learn more about other programs as well as to discuss affordable housing opportunities in San Mateo County.

One resident applied to HIP Housing’s Home Sharing Program and worked with a Home Sharing Coordinator to receive home sharing referrals, community resources, as well as ongoing information about affordable housing opportunities including waiting list opening information.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 117
January 2023

3.800 HOUSING PROGRAMS
This section contains Atherton’s Housing Programs for the Planning Period 2023 – 2031.

Table HE-12 presents a summary of the number of dwelling units projected to be constructed due to ongoing and proposed programs in Atherton. Those programs include maintaining and/or exceeding existing levels of new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) production, lot splits and new unit development pursuant to SB 9, development of vacant sites, and increased housing production on school sites and property belonging to CalWater. These programs are elaborated upon within this chapter.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 118
January 2023
Table HE-12: Summary of Projected Dwelling Units

3.810 New Construction, Conservation and Rehabilitation Very lowLowMod Above Mod Total
ADUs 112 56 112 280
Lot Splits (SB 9) 48 48
Vacant Sites 10 10
RM 10 (23
Oakwood)
4 12 16
RM 20 (ECR north) 4 15 19
PFS (Private
Schools)
40 40 80
Total 160 96 197 453
RHNA 148 56 144 348
Amount above or
below RHNA
+12 +40 +53 +105

3.811 New Construction of Above Moderate-Income Units

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 119
January 2023
A. New Single Family Housing Development: Continue to facilitate and expedite the development of new above moderate-income housing units.

An average of 25 new single-family homes in this income category are constructed in Atherton each year. However, an almost equal number of homes are demolished. A net of 9 new above moderate-income units were constructed in the Town during the first seven years of the 2015-2022 Planning Period. It is projected that a net of 10 additional homes in the above moderate-income category will be constructed during the 2023- 2031 Planning Period based on the 2015-2022 Planning Period experience.

Appendix 5, the inventory of opportunity sites, includes a list of vacant properties.

B. New Single Family Housing Development from SB9 Implementation:

It is projected that approximately 48 new above moderate-income housing units will result from lot splits and new housing development facilitated by the 2021 SB 9 State law (GC section 65852.21) during the 2023-2031 Planning Period.

Recently enacted legislation known as Senate Bill 9 or SB 9 waives discretionary review and public hearings for building two homes on a parcel in a single-family zone and subdividing a lot into two that can be smaller than the previously required minimum size. The legislation became effective on January 1, 2022.

In early 2022 the Town adopted an implementing ordinance consistent with state law to provide property owners clarity for the development opportunities under SB 9. The ordinance allows new lots created under the provisions of SB 9 to utilize the existing development standards for the base zoning district. A new residence built on a lot created through an SB 9 lot split can use the same setbacks, floor area ratio, building heights and other standards as provided for any existing lot in the same zoning district. This contrasts with the approach taken by several similar jurisdictions to Atherton to limit the size of units on new lots created through SB 9 to a maximum of 800 square feet.

Prior to the adoption of SB 9, the minimum resulting lot size for a subdivision in Atherton was one acre. The status quo of larger lots with expansive lawns and well screened homes makes Atherton distinct among other Bay Area communities, where it is more prevalent to find 6-8 single-family homes per acre. Whereas other communities have likely maximized their potential for single-family development, Atherton is uniquely situated to see additional lot splits and new housing development result from SB 9.

The Town anticipates that SB 9 applications will be more common on lots of at least one acre in size that contain an older residence. The Town has found that there are 606 lots of an acre or greater in size with a residence

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 120
January 2023
built before 1970. These lots present a tremendous pool of homeowners who may be interested in pursuing SB 9 lot splits. The Town expects sites selected for SB 9 lot splits and the creation of additional units to be distributed throughout the Town.

In addition to the sites listed below, staff has spoken with several developers and property owners and there is support for additional SB 9 lot splits throughout Town on parcels of varying sizes.

The projected interest in pursuing SB 9 projects in Atherton has been borne out in the first few months of the law’s applicability. During 2022 Atherton received 6 applications for SB 9 subdivisions and an additional 6 inquiries that would result in a total of 23 net new dwelling units as listed in Table HE13.

All properties listed below contain existing single-family residential uses that would not impede, but support additional uses as indicated by each project applicant, combined with the existing lot configurations and existing improvements,, thus all have a high likelihood of redevelopment that all properties
Table HE-13: Existing and Potential SB-9 Project Sites
Address Existing Lot Size Net New
Units
Application Submitted
78 Cebalo 0.55 2 Yes -Approved
2 Lowery 1.2 3 Yes - Approved
125 Glenwood 1.03 1 Yes - Approved
94 Palmer 0.55 1 Yes - In Process
47 Santiago 2.53 1 Preliminary Stage
190 Selby 1.00 3 Preliminary Stage
197 Glenwood 1.29 2 Yes - In process

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 121
January 2023
1 Gresham 0.32 2 Yes - In process
97 Santiago 1.4 8 Preliminary Stage
During the same period the Town Staff has had discussions with three additional property owners about potential applications in the earlier exploratory stages that would result in another 6 net new dwelling units.

Preliminary discussions with these additional property owners, as well as all other addresses noted in the Table above, all indicated the ultimate goal to develop additional units. All of these SB 9 units would be in the above moderate-income category. Assuming this trend continues, Atherton should receive applications resulting in an average of 9 to 32 net new dwelling units per year in the future. Projecting forward, as awareness around SB 9 increases, the Town reasonably expects the number of such applications to increase in kind.

Atherton conservatively projects an average of six net new dwelling units per year will result from SB 9 property divisions and construction of two homes on a single parcel. Eligible properties were estimated based on lot size and configuration which lend themselves to relatively straight forward, non-complex land subdivisions, expressed development interest from property owners and generally older, but good condition existing physical conditions per windshield surveys. Over the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle a total of 48 net new homes are forecasted to be constructed in Atherton as a result of SB 9. All of these are projected to be in the above moderateincome category.

SB 9 Applications and Interested Sites

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 122
January 2023
The Town will establish a monitoring program of SB9 applications and approvals within two years of Housing Element adoption to ensure actual production is on pace with projections, to identify progress and make appropriate program adjustments and identify additional sites within six months if assumptions are not being met. The Town will monitor SB9 applications and approvals.

C. New Multi-family Housing Development: the Town of Atherton, since its incorporation in 1923, has been a residential community with no commercial entities except public and private schools. The early Town residents favored preservation of heritage trees and abundant open space and developed larger estate lots. The current minimum density is one residence per acre with the Town encouraging development of ADUs and JADUs on single family properties. Recognizing the extreme housing shortage in California and the San Francisco Peninsula, the Town desires to do its part in meeting the assigned RHNA production through rezoning nineteen single family properties to multifamily. This is a dramatic departure from the Town’s historic development pattern.

The Town will create two new multifamily zoning districts, RM 20 and RM 10, permitting multifamily housing development at densities of 20 dwelling units per acre and 10-units per acre with heights up to 40 feet and adequate setbacks to accommodate the

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 123
January 2023
maximum density. Multifamily housing will be allowed by right, provided that each project is consistent with adopted objective design standards. Nineteen single family properties have been identified for rezoning to multifamily (Table HE-14).

The Town will develop objective design standards that support new multifamily housing development in an inclusive manner with existing single-family residences. The Town will also adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to restrict 20% of the new multifamily units as affordable. With the affordable housing requirement, these projects will also be able to take advantage of Density Bonus provisions that provides additional housing units, waivers and concessions to support the provision of affordable housing.

The City Council conducted numerous study session meetings, performed site visits throughout the community, received numerous feedback and suggestions through email, phone or in-person meetings with residents and analyzed numerous properties for designation in new multifamily zones. The City Council prioritized properties that are close to services, transit, jobs and with adequate access along a public right-of-way. The following nineteen properties are identified:

Address Lot Size Density Development
Potential*
1 97 Cebalo 0.37 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
2 98 Cebalo 0.34 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
3 94 Cebalo 0.41 acre 20 units per acre 4 units
4 75 Cebalo 0.934 acre 20 units per acre 9 units
5 8 Selby Lane 0.37 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
6 2 Selby Lane 0.33 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
7 1 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 124
January 2023
8 25 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
9 37 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
10 49 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
11 61 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
12 73 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
13 85 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
14 97 Gresham Lane 0.32 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
15 99 Gresham Lane 0.41 acre 20 units per acre 4 units
16 182 El Camino 0.34 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
17 190 El Camino 0.34 acre 20 units per acre 3 units
18 2 Stockbridge 0.24 acre 20 units per acre 2 units
19 23 Oakwood 1.62 acres 10 units per acre 16 units
* not including Density Bonus units
The property owner at 23 Oakwood indicated his interest in developing the property with multifamily units and has been in discussions with developers and builders. The property is 1.6 acres in area, a level lot with no known site constraints. The property has access to an improved public right-of-way and is currently served with utilities. Given the property owner’s interest, it is anticipated that this property will develop with 16 multifamily housing units under the new base zoning of RM 10 and not taking into consideration density bonus units.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 125
January 2023
As listed above, eighteen (18) properties have been identified for inclusion in a new RM 20 multifamily zoning district. As these properties are less than ½ an acre, the Town will also implement a program to encourage Lot Consolidation and facilitate new multifamily housing development. It is anticipated that several lots would be combined during this planning period for the development of 19 new multifamily housing units.

A developer has approached the Town with interest in acquiring and consolidating four of the properties identified for rezoning to RM 20 for construction of new multifamily housing. Based on this developer interest, it is conservatively assumed that 19 new multifamily units will be built during the 6th cycle with 4 units designated for lower income households.

The Town will adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that will require a minimum of 20% of the multifamily dwelling units be constructed as affordable to lower income households.

The Town will take the steps listed below to facilitate new multifamily construction for market rate and lower income households:

A. Amend the Zoning Map and create two new Zoning Districts, RM 20 and RM 10 permitting 20 units per acre and 10 units per acre by right with 40 feet height limit and setbacks reasonable to accommodate the new development. Adopt objective design standards. Prepare CEQA analysis and complete the rezoning within one year of Housing Element certification.

B. Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring a minimum of 20% multifamily housing units be affordable to lower income households.

Adopt the Ordinance within one year of Housing Element certification.

3.812 New Construction of Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units In 2020, the Town amended the Zoning Ordinance to encourage the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs)by removing constraints on their development and providing other incentives including exempting the ADU floor area from the maximum site floor area limit. During the last 3 years of the 5th RHNA cycle, the Town issued an annual average of 35.3 building permits per year for

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 126
January 2023
attached and detached ADUs. In 2020, permits were issued for 34 ADUs, in 2021, permits were issued for 32 ADUs. From January 1 - October 31, 2022, the Town has received 27 new ADU permits and 6 new JADU permits for a total of 33 new housing units.

ADU plans are approved ministerially with minimal objective design standards, the Town does not impose impact fees and as discussed earlier, given the large size of Atherton properties, there is adequate land available to build attached and detached ADUs and JADUs. The most effective incentive to realize construction of ADUs has been the 1,200 square feet of exempt floor area and 500 square feet of exempt floor area for JADUs. This allows homeowners to build an ADU and a JADU without impacting the size of their main dwelling. In the past two years, a total of 48 new single family homes were built in Atherton and during this same time frame, there were 44 new ADUs, 3 JADUs, and 7 ADU-conversions. The Town believes that this nearly one to one ratio exists because the Town recently modified its regulations to encourage the development of ADUs. In addition, a recent community survey with nearly 18% of households responding indicates an interest by over 200 property owners to construct an ADU on their property over the next 8 years. Accordingly, the Town believes that the construction rate of 35 new ADUs per year over the next 8 years is achievable. Many residents at the Town held community meeting expressed interest in building a new ADU or renting their existing guest house when the code is updated.

The Town realized high ADU construction with minimum education and outreach to the community. The Town plans to greatly expand community outreach to realize additional ADU development. Specifically, the Town will distribute, at least annually, community outreach mailing and social media posts, host at least one community workshop on new ADU development standards and provide information on the Town’s website and at the Town counters on the ease of ADU development. With the Town’s current pace of ADU applications, the Town forecasts the development of 280 new ADUs over the next planning period. With additional outreach and other incentives and changes to the zoning code, the Town plans to meet or exceed this current pace of production over the next eight years. The Town projects that the number of ADUs produced in

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 127
January 2023
the lower income levels would be 168 units; 112 very low to low income-, and 56 moderate-income units.

In addition, the Town intends to take the steps listed below to facilitate new ADU construction and rental to lower income households, additional ADU creation, construction and conversion, as well as remove any potential constraints:

C. Update ADU ordinance to comply with changes to state law.

Amend zoning code by July 1, 2023.

D. Adopt a program for pre-approval of ADUs plans to streamline the review and approval process and reduce the cost to prepare detailed plans by December 31, 2023.

E. Amend the zoning code to allow ADUs to be constructed above detached garages which are numerous around Town by increasing the allowable height of such structures to be 18 feet, thus allowing a second story ADU to be constructed. .Amend the zoning code by July 1, 2023.

F. Amend the zoning code to allow two ADUs to be constructed on a property. The first ADU constructed is exempt from floor area limitations and the second ADU will be included within ADU floor area calculations.

This will facilitate the construction of additional ADU units. Amend the zoning code by July 1, 2023.

G. Many Atherton properties include pool houses and guest houses in addition to ADUs. These buildings are limited to 30-day occupancy per year. To facilitate additional rental of ADUs the Town will amend the zoning code to eliminate this provision and allow pool houses and guest houses to be rented as ADUs. The Town will distribute a town wide mailer informing property owners of this change and encouraging rental of their units. This will substantially increase the inventory of available rental units in the Town. Amend the cod by July 1, 2023.

H. At the time of construction or conversion, the Town requests the owner fill out an ADU rental survey indicating the amount of rent to be charged for the unit. By comparing this rent to the San Mateo County

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 128
January 2023
monthly maximum affordable housing cost by household chart, the affordability level of each unit is determined. This is an ongoing program.

I. A Town wide mailer will be completed to create an inventory of existing pool houses and guest houses. Using this inventory, the Town shall expand its work with a non-profit housing organization such as but not limited to HIP Housing (HIP) to connect homeowners to prospective renters.

The mailer will be distributed by December 31, 2023 and at least annually thereafter to advertise the program.

J. To encourage rental of ADUs and JADUs, the Town has developed a comprehensive incentive ADU/JADU rental program and is partnering with a non-profit housing organization, such as, but not limited to HIP Housing to facilitate the rental advertising, screening and partnering process by December 31, 2023..

K. Adopt a Planning fee waiver for all new ADUs to incentivize new construction by July 1, 2023.

L. Prepare a nexus study and adopt an affordable housing impact fee on single family construction. The Town will make available funds from this program to provide very low-income rental assistance for eligible households identified by HIP by July 1, 2024.

M. Establish a monitoring program of ADU applications and approvals within two years of Housing Element adoption to ensure actual production is on pace with projections, to identify progress and make appropriate program adjustments. The town will monitor ADU applications and approvals.

Time frame for implementation: Ongoing (Short-term Action) Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Town Planner Proposed Measurable Outcomes: Complete related ADU Ordinance and other municipal code updates by July 1, 2023. Realize 144 new accessory dwelling units in the very low-, low- and moderate-income categories and 72 new accessory dwelling units in the above moderate-income category in the 2023 -2031 planning period.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 129
January 2023
Funding Sources: General Fund, Planning Department Budget, affordable housing in-lieu fees

3.813 Multifamily Housing Development on School Properties Menlo College is a private 4-year college located at 1000 El Camino Real sited on 31 acres of property (including 50% ownership of Cartan Athletic Field and Wunderlich Athletic Field) serving approximately 750 students.

Menlo School is a private grade 6 - 12 school located at 50 Valparaiso Avenue sited on 26.7 acres of property (including 50% ownership of Cartan Athletic Field and Wunderlich Athletic Field) serving approximately 795 students.

Sacred Heart Schools is a private preschool, K - 12 institution located at 150 Valparaiso Avenue on 60 acres of property serving approximately 1,195 students.

Menlo-Atherton High School is a public four-year secondary school in the Sequoia Union High School District serving approximately 2,400 students.

The school and its athletic fields occupy 38.5 acres at 555 Middlefield Road at the corner of Middlefield and Ringwood Avenue.

Laurel School is a public elementary school in the Menlo Park City School District. Its Lower Campus is on 6 acres at 95 Edge Road in Atherton at the corner of Edge and Ringwood Avenue. The Lower Campus serves approximately 326 students in grades K-2.

Encinal School is a public K-5 elementary school in the Menlo Park City School District serving approximately 630 students. It is located on 10 acres at 195 Encinal Avenue at the corner of Encinal and Middlefield Road.

Las Lomitas School is a public TK-3 elementary school in the Las Lomitas Elementary School District serving approximately 485 students. It is located on 9 acres at 299 Alameda de las Pulgas at the corner of Alameda de las Pulgas and Camino Al Lago.

Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School is a public K-5 elementary school in the Redwood City School District serving approximately 652 students. The portion of the campus within Atherton is located on 5.5 acres at 170 Selby Lane.

A. Public and Private Schools: Public and private school properties are zoned PFS (Public Facilities and Schools) District in Atherton. The PFS District currently allows multiple-family residential uses that could accommodate housing for very low- and low-income households associated with primary

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 130
January 2023
nonresidential use of property on the same site. No maximum density is specified in the PFS District for the multiple-family residential uses allowed in the zoning district and the Town does not have parking standards. The only multiple-family development regulations are setbacks, 34 feet height limit and 40% lot coverage. As outlined below, there is more than adequate land available on the school sites to develop new housing.

Atherton Planning Staff has had discussions with representatives of the three private schools and the public school in Town about the development of low- and moderate-income housing on their campuses.

Those discussions include:
● Menlo College currently has 25 housing units for faculty and staff. Most of those housing units are rented at rates affordable to low- and moderateincome households. In recent discussions between the College President and Atherton Planning Staff, the President indicated that the College is very interested in providing additional housing on campus. He stated that there is always a demand for additional housing, that the existing units are almost always 100% occupied, and that shortage of affordable housing is a barrier to hiring. However, funding has been a barrier to housing production in the past. Through the Housing Element update process, a resident group has been formed to assist the College with fundraising and facilitate the new housing development. The letter indicates that the College could support 60 additional faculty housing units. Letter from the College President is included as an appendix.

The College has identified two sites for new multifamily housing:
● Construction of a multi-family housing project on the site of the O’Brian Parking Lot at the corner of El Camino Real and Alejandra Avenue. The building could have podium parking at ground level and 3 stories of housing above. Most of the housing units would be set-aside for low- and moderate-income households.
● Convert WWII barrack housing to new apartments. This is anticipated to result in 26 net new housing units.
● Menlo School – the school has acquired an apartment building locally for faculty housing. The cost of housing and impact on faculty is discussed annually by the school and its Board. Two sites on the Menlo School campus have been identified that can accommodate 45 multifamily units.

● Sacred Heart – there are currently five apartment units on the campus and housing for retired Nuns at Oakwood. The school anticipates this facility being renovated in the future (15-20 years) to accommodate faculty

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 131
January 2023
rental housing units. It is not anticipated that the school will develop new housing units during this housing element cycle.

Given the large size of the school campuses and the minimal development regulations, there is more than adequate land available at each campus to accommodate new multiple family housing.

To facilitate development of affordable housing on single family zoned properties adjacent to school sites, upon acquisition of property by a school, if the school makes an application for a zoning change, the Town will consider rezoning the property to PFS to accommodate affordable housing consistent with existing PFS Zoning opportunities.

Time frame for implementation: The Town will amend the PFS zoning district to permit new multifamily housing by right at 40 units and 20 units per acre at four locations on the private school properties subject to objective design standards. The Town will complete the CEQA analysis and adopt the Zoning amendment within one year of Housing Element certification.

Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Department and Building Department
Proposed Measurable Outcomes: Construction of 80 new affordable multifamily units at private and public schools in the veryy low- to moderateincome category during the 2023-2031 planning period.

3.814 Adoption of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
A. Inclusionary Fee. Adopt a new inclusionary ordinance for multifamily development and housing fee for all new single family housing construction and additions The Town will complete a nexus study and develop an inclusionary housing ordinance that would require 20% affordable units with new multifamily development and a new fee for single family development and additions. The fee will provide an option to provide affordable deed restricted ADU or JADU on-site in-lieu of paying the fee. Funds generated by this fee will be used to support affordable housing in Atherton which may include subsidizing new multifamily housing development, an ADU rental program and supporting affordable housing opportunities in the Town. The Town will develop a program on the use of funds.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 132
January 2023
Time frame for implementation: Within one year of Housing Element adoption the Town will establish the Inclusionary Ordinance and fee and a program for the use of funds.

Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Department and Finance Director
Proposed Measurable Outcomes: Require 20% affordable units with new multifamily development, generate new funds to support an affordable ADU rental program and other affordable housing opportunities.

Funding Sources: General Fund, Planning Department Budget

3.815 Conservation and Rehabilitation of Existing Units A. Continue to facilitate and expedite the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing residential units. The prompt processing of subdivision, planning review and building permit issuance has resulted in average review times that are some of the most reasonable in San Mateo County. The Town will continue to assist the property owners and development community in the housing development, conservation and rehabilitation process. The Town will establish a building inspector ombudsman to assist property owners navigate the rehabilitation process.

Time frame for implementation: Ongoing (Long-term Action) Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning and Building Departments
Proposed Measurable Outcomes: N/A
Funding Sources: General Fund, Planning and Building Department Budgets

3.820 Special Housing Needs
Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In evaluating related programs in the Town’s past cycles, the following programs tailored to special needs populations have been identified to increase their effectiveness.

3.821 Seniors

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 133
January 2023
A. Continue to facilitate the provision of board and care opportunities, particularly for seniors, some of whom may be longtime Atherton residents who can no longer remain in their homes and who wish to continue living in Atherton. State law provides that a residential care facility (defined as a facility serving six or fewer persons) is a residential use and must be permitted wherever residential uses are allowed.

B. The Town will continue to provide information at Town Hall regarding the numerous Senior Centers in San Mateo County that offer assistance in home repairs. Some of these programs offer subsidized services and others maintain a list of skilled workers who charge below market rates. The information also includes San Mateo County’s Home Repair Program to assist low and moderate homeowners in rehabilitating their residences. The Town will publicize the availability of these services on the Town website.

C. The Town will continue to support the County Property Tax Postponement Program, which provides seniors with a means of postponing property tax payment. This program has the benefit of extending the length of time they can remain in their homes. Inquiries will be directed to the County Tax Collector’s Office and information regarding the program will be available at Town Hall and publicized on the Town’s website.

D. The Town will host a Senior Workshop to educate the community on available resources. Information on home repair and retrofit for accessibility resources and programs, home sharing opportunity, financial assistance, and the ADU program will be presented.

Time frame for implementation: Conduct Senior Workshop within two years of Housing Element certification and annually thereafter. Outreach and education efforts are ongoing (Long-term Action)
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Department Proposed Measurable Outcomes: educate seniors and assist in allowing them to remain in their home
Funding Sources: General Fund, Planning Department Budget

3.822 Disabled and Developmentally Delayed Persons
A. Continue to review new residential developments and major remodels for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

B. Continue to support the County Housing Accessibility for Disabled Persons program at the Center for the Independence of the Disabled. The Town will direct inquiries for house modifications for the disabled to the

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 134
January 2023
County program. Public information regarding the program will be available at Town Hall and publicized on the Town’s website.

C. The Town will continue to process requests for housing accessibility accommodations. The Town’s municipal code provides a process for individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation for relief from the various land use, zoning, or rules, policies, practices, and/or procedures of the town that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing.

D. Conduct annual outreach to the community through direct mailers and social media posting to inform the community on programs.

Time frame for implementation: conduct annual outreach to the community with the first mailer distributed two years from Housing Element certification and annually thereafter. All other actions are ongoing (Longterm Action) Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Building and Planning Department
Proposed Measurable Outcomes: N/A
Funding Sources: General Fund, Building Department Budget Funding Sources: General Fund, Planning Department Budget

3.823 Equal Housing Opportunity
A. Refer complaints of discrimination in housing access based on race, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status or physical handicap, and other arbitrary barriers that prevent choice of housing to groups such as Project Sentinel. The Town will disseminate fair housing information at Town Hall. In addition, fair housing information will be published on the Town website.

B. Develop and implement an education/outreach campaign targeting landlords/managers on renting to people with Housing Choice Vouchers.

C. Amend the Zoning title to eliminate the occupancy limitation on other accessory units, such as guest houses and pool houses and create an inventory of existing pool houses and guest houses. The Town will work with a nonprofit to connect homeowners to prospective renters.

Commented [1]: NS: What specific programs for
individuals with disabilities will be advertised?

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 135
January 2023
D. Adopt an affordable housing impact fee on single family construction. The Town will make available funds from this program to provide very low-income rental assistance for eligible households identified by HIP.

E. Provide additional fair housing resources and training for property owners, real estate agents, and tenants in collaboration with other cities and towns, Project Sentinel, or other similar organization. Mandate training for multi-family developers, property owners and any resident renting an ADU or similar unit.

F. Create a webpage to host this information and improve awareness around fair housing training, issues and available programs. The webpage will also provide information on filing fair housing complaints with HCD or HUD.

G. Affirmatively market low-income units to households that are underrepresented in the Town in comparison to neighboring jurisdictions.

H.

Time frame for implementation: Concurrent with 2023 – 2031 Housing Element adoption
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Department Proposed Measurable Outcomes: N/A
Funding Sources: General Fund, Planning Department Budget

3.824 Emergency Shelters, Transitional and Supportive Housing A. Continue to support the possibility of Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Supportive Housing in Atherton. Emergency shelters are a permitted use on the Town Civic Center Property.

Timeframe for implementation: Ongoing
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Department Funding Sources: N/A

3.830 Consistency with State Requirements

3.831 Energy Conservation

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 136
January 2023
A. Continue to require compliance with Title 24 of the State’s Building regulations. In addition, disseminate energy conservation information available from other agencies, such as PG&E’s solar subsidy program and energy audits.

B. Continue to support Green Building in Atherton through enforcing the Green Building Ordinance and promote the Town’s Green Building Guide, “Go Green and Save: Rebates for Atherton Residents” and “Clean Energy & Energy Efficiency” programs posted on the website for all new residential development
C. Continue to promote energy conservation through energy audits, participation in PG&E and Cal Water programs and encouraging energy conserving retrofits in homes.

Time frame for implementation: Ongoing (Long-term Action) Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Building Department Proposed Measurable Outcomes: N/A
Funding Sources: General Fund, Building Department Budget

3.832 Consistency with Other General Plan Elements and Community Goals A. Continue to conduct a review and analysis of the General Plan’s compliance with the adopted Office of Planning and Research Guidelines as part of the annual General Plan implementation report required by Government Code Section 65400.

B. The Town will begin a program to also conduct an internal consistency review and analysis of the General Plan, including the Housing Element as part of the annual General Plan implementation report required by Government Code Section 65400.

Throughout the 2025-22 planning period Planning Department staff prepared and presented to the City Council for approval, a review and analysis of the General Plan for compliance with the adopted Office of Planning and Research Guidelines as part of the annual General Plan implementation report required by Government Code Section 65400. This program will be continued. A program has been added for the 2023-31 planning period to also conduct an internal consistency review and analysis of the General Plan, including the Housing Element as part of the annual General Plan implementation report required by Government Code Section 65400.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 137
January 2023
The Atherton General Plan was updated in 2019 and as part of the update process it was reviewed for internal consistency and found to be internally consistent. The 2023-31 Housing Element has also been reviewed for internal consistency and consistency with the adopted 2019 General Plan Update.

Time frame for implementation: Ongoing (Long-term Action) Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Department Proposed Measurable Outcomes: N/A
Funding Sources: General Fund, Planning Department Budget

3.840 Other Housing Programs

3.841 Shared Housing
A. The Town will continue to support the Human Investment Program (HIP), a non-profit organization that matches people needing housing and people owning a home who desire additional income and/or companionship. The Town will make information about the Home Sharing program available at Town Hall and will publicize the effort on the Town’s website. The Town will mail (Home sharing does not count toward the Town’s Housing Needs Allocation.)
Time frame for implementation: Conduct community outreach by December 31, 2023 and annually thereafter.

Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Department Proposed Measurable Outcomes: 1-2 home share matches each year.

Funding sources: general fund

3.842 Housing Compliance and Monitoring
A. The Town will partner with the County or other jurisdictions to share housing staff or hire a third party to manage the Town’s affordable housing portfolio. This will be an important task in helping Atherton lay the groundwork for an effective affordable housing compliance and monitoring process,
Time frame for implementation: Within one year of Housing Element adoption and ongoing thereafter
Commented [2]: Incomplete sentence.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 138
January 2023
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Department Proposed Measurable Outcomes: Rental of ADUs and production of multifamily housing as identified in the Housing Element Funding Sources: General Fund

3.843 Previously Identified Housing Sites
A. The Town will rezone any sites reused from a prior housing element within three years or one year of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by- right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households, and no subdivision is required. (Gov.

Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).)
Time frame for implementation: complete rezoning within one year of Housing Element certification.

Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division Proposed Measurable Outcomes: realize the development of new housing units
Funding Sources: General fund

3.844 Water and Sewer Providers - Priority for Affordable Housing A. Water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) The Town will immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers upon adoption.

Time frame for implementation: upon adoption of Housing Element Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division Proposed Measurable Outcomes: notify water and sewer providers Funding Sources: General fund

3.845 Accessory Dwelling Units Monitoring
A. The Town will monitor permitted ADUs and affordability every other year and take appropriate action, including adjusting assumptions or rezoning within

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 139
January 2023
one year if the sites inventory is negatively impacted to ensure compliance with no net loss provisions.

Time frame for implementation: ongoing, starting one year after Housing Element adoption
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division Proposed Measurable Outcomes: realize development of 280 new housing units
Funding Sources: General fund

3.846 By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing
A. The Town will revise the zoning code to allow Permanent Supportive Housing a by-right use in zones where multifamily and mixed-uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. To be consistent with AB 2162, the Town will allow by-right 100% affordable housing that has 25% or 12 units of permanent supportive housing, where multifamily or mixed-use housing is permitted.

Time frame for implementation: revise Zoning code within one year of Housing Element certification
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division Proposed Measurable Outcomes: consistency with State law Funding Sources: general fund

3.847 By-Right Low-Barrier Navigation Centers
A. The Town will revise the zoning code to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers to be a use-by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65660.

Time frame for implementation: revise Zoning Code within one year of Housing Element certification
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division Proposed Measurable Outcomes: consistency with state law Funding Sources: general fund

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 140
January 2023

3.848 Approval of Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing A. The Town will revise the zoning code to ensure mobile homes and manufactured housing on a permanent foundation are approved in the same manner as single-family homes.

Time frame for implementation: revise Zoning Code within one year of Housing Element certification
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division Proposed Measurable Outcomes: consistency with state law Funding Sources: general fund

3.849 Zoning, Fees and Other Development Standards Transparency A. The Town will ensure that all fees, zoning requirements and development standards are posted on the Town’s website, updating regularly, pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).

Time frame for implementation: ongoing
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division and Finance Director
Proposed Measurable Outcomes: inform residents and developers Funding Sources: general fund

3.850 Group Homes for Persons with Disabilities
A. The Town will revise the zoning code to allow group homes for seven or more residents, specifically for people with disabilities, as a permitted use in any district where residential uses are permitted.

Time frame for implementation: Revise Zoning Code one year from Housing Element certification
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division Proposed Measurable Outcomes: consistency with state law

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 141
January 2023
Funding Sources: general fund

3.851 Replacement Housing Requirements
A. The Town will require replacement housing for lower-income units (Gov.

Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3).) with the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c), paragraph (3).

Time frame for implementation: ongoing
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division Proposed Measurable Outcomes: consistency with state law Funding Sources: general fund

3.852 Employee Housing
A. The Town will amend its zoning code to allow for employee housing as provided for under the Employee Housing Act. Specifically, consistent with Section 17021.5, employee housing for six or fewer employees will be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. In addition, the code will be revised consistent with Section 17021.6, which requires that employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone.

Time frame for implementation: Amend zoning code within one year of Housing Element certification
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division Proposed Measurable Outcomes: consistency with state law Funding Sources: general fund

3.853 Emergency Shelters
A. The Town will amend its zoning code to comply with all provisions of State law pertaining to emergency shelters. Specifically, the Town will permit shelters without discretionary action. In addition, the Town will analyze all development standards and address any constraints on spacing and shelter size. Further, the

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 142
January 2023
Town will amend its code to ensure compliance with parking requirements of AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A).

Time frame for implementation: Amend zoning code within one year of Housing Element certification
Agency/Official responsible for implementation: Planning Division Proposed Measurable Outcomes: consistency with state law Funding Sources: general fund

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 143
January 2023

3.900 EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Extensive public engagement is an essential component to the housing element update process. During this Planning Period, Atherton held several public meetings to discuss the proposed strategies with the community. The Town also partnered with 21 Elements and the Let’s Talk Housing effort to engage with current and potential beneficiaries of housing programs and services and their advocates (e.g., lower income representatives, tenants of affordable complexes, groups targeted for special housing needs consideration, community-based organizations, health and human service providers, homeless shelter and service providers) in the update process. The participation of development professionals including local buildings, for and nonprofit developers, architects, trade labor unions, realtors, mortgage bankers and brokers, area lenders and others have been invited to participate.

The Town also created a Housing Element webpage to advertise meetings, post resources, the Draft Housing Element and a portal to provide public comments.

The community outreach effort coordinated with 21 Elements included virtual community meetings and webinars on the following topics: Introduction to the Housing Element, All About RHNA Webinar, Stakeholder Listening Sessions and Creating an Affordable Future webinars (four-part series).

In addition to the 21 Elements coordinated outreach efforts, the Town held several public meetings to discuss Housing Element programs, policies and strategies as follows:
● City Council meeting on November 4, 2020 to discuss the RHNA allocation process. ● A Joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council was held on April 28, 2021 to discuss key strategies to meet the RHNA obligation. ● City Council meeting held on January 12, 2022 to refine the housing element strategies.
● City Council meeting on February 24, 2022 to discuss the housing element strategies.
● City Council meeting on March 16, 2022 to discuss the housing element strategies. ● City Council meeting on May 18, 2022 to review comments from the community outreach meeting and further discuss the housing element strategies. ● Special City Council meeting on May 24, 2022 to provide further direction on the housing element strategies.

The Town held a public engagement/discussion meeting in the evening on April 26, 2022.

A special edition of the Town newsletter was prepared and physically mailed to every

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 144
January 2023
address in Town describing the proposed Housing Element programs and announcing the community meeting. The event was also promoted through the Town’s email newsletter list, Town website and posted at the Town’s Civic Center. Approximately 60 community members attended. An open discussion/engagement format was used rather than the typical presentation/public hearing and response format. Community leaders (City Council members and others) mixed with community members to discuss a wide variety of housing issues. Some engagement issues included:
● Education on the magnitude of the challenge facing the Town, the need for collaborative solutions, and the impact of non-compliance. ● Issues relating to a proposed multifamily overlay zone, proposed locations and details about the zoning district.
● Some community members truly want to solve the housing problem by adding or registering their ADU or JADU.
● Other community members were interested in being a part of the proposed multifamily overlay zone.
● Questions were raised about how the multifamily overlay zone works for numbers of units produced.
● Better definition of how a density bonus works.
● There were concerns raised about aesthetics and design, however that was not a primary issue for most.
● There was a lingering issue about diminished property values; single-family homes adjacent to multifamily complexes.

The meeting eventually transitioned to a question-and-answer format, which was helpful, but only after an extensive engagement format which provided an opportunity for education and discussion.

Key lessons from the meeting were that senior housing is an important topic for residents.

Many residents feel passionately that they want to continue to live in Atherton as they age. Some are worried that their current houses do not meet their needs and are looking for options to stay.

The Draft Housing Element was published on the Town’s website for a 30-day public review and comment period on June 10, 2022. Notice of the availability of the document was provided via email to Housing Advocates, published in the Almanac Newspaper and announced to residents via the Town’s e-notify system and social media outlets. The City Council, at its June 15, 2022 regular meeting discussed comments they have received individually and provided an opportunity for the public to provide comments.

During the 30-day public review period, the Planning Commission held a Special meeting

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 145
January 2023
on June 23, 2022 to receive comments from Commissioners and the public. The Town received over 300 written comments on the Draft Housing Element in addition to verbal comments provided at the meetings listed above.

At the July 20, 2022 City Council meeting, the Council discussed public comments received on the Draft Housing Element and directed staff to revise the Draft Housing Element to incorporate public feedback. Specifically, with respect to the overwhelming public comments in opposition of the multi-family overlay concept, the Council directed this program be removed from the Element. Council also requested revisions to several housing programs as suggested by the Housing Leadership Council, including expanding the Accessory Dwelling Unit program.

The City Council, at its July 27, 2022 Special meeting reviewed the revised Draft Housing Element and authorized transmission to HCD for its preliminary review and comments.

The Town received the HCD comment letter on October 31, 2022. The comment letter was reviewed at the November 2, 2022 City Council study session. The Council thoroughly reviewed the HCD comment letter line by line with legal citations. Public comments were received at both meetings and in writing prior to the meeting. Staff/consultants revised the Draft Housing Element to address HCD’s comments as reviewed by the City Council at its December 15, 2022 study session. Public comments were received at the meeting and in writing prior to the meeting. Staff/consultants revised the Housing Element based on City Council direction for its consideration at the January 11, 2023 City Council study session. Public comments were received at this meeting and in writing prior to the meeting. Staff/consultants further received the Housing Element based on direction provided by the Council and additional outreach meetings were conducted on the revised Housing Element. This included several resident hosted neighborhood meetings conducted throughout the Town, and community meeting on January 12, 2023 at Menlo College.

The revised Draft Housing Element was posted on the Town’s website on January 12, 2023 and notice of the availability of the revised Draft Housing Element was provided to residents, neighboring jurisdictions and housing advocates through direct mail, social media and email.

The Planning Commission considered the Housing Element at a publicly noticed meeting on January 19, 2023.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 146
January 2023

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT 147
January 2023

APPENDICES

1. 21 Elements Resident Survey Analysis, 4/14/2022

2. ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report - Atherton

3. AFFH Atherton Map and Data Packet

4. San Mateo County-wide Housing Needs Final Report, 11/3/2021

5. Electronic Housing Element Site Inventory Form

6. Menlo College Faculty and Staff Housing Considerations

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 1
AFFH Appendix.

Community Engagement
This section reports the findings from the resident survey conducted of San Mateo County residents to support the AFFH analysis of Housing Elements. It explores residents’ housing, affordability, and neighborhood challenges and experiences with displacement and housing discrimination. The survey also asks about residents’ access to economic opportunity, captured through residents’ reported challenges with transportation, employment, and K-12 education. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish.

The resident survey was available online, in both Spanish and English, in a format accessible to screen readers, and promoted through jurisdictional communications and social media and through partner networks. A total of 2,382 residents participated.

The survey instrument included questions about residents’ current housing situation, housing, neighborhood and affordability challenges, healthy neighborhood indicators, access to opportunity, and experience with displacement and housing discrimination.

Explanation of terms. Throughout this section, several terms are used that require explanation.
 “Precariously housed” includes residents who are currently homeless or living in transitional or temporary/emergency housing, as well as residents who live with friends or family but are not themselves on the lease or property title. These residents may (or may not) make financial contributions to pay housing costs or contribute to the household in exchange for housing (e.g., childcare, healthcare services).  “Disability” indicates that the respondent or a member of the respondent’s household has a disability of some type—physical, mental, intellectual, developmental.  “Single parent” are respondents living with their children only or with their children and other adults but not a spouse/partner.
 “Tenure” in the housing industry means rentership or ownership.  “Large households” are considered those with five or more persons residing in a respective household.
 “Seriously Looked for Housing” includes touring or searching for homes or apartments, putting in applications or pursuing mortgage financing.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 2
Sampling note. The survey respondents do not represent a random sample of the county or jurisdictions’ population. A true random sample is a sample in which each individual in the population has an equal chance of being selected for the survey. The selfselected nature of the survey prevents the collection of a true random sample. Important insights and themes can still be gained from the survey results, however, with an understanding of the differences among resident groups and between jurisdictions and the county overall. Overall, the data provide a rich source of information about the county’s households and their experience with housing choice and access to opportunity in the communities where they live.

Jurisdiction-level data are reported for cities with 50 responses or more. Response by jurisdiction and demographics are shown in the figure below. Overall, the survey received a very strong response from typically underrepresented residents including: people of color, renters, precariously housed residents, very low income households, households with children, large households, single parents, and residents with disabilities.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 3
Figure 1.

Resident Survey Sample Sizes by Jurisdictions and Selected Characteristics Note: Numbers do not aggregate either due to multiple responses or that respondents chose not to provide a response to all demographic and socioeconomic questions.

Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Belmont
Total Responses 2,382 89 82 173 130 53 148 63 59 55 84 163 99 175 832 Race/Ethnicity
African American 134 5 7 4 9 8 10 6 4 4 5 14 4 17 15
Hispanic 397 7 9 14 26 27 13 8 1 8 12 59 13 31 149
Asian 500 18 9 26 43 6 32 6 8 13 14 11 19 23 249
Other Race 149 7 10 6 8 3 14 3 3 3 3 9 7 13 47
Non-Hispanic White 757 41 35 89 27 4 44 27 27 15 35 54 36 58 195 Tenure
Homeowner 1,088 39 51 96 39 9 89 26 46 18 42 37 48 58 409 Renter 1,029 40 30 65 67 36 43 28 7 33 38 105 41 88 324 Precariously Housed 309 10 8 12 26 12 17 14 5 7 13 23 16 29 87 Income
Less than $25,000 282 14 11 12 21 15 12 11 5 6 7 40 11 29 61 $25,000-$49,999 265 13 9 10 22 9 8 6 3 6 7 28 5 20 97
$50,000-$99,999 517 10 14 38 43 10 26 11 3 10 17 37 22 40 206 Above $100,000 721 38 24 69 16 8 64 12 30 14 32 31 40 40 251 Household Characteristics
Children under 18 840 38 24 53 50 26 44 17 18 20 29 61 37 64 287 Large households 284 5 7 11 20 18 8 3 5 7 8 20 13 15 133 Single Parent 240 14 8 15 19 11 12 9 3 7 7 30 9 21 49
Disability 711 28 25 41 38 22 40 22 13 17 29 62 34 65 210 Older Adults (age 65+) 736 25 27 66 37 11 54 25 25 18 33 44 32 37 248 San
Mateo
South San
Francisco
Half
Moon
Bay Hillsborough Milbrae Pacifica
Redwood
City
San
Bruno
Foster
County Brisbane Burlingame City
Daly
City
East
Palo
Alto

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 4
Primary Findings
The survey data present a unique picture of the housing choices, challenges, needs, and access to economic opportunity of San Mateo County residents.

Top level findings from residents’ perspectives and experiences:
 The limited supply of housing that accommodates voucher holders presents several challenges. Specifically,
➢ Eight out of 10 voucher holders represented by the survey find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher to be “difficult” or “very difficult.” ➢ According to the survey data, vouchers not being enough to cover the places residents want to live is a top impediment for residents who want to move in San Mateo County, as well as for African American, Asian, and Hispanic residents, households with children under 18, single parents, older adults, households with a member experiencing a disability, and several jurisdictions.
 Low income is a barrier to accessing housing. The impacts are highest for precariously housed respondents. large households, Hispanic households, and residents in Daly City and Redwood City.
 Nearly 4 in 10 respondents who looked for housing experienced denial of housing. African American/Black respondents, single parent households, precariously housed respondents, and households with income below $50,000 reported the highest denial rates.
 1 in 5 residents have been displaced from their home in the past five years. One of the main reasons cited for displacement was the rent increased more than I could pay. African American households, single parents, households that make less than $25,000, and precariously housed respondents reported the highest rates of displacement.
 For households with children that were displaced in the past five years, 60% of children in those households have changed schools. The most common outcomes identified by households with children who have changed schools include school is more challenging, they feel less safe at the new school, and they are in a worse school.
 Nearly 1 in 5 residents reported they have experienced discrimination in the past five years. African American, single parent, and precariously housed respondents reported the highest rates of discrimination. The most common actions

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 5
in response to discrimination cited by survey respondents were Nothing/I wasn’t sure what to do and Moved/found another place to live.
 Of respondents reporting a disability, about 25% report that their current housing situation does not meet their accessibility needs. The three top greatest housing needs identified by respondents included installation of grab bars in bathroom or bench in shower, supportive services to help maintain housing, and ramps.
 On average, respondents are fairly satisfied with their transportation situation. Groups with the highest proportion of respondents somewhat or not at all satisfied with their transportation options included African American, single parents, precariously housed, and Brisbane respondents.

There are some housing, affordability, and neighborhood challenges unique to specific resident groups. These include:
 Would like to move but can’t afford it—Most likely to be a challenge for Daly City, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City respondents, as well as Hispanic, renter, precariously housed, households making less than $50,000, and large household respondents.
 My house or apartment isn’t big enough for my family—Most likely to be a challenge for East Palo Alto respondents, as well as Hispanic households, large and single parent households, and households with children under 18.  I’m often late on my rent payments—Most likely to be a challenge for East Palo Alto and renter respondents, as well as households that make less than $25,000.  I can’t keep up with my utility payments—Most likely to be a challenge for East Palo Alto, Daly City, and San Mateo respondents, as well as African American and Hispanic respondents, single parent households, households with children under 18, and households that make less than $50,000.
 Bus/rail does not go where I need to go or does not operate during the times I need— Most likely to be a challenge for African American, precariously housed, single parent households, Brisbane and Pacifica respondents.  Schools in my neighborhood are poor quality—Most likely to be a challenge for East Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Bruno and South San Francisco respondents, as well as Hispanic respondents and households with children under 18.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 6
Resident Survey Findings
Of survey respondents who reported their race or ethnicity, nearly 40% of survey respondents identified as non-Hispanic White, followed by Asian (26%), Hispanic (20%), African American (7%), and Other Minority (8%) residents (Figure 2). Overall, 45% of the survey respondents were homeowners, followed by 42% of renter respondents. Thirteen percent of respondents reported they are precariously housed (Figure 3). Four in ten respondents reported having household income greater than $100,000. Nearly 30% of respondents reported a household income between $50,000-99,999, followed by 15% of respondents who made between $25,000-49,999 and 16% of respondents making less than $25,000 (Figure 4).

The survey analysis also included selected demographic characteristics of respondents, including those with children under the age of 18 residing in their household, adults over the age of 65, respondents whose household includes a member experiencing a disability, those who live in large households, and single parents. Thirty five percent of respondents indicated they had children in their household, while 31% indicated they were older adults.

Thirty percent of respondents indicated they or a member of their household experienced a disability, 12% of respondents reported having large households, and 10% were single parents (Figure 5).

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 7
Figure 2.

Survey Respondents
by Race/Ethnicity
Note:
n=1,937; 535 respondents did not
indicate their race or ethnicity.

Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.

Figure 3.

Survey Respondents
by Tenure
Note:
n=2,426.

Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.

Figure 4.

Survey Respondents
by Income
Note:
n=1,785.

Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 8
Figure 5.

Survey Respondents
by Selected
Household
Characteristics
Note:

Denominator is total responses to the
survey (n=2,382)
Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.

Housing, Neighborhood and Affordability Challenges
Housing challenges: overall. Survey respondents were asked to select the housing challenges they currently experience from a list of 34 different housing, neighborhood, and affordability challenges. Figures 6a through 8c present the top 10 housing and neighborhood challenges and top 5 affordability challenges experienced by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and selected household characteristics.

These responses allow a way to compare the jurisdictions to the county for housing challenges for which other types of data do not exist. In this analysis, “above the county”—shaded in light red or pink—is defined as the proportion of responses that is 25% higher than the overall county proportion. “Below the county”—shown in light blue— occurs when the proportion of responses is 25% lower than the overall county proportion.

As shown in Figure 6a, residents in Redwood City and East Palo Alto experience several housing challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. Conversely, Foster City and Hillsborough residents experience nearly all identified housing challenges at a lower rate than the county.

Notable trends in housing, neighborhood, and affordability challenges by geographic area include:
 Residents in Daly City, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City are less likely to move due to the lack of available affordable housing options.
 East Palo Alto, Redwood City, and San Mateo residents report living in housing that is too small for their families.
 Millbrae, Belmont, and Redwood City residents report being more reticent to request a repair to their unit in fear that their landlord will raise their rent or evict them.  Nearly 1 in 5 Pacifica survey respondents report that their home or apartment is in bad condition.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 9
 Brisbane and East Palo Alto residents are more likely to experience a landlord refusing to make repairs to their unit.
 Residents in Daly City and Millbrae are more likely to report that they don’t feel safe in their neighborhood or building.
 Half Moon Bay and East Palo Alto respondents expressed the greatest need for assistance in taking care of themselves or their home.

When compared to the county overall, the most common areas where respondents’ needs were higher than the county overall were:
 Overall, half of the jurisdictions’ respondents reported I need help taking care of myself/my home and can’t find or afford to hire someone at a higher rate than the county.  Over 40% of jurisdictions’ respondents reported a higher rate than the county for the following housing challenge: My home/apartment is in bad condition.  Nearly 40% of jurisdictions’ respondents reported a higher rate than the county for the following housing challenges: My landlord refuses to make repairs despite my requests and I don’t feel safe in my neighborhood/building.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 10
Figure 6a.

Top 10 Housing Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,159 82 73 158 118 49 135 59 50 53 79 151 93 163 738
31% 27% 12% 20% 51% 41% 16% 25% 4% 32% 28% 43% 30% 38% 35% 20% 22% 11% 14% 24% 35% 10% 12% 4% 21% 11% 26% 20% 26% 21% 14% 21% 10% 13% 17% 14% 9% 10% 2% 23% 15% 20% 11% 15% 13% 11% 15% 14% 9% 15% 12% 3% 7% 0% 11% 18% 14% 5% 15% 10%
6% 6% 14% 3% 5% 12% 4% 5% 2% 2% 9% 9% 5% 10% 5%
6% 6% 5% 4% 8% 4% 5% 8% 6% 6% 3% 8% 4% 7% 5%
6% 7% 5% 5% 13% 8% 0% 7% 6% 11% 10% 8% 3% 6% 3%
5% 2% 7% 7% 7% 10% 2% 14% 2% 8% 9% 3% 4% 8% 4%
5% 10% 5% 4% 3% 16% 2% 3% 4% 6% 9% 11% 6% 4% 3%
4% 2% 5% 1% 3% 8% 11% 3% 2% 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2%
42% 37% 48% 50% 20% 33% 55% 44% 76% 36% 47% 28% 45% 35% 46% I have bed bugs/insects or rodent
infestation
The HOA in my neighborhood won't
let me make changes to my house
or property
None of the above
I need help taking care of
myself/my home and can't find or
afford to hire someone
South San
Milbrae Francisco
Housing or Neighborhood
Condition
Valid cases
Half
Moon
Bay Hillsborough Pacifica
Redwood
City
San
Bruno
San
County Brisbane Burlingame Mateo
I would like to move but I can't
afford anything that is
available/income too low
My house or apartment isn't big
enough for my family
Daly
City
East
Palo
Alto
Foster
City
I live too far from family/
friends/my community
I don't feel safe in my building/
neighborhood
I worry that if I request a repair it
will result in a rent increase or
eviction
My home/apartment is in bad
condition
My landlord refuses to make repairs
despite my requests
Belmont

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 11
The following two figures segment the answers by:
 Housing affordability challenges only; and
 Neighborhood challenges only.

Housing affordability challenges. As shown in Figure 6b, residents in San Mateo, Daly City, East Palo Alto, and Pacifica experience affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. Conversely, Belmont, Hillsborough, Burlingame, and South San Francisco residents experience affordability challenges at a lower rate than the county.

The most significant geographic variations occur in:
 San Mateo city residents experience all five affordability challenges at a greater rate than the county overall. In addition to being less likely to pay utility bills or rent on time, San Mateo residents are more than twice as likely than the average county respondent to have bad credit or a history of eviction/foreclosure that impacts their ability to rent.  East Palo Alto, San Mateo, and Daly City residents are most likely to experience difficulty paying utility bills.
 Residents in East Palo Alto and Redwood City are most likely to be late on their rent payments.
 Millbrae residents experience the greatest difficultly paying their property taxes among jurisdictions in San Mateo County.
 Respondents from Brisbane, Half Moon Bay, and Pacifica are also more likely to have trouble keeping up with property taxes.
 Daly City, City of San Mateo, and Redwood City respondents are more likely to have bad credit or an eviction history impacting their ability to rent.

Overall, over a third of jurisdictions’ respondents experienced the following affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county: I can’t keep up with my property taxes and I have bad credit/history of evictions/foreclosure and cannot find a place to rent. .

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 12
Figure 6b.

Top 5 Affordability Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,130 83 73 157 115 51 134 58 50 50 77 147 93 160 728
10% 6% 5% 6% 15% 16% 5% 12% 4% 12% 8% 12% 9% 15% 9%
8% 6% 5% 6% 10% 20% 3% 7% 2% 8% 4% 12% 4% 11% 7%
6% 2% 10% 4% 3% 2% 8% 10% 0% 16% 10% 3% 5% 9% 5%
4% 1% 4% 2% 13% 6% 0% 0% 2% 0% 5% 8% 4% 10% 2%
4% 2% 7% 3% 3% 2% 7% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 3% 6% 2%
73% 73% 68% 80% 65% 59% 78% 66% 88% 64% 71% 70% 77% 63% 80% I have bad credit/history of
evictions/foreclosure and cannot
find a place to rent
I have Section 8 and I am worried my
landlord will raise my rent higher
than my voucher payment
None of the above
Affordability Challenges
San
Mateo
Foster
Belmont City
South San
Francisco
Valid cases
I can't keep up with my utilities
I'm often late on my rent payments
I can't keep up with my property
taxes
Half
Moon
Bay Hillsborough Milbrae Pacifica
Redwood
City
San
County Brisbane Burlingame Bruno
Daly
City
East
Palo
Alto Page 262 of 443
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 13
Neighborhood challenges. As shown in Figure 6c, residents in East Palo Alto, Brisbane, Daly City, and Pacifica experience neighborhood challenges at a higher rate than the county.

Burlingame and Foster City both experience neighborhood challenges at a lower rate than the county.

Hillsborough and Belmont residents report divergent experiences related to neighborhood challenges — respondents identified more challenges around neighborhood infrastructure and access to transit but fewer challenges around school quality and job opportunities.

There are a handful of jurisdictions who experience specific neighborhood challenges at a disproportionate rate compared to the county.  For instance, East Palo Alto and Belmont residents experience neighborhood infrastructure issues (e.g., bad sidewalks, no lighting) more acutely than county residents overall.  Brisbane residents experience transportation challenges in their neighborhoods.  East Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Bruno, and South San Francisco experience challenges with school quality in their neighborhoods.
 Residents in Brisbane, Hillsborough, Pacifica, Belmont, and Half Moon Bay report the highest rates of difficulty accessing public transit.
 Daly City, Millbrae, San Mateo, and East Palo Alto residents were more likely to identify the lack of job opportunities available in their neighborhoods.

Over a third of jurisdictions’ respondents experienced the following neighborhood challenges at a higher rate than the county: I can’t get to public transit/bus/light rail easily or safely.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 14
Figure 6c.

Top 5 Neighborhood Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,079 80 72 153 116 48 130 56 53 46 75 145 91 151 712
17% 31% 18% 13% 25% 40% 4% 18% 23% 20% 15% 21% 14% 12% 16% 15% 6% 18% 3% 17% 25% 4% 14% 2% 7% 13% 20% 20% 15% 20%
15% 14% 24% 8% 14% 15% 21% 18% 9% 15% 24% 17% 14% 17% 10% 14% 19% 29% 7% 9% 10% 14% 18% 25% 17% 21% 12% 13% 15% 10% 12% 9% 8% 7% 20% 17% 8% 14% 0% 20% 13% 11% 11% 18% 12%
50% 41% 28% 69% 45% 33% 62% 46% 57% 50% 52% 41% 52% 52% 55% Bus/rail does not go where I need to
go or does not operate during the
times I need
I can't get to public transit/bus/light
rail easily or safely
There are not enough job
opportunities in the area
None of the above
San
Mateo
Foster
Belmont City
South San
Neighborhood Challenges Francisco
Valid cases
My neighborhood does not have good
sidewalks, walking areas, and/or
lighting
Schools in my neighborhood are poor
quality
Half
Moon
Bay Hillsborough Milbrae Pacifica
Redwood
City
San
County Brisbane Burlingame Bruno
Daly
City
East
Palo
Alto Page 264 of 443
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 15
Differences in needs by race and ethnicity and housing tenure. As shown in Figure 7a, and compared to the county overall:
 African American, Hispanic, and Other Race respondents, as well as Renters and those who are precariously housed experience several housing challenges at a higher rate than the county overall.
 Conversely, non-Hispanic White residents and homeowners are less likely to experience housing challenges.

Specifically,
 Black or African American residents are more than three times as likely to have a landlord not make a repair to their unit after a request compared to county residents overall.

Renters, Hispanic, Other Race, and Precariously housed residents are also more likely to experience this challenge.
 African American, Asian, Hispanic, Renter, and Precariously Housed households are more likely to experience bed bugs or rodent infestation in their homes.  African American, Other Race, Renter, and Precariously Housed households are also more likely to live further away from family, friends, and their community.  African Americans are three times more likely than the average county respondent to be told by their HOA they cannot make changes to their house or property. Asian households are twice as likely to experience this challenge.
 Renter, Hispanic, and Other Race respondents are more likely to worry that if they request a repair it will result in a rent increase or eviction and to report that their homes are in bad condition.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 16
Figure 7a.

Top 10 Housing Challenges Experienced by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,159 132 489 392 144 734 986 974 301
31% 30% 32% 50% 31% 20% 7% 48% 56%
20% 16% 21% 35% 22% 11% 12% 29% 18%
14% 17% 13% 23% 19% 11% 2% 28% 13%
11% 12% 9% 16% 17% 10% 6% 17% 10%
6% 20% 7% 10% 10% 5% 2% 13% 10%
6% 15% 6% 6% 13% 6% 5% 8% 9%
6% 13% 6% 6% 9% 5% 4% 8% 7%
5% 14% 7% 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 11%
5% 14% 8% 7% 5% 4% 4% 9% 9%
4% 14% 8% 4% 3% 3% 5% 3% 7%
42% 18% 37% 24% 38% 58% 68% 21% 13%
I need help taking care of myself/my home and can't find or afford to hire someone
I have bed bugs/insects or rodent infestation
The HOA in my neighborhood won't let me make changes
to my house or property
County
African
American Asian Hispanic
I would like to move but I can't afford anything that is available/income too low
Homeowner Renter
Precariously
Housing or Neighborhood Condition Housed
Valid cases
Other
Race
Non-Hispanic
White
None of the above
My house or apartment isn't big enough for my family
I worry that if I request a repair it will result in a rent increase or eviction
My home/apartment is in bad condition
My landlord refuses to make repairs despite my requests I live too far from family/ friends/my community
I don't feel safe in my building/ neighborhood

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 17
The above trends are similar for the most acute housing affordability challenges. As shown in Figure 7b, African American and Hispanic households, as well as renters and those precariously housed, experience affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. Non-Hispanic White residents and homeowners experience these same challenges at a lower rate than the county.
 African American residents experience all five affordability challenges at a greater rate than the county overall.
 In addition to being more likely to not pay utility bills or rent on time, African American residents are more than four times as likely than the average county respondent to have a Section 8 voucher and worry that their landlord will raise their rent more than the voucher payment.
 Along with African American residents, Hispanic households, renters, and precariously housed households are most likely to experience difficulty paying utility bills, as well as have bad credit or eviction/foreclosure history impacting their ability to find a place to rent.  These groups, with the exception of those precariously housed, are also more likely to be late on their rent payments.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 18
Figure 7b.

Top 5 Affordability Challenges Experienced by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,130 132 487 391 146 739 983 953 293
10% 22% 11% 17% 14% 5% 5% 15% 15%
8% 13% 6% 12% 12% 4% 1% 15% 8%
6% 16% 8% 4% 5% 7% 9% 5% 14%
4% 5% 3% 8% 4% 2% 1% 6% 11%
4% 18% 5% 6% 7% 2% 2% 7% 8%
None of the above 73% 32% 70% 63% 64% 83% 84% 61% 54%
County
African
American Asian Hispanic
Valid cases
I can't keep up with my utilities
I'm often late on my rent payments
I can't keep up with my property taxes
I have bad credit/history of evictions/foreclosure
and cannot find a place to rent
I have Section 8 and I am worried my landlord will
raise my rent higher than my voucher payment
Non-Hispanic
White Homeowner Renter
Precariously
Affordability Challenges Housed
Other
Race Page 268 of 443
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 19
As shown in Figure 7c, African American and precariously housed residents experience neighborhood challenges at a higher rate than the county. These two groups experience neighborhood issues related to transportation more acutely than county residents overall. In addition to Other Race respondents, they are also more likely to identify the lack of job opportunities in their respective neighborhoods.

Additionally, Hispanic residents are more likely to live in neighborhoods with poor performing schools than the average county respondent. Homeowners are also more likely to report that they cannot access public transit easily or safely.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 20
Figure 7c.

Top 5 Neighborhood Challenges Experienced by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,079 133 486 389 146 737 975 918 284
17% 14% 17% 19% 16% 18% 18% 15% 18%
15% 13% 18% 20% 17% 13% 18% 13% 13%
15% 33% 16% 13% 17% 17% 17% 14% 24%
14% 24% 15% 11% 16% 16% 18% 11% 19%
12% 22% 14% 12% 19% 9% 9% 15% 20%
50% 23% 46% 48% 45% 53% 49% 51% 36%
My neighborhood does not have good sidewalks, walking
areas, and/or lighting
County
African
American Asian Hispanic Homeowner Renter
Precariously
Neighborhood Challenges Housed
Valid cases
Other
Race
NonHispanic
White
Schools in my neighborhood are poor quality
Bus/rail does not go where I need to go or does not
operate during the times I need
I can't get to public transit/bus/light rail easily or safely There are not enough job opportunities in the area
None of the above

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 21
Differences in needs by household status. As shown in Figure 8a, single parents, households making less than $50,000, households with children under 18 and households with a member experiencing a disability are more likely to experience housing challenges.

Conversely, households making more than $100,000 experience nearly all specified housing challenges at a lower rate than the county.

Single parents experience all ten housing challenges at a greater rate than the county overall.

Households making less than $25,000 also experience every challenge at a higher rate, with the exception of I worry that if I request a repair it will result in a rent increase or eviction.

Households making less than $50,000, single parents, and households with children under 18 are more likely to experience the following challenges:
 My house or apartment isn’t big enough for my family;  My house or apartment is in bad condition;
 My landlord refuses to make repairs despite my request;  I live too far from family/friends/my community;
 I don’t feel safe in my building/neighborhood;
 I need help taking care of myself/my home and can’t find or afford to hire someone; and  I have bed bugs/insects or rodent infestation.

Households with a member experiencing a disability are also more likely to experience landlords refusing their requests to make repairs, living further away from family/friends/community, and not being able to find or afford someone to help take care of themselves or their homes. These households are also more likely to experience bed bugs, insects, or rodent infestation, as well as HOA restrictions impacting their ability to make changes to their home or property.

Additionally, large households have the highest proportion of respondents among the selected groups that would like to move but can’t afford anything that is available.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 22
Figure 8a.

Top 10 Housing Challenges Experienced by Income and Household Characteristics Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,159 280 260 505 701 827 278 240 701 709
31% 47% 48% 37% 16% 35% 51% 40% 36% 25%
20% 25% 25% 23% 16% 34% 43% 32% 20% 13%
14% 16% 18% 19% 9% 19% 19% 28% 16% 11%
11% 15% 20% 12% 6% 15% 17% 17% 12% 9%
6% 13% 13% 8% 2% 9% 8% 14% 10% 6%
6% 9% 9% 6% 5% 10% 5% 10% 8% 6%
6% 9% 9% 6% 3% 8% 4% 10% 7% 5%
5% 9% 9% 5% 3% 7% 6% 12% 11% 6%
5% 10% 9% 5% 3% 9% 4% 15% 9% 6%
4% 7% 3% 4% 3% 7% 4% 11% 6% 5%
42% 21% 21% 37% 61% 28% 26% 12% 32% 49%
Above
Housing or Neighborhood Condition $100,000
Valid cases
I would like to move but I can't afford anything
that is available/income too low
My house or apartment isn't big enough for my
family
I worry that if I request a repair it will result in a
rent increase or eviction
My home/apartment is in bad condition
My landlord refuses to make repairs despite my
requests
None of the above
County
Less than
$25,000
$25,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
$99,999
I live too far from family/ friends/my community
I don't feel safe in my building/ neighborhood
I need help taking care of myself/my home and
can't find or afford to hire someone
I have bed bugs/insects or rodent infestation
The HOA in my neighborhood won't let me make
changes to my house or property
Children
under 18
Large
Households
Single
Parent Disability
Adults
(age 65+)

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 23
As shown in Figure 8b, households making less than $50,000, as well as large households, single parents, households with children under 18, and households with a member experience a disability, experience the most acute affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. Households making more than $50,000 and adults over the age of 65 are less likely to experience affordability challenges.

Households making between $25,000-$50,000, single parents, and households with children under 18 experience all five affordability challenges at a greater rate than the average county respondent.

Of households experiencing major affordability issues, single parent households are most acutely impacted. These households are more than three times as likely to have a Section 8 voucher and fear their landlord will raise the rent impacting the viability of their voucher, more than twice as likely to miss utility payments and have bad credit/eviction or foreclosure history impacting their ability to rent, and twice as likely to have trouble keeping up with their property taxes.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 24
Figure 8b.

Top 5 Affordability Challenges Experienced by Income and Household Characteristics Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,130 276 260 509 703 830 279 239 699 716
10% 16% 16% 12% 3% 16% 14% 23% 15% 8%
8% 19% 16% 6% 1% 11% 12% 15% 11% 4%
6% 7% 9% 8% 5% 9% 4% 12% 8% 7%
4% 8% 7% 4% 1% 5% 6% 10% 6% 3%
4% 11% 6% 4% 1% 7% 3% 14% 8% 5%
73% 46% 56% 72% 90% 59% 70% 32% 59% 75%
Adults
(age 65+)
I have Section 8 and I am worried my landlord
will raise my rent higher than my voucher
payment
None of the above
County
Less than
$25,000
$25,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
Affordability Challenges $99,999
Valid cases
I can't keep up with my utilities
I'm often late on my rent payments
I can't keep up with my property taxes
I have bad credit/history of
evictions/foreclosure and cannot find a place
to rent
Above
$100,000
Children
under 18
Large
Households
Single
Parent Disability Page 274 of 443
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 25
As shown in Figure 8c, households with children under 18, as well as single parents, households with a member experiencing a disability, and households making less than $25,000 are more likely to experience neighborhood challenges. These households are most likely to report that the bus/rail does not go where I need to go or does not operate during the times I need. In addition to households that make between $25,000-$100,000, these groups are more likely to identify the lack of job opportunities in their respective neighborhoods.

Households with children under 18 are more likely to live in neighborhoods with poor quality schools. Large households are more likely to report issues with neighborhood infrastructure (e.g., bad sidewalks, poor lighting) and households with a member experiencing a disability are more likely to report they cannot access public transit easily or safely.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 26
Figure 8c.

Top 5 Neighborhood Challenges Experienced by Income and Household Characteristics Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
County
2,079 273 259 503 709 824 277 234 692 714
17% 17% 15% 18% 17% 19% 22% 16% 19% 14%
15% 17% 14% 11% 19% 24% 19% 17% 14% 9%
15% 19% 16% 15% 16% 19% 11% 28% 19% 16%
14% 15% 12% 14% 14% 15% 12% 15% 19% 17%
12% 21% 17% 16% 6% 17% 12% 19% 15% 11%
50% 40% 45% 51% 53% 38% 48% 31% 41% 53%
Above
Neighborhood Challenges $100,000
Valid cases
My neighborhood does not have good
sidewalks, walking areas, and/or lighting
Schools in my neighborhood are poor
quality
There are not enough job opportunities
in the area
None of the above
Less than
$25,000
$25,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
$99,999
Bus/rail does not go where I need to go or
does not operate during the times I need
I can't get to public transit/bus/light rail
easily or safely
Children
under 18
Large
Households
Single
Parent Disability
Adults
(age 65+)

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 27
Experience Finding Housing
This section explores residents’ experience seeking a place to rent or buy in the county and the extent to which displacement—having to move when they do not want to move—is prevalent.

For those respondents who seriously looked for housing in the past five years, this section also examines the extent to which respondents were denied housing to rent or buy and the reasons why they were denied.

Recent experience seeking housing to rent. Figure 9 presents the proportion of respondents who seriously looked to rent housing for the county, jurisdictions, and selected respondent characteristics, as well as the reasons for denial.

Over half of county respondents (56%) have seriously looked for housing in the past five years.

The most common reasons for denial included:
 Landlord not returning the respondent’s call (26%),
 Landlord told me the unit was available over the phone but when I showed up in person, it was no longer available (22%), and
 Landlord told me it would cost more because of my service or emotional support animal (14%).

Jurisdictions with the highest percentage of respondents who seriously looked for housing include Millbrae (74%), San Mateo (73%), and Redwood City (72%). While all three jurisdictions reported that landlord not returning the respondent’s call was one of their main reasons for denial, 18% of Redwood City respondents identified landlord told me they do not accept Section 8 vouchers as a main reason for denial.

Among respondents by race/ethnicity, 80% of African American respondents reported that they had seriously looked for housing in the past five years while the lowest percentage of respondents who reported seriously looking for housing were non-Hispanic White (46%). The main reasons for denial experienced by African American respondents included landlord told me the unit was available over the phone but when I showed up in person, it was no longer available (39%), landlord told me it would cost more because of my service or emotional support animal (34%), and landlord told me I couldn’t have a service or emotional support animal (28%).

Among respondents by tenure, renters (75%) and precariously housed (74%) respondents reported the highest rates of seriously looking for housing.

Among respondents by income, households making less than $25,000 (71%) had the highest rate. The main reasons for denial reported by these households were landlord told me I couldn’t have a service or emotional support animal (36%) and landlord told me it would cost more because of my service or emotional support animal (30%).

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 28
Single parents (79%) and households with children under 18 (66%) also reported the highest percentage of those who seriously looked for housing in the past five years among the selected household characteristics respondent groups. In addition to sharing the top two reasons for denial with the county, 25% of single parent household respondents also reported they were denied housing because the landlord told me I can’t have a service or emotional support animal.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 29
Figure 9. If you looked seriously for housing to rent in San Mateo County in the past five years, were you ever denied housing?
Note: The "Percent Seriously Looked for Housing" column includes all respondents, not just those who indicated they rent.

Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 56% 26% 22% 14% 45% 928
Belmont 62% 33% 27% 31% 49
Brisbane 59% 41% 22% 26% 27
Burlingame 48% 19% 23% 54% 57
Daly City 63% 33% 16% 16% 44% 61
East Palo Alto 58% 35% 30% 26% 23
Foster City 50% 12% 16% 14% 55% 51
Half Moon Bay 68% 17% 17% 48% 29
Hillsborough 42% 14% 29% 14% 57% 14
Milbrae 74% 25% 46% 36% 28
Pacifica 51% 16% 26% 16% 55% 31
Redwood City 72% 31% 18% 40% 99
San Bruno 57% 22% 22% 39% 36
San Mateo 73% 30% 34% 39% 98
South San Francisco 47% 24% 13% 56% 248
Race/Ethnicity
African American 80% 39% 34% 28% 15% 101
Asian 56% 19% 29% 40% 199
Hispanic 63% 32% 22% 41% 230
Other Race 70% 29% 22% 45% 91
Non-Hispanic White 46% 29% 20% 48% 263
Tenure
Homeowner 36% 25% 15% 54% 183
Renter 75% 29% 22% 43% 641
Precariously Housed 74% 23% 32% 26% 188
Income
Less than $25,000 71% 30% 36% 29% 182
$25,000-$49,999 60% 39% 32% 27% 149
$50,000-$99,999 58% 24% 20% 45% 251
Above $100,000 48% 19% 14% 64% 216
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 66% 30% 29% 33% 447
Large Households 60% 33% 19% 18% 44% 139
Single Parent 79% 25% 35% 25% 19% 173
Disability 63% 24% 24% 34% 386
Older Adults (age 65+) 48% 20% 29% 39% 282
n
Overall
Percent
Seriously
Looked for
Housing
Reason for Denial
Landlord did not
return calls
and/or emails
asking about a
unit
Landlord said unit
was available over
phone, but when I
showed up in
person, it was no
longer available
Landlord told me it
would cost me
more for my
service or
emotional animal
Landlord told me
I can't have a
service or
emotional
support animal
Landlord told
me it would cost
me more to rent
because I have
children
Landlord told me
they don't rent to
families with
children
Landlord told
me they do not
accept Section 8
vouchers
Landlord told me they
couldn't make
changes to the
apartment/ home for
my disability
None
of the
Above

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 30
Recent experience seeking housing to buy. Figure 10 presents the proportion of respondents who seriously looked to buy housing in the county, by jurisdiction, and selected respondent characteristics, as well as the reasons for denial. As noted above, 56% of county respondents have seriously looked for housing in the past five years.

The most common reasons for denial included:
 Real estate agent told me I would need to show I was prequalified with a bank (29%) and  A bank would not give me a loan to buy a home (23%).

For the jurisdictions with the highest percentage of respondents who seriously looked for housing (Millbrae, San Mateo and Redwood City), all three cities shared the same top two reasons for denial as the county. Additionally, 21% of Millbrae respondents reported that the real estate agent would not make a disability accommodation when I asked.

For African American respondents who looked to buy housing in the last five years, the most common reason for denial was the real estate agent would not make a disability accommodation when I asked (47%). African Americans, along with Other Races, also most commonly reported that they needed a loan prequalification before real estate agents would work with them. While between 43-54% of respondents from other racial/ethnic groups reported they did not experience any reason for denial when seriously looking to buy housing over the past five years, 12% of African American respondents reported similarly.

Among respondents by income, the main reasons for denial for households making less than $25,000 were the real estate agent told me I would need to show I was prequalified with a bank (32%) and real estate agent only showed me or only suggested homes in neighborhoods where most people were of my same race or ethnicity (26%).

Among the selected housing characteristics category, single parent households and households with children under 18 reported shared the same top two reasons for denial as the county. Additionally, 36% of single parent household respondents reported that the real estate agent would not make a disability accommodation when I asked, as well as 25% of respondents over the age of 65.

Residents in Redwood City, Millbrae, and South San Francisco, as well as large households, also reported that a bank or other lender charged me a high interest rate on my home loan as a reason for denial.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 31
Figure 10. If you looked seriously for housing to buy in San Mateo County in the past five years, were you ever denied housing?
Note: The "Percent Seriously Looked for Housing" column includes all respondents, not just those who indicated they buy.

Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. n
Jurisdiction
County 56% 29% 23% 50% 870
Belmont 62% 21% 15% 35% 48
Brisbane 59% 36% 30% 42% 33
Burlingame 48% 22% 14% 61% 51
Daly City 63% 19% 27% 56% 52
East Palo Alto 58% 24% 33% 48% 21
Foster City 50% 25% 20% 49% 51
Half Moon Bay 68% 35% 23% 23% 50% 26
Hillsborough 42% 18% 23% 59% 22
Milbrae 74% 25% 29% 21% 21% 54% 28
Pacifica 51% 35% 35% 42% 31
Redwood City 72% 30% 22% 27% 50% 64
San Bruno 57% 14% 21% 62% 42
San Mateo 73% 40% 32% 38% 82
South San Francisco 47% 26% 18% 16% 57% 251
Race/Ethnicity
African American 80% 40% 38% 47% 12% 89
Asian 56% 30% 25% 43% 223
Hispanic 63% 29% 28% 49% 174
Other Race 70% 36% 21% 21% 50% 90
Non-Hispanic White 46% 29% 23% 54% 250
Tenure
Homeowner 36% 29% 17% 54% 332
Renter 75% 32% 27% 46% 467
Precariously Housed 74% 36% 36% 30% 30% 154
Income
Less than $25,000 71% 32% 25% 26% 41% 131
$25,000-$49,999 60% 42% 40% 29% 106
$50,000-$99,999 58% 35% 30% 38% 216
Above $100,000 48% 22% 13% 10% 64% 296
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 66% 33% 28% 40% 443
Large Households 60% 33% 25% 25% 49% 126
Single Parent 79% 38% 43% 36% 24% 143
Disability 63% 35% 26% 38% 330
Older Adults (age 65+) 48% 35% 29% 25% 38% 252
Percent
Seriously
Looked for
Housing
Reason for Denial
The real estate agent told
me I would need to show I
was prequalified with a
bank
A bank or other
lender would not
give me a loan to
buy a home
The real estate agent would
not make a disability
accommodation when I
asked
Only showed homes in
neighborhoods where
most people were same
race/ethnicity
A bank or other lender
charged me a high
interest rate on my
home loan
None of
the
Above

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 32
Denied housing to rent or buy. Figure 11 presents the proportion of those who looked and were denied housing to rent or buy for the county, jurisdictions, and selected respondent characteristics, as well as reason for denial. As shown, nearly 4 in 10 county respondents who looked for housing experienced denial of housing. African American/Black respondents, precariously housed respondents, households with income below $50,000, and single parent respondents have denial rates of 60% or higher. African American (79%) and single parent (74%) respondents report the highest rates of denial.

Among the reasons for denial:
 Income too low was a major reason for denial for all groups except homeowners and households with incomes above $100,000. Additionally, all jurisdictions report this as a common reason for being denied housing with the exception of Foster City, Hillsborough, and San Bruno.  Haven’t established a credit history or no credit history was also a common reason of denial for most groups. The impacts are higher for Asian, Hispanic and African American households, along with renter and precariously housed respondents, households with income below $50,000, and single parent households, households with children under 18, households with a member experiencing a disability, and several jurisdictions.
 Another top denial reason among certain groups is the landlord didn’t accept the type of income I earn (social security or disability benefit or child support). Source of income was the most common reason for denial among African American households (28%). Other groups with denial rates of 25% or higher for this specific issue include precariously housed respondents, single parent households, and households with a member experiencing a disability, as well as Foster City and San Bruno residents.
 Bad credit is another barrier for accessing housing, particularly for Hispanic and Other Race households, households with income between $50,000-$100,000, and large households. This also impacts East Palo Alto, San Mateo, Daly City, Redwood City, Burlingame, and South San Francisco residents at a higher rate.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 33
Figure 11. If you looked seriously for housing to rent or buy in San Mateo County in the past five years, were you ever denied housing?
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 39% 1154 18% 44% 19% 21% 449
Belmont 52% 50 38% 27% 27% 26
Brisbane 42% 38 25% 19% 31% 16
Burlingame 30% 71 24% 29% 21
Daly City 49% 73 28% 53% 28% 19% 36
East Palo Alto 55% 29 38% 44% 25% 16
Foster City 30% 63 25% 40% 30% 19
Half Moon Bay 41% 34 29% 29% 14
Hillsborough 23% 22 40% 5
Milbrae 36% 33 67% 25% 33% 25% 12
Pacifica 38% 39 47% 27% 33% 15
Redwood City 41% 105 28% 63% 26% 26% 43
San Bruno 25% 51 31% 31% 38% 13
San Mateo 48% 112 30% 38% 28% 53
South San Francisco 30% 331 19% 58% 28% 17% 98
Race/Ethnicity
African American 79% 107 25% 25% 25% 28% 27% 85
Asian 42% 281 38% 28% 21% 21% 117
Hispanic 49% 253 28% 60% 26% 26% 125
Other Race 43% 105 22% 49% 24% 45
Non-Hispanic White 31% 351 40% 19% 23% 25% 108
Tenure
Homeowner 26% 348 24% 22% 23% 91
Renter 45% 687 48% 20% 24% 310
Precariously Housed 61% 208 42% 22% 25% 126
Income
Less than $25,000 64% 199 47% 31% 29% 127
$25,000-$49,999 65% 158 48% 21% 20% 20% 103
$50,000-$99,999 38% 302 21% 51% 24% 114
Above $100,000 18% 346 27% 16% 20% 16% 64
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 51% 558 42% 26% 19% 283
Large Households 43% 171 27% 64% 41% 74
Single Parent 74% 189 41% 27% 25% 138
Disability 54% 446 39% 21% 25% 239
Older Adults (age 65+) 44% 350 35% 22% 21% 153
Percent
Denied
Housing Total n
Bad
Credit
Eviction
history
Income
too low
I had/
have
COVID Foreclosure n
Reason for Denial
Too many
people in my
household
Other
renter/
applicant
willing to pay
more for rent
Haven't
established a
credit
history/no
credit history
Don't have a
regular/
steady job/
consistent
work history
Landlord didn't
accept the type of
income I earn
(social security or
disability)
Lack of
stable
housing
record
Real or
perceived
sexual
orientation or
gender
identity

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 34
Experience using housing vouchers. It is “difficult” or “very difficult” for eight out of 10 voucher holders to find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher (Figure 13).

As shown in Figure 12, this is related to the amount of the voucher and current rents and the lack of supply (inability to find a unit in the allotted amount of time). Over half of voucher holders (53%) who experienced difficulty indicated the voucher is not enough to cover the rent for places I want to live and almost half of voucher holders (49%) who experienced difficulty indicated there is not enough time to find a place to live before the voucher expires.

Other significant difficulties using vouchers identified by respondents included landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders (46%) and can’t find information about landlords that accept Section 8 (36%).

Among respondents by race/ethnicity, African American respondents had the greatest proportion of those with a housing choice voucher (60%). Of those respondents, 76% found it difficult to find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher. While 13% of Hispanic respondents have a housing voucher, 85% have found it difficult to use the voucher. Fourteen percent of Asian respondents have housing vouchers— nearly three quarters of these respondents reported that the voucher is not enough to cover the rent for the places I want to live.

Other groups of respondents with higher proportions of voucher utilization include single parent households (43%), precariously housed respondents (30%), and households with income below $25,000 (29%). For each of the aforementioned groups, more than 75% of their respective respondents reported difficulty in utilizing the housing choice voucher. The voucher is not enough to cover the rent for places I want to live was one of the main reasons cited for not using the voucher.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 35
Figure 12.

Why is it difficult to
use a housing
voucher?
Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 36
Figure 13. How difficult is it to find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher? Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 12% 18% 55% 27% 250 53% 49% 46% 36% 6% 203
Belmont 16% 14% 64% 21% 81 45% 64% 36% 27% 9% 11
Brisbane 22% 20% 73% 7% 15 50% 50% 42% 33% 0% 12
Burlingame 8% 0% 75% 25% 12 50% 50% 25% 8% 0% 12
Daly City 12% 14% 50% 36% 14 83% 25% 42% 17% 25% 12
East Palo Alto 14% 29% 57% 14% 7 20% 20% 40% 60% 0% 5
Foster City 12% 18% 47% 35% 17 47% 40% 27% 33% 7% 15
Half Moon Bay 19% 22% 56% 22% 9 71% 29% 29% 43% 14% 7
Hillsborough 8% 25% 75% 0% 4 67% 67% 33% 0% 0% 3
Milbrae 22% 50% 20% 30% 10 60% 40% 20% 40% 0% 5
Pacifica 11% 13% 50% 38% 8 86% 43% 43% 43% 0% 7
Redwood City 16% 13% 61% 26% 23 40% 50% 70% 45% 5% 20
San Bruno 12% 9% 64% 27% 11 40% 60% 50% 10% 10% 10
San Mateo 24% 24% 50% 26% 38 43% 54% 43% 39% 7% 28
South San Francisco 4% 11% 33% 56% 27 63% 50% 71% 63% 8% 24 Race/Ethnicity
African American 60% 24% 60% 16% 82 55% 52% 40% 31% 6% 62 Asian 14% 23% 63% 14% 71 73% 44% 31% 31% 0% 55
Hispanic 13% 15% 40% 45% 53 58% 42% 51% 49% 11% 45
Other Race 19% 29% 50% 21% 28 55% 45% 65% 35% 5% 20
Non-Hispanic White 8% 14% 61% 25% 64 43% 61% 57% 38% 4% 56 Tenure
Homeowner 8% 23% 59% 18% 78 58% 49% 42% 31% 0% 59
Renter 18% 19% 52% 30% 165 55% 52% 48% 43% 6% 134
Precariously Housed 30% 14% 66% 20% 86 57% 54% 35% 26% 7% 74 Income
Less than $25,000 29% 17% 58% 25% 84 47% 41% 47% 37% 10% 70 $25,000-$49,999 18% 17% 52% 31% 48 63% 55% 63% 40% 5% 40 $50,000-$99,999 12% 23% 52% 26% 62 55% 55% 51% 37% 2% 49 Above $100,000 5% 20% 57% 23% 35 43% 61% 29% 32% 4% 28
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 21% 20% 60% 20% 179 59% 51% 44% 35% 1% 143 Large Households 7% 20% 45% 35% 20 63% 56% 63% 56% 6% 16 Single Parent 43% 17% 58% 24% 103 62% 52% 38% 33% 2% 85 Disability 22% 18% 58% 24% 158 57% 52% 42% 29% 5% 129
Older Adults (age 65+) 17% 18% 63% 19% 123 56% 53% 44% 34% 3% 102 Not enough time to find
a place to live before the
voucher expires
Landlords have
policies of not
renting to voucher
holders
Can't find information
about landlords that
accept Section 8 Other n
Voucher is not enough
to cover the rent for
places I want to live
Percent
with a
Housing
Voucher
Not
difficult
Somewhat
difficult
Very
difficult n

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 37
Displacement. Figure 14 presents the proportion of residents who experienced displacement in the past five years, as well as the reason for displacement.  Overall, 21% of survey respondents experienced displacement in the past five years. Among all survey respondents, the main reason for displacement was rent increased more than I could pay (29%).
 Respondents who are precariously housed have higher rates of recent displacement than homeowners or renters; this suggests that when displaced a unit these housing-insecure tenants are more likely to couch surf or experience homelessness for some period of time before securing a new place to live.
 Among respondents by race/ethnicity, African American respondents reported the highest rate of displacement (59%). The primary reason reported by African American respondents for their displacement was housing was unsafe (e.g., domestic assault, harassment).

Twenty eight percent also reported that they were forced out for no reason.  Asian households, as well as homeowners, households that make less than $25,000, single parent households, households that include a member experiencing a disability, and Millbrae, Brisbane and Pacifica residents are also more likely than other respondents to have been displaced due to an unsafe housing situation (e.g., domestic assault, harassment).  Additionally, Asian, precariously housed respondents, households making less than $25,000, single parent households, and Hillsborough residents are more likely than other respondents to have been displaced and not given a reason.

For respondents that had experienced displacements, they were asked to identify which city they moved from and which city they moved to. The most common moves to and from cities included:
 Moved within South San Francisco (28 respondents)
 Moved from outside San Mateo County to San Mateo (10 respondents)  Moved from San Bruno to South San Francisco (9 respondents)  Moved from Daly City to South San Francisco (9 respondents)  Moved within Burlingame (8 respondents)

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 38
Figure 14. Displacement Experience and Reasons for Displacement Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 21% 2066 29% 19% 18% 417
Belmont 26% 80 25% 25% 30% 20
Brisbane 24% 67 25% 31% 25% 16
Burlingame 22% 152 24% 30% 18% 33
Daly City 25% 115 35% 27% 31% 26
East Palo Alto 32% 50 20% 20% 20% 15
Foster City 11% 130 21% 21% 21% 43% 14
Half Moon Bay 31% 51 31% 25% 16
Hillsborough 12% 52 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 6
Milbrae 27% 44 42% 33% 25% 25% 12
Pacifica 21% 75 31% 31% 31% 16
Redwood City 29% 146 31% 21% 42
San Bruno 25% 89 33% 29% 24% 21
San Mateo 37% 153 35% 31% 20% 54
South San Francisco 12% 712 42% 15% 16% 81
Race/Ethnicity
African American 59% 134 29% 30% 28% 79
Asian 22% 500 31% 22% 22% 109
Hispanic 29% 397 33% 22% 18% 115
Other Race 28% 149 54% 20% 24% 41
Non-Hispanic White 14% 757 27% 20% 31% 102
Tenure
Homeowner 8% 975 27% 25% 31% 75
Renter 34% 905 32% 18% 22% 292
Precariously Housed 48% 280 23% 24% 23% 132
Income
Less than $25,000 45% 282 28% 20% 20% 20% 127
$25,000-$49,999 30% 265 31% 19% 18% 78
$50,000-$99,999 22% 517 32% 22% 18% 115
Above $100,000 8% 721 27% 20% 23% 60
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 30% 840 27% 20% 19% 249
Large Households 20% 284 32% 19% 18% 57
Single Parent 55% 240 24% 24% 20% 131
Disability 34% 711 26% 20% 20% 20% 241
Older Adults (age 65+) 22% 736 23% 22% 22% 162
Because of
apartment
rules
Landlord
refused to
renew my
lease
Reason for Displacement
Percent
Displaced Total n
Rent
increased
more than I
could pay
Personal/
relationship
reasons
Landlord was
selling the
home/
apartment
Landlord
wanted to
move back
in/move in
family
Landlord
wanted to
rent to
someone
else
Housing was
unsafe (e.g.,
domestic
assault,
harassment)
Forced
out for
no
reason
Health/m
edical
reasons
I was
behind
on rent
Poor
condition of
property
Utilities were
too
expensive/
shut off
Natural
disaster/
flooding/
fire n

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 39
Children changing schools after displacement. Overall, for households with children that were displaced in the past five years, 60% of children in those households have changed schools. The most common outcomes reported among these respondents included school is more challenging (28%), they feel less safe at the new school (25%), and they are in a worse school (24%) (Figure 15).

Among respondents by race/ethnicity, non-Hispanic White households (44%) were the only subgroup to report that being displaced resulted in their children being in better schools. Of African American households that were displaced and have children, 87% reported that their children changed schools.

Of these respondents, 32% reported that their children feel safer at the new school but also have fewer activities.

Among respondents by tenure, precariously housed (78%) and homeowner (74%) households had the highest proportion of children who changed schools. The most common outcomes for precariously housed households included School is less challenging/they are bored (35%) and their children feel less safe at school (34%). For homeowner households, 39% reported that school is more challenging, followed by 31% who reported that their children feel less safe at school.

Among respondents by selected household characteristics, older adult (77%), single parent (74%), households with a member experiencing a disability (70%), and households with children under 18 (67%) all reported high proportions of children who changed schools. The most common outcomes for these respondents included School is more challenging and they feel less safe at the new school.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 40
Figure 15. Children Changing Schools and Outcomes, Displaced Households Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 60% 306 28% 24% 25% 183
Belmont 45% 20 33% 44% 33% 9
Brisbane 81% 16 38% 31% 31% 13
Burlingame 55% 22 33% 33% 33% 12
Daly City 41% 17 43% 29% 29% 29% 7
East Palo Alto 54% 13 43% 57% 29% 7
Foster City 62% 13 50% 8
Half Moon Bay 58% 12 43% 29% 29% 43% 7
Hillsborough 60% 5 67% 3
Milbrae 82% 11 33% 44% 44% 33% 9
Pacifica 91% 11 50% 10
Redwood City 52% 23 25% 33% 25% 12
San Bruno 67% 18 33% 33% 33% 12
San Mateo 66% 35 32% 32% 22
South San Francisco 36% 56 26% 26% 26% 19
Race/Ethnicity
African American 87% 69 30% 30% 32% 32% 60
Asian 73% 91 27% 32% 32% 27% 66
Hispanic 49% 91 23% 30% 23% 25% 44
Other Race 65% 31 40% 30% 25% 25% 20
Non-Hispanic White 60% 60 28% 31% 44% 28% 36
Tenure
Homeowner 74% 66 39% 29% 31% 49
Renter 58% 213 25% 30% 25% 122
Precariously Housed 78% 104 35% 34% 30% 80
Income
Less than $25,000 65% 92 22% 32% 35% 60
$25,000-$49,999 66% 56 25% 28% 28% 25% 36
$50,000-$99,999 55% 85 30% 28% 23% 47
Above $100,000 59% 44 35% 31% 38% 26
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 67% 237 32% 23% 25% 158
Large Households 45% 44 32% 26% 32% 19
Single Parent 74% 124 32% 28% 29% 92
Disability 70% 188 26% 28% 30% 132
Older Adults (age 65+) 77% 117 35% 29% 29% 89
n
Percent of
Children that
Changed
Schools
School change outcomes
Total n
School is less
challenging/
they are bored
School is more
challenging
They are
in a better
school
They are
in a worse
school
They feel
less safe at
the new
school
They feel
safer at
the new
school
They have
fewer
activities
They have
more
activities
Things are
about the
same

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 41
Experience with housing discrimination. Overall, 19% of survey respondents felt they were discriminated against when they looked for housing in the area.1 As shown in Figure 16, African American respondents (62%), single parent households (44%) and precariously housed respondents (39%) are most likely to say they experienced housing discrimination. Residents with income above $100,000 and homeowners are least likely (11%).

Respondents who believed they experienced discrimination when looking for housing in the county reported when the discrimination occurred. Nearly half of respondents (45%) reported that the discrimination they experienced occurred between 2 and 5 years ago. Twenty eight percent of respondents reported that the discrimination occurred in the past year, 20% reported more than 5 years ago and 7% of respondents did not remember when the discrimination occurred.

How discrimination was addressed. Respondents who believed they experienced discrimination when looking for housing in the county were asked to describe the actions they took in response to the discrimination. Overall, the most common responses to discrimination experienced by survey respondents were Nothing/I wasn’t sure what to do (42%), Moved/found another place to live (30%), and Nothing/I was afraid of being evicted or harassed (20%).

Among top responses for actions taken in response to experienced discrimination, every group reported Nothing/I wasn’t sure what to do with the exception of African American and single parent households, as well as Brisbane and Hillsborough residents. Similarly, survey respondents from Foster City and Pacifica were the only groups not to include Moved/found another place to live among their top responses. African American and Asian households, as well as single parent households, were more likely than other groups to contact either a housing authority, local fair housing organization, or the California Department of Housing or Civil Rights to report their discrimination incident.

Reasons for discrimination. Respondents who believed they experienced discrimination when looking for housing in the county provided the reasons why they thought they were discriminated against. Note that the basis offered by residents is not necessarily protected by federal, state, or local fair housing law, as respondents could provide open-ended and multiple reasons why they thought they experienced discrimination.

Examples of how respondents described why they felt discriminated against, which they provided as open-ended responses to the survey, include:
1 Note that this question applies to all respondents, not just those who seriously looked for housing in the past five years.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 42
Appearance/Characteristics
 “Because of my race and ethnicity”
 “[We] were given a subprime loan for home purchase for being Latinx, low-income and primarily Spanish-speaking; refinance last year was lower than expected.”  “It was clear my disability is the reason”
 “I have a child and a couple places told me they wouldn’t rent to me due to my son.”  “The agent asked if I was a tech worker. When I said no, the agent said the place was just rented, even though it was on the listing as active.”
 “I was approved for the unit and when they met my partner, who is Black, they said [the unit] was rented.”
Source of Income/Credit
 “Income was through SSDI [social security disability insurance]”  “The landlord wanted an excellent credit score…”
 “We were not able to provide all the requirement to rent, like SSN [social security number], income proof, employment, and we don’t make enough income…”  “They wanted someone with income from employment not due to disability.”  “I was discriminated against because of my race and the fact that I had Section 8 at the time.

Being African American and having Section 8 made a lot of people feel like I wouldn’t take care of their property.”
 “I am currently being discriminated against due to my need with rental help and because two of us in our household have a need for an emotional support animal.” Immigration status
 Mi hermana llamo a los departamentos donde yo vivo y la manager le dijo que no había disponible pero no era verdad también le dijo que hablara inglés y le pidió seguro social pensando que no tenia y le dijo que tenía que ganar una cierta cantidad de dinero para poder rentar. (My sister called the apartments where I live and the manager told her that there was no one available but it was not true. She also told her to speak English and asked for social security thinking that she did not have it and told her that she had to earn a certain amount of money to be able to rent).

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 43
Figure 16. Percent of respondents who felt they were discriminated against and how was it addressed Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. n
Jurisdiction
County 19% 28% 45% 20% 7% 357 42% 30% 20% 359
Belmont 21% 19% 56% 19% 6% 16 38% 38% 50% 16
Brisbane 22% 29% 36% 29% 7% 14 64% 21% 21% 14
Burlingame 14% 25% 50% 20% 5% 20 35% 25% 20% 20% 20
Daly City 15% 20% 40% 33% 7% 15 56% 25% 25% 16
East Palo Alto 29% 23% 54% 15% 8% 13 38% 38% 23% 23% 13 Foster City 18% 15% 40% 45% 0% 20 38% 24% 24% 21
Half Moon Bay 26% 27% 55% 9% 9% 11 27% 36% 36% 11
Hillsborough 15% 14% 71% 0% 14% 7 29% 57% 7
Milbrae 29% 36% 50% 7% 7% 14 31% 23% 38% 23% 13
Pacifica 21% 29% 36% 36% 0% 14 50% 21% 29% 21% 21% 14
Redwood City 24% 34% 34% 19% 13% 32 47% 26% 21% 21% 34
San Bruno 12% 30% 60% 0% 10% 10 50% 30% 30% 30% 10
San Mateo 30% 35% 45% 15% 5% 40 53% 26% 26% 38
South San Francisco 13% 30% 40% 23% 6% 82 59% 27% 83
Race/Ethnicity
African American 62% 16% 59% 25% 0% 83 36% 29% 27% 26% 27% 24% 84 Asian 16% 24% 50% 20% 6% 82 28% 25% 29% 29% 24% 24% 83
Hispanic 27% 25% 42% 24% 8% 107 52% 27% 107
Other Race 30% 28% 47% 14% 12% 43 47% 30% 26% 43
Non-Hispanic White 12% 38% 41% 14% 7% 91 44% 27% 18% 91 Tenure
Homeowner 11% 26% 46% 20% 7% 95 32% 29% 22% 96
Renter 28% 26% 47% 20% 6% 232 42% 32% 23% 232
Precariously Housed 39% 21% 54% 20% 4% 98 24% 28% 35% 26% 100 Income
Less than $25,000 36% 29% 51% 11% 9% 100 39% 30% 25% 102 $25,000-$49,999 24% 31% 41% 22% 6% 64 42% 36% 25% 22% 64 $50,000-$99,999 19% 27% 45% 25% 3% 97 44% 29% 18% 97
Above $100,000 11% 28% 45% 21% 7% 76 45% 22% 16% 16% 76 Household Characteristics
Children under 18 26% 21% 57% 15% 6% 216 36% 31% 26% 218 Large Households 19% 26% 52% 9% 13% 54 65% 24% 15% 55
Single Parent 44% 13% 65% 17% 5% 106 33% 32% 27% 26% 26% 107 Disability 33% 27% 48% 21% 4% 215 33% 30% 22% 219
Older Adults (age 65+) 20% 20% 51% 20% 8% 144 24% 34% 24% 24% 146 Called/
emailed
California
Department
of Housing/
Civil Rights
Called/ emailed
City office,
County office,
or human rights
department/
agency
Filed a
complaint Other
Percent who felt
they were
discriminated
against
In the
past
year
2 to 5
years
ago
More
than 5
years
ago n
Nothing/ I
wasn't
sure what
to do
Moved/
found
another
place to
live
Nothing/ I
was afraid of
being
evicted/
harassed
Called/
emailed
housing
authority
Called/ emailed
local fair
housing
organization
Don't
remember

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 44
Experience of persons with disabilities. Overall, 35% of respondents’ households include a member experiencing a disability. Of these households, 26% said their housing does not meet their accessibility needs; 74% report that their current housing situation meets their needs. The three top greatest housing needs expressed by respondents included grab bars in bathroom or bench in shower (34%), supportive services to help maintain housing (33%), and ramps (26%). Other needs expressed by a substantial proportion of groups included wider doorways, reserved accessible parking spot by the entrance, and more private space in the facility in which I live.

Of respondents by jurisdiction, East Palo Alto (64%) has the lowest proportion of respondents with disabilities whose current housing situation meets their needs. Of these respondents, 63% indicated they needed supportive services to help maintain housing.

The highest proportion of respondents by group reporting that they or a member of their household experiences a disability were African American (71%), households making less than $25,000 (59%), single parent households (58%), and precariously housed respondents (56%).

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 45
Figure 17. Respondents experiencing a disability and their top three greatest housing needs Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. n
Jurisdiction
County 35% 74% 711 34% 33% 26% 171
Belmont 35% 89% 28 67% 67% 3
Brisbane 37% 72% 25 29% 29% 29% 29% 7
Burlingame 27% 80% 41 63% 50% 50% 8
Daly City 34% 68% 38 36% 36% 45% 36% 11
East Palo Alto 44% 64% 22 63% 8
Foster City 31% 83% 40 29% 29% 7
Half Moon Bay 45% 68% 22 29% 29% 7
Hillsborough 26% 100% 13 n/a
Milbrae 40% 82% 17 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 4
Pacifica 39% 93% 29 100% 2
Redwood City 42% 68% 62 33% 28% 28% 33% 18
San Bruno 40% 82% 34 50% 33% 33% 6
San Mateo 43% 72% 65 41% 47% 41% 17
South San Francisco 30% 68% 210 35% 28% 32% 57
Race/Ethnicity
African American 71% 87% 95 40% 40% 33% 15
Asian 31% 77% 157 29% 34% 26% 26% 35
Hispanic 41% 70% 162 37% 54% 35% 46
Other Race 38% 71% 56 63% 50% 44% 16
Non-Hispanic White 32% 77% 241 33% 27% 21% 52
Tenure
Homeowner 29% 82% 280 35% 37% 37% 43
Renter 39% 73% 347 41% 40% 27% 88
Precariously Housed 56% 71% 154 37% 26% 33% 43
Income
Less than $25,000 59% 71% 167 42% 27% 23% 48
$25,000-$49,999 40% 67% 107 45% 45% 45% 31
$50,000-$99,999 35% 77% 180 43% 26% 24% 42
Above $100,000 23% 82% 167 52% 34% 41% 29
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 35% 78% 293 40% 29% 32% 63
Large Households 35% 70% 99 41% 45% 34% 29
Single Parent 58% 81% 139 48% 28% 41% 29
Older Adults (age 65+) 46% 76% 337 44% 29% 30% 79
Ramps
Percent of
respondents
with a
disability
Current
housing
situation
meeting
needs Total n
Grab bars in
bathroom or
bench in
shower
Supportive
services to
help
maintain
housing
Alarm to
notify if a
non-verbal
child leaves
the home
Fire
alarm/doorbell
made accessible
for person with
hearing
disability/deaf
Better
navigation
for person
who is blind
Wider
doorways
Reserved
accessible
parking spot
by entrance
More
private
space in
the facility
in which I
live
Service or
emotional
support
animal
allowed
Would like to
live alone
(not with a
roommate)
Fewer
restrictions/
more freedom

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 46
Transportation. Over 80% of respondents indicated the type of transportation used most often is driving a personal vehicle. This share was relatively similar across the majority of jurisdictions and was the number one type of transportation used across all jurisdictions and demographic characteristics.

The groups with the lowest proportion of those who primarily drive included African American (40%), households making less than $25,000 (53%), single parents (57%), and precariously housed (57%) respondents.

As shown in Figure 18, on average respondents are fairly satisfied with their transportation situation.

Those groups somewhat or not at all satisfied with their transportation options include African American (58%), Brisbane (51%), single parents (45%) and precariously housed (44%) respondents.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 47
Figure 18.

Are you satisfied
with your current
transportation
options?
Source:

Root Policy Research from the
2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH
Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 29% 45% 20% 6% 1,903
Belmont 21% 42% 27% 10% 78
Brisbane 17% 33% 38% 13% 64
Burlingame 32% 45% 21% 1% 139
Daly City 19% 52% 20% 8% 109
East Palo Alto 31% 36% 24% 9% 45
Foster City 29% 43% 20% 9% 115
Half Moon Bay 30% 35% 26% 9% 46
Hillsborough 50% 34% 14% 2% 44
Milbrae 30% 45% 13% 13% 40
Pacifica 28% 42% 15% 15% 65
Redwood City 30% 36% 27% 8% 142
San Bruno 23% 54% 19% 4% 81
San Mateo 29% 52% 14% 4% 134
South San Francisco 34% 48% 15% 3% 666
Race/Ethnicity
African American 22% 21% 48% 10% 134
Asian 23% 49% 24% 4% 500
Hispanic 29% 43% 22% 7% 397
Other Race 29% 41% 21% 9% 149
Non-Hispanic White 32% 45% 17% 5% 757
Tenure
Homeowner 31% 45% 18% 6% 905
Renter 27% 44% 23% 6% 834
Precariously Housed 20% 36% 35% 9% 254
Income
Less than $25,000 22% 39% 29% 10% 282
$25,000-$49,999 25% 42% 26% 8% 265
$50,000-$99,999 28% 52% 16% 4% 517
Above $100,000 34% 44% 18% 4% 721
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 25% 43% 25% 6% 840
Large Households 29% 50% 18% 4% 284
Single Parent 20% 36% 38% 7% 240
Disability 25% 40% 27% 8% 658
Older Adults (age 65+) 30% 43% 21% 6% 736
Entirely
satisfied
Mostly
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Not at all
satisfied n

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 48
Solutions offered by residents. Respondents were asked a series of questions about how to improve their situations related to housing, employment, health, education and neighborhood.

Improve housing security. When asked what could improve a respondent’s housing security, the top answers among respondents by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics were none of the above and help me with a downpayment/purchase.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes:
 Hillsborough residents, 71%
 Owners, 65%
 Income greater than $100,000, 54%
 Foster City residents, 53%
 White, 51%
 Burlingame residents, 50%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Help me with a downpayment or purchase includes:
 Renters, 44%
 Large households, 42%
 Daly City residents, 41%
 Hispanic, 39%
 Precariously housed, 39%
 City of San Mateo residents, 37%
Other solutions to improve housing security identified by several different groups included Help me with the housing search, help me pay rent each month, and find a landlord who accepts Section 8. The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected these solutions includes:

Help me with the housing search
 Precariously housed, 39%
 Income less than $25,000, 34%
 Income between $25,000-$50,000, 29%

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 49
 Half Moon Bay residents, 27%
Help me pay rent each month
 Income less than $25,000, 35%
 Single parent, 31%
Find a landlord who accepts Section 8
 Black or African American, 37%
Improve neighborhood situation. When asked what could improve a respondent’s neighborhood situation, nearly every respondent group by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics identified Better lighting. Other solutions flagged by multiple respondent groups to improve their neighborhood situations includes Improve street crossings and none of the above.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Better lighting includes:
 East Palo Alto residents, 45%
 Millbrae residents, 45%
 Other race, 42%
 Daly City residents, 41%
 Hispanic, 40%
 Income between $25,000-$50,000, 40%
 Income between $50,000-$100,000, 40%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Improve street crossings includes:
 City of San Mateo residents, 34%
 Single parent, 31%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes:
 Foster City residents, 37%
 Hillsborough residents, 36%
 Burlingame residents, 28%

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 50
Additionally, 42% of Millbrae respondents chose Reduce crime, 40% of Brisbane respondents chose More stores to meet my needs, and Belmont (34%) and Half Moon Bay (33%) respondents chose Build more sidewalks.

Improve health situation. When asked what could improve a respondent’s health situation, the majority of respondent groups by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics selected Make it easier to exercise, More healthy food and None of the above.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Make it easier to exercise includes:
 Redwood City residents, 48%
 Hispanic, 42%
 South San Francisco residents, 41%
 City of San Mateo residents, 41%
 Asian, 41%
 Renters, 40%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected More healthy food includes:
 East Palo Alto residents, 48%
 Precariously Housed, 47%
 Single parent, 41%
 Daly City residents, 40%
 Income less than $25,000, 38%
 Black or African American, 37%
 Large Households, 37%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes residents from:
 Hillsborough residents, 48%
 Burlingame residents, 47%
 Foster City residents, 42%
 White, 41%
 Owners, 39%

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 51
Additionally, African American (34%) and San Bruno (29%) respondents identified Better access to mental health care as a solution to help improve their health situations.

Improve job situation. When asked what could improve a respondent’s employment situation, the majority of respondent groups by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics selected Increase wages and None of the above.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Increase wages includes:
 Renters, 52%
 Single parents, 50%
 Hispanic, 49%
 Households with children, 49%
 Daly City residents, 49%
 Income between $50,000-$100,000, 49%
 Large households, 48%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes:
 Hillsborough residents, 76%
 Owners, 58%
 White, 57%
 Over 65+, 53%
 Income greater than $100,000, 53%
 Foster City residents, 53%
Additionally, 29% of households with income less than $25K identified Find a job near my apartment or house as a solution to help improve their situation.

Improve education situation. When asked what could improve a respondent’s education situation for their children, the majority of respondent groups by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics selected None of the above, Have more activities, and Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes:
 Burlingame residents, 55%