Brisbane City Council
May 18, 2023

ATTACHMENT 5
350
K.

APPENDIX C
C-9
➢ According to the Urban Displacement Project, the City of Brisbane is vulnerable to displacement. (Figure IV-28).
➢ Small segments of the city are within designated Special Flood Hazard Areas (Figure IV31). ➢ The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC ranks the City of Brisbane is less vulnerable compared with surrounding cities.
➢ While some racial and ethnic populations and renters are disproportionately impacted by overcrowding, collectively, the City of Brisbane has a lower concentration of overcrowded households than the state average.
 Compared to adjacent jurisdictions, the City of Brisbane has high economic opportunity scores (>0.75) (Figure III-7). The City of Brisbane is considered a moderate resource area.  The City of Brisbane has the same concentration of residents with a disability (8%) as the county (Figure III-17). Residents living with a disability in the city are slightly more likely to be employed than residents not living with a disability (Figure III-20).  Hispanic and Pacific Islander students — served by the Jefferson Union High School District, Bayshore Elementary School District , and Brisbane School District — experience poor educational outcomes compared to other students. Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school (Figure V22). Black and Hispanic students in Jefferson Union High School District were less likely to meet the admission standards with rates of 23% and 32% respectively.  Three percent of students at Bayshore Elementary School District (which will serve future Brisbane students living in the Baylands subarea) are White, one of the lowest rates in the county, and 46% of White students were chronically absent compared to just 12% of the total student population.

While Jefferson Union has the lowest dropout rates in the county – just 3% of students – the highest dropout rates were found among Black (7%) and Hispanic students (6%).  Brisbane has a comparatively high proportion of renters who are cost burdened: More than 60% of all renter households in the city spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs, and nearly one in three are extremely cost burdened (spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs) (Figure IV-9). There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of Brisbane by race and ethnicity and family size (Figure IV-11 and Figure IV-12).

Resident needs collected through local survey.

A survey administered to capture residents’ needs and support the AFFH was completed by 79 Brisbane residents. Findings are included throughout this report.

Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan.

The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, socioeconomic factors that limit employment and income growth, the inability of the broader region to respond to housing demand, regional barriers to open housing choice, and, until recently, very limited resources to respond to vulnerable households’ needs. Specifically:

ATTACHMENT 5
351
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-10
Fair housing issue: No residents responding to the survey filed fair housing complaints. However, 9% of Brisbane survey respondents reported being discriminated against or knowing someone who had been discriminated against in the last five years. This discrepancy between official data and stakeholder input indicates a potential lack of awareness about fair housing rights.

Contributing factors:
➢ Lack of access to information about fair housing rights. ➢ Limited knowledge of fair housing by residents.

Fair housing issue: Households of Color have disproportionate housing needs. These needs are evident for Black/African American and Hispanic households in mortgage denial gaps, housing cost burden, and homelessness rates. Hispanic and Asian households also face high rates of overcrowding, while Other Race/Multiple Race households are disproportionately cost burdened.

Contributing factors:
➢ While Black (3%) and Hispanic residents (17%) only make up a fifth of Brisbane’s total population, they face disproportionately high mortgage denial rates. This stems from decades of discrimination in housing markets and challenges building wealth through economic mobility and homeownership.
➢ As addressed previously in this analysis, until the late 1960’s persons of color in San Mateo County — particularly African Americans — were denied loans to purchase homes, were not allowed to buy in many neighborhoods because of restrictive covenants, and were harassed if they managed to purchase a home in a predominantly White neighborhood. These historical actions have led to a significant homeownership gap among racial and ethnic minorities, except for Asian households.

Aside from Asian residents, residents of color are more likely than others to work low wage jobs that do not support the city’s housing prices, resulting in cost burden and overcrowding. Their future employment opportunities are further constrained by K-12 achievement gaps and being less likely to meet university admission standards.

The Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) below details how the City of Brisbane proposes to respond to the factors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis.

ATTACHMENT 5
352
K.

APPENDIX C
Fair Housing Action Plan
C-11
Fair Housing Category Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority (LowMediumHigh)Meaningful Actions Disparities in access to
opportunities
Households of color have
disproportionate housing needs
Historic discrimination
and continued mortgage
denials
High housing costs and
low wages
Medium
Enhance housing mobility by removing barriers to housing and strategically enhance access via the following Housing Element programs:
• Program 1.A.1 (Information and referrals to fair housing agencies) • Program 1.A.2 (Landlord fair housing trainings)
• Program 2.E.2 (Regional ADU loan program)
• Program 2.E.3 (City ADU loan program)
• Program 3.B.1 (Housing choice voucher outreach campaign) • Program 4.A.1 (Anti-displacement policies in Affordable Housing Strategic Plan)
• Program 4.A.3 (Landlord fair housing trainings)
• Program 4.A.8 (Regional downpayment assistance program) • Program 5.A.1 (Information on housing resources)
• Program 5.A.3 (Translation of housing resources)
High
Improve place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization including preservation of existing affordable housing via the following Housing Element programs:
• Program 3.A.1 (Preservation policies in Affordable Housing Strategic Plan) • Program 3.A.2 (Extend Visitacion Gardens senior housing groundlease) • Program 3.A.3 (ADU rent survey)
• Program 4.A.5 (Convene discussions with households of color and identify solutions)
• Program 4.A.7 (Study rent control strategies)
• Program 4.A.11 (Expand standard affordability covenants) Disproportionate housing need
for low income households and
protected classes
Historic discrimination
and continued mortgage
denials
High housing costs and
low wages
High
Encourage new housing choices and affordability in high resource areas by increasing housing supply, choices and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside of areas of concentrated poverty via the following Housing Element programs:
• Program 1.A.3 (Outreach to residents when affordable units are available) • Program 2.A.2 (Adopt Baylands Specific Plan to construct new housing in an area with enhanced resources)
ATTACHMENT 5
353
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-12
Fair Housing Category Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority (LowMediumHigh)Meaningful Actions Lower wage jobs that
cannot support housing
costs
• Program 2.A.5 and 2.A.6 (Incentivize housing development in high resource areas through small-lot subdivision regulations)
• Program 2.B.1 (Adopt Baylands Specific Plan)
• Program 2.C.1 (Amend density bonus to incentivize deeply affordable housing)
• Program 2.D.2 (Incentivize ADU development)
• Program 2.E.1 (Adopt Affordable Housing Strategic Plan) • Program 2.E.5 (Adopt affordable housing nexus fee for new commercial development to fund new affordable housing)
• Program 2.E.6 (Study potential to develop vacant/underutilized City-owned sites for affordable housing)
Outreach capacity and
enforcement
Discrepancy between officially
reported complaint data and
resident survey findings
Lack of access to
information about fair
housing rights;
Limited knowledge of fair
housing by residents
High
Protect existing residents from displacement through strategies that preserve housing choices and affordability via the following Housing Element programs:
• Program 1.A.2 (Resident outreach regarding fair housing protections) • Program 1.A.3 (Targeted outreach regarding affordable housing availability)
• Program 2.E.1 (Adopt Affordable Housing Strategic Plan) • Program 3.A.1 (Implement Affordable Housing Strategic Plan) • Program 3.B.1 (Increase participation in Housing Choice Voucher program) • Program 4.A.1 (Implement Affordable Housing Strategic Plan) • Program 4.A.3 (Resident and landlord fair housing training) • Program 4.A.4 (Fair housing complaint referrals)
• Program 4.A.5 (Targeted outreach to impacted residents) • Program 4.A.9 (Promote homesharing)
• Program 4.A.12 (Regulate short term rentals)
• Program 4.C.1 (Regulate condominium conversions)
ATTACHMENT 5
354
K.

APPENDIX C
C-13
SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Capacity
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity in the City of Brisbane.

Fair housing legal cases and inquiries.

California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to the FHA protected classes—race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income (including federal housing assistance vouchers).

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”.9 DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD. DFEH’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.10 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

Additionally, San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County (Figure I-1).

From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Figure I-2)—no complaints were filed in the City of Brisbane (Figure I-3). Most complaints submitted to HUD cited disability status as the bias (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial status (14%).

Countywide, no cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints. Fair housing inquiries in 2020 were primarily submitted from the City of San Mateo, Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park (Figure I-3, Figure I-4, and Figure I-5).

Of the 79 City of Brisbane respondents to the resident survey, 38 residents have looked for housing seriously.

Of those 38 respondents, nine (24%) indicated that “I was told the unit was available over the phone, but when I showed up in person, the landlord told me it was no longer available”, and 13 (37%) indicated they have been denied housing to rent or buy in the past 5 years. The main reason for denial (31%) was “income too low”.
9 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/
10 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
ATTACHMENT 5
355
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-14
Similarly, of the 12 housing choice voucher holders responding to the survey, the majority (67%) of respondents indicated that finding an affordable unit is somewhat difficult. The main reasons for denial were “Not enough time to find a place to live before the voucher expires”, “Landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders”, and “Voucher is not enough to cover the rent for places that I want to live.” Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to 5, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached 6 by mid-2021.

Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary basis for complaints nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%). Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county.

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
 First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership.
 Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment—1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.
 Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies—reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.11 Outreach and capacity.

As a municipality without authority to enforce State and Federal fair housing laws, the City of Brisbane still plays a vital role in advancing fair housing protections within the city by providing resources for property owners and residents on fair housing laws and enforcement. While the City of Brisbane currently provides housing resources and other relevant information on its website, we have committed to improve the accessibility of fair housing information and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination in Chapter 5 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and in the Fair Housing Action Plan contained in this Assessment. Currently, the city’s website provides a link to the California Landlord and Tenants Guide, which contains information related to legal protections and obligations for both renters and landlords in California.

Additionally, the city lists Project Sentinel, a HUD-approved Housing Counseling Agency that provides counseling on housing discrimination, among its nonprofits and public agencies.

While no fair housing complaints have been filed in Brisbane over the last five years, based on the anecdotal responses in the fair housing resident survey there is a clear need for landlord and tenant education on fair housing laws and resources. Per the policies and programs under Goal 3 of Chapter 5 of the Housing Element, and the Fair Housing Action Plan included in this assessment, the City will update its digital and physical resources to include more robust information on fair housing resources for residents and landlords. 12 11 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/ 12 https://www.brisbaneca.org/cd/page/housing-information-resources ATTACHMENT 5
356
K.

APPENDIX C
C-15
Figure C.3:

Compliance with state law.

The City of Brisbane complies with the following state laws that promote fair and affordable housing:
 Housing Accountability Act (Gov Code Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of objective design standards for housing development projects, as well as adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA; Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
HUD Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021 Number Percent
Disability 32 56%
Race 11 19%
Familial Status 8 14%
National Origin 3 5%
Religion 2 4%
Sex 1 2%
Total cases 57 100%
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021) 26 24
16 9
9 9
7 7
6 6
5 4
2 1
San Mateo
Redwood City
Daly City
Menlo Park
Belmont
Pacifica
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Burlingame
South San Francisco
San Bruno
San Carlos
Woodside
Half Moon Bay
9 6
8 5
2 3
5 0
5 4
4 2
0 1
HUD Fair Housing
Complaints
HCD Fair Housing
Inquiries
ATTACHMENT 5
357
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-16
 No Net Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to accommodate unmet RHNA allocations, including among income levels, throughout the term of the Housing Element planning period;
 Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov Code Section 65913.1);
 Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov Code Section 65913.2); The City is currently considering updates to its ordinance implementing the State Density Bonuses and Other Incentives Law (Gov. Code. Title 7. Division 1. Chapter 4.3 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives, amended and effective January 1, 2021) to conform to current State law requirements.

Housing policies enacted locally.

The City of Brisbane identified the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the city. As indicated in Chapter 5 of the Housing Element, the City has committed to implementing many additional housing policies that could encourage more affordable housing and reduce housing barriers.

Local policies in place to encourage housing
development.
 Housing overlay zone in transitional
commercial district
 Reduced parking requirements for low
income, senior, and special needs housing
 Streamlined permitting process
 Graduated density bonus
 Form-based codes in housing overlay zones
 Mixed-use zoning
 Inclusionary housing ordinance
 Condominium conversion ordinance
 Mobile home preservation through
implementation of R-MHP zone
 Homeowner rehabilitation programs
 Reduced fees or waivers for affordable
housing development
 General Fund Allocation incl. former RDA
“Boomerang” Funds
 City funded homebuyer assistance
programs
 Home sharing programs
Local barriers to affordable housing
development.
 Height limits on multifamily developments
 Minimum lot sizes
 Parking requirement reductions for low
income, senior, and special needs housing
could be reduced further
 Extensive time period/requirements to
develop multi-family properties due to
governmental and non-governmental
constraints (e.g., topography and
infrastructure)
 No policies to mitigate displacement of
low income households
 Conditional use permits for large group
homes of seven or more residents
ATTACHMENT 5
358
K.

APPENDIX C
C-17
 Reasonable accommodation procedure for
persons with disabilities
Local policies that are NOT in place but would
provide the best outcomes in addressing
housing shortages.
 Acquisition of affordable units with expiring
subsidies or subject to resale provisions
under the City’s First Time Homebuyer
program and inclusionary housing
ordinance.
 Under consideration by the City of Brisbane
in Chapter 5 of the 2023-2031 Housing
Element
Local policies that are NOT in place, but have
potential Council interest for further
exploration in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
 Rent stabilization/rent control
 Mobile home rent control/relocation and
displacement prevention
 Foreclosure assistance
 Affordable housing impact/linkage fee on
new residential and commercial
development
 Community land trusts
 First source hiring ordinances
 Living wage employment ordinances
 Eviction protection ordinances
 Acquisition of unsubsidized properties with
affordable rents
 Dedicating surplus land for affordable
housing
Local policies in place to mitigate or prevent
displacement of low income households.
 Short term rental ordinance prohibiting
vacation rentals, requiring homeowner
occupancy for short term rentals, and
prohibiting short term rentals in ADUs or
on properties with ADUs constructed
under new streamlined ADU permit
regulations
 Member of San Mateo County Housing
Endowment and Regional Trust, providing
regional downpayment home loans to
moderate and low income households
 Condominium conversion regulations
 Inclusionary zoning ordinance
 Streamlined and ministerial ADUs permit
processing
 Facilitate homesharing through
partnership with HIP Housing to publicize
homeseekers and home providers
 Provide information and connect
interested residents with fair housing legal
services through partnership with Project
Sentinel
 Provide information and connect
interested residents with housing
counseling services provided through
partnership with Project Sentinel
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), the City of Brisbane does not have any public housing buildings (Figure I-6). Additionally, the ATTACHMENT 5
359
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-18
city has a smaller share of households utilizing housing choice vouchers (5% or less) compared with neighboring municipalities (Figure I-7).

While the presence of housing voucher users in Brisbane indicates available rental supply to house these residents and a lack of exclusionary behavior from landlords in the city, compared to nearby Colma, Daly City, and South San Francisco, the City of Brisbane the city has a smaller share of voucher holders. The City thus appears less accommodating to renters with housing vouchers in comparison to the surrounding communities (Figure I-7). The City has committed to an outreach program (see Fair Housing Action Plan in this Appendix; also see policies under Goal Chapter 5 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element) to outreach to local residents and landlords regarding the program and protections under Fair Housing law regarding source of income discrimination.

ATTACHMENT 5
360
K.

APPENDIX C
C-19
SECTION II. Integration and Segregation
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

Integration and Segregation
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.

Race and ethnicity.

Generally, the demographic characteristics of the City of Brisbane are relatively consistent with the overall characteristics of San Mateo County. The population distribution by race and ethnicity is similar to the county with the largest proportion of the population being non-Hispanic White (44%) followed by Asian (32%), Hispanic (17%), other or multiple races (4%), and Black (3%) (Figure II-1). 13 However, over the last two decades, the proportion of non-Hispanic White residents in the City of Brisbane has continued to dramatically decrease (67% in 2000). Older residents are less diverse with 63% of the population older than 65 years identifying as White compared to only 51% of the population for children less than 18 years old (Figure II-3). Geospatially, the City of Brisbane’s lone census tract has a sizable White majority.14
Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have lower household incomes compared to the nonHispanic White population in the City of Brisbane (Figure II-4 and Figure II-5). However, the non-Hispanic White population has the highest rate of poverty in the City at 10.3%, followed by Other Race or Multiple Races (8.7%), White (8.5%), and Hispanic/Latinx (6.1%). 13 There are no Brisbane residents who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native according to US Census data. 14 Majority census tracts show the predominant racial or ethnic group by tract compared to the next most populous.

ATTACHMENT 5
361
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-20
Segregation in City of Brisbane
ABAG and UC Merced completed an analysis of segregation in Brisbane.15 Several indices were used to assess segregation in the city and determine how the city differs from patterns of segregation and integration in the region overall. The primary findings from that analysis included:
• The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. • As of 2020, white residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in Brisbane, as measured by the isolation index. White residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups.
• Among all racial groups, the Asian population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. • According to the dissimilarity index, within Brisbane the highest level of racial segregation is between Asian and white residents.
16 • According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in Brisbane increased between 2010 and 2020. Neighborhood income segregation declined between 2010 and 2015. • Very Low-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in Brisbane.

Very Low-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.
• Among all income groups, the Very Low-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015. • According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has decreased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in Brisbane between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

Segregation Between City of Brisbane and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region • Brisbane has a higher share of white residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a higher share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
• Regarding income groups, Brisbane has a higher share of very low-income residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of low-income residents, a higher share of moderate-income residents, and a lower share of above moderate-income residents. 15 AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT: BRISBANE; UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff; Version of Record: March 06, 15:53:00
16 The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 15 in Appendix 2), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.

ATTACHMENT 5
362
K.

APPENDIX C
C-21
Disability status.

The share of the population living with at least one disability is 8% in the City of Brisbane, the same rate as San Mateo County (Figure II-13). Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicate increased access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this population. Mapping of reasonable accommodation requests and permits for entry ramps/elevators over the past 15 years do not show a discernable concentration of disabled households in Brisbane; rather, such requests are distributed evenly throughout the City’s residential neighborhoods (see Figure C.4). Requests for reasonable accommodation or permits for ramp/elevator alterations are typically made by single-family homeowners who occupy the dwelling, on sites located on the City’s steeper streets featuring grades of over 15%. While multi-story single-family homes are common throughout Brisbane, single-story homes that may be more accommodating in their existing state to persons with physical disabilities are typically limited to the City’s flatter sites, generally located north of Klamath Street, east of Alvarado Street, and west of Solano Street.

This likely accounts for the lack of reasonable accommodation requests and building permits for accessibility improvements in those relatively flat microneighborhoods. The lack of permit data therefore does not correspond to an absence of disabled residents in these flatter neighborhoods.

Figure C.4: Geographic Distribution of Reasonable Accommodation Requests and Elevator/Ramp Permits, 2005-2022
Rectangle = AIP Circle =Building Permit
ATTACHMENT 5
363
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-22
Familial Status.

Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of nonfamily or single person households indicates a higher share of seniors living alone, young adults living alone or with roommates, and unmarried partners. Higher shares of nonfamily households indicate an increased need for one and two bedroom units.

The City of Brisbane is home to more single-person households than the county with 32% of households compared to only 22% in the County (Figure II-16). Additionally, there are fewer married-couple families and families with children in the city (25%) when compared to the county (33%) (Figure II-17 and Figure II-18).

Over 90% of married-couple families, along with a majority of residents living alone, live in owner occupied housing (Figure II-19). The number of housing units available by number of bedrooms and tenure is generally consistent with the familial status of the households that live in the City of Brisbane (Figure II-16 and Figure II-20). Compared to the county, the City of Brisbane has a smaller proportion of family households and greater proportion of single person households—which is reflected in the number of bedrooms and tenure of the housing in the city (Figure II-19 and Figure II-20).

Household income.

Overall, the household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in the City of Brisbane is similar to the county (Figure II-25). Of the three block groups in the city, only one block group, located west of downtown Brisbane, has a median income below the 2020 state median income of $87,100 (Figure II-26 and Figure II-27). This block group contains most of the City’s multi-family dwellings in the R-3 zoning district, as well as the mobile home park on Bayshore Boulevard. Because of the preponderance of rental housing, older age of housing units that typically would demand relatively lower rents than newer housing units, it is likely that households living in poverty in Brisbane are located in this census block group. The census block group with the highest household incomes (above $125,000) are located in the Northeast Ridge planned development (499 single-family dwellings, condominiums, and townhomes) and Brisbane Acres residential neighborhoods. The Northeast Ridge is the City’s newest neighborhood, with housing constructed as recently as 2016. The Brisbane Acres neighborhood features large lots and views of San Bruno Mountain and San Francisco Bay. These features together drive relatively higher median sales prices of homes in these neighborhoods, likely contributing to the higher household incomes featured. The census block group with the next highest household incomes (between $87,100 and $125,000, representing low and moderate income households) is located in the western side of Central Brisbane, which is predominantly single-family homes that are typically older than those in the Northeast Ridge and on smaller lots than those in the Brisbane Acres. (Figure II-27). Similar to adjacent census tracts, the poverty rate in Brisbane is less than 10% (Figure II-28).

ATTACHMENT 5
364
K.

APPENDIX C
C-23
Figure C.5:

Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly White neighborhoods.

Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.17
17 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.

Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124 Segregation and Integration
Population by Protected Class
City of Brisbane San Mateo County
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH 0% 0%
Asian / API, NH 32% 30%
Black or African American, NH 3% 2%
White, Non-Hispanic (NH) 44% 39%
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH 4% 4%
Hispanic or Latinx 17% 24%
Disability Status
With a disability 8% 8%
Without a disability 92% 92%
Familial Status
Female-Headed Family Households 11% 10%
Male-headed Family Households 6% 5%
Married-couple Family Households 45% 55%
Other Non-Family Households 6% 8%
Single-person Households 32% 22%
Household Income
0%-30% of AMI 10% 13%
31%-50% of AMI 15% 11%
51%-80% of AMI 11% 16%
81%-100% of AMI 10% 10%
Greater than 100% of AMI 54% 49%
0%
32%
3%
44%
4%
17%
0%
30%
2%
39%
4%
24%
8%
92%
8%
92%
11%
6%
45%
6%
32%
10%
5%
55%
8%
22%
10%
15%
11%
10%
54%
13%
11%
16%
10%
49%
ATTACHMENT 5
365
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-24
It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. The University of Minnesota study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

R/ECAPs
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:
 A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR  A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County, whichever is lower.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.

For this study, the poverty threshold used was three times the average tract poverty rate for the County—or

19.1%. In addition to R/ECAPs that meet the HUD threshold, this study includes edge or emerging R/ECAPs which hit two thirds of the HUD defined threshold for poverty—emerging R/ECAPs in San Mateo County have 2 times the average tract poverty rate for the county (12.8%).

In 2010 there were three Census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.4% poverty rate) in the county and 11 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (13% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were located in the City of Brisbane in 2010 (Figure II-29). However, there was an edge R/ECAP just north of Brisbane in Daly City.

In 2019 there were two Census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the county and 14 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were located in the City of Brisbane in 2019 (Figure II-30). However, there was an edge R/ECAP just south of the city in South San Francisco.

RCAAs. ABAG mapping of RCAAs was not available at the time this report was prepared. HCD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence is:
 A census tract18 that has a percentage of total white population that is 1.25 times higher than the average percentage of total white population in the given COG region, and a median income that was 2 times higher than the COG AMI.
18 Brisbane is comprised of one census tract.

ATTACHMENT 5
366
K.

APPENDIX C
C-25
At 44%, the City’s population of white residents is 1.23 times higher than the Bay Area average of 35.8%, falling just below HCD’s defined threshold. However, because Brisbane is comprised of one census tract, this calculation method may not recognize block-level disparities in household income by racial identity. Please refer to the key findings in “Segregation in City of Brisbane” in this appendix regarding dissimilarity and isolation indices by racial identity and household income level, both within the City and between the City and the Bay Area averages.

SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.

Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.

Local knowledge: resident survey questions about access to opportunity.

Residents were asked about several resources that would improve their living situation in the survey conducted to support this AFH. When asked what type of help they need to improve their housing security, top answers were:
 Help me get a loan to buy a house (15%);
 Help me with a down payment/purchase (15%); and
 Help me with my housing search (13%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their neighborhood, top answers were:
 More stores to meet my needs (grocery, pharmacy, etc.) (40%);  Build more sidewalks (30%); and
 Bike lanes and public transit (25%).

ATTACHMENT 5
367
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-26
When asked what type of help they need to improve their health, top answers were:
 More healthy food (33%);
 Make it easier to exercise (23%); and
 Make it easier to get to health clinics (15%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their job situation, top answers were:
 Increase wages (24%);
 Find a job near my apartment/house (14%);
 Help paying for college (12%); and
 Access consistent childcare (12%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve children’s education, top answers were:
 Make school more challenging (19%);
 Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school (17%); and
 Make it easier to choose a different school (17%).

TCAC Access to Opportunity Maps
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), in collaboration with HCD, developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents. These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for low income residents—particularly children.

The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one; the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

Before diving into the TCAC Opportunity Mapping and scores, it is important to understand the local context of historic civic investment patterns.

Historic Investment Patterns
Historic and ongoing investment in projects that enhance access to opportunity for low income and special needs residents occurs biennially through the City’s Capital Improvement Plan adoption, which sets funding aside for projects such as sidewalk improvements and extensions, parks, trails, and public facilities. The City’s Capital Improvement Plan projects over the past five years are mapped in Figure C.6. Generally, the City’s Capital Improvement projects are focused in its more densely populated neighborhoods in the Northeast Ridge and Central Brisbane, but significant projects are identified in the Southwest Bayshore neighborhood.

ATTACHMENT 5
368
K.
101
101
rter St
Guadalupe
Canyon Pkwy
Ba
yshore Fwy
Bayshore
Blvd
Bayshore Fwy

COMMUNITY
PARK
Brisbane
Bayshore Blvd
Bayshore
Fwy

FIRTH PARK
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 14
15 16
17 18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
29 28
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
39 38
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 This work is licensed under the Esri Master License Agreement. View Summary | View Terms of Use Permitted use of this data is covered in the DATA section of the Esri Master Agreement (E204CW) and these supplemental terms.Important Note: This item requires an ArcGIS Online organizational subscription or an ArcGIS Developer account and consumes credits. To access this item, you'll need to do one of the following: Sign in with an account that is a member of an organizational subscription Sign in with a developer account Register an application and use your application's credentials.If you don't have an account, you can sign up for a free trial of ArcGIS or a free ArcGIS Developer account., Esri Community Maps Contributors, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA

1. Kings Road Retaining Wall

2. EV Charging Station

3. EV Charging Station

4. EV Charging Station

5. Solano St Retaining Wall

6. Brisbane Community Library

7. San Benito to Alvarado Pedestrian Improvements

8. Bayshore/Old County Pedestrian Improvements

9. Crocker Recreational Trail Resurfacing

10. Dog Park Renovation

11. Guadalupe Canyon Safety Improvements

12. Guadalupe Canyon Safety Improvements

13. Guadalupe Canyon Safety Improvements

14. Guadalupe Canyon Safety Improvements

15. Guadalupe Canyon Safety Improvements

16. Guadalupe Canyon Safety Improvements

17. San Bruno Ave Roadway Protection Project

18. Shuttle Stop Improvements

19. Shuttle Stop Improvements

20. Shuttle Stop Improvements

21. Shuttle Stop Improvements

22. Shuttle Stop Improvements

23. Shuttle Stop Improvements

24. Shuttle Stop Improvements

25. Shuttle Stop Improvements

26. Shuttle Stop Improvements

27. Shuttle Stop Improvements

28. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

29. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

30. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

31. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

32. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

33. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

34. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

35. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

36. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

37. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

38. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

39. Safe Routes to Schools / Green Infrastructure

40. BES Childcare Modular

41. Stairway between Santa Clara and Tulare

42. Crocker Trail Master Plan

43. New Traffic Signal

44. Pedestrian Path Humboldt to Kings Rd

45. Bus Stop Improvements

46. Walkway Improvements San Francisco Ave to Old County Rd

47. Railing for Walkway Mono St to Sierra Point Rd

48. Sierra Point Master Plan
$134,800 - 200,100
$95,400 - 134,800
$55,900 - 95,400
$16,500 - 55,900
$0 - 16,500
2022 Median Household Income
by Census Tracts - (Source: Esri)
Brisbane City Limits
CIP Projects
¯
Brisbane Capital Improvements 2017 - 2022*
*(Completed or Approved and Funded)
Figure C.6
ATTACHMENT 5
369
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-28
Prior to the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies in California in 2012, the City of Brisbane’s Redevelopment Agency partnered with non-profit housing developers to develop three affordable housing projects in the City for a total of 21 units (14 rental 55+, 7 for-sale) affordable to low income households.

Redevelopment Agency investment included pre-development loan financing, construction loan financing, and land donation. These developments are located in Central Brisbane (as opposed to the Northeast Ridge or Brisbane Acres, which are located in block group 1, median income over $160,000). Specifically, Brisbane RDA funded 14 low income, rental, senior housing units in block group 3 (median income $106,985) and 7 ow income, for-sale homes in block group 2 (median income $59,643). While household incomes are relatively lower in these two block groups than in block group 3, most community amenities (schools, parks, community garden, pool, library, restaurants, grocery store, transit) are located within less than ½ mile walking distance from all three project sites, and they represented strategic investment to allow residents of the developments access to high quality, newly constructed housing in the heart of downtown Brisbane.

These projects demonstrate the City’s historic commitment to furthering equal and fair housing access for low income households and special needs households with available resources. The dissolution of the RDA in 2012 and elimination of tax increment financing for affordable and special needs housing development crippled the City’s ability to generate significant funds toward additional projects beyond these historic investments. The City embarked upon an Affordable Housing Strategic Plan in 2022 to help identify new potential funding sources to subsidize affordable and special needs housing development, mitigate displacement of vulnerable households, and preserve existing affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Strategic Plan is slated for adoption in spring 2023 and will ensure the City’s historic investment in furthering fair housing continues long into the future.

Based on both past and projected City investment in fair housing, local investment is not considered a contributing factor to fair housing issues in the city.

Education.

TCAC’s education score for Brisbane of 34 is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, the census tract in the City of Brisbane scores between 0.25 and 0.5 (Figure III-1). Generally in the northern part of San Mateo County, almost all Census tracts east of Highway 280 have lower education scores (Less than 0.25 and between 0.25 and .5) compared to those Census tracts west of Highway 280 (between 0.5 and 0.75).

According to the Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities Appendix, the City of Brisbane is served by Jefferson Union High School District, Bayshore Elementary School District, and Brisbane Elementary School District.19 All three school districts saw decreases in enrollment between 2010 and 2020, with Bayshore Elementary School District with the most substantial decrease during the time period (30%). Accordingly, all three districts lost students during the COVID pandemic.

Jefferson Union High School District enrollment by race and ethnicity is relatively similar to the countywide distribution. However, there is a higher proportion of Filipino students in Jefferson Union (29% compared to 19 While the Bayshore Elementary School District boundaries fall within the boundaries of the City of Brisbane, no students living in Brisbane currently attend any school in the Bayshore Elementary School District. The Bayshore Elementary School District boundaries cover the Baylands subarea of the City, which is slated for future development of 1,800-2,200 new homes during the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning cycle. Future residents would therefore attend Bayshore Elementary School District, and the analysis in this document has been adjusted to reflect that situation.

ATTACHMENT 5
370
K.

APPENDIX C
C-29
8% countywide) and a smaller proportion of Hispanic (31% compared to 38% countywide) and White students (14% compared to 26% countywide). In all three school districts, there is a higher proportion of Filipino students and a smaller proportion of White students when compared to the county.

Jefferson Union High School District enrollment is overrepresented compared to the county for English learners (36% compared to 20% countywide) and students who qualify for reduced lunch (44% compared to 29%). Data from the California Department of Education shows that between 2020-2021, all three school districts do not have students who are foster children, experiencing homelessness, or migrants (Figure V-10).

More than a third of students at Jefferson Union High School are English learners. Overall, Brisbane Elementary students met or exceeded testing standards for English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics when compared to the county overall (Figure V-14). However, English learning students at Brisbane Elementary met or exceeded mathematics testing standards at a rate at least 50 percentage points below the overall test rate in the district (4% for English Learners, 54% overall for Brisbane Elementary) (Figure V-20).

Additionally, Jefferson Union High School District did not meet or exceed testing standards for either subject when compared to the county overall.

Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school (Figure V-22). While Jefferson Union had one of the lower rates of graduates who met such admission standards (48%) among high school districts in San Mateo County, the school has seen a significant increase in the percentage of students who meet these benchmarks over the last five years (21% in 2016-17). Black and Hispanic students in Jefferson Union High School District were less likely to meet the admission standards with rates of 23% and 32% respectively.

Although only 3% of students at Bayshore Elementary School District are White, one of the lowest rates in the county, 46% of White students were chronically absent when compared to just 12% of the total student population. Both Jefferson Union and Brisbane Elementary have higher rates of chronically absent students when compared to the county (Jefferson Union at 15%; Brisbane Elementary at 12% compared to 10% countywide). While Jefferson Union has the lowest dropout rates in the county – just 3% of students – the highest dropout rates were still found among Black (7%) and Hispanic students (6%).

Employment.

The top three industries by number of jobs in the City of Brisbane include manufacturing and wholesale, professional and managerial services, and transportation and utilities (Figure III-2 and Figure III-3). The City of Brisbane has a much higher job to household ratio when compared to the county at 3.55 and 1.59 respectively—which means there are more employment opportunities per household in the City of Brisbane (Figure III-4 and Figure III-5). As of January 2021, the city also has a lower unemployment rate of 4.6% compared to the county at 5.9% (Figure III-6).

TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The City of Brisbane has a score of more than 0.75 for economic opportunity, which means it experiences more positive economic outcomes (Figure III-7). Compared with neighboring jurisdictions, the City of Brisbane has the highest economic opportunity score in the northern part of San Mateo County.

HUD’s job proximity index shows the City of Brisbane is within average proximity to jobs (Figure III-8), with two block groups scoring between 60-80 and the rest of the city scoring between 40-60—on a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs. Comparatively, the City of Brisbane is in closer proximity to jobs than cities to its west, including Colma and Daly City.

ATTACHMENT 5
371
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-30
Transportation.

TCAC’s transportation opportunity score and maps were not available at the time of this report.

SamTrans provides bus services in Brisbane including Redi-Wheels paratransit service. 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.

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 Brisbane and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to San Mateo County. “San Mateo’s PCC [Paratransit Coordinating Council] 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 comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”20
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.”21 TRACS highlights that improving accessibility requires engagement for the community because there are no “watch-dog” systems in place to hold agencies accountable.

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 20 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf 21 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
ATTACHMENT 5
372
K.

APPENDIX C
C-31
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.22 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.23 As shown in Appendix C3, Figure 6c, Brisbane resident survey respondents indicated higher than average challenges accessing public transportation and having transportation options aligned with their destination or timing needs compared to other County residents.

Environment.

TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators which include ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, drinking water, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.

According to the TCAC Opportunity Areas Index, the City of Brisbane scores relatively poorly on environmental outcomes (Figure III-9 and Figure III-10). According to the CalEnviroScreen indicators, the City scored in the highest percentiles for hazardous waste (93%), cleanups (90%), and groundwater threats (88%).

In other words, the number and type of hazardous waste generators and sites is higher than 93% of the census tracts in California.24
The majority of hazardous waste and groundwater threat sites are located within the boundaries of Brisbane Baylands, a former landfill and railyard located in the eastern part of the city. In 2018, Brisbane voters approved Measure JJ, which allows for residential and commercial development of Brisbane Baylands.

Additionally, it requires the developer to remediate the site, provide an adequate water supply, and address other environmental concerns.25 It would be expected that after the remediation and redevelopment of Brisbane Baylands, Brisbane’s environmental outcome scores would greatly improve.

However, the city scores moderately high on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Figure III-11). The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare (Figure III-11). 26 22
https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_Disabilities.ht ml
23 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm 24 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 25 https://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/baylands/page/14221/aboutthebrisbanebaylands.pdf 26 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/
ATTACHMENT 5
373
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-32
Disparities in access to opportunity.

TCAC’s composite opportunity score for the City of Brisbane designates it as a moderate resource area – there are no designated high resource or low resource areas in Brisbane (Figure III-12 and Figure III-14). The share of the population with Limited English Proficiency is 3% compared to 7% in the county (Figure III-13).

The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC— which 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. Overall, the city is less vulnerable than neighboring cities according to the SVI (Figure III-15).

The City of Brisbane does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations (Figure III-16).”27
Disparities specific to the population living with a disability.

Eight percent of the population in the City of Brisbane are living with at least one disability, same as the county rate (Figure III-17). The most common disabilities in the city are ambulatory (5.1%), independent living (2.6%), and cognitive (2.6%) (Figure III-18).

Of residents with a disability or living with a household member experiencing a disability responding to the resident survey, 29% said that their home does not meet their needs or their household member’s needs.

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 (Figure III-19). As mentioned above under Transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging; therefore the disabled population is likely to increase as residents age.

All residents living with a disability in the City of Brisbane are employed, while the unemployment rate for residents not living with a disability is significantly low (3%) (Figure III-20). 27 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
ATTACHMENT 5
374
K.

APPENDIX C
C-33
Figure C.7:

Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
City of Brisbane San Mateo County
Jobs to Household Ratio 3.55 1.59
Unemployment Rate 5% 6%
LEP Population 3% 7%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in the City of Brisbane Employment by Disability Status
Moderate Resource Area 0% 33% 3% 42% 5% 17%
High/Highest Resource Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx
ATTACHMENT 5
375
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-34
SECTION IV. 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.

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.

Since 2000, population growth in the City of Brisbane has increased at a faster rate compared with the county and Bay Area as a whole (Figure IV-1) due to the buildout of the Northeast Ridge subarea, which caused the number of homes in Brisbane to increase by 5.2% between 2010 and 2020.

Since 2015, the amount of new housing permitted to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate income households with 55 units permitted compared to 19 units permitted for households with moderate income. Over the last five years, the city has not issued any permits for low income or very low income housing developments (Figure IV-2). The Housing Needs Data Report for the City of Brisbane indicates new construction has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.”28 The variety of housing types available in the city in 2020 are predominantly single family (58%) and medium or large scale multifamily (16%). From 2010 to 2020, the single family inventory increased more than multifamily due to the buildout of the last phase of the Northeast Ridge subdivision. The city has a greater share of single-family housing compared to other communities in the region.

Fifty percent of the housing inventory in the City of Brisbane was built before 1980 (Figure IV-3). As such, half of the city’s units are older, lack energy efficiency, could be costly to adapt for disability accessibility, and may have deferred maintenance if households cannot afford to make improvements.

Compared to San Mateo County, the city’s owner occupied housing market has a smaller share of units priced between $1 and $1.5 million—19% of units in the city fall within this price range compared to 23% in the 28 Housing Needs Data Report: Brisbane, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 5
376
K.

APPENDIX C
C-35
county (Figure IV-4). Additionally, units priced above $2 million make up a much smaller proportion of the city’s housing stock compared to the county with 2% and 19% respectively. According to the Zillow home value index29, home prices have experienced remarkable growth in both the city and county (Figure IV-5).

However, the county has seen a greater increase in home value overall; the city’s home value growth is more aligned with the Bay Area.

Rents have increased at a slower pace compared to the for-sale market—however, median rents increased more rapidly from 2017 to 2019 (Figure IV-7). Rent increases have likely been dampened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the county, the City of Brisbane has fewer rental units that rent for more than $3,000 (“luxury” units)—19% of units in the city compared to 22% in the county (Figure IV-6).

Cost burden and severe cost burden.

Approximately 60% of renter households in the City of Brisbane are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and nearly one in three are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV-9). 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.

A greater portion of households in the City of Brisbane (41%) struggle with cost burden compared to the county (37%) (Figure IV-8). Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden.

Nearly 80% of households earning less than 30% AMI—considered extremely low income households—are severely cost burdened, compared to only 7% of households earning more than 100% of AMI (Figure IV-10).

There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of Brisbane by race and ethnicity and family size.

Black or African American (85%) and non-Hispanic other race (71%) households experience the highest rates of cost burden in the city. Non-Hispanic White households (30% cost burdened) and Asian households (47%) experience the lowest cost burden (Figure IV-11).

Large family households—considered households with five or more persons—do not experience cost burden in Brisbane. However, 42% of all other household types face housing cost burden (Figure IV-12).

Overcrowding.

The vast majority of households (91%) in the City of Brisbane are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room (Figure IV-15). However, renter households are more likely to be overcrowded with 16% of households with more than one occupant per room compared to 7% of owner households (Figure IV16). 29 The Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) reflects the typical value for owner-occupied homes between the 35th to 65th percentile range. In December 2010, the ZHVI for the City of Brisbane was $528,672. In December 2020, the ZHVI was $1,076,919.

ATTACHMENT 5
377
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-36
In the resident survey, 11% of Brisbane respondents said that their house or apartment isn’t big enough for their family members.

Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. Twenty-nine percent of Asian households and 15% of Hispanic households experience the highest rates of overcrowding in the city (Figure IV-17). Low and moderate income households are also more likely to be overcrowded (Figure IV-18).

Substandard housing.

In the City of Brisbane, there are no renter or owner households that lack complete kitchen or plumbing facilities according to the ACS. The City conducted a survey of housing conditions that found very few homes with visible substandard exterior conditions (reference: Chapter 2, Community Characteristics).

As shown in Appendix C3, Figure 6a, Brisbane resident survey respondents reported higher rates of substandard living conditions compared to other County residents (14% of Brisbane respondents; 29% above County average). Additionally, survey respondents reported that landlords refused to make repairs despite requests to do so (14% of Brisbane respondents; 29% above County average).

Homelessness.

In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county during the One-Day Count, with 40% of people 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 (Figure IV-21).

In San Mateo County, 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 (Figure IV-22 and Figure IV23). People struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental illness (305), and domestic violence (127) represent a substantial share of the County’s homeless population in 2019 (Figure IV-24). Data on unhoused Brisbane residents is not available.

Displacement.

Seventy five percent of households in Brisbane are owner-occupied, which is a higher proportion compared to the county (60%) and the Bay Area (56%).30 Owner households generally enjoy a greater amount of housing stability whereas renter households are more mobile (i.e., move more frequently). Households in the county were more likely to have moved in the past year compared to the households in the city (12% in the county compared to 5% in the city) (Figure IV-25 and Figure IV-26). 30 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 ATTACHMENT 5
378
K.

APPENDIX C
C-37
While the City of Brisbane has no income assisted or deed-restricted housing units31 at risk of conversion to market rate in its housing stock, San Mateo County has 417 units at risk of conversion—8% of the total assisted housing units in the county (Figure IV-27).

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:
➢ 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 close 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”
The resident survey conducted for this study found that 22% of respondents in the City of Brisbane have been displaced in the past five years. The top reason for displacement was “Landlord wanted to move back in/move in family” (29%).

According to the Urban Displacement Project, the City of Brisbane is vulnerable to displacement (Figure IV28). Areas within the City included in the Special Flood Hazard Areas determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having a 1% chance of flooding annually are limited to several properties within the Crocker Industrial Park, including one lot zoned for residential development (25 Park Place; Parkside Overlay PAOZ-1 district), and the Brisbane lagoon (zoned as open space/not developable)(Figure IV31). Other than the one lot zoned for residential development at 25 Park Place, no residential sites or sites planned to be rezoned for residential uses in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element sites inventory are 31 Income assisted housing units refer to HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources are not included in the data.

ATTACHMENT 5
379
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-38
located in a mapped flood hazard area. 25 Park Place does not have realistic development potential during the current Housing Element cycle and is not identified on the City’s quantified objectives for the planning period (reference: Chapter 5, Housing Plan).

Access to mortgage loans.

Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home mortgage applications for people who apply for mortgages to purchase a home in the City of Brisbane, particularly in denial rates (Figure IV-32). Black or African American (33% denial rate) and Hispanic (27%) households had the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019. Conversely, non-Hispanic Asian (19%) and White households (21%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time.

Figure C.8:

Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, City of Brisbane, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, City of Brisbane, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 6% 0%
Asian / API 6% 30%
Black or African American 13% 2%
White 67% 51%
Other Race or Multiple Races 8% 17%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement City of Brisbane San Mateo County Number of Units 0 417
% of Assisted Units 0% 8%
16%
37%
60%
50%
74%
5%
26%
40%
42%
19%
78%
37%
8%
7%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

8.6%

7.6%

5.4%

1.8%

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room
More than 1.5 Occupants per Room
Owner Renter Series3

1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room
ATTACHMENT 5
380
K.

APPENDIX C
C-39
Disabled household housing needs.

While new mixed-use and multi-family developments in Brisbane must meet accessibility standards set out in the Americans with Disability Act (adopted in 1990), the City’s stock of 18 multi-family housing structures were not built with elevators or other accessible features, and the City has not processed permits in the past 15 years for accessibility improvements to these older multi-family structures. This aligns with the findings of the community survey (see Appendix C3, Survey, for relevant survey responses), that for the 37% of respondents living in Brisbane who had a disability, 18% reported their housing situation did not meet their accessibility needs (see Table C.1 below, and Appendix C3, Table 17). The City will address this via enhanced outreach to disabled residents and landlords regarding available grant funding to rehabilitate and retrofit existing structures for ADA compliance (see Fair Housing Action Plan).

Table C.1: Disabled Residents Top Three Accessibility Improvements Needed Percent of
Respondents
with a Disability
Housing Situation
Does Not Meet
Needs
Grab Bars in
Bedroom or
Bench in Shower
Supportive
Services to
Maintain
Housing
Wider
Doorways
Reserved
Accessible
Parking by
Entrance
37% 18% 29% 29% 29% 29%
Reference: Appendix C 3, Figure 17
ATTACHMENT 5
381
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-40
Section V. Site Inventory Analysis
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing. The City’s sites inventory and map for the 2023-2031 RHNA is provided in Chapter 3 of the Housing Element and in Appendix B. The sites inventory table calls out realistic development capacity by income level for each site included in the inventory and AFFH considerations for each site in the inventory.

The City as a whole is considered a moderate resource area. As shown on the TCAC opportunity maps in Section III of this appendix, both existing residentially zoned sites and sites identified to be rezoned for residential in the 2023-2031 sites inventory are in close proximity to:
 High proficiency K-12 education institutions;
 High-resourced areas/positive economic outcome areas;  Low social vulnerability;
 Good jobs proximity;
 Access to transportation; and
 Healthy places.

The City has a relatively small inventory of deed-restricted below market rate housing (25 units; see Chapter 3 of the Housing Element for more detail) located exclusively in Central Brisbane. These sites are not mapped due to their small number.

Fair housing impacts are typically analyzed at a Census tract level. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) HESS mapping tool provided to Bay Area cities and counties for the purposes of evaluating fair housing considerations in evaluating housing sites, as well as opportunity mapping provided by the State of California is provided at the tract level. However, Brisbane contains only one census tract, which makes comparison between individual sites more fine-grained.

The following analyses are conducted at the Census block level. As shown in Table C.2, the majority of RHNA capacity (94%) is projected in Block Group 2, where the Baylands subarea of the City is located. Accordingly, the block group analysis provides a general overview of comparative AFFH indicators between block groups, while a standalone evaluation of the Baylands site is provided following the block-level analysis.

Block group analysis.

Table C.2 shows the estimated number of RHNA units on sites identified in the sites inventory based on which Census block group the site is located in, along with corresponding AFFH indicators. Block groups are shown in the map in Figure C.7. In this analysis, “above the city”—shaded in light yellow—shows block groups with a rate or median that is 25% higher than the city’s rate for the corresponding characteristic. “Below the city”— shown in light green—occurs when the rate or median is 25% lower than the overall city rate for that characteristic.

Block Group 1. Block group 1 is located in western Central Brisbane and has the smallest share of RHNA capacity at 11 units (0.5% of the total RHNA capacity). This block group has higher rates of poverty and cost burden than the City average, and lower shares of families with children, overcrowding, and residents of color. Other indicators are in line with the citywide averages.

Block Group 2. Block group 2 is the largest geographic block group in the City, spanning the City’s newest residential subdivision in the Northeast Ridge subarea, the Baylands subarea, Crocker Industrial Park subarea, the Parkside subarea, and Sierra Point subarea. Existing residential development in this Block group is limited to the Northeast Ridge, so current data is reflective only of the Northeast Ridge development. Block Group 2 ATTACHMENT 5
382
K.

APPENDIX C
C-41
has the highest share of RHNA capacity (94%), with significant residential development expected to occur in the Parkside and Baylands subareas.

This block group has higher rates of families with children (an expected outcome due to the unit size and bedroom mix in the Northeast Ridge subdivision), overcrowding, a higher share of residents of color, and significantly higher median household income than the respective citywide averages. Other indicators are in line with the citywide averages.

Block Group 3. Block Group 3 has the second largest share of RHNA units other than Block Group 2, but still a significantly small portion (2%) of the City’s total RHNA capacity. This block group includes parts of Central Brisbane, the Brisbane Acres subarea, the southern portion of the Southwest Bayshore subarea, and unincorporated San Mateo County lands. Block Group 3 features higher rates of overcrowding and residents of color than the citywide averages, and lower rates of disability, families with children, and renter cost burden. Other indicators are in line with the citywide averages.

Figure C.9: Block Groups in Brisbane
Source: US Census; https://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerweb/; Accessed 7/8/2022 ATTACHMENT 5
383
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-42
Table C.2: RHNA Units by Block Group and AFFH Indicators, City of Brisbane Capacity
(units) Disability
Families
with
Children
Overcrowded
Housing Units
Below
Poverty
Rate
Renter
Cost
Burden
Owner
Cost
Burden
Non-White
Population
Median
Household
Income
Block Group
1 11 10.6% 9.2% 0.0% 9.1% 73.8% 39.4% 28.5% $103,150
Block Group
2 2,046 8.6% 33.0% 8.6% 2.9% 34.6% 27.4% 82.7% $163,516 Block Group
3 48 3.6% 13.0% 8.5% 2.9% 30.2% 37.4% 79.9% $135,724
Block Group
4 25 3.1% 14.3% 5.0% 0.0% 37.5% 36.9% 56.8% n/a
Block Group
5 44 6.6% 22.0% 0.0% 2.8% 28.6% 35.1% 49.2% $108,583
City of
Brisbane*

9.0% 19.4% 4.2% 3.4% 44.7% 35.9% 57.8% $114,583
Below 25% 6.8 14.6 3.2 2.6 33.5 26.9 43.5 85937
Above 25% 11.3 24.3 5.2 4.3 55.9 44.9 72.4 143229
* Baseline Citywide data; 2016-2020 ACS
Block Group 4. Block Group 4 has the second smallest share of RHNA capacity at 25 units (1% of the total RHNA capacity). This block group geographically encompasses the core of Central Brisbane and features lower rates of disability, families with children, and poverty compared to the citywide averages, while the remaining indicators are in line with citywide averages.

Block Group 5. Block Group 5 has the third largest share of RHNA capacity at 44 units (2% of the total RHNA capacity). This block group includes the eastern portion of Central Brisbane and northern portion of the Southwest Bayshore subarea. This block group has lower rates of disability, overcrowding, and renter cost burden compared to the citywide averages, while the remaining indicators are in line with citywide averages.

Individual indicators.

In addition to the block analysis provided above, the City has analyzed the AFFH indicators relative to the household income levels for each site identified in the sites inventory aggregated by income level.

Families with children. Families with children make up 19% of households in Brisbane. All of the City’s RHNA capacity for all income categories are located in a block group that features a rate higher than the City’s average. Given the variety of housing units projected to be accommodated in the Baylands, it may be expected that the resulting share of households with children following buildout will more closely mirror the City’s overall average.

ATTACHMENT 5
384
K.

APPENDIX C
C-43
Table C.3: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of Households with Children* % Household with Children
Note:

Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide Rate

19.4% of households in
the City of Brisbane have
children
Total 2,090 84
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 304 1
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 169 2
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 291 0
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 1,326 81
Source: Total 96% 4%
ABAG HESS Tool and
2016-2020 American
Community Survey
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 100% <1%
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 99% 1%
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 100% 0%
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 94% 6%
* Distribution of ADUs not included; citywide
Overcrowded housing units. Four percent of households in Brisbane experience overcrowding compared to 7% in San Mateo County. Nearly all of the City’s RHNA capacity is located in a block group with overcrowding rates higher than the average citywide rate. However, similarly to the analysis above regarding families with children, the buildout of the Baylands consistent with the pending specific plan application and variety of units contained therein will likely bring more parity between the block groups and the City average.

Table C.4: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of Households with Overcrowding* % Households Overcrowded
Note:

Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide Rate

4.2% of households in the
City of Brisbane are
overcrowded
Total 2,119 55
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 305 0
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 169 2
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 288 3
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 1,357 50
Source: Total 97% 3%
ABAG HESS Tool and
2016-2020 American
Community Survey
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 100% 0%
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 99% 1%
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 99% 1%
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 96% 4%
* Distribution of ADUs not included; citywide
ATTACHMENT 5
385
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-44
Poverty rate. The overwhelming majority (99%) of RHNA capacity is located in block groups with poverty rates that are less than the citywide rate.

Table C.5: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of People Below the Poverty Line* % People below Poverty Line
Note:

Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide Rate

3.4 % of the population in
the City of Brisbane is
below the poverty line
Total 11 2,163
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 0 305
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 0 171
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 0 291
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 11 1,396
Source: Total 1% 99%
ABAG HESS Tool and
2016-2020 American
Community Survey
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 0% 100%
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 0% 100%
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 0% 100%
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 1% 99%
* Distribution of ADUs not included; citywide
Renter and owner cost burden. Renter cost burden is higher than owner cost burden in the City of Brisbane and San Mateo County. The majority (95%) of RHNA capacity at all income levels is located in block groups with renter cost burden that exceeds the citywide rate.

Table C.6: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of Cost Burdened Households (Rent)* % Households Cost Burdened (R)
Note:

Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide Rate

44.7% of households in
the City of Brisbane are
cost burdened by rental
expenses
Total 2,057 117
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 304 1
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 167 4
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 288 3
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 1,298 109
Source: Total 95% 5%
ABAG HESS Tool and
2016-2020 American
Community Survey
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 100% <1%
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 98% 2%
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 99% 1%
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 92% 8%
* Distribution of ADUs not included; citywide
ATTACHMENT 5
386
K.

APPENDIX C
C-45
Table C.7: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of Cost Burdened Households (Own)* % Households Cost Burdened (0)
Note:

Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide Rate

35.9% of households in
the City of Brisbane are
cost burdened by
ownership expenses
Total 2,082 92
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 305 0
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 171 2
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 288 3
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 1,298 87
Source: Total 96% 4%
ABAG HESS Tool and
2016-2020 American
Community Survey
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 100% 0%
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 99% 1%
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 99% 1%
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 94% 6%
* Distribution of ADUs not included; citywide
Non-White population. The City of Brisbane has a non-White population of 58% compared to 61% countywide. The majority (96%) of RHNA capacity at all income levels is located in block groups with a higher share of residents of color compared to the Citywide rate.

Table C.8: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of People of Color* % People of Color
Note:

Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide Rate

57.8% of the population in
the City of Brisbane is a
Person of Color
Total 2,094 80
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 304 1
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 167 4
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 288 3
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 1,335 72
Source: Total 96% 4%
ABAG HESS Tool and 2016-
2020 American
Community Survey
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 100% <1%
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 98% 2%
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 99% 1%
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 95% 5%
* Distribution of ADUs not included; citywide
ATTACHMENT 5
387
K.

APPENDIX C CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
C-46
Disability. The majority of RHNA capacity (99%) is located in block groups with a disability rate that is less than the citywide average.

Table C.9: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of People with a Disability* % People with a Disability
Note:

Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide Rate
9% of the population in
the City of Brisbane has a
disability
Total 11 2,163
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 0 305
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 0 171
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 0 291
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 11 1,396
Source: Total 1% 99%
ABAG HESS Tool and
2016-2020 American
Community Survey
Very Low-Income Units (<50% AMI) 0% 100%
Low-Income Units (50-80% AMI) 0% 100%
Moderate-Income Units (80-120% AMI) 0% 100%
Above Moderate-Income Units (>120% AMI) 1% 99%
* Distribution of ADUs not included; citywide
Considerations unique to the Baylands site.

The Baylands site is the largest site, both in terms of land area and realistic development capacity, on the City’s sites inventory. The City has analyzed and addressed potential AFFH challenges for the Baylands site, particularly its previous use as a landfill and railyard requiring remediation and the relative academic performance of the three elementary and high school districts serving the City which are analyzed below in more detail.

The Baylands Specific Plan (BSP), currently under review by the City, calls for 2,200 new residential units, 7 million square feet of commercial development, high quality transit access via Caltrain and San Francisco’s MUNI light rail, and new passive and active recreation facilities. The City will complete CEQA review and adopt the Specific Plan before January 31, 2026.

The BSP identifies a wide range of housing types, including single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes, lowrise, mid-rise, and high-rise multi-family development that could accommodate a similarly wide-ranging household types and incomes. The BSP also proposes 130 acres of active and passive recreation areas via a combination of parks, plazas, preserves, and pathways, and expansion and improvement of the Bayshore Caltrain station with connections north to San Francisco and south to the Peninsula. The Baylands residential neighborhoods would also be in proximity to Muni light rail service in neighboring San Francisco. Given the scale of development, the Baylands is the best location in the City for affordable and special needs housing, with opportunities for the City to partner with the developer and/or non-profit housing developers to develop high-quality 100% and mixed-income housing and ensure that new housing is accessible to persons with disabilities, particularly in neighborhoods adjacent to the Bayshore Caltrain station.

Site Remediation
The Baylands site is subject to remediation under auspices of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCQB). A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was approved by DTSC in 2021 for a portion of the residentially designated site known as Operating Unit 1. The RWQCB is currently considering a draft RAP for the other portion of the residentially designated site known as Operating Unit 2. The RAPs outline the various alternative approaches to remediation to ensure the health of all users of the site and the preferred approach. The approved DTSC RAP and draft RWQCB RAP meet the ATTACHMENT 5
388
K.

APPENDIX C
C-47
requirements of the City’s voter-approved Measure JJ (approved by the voters in 2018) to require the highest level of remediation possible to allow at-grade residential, educational, and recreational uses.

Implementation of the approved RAPs will dramatically increase the City’s environmental scores and ensure the long-term health and safety of future Baylands residents and residents in proximity to the Baylands in both Brisbane and the City of San Francisco.

Educational Opportunity
As evaluated in detail in Attachment C.2 to this appendix, despite being located in the Brisbane City limits, the Baylands site is located in the Bayshore Elementary School District rather than the Brisbane School District. The site is also served by the Jefferson Union High School District. The TCAC educational opportunity map shown in Figure III-1 (Attachment C.2) generally ranks educational opportunity in Brisbane toward the middle end of the scale (ranging from 0.25-0.50 on a scale from 0-1).

The Baylands development poses a unique opportunity for the potential construction of new school and community facilities and significant improvement of the City’s educational outcomes and opportunity for all three school districts. The City has a strong interest in providing school facilities in the Baylands and hired Capitol PFG and Ryland School Business Consulting to evaluate options to best serve the educational needs of both future and current students. Their findings of a 2020 report32 indicate that anticipated student generation rates will trigger a need for a new elementary school facility considering the capacity constraints of existing facilities in the Bayshore Elementary School District. While the Jefferson Union High School District technically has adequate capacity for high school student generation, the report finds construction of a new high school in the Baylands site to be feasible.
32 What School Districts are in the Baylands? | City of Brisbane (brisbaneca.org) ATTACHMENT 5
389
K.

C.1-1
Appendix C.1: Maps and Data Tables
The maps and data tables contained in this attachment correspond to the sections of Appendix C.

SECTION I. Fa ir Ho u sin g En fo rce m e n t a n d Ou t re a ch Ca p a cit y
Fig u re I-1.

Fa ir Ho u s in g As sis t a n c e Org a n iza t ion s, Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y Source: Organization Websites
Fig u re I-2.

Fa ir Ho u s in g
Co m p la in ts File d
w it h HUD b y
Ba sis, Sa n Ma t e o
Co u n t y, 20 17-
2021
Source:

HUD
Name
Project
Sentinel  Northern California
1490 El Camino
Real, Santa Clara,
CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Legal Aid
Society of San
Mateo County
San Mateo County
330 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 123,
Redwood City, CA
94065
(650) 558-0915 https://www.legalaidsmc.org/h
ousing-resources
Community
Legal Services
of East Palo
Alto
East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park,
Burlingame,
Mountain View,
Redwood City, and
San Francisco
1861 Bay Road,
East Palo Alto, CA
94303
(650)-326-6440 https://clsepa.org/services/#ho
using
Service Area Address Phone Website
ATTACHMENT 5
390
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-2

Fig u re I-3.

HCD Fa ir Ho u s in g In q u irie s (20 13- 20 21) a n d HUD Fa ir Ho u s in g Co m p la in ts (20 17- 20 21)
Source: Organization Websites

ATTACHMENT 5
391
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-3
Fig u re I-4 .

FHEO In q u irie s b y Cit y t o HCD, Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y, 20 13-2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
392
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-4
Fig u re I-5.

HCD Fa ir Ho u sin g In q u irie s b y Bia s , J a n u a ry 20 13-March 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

Jurisdiction
Atherton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belmont 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 9
Brisbane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burlingame 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 6
Colma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daly City 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 9 16
East Palo Alto 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 7
Foster City 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Half Moon Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 9
Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacifica 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 9
Portola Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood City 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 15 24
San Bruno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
San Carlos 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4
San Mateo 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 16 26
South San Francisco 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 6
Woodside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Color
None
Disability Race Cited Total
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex
ATTACHMENT 5
393
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-5
Fig u re I-6 .

P u b lic Ho u s in g Bu ild in g s , Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
394
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-6
Fig u re I-7.

Ho u s in g Ch o ic e Vo u c h e rs b y Ce n s u s Tra c t Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
395
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-7
SECTION II. In t e g ra t io n a n d Se g re g a t io n Ra c e a n d e t h n ic it y.

Fig u re II-1.

P o p u la t io n b y Ra c e a n d Et h n ic it y, 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re II-2.

P o p u la t ion b y Ra ce a n d Eth n icit y, Cit y o f Brisb a n e , 20 0 0 -20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
396
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-8
Fig u re II-3.

Se n io r a n d Yo u t h P o p u la t io n b y Ra c e , City o f Brisb a n e , 20 0 0 -20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re II-4 .

Are a Me d ia n In c o m e b y Ra c e a n d Eth n icity, Cit y o f Brisb a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
397
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-9
Fig u re II-5.

Poverty Rate by Race a n d Et h n ic it y, Cit y o f Bris b a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
398
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-10
Fig u re II-6 .
% Non -W h it e P o p u la t io n b y Ce n s u s Blo c k Gro u p s , 20 18 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
399
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-11
Fig u re II-7.

W h it e Ma jo rit y Ce n su s Tra c t s
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
400
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-12
Fig u re II-8 .

Asia n Ma jo rit y Ce n s u s Tra c t s
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
401
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-13
Fig u re II-9 .

His p a n ic Ma jo rit y Ce n s u s Tra c t s
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
402
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-14
Fig u re II-10 .

Ne ig h b o rh o o d Se g re g a t io n b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
403
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-15
Fig u re II-11.

Dive rs it y In d e x b y Blo c k Gro u p , 20 10
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
404
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-16
Fig u re II-12.

Dive rs it y In d e x b y Blo c k Gro u p , 20 18
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
405
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-17
Disa b ilit y s t a t u s.

Fig u re II-13.

Sh a re o f P o p u la t io n b y Dis a b ilit y St a t u s , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
406
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-18
Fig u re II-14 .
% o f P o p u la t io n w it h a Dis a b ilit y b y Ce n su s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
407
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-19
Fa m ilia l s t a t u s .

Fig u re II-15.

Ag e Dis t rib u t io n , City o f Brisb a n e , 20 0 0 -20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re II-16 .

Sh a re o f Ho u s e h o ld s b y Size , 20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
408
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-20
Fig u re II-17.

Sh a re o f Ho u s e h o ld s b y Typ e , 20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re II-18 .

Sh a re o f Ho u s e h o ld s b y P re s e n c e o f Ch ild re n (Le s s t h a n 18 ye a rs o ld ), 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
409
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-21
Fig u re II-19 .

Ho u s in g Typ e b y Te n u re , Cit y of Brisb a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re II-20 .

Ho u sin g Un it s b y Nu m b e r of Be d ro om s a n d Te n u re , City o f Bris b a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ATTACHMENT 5
410
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-22
Fig u re II-21.
% o f Ch ild re n in Ma rrie d Co u p le Ho u s e h o ld s b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
411
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-23
Fig u re II-22. [le g e n d m is s in g in HCD p ro vid e d m a p ] % Ho u s e h o ld s w it h Sin g le Fe m a le w it h Ch ild re n b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
412
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-24
Fig u re II-23. [le g e n d m is s in g in HCD p ro vid e d m a p ] % o f Ma rrie d Co u p le Ho u s e h o ld s b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
413
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-25
Fig u re II-24 . [le g e n d m is s in g in HCD p ro vid e d m a p ] % o f Ad u lt s Livin g Alo n e b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
414
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-26
Ho u se h o ld in c o m e .

Fig u re II-25.

Sh a re o f Ho u s e h o ld s b y Are a Me d ia n In c o m e (AMI), 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
415
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-27
Fig u re II-26 .

Me d ia n Ho u s e h o ld In c o m e b y Blo c k Gro u p , 20 19 Note: Not all areas in Brisbane coded in dark green (>$125,000) are residentially developed, including all land east of Highway 101.

ATTACHMENT 5
416
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-28
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Fig u re II-27.

Lo w t o Mo d e ra t e In c o m e P o p u la t io n b y Blo c k Gro u p ATTACHMENT 5
417
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-29
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Fig u re II-28 .

P o ve rt y St a t u s b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19
ATTACHMENT 5
418
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-30
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Fig u re II-29.

R/ECAP s a n d Ed g e R/ECAP s , 20 10
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.4% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a nonwhite population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (13% in 2010).

ATTACHMENT 5
419
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-31
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Fig u re II-30.

R/ECAPs an d Ed g e R/ECAP s , 20 19
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.4% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a nonwhite population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (13% in 2010).

ATTACHMENT 5
420
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-32
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer SECTION III. Acce ss t o Op p o rt u n it y
Ed u c a t io n
See Attachment C.2 for additional detailed data and analysis of access to educational opportunity.

ATTACHMENT 5
421
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-33
Fig u re III-1.TCAC Op p o rt u n it y Are a s Ed u c a t io n Sc o re b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 21 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Em p lo ym e n t
Fig u re III-2.

ATTACHMENT 5
422
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-34
J o b s b y In d u s t ry, City o f Brisb a n e , 20 0 2-20 18 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
423
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-35
Fig u re III-3.

J o b Ho ld e rs b y In d u s t ry, Cit y of Brisb a n e , 20 0 2-20 18 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re III-4 .

J o b s t o Ho u s e h o ld Ra t io , Cit y o f Brisb a n e , 20 0 2-20 18 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
424
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-36
Fig u re III-5.

Jobs to W orker Ra t io by Wage , Cit y of Bris b a n e , 20 0 2-20 18 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re III-6 .

Un e m p lo ym e n t Ra t e , 20 10 -20 21
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
425
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-37
Fig u re III-7.

TCAC Op p o rt u n it y Are a s Ec o n o m ic Sc o re b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 21 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
426
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-38
Fig u re III-8 .

J o b s P ro xim it y In d e x b y Blo c k Gro u p , 20 17 ATTACHMENT 5
427
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-39
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Tra n s p o rt a t io n
[TCAC’s transportation opportunity score and maps were not available at the time of this report]
En viro n m e n t

ATTACHMENT 5
428
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-40
Fig u re III-9 .

TCAC Op p o rt u n it y Are a s En viro n m e n t a l Sc o re b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 21 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
429
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-41
Fig u re III-10 .

Ca lEn viro Sc re e n b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 21
ATTACHMENT 5
430
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-42
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Fig u re III-11.

He a lt h y P la c e s In d e x b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 21 ATTACHMENT 5
431
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-43
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer P a t t e rn s in d isp a rit ie s in a c c e ss t o o p p o rt u n it y.

Fig u re III-12.

P o p u la t io n Livin g in Mo d e ra t e a n d Hig h Re sou rce Are s b y Ra ce and Et h n icit y, Cit y of Brisb a n e , 20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re III-13.

P o p u la t io n w it h Lim it e d En g lis h P ro fic ie n c y, Cit y o f Brisb a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
432
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-44
Fig u re III-14 .

TCAC Op p o rt u n it y Are a s Co m p o s it e Sc o re b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 21 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
433
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-45
Fig u re III-15.

So c ia l Vu ln e ra b ilit y In d e x b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 18 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
434
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-46
Fig u re III-16 .

SB 535 Disa d va n t a g e d Co m m u n itie s
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
435
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-47
Disp a rit ie s in a c c e ss t o o p p o rt u n it y fo r p e rso n s w it h d isa b ilit ie s .

Fig u re III-17.

P o p u la t ion b y Dis a b ilit y Status, Cit y of Bris b a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re III-18 .

Dis a b ilit y b y Typ e fo r the Non -In s t it u t io n a lize d P o p u la t io n 18 Ye a rs and Ove r, Cit y of Bris b a n e , 20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
436
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-48
Fig u re III-19 .

Dis a b ilit y b y Typ e fo r Se n io rs (65 ye a rs a n d o ve r), Cit y of Brisb a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re III-20 .

Em p lo ym e n t b y Disa b ilit y St a t u s , Cit y of Brisb a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
437
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-49
Fig u re III-21.

Sh a re o f P o p u la t io n w it h a Dis a b ilit y b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
438
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-50
SECTION IV. Disp ro p o rt io n a t e Ho u sin g Ne e d s Ho u s in g n e e d s.

Fig u re IV-1.

P o p u la t io n In d e xe d t o 19 9 0
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re IV-2.

Ho u sin g P e rm it s
Is s u e d b y In c o m e
Gro u p , Cit y o f
Bris b a n e , 20 15-20 19
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data
Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
439
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-51
Fig u re IV-3.

Ho u s in g Un it s b y Ye a r
Bu ilt , Cit y of Brisb a n e
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re IV-4 .

Dis t rib u t io n o f Ho m e Va lu e for Ow n e r O c c u p ie d Un it s , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
440
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-52
Fig u re IV-5.

Zillo w Ho m e Va lu e In d e x, 20 0 1-2020
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re IV-6 .

Dis t rib u t io n o f Co n t ra c t Re n t s fo r Re n t e r O c c u p ie d Un it s , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
441
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-53
Fig u re IV-7.

Me d ia n Co n t ra c t Re n t , 20 0 9 -20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Cost b urd e n an d se ve re cost b urd e n .

Fig u re IV-8.

O ve rp a ym e n t (Co s t Bu rd e n ) b y J u ris d ic t io n , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
442
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-54
Fig u re IV-9.

Ove rp a ym e n t (Co s t Bu rd e n ) b y Te n u re , Cit y o f Brisb a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re IV-10 .

O ve rp a ym e n t (Co s t Bu rd e n ) b y Are a Me d ia n In c o m e (AMI), City o f Brisb a n e , 20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
443
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-55
Fig u re IV-11.

Ove rp a ym e n t (Co s t Bu rd e n ) b y Ra c e a n d Et h n icit y, Cit y o f Bris b a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re IV-12.

Ove rp a ym e n t (Co st Bu rd e n ) b y Fa m ily Size , Cit y o f Bris b a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
444
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-56
Fig u re IV-13.

O ve rp a ym e n t (Co s t Bu rd e n ) fo r Re n t e r Ho u s e h o ld s b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
445
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-57
Fig u re IV-14 .

O ve rp a ym e n t (Co s t Bu rd e n ) fo r O w n e r Ho u s e h o ld s b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
446
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-58
Ove rc ro w d in g .

Fig u re IV-15.

Occupants per Ro o m b y J u ris d ic t io n , 20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re IV-16 .

Occupants per Ro o m b y Te n u re , Cit y of Brisb a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
447
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-59
Fig u re IV-17.

Ove rcro w d in g b y Ra c e a n d Et h n ic it y, Cit y o f Bris b a n e , 20 19 Note: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re IV-18 .

Occupants per Ro o m b y AMI, Cit y o f Brisb a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ATTACHMENT 5
448
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-60
Fig u re IV-19 .

O ve rc ro w d e d Ho u s e h o ld s b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
449
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-61
Su b s t a n d a rd h o u s in g .

Fig u re IV-20.

P e rc e n t o f Un it s La c k in g Co m p le te Kit ch e n a n d P lu m b in g Fa cilitie s, City o f Brisb a n e , 20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Ho m e le ssn e ss .

Fig u re IV-21.

Ho m e le ssn e ss b y
Ho u s e h o ld Typ e
a n d Sh e lt e r St a t u s ,
Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y,
20 19
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data
Workbook

Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 0 68 198
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 0 271 74
Unsheltered 1 62 838
People in
Households
Solely
Children
People in
Households
Without
Children
People in
Households
with Adults
and Children
ATTACHMENT 5
450
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-62
Fig u re IV-22.

Sh a re o f Ge n e ra l a n d Ho m e le s s P o p u la t io n s b y Ra c e , Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y, 20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re IV-23.

Sh a re o f Ge n e ra l a n d Ho m e le s s P o p u la t io n s b y Et h n icit y, Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y, 20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

ATTACHMENT 5
451
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-63
Fig u re IV-24 .

Ch a ra c t e ris t ic s o f t h e P o p u la t io n Exp e rie n c in g Ho m e le s s n e s s , Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y, 20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Disp la c e m e n t .

Fig u re IV-25.

Lo c a t io n o f P o p u la t io n On e Ye a r Ag o , City o f Brisb a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 46 0 70 31 10
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 46 3 46 4 14
Unsheltered 20 0 189 34 103
Chronic
Substance Abuse HIV/AIDS
Severely
Mentally Ill Veterans
Victims of Domestic
Violence
ATTACHMENT 5
452
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-64
Fig u re IV-26 .

Te n u re b y Ye a r Mo ve d t o Cu rre n t Re s id e n c e , Cit y o f Brisb a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re IV-27.

As sis t e d Un it s a t Risk o f Co n ve rs io n , Cit y o f Bris b a n e , 20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Brisbane 0 0 0 0 0
San Mateo County 4,656 191 359 58 5,264
Bay Area 110,177 3,375 1,854 1,053 116,459
Low Moderate High Very High
Total Assisted Units
in Database
ATTACHMENT 5
453
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-65
Fig u re IV-28.

Ce n s u s Tra c t s Vu ln e ra b le t o Disp la c e m e n t Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
454
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-66
Fig u re IV-29.

Lo c a t io n Affo rd a b ilit y In d e x b y Ce n s u s Tra c t Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
455
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-67
Fig u re IV-30.

Sh a re o f Re n t e r O c c u p ie d Ho u s e h o ld s b y Ce n s u s Tra c t , 20 19 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
456
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-68
Fig u re IV-31.

Sp e cia l Flo o d Ha za rd Are a s , 20 0 0
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ATTACHMENT 5
457
K.

APPENDIX C.1
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-69
Ot h e r c o n sid e ra t io n s.

Fig u re IV-32.

Mo rt g a g e Ap p lica t io n s b y Ra c e a n d Et h n ic it y, Cit y of Brisb a n e , 20 18 -20 19 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Fig u re IV-33.

Mo rt g a g e Ap p lica t io n De n ia l Ra t e b y Ra c e a n d Et h n ic it y, Cit y o f Bris b a n e , 20 18 -20 19
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ATTACHMENT 5
458
K.

APPENDIX C.1 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH & CITY OF BRISBANE C.1-70
ATTACHMENT 5
459
K.

C.2-1
Appendix C.2: Disparate Access to Educational
Opportunities
This section examines the extent to which members of protected classes and those in poverty experience disparities in access to opportunity as measured by access to education. This section draws from data provided by the San Mateo Office of Education, the California Department of Education, and U.S. Census American Community Surveys (ACS). This section discusses the following topics:
 Changes in school enrollment during COVID-19 by race and ethnicity, and by groups with extenuating circumstances;
1  Achievement gaps by race and ethnicity and for groups with extenuating circumstances as measured by test scores, California State University or University of California admissions standards, and college-going rates;  Barriers to success measured by chronic absenteeism, dropout rates, and suspension rates.

After describing this section’s primary findings, we describe the county’s school districts before launching into data measuring achievement gaps and barriers to success. Brisbanespecific data are shown in bolded and highlighted text.

Primary Findings
Student racial and ethnic diversity is modestly increasing. Student bodies in San Mateo County have become increasingly racially and ethnically diverse.  Hispanic students make up the largest ethnic group in the county’s schools, representing 38% of students in the 2020-2021 academic school year. This a slight increase from the 2010-2011 school year, where Hispanic students made up 37% of the population.
 There has been a large increase in Asian students, with 17% identifying as such in 2020-2021, an increase of 5 percentage points from 2010-2011.  Students identifying as White (26%) have decreased by 3 percentage points since 2010- 2011.
1 The term “extenuating circumstances” is used in this section to capture students whose socioeconomic situations and/or disability may make standard educational environments challenging.

ATTACHMENT 5
460
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-2
Free and reduced lunch-qualifying students and English language learners are concentrated in a handful of schools. Overall, 29% of public school students in San Mateo County qualify for reduced or free lunch.  The rate of reduced lunch qualification was highest in Ravenswood City Elementary School District, where 83% of students qualify for reduced lunch. Also in Ravenswood City Elementary, 30% of students are experiencing homelessness. This is a large outlier in the county, where overall just 2% are experiencing homelessness.  Countywide, 20% of public school students are English learners. Again, this rate is highest at Ravenswood City Elementary, where 53% of students are English learners.

La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District, Jefferson Union High School District, and Redwood City Elementary also have high rates of English learners, representing more than a third of students.

Enrollment is dropping. Public school enrollment reduced substantially in some areas during the pandemic. Total enrollment decreased by 3% between 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 in San Mateo County, which was the largest decrease of the decade.  Portola Valley and La Honda-Pescadero school districts had the largest enrollment decreases during COVID-19, with a 11% and 10% decline in enrollments, respectively.  Decreased enrollment was especially common among Pacific Islander students.

Between 2019-2021, enrollment among Pacific Islander students decreased by 6% (from 1,581 students in 2019-20 to 1,484 students in 2020-21), substantially higher than the 3% countywide average.
 Enrollment among migrant students decreased drastically by 16% over the same period (from 332 students to 279 students).

Learning proficiency is improving yet disparities exist. Across all racial and ethnic groups, the rate at which students met or exceeded English and mathematics testing standards has increased since the 2014-2015 school year. Students with extenuating circumstances (i.e., disability, facing homelessness, learning English) tend to score lower on English and mathematics tests than the overall student body.  Proficiency gaps are especially pronounced among English learning students in Portola Valley Elementary, Woodside Elementary, Menlo Park City Elementary, and Brisbane Elementary, where students with extenuating circumstances met or exceeded mathematics test standards at a rate at least 50 percentage points below the overall test rate in each district.
 Students with disabilities in San Carlos Elementary and Las Lomitas Elementary school districts scored far below the overall student body: In these districts, students with disabilities met or exceeded mathematics test standards at 54 percentage points below the overall test rate.

ATTACHMENT 5
461
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-3
Many students meet admissions standards for CSU or UC schools.  Among the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards, at 69%. On the other end of the spectrum, Cabrillo Unified and South San Francisco Unified had the lowest rates at 41%.
 Jefferson Union High School District had the most drastic increase in the share of graduates meeting CSU or UC standards: just 21% of students met these standards in 2016-2017 compared to 48% of students in 2019-2020. La HondaPescadero Unified School District experienced a 10 percentage point increase in this success rate over the same period.

Most school districts in the county have a college-going rate at 70% or higher—yet there are wide gaps by race and ethnicity.
 In every district, White students have a higher college-going rate than Hispanic students, but the largest gaps are in South San Francisco United, where 91% of White students go to college compared to just 68% of Hispanic students—a 23 percentage point gap.

Students with extenuating circumstances are highly concentrated in a few schools and move schools often due to housing instability.  Students with extenuating circumstances may need additional resources—e.g., onsite health care, free meals, tutoring—to be successful in school. When these students are concentrated into a few schools, the schools bear an unequal responsibility for providing needed resources. K-12 school funding in California has long been inadequate, and, although policymakers have recently allocated additional resources to schools with high proportions of low income children under a “concentration grant” system, funding gaps remain.
 The highest concentration of high needs students is found in Ravenswood City Elementary, where 30% of all students are experiencing homelessness and 83% qualify for free and reduced lunch.
 Currently, students whose families have been evicted do not have protections allowing them to remain in their current school district. This can result in frequent changes in schools for low income children, raising their vulnerability to falling behind in school.

Absenteeism, dropout rates, and discipline rates are highest for students of color, students with disabilities, and students with other extenuating circumstances. While 10% of students were chronically absent during the 2018-2019 school year, chronic absenteeism rates were higher in districts with a large number of students experiencing economic and housing precarity.  For instance, Ravenswood Elementary, which has a 30% rate of homelessness among students, had one of the higher rates of chronic absenteeism at 16%.

ATTACHMENT 5
462
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-4
 Pacific Islander students (26%), Black/African American students (18%), and Hispanic students (15%) had notably higher rates of chronic absenteeism than the overall student population (10%).
 In most districts, chronic absenteeism is higher among students with disabilities. In fact, only Bayshore Elementary’s students with disabilities had a lower rate of chronic absenteeism than the overall student body.

Dropout rates vary across the county:
 Dropout rates were highest in Sequoia Union High School District (10%) and South San Francisco Unified (9%).
 In all school districts in the county, dropout rates are higher for boys than for girls.  Pacific Islander, Black/African American, and Hispanic students in the county often had higher dropout rates than those in other racial and ethnic groups  Students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness, foster youth, and students learning English had higher dropout rates than the overall population.

Discipline rates also vary by area and race and ethnicity.  In many school districts across San Mateo County, Hispanic students are disciplined at disproportionately higher rates compared to their peers.  In most districts, Black/African American and Pacific Islander students are also overrepresented in terms of suspension rates, but these rates are slight compared to those of Hispanic students.
 Asian and Filipino students were underrepresented in terms of suspension rates.

White students were also underrepresented in discipline rates in most districts except for La Honda-Pescadero.

The demographics of faculty and staff are fairly similar to that of students.  There is a slightly larger share of White and Black/African American staff than students, meaning that Black/African American and White student groups are more likely to interact with same-race staff and faculty than other racial groups.  Asian students are less likely to interact with a same-race staff of faculty member: 17% of the student body is Asian compared to just 8% of staff and faculty.

Background
This section describes the school districts in San Mateo County, including their geographic boundaries and a brief history of the school districts’ formation. This section also includes details on how districts’ enrollments and student demographic have changed over time.

ATTACHMENT 5
463
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-5
San Mateo County School Districts. There are three unified school districts in San Mateo County which include both elementary and high schools. These are Cabrillo Unified School District, La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District, and South San Francisco Unified School District.

In addition to the unified school districts, there are three high school districts, which include: Jefferson Union High School District, San Mateo Union High School District, and Sequoia Union High School District. The elementary schools covering these high schools’ district boundaries areas are described below:
▪ In the Jefferson Union High School District geographic boundary, elementary school districts are the Bayshore Elementary School District, Brisbane School District, Jefferson Elementary School District, and Pacifica School District. ▪ Within the San Mateo Union High School District geographic boundary, elementary school districts include San Mateo-Foster City School District, Hillsborough City School District, Burlingame School District, San Bruno Park School District, and Millbrae School District.
▪ Within the Sequoia Union High School District geographic boundary, the elementary schools include Belmont-Redwood Shores School District, San Carlos School District, Redwood City School District, Ravenswood City School District, Menlo Park City School District, Woodside Elementary School District, Las Lomitas Elementary School District, and Portola Valley School District.

Geographic boundaries of school districts. Figure V-1 illustrates the geographic boundaries of the unified school districts as well as the three high school districts. Municipal boundaries are overlayed on the map.

ATTACHMENT 5
464
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-6
Figure V-1.

Unified School Districts and High School Districts in San Mateo County Source: San Mateo County Office of Education.

As illustrated in the map, Cabrillo Unified School District covers Half Moon Bay and some unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. South San Francisco Unified covers South San ATTACHMENT 5
465
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-7
Francisco and a small portion of Daly City. La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District covers unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

The other high school districts, Jefferson Union, San Mateo Union, and Sequoia Union, cover the remaining jurisdictions. Jefferson Union covers Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, and Pacifica. San Mateo Union covers Burlingame, Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Bruno, San Mateo City, and Foster City. Sequoia Union covers Atherton, Belmont, Redwood City, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Carlos, Portola Valley, and Woodside.

The county’s elementary school districts cover the same areas as the three high school districts. Their geographic boundaries are illustrated in the map below.

ATTACHMENT 5
466
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-8
Figure V-2.

Elementary School Districts in San Mateo County
Source: San Mateo County Office of Education.

ATTACHMENT 5
467
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-9
Because the elementary school districts are much smaller, many jurisdictions have several elementary schools. The table blow shows each jurisdiction and their associated elementary school districts.

Figure V-3.

School Districts in San Mateo County’s Jurisdictions
Source: San Mateo County Office of Education.

A brief history of district formation. San Mateo County’s numerous school districts were formed over a century ago, when the county was more rural and scattered:
communities needed elementary schools close to home, and only a few students were attending high school. As young people began going to high school, individual districts often found they had too few students and resources to support their own high schools, so Jurisdiction
Atherton Sequoia Union
Menlo Park City ; Las Lomitas Elementary;
Redwood City
Belmont Sequoia Union Belmont-Redwood Shores
Brisbane Jefferson Union Brisbane; Bayshore Elementary
Burlingame San Mateo Union Burlingame
Colma Jefferson Union Jefferson Elementary
Daly City Jefferson Union; South San Francisco Unified Jefferson Elementary East Palo Alto Sequoia Union Ravenswood City
Foster City San Mateo Union San Mateo-Foster City
Half Moon Bay Cabrillo Unified (none, included in Cabrillo Unified) Hillsborough San Mateo Union Hillsborough City
Menlo Park Sequoia Union
Menlo Park City; Las Lomitas Elementary;
Ravenswood City
Millbrae San Mateo Union Millbrae
Pacifica Jefferson Union Pacifica
Portola Valley Sequoia Union Portola Valley
Redwood City Sequoia Union Redwood City
San Bruno San Mateo Union San Bruno Park
San Carlos Sequoia Union San Carlos; Redwood City
San Mateo San Mateo Union San Mateo-Foster City
South San Francisco South San Francisco Unified (none, included in South San Francisco Unified) Woodside Sequoia Union
Woodside Elementary; Portola Valley; Las
Lomitas; Redwood City
Unified or High School District Elementary School District(s) ATTACHMENT 5
468
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-10
separate high school districts, covering the territories of two or more elementary districts, were established to meet the communities’ needs.2
Once California’s population grew and San Mateo County became more urbanized, “a jigsaw puzzle of overlapping districts evolved haphazardly.” Since 1920, the state has been pushing elementary districts to unify with the high school districts that serve their communities, citing improved educational quality and equity of opportunity. However, there has been limited success and local voters in San Mateo County have consistently resisted unification.3
Early efforts at unification were more successful in the rural communities along the coast— for example, voters approved the new Cabrillo Unified district for the area around Half Moon Bay and the La Honda-Pescadero Unified district in a 1964 election. Unification was not supported by many suburban communities edging the Bay. The county’s school district committee proposed to split each of the three high school districts and feeder schools into two or three smaller unified districts, but the State Board of Education rejected variations of those plans three times. The Board argued that the county committee’s proposals would create districts with widely varying property tax bases and could contribute to racial segregation. The State Board instead devised a plan that would create a single unified district within each of the existing high school district boundaries. Voters turned down the state plans in all three districts in June 1966, and rejected a similar proposal again in 1972.

In 1973, the Mid-Peninsula Task Force for Integrated Education petitioned the county committees to unify the elementary districts of Menlo Park, Las Lomitas, Portola Valley, Ravenswood and a portion of Sequoia Union High School District across county lines with Palo Alto Unified. Their goal was racial integration, but the county committee did not support the effort.4
Efforts against unification have persisted, leaving the county with several elementary school districts which feed into a high school, rather than a unified district. As a result, some elementary school districts have faced waning budgets and administrative hurdles.

For instance, Brisbane and Bayshore elementary school districts, at the northern end of the county, serve a little more than 1,000 students and long have struggled with tight budgets. To rectify their budgetary concerns, the districts now share both a superintendent and a chief business officer. They also participate in a special education collaborative with the Jefferson elementary and high school districts.

According to the county’s superintendent of schools Anne Campbell, other districts may find themselves pooling their resources in the future: local identification may be strong, 2 Watson, Aleta. “How Did We End Up With 54 School Districts in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties?” Silicon Valley Community Foundation, 2012. https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/sites/default/files/report-edu.pdf 3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.

ATTACHMENT 5
469
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-11
she says, but financial reality is hard to ignore: “As we move forward in time, I think it’s going to be interesting to see what school districts are going to do, especially as budgets get more bleak.”
5 Enrollment changes. Total public school enrollment in the county has decreased slightly, by just 1%, from the 2010-2011 academic year to 2020-2021. Figure V-4 illustrates enrollment changes by district.

Bayshore Elementary, Ravenswood City, and Portola Valley school districts experienced the largest enrollment decreases (by at least 30%) between 2010-11 and 2020-21.

School districts with the largest increases in enrollments were Burlingame (22%) and Belmont-Redwood Shores (30%).
5 Ibid.

ATTACHMENT 5
470
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-12
Figure V-4.

Enrollment changes by district, 2010-11 to 2020-2021
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research However, it is important to note that many of these enrollment decreases were driven by the pandemic. In fact, total enrollment in these public schools decreased by 3% between School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 3,352 2,934 -12%
La Honda-Pescadero 341 275 -19%
South San Francisco 9,312 8,182 -12%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 4,960 4,705 -5%
Bayshore Elementary 543 361 -34%
Brisbane Elementary 545 474 -13%
Jefferson Elementary 6,998 6,653 -5%
Pacifica 3,164 3,006 -5%
San Mateo Union High School 8,406 9,760 16%
Burlingame Elementary 2,771 3,387 22%
Hillsborough City Elementary 1,512 1,268 -16%
Millbrae Elementary 2,222 2,238 1%
San Bruno Park Elementary 2,599 2,275 -12%
San Mateo-Foster City 10,904 10,969 1%
Sequoia Union High School 8,765 10,327 18%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 3,206 4,152 30%
Las Lomitas Elementary 1,336 1,116 -16%
Menlo Park City Elementary 2,629 2,781 6%
Portola Valley Elementary 711 491 -31%
Ravenswood City Elementary 4,285 2,993 -30%
Redwood City Elementary 9,119 8,086 -11%
San Carlos Elementary 3,212 3,265 2%
Woodside Elementary 453 369 -19%
Total Enrollment 91,345 90,067 -1%
2010-2011
Enrollment
2020-2021
Enrollment Percent Change
ATTACHMENT 5
471
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-13
2019-2020 and 2020-2021 in San Mateo County: the largest decrease of the decade. As shown in Figure V-5, enrollments actually increased steadily from 2010-2011 to 2017-2018, then began decreasing afterwards.

Figure V-5.

Public School Enrollment Changes, 2010-2011 to 2020-2021 Note: These data exclude enrollments in SBE Everest Public High School District, which in 2015 combined with the Sequoia Union High School District.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research Portola Valley and La Honda-Pescadero school districts had the largest enrollment decreases during COVID-19, with a 11% and 10% decline in enrollments, respectively. The only school district with increasing enrollments between the 2019-2020 to 2020-2021 school years was Sequoia Union High School District, with a modest 1% increase in enrollments.

ATTACHMENT 5
472
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-14
Figure V-6.

Enrollment changes by district during COVID-19, 2019-20 to 2020-21 Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research.

Declining enrollments in public schools have been common across the state and country during the COVID-19 pandemic, and enrollment declines in San Mateo County are on par School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 3,136 2,934 -6%
La Honda-Pescadero 306 275 -10%
South San Francisco 8,438 8,182 -3%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 4,811 4,705 -2%
Bayshore Elementary 381 361 -5%
Brisbane Elementary 476 474 0%
Jefferson Elementary 6,687 6,653 -1%
Pacifica 3,110 3,006 -3%
San Mateo Union High School 9,885 9,760 -1%
Burlingame Elementary 3,534 3,387 -4%
Hillsborough City Elementary 1,290 1,268 -2%
Millbrae Elementary 2,349 2,238 -5%
San Bruno Park Elementary 2,454 2,275 -7%
San Mateo-Foster City 11,576 10,969 -5%
Sequoia Union High School 10,238 10,327 1%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 4,314 4,152 -4%
Las Lomitas Elementary 1,208 1,116 -8%
Menlo Park City Elementary 2,922 2,781 -5%
Portola Valley Elementary 551 491 -11%
Ravenswood City Elementary 3,269 2,993 -8%
Redwood City Elementary 8,530 8,086 -5%
San Carlos Elementary 3,405 3,265 -4%
Woodside Elementary 376 369 -2%
Total Enrollment 93,246 90,067 -3%
2019-2020
Enrollment
2020-2021
Enrollment Percent Change
ATTACHMENT 5
473
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-15
with those across the state. According to a study conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, public K–12 enrollment declined by 3% in California from the 2019-2020 school year to the 2020-2021 school year. 6
As funding is tied directly to the number of enrolled pupils, schools in San Mateo County could suffer fiscal consequences with continued declines. By law, districts are “held harmless” for declines for one year—that is, school budgets for 2020–2021 were unaffected, but continued enrollment declines could mean cuts in future years.7 Reductions in enrollments, and consequently funding, could also worsen economic inequality in the long-term by reducing students’ resources and access to opportunities.

Demographics: race & ethnicity. Over the last decade, San Mateo County’s school districts have diversified in terms of students’ race and ethnicity. Hispanic students make up the largest ethnic group in the county’s schools: 38% of students identified as Hispanic in the 2020-2021 academic school year. This is just a one percentage point increase from 2010-2011. Many other students are White (26%), though this has decreased by 3 percentage points since 2010-2011. The largest increase was in Asian students, with 17% identifying as such in 2020-2021, an increase of 5 percentage points from 2010-2011.

Other students identify as Filipino (8%), or bi- or multi-racial (8%). A small and decreasing percentage of students identify as Black/African American (1%) and Pacific Islander (2%). 6 Lafortune, Julien & Prunty, Emmanuel. “Digging into Enrollment Drops at California Public Schools.” Public Policy Institute of California. May 14, 2021. https://www.ppic.org/blog/digging-into-enrollment-drops-at-california-publicschools/ 7 Ibid.

ATTACHMENT 5
474
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-16
Figure V-7.

Changes in Race and
Ethnicity, 2010-2011 to 2020-
2021
Note: These data exclude enrollments in SBE
Everest Public High School District, which
in 2015 combined with the Sequoia Union
High School District.

Source: California Department of Education and
Root Policy Research
:

Figure V-8 shows the racial and ethnic distribution of students enrolled in public schools by jurisdiction in 2020-2021.
▪ Portola Valley Elementary School District (66%) and Woodside Elementary School District (64%) had the highest share of White students, making them among the least racially and ethnically diverse districts in the county. ▪ Ravenswood City Elementary School District and Redwood City Elementary School District had the highest share of Hispanic students, at 84% and 70%, respectively. ▪ Ravenswood City also had the highest proportion of Pacific Islander students (7%) and Black/African American students (5%) compared to other districts. ▪ Millbrae Elementary (46%), Hillsborough Elementary (32%), and Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary (32%) had the highest share of Asian students. ▪ Jefferson Elementary School District and Jefferson Union High School District had the highest portion of Filipino students, at 25% and 29% respectively.

ATTACHMENT 5
475
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-17
Figure V-8.

Student body by Race and Ethnicity, 2020-2021
Note: In almost all school districts, less than 1% of students were Native American, so they are not included in this table.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research Enrollment changes due to COVID-19 varied by race and ethnicity. For instance, between 2019-2021, enrollment among Pacific Islander students decreased by 6% (from 1,581 students in 2019-20 to 1,484 students in 2020-21). This is substantially higher than the 3% countywide average. Enrollments among Filipino and Hispanic students decreased by 4% while enrollment among Black/African American students decreased by 2%. On the other School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 1% 0% 1% 52% 0% 40% 5%
La Honda-Pescadero 0% 0% 1% 63% 0% 35% 1%
South San Francisco 14% 1% 23% 48% 2% 6% 6%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 15% 1% 29% 31% 1% 14% 7%
Bayshore Elementary 19% 3% 21% 41% 4% 3% 8%
Brisbane Elementary 20% 1% 12% 28% 0% 24% 11%
Jefferson Elementary 19% 2% 25% 36% 1% 11% 5%
Pacifica 8% 1% 9% 26% 0% 39% 16%
San Mateo Union High School 23% 1% 5% 32% 2% 28% 10%
Burlingame Elementary 27% 0% 3% 16% 0% 41% 9%
Hillsborough Elementary 32% 0% 2% 5% 0% 48% 12%
Millbrae Elementary 46% 1% 6% 20% 2% 16% 8%
San Bruno Park Elementary 16% 1% 10% 41% 5% 15% 1%
San Mateo-Foster City 26% 1% 3% 37% 2% 21% 9%
Sequoia Union High School 9% 2% 1% 45% 2% 35% 5%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 32% 1% 3% 12% 1% 34% 14%
Las Lomitas Elementary 18% 1% 1% 13% 0% 53% 14%
Menlo Park City Elementary 13% 1% 1% 17% 1% 55% 11%
Portola Valley Elementary 6% 0% 0% 14% 0% 66% 13%
Ravenswood City Elementary 0% 5% 0% 84% 7% 1% 2%
Redwood City Elementary 4% 1% 1% 70% 1% 19% 4%
San Carlos Elementary 18% 1% 1% 14% 0% 49% 13%
Woodside Elementary 4% 2% 0% 16% 1% 64% 11%
Total 17% 1% 8% 38% 2% 26% 8%
Asian White
Two or
Black Filipino Hispanic more races
Pacific
Islander
ATTACHMENT 5
476
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-18
end of the spectrum, there was a 3% increase in enrollment among White students (from 22,308 students to 23,055 students) between 2019-20 and 2020-21. Similarly, there was a 1% increase in enrollment among Asian students and a 4% increase among students of two or more races.

Figure V-9.

Enrollment Changes by Race and Ethnicity, San Mateo County, 2019-20 to 2020-21
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research While many of their families may have simply moved out of San Mateo County during the pandemic, it is possible that Black/African American, Filipino, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander students are otherwise slipping through the cracks of the education system during this period.

Demographics: students with extenuating circumstances. Many students in the county’s public schools are facing additional hurdles to educational ease.

Many are English learners, qualify for reduced lunch, are foster children, are experiencing homelessness, have a disability, or are migrants. Students in these groups often have hindrances to excelling in school because of detrimental circumstances beyond their control. These include financial and social hardships as well as problems within students' families.

Qualification for free and reduced lunch is often used as a proxy for extenuating circumstances. Qualifications are determined based on household size and income. For instance, in the 2020-2021 academic year, students from a household of three making less ATTACHMENT 5
477
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-19
than $40,182 annually qualified for reduced price meals, and those making less than $28,236 in a household of three qualified for free meals.8 Free and reduced lunch disparities. Overall, 29% of public school students in San Mateo County qualify for reduced or free lunch. This rate was substantially lower in districts like Hillsborough Elementary, San Carlos Elementary, Portola Valley Elementary, Las Lomitas Elementary, Belmont-Redwood Shores, and Menlo Park City Elementary, where each had less than 10% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch.

The rate of reduced lunch qualification was far higher in Ravenswood City Elementary School District, where 83% of students qualify for reduced lunch.

Disparities in homelessness. In Ravenswood City Elementary, 30% of students are experiencing homelessness. This is an outlier in the county, where overall just 2% are experiencing homelessness. The school district has received media attention due to its astronomically high rate of students experiencing homelessness. Some have noted that rates of homelessness have increased due to escalating costs of living in an area surrounded by affluence.
9 Others have highlighted that ”Having a roof over your head, having a safe place to sleep and study, is fundamental to absolutely everything," and have noted that students who experience homelessness have higher dropout rates and are more likely to experience homelessness as adults.10
School moves related to evictions. Currently, students whose families have been evicted do not have protections allowing them to remain in their current school district.

This means that precarious housing also means precarious schooling for many of the county’s students. Frequent moves by students are closely related to lower educational proficiency.

In the City of San Francisco, a 2010 ordinance protects some students from being evicted during the school year; however, it only relates to owner/relative move-in evictions.11 Children in families who are evicted for other reasons may need to move schools or districts when their housing is lost.

English language learners. Countywide, 20% of public school students are English learners. Again, this rate is highest at Ravenswood City Elementary, where 53% of students are English learners. La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District, Jefferson Union High 8 “Income Eligibility Scales for School Year 2020-2021.” California Department of Education. 9 Bartley, Kaitlyn. “Homelessness: The shadow that hangs over students in this Bay Area school district.” The Mercury News. December 2018.
10 Jones, Carolyn. “California schools see big jump in homeless students.” Palo Alto Online. October 2020. 11 https://sfrb.org/new-amendment-prohibiting-owner-move-evictions-minor-children-during-school-year ATTACHMENT 5
478
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-20
School, and Redwood City Elementary also have high rates of English learners, representing more than a third of students.

Less than one percent of students in San Mateo County public school districts are foster youth or migrants. Cabrillo Unified School District had the highest rate of migrant students at 3%. La Honda-Pescadero had the highest rate of foster children at 2%.

School districts without large low income populations also tend to serve very few English language learners. For instance, in Hillsborough Elementary where 0% of students qualify for reduced lunch, only 1% of students are English language learners.

ATTACHMENT 5
479
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-21
Figure V-10.

Students with Extenuating Circumstances, 2020-2021
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research The overall share of students in these groups has not changed drastically over time. As shown in Figure V-11, there have been slight decreases in the share of students who are English learners and the share of students who qualify for reduced lunch from 2016-2017 School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 20% 37% 0% 2% 3%
La Honda-Pescadero 38% 38% 2% 1% 1%
South San Francisco 21% 34% 0% 1% 1%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 36% 44% 0% 0% 0%
Bayshore Elementary 30% 57% 0% 0% 0%
Brisbane Elementary 16% 19% 0% 0% 0%
Jefferson Elementary 14% 27% 0% 1% 0%
Pacifica 9% 18% 0% 1% 0%
San Mateo Union High School 10% 21% 0% 0% 0%
Burlingame Elementary 13% 11% 0% 0% 0%
Hillsborough Elementary 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Millbrae Elementary 19% 25% 0% 0% 0%
San Bruno Park Elementary 29% 18% 0% 0% 0%
San Mateo-Foster City 26% 28% 0% 2% 0%
Sequoia Union High School 15% 30% 0% 0% 0%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 10% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Las Lomitas Elementary 7% 6% 0% 0% 0%
Menlo Park City Elementary 6% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Portola Valley Elementary 4% 5% 0% 0% 0%
Ravenswood City Elementary 53% 83% 0% 30% 0%
Redwood City Elementary 38% 56% 0% 2% 1%
San Carlos Elementary 5% 6% 0% 0% 0%
Woodside Elementary 8% 10% 0% 0% 0%
Total 20% 29% <1% 2% <1%
Migrant
Reduced
Lunch
English
Learners
Foster
Children Homeless
ATTACHMENT 5
480
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-22
to 2020-2021. Around 2% of students in the county are homeless and this has not changed between 2016-2017 and 2020-2021. Foster youth and migrant students are not shown in the figure, as both have hovered at less than 1% from year to year.

Figure V-11.

Changes in rates of English
Leaners, Reduced Lunch,
and Homelessness, 2016-
2017 to 2020-2021
Note: These data exclude enrollments in SBE
Everest Public High School District, which
in 2015 combined with the Sequoia Union
High School District.

Source: California Department of Education and
Root Policy Research
:

During COVID-19, enrollments decreased by 3% between 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years, as families withdrew or did not reenroll their children from public schools.

Enrollment among migrant students decreased much more drastically, by 16% (from 332 students to 279 students). Similarly, enrollment among students who qualify for reduced lunch declined at a higher rate (10%) than the overall student population. Foster children and English learners also experienced enrollment decreases at a rate higher than the total population, with 7% and 10% decreases in enrollment, respectively.

ATTACHMENT 5
481
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-23
Figure V-12.

Enrollment Changes by Extenuating Circumstance, San Mateo County, 2019-2020 to 2020-2021
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research Achievement Gaps
This section details achievement gaps within school districts. Gaps are measured by test scores, meeting California State University or University of California admissions standards, and college-going rates.

Test scores. Figure V-13 indicates the percent of students who met or exceeded English and mathematics testing standards set by the California State Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. Overall, 62% of students in the county met or exceeded English testing standards and 52% met or exceeded mathematics testing standards.

Of all the districts with high schools, San Mateo Union High School District had the highest student pass rates: 70% of their students met or exceeded standards in English testing and 50% met or exceeded standards in mathematics testing.

Among elementary school districts, Portola Valley Elementary School District and Woodside Elementary School District had the highest rates of success in English, with 87% and 88% of students meeting or exceeding English testing standards, respectively. Woodside Elementary School District and Hillsborough Elementary School District had the highest rates of success in mathematics, with 84% and 85% meeting math testing standards, respectively.

In every school district, girls scored higher on English tests than boys. Overall, girls met or exceeded English testing at a rate of 67% while boys met or exceeded English testing at a rate of 57%. The largest gender gap was in Brisbane Elementary School District, where ATTACHMENT 5
482
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-24
72% of girls met or exceeded English testing standards and just 56% of boys did: a gap of 16 percentage points.

Gender gaps in mathematics were less pronounced, but the largest gender gaps were in Cabrillo Unified School District and in La Honda Pescadero Unified School District. In Cabrillo Unified, girls passed mathematics at a rate 7% higher than boys, while in La Honda-Pescadero, boys passed at a rate 6% higher than girls.

Figure V-14.

Students who Met or Exceeded Testing Standards, by Gender and District, 2018-2019
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research The gender gap in test scores has started to close in recent years, as indicated in Figure V15. In 2014-2015 there was a 11 percentage point gap in girls’ and boys’ English testing pass District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 48% 41% 55% 34% 31% 38%
La Honda-Pescadero 43% 36% 49% 31% 34% 28%
South San Francisco 52% 45% 60% 44% 42% 45%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 57% 52% 63% 37% 38% 35%
Bayshore Elementary 27% 24% 31% 27% 27% 28%
Brisbane Elementary 64% 56% 72% 54% 56% 53%
Jefferson Elementary 48% 43% 54% 37% 39% 35%
Pacifica 60% 55% 65% 57% 57% 57%
San Mateo Union High School 70% 66% 76% 50% 50% 50%
Burlingame Elementary 80% 75% 84% 78% 78% 78%
Hillsborough Elementary 85% 81% 89% 85% 86% 84%
Millbrae Elementary 63% 57% 70% 58% 58% 58%
San Bruno Park Elementary 50% 47% 53% 41% 43% 38%
San Mateo-Foster City 62% 58% 67% 56% 56% 56%
Sequoia Union High School 68% 64% 72% 50% 50% 50%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 82% 78% 86% 79% 78% 80%
Las Lomitas Elementary 86% 84% 88% 82% 84% 80%
Menlo Park City Elementary 84% 81% 87% 83% 82% 83%
Portola Valley Elementary 87% 83% 91% 83% 84% 82%
Ravenswood City Elementary 22% 20% 23% 15% 16% 13%
Redwood City Elementary 54% 49% 59% 46% 46% 46%
San Carlos Elementary 80% 77% 83% 75% 76% 74%
Woodside Elementary 88% 85% 91% 84% 85% 83%
Total 62% 57% 67% 52% 52% 52%
English Language Arts/Literacy Mathematics
Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls
ATTACHMENT 5
483
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-25
rates, and by 2018-2019 this was just a 10 percentage point gap. The figure also indicates that there have been steady gains in the share of students meeting or exceeding testing standards in the county.

Figure V-15.

Students who Met or Exceeded Testing Standards, by Gender, 2014-2015 to 2018-2019
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research Very large gaps in test scores by race and ethnicity exist among students in some areas.

Figure V-16 illustrates the rate at which students of various racial and ethnic groups met or exceeded English testing standards.

For the past five years in San Mateo County, Asian, White, and Filipino students have met or exceeded English testing standards at rates higher than the overall student population.

Hispanic, Black/African American, and Pacific Islander students, on the other hand, have been underserved in this realm and have consistently scored lower than the overall student body.

However, across all groups, the rate at which students met or exceed English testing standards has increased since the 2014-2015 school year. Hispanic students have made the largest percentage point gain: 34% met standards in 2014-2015 and 40% met standards in 2019-19, an increase of six percentage points.

ATTACHMENT 5
484
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-26
Figure V-16.

Students who Met or Exceeded English Testing Standards, by Race and Ethnicity, 2014-2015 to 2018-2019
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research A similar narrative holds in Math testing standards, where scores have improved among each racial and ethnic group from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019. Again, White and Asian students meet or exceed math testing standards at rates higher than the overall population while Hispanic, Pacific Islander, and Black/African American students scored lower.

White and Hispanic students have seen the biggest increases in rates of mathematics success: both have experienced a five percentage point increase in the percent of students who met or exceeded math testing standards.

ATTACHMENT 5
485
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-27
Figure V-17.

Students who Met or Exceeded mathematics testing standards, by Race and Ethnicity, 2014-2015 to 2018-2019
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research Figure V-18 illustrates the rates at which students of various racial and ethnic groups met or exceeded mathematics testing standards by district.

There were several districts in which the gaps between the overall test pass rates and a specific racial groups’ pass rates were especially wide. For instance, in San Carlos Elementary School District, 75% of the total student body met or exceeded math testing standards, but only 11% of Black/African American students met or exceeded math testing standards— a gap of 64 percentage points.

Other school districts with wide gaps between Black/African American and overall math testing success were Las Lomitas Elementary (46 percentage point gap), Menlo Park City Elementary (43 percentage point gap), and Belmont-Redwood Shores (42 percentage point gap).

Some school districts also had similar gaps in Pacific Islander students’ math passing rates and overall passing rates. For instance, in Menlo Park City Elementary School District, 83% of the student body met or exceeded mathematics testing standards but just 35% of Pacific Islander students passed or exceeded mathematics testing standards—a gap of 48 ATTACHMENT 5
486
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-28
percentage points. Millbrae Elementary School District also had a 47 percentage point gap between Pacific Islander students’ and total students’ math test rates.

Figure V-18.

Students who Met or Exceeded Mathematics Testing Standards, by Race/Ethnicity and District, 2018-2019
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research Although racial gaps in English testing were less pronounced, San Carlos Elementary School District also had a wide gap between the total student body and Black/African American School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 34% 65% (no data) 38% 16% (no data) 54% La Honda-Pescadero 31% (no data) (no data) (no data) 20% (no data) 46% South San Francisco 44% 75% 19% 60% 29% 33% 46%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 37% 75% (no data) 36% 17% (no data) 42% Bayshore Elementary 27% 44% (no data) 38% 17% 14% (no data) Brisbane Elementary 54% 67% (no data) 65% 38% (no data) 60% Jefferson Elementary 37% 61% 15% 42% 23% 20% 30%
Pacifica 57% 74% 38% 48% 38% (no data) 66%
San Mateo Union High School 50% 84% (no data) 46% 22% 20% 63% Burlingame Elementary 78% 92% 53% 66% 50% (no data) 81% Hillsborough Elementary 85% 92% (no data) (no data) 76% (no data) 82% Millbrae Elementary 58% 75% 31% 63% 27% 11% 51%
San Bruno Park Elementary 41% 69% 23% 64% 25% 27% 50%
San Mateo-Foster City 56% 87% 30% 61% 23% 27% 69%
Sequoia Union High School 50% 81% 18% 53% 22% 11% 76%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 79% 92% 37% 77% 52% 43% 79%
Las Lomitas Elementary 82% 93% 36% (no data) 44% (no data) 87% Menlo Park City Elementary 83% 94% 40% (no data) 55% 35% 88% Portola Valley Elementary 83% 89% (no data) (no data) 56% (no data) 89% Ravenswood City Elementary 15% (no data) 9% (no data) 15% 11% (no data) Redwood City Elementary 46% 92% 22% 76% 34% 44% 75%
San Carlos Elementary 75% 91% 11% 85% 51% (no data) 78% Woodside Elementary 84% 92% (no data) (no data) 52% (no data) 89% Total 52% 82% 18% 50% 27% 21% 71%
Overall Asian Black Filipino Hispanic White
Pacific
Islander
ATTACHMENT 5
487
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-29
students. Namely, 80% of the student body met or exceeded English testing standards, but only 19% of Black/African American students met or exceeded testing standards—a 61 percentage point gap. Las Lomitas Elementary had a 41 percentage point gap between overall English testing success and Black/African American English testing success.

Other districts had large gaps between the total student body’s English test scores and Pacific Islander students’ test scores. Namely, in Menlo Park City Elementary School District 84% of students met or exceeded English testing standards, but only 40% of Pacific Islander students—a 44 percentage point gap.

ATTACHMENT 5
488
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-30
Figure V-19.

Students who Met or Exceeded English Testing Standards, by Race/Ethnicity and District, 2018-2019
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research Students with extenuating circumstances across all districts met or exceeded testing standards at lower rates. However, some districts had especially wide disparities between overall test scores and test scores of students with extenuating circumstances.

School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 48% 78% (no data) 54% 28% (no data) 71% La Honda-Pescadero 43% (no data) (no data) (no data) 27% (no data) 61% South San Francisco 52% 76% 36% 66% 38% 44% 56%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 57% 81% (no data) 60% 43% (no data) 59% Bayshore Elementary 27% 49% (no data) 33% 20% 14% (no data) Brisbane Elementary 64% 63% (no data) 75% 51% (no data) 79% Jefferson Elementary 48% 62% 28% 59% 34% 33% 43%
Pacifica 60% 65% 32% 52% 45% (no data) 68%
San Mateo Union High School 70% 88% 55% 79% 50% 34% 81% Burlingame Elementary 80% 88% 61% 73% 55% (no data) 83% Hillsborough Elementary 85% 89% (no data) (no data) 77% (no data) 83% Millbrae Elementary 63% 74% 46% 68% 42% 23% 61%
San Bruno Park Elementary 50% 72% 39% 76% 36% 31% 56%
San Mateo-Foster City 62% 85% 41% 68% 34% 37% 77%
Sequoia Union High School 68% 87% 44% 92% 47% 31% 88%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 82% 91% 44% 81% 64% 61% 83%
Las Lomitas Elementary 86% 91% 45% (no data) 65% (no data) 89% Menlo Park City Elementary 84% 92% 60% (no data) 62% 40% 88% Portola Valley Elementary 87% 92% (no data) (no data) 58% (no data) 93% Ravenswood City Elementary 22% (no data) 24% (no data) 21% 18% (no data) Redwood City Elementary 54% 91% 35% 73% 43% 47% 83%
San Carlos Elementary 80% 90% 19% 76% 60% (no data) 83% Woodside Elementary 88% 92% (no data) (no data) 58% (no data) 92% Total 62% 82% 34% 64% 40% 31% 79%
Overall Asian Black Filipino Hispanic White
Pacific
Islander
ATTACHMENT 5
489
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-31
For example, English learning students in Portola Valley Elementary, Woodside Elementary, Menlo Park City Elementary, and Brisbane Elementary each met or exceeded mathematics test standards at a rate at least 50 percentage points below the overall test rate in each district. English learning students in Las Lomitas Elementary (54%) had the highest mathematics pass rates, followed by those in Belmont-Redwood Shores (42%) and Burlingame Elementary (40%).

Students with disabilities scored especially high on mathematics tests in Hillsborough Elementary, where 48% met or exceeded standards. Others in Belmont-Redwood Shores (43%) and Woodside Elementary (41%) had high pass rates as well. Students with disabilities in San Carlos Elementary and Las Lomitas Elementary school districts scored far below the overall student body: in these districts, students with disabilities met or exceeded mathematics test standards at 54 percentage points below the overall test rate.

In Jefferson Elementary and Ravenswood Elementary students experiencing homelessness passed math tests at a rate similar to their housed peers. In other districts, however, students experiencing homelessness often scored substantially lower. School districts with the widest math testing gaps between the overall student body and students experiencing homelessness were San Mateo-Foster City and Millbrae Elementary, with a 41 percentage point gap and 42 percentage point gap, respectively.

ATTACHMENT 5
490
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-32
Figure V-20.

Students who Met or Exceeded Math Testing Standards, by Special Case and District, 2018-2019
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 34% 4% 5% 4% 9%
La Honda-Pescadero 31% 4% (no data) (no data) 2%
South San Francisco 44% 20% 25% 4% 18%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 37% 5% (no data) (no data) 6% Bayshore Elementary 27% 11% (no data) (no data) 9%
Brisbane Elementary 54% 4% (no data) (no data) 12%
Jefferson Elementary 37% 15% 36% (no data) 11%
Pacifica 57% 22% (no data) (no data) 17%
San Mateo Union High School 50% 10% (no data) (no data) 13% Burlingame Elementary 78% 40% (no data) (no data) 29%
Hillsborough Elementary 85% (no data) (no data) (no data) 48% Millbrae Elementary 58% 26% 16% (no data) 25%
San Bruno Park Elementary 41% 12% (no data) (no data) 9% San Mateo-Foster City 56% 11% 15% (no data) 14%
Sequoia Union High School 50% 3% 33% (no data) 9%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 79% 42% (no data) (no data) 43%
Las Lomitas Elementary 82% 54% (no data) (no data) 28%
Menlo Park City Elementary 83% 31% (no data) (no data) 38% Portola Valley Elementary 83% 14% (no data) (no data) 39% Ravenswood City Elementary 15% 5% 11% (no data) 2%
Redwood City Elementary 46% 14% (no data) 29% 14%
San Carlos Elementary 75% 24% (no data) (no data) 21%
Woodside Elementary 84% 27% (no data) (no data) 41%
English
Learners
Experiencing
homelessness Migrant
With
Overall Disabilities
ATTACHMENT 5
491
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-33
Students with extenuating circumstances also consistently scored lower in English testing than the overall student body.

For instance, English learning students in San Mateo Union High School District, Hillsborough Elementary School District, Sequoia Union High School District, Menlo Park City Elementary School District, and Portola Valley Elementary School District met or exceeded English test standards at a rate at least 60 percentage points below the overall test rate in each district. Hillsborough Elementary had the largest gap at 85 percentage points. Las Lomitas Elementary had the highest success rate among English learners, where 50% met or exceeded English testing standards.

However, students with disabilities in Las Lomitas Elementary and San Carlos Elementary school districts met or exceeded English test standards at rate 55 and 51 percentage points below the overall test rate, respectively. These were the largest gaps in the county.

Students with disabilities at Woodside Elementary did the best on English testing, where 56% passed or exceeded standards.

Among students experiencing homelessness, those at Sequoia Union High School were most likely to meet English testing standards, with 42% meeting or exceeding standards.

The school district with the widest gap between overall English test scores and scores among students experiencing homelessness was Cabrillo Unified with a 34 percentage point gap.

Just three districts reported English testing scores among migrant students. Redwood City Elementary had the highest pass rate at 34% and Cabrillo Unified had the lowest at 16%.

ATTACHMENT 5
492
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-34
Figure V-21.

Students who Met or Exceeded English Testing Standards, by Special Case and District, 2018-2019
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 48% 9% 14% 16% 12%
La Honda-Pescadero 43% 9% (no data) (no data) 9%
South San Francisco 52% 21% 35% 20% 18%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 57% 3% (no data) (no data) 19% Bayshore Elementary 27% 3% (no data) (no data) 4%
Brisbane Elementary 64% 21% (no data) (no data) 16%
Jefferson Elementary 48% 16% 30% (no data) 15%
Pacifica 60% 12% (no data) (no data) 15%
San Mateo Union High School 70% 11% (no data) (no data) 27% Burlingame Elementary 80% 33% (no data) (no data) 33%
Hillsborough Elementary 85% (no data) (no data) (no data) 47% Millbrae Elementary 63% 19% 34% (no data) 23%
San Bruno Park Elementary 50% 14% (no data) (no data) 12% San Mateo-Foster City 62% 9% 33% (no data) 15%
Sequoia Union High School 68% 8% 42% (no data) 27%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 82% 31% (no data) (no data) 45%
Las Lomitas Elementary 86% 51% (no data) (no data) 31%
Menlo Park City Elementary 84% 21% (no data) (no data) 42% Portola Valley Elementary 87% 17% (no data) (no data) 37% Ravenswood City Elementary 22% 6% 16% (no data) 5%
Redwood City Elementary 54% 13% (no data) 34% 16%
San Carlos Elementary 80% 29% (no data) (no data) 28%
Woodside Elementary 88% 18% (no data) (no data) 56%
English
Learners
Experiencing
homelessness Migrant
With
Overall Disabilities
ATTACHMENT 5
493
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-35
Students who met university requirements. Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Figure V-22 illustrates the percentage of cohort graduates who met admission requirements for a CSU or UC school according to California Department of Education data.

Of the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards, at 69%. On the other end of the spectrum, Cabrillo Unified and South San Francisco Unified had the lowest rates at 41%.

Figure V-22.

Students Meeting
California University
Admission
Standards, 2019-
2020
Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

Cabrillo Unified and South San Francisco Unified have experienced a decrease in the share of graduates meeting CSU or UC admission standards in recent years. For instance, in 2016-2017, 57% of South San Francisco Unified graduates met these standards, but this decreased by 16 percentage points by 2019-2020. Cabrillo Unified experienced a less drastic decrease over the same period, but the rate still shrunk by two percentage points.

Jefferson Union High School District had the most drastic increase in the share of graduates meeting CSU or UC standards: just 21% of students met these standards in 2016-2017 compared to 48% of students in 2019-2020. La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District experienced a 10 percentage point increase in this success rate over the same period.

Sequoia Union and San Mateo Union experienced more modest increases, but remain the districts with the highest rates of students meeting CSU and UC standards.

ATTACHMENT 5
494
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-36
Figure V-23.

Students Meeting
University
Admission
Standards, 2016-
2017 and 2019-2020
Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

Rates at which students met CSU or UC admissions standards varied substantially by race and ethnicity in 2019-2020. In all high school districts in San Mateo County, White and Asian students meet CSU and UC admissions standards at higher rates than the overall student population.

The largest gap is in South San Francisco Unified, where just 41% of students meet CSU or UC admissions standards, but 73% of Asian students meet those standards—a 32 percentage point gap.

On the other end of the spectrum, Black/African American students typically met CSU or UC admissions standards at lower-than-average rates. The largest gap was in San Mateo Union, where just 29% of Black/African American students met CSU or UC standards compared to 68% of students in the district overall.

Filipino students typically met admissions standards at rates similar to the overall student body. For instance, in Jefferson Union, San Mateo Union, and South San Francisco Unified, Filipino students are slightly more likely to have meet CSU and UC standards than the overall student population. In Sequoia Union, they are slightly less likely to have met admission standards than the overall student population.

ATTACHMENT 5
495
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-37
In La Honda-Pescadero, Hispanic students are slightly more likely to have met CSU or UC standards than the overall student body. However, in all other school districts, Hispanic students are less likely to have met CSU and UC standards than the overall student body.

The largest disparity is in San Mateo Union, where just 46% of Hispanic students meet the university admissions standards compared to 68% of students overall.

Finally, Pacific Islander students in Jefferson Union were slightly more likely to have met California university admissions standards compared to the overall student body, but in Sequoia Union and San Mateo Union they were substantially less likely.

ATTACHMENT 5
496
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-38
Figure V-24.

Students Meeting University Admission Standards, by Race and Ethnicity, 2019-2020
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research As expected, students with extenuating circumstances were less likely to meet CSU or UC admissions standards than students in the county overall. In all school districts where data are available, students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness, English learners, foster youth, and migrant students met CSU or UC admission standards at lower rates than the overall student population.

ATTACHMENT 5
497
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-39
English learners in Sequoia Union and San Mateo Regional met CSU or UC admission standards at higher rates than their peers in other school districts. However, compared to the overall student body within their own school districts, they had a larger gap than other districts. Namely, in Sequoia Union, 69% of students met admissions standards compared to just 32% of students learning English— a 37 percentage point gap.

Similarly, students with disabilities in Sequoia Union had the highest rate of meeting admissions standards (31%) compared to peers with disabilities in other districts, but also had the largest gap (38 percentage points) compared to the district’s overall student body.

Migrant students met admission standards at the lowest rate in South San Francisco Unified (27%) and at the highest rate in Sequoia Union (45%). However, in Cabrillo Unified, their rates were only eight percentage points lower than that of the overall student body, the smallest gap in the county.

Approximately 36% of students experiencing homelessness in Sequoia Union met CSU or UC admission standards, which was higher than rates in San Mateo Union (21%) and Jefferson Union (21%).

Just San Mateo Union and Sequoia Union had enough foster youth to report their rate of meeting CSU or UC admission standards. In Sequoia Union, 29% met admissions standards and 22% in San Mateo Union met admissions standards.

ATTACHMENT 5
498
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-40
Figure V-25.

Students Meeting
University
Admission
Standards, 2019-
2020
Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

Notes; La-Honda Pescadero Unified
is excluded from these data as they
do not report admission standards
data for these special groups, likely
due to small sample size.

College-going rates. The college-going rate is defined as the percentage of public high school students who completed high school in a given year and subsequently enrolled in any public or private postsecondary institution (in-state or out-of-state) in the United States within 12 or 16 months of completing high school.

Most school districts in the county have a college-going rate at 70% or higher. San Mateo Union had the highest college-going rate at 77%. La Honda-Pescadero School District is the notable exception, with just 32% of graduates attending college within 12 or 16 months.

ATTACHMENT 5
499
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-41
Figure V-26.

College-Going
Rates, 2017-2018
Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

As shown in Figure V-27, La Honda-Pescadero School District previously had the highest college-going rate of all the county’s high school districts, with an 80% college-going rate in 2014-2015 and a 93% college-going rate in 2015-2016. The district experienced a rapid decline in college-going rates, starting in 2016-2017. However, La Honda-Pescadero has especially small sample sizes. For instance, the district had just 26 twelfth-graders in the 2017-2018 school year, meaning that just a couple students going to college (or not) drastically alters the college-going rate in La Honda-Pescadero. All other high school districts in the county have maintained relatively consistent college-going rates.

ATTACHMENT 5
500
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-42
Figure V-27.

College-Going
Rates, 2014-2015 to
2017-2018
Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

Within each of the high school districts, college-going rates vary by race and ethnicity. ▪ In every district, White students have a higher college-going rate than Hispanic students, but the largest gaps are in South San Francisco United, where 91% of White students go to college compared to just 68% of Hispanic students, a 23 percentage point gap. Jefferson Union has the smallest gap between the two groups: 77% of White students go to college compared to 71% of Hispanic students. ▪ Among Black/African American students, those at San Mateo Union have the highest college-going rate at 82%. Those at Jefferson Union have the lowest at just 53%, which is 24 percentage points lower than that of White students and 34 percentage points lower than that of Asian students.
▪ Overall, Asian students have among the highest college-going-rates in the county.

The rate is especially high in South San Francisco Unified, where 92% go to college.

The rate is lowest in Sequoia Union High School District, where 84% go to college.

ATTACHMENT 5
501
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-43
▪ Filipino students also have generally high rates of college-going. The highest college-going rate among Filipino students is in Sequoia Union (86%) and the lowest is in South San Francisco Unified (73%).
▪ College-going rates for Pacific Islander students vary substantially by district. For instance, in Sequoia Union 54% go to college, but in South San Francisco Unified 92% go to college.

Figure V-28.

College-going Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2017-18
Note: Cabrillo Unified and La Honda- Pescadero Unified are not included here because they do not report the data, likely due to small sample sizes.

ATTACHMENT 5
502
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-44
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research College-going rates are lower for students with disabilities and those learning English compared to the overall student population across the county. ▪ For instance, the largest gap between overall college-going rates and English learners’ college-going rates is in South San Francisco Unified, where just 52% of English learning students go to college as opposed to 74% of the overall student population— a 22 percentage point gap. Among English learners, San Mateo Union High School District had the highest college-going rate, where 63% of English learners go to college.
▪ Among students with disabilities, South San Francisco Unified also had the largest gap, where 59% of students with disabilities went to college compared to 74% of the overall student population — a 15 percentage point gap. Jefferson Union, on the other hand, had a relatively high college-going rate among students with disabilities that was not very different from the district’s overall college-going rate: 71% went to college which is just five percentage points lower than the district’s overall student population.

Figure V-29.

College-going Rates
for English Learners
and Students with
Disabilities, 2017-
2018
Note:

Cabrillo Unified and La HondaPescadero Unified are not included here because they do not report the
data, likely due to small sample
sizes.

Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

Gaps in college enrollment by race, ethnicity, disability status, or English learning have stark financial consequences for students in the long-term. Figure V-30 illustrates median annual earnings by educational attainment. College degrees are especially important in San Mateo County: those with a bachelor’s degree in the county earn 115% more than those with a high school diploma. This gap is wider in San Mateo County than in other parts of California ATTACHMENT 5
503
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-45
and nationwide. The differences between high-school graduate earnings and bachelor's degree earnings are around 100% in California and 76% in the US overall.

Figure V-30.

Median Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment, 2019
Source: 5-year 2019 American Community Surveys Data.

Unfortunately, the gap between high school graduates’ and college graduates’ earnings have been increasing in San Mateo County. As illustrated in Figure V-31, median earnings for high school graduates increased by just 15% over the last decade (from $31,816 to $36,747) while earnings for college graduates increased by 29% over the same period (from $61,485 to $79,080).

ATTACHMENT 5
504
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-46
Figure V-31.

Median Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment in San Mateo County, 2010 to 2019
Source: 5-year American Community Surveys Data.

Because income disparities between college graduates and high school graduates have been increasing, it is increasingly important that school districts in San Mateo County address differences in college-going rates stratified by race, ethnicity, and extenuating circumstances.

Barriers to Success
Many students are unable to achieve academic success because of barriers in home and school. This section explores the available indicators of barriers to success, including chronic absenteeism and dropout rates. It also describes inequities in discipline rates by ATTACHMENT 5
505
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-47
race and ethnicity, which has been linked both to discrimination by education professionals as well as a major barrier to students’ future success.

Chronic absenteeism. Academic studies have found that if a student is chronically absent, it reduces their math and reading achievement outcomes, educational engagement, and social engagement.12 Chronic absenteeism also has spillover effects and negatively impacts students who themselves are not chronically absent. For instance, one study found that students suffer academically from having chronically absent classmates— as exhibited across both reading and math testing outcomes.13 Students are considered chronically absent if they were absent for 10% or more of the days during a school year. Note, however, students are exempt from chronic absenteeism calculations if they receive instruction through a home or hospital instructional setting, are attending community college full-time, or were not expected to attend more than 31 days.

In the county overall, 10% of students were chronically absent during the 2018-2019 school year.
14 This is a slight increase from the 2016-2017 school year, where just 9% of students overall were chronically absent.

Chronic absenteeism rates were higher in districts with a large number of students experiencing economic and housing precarity. For instance, Ravenswood Elementary, which has a 30% rate of homelessness among students, had one of the higher rates of chronic absenteeism at 16%. La Honda-Pescadero and Sequoia Union high school districts also had high rates of chronically absent students at 16% and 17%, respectively.

When disaggregating by race and ethnicity, just 3% of Asian students were chronically absent, and 7% of White and Filipino students were chronically absent. On the other end of the spectrum, Pacific Islander students (26%), Black/African American students (18%), and Hispanic students (15%) had notably higher rates of chronic absenteeism than the overall student population (10%). Chronic absenteeism among Pacific Islander students has increased in recent years, as illustrated in Figure V-32. 12 Gottfried, Michael A. "Chronic absenteeism and its effects on students’ academic and socioemotional outcomes." Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) 19.2 (2014): 53-75. 13 Gottfried, Michael A. "Chronic absenteeism in the classroom context: Effects on achievement." Urban Education 54.1 (2019): 3-34.
14 Because of the physical school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Department of Education determined that 2019–2020 absenteeism data are not valid, therefore, we present data from the 2018-2019 school year.

ATTACHMENT 5
506
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-48
Figure V-32.

Chronic
Absenteeism by
Race/Ethnicity,
2016-2017 to 2018-
2019
Source: California Department of
Education and Root Policy
Research
Chronic absenteeism among Pacific Islander students was especially pronounced in San Mateo-Foster City school district where there was a 26 percentage point gap between chronic absenteeism rates for Pacific Islander students (32%) and the overall student body (6%). Other districts had similarly large gaps, including San Bruno Park Elementary (20 percentage points) and South San Francisco Unified (18 percentage points).

Some districts had larger gaps in absenteeism rates between Black/African American students and the overall population. For instance, in San Carlos Elementary, 4% of the overall student body is chronically absent compared to 27% of Black/African American students— a 23 percentage point gap. Jefferson Elementary school district had a 17 percentage point gap between their overall chronic absenteeism rate (12%) and their chronic absenteeism rate among Black/African American students (28%).

Among White students, Bayshore Elementary School District was a major outlier, where 46% of White students were chronically absent compared to just 12% of the total student population. However, it is important to note that this represents a very small sample of White students: just 3% of students at Bayshore Elementary are White, one of lowest in the county.

ATTACHMENT 5
507
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-49
Figure V-33.

Chronic Absenteeism by District and Race/Ethnicity, 2018-2019 Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research In most districts, chronic absenteeism is higher among students with disabilities. In fact, only Bayshore Elementary’s students with disabilities had a lower rate of chronic absenteeism than the overall student body. In all other districts, students with disabilities were more likely to be chronically absent than the overall student population. This was particularly true in Sequoia Union High School District, Jefferson Union High School District, and San Mateo Union High School District, which had gaps between the overall School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 10% 5% (no data) 5% 11% (no data) 10%
La Honda-Pescadero 16% (no data) (no data) (no data) 14% (no data) 18% South San Francisco 13% 4% 16% 7% 17% 31% 12%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 15% 8% 22% 11% 22% 18% 15%
Bayshore Elementary 12% 5% 12% 0% 18% 19% 46%
Brisbane Elementary 12% 3% (no data) 12% 17% (no data) 17% Jefferson Elementary 12% 5% 28% 6% 13% 25% 23%
Pacifica 7% 4% 12% 6% 9% 21% 7%
San Mateo Union High School 10% 3% 18% 4% 17% 21% 9%
Burlingame Elementary 5% 2% 15% 5% 10% 20% 5%
Hillsborough Elementary 4% 1% (no data) 4% 4% (no data) 6% Millbrae Elementary 10% 3% 6% 17% 16% 26% 14%
San Bruno Park Elementary 12% 5% 10% 4% 14% 32% 9%
San Mateo-Foster City 6% 2% 9% 2% 10% 32% 4%
Sequoia Union High School 17% 6% 23% 8% 23% 33% 10%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 5% 3% 8% 5% 12% 17% 5%
Las Lomitas Elementary 4% 2% 0% (no data) 7% (no data) 3% Menlo Park City Elementary 3% 1% 8% 7% 5% 14% 3%
Portola Valley Elementary 4% 0% (no data) (no data) 6% (no data) 3% Ravenswood City Elementary 16% 0% 20% (no data) 15% 24% 21% Redwood City Elementary 10% 2% 19% 3% 12% 18% 4%
San Carlos Elementary 4% 2% 27% 8% 7% (no data) 3%
Woodside Elementary 8% 0% 0% (no data) 12% (no data) 7% Total 10% 3% 18% 7% 15% 26% 7%
Total Asian Black Filipino Hispanic
Pacific
Islander White
ATTACHMENT 5
508
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-50
absenteeism rate and the absenteeism rate among students with disabilities of 13, 12, and 11 percentage points, respectively.

Rates of chronic absenteeism were also higher among English learners than the general population in most districts (with the exception of Ravenswood City Elementary and Jefferson Elementary). Woodside Elementary and Sequoia Union High School districts both had 14 percentage point gaps between absenteeism rates of English learners and the overall student body.

In every school district where the data are available, foster youth had higher rates of chronic absenteeism than the overall population. This was especially true in Sequoia Union High School District, where 63% of foster youth were chronically absent compared to just 17% of the overall student body.

Similarly, in almost all districts with available data, students experiencing homelessness had higher rates of chronic absenteeism than the overall student body. The chronic absenteeism rate among students experiencing homelessness was highest in Burlingame Elementary at 64%.

Migrant students were chronically absent at rates similar to or lower than the total student body in all districts with reported data.

ATTACHMENT 5
509
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-51
Figure V-34.

Chronic Absenteeism by District and Extenuating Circumstance, 2018-2019 Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research Dropout rates. As previously indicated, workers without a high school degree have the lowest annual earnings compared to others at higher levels of educational attainment. In addition to the economic and housing precarity associated with low earnings, low earnings also often lead to increased incentives to participate in criminal activity. In fact, one study School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 10% 12% 23% 9% (no data) 18%
La Honda-Pescadero 16% 16% (no data) (no data) (no data) 22% South San Francisco 13% 14% 47% 13% 49% 18%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 15% 27% 33% (no data) 36% 28% Bayshore Elementary 12% 19% (no data) (no data) (no data) 11% Brisbane Elementary 12% 18% (no data) (no data) (no data) 18% Jefferson Elementary 12% 10% 21% (no data) 24% 16%
Pacifica 7% 11% (no data) (no data) (no data) 14%
San Mateo Union High School 10% 21% 50% (no data) 53% 21% Burlingame Elementary 5% 8% 64% (no data) (no data) 12% Hillsborough Elementary 4% 6% (no data) (no data) (no data) 8% Millbrae Elementary 10% 12% 5% (no data) (no data) 12%
San Bruno Park Elementary 12% 12% (no data) (no data) 18% 20% San Mateo-Foster City 6% 8% 15% (no data) 17% 13%
Sequoia Union High School 17% 31% 52% 16% 63% 29%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 5% 11% (no data) (no data) (no data) 10% Las Lomitas Elementary 4% 6% (no data) (no data) (no data) 5% Menlo Park City Elementary 3% 5% (no data) (no data) (no data) 9% Portola Valley Elementary 4% 3% (no data) (no data) (no data) 9% Ravenswood City Elementary 16% 16% 19% 17% 23% 21%
Redwood City Elementary 10% 12% 30% 6% 32% 16%
San Carlos Elementary 4% 8% 23% (no data) (no data) 11% Woodside Elementary 8% 22% (no data) (no data) (no data) 10% Total
English
Learners
Experiencing
homelessness Migrant
With
Disabilities
Foster
Youth
ATTACHMENT 5
510
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-52
suggest that high school dropouts are 3.5 times more likely than high school graduates to be imprisoned at some point during their lifetime.15 Another study found that raising the high school completion rate by one percent for all men ages 20 through 60 would save the US $1.4 billion annually in crime related costs.16 Dropping out of high school also has adverse health costs: for instance, research has shown that high school dropouts are more likely to smoke and have a marijuana disorder in adulthood.17 For these reasons, reducing high school dropout rates in San Mateo County is pivotal to the health and economic prosperity of the community.

In this report, dropout rates shown for high school districts with available data and are defined as the percentage of cohort students who did not graduate with a regular high school diploma, did not complete high school, and are not still enrolled as a "fifth year senior".

In the 2019-2020 academic year, dropout rates were highest in Sequoia Union High School District, where 10% of students dropped out. This is similar to South San Francisco Unified, where 9% of students dropped out. In both these districts, and in Cabrillo Unified, dropout rates have increased since 2016-2017.

Dropout rates have decreased by one percentage point over the same period in San Mateo Union High School District, from 5% to 4%. Jefferson Union had the lowest dropout rate in the county at just 3%, which after slightly higher rates in 2017-18 and 2018-19, is the same as its 2016-2017 rate.
15 Monrad, Maggie. "High School Dropout: A Quick Stats Fact Sheet." National High School Center (2007). 16 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Correctional populations in the United States, 1998 (NCJ-192929). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 17 Gonzalez, Jennifer M. Reingle, et al. "The long-term effects of school dropout and GED attainment on substance use disorders." Drug and alcohol dependence 158 (2016): 60-66.

ATTACHMENT 5
511
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-53
Figure V-35.

Dropout Rates by
District, 2016-2017 to
2019-2020
Note: La Honda-Pescadero Unified
School District is excluded
from these data.

Source: California Department of
Education and Root Policy
Research
In all school districts in the county, dropout rates are higher for boys than for girls.

Jefferson Union had the smallest gender gap, where 3% of girls dropped out and 4% of boys dropped out. Sequoia Union had the widest gender gap, where 13% of boys dropped out compared to just 7% of girls.

Figure V-36.

Dropout Rates by
Gender, 2019-2020
Note: La Honda-Pescadero Unified
School District is excluded
from these data.

Source: California Department of
Education and Root Policy
Research
Pacific Islander, Black/African American, and Hispanic students in the county often had higher dropout rates than those in other racial and ethnic groups.

ATTACHMENT 5
512
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-54
▪ In Sequoia Union High School District, dropout rates were highest among Pacific Islander students, where 20% dropped out in the 2019-2020 academic year.

Dropout rates were also especially high among Hispanic and Black/African American students in Sequoia Union, at 16% and 12% respectively. ▪ In districts with lower dropout rates, for instance, Jefferson Union, the highest dropout rates still found among Black/African American (7%) and Hispanic students (6%).
▪ Notably, however, in South San Francisco Unified, White students were more likely to drop out than any other racial or ethnic group. In fact, 12% of White students dropped out compared to 11% of Hispanic students, 5% of Filipino students, and 3% of Asian students. Data for Black/African American and Pacific Islander students were not available for South San Francisco Unified due to small sample sizes.

ATTACHMENT 5
513
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-55
Figure V-37.

Dropout Rates by Race, 2019-2020
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research In all school districts in the county, students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness, foster youth, and students learning English had higher dropout rates than the overall population.
▪ Among students with disabilities, the highest dropout rate was in Sequoia Union, where 24% dropped out. The gap between overall dropout rates and dropout rates among students with disabilities was wide in Sequoia Union at 14 percentage points.
▪ Cabrillo Unified, on the other hand, had less than a one percentage point gap between the dropout rate of overall students (6%) and students with disabilities (6%).

ATTACHMENT 5
514
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-56
▪ Among students learning English, Sequoia Union had the highest dropout rate at 27%, while Jefferson Union had the lowest dropout rate at 8%. ▪ Sequoia Union also had the highest rate of dropout among students experiencing homelessness at 29% while Jefferson Union, again, had the lowest at 15%. ▪ Foster Youth in Sequoia Union had an exceptionally high dropout rate a t 40%. San Mateo Union is the only other district in the county which reported these data in 2019-2020, and found only 18% of foster youth dropped out. ▪ Migrant students at South San Francisco Unified actually dropped out at a rate slightly lower than the general student body: just 8% of migrant students dropped out compared to 9% of the overall student body. However, those in Cabrillo Unified were 11 percentage points more likely than the total student body to dropout.

ATTACHMENT 5
515
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-57
Figure V-38.

Dropout Rates by Extenuating Circumstance, 2019-2020
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research Disproportionate discipline rates. Strict discipline policies may stigmatize suspended students and expose them to the criminal justice system at a young age, setting them up for limited economic and social success down the line. Research has found that suspensions not only negatively affect the suspended students, but also their peers.

ATTACHMENT 5
516
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-58
Students in schools with higher suspension rates are more likely to drop out or school and less likely to attend a four-year college.18
Other academic studies have found that students from African American and Latino families are more likely than their White peers to receive expulsion or out of school suspension as consequences for the same or similar problem behavior.19 This means that Black/African American and Hispanic students suffer more of the economic and social consequences than their White peers for the same behaviors.

Luckily, in every high school district in San Mateo County, suspension rates have decreased since 2011-2012. La Honda-Pescadero School District experienced the largest decrease: it was the district with the highest suspension rate in 2011-2012 at 10%, but now has the lowest suspension rate at just 1% in 2019-2020. San Mateo Union also experienced a rapid decrease in suspension rates over the same period, with a rate of 9% in 2011-2012 to a rate of 3% in 2019-2020.
18 Bacher-Hicks, Andrew, Stephen B. Billings, and David J. Deming. The school to prison pipeline: Long-run impacts of school suspensions on adult crime. No. w26257. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019. 19 Skiba, Russell J., et al. "Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline." School Psychology Review 40.1 (2011): 85-107.

ATTACHMENT 5
517
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-59
Figure V-39.

Suspension Rates, 2011-2012 to 2019-2020
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research In many school districts across San Mateo County, Hispanic students are disciplined at disproportionately higher rates compared to their peers. Figure V-40 compares each racial/ethnic group’s share of suspensions to their share of the overall student population. ▪ In all districts except for La Honda-Pescadero, Hispanic students make up a larger share of suspensions than their overall share of the student body. For instance, in San Mateo Union, 34% of students are Hispanic, but 66% of suspended students are Hispanic, making a 32 percentage point overrepresentation gap. ▪ In most districts, Black and Pacific Islander students are also overrepresented in terms of suspension rates, but these rates are slight compared to those of Hispanic students. For instance, in Sequoia Union, just 2% of the student body identified as Pacific Islander but 8% of suspended students were Pacific Islander. ▪ Asian and Filipino students were underrepresented in terms of suspension rates. For example, in Jefferson Union High School District, 31% of students identified as Filipino but just 10% of suspended students were Filipino, a 21 percentage point ATTACHMENT 5
518
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-60
gap. In San Mateo Union High School, 22% of students identified as Asian but just 5% of suspended students were Asian, a 17 percentage point gap. ▪ White students were also underrepresented in discipline rates in most districts except for La Honda-Pescadero, where they were overrepresented by 30 percentage points. They were substantially underrepresented in Cabrillo Unified (with a gap of 21 percentage points) and Sequoia Union (18 percentage points).

ATTACHMENT 5
519
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-61
Figure V-40.

Suspension Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2019-2020
Notes: the percentage of suspensions and shares of racial groups do not sum to 100% because we exclude students with no reported race, with more than one reported race, where districts did not report racial/ethnic data due to small sample sizes. Gaps of 15 percentage points or more are highlighted.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research School District
Asian Students
Share of Student Body 1% 14% 22% 9% 13%
Share of Suspensions 1% 7% 5% 1% 3%
Gap 0% -7% -17% -8% -10%
Black Students
Share of Student Body 1% 1% 3% 1%
Share of Suspensions 5% 1% 6% 2%
Gap 4% 0% 3% 1%
Filipino Students
Share of Student Body 1% 31% 6% 2% 23%
Share of Suspensions 0% 10% 2% 0% 9%
Gap -1% -21% -4% -2% -14%
Hispanic Students
Share of Student Body 52% 32% 61% 34% 41% 48%
Share of Suspensions 79% 46% 33% 66% 62% 69%
Gap 27% 14% -28% 32% 21% 21%
Pacific Islander Students
Share of Student Body 1% 2% 2% 2%
Share of Suspensions 4% 4% 8% 3%
Gap 3% 2% 6% 1%
White Students
Share of Student Body 40% 14% 37% 26% 38% 7%
Share of Suspensions 19% 16% 67% 14% 20% 7%
Gap -21% 2% 30% -12% -18% 0%
Cabrillo
Unified
Jefferson
Union
High
La HondaPescadero
San
Mateo
Union
High
Sequoia
Union
High
South San
Francisco
Unified
ATTACHMENT 5
520
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-62
Staff demographics. Diversity of school staff has been shown to improve outcomes for students of color. For instance, one recent study found that students are less likely to be removed from school as punishment when they and their teachers are the same race.

This effect is driven almost entirely by black students, especially black boys, who are markedly less likely to be subjected to exclusionary discipline when taught by black teachers. There is little evidence of any benefit for white students of being matched with white teachers.20 Other research in California has found that, when students have a teacher of their race, they are more likely to attend class, therefore reducing chronic absenteeism.21 Even more studies have found that having a teacher of a student’s own race substantially improves their math and reading achievement.22 In San Mateo County, the demographics of faculty and staff are fairly similar to that of its students. Figure V-41 illustrates the share of the county’s faculty and staff who are Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic, Filipino, Pacific Islander, and White, and compares those shares to the racial/ethnic breakdown of the county’s student body.

There is a slightly larger share of White and Black/African American staff than students, meaning that Black/African American and White student groups are more likely to interact with same-race staff and faculty than other racial groups. Asian students are less likely to interact with a same-race staff of faculty member: 17% of the student body is Asian compared to just 8% of staff and faculty.
20 Lindsay, Constance A., and Cassandra MD Hart. "Teacher race and school discipline: Are students suspended less often when they have a teacher of the same race?." Education Next 17.1 (2017): 72-79. 21 Gottfried, Michael, J. Jacob Kirksey, and Tina L. Fletcher. "Do High School Students With a Same-Race Teacher Attend Class More Often?." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (2021): 01623737211032241. 22 Dee, T. S. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Review of economics and statistics, 86(1), 195-210.

ATTACHMENT 5
521
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-63
Figure V-41.

Staff and Student
Demographics,
2020-2021
Notes: Percentages do not always
sum to 100% because we
do not show shares of staff
with no reported race, with
more than one reported
race, or Native American
staff.

Source: California Department of
Education and Root Policy
Research
Since 2011-2012, the county’s school districts have diversified in that there has been a 13 percentage point decrease in the share of White faculty and staff and a 10 percentage point increase in Hispanic faculty and staff. However, there has been a slight decrease (by two percentage points) in the share of faculty and staff who identify as Black/African American. There has been a two percentage point increase in the share of Asian and Filipino faculty and staff, and a one percent increase in the share of Pacific Islander faculty and staff.

ATTACHMENT 5
522
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-64
Figure V-42.

Faculty and Staff Demographics, 2011-2012 to 2020-2021
Notes: Percentages do not always sum to 100% because we do not show shares of staff with no reported race, with more than one reported race, or Native American staff.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research Figure V-43 illustrates faculty and staff racial and ethnic diversity for the 2020-2021 school year by district.
▪ Portola Valley has the least diverse faculty and staff in the county, with 59% identifying as White.
▪ Ravenswood Elementary has the most diverse faculty and staff: the district has the highest share of Pacific Islander (5%), Black/African American (12%) and Hispanic (72%) faculty and staff.
▪ South San Francisco Unified School District has the highest share of Asian faculty and staff at 14%.
▪ Brisbane Elementary and Jefferson Elementary have the highest shares of Filipino faculty and staff at 28%.

ATTACHMENT 5
523
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-65
Figure V-43.

Faculty and Staff Race/Ethnicity, by District, 2020-2021 Notes: Percentages do not always sum to 100% because we do not show shares of staff with no reported race, with more than one reported race, or Native American staff.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 0% 1% 1% 46% 0% 51%
La Honda-Pescadero 0% 5% 5% 39% 0% 51%
South San Francisco 14% 3% 16% 34% 2% 28%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 3% 3% 13% 26% 1% 43%
Bayshore Elementary 13% 4% 17% 61% 0% 4%
Brisbane Elementary 7% 0% 28% 20% 4% 42%
Jefferson Elementary 13% 3% 28% 25% 0% 29%
Pacifica 7% 2% 8% 23% 2% 54%
San Mateo Union High School 11% 5% 6% 34% 3% 40%
Burlingame Elementary 8% 5% 11% 27% 3% 45%
Hillsborough Elementary 2% 1% 7% 20% 1% 55%
Millbrae Elementary 13% 3% 9% 25% 0% 48%
San Bruno Park Elementary 4% 2% 13% 26% 4% 48%
San Mateo-Foster City 13% 2% 7% 33% 3% 37%
Sequoia Union High School 2% 12% 2% 54% 4% 26%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 13% 2% 3% 39% 0% 42%
Las Lomitas Elementary 7% 7% 0% 42% 0% 42%
Menlo Park City Elementary 3% 1% 3% 28% 1% 40%
Portola Valley Elementary 4% 4% 0% 33% 0% 59%
Ravenswood City Elementary 2% 12% 1% 72% 5% 3%
Redwood City Elementary 4% 5% 2% 65% 1% 21%
San Carlos Elementary 8% 6% 3% 37% 1% 42%
Woodside Elementary 12% 8% 0% 30% 0% 49%
Total 8% 5% 8% 40% 2% 35%
Asian Black Filipino Hispanic White
Pacific
Islander
ATTACHMENT 5
524
K.

APPENDIX C.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-66
Figure V-44 illustrates the gap between faculty/staff representation and the student body.

For instance, at San Bruno Park Elementary, 15% of the students are White while 48% of the faculty/staff are White, leaving a 33 percentage point gap.

If schools are striving for a distribution of faculty/staff that reflects the racial and ethnic distribution of their student body, the closer to a 0 percentage point gap, the better.

Schools like San Bruno Park Elementary fall short of meeting this goal, in that there is a large overrepresentation of White faculty/staff compared to the student body. Many other districts have a large overrepresentation of White faculty/staff, including Millbrae Elementary (32 percentage point gap), Jefferson Union High School District (29 percentage point gap), and South San Francisco Unified School District (22 percentage points). There are just a few school districts where the share of White students is higher than the share of White faculty, particularly Woodside Elementary and Menlo Park City Elementary, both with a 15 percentage point gap.

Across most school districts, the share of Asian students is larger than the share of Asian faculty/staff. This suggests that Asian students are less likely than their peers to interact with a same-race teacher or staff member. The largest disparity is in Millbrae Elementary, where just 13% of the faculty identify as Asian compared to 46% of the student body, a 33 percentage point gap.

In many school districts, there is a dearth of Hispanic faculty and staff. For instance, in La Honda-Pescadero, 63% of students are Hispanic compared to 39% of faculty, a 24 percentage point gap. In other districts, however, there is a larger share of Hispanic faculty/staff than students. In Las Lomitas Elementary, for instance, 13% of students are Hispanic and 42% of faculty/staff are Hispanic. Recall that Las Lomitas Elementary commonly has high-performing English language learnings students. This may be partly due to the district’s large portion of Hispanic faculty/staff.

Though district wide there are approximately the same portions of Filipino students as there are faculty/staff, Jefferson Union High School stands out as a district where Filipino students are less likely to interact with a same-race teacher or staff member. In Jefferson Union, 29% of students are Filipino compared to just 13% of faculty/staff.

In all districts, there only very small gaps in the share of students that identify as Pacific Islander and the share of faculty/staff that identify as Pacific Islander. All in all, they are represented in approximately equal proportions.

ATTACHMENT 5
525
K.

APPENDIX C.2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.2-67
Figure V-44.

Difference Between Staff and Student Populations, by District, 2020-2021 Notes: The figure shows percentage point gaps in student representation versus faculty/staff representation (calculated as the share of faculty/staff minus the share of students).

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified -1% 1% 0% -6% 0% 11%
La Honda-Pescadero 0% 5% 4% -24% 0% 16%
South San Francisco 0% 2% -7% -14% 0% 22%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School -12% 2% -16% -5% 0% 29%
Bayshore Elementary -6% 1% -4% 20% -4% 1%
Brisbane Elementary -13% -1% 16% -8% 4% 18%
Jefferson Elementary -6% 1% 3% -11% -1% 18%
Pacifica -1% 1% -1% -3% 2% 15%
San Mateo Union High School -12% 4% 1% 2% 1% 12%
Burlingame Elementary -19% 5% 8% 11% 3% 4%
Hillsborough Elementary -30% 1% 5% 15% 1% 7%
Millbrae Elementary -33% 2% 3% 5% -2% 32%
San Bruno Park Elementary -12% 1% 3% -15% -1% 33%
San Mateo-Foster City -13% 1% 4% -4% 1% 16%
Sequoia Union High School -7% 10% 1% 9% 2% -9%
Belmont-Redwood Shores -19% 1% 0% 27% -1% 8%
Las Lomitas Elementary -11% 6% -1% 29% 0% -11%
Menlo Park City Elementary -10% 0% 2% 11% 0% -15%
Portola Valley Elementary -2% 4% 0% 19% 0% -7%
Ravenswood City Elementary 2% 7% 1% -12% -2% 2%
Redwood City Elementary 0% 4% 1% -5% 0% 2%
San Carlos Elementary -10% 5% 2% 23% 1% -7%
Woodside Elementary 8% 6% 0% 14% -1% -15%
Total -9% 4% 0% 2% 0% 9%
Asian Black Filipino Hispanic
Pacific
Islander White
ATTACHMENT 5
526
K.

C.3-1
Appendix C.3: Resident Survey Results & AFFH
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.

Exp la n a t io n o f t e rm s. 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
527
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMEN
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.3-2
Sa m p lin g n o t e . 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
528
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.3-3
Fig u re 1.

Re sid e n t Su rve y Sa m p le Size s b y J u ris d ic t io n s a n d Se le c t e d Ch a ra c t e ris t ic s 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
529
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.3-4
P rim a ry Fin d in g s
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 lim it e d s u p p ly o f h o u s in g 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 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.
 Lo w in c o m e is a b a rrie r to accessing housing. The impacts are highest for large households, Hispanic households, and residents in South San Francisco and Redwood City.
 Ne a rly 4 in 10 re s p o n d e n t s w h o lo o k e d fo r h o u s in g e xp e rie n c e d d e n ia l o f h o u s in g . African American/Black respondents, precariously housed respondents, households with income below $50,000, and single parent respondents reported the highest denial rates.
 1 in 5 re s id e n t s h a ve b e e n d isp la c e d 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. The impacts are higher for African American households, single parents, households that make less than $25,000, and precariously housed respondents.  For households with children that were displaced in the past five years, 60 % of c h ild re n in t h o se h o u s e h o ld s h a ve c h a n g e d s c h o o ls . 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.
 Ne a rly 1 in 5 re s id e n t s re p o rt e d t hey have e xp e rie n c e d d is c rim in a t io n in the past five years. African American, single parent, precariously housed respondents reported the highest rates of discrimination. The most common actions in response to discrimination cited by survey respondents were Nothing/I wasn’t sure what to do and Moved/found another place to live.

ATTACHMENT 5
530
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.3-5
 Of respondents reporting a disability, about 25% re p o rt t h a t t h e ir cu rre n t h o u s in g sit u a t io n does not m eet t h e ir a c ce s s ib ilit y 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 fa irly sa t isfie d w it h t h e ir t ra n sp o rt a t io n s it u a tio n . 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:
 W o u ld lik e t o m o ve b u t c a n ’t a ffo rd 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 h o u s e o r a p a rt m e n t is n ’t b ig e n o u g h fo r m y fa m ily—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 o ft e n la t e o n m y re n t p a ym e n t s—Most likely to be a challenge for East Palo Alto and renter respondents, as well as households that make less than $25,000.  I c a n ’t k e e p u p w it h m y u t ilit y paym ents—Most likely to be a challenge for Daly City, East Palo Alto, 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.
 Bu s /ra il d o e s n o t g o w h e re I n e e d t o g o o r d o e s n o t o p e ra t e d u rin g t h e t im e s I n e e d — Most likely to be a challenge for African American, precariously housed, single parent household, Brisbane and Pacifica respondents.  Sc h o o ls in m y n e ig h b o rh o o d a re p o o r q u a lity—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.

Re sid e n t Su rve y Fin d in g s
Of survey respondents who reported their race or ethnicity, 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 ATTACHMENT 5
531
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C.3-6
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.

ATTACHMENT 5
532
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-7
Fig u re 2.

Survey Respondents
b y Ra ce /Et h n icit y
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.

Fig u re 3.

Survey Respondents
b y Te n u re
Note:
n=2,426.

Source:

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

Fig u re 4 .

Survey Respondents
by In c o m e
Note:
n=1,785.

Source:

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

ATTACHMENT 5
533
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-8
Fig u re 5.

Survey Respondents
by Se le ct e d
Ho u s e h o ld
Ch a ra ct e ristics
Note:

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

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

Ho u sin g , Ne ig h b o rh o o d a n d Affo rd a b ilit y Ch a lle n g e s Ho u s in g c h a lle n g e s : o ve ra ll. Survey respondents were asked to select the housing challenges they currently experience from a list of 28 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.

Th e se re s p o n s e s a llo w a w a y t o c o m p a re t h e ju risd ic t ion s t o th e co u n ty for h o u s in g c h a lle n g e s fo r w h ic h o t h e r t yp e s o f d a t a d o n o t e xis t . 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 and Pacifica 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
534
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-9
 Brisbane 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 expressed the greatest need for assistance in taking care of themselves or their home.

When compared to the county overall, the m ost com m on areas w h e re re s p o n d e n t s ’ n e e d s w e re h ig h e r th a n th e co u n ty o ve ra ll 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.  Nearly 40% of jurisdictions’ respondents reported a higher rate than the county for the following housing or neighborhood challenges: My home/apartment is in bad condition, my landlord refuses to make repairs despite my requests, and I don’t feel safe in my neighborhood/building.

ATTACHMENT 5
535
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-10
Fig u re 6 a .

To p 10 Ho u s in g Ch a lle n g e s Exp e rie n c e d b y J u ris d ic t io n Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,159 73 158 118 49 135 59 50 53 79 151 93 163 738
31% 12% 20% 51% 41% 16% 25% 4% 32% 28% 43% 30% 38% 35%
20% 11% 14% 24% 35% 10% 12% 4% 21% 11% 26% 20% 26% 21%
14% 10% 13% 17% 14% 9% 10% 2% 23% 15% 20% 11% 15% 13%
11% 14% 9% 15% 12% 3% 7% 0% 11% 18% 14% 5% 15% 10%
6% 14% 3% 5% 12% 4% 5% 2% 2% 9% 9% 5% 10% 5%
6% 5% 4% 8% 4% 5% 8% 6% 6% 3% 8% 4% 7% 5%
6% 5% 5% 13% 8% 0% 7% 6% 11% 10% 8% 3% 6% 3%
5% 7% 7% 7% 10% 2% 14% 2% 8% 9% 3% 4% 8% 4%
5% 5% 4% 3% 16% 2% 3% 4% 6% 9% 11% 6% 4% 3%
4% 5% 1% 3% 8% 11% 3% 2% 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2%
42% 48% 50% 20% 33% 55% 44% 76% 36% 47% 28% 45% 35% 46% 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 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
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 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
ATTACHMENT 5
536
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-11
The following three figures segment the answers by:
 Housing affordability challenges only; and
 Neighborhood challenges only.

Ho u s in g c h a lle n g e s. 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, 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.  San Mateo, East Palo Alto, 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 more likely to have trouble keeping up with property taxes.
 City of San Mateo, Daly City and Redwood City respondents are more likely to have bad credit or an eviction history impacting their ability to rent Overall, nearly 40% 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. .

ATTACHMENT 5
537
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-12
Fig u re 6b .

To p 5 Affo rd a b ilit y Ch a lle n g e s Exp e rie n c e d b y J u risd ic t io n Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,130 73 157 115 51 134 58 50 50 77 147 93 160 728
10% 5% 6% 15% 16% 5% 12% 4% 12% 8% 12% 9% 15% 9%
8% 5% 6% 10% 20% 3% 7% 2% 8% 4% 12% 4% 11% 7%
6% 10% 4% 3% 2% 8% 10% 0% 16% 10% 3% 5% 9% 5%
4% 4% 2% 13% 6% 0% 0% 2% 0% 5% 8% 4% 10% 2%
4% 7% 3% 3% 2% 7% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 3% 6% 2%
73% 68% 80% 65% 59% 78% 66% 88% 64% 71% 70% 77% 63% 80% 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
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
City
ATTACHMENT 5
538
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-13
Ne ig h b o rh o o d c h a lle n g e s. 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 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.

Th e re a re a h a n d fu l o f ju ris d ict ion s w h o e xp e rie n ce sp e cific n e ig h b o rh o o d c h a lle n g e s a t a d isp ro p o rt io n a t e ra t e c o m p a re d t o t h e c o u n t y.  For instance, East Palo Alto 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, and San Bruno experience challenges with school quality in their neighborhoods.
 Residents in Brisbane, Hillsborough, Pacific, 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 30% 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 and There are not enough job opportunities in the area.

ATTACHMENT 5
539
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-14
Fig u re 6c.

To p 5 Ne ig h b o rh o o d Ch a lle n g e s Exp e rie n c e d b y J u risd ic t io n Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,079 72 153 116 48 130 56 53 46 75 145 91 151 712
17% 18% 13% 25% 40% 4% 18% 23% 20% 15% 21% 14% 12% 16%
15% 18% 3% 17% 25% 4% 14% 2% 7% 13% 20% 20% 15% 20%
15% 24% 8% 14% 15% 21% 18% 9% 15% 24% 17% 14% 17% 10%
14% 29% 7% 9% 10% 14% 18% 25% 17% 21% 12% 13% 15% 10%
12% 8% 7% 20% 17% 8% 14% 0% 20% 13% 11% 11% 18% 12%
50% 28% 69% 45% 33% 62% 46% 57% 50% 52% 41% 52% 52% 55% 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
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
City
ATTACHMENT 5
540
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-15
Diffe re n c e s in n e e d s b y ra c e a n d e t h n ic it y a n d h o u s in g t e n u re . As shown in Figure 7a, and compared to the county overall:
 African American, Hispanic, and Other race respondents, and  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.

Hispanic, Other Race, and Precariously housed residents are also more likely to experience this challenge.
 African American, Asian, Hispanic, Renters, and Precariously Housed groups are more likely to experience bed bugs or rodent infestation in their homes.  African American, Hispanic, Renters, and Precariously Housed groups 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.
 Hispanic, Other Race, and Renter 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
541
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-16
Fig u re 7a .

To p 10 Ho u s in g Ch a lle n g e s Exp e rie n c e d b y Ra c e /Et h n ic it y a n d Te n u re 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
ATTACHMENT 5
542
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-17
The above trends are similar for the m o s t a c u t e h o u sin g a ffo rd a b ilit y c h a lle ng e s. 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
543
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-18
Fig u re 7b.

To p 5 Affo rd a b ilit y Ch a lle n g e s Exp e rie n c e d b y Ra c e /Et h n ic it y a n d Te n u re 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
ATTACHMENT 5
544
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-19
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.

ATTACHMENT 5
545
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-20
Fig u re 7c.

To p 5 Ne ig h b o rh o o d Ch a lle n g e s Exp e rie n c e d b y Ra c e /Et h n ic it y a n d Te n u re 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
ATTACHMENT 5
546
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-21
Diffe re n c e s in n e e d s b y h o u se h o ld s t a t u s. As shown in Figure 8a, single parents, households making less than $50,000, households with children under 18 and those with a member experiencing a disability experience the majority of housing challenges 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 or because their income is too low.

ATTACHMENT 5
547
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-22
Fig u re 8 a.

To p 10 Ho u s in g Ch a lle n g e s Exp e rie n c e d b y In c o m e a n d Ho u s e h o ld Ch a ra c t e ris t ic s 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+)
ATTACHMENT 5
548
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-23
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 less than $25,000, single parents, and households with children under 18 experience all five affordability challenges at a greater rate than the average county respondent.

Households making less than $25,000 and households with a member experiencing a disability also disproportionately report affordability challenges.

Of households experiencing major affordability issues, sin g le p a re n t h ou se h old s are m o s t a c u t e ly im p a c t e d . 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
549
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-24
Fig u re 8 b .

To p 5 Affo rd a b ilit y Ch a lle n g e s Exp e rie n c e d b y In c o m e a n d Ho u s e h o ld Ch a ra ct e ristics 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
ATTACHMENT 5
550
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-25
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.

ATTACHMENT 5
551
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-26
Fig u re 8 c.

To p 5 Ne ig h b o rh o o d Ch a lle n g e s Exp e rie n c e d b y In c o m e a n d Ho u s e h o ld Ch a ra c t e ris t ics 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+)
ATTACHMENT 5
552
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-27
Exp e rie n c e Fin d in g Ho u s in g
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.

Re c e n t e xp e rie n c e se e k in g h o u s in g 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 m o st com m o n re a so n s for d e n ia l 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.

Eighty percent 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%) tenants reported the highest rates of seriously looking for housing. Among respondents by income, households making less than $25,000 (71%) had the highest rate. However, 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%).

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 ATTACHMENT 5
553
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-28
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.

ATTACHMENT 5
554
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-29
Fig u re 9. If yo u lo o k e d s e rio u s ly fo r h o u s in g t o re n t in Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y in t h e p a s t five ye a rs , w e re yo u e ve r d e n ie d h o u s in g ?
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
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
ATTACHMENT 5
555
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-30
Re c e n t e xp e rie n c e se e k in g h o u s in g 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 (22%).

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.

ATTACHMENT 5
556
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-31
Fig u re 10 . If yo u lo o k e d s e rio u s ly fo r h o u sin g t o b u y in Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y in t h e p a st five ye a rs , w e re yo u e ve r d e n ie d h o u s in g ?
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. n
Jurisdiction
County 56% 29% 23% 50% 870
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
ATTACHMENT 5
557
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-32
De n ie d h o u sin g t o re n t o r b u y. 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:
 In c o m e t o o lo w was a m a jo r re a s o n fo r d e n ia l fo r a ll g ro u p s 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, and households with a member experiencing a disability.
 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). So u rce o f in co m e was the m ost co m m on re a so n fo r d e n ia l a m on g Africa n Am e rica n h o u se h old s (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.

ATTACHMENT 5
558
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-33
Fig u re 11. If yo u lo o k e d s e rio u s ly fo r h o u s in g t o re n t o r b u y in Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y in t h e p a s t five ye a rs , w e re yo u e ve r d e n ie d h o u sin g ?
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 39% 1154 18% 44% 19% 21% 449
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
I had/
have
COVID
The
language I
speak 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
Criminal
background
Percent
Denied
Housing Total n
Bad
Credit
Eviction
history
Income
too low
ATTACHMENT 5
559
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-34
Exp e rie n c e u sin g h o u sin g vo u c h e rs. It is “d iffic u lt ” o r “very d iffic u lt ” fo r e ig h t o u t o f 10 vo u c h e r h o ld e rs t o fin d a la n d lo rd t h a t a c c e p t s a h o u s in g vo u c h e r (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.

ATTACHMENT 5
560
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-35
Fig u re 12.

W h y is it d iffic u lt t o
u s e a h o u s in g
voucher?
Source:

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

ATTACHMENT 5
561
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-36
Fig u re 13. Ho w d ifficu lt is it t o fin d a la n d lo rd t h a t a c c e p t s a h o u s in g vo u ch e r? Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

ATTACHMENT 5
562
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-37
Disp la c e m e n t . 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 m a in re a s o n fo r d isp la c e m e n t w a s rent in c re a s e d m o re t h a n I co u ld p a y (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, Africa n Am e rica n re sp o n d e n ts reported the h ig h e st ra te o f d isp la c e m e n t (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, and single parent households 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. Th e m o s t c o m m o n m o ve s t o a n d fro m c it ie s in clu d e d :
 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)
ATTACHMENT 5
563
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-38
Fig u re 14 . Disp la c e m e n t Exp e rie n c e a n d Re a s o n s fo r Dis p la c e m e n t Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

ATTACHMENT 5
564
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-39
Ch ild re n c h a n g in g sc h o o ls a fte r d isp la ce ment . Overall, for households with children that were displaced in the past five years, 60 % o f c h ild re n in t h o se h o u s e h o ld s h a ve c h a n g e d sch o o ls. 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
565
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-40
Fig u re 15. Ch ild re n Ch a n g in g Sch o o ls a n d Ou t c o m e s , Disp la c e d Ho u s e h o ld s Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

ATTACHMENT 5
566
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-41
Exp e rie n c e w it h h o u sin g d isc rim in a t io n . Overall, 19 % o f s u rve y re s p o n d e n t s fe lt t h e y w e re d is crim in a t e d a g a in s t w h e n t h e y lo o k e d fo r h o u s in g 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 happened.

How d is crim in a t io n 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 households and Brisbane residents (both groups top response was Moved/found another place to live). Similarly, survey respondents from Foster City and Redwood City 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 fo r d is c rim in a t io n . 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
567
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-42
Ap p e a ra n ce /Ch a ra cte ristics
 “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.”
So u rc e o f In c o m e /Cre d it
 “Income was through SSDI”
 “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.” Im m ig ra t io n s t a t u s
 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).

ATTACHMENT 5
568
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-43
Fig u re 16 . P e rc e n t o f re sp o n d e n t s w h o fe lt t h e y w e re d is c rim in a t e d a g a in st a n d h o w w a s it add ress e d Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

ATTACHMENT 5
569
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-44
Exp e rie n c e o f p e rso n s w it h d isa b ilit ie s. 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%).

ATTACHMENT 5
570
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-45
Fig u re 17. Re s p o n d e n t s e xp e rie n cin g a d is a b ilit y a n d t h e ir t o p t h re e g re a t e s t h o u sin g n e e d s Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

ATTACHMENT 5
571
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-46
Tra n s p o rt a t io n . 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
572
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-47
Fig u re 18 .

Are yo u sa t isfie d
w it h yo u r cu rre n t
t ra n sp o rta t ion
o p t ion s?
Source:

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

ATTACHMENT 5
573
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-48
So lu t io n s o ffe re d b y re sid e n ts. Respondents were asked a series of questions about how to improve their situations related to housing, employment, health, education and neighborhood.

Im p ro ve h o u s in g s e c u rit y. 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, 71%
 Owners, 65%
 Income greater than $100,000, 54%
 Residents of Foster City, 53%
 White, 51%
 Residents of Burlingame, 50%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Help me with a downpayment or purchase includes:
 Renters, 44%
 Large households, 42%
 Residents of Daly City, 41%
 Hispanic, 39%
 Precariously housed, 39%
 Residents of the City of San Mateo, 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%
ATTACHMENT 5
574
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-49
 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%
Im p ro ve n e ig h b o rh oo d sit u a t ion . 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 residents, 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:
 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%
ATTACHMENT 5
575
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-50
Additionally, 42% of Millbrae respondents chose Reduce crime, 40% of Brisbane respondents chose More stores to meet my needs, and 33% of Half Moon Bay respondents chose Build more sidewalks.

Im p ro ve h e a lth sit u a t io n . 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, 48%
 Burlingame, 47%
 Foster City, 42%
 White, 41%
 Owners, 39%
ATTACHMENT 5
576
K.

APPENDIX C.3
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-51
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.

Im p ro ve job sit u a tion . 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.

Im p ro ve e d u c a t io n s it u a t io n . 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%
ATTACHMENT 5
577
K.

APPENDIX C.3 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX C.3-52
 White, 52%
 Over 65+, 51%
 Hillsborough residents, 49%
 Foster City residents, 46%
 Brisbane residents, 45%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Have more activities includes:
 Single parent, 45%
 Households with children, 41%
 Large households, 41%
 Other race, 37%
 Daly City residents, 34%
 Hispanic, 34%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school includes:
 East Palo Alto residents, 38%
 Precariously housed, 31%
 Other race, 30%
 Redwood City residents, 29%
 Hispanic, 29%
 San Mateo residents, 28%
Additionally, 29% of Millbrae respondents identified Have better teachers at their schools as a means to improve the education situation in their respective households.

ATTACHMENT 5
578
K.

D-1
APPENDIX D - ABAG and MTC Housing Needs Data Report - Brisbane This appendix is a copy of Brisbane’s housing needs data report from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The report uses 2019 ACS data, which was the most current information available when the report was written (April 2021). The City of Brisbane has reviewed the 2020 Census data and concluded that there are no significant changes or new patterns from 2019 to 2020. However, the main body of the Housing Element, specifically data and analysis contained within Chapter 2, has been updated with 2020 Census data and/or more recent sources specific to the City of Brisbane where appropriate; the attached housing needs data report is supplemental to the data, information, and analysis provided in Chapter 2 of the Housing Element.

HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: BRISBANE
ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning
2021-04-02
ATTACHMENT 5
579
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-2

0.1 Table of content

0.1 Table of content .................................................................................................... 2

0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3

0.3 List of tables ........................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5 2 Summary of Key Facts .................................................................................................. 6 3 Looking to the Future: Regional Housing Needs .................................................................. 8

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination......................................................................... 8

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................. 8 4 Population, Employment and Household Characteristics ..................................................... 10

4.1 Population .......................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Age ................................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................. 13

4.4 Employment Trends ............................................................................................... 14

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers ............................................................................... 14

4.4.2 Sector Composition .......................................................................................... 17

4.4.3 Unemployment ............................................................................................... 18

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households ............................................................................. 19

4.6 Tenure ............................................................................................................... 22

4.7 Displacement ....................................................................................................... 26 5 Housing Stock Characteristics ....................................................................................... 28

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits ............................................................ 28

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion ...................................................... 31

5.3 Substandard Housing .............................................................................................. 31

5.4 Home and Rent Values ............................................................................................ 32

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding ................................................................................ 35 6 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................ 44

6.1 Large Households .................................................................................................. 44

6.2 Female-Headed Households ...................................................................................... 45

6.3 Seniors ............................................................................................................... 47

6.4 People with Disabilities .......................................................................................... 48

6.5 Homelessness ....................................................................................................... 50

6.6 Farmworkers ....................................................................................................... 55

6.7 Non-English Speakers ............................................................................................. 56 ATTACHMENT 5
580
K.

APPENDIX D
D-3

0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends ....................................................................................... 11 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019 ................................................................................... 12 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race .......................................................................... 13 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 .................................................................................. 14 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction ............................................................................................. 15 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence ......................... 16 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ........................................................................... 17 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio ............................................................................................. 17 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry .............................................................................. 18 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate ............................................................................................. 19 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level ...................................................................... 20 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure ........................................................................... 21 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 14: Housing Tenure ................................................................................................... 23 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ..................................................................... 24 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age .......................................................................................... 25 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type .............................................................................. 26 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure ............................................................... 27 Figure 19: Housing Type Trends............................................................................................. 28 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ........................................................................ 29 Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type ............................................................................................ 30 Figure 22: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units ....................................................................... 33 Figure 23: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ............................................................................... 33 Figure 24: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ................................................................... 34 Figure 25: Median Contract Rent ........................................................................................... 35 Figure 26: Cost Burden by Tenure .......................................................................................... 36 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Income Level .................................................................................. 37 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Race ............................................................................................. 38 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................ 39 Figure 30: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ........................................................ 40 Figure 31: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ........................................................................ 41 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ................................................................ 42 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Race ........................................................................................... 43 Figure 34: Household Size by Tenure ...................................................................................... 44 Figure 35: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms ....................................................................... 45 Figure 36: Household Type .................................................................................................. 46 Figure 37: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status .............................................................. 47 Figure 38: Senior Households by Income and Tenure .................................................................... 48 Figure 39: Disability by Type ................................................................................................ 49 Figure 40: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County .............................. 51 Figure 41: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County ......................... 52 Figure 42: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County ................................. 53 Figure 43: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County ................... 54 Figure 44: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, San Mateo County ......................................... 56 Figure 45: Population with Limited English Proficiency ................................................................. 57

0.3 List of tables
ATTACHMENT 5
581
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-4
Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Final Methodology ................................... 9 Table 2: Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................ 10 Table 3: Housing Permitting ................................................................................................. 30 Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ............................................................................. 31 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age .......................................................... 49 Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ................................................... 50 Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ............................................... 54 Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population ............................................................................. 55 ATTACHMENT 5
582
K.

APPENDIX D
D-5
1 INTRODUCTION
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for more housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of Brisbane.

ATTACHMENT 5
583
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-6
2 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
• Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of Brisbane increased by 28.8% from 2000 to 2020, which is above the growth rate of the Bay Area. • Age – In 2019, Brisbane’s youth population under the age of 18 was 844 and senior population 65 and older was 816. These age groups represent 18.0% and 17.4%, respectively, of Brisbane’s population. • Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 43.8% of Brisbane’s population was White while 2.8% was African American,

32.1% was Asian, and 17.2% was Latinx. People of color in Brisbane comprise a proportion below the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.1
• Employment – Brisbane residents most commonly work in the Financial & Professional Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in Brisbane decreased by 6.9 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction decreased by 420 (6.0%). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in Brisbane has decreased from 5.11 in 2002 to 3.55 jobs per household in 2018.
• Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Brisbane increased, 5.2% from 2010 to 2020, which is above the growth rate for San Mateo County and above the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period.
• Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all Brisbane residents to live and thrive in the community.
– Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $750k-$1M in 2019.

Home prices increased by 103.7% from 2010 to 2020.
– Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in Brisbane was $1,910 in 2019.

Rental prices increased by 47.9% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $76,440 per year.2 • Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 58.4% of homes in Brisbane were single family detached, 11.5% were single family attached, 10.8% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 16.0% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more than multi-family units. Generally, in Brisbane, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region. 1 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source. 2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices.

ATTACHMENT 5
584
K.

APPENDIX D
D-7
• Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Brisbane, 23.5% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 17.6% of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley,

0.0% of households in Brisbane live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification. 0.0% of households in Brisbane live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built.
• Neighborhood – 0.0% of residents in Brisbane live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 0.0% of residents live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.3 • 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 Brisbane, 8.1% of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 6.8% of Brisbane households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 11.3% of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity. 3 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp.

ATTACHMENT 5
585
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-8
3 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination
The Plan Bay Area 20504 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year time frame covered by this Housing Element Update, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very low-income households to market rate housing.5 This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from California Department of Finance, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households, and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.6 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State Housing Element Law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. HCD approved the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan on January 12, 2022. For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to 441,776. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website: https://abag.ca.gov/ourwork/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation The allocation that Brisbane received from the Final RHNA Methodology is broken down by income category in Table 1.
4 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing and transportation 5 HCD divides the RHND into the following four income categories:

Very Low-income: 0-50% of Area Median Income
Low-income: 50-80% of Area Median Income
Moderate-income: 80-120% of Area Median Income
Above Moderate-income: 120% or more of Area Median Income 6 For more information on HCD’s RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on June 9, 2020: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-final060920(r).pdf ATTACHMENT 5
586
K.

APPENDIX D
D-9
Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Final Methodology Income Group Brisbane
Units
San Mateo
County Units
Bay Area
Units
Brisbane
Percent
San Mateo
County
Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI) 317 12,196 114,442 20.0% 25.6% 25.9%
Low Income (50%-
80% of AMI) 183 7023 65,892 11.5% 14.7% 14.9%
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of AMI) 303 7,937 72,712 19.1% 16.6% 16.5%
Above Moderate
Income (>120% of
AMI)
785 20,531 188,130 49.4% 43.1% 42.6%
Total 1,588 47,687 441,176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, adopted December 2021 and updated March 2022, was approved by HCD January 12, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 5
587
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-10
4 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, Brisbane’s population has increased by 28.8%; this rate is above that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In Brisbane, roughly 4.5% of its population moved during the past year, a number

8.9 percentage points smaller than the regional rate of 13.4%.

Table 2: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Brisbane 2952 3102 3597 3713 4282 4569 4633
San Mateo County 649623 685354 707163 719844 718451 761748 773244 Bay Area 6020147 6381961 6784348 7073912 7150739 7595694 7790537 Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
In 2020, the population of Brisbane was estimated to be 4,633 (see Table 2). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 21.8%, while it increased by 19.0% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 8.2%. The population of Brisbane makes up 0.6% of San Mateo County.7
7 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e. percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.

ATTACHMENT 5
588
K.

APPENDIX D
D-11
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year.

For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts. DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.

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

In Brisbane, the median age in 2000 was 39.6; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 46 years.

More specifically, the population of those under 14 has increased since 2010, while the 65-and-over population has increased (see Figure 2).

ATTACHMENT 5
589
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-12
Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001
Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing. People of color8 make up 37.4% of seniors and 48.9% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3). 8 Here, we count all non-white racial groups
ATTACHMENT 5
590
K.

APPENDIX D
D-13
Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G)

4.3 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today9
. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Brisbane
identifying as White has decreased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by 23.3 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 2,057 (see Figure 4). In absolute terms, the Asian / API, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, NonHispanic population decreased the most. 9 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

ATTACHMENT 5
591
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-14
Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002

4.4 Employment Trends

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them.

Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Brisbane decreased by 20.3% (see Figure 5).

ATTACHMENT 5
592
K.

APPENDIX D
D-15
Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment
Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level.

These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 There are 2,636 employed residents, and 6,769 jobs10 in Brisbane - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is

2.57; Brisbane is a net importer of workers.

Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear.

Brisbane has more low-wage jobs than low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city has more high-wage jobs than high-wage residents (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000) (see Figure 6).11 10 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey. 11 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum.

ATTACHMENT 5
593
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-16
Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7).

ATTACHMENT 5
594
K.

APPENDIX D
D-17
Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community. New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in Brisbane has decreased from 5.11 in 2002, to 3.55 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level.

These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

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

4.4.2 Sector Composition
ATTACHMENT 5
595
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-18
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which Brisbane residents work is Financial & Professional Services, and the largest sector in which San Mateo residents work is Health & Educational Services (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers.

Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables: Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation:

C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail: C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information:

C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030

4.4.3 Unemployment
In Brisbane, there was a 6.9 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020.

ATTACHMENT 5
596
K.

APPENDIX D
D-19
Figure 10: Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions.

Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonally-adjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.

Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state12.

In Brisbane, 54.1% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)13, compared to 9.8% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 11). 12 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 13 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.

ATTACHMENT 5
597
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-20
Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than 30% AMI. In San Mateo County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $44,000 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely lowincome households;, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters. Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.

In Brisbane, the largest proportion of renters falls in the Greater than 100% of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure 12).

ATTACHMENT 5
598
K.

APPENDIX D
D-21
Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents.14 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In Brisbane, Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and NonHispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure 13).
14 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.

ATTACHMENT 5
599
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-22
Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I)

4.6 Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Brisbane there are a total of 1,892 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 25.1% versus 74.9% (see Figure 14). By comparison, 39.8% of households in San Mateo County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes.

ATTACHMENT 5
600
K.

APPENDIX D
D-23
Figure 14: Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.15 In Brisbane, 100.0% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 83.9% for Asian households,

23.8% for Latinx households, and 76.3% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.
15 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

ATTACHMENT 5
601
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-24
Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In Brisbane, 29.9% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 41.4% of householders over 65 are (see Figure 16).

ATTACHMENT 5
602
K.

APPENDIX D
D-25
Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007 In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In Brisbane, 78.9% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 69.0% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 17).

ATTACHMENT 5
603
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-26
Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032

4.7 Displacement
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.

The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Brisbane, 0.0% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification.

Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 0.0% of households in Brisbane live in neighborhoods where lowincome households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.16 16 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sanfrancisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement ATTACHMENT 5
604
K.

APPENDIX D
D-27
Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure
Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure.

ATTACHMENT 5
605
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-28
5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

The housing stock of Brisbane in 2020 was made up of 58.4% single family detached homes, 11.5% single family attached homes, 10.8% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 16.0% multifamily homes with 5 or more units, and 3.2% mobile homes (see Figure 19). In Brisbane, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Detached.

Figure 19: Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Brisbane, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1980 to 1999, with 510 units constructed during this period (see Figure 20). Since 2010, 6.6% of the current housing stock was built, which is 129 units.

ATTACHMENT 5
606
K.

APPENDIX D
D-29
Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 Vacant units make up 3.4% of the overall housing stock in Brisbane. The rental vacancy stands at 0.0%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 0.0%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is Other Vacant (see Figure 21).17
Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.18 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. 17 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (3.4%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant. 18 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 5
607
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-30
Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.19
Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 Between 2015 and 2019, 74 housing units were issued permits in Brisbane. 74.3% of permits issued in Brisbane were for above moderate-income housing, 25.7% were for moderate-income housing, and 0.0% were for lowor very low-income housing (see Table 3).

Table 3: Housing Permitting
Income Group value
Above Moderate Income Permits 55
Moderate Income Permits 19
Low Income Permits 0
Very Low Income Permits 0
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. 19 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.

ATTACHMENT 5
608
K.

APPENDIX D
D-31
Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.

The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deedrestricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 0 assisted units in Brisbane in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 0.0% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.20 Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income Brisbane San Mateo County Bay Area
Low 0 4656 110177
Moderate 0 191 3375
High 0 359 1854
Very High 0 58 1053
Total Assisted Units in Database 0 5264 116459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020)

5.3 Substandard Housing
20 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
609
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-32
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Brisbane. For example, 0.0% of renters in Brisbane reported lacking a kitchen and 0.0% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.0% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.0% of owners who lack plumbing.

Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state.Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020)

5.4 Home and Rent Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in Brisbane was estimated at $1,076,910 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $750k-$1M (see Figure 22). By comparison, the typical home value is $1,418,330 in San Mateo County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $1m-$1.5m (county) and $500k- $750k (region).

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession.

The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 168.0% in Brisbane from $401,810 to $1,076,910. This change is below the change in San Mateo County, and above the change for the region (see Figure 23).

ATTACHMENT 5
610
K.

APPENDIX D
D-33
Figure 22: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 Figure 23: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts.

Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In Brisbane, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $1500-$2000 category, totaling 23.6%, followed by 22.6% of units renting in the Rent $1000-$1500 category (see Figure 24). Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $3000 or more category (county) compared to the $1500-$2000 category for the region as a whole.

ATTACHMENT 5
611
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-34
Figure 24: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 47.9% in Brisbane, from $1,390 to $1,910 per month (see Figure 25). In San Mateo County, the median rent has increased 41.1%, from $1,560 to $2,200. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.21 21 While the data on home values shown in Figure 23 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents.

ATTACHMENT 5
612
K.

APPENDIX D
D-35
Figure 25: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely costburdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

ATTACHMENT 5
613
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-36
Figure 26: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Brisbane, 30.8% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 16.1% of those that own (see Figure 26).

Additionally, 31.2% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 17.1% of owners are severely cost-burdened.

In Brisbane, 17.6% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 23.5% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 27). For example, 78.4% of Brisbane households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Brisbane residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 6.9% are severely cost-burdened, and 74.0% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.

ATTACHMENT 5
614
K.

APPENDIX D
D-37
Figure 27: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most cost burdened with 28.6% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and Black or African American, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with

71.4% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 28).

ATTACHMENT 5
615
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-38
Figure 28: Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

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

In Brisbane, 0.0% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 0.0% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 23.9% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 17.9% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 29).

ATTACHMENT 5
616
K.

APPENDIX D
D-39
Figure 29: Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 42.9% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI,

57.7% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 30).

ATTACHMENT 5
617
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-40
Figure 30: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens).

Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Brisbane, 7.6% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 1.8% of households that own (see Figure 31).

In Brisbane, 8.6% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to

5.4% for those own.

ATTACHMENT 5
618
K.

APPENDIX D
D-41
Figure 31: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 0.0% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 0.0% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 32).

ATTACHMENT 5
619
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-42
Figure 32: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Brisbane, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) (see Figure 33) ATTACHMENT 5
620
K.

APPENDIX D
D-43
Figure 33: Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 ATTACHMENT 5
621
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-44
6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

6.1 Large Households
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions.

In Brisbane, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (72.1%) are owner occupied (see Figure 34). In 2017, 0.0% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).

Figure 34: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community. Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 824 units in Brisbane. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 5.0% are owner-occupied and 95.0% are renter occupied (see Figure 35).

ATTACHMENT 5
622
K.

APPENDIX D
D-45
Figure 35: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042

6.2 Female-Headed Households
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. In Brisbane, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 44.9% of total, while Female-Headed Households make up 11.3% of all households.

ATTACHMENT 5
623
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-46
Figure 36: Household Type
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

In Brisbane, 34.2% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while

24.4% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 37).

ATTACHMENT 5
624
K.

APPENDIX D
D-47
Figure 37: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status
Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

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

6.3 Seniors
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.

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 31%-50% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 38).

ATTACHMENT 5
625
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-48
Figure 38: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

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

6.4 People with Disabilities
People with disabilities 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 are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence. Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 39 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Brisbane. Overall, 8.1% of people in Brisbane have a disability of any kind.22 22 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

ATTACHMENT 5
626
K.

APPENDIX D
D-49
Figure 39: Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability.

These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types: Hearing difficulty:
deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

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

State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.

In Brisbane, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 46.2%, while adults account for 53.8%.

Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group value
Age 18+ 14
Age Under 18 12
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
ATTACHMENT 5
627
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-50
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020) The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Brisbane is the home of parent /family /guardian.

Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type value
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 26
Other 0
Foster /Family Home 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Community Care Facility 0
Independent /Supported Living 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020)

6.5 Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. 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 transitional housing (see Figure 40).

ATTACHMENT 5
628
K.

APPENDIX D
D-51
Figure 40: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In San Mateo County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for 66.6% of the homeless population, while making up 50.6% of the overall population (see Figure 41).

ATTACHMENT 5
629
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-52
Figure 41: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table. Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) In San Mateo, Latinx residents represent 38.1% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 24.7% of the general population (see Figure 42).

ATTACHMENT 5
630
K.

APPENDIX D
D-53
Figure 42: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In San Mateo County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 305 reporting this condition (see Figure 12). Of those, some 62.0% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

ATTACHMENT 5
631
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-54
Figure 43: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
In Brisbane, there were no reported students experiencing homeless in the 2019-20 school year. By comparison, San Mateo County has seen a 37.5% decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness AcademicYear Brisbane San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 0 1910 14990
2017-18 0 1337 15142
2018-19 0 1934 15427
2019-20 0 1194 13718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due ATTACHMENT 5
632
K.

APPENDIX D
D-55
to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

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

6.6 Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

In Brisbane, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 57.1% decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year.

Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population
AcademicYear Brisbane San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 0 657 4630
2017-18 0 418 4607
2018-19 0 307 4075
2019-20 0 282 3976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in San Mateo County has decreased since 2002, totaling 978 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 343 in 2017 (see Figure 44).

ATTACHMENT 5
633
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-56
Figure 44: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, San Mateo County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors) Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor

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

2.6% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for San Mateo County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.

ATTACHMENT 5
634
K.

APPENDIX D
D-57
Figure 45: Population with Limited English Proficiency
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005 ATTACHMENT 5
635
K.

APPENDIX D CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
D-58
ATTACHMENT 5
636
K.

E-1

APPENDIX E - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Government Code Section 65583(c)(8) requires the City to “make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element.” In order to meet this requirement, the City undertook various means of gaining community input on the 2023-2031 Housing Element. A number of events were offered to the public through both our participation in the Countywide 21 Elements collaborative and through the Planning Commission or City Council as study sessions and workshops, from early 2021 through July 2022, leading up to the preparation and publication of the draft Housing Element in August 2022. All workshops and meetings prior to February 2023 were held virtually and were available to participate or view live, or view after the event, due to COVID-19 restrictions. However, the City did provide numerous in-person engagement opportunities in 2022 as in-person community events gradually resumed.

Public Review of Draft Element and AB 215
Compliance
The draft Housing Element was made available to
the public for comment, consistent with
Government Code Section 65585(b)(1) (AB 215,
Statues of 2021), for more than 30 days, through the
City’s Housing Element webpage and as a paper
copy at City Hall and the City’s Library. All public
comments received on the Draft Element were
considered by the City Council at a public hearing on
October 6, 2022, more than 10 days after closure of
the formal 30-day public comment period, and have
been incorporated into the Element (see
Attachments E.1 and E.2). Additionally, responses to
a community survey regarding noteworthy Housing
Element policies and programs were considered by
the Council at the October 6 hearing and are
incorporated into the Element (see Attachment E.3).

Following receipt of comments on the first draft of
the Element from the State Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD), the Planning
Commission held a virtual public hearing to
recommend adoption and certification of the draft
Element, as revised following Council’s subsequent
review, on January 12, 2023. Subsequently, a revised
draft of the Element containing redlined revisions
addressing HCD comments was posted on the City’s
website on January 27, 2023. The City Council
considered the revised draft Element at a hybrid
public meeting on February 2, 2023, submitted
written testimony, and took verbal testimony. The Council voted to adopt the Element and certify its 1 City staff tabling at the Farmer's
Market
2 Still from social
media video post
3 Staff tabling at
the Brisbane
Library
ATTACHMENT 5
637
K.

APPENDIX E CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
E-2
compliance with State law per Appendix F of the Element. The revised Element remained on the City website for more than seven days after it was posted before the revised Element was submitted to HCD on February 7.

The following provides an outline of events and public surveys.

Public Participation, Outreach, Education Events and Surveys Date Host Event Title and Format Outreach
3/25/21 Brisbane Planning
Commission
Planning Commission -
Housing Element
Introductory Workshop.

Livestreamed via: YouTube,
City Website link and Local
City TV Broadcast Channel 27.

City’s physical posting places (City
Hall, Library, Mission Blue Center)
Marquee Sign Boards at the
Community Park/Old County
Road and Mission Blue Drive and
Monarch Drive.

City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the
City’s YouTube channel and
website to continue to be
available to the public.
4/01/21 STAR Article “Housing Element Update
News”
City of Brisbane Monthly
Newsletter, mailed to all
residents and business addresses
in Brisbane and published on the
City’s website. STAR Newsletter
Archive | City of Brisbane
(brisbaneca.org)
4/13/21 Countywide, 21
Elements
Housing Element introductory
meeting with an individual
city-focused breakout room
to discuss the process.

April STAR Article.

City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the 21
4 Staff and Planning Commissioners tabling at Day in the Park ATTACHMENT 5
638
K.

APPENDIX E
E-3
Date Host Event Title and Format Outreach
Elements Let’s Talk Housing
website and link from the City’s
Housing Element Update
webpage, to continue to be
available to the public.
4/22/21 Countywide, 21
Elements
Let’s Talk Housing: All About
RHNA, A deeper dive into the
Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) process.

April STAR Article.

City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the 21
Elements Let’s Talk Housing
website and link from the City’s
Housing Element Update
webpage, to continue to be
available to the public.
10/13/21 Countywide, 21
Elements
Why Affordability Matters
Why are our housing prices
so high, and how did we get
here? What does “housing
affordability” mean? How is it
measured? Who needs
affordable housing?
City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the 21
Elements Let’s Talk Housing
website and link from the City’s
Housing Element Update
webpage, to continue to be
available to the public.
10/27/21 Countywide, 21
Elements
Housing and Racial Equity
Why does where you live
matter? Why are our
neighborhoods segregated,
even though our
communities are diverse?
What can we do to create
more inclusive and equitable
communities?
City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the 21
Elements Let’s Talk Housing
website and link from the City’s
Housing Element Update
webpage, to continue to be
available to the public.
11/10/21 Countywide, 21
Elements
Housing in a Climate of
Change How can we create
more housing given water
shortages and greenhouse
gas emissions? How does
more housing *reduce*
emissions?
City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the 21
Elements Let’s Talk Housing
website and link from the City’s
Housing Element Update
webpage, to continue to be
available to the public.
12/01/21 STAR Article “Housing Element Update
News”
City of Brisbane Monthly
Newsletter, mailed to all
residents and business addresses
in Brisbane and published on the
ATTACHMENT 5
639
K.

APPENDIX E CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
E-4
Date Host Event Title and Format Outreach
City’s website.
12/01/21 Countywide, 21
Elements
Putting it all Together for a
Better Future Where do we
have space to create new
housing choices? How do we
promote design excellence in
new buildings and new
communities?
December STAR Article.

City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the 21
Elements Let’s Talk Housing
website and link from the City’s
Housing Element Update
webpage, to continue to be
available to the public.
12/8/21 - 2/6/22 Balance Brisbane Online Survey created by Balancing Act and Brisbane
Planning staff, provided to
the public through Brisbane’s
dedicated Housing Element
Update webpage to gather
Brisbane specific public input
on potential housing sites for
rezoning. (See Attachment
E.1, Balance Brisbane
Summary Report)
December STAR Article.

Marquee Sign Boards at the
Community Park/Old County
Road and Mission Blue Drive and
Monarch Drive.

City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Email blast to Planning
Commission/Housing Element
mailing list.

Program available in English and
Chinese.
12/16/21 Brisbane Planning
Commission
Workshop: Demographics,
Housing Needs and
Introduction to the Balancing
Act Tool. Guest speaker,
ECONorthwest, consultant on
the Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan.

Meeting Packet
December STAR Article.

City’s physical posting places (City
Hall, Library, Mission Blue Center)
Marquee Sign Boards at the
Community Park/Old County
Road and Mission Blue Drive and
Monarch Drive.

City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the
CIty’s YouTube channel and
website to continue to be
available to the public.

Email blast to Planning
Commission/Housing Element
mailing list.

Flyer mailer to multi-family
residential addresses.
12/21 - 1/31/22 AFFH Survey
(See Appendix C3.)
Online Survey: Countywide
Fair Housing Survey by Root
Policy on discrimination
regarding access to housing.

January STAR Article.

City’s physical posting places
Marquee Sign Boards at the
Community Park/Old County
Road and Mission Blue Drive and
Monarch Drive.

ATTACHMENT 5
640
K.

APPENDIX E
E-5
Date Host Event Title and Format Outreach
City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Email blast to Planning
Commission/Housing Element
mailing list.
1/22 STAR Article “Housing Element Update
News”
City of Brisbane Monthly
Newsletter, mailed to all
residents and business addresses
in Brisbane and published on the
City’s website.
1/27/22 Brisbane Planning
Commission
Workshop: Balance Brisbane
update, Review of
Performance from the 2015-
2022 Housing Element,
Overview of Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing.

Meeting Packet
January STAR Article.

City’s physical posting places (City
Hall, Library, Mission Blue Center)
Marquee Sign Boards at the
Community Park/Old County
Road and Mission Blue Drive and
Monarch Drive.

City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the
City’s YouTube channel and
website to continue to be
available to the public.

Email blast to Planning
Commission/Housing Element
mailing list.
2/22 STAR Article “Housing Element Update
News”
City of Brisbane Monthly
Newsletter, mailed to all
residents and business addresses
in Brisbane and published on the
City’s website.
2/10/22 Brisbane Planning
Commission
Workshop: Balance Brisbane
update, Housing Needs and
Rules to Meet the RHNA and
Constraints to Housing.

Meeting Packet
February STAR Article.

City’s physical posting places (City
Hall, Library, Mission Blue Center)
Marquee Sign Boards at the
Community Park/Old County
Road and Mission Blue Drive and
Monarch Drive.

City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the
City’s YouTube channel and
website to continue to be
available to the public.

Email blast to Planning
Commission/Housing Element
ATTACHMENT 5
641
K.

APPENDIX E CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
E-6
Date Host Event Title and Format Outreach
mailing list.
2/24/22 Brisbane Planning
Commission
Workshop: Selection of
Housing Sites for Rezoning
Meeting Packet
February STAR Article.

City’s physical posting places (City
Hall, Library, Mission Blue Center)
Marquee Sign Boards at the
Community Park/Old County
Road and Mission Blue Drive and
Monarch Drive.

City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the
City’s YouTube channel and
website to continue to be
available to the public.

Email blast to Planning
Commission/Housing Element
mailing list.
3/22 STAR Article “Housing Element Update
News”
City of Brisbane Monthly
Newsletter, mailed to all
residents and business addresses
in Brisbane and published on the
City’s website.
3/10/22 Brisbane Planning
Commission
Workshop: Goals, Policies
and Programs.

Meeting Packet
March STAR Article.

City’s physical posting places (City
Hall, Library, Mission Blue Center)
Marquee Sign Boards at the
Community Park/Old County
Road and Mission Blue Drive and
Monarch Drive.

City’s Soclal Media Outlets
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and Nextdoor).

Recorded and retained on the
City’s YouTube channel and
website to continue to be
available to the public.

Email blast to Planning
Commission/Housing Element
mailing list.
4/22 STAR Article “Housing Element Update
News”
City of Brisbane Monthly
Newsletter, mailed to all
residents and business addresses
in Brisbane and published on the
City’s website.
5/22 STAR Article “Housing Element Update
News”
City of Brisbane Monthly
Newsletter, mailed to all
residents and business addresses
ATTACHMENT 5
642
K.

APPENDIX E
E-7
Date Host Event Title and Format Outreach
in Brisbane and published on the
City’s website.
7/28/22 Planning
Commission
Workshop: Preliminary Draft
Goals, Policies, and Programs
Meeting Packet
Farmer’s Market tabling 7/14 and
7/28/22; Signboard; Weekly
BLAST 7/15 and 7/22; Housing
Element email notification
7/19/22; Housing Element
webpage; Facebook, Nextdoor,
and Instagram posts
8/8/22 N/a Publication of Public Draft
Housing Element
September 2022 STAR; Farmer’s
Market tabling 8/4/22,
8/18/22,8/25/22, 9/8/22;
Signboards; Weekly BLAST 8/12-
9/8/22; Housing Element email
notification 8/12/22 and 9/8/22;
Housing Element webpage;
Facebook, Nextdoor and
Instagram posts; Citywide mailer
to multi-family units; HOA emails;
engagement with community
groups (Lion’s Club, Mother’s of
Brisbane, Brisbane Village Helping
Hands, Sunshine Senior Room)
8/11/22 Planning
Commission
Workshop: Overview of Draft
Housing Element
Meeting Packet
Farmer’s Market tabling 8/4/22;
Signboard; Housing Element
webpage; Facebook, Nextdoor,
and Instagram posts
8/11/22-9/23/22 N/a Community survey (online
and hard copy)
Weekly BLAST 8/12/22-9/23/22,
September STAR, Farmers Market
Tabling 8/18/22, 8/25/22, 9/8/22;
Display at Brisbane Library (QR
code)
8/25/22 Planning
Commission
Public Hearing
Meeting Packet
Farmer’s Market tabling 8/18/22
and 8/25/22; Signboards; Weekly
BLAST 8/19/22; flyer mailer to
multi-family residential
addresses; Housing Element
email notification 8/12/22 and
8/19/22; Housing Element
webpage; Facebook, Nextdoor,
and Instagram posts
8/31/22 Planning Staff “Coffee with a Planner” at
Brisbane Library- informal
drop-in conversations about
the Draft Housing Element
Facebook, Nextdoor, and
Instagram posts; Weekly BLAST
8/26/22
9/1/22 STAR Article Draft Housing Element Public
Comment period reminder
and community survey
September STAR (mailed to every
household)
10/1/22 Planning Staff “Day in the Park” community
event; information booth on
Housing Element and
September STAR; Signboards;
Weekly BLAST emails September
2022; Facebook, Nextdoor, and
ATTACHMENT 5
643
K.

APPENDIX E CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
E-8
Date Host Event Title and Format Outreach
planning projects Instagram posts;
10/6/22 City Council Public Hearing
Meeting Packet
Signboards; Weekly BLAST
9/23/22 and 9/30/22; Housing
Element email notification
9/27/22; flyer mailer to multifamily residential addresses; Facebook, Nextdoor, and
Instagram posts; Housing Element
webpage
1/12/2023 Planning
Commission
Public Hearing
Meeting Packet
January STAR article, 1/6/23
Housing Element email
notification, 1/6/23 Weekly
BLAST
2/2/2023 City Council Public Hearing
Meeting Packet
February STAR article, 1/20/23
and 1/30/23 Housing Element
email notifications, Instagram and
Facebook posts, Housing Element
webpage
ATTACHMENT 5
644
K.

APPENDIX E
E-9

BALANCE BRISBANE SUMMARY REPORT
Key:

1. Baylands (Northwest)

2. Levinson (Guadalupe Hills)

3. Peking (Guadalupe Hills)

4. Parkside PAOZ-1 (Parkside)

5. Parkside PAOZ-2 (Parkside)

6. Parkside PAOZ-2 Extension (Parkside)

7. Parkside PAOZ-3 (Parkside)

8. Central Brisbane (SFD/MFD/ADU)

9. Visitacion Ave (Central Brisbane)

10. Lower Thomas Hill (Lower
Acres)

11. Southwest Bayshore (SW)

12. Southeast Bayshore (SE)
aka Former VWR

13. Marina (Sierra Point)
1,800 Units
99 Units
50 Units
39 Units
34 Units
32 Units
25 Units
92 Units
178 Units
36 Units
50 Units
7 Units
16 Units
26 Units
Average Number of Housing Units Submitted by Site
ATTACHMENT 5
645
K.

APPENDIX E CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
E-10
Quick Stats:
➢ Simulation tool launched at the beginning of December 2021 and closed February 6, 2022 ➢ Available in English and Simplified Chinese
➢ Nearly 450 page views
➢ 54 Submissions
➢ Participants spent, on average, 6 minutes using the tool ➢ The Baylands planning area was identified as a housing site on 88% of submissions Planning Subareas vs. Sites
Balance Brisbane included 13
sites, as seen on the map, that
may have been a collection of
one or more individual parcels,
categorized by a planning area
correlating with the planning
areas identified within the
General Plan. For example, the
Guadalupe Hills planning area
includes 2 sites that encompass
a single parcel each - Levinson
and Peking – while the Parkside
planning area includes 4 sites
which each comprise multiple
parcels. Refer to Table 1 for the
classification of sites and
planning areas.

Simulation Results:

Figure 1 represents the percentage of all submissions that identified housing for each planning area. For example, of the 54 submissions, 88 percent (about 47) selected the Baylands as a site that could accommodate housing units mandated by the State during the upcoming 2023- 31 Housing Element cycle. The remaining planning areas, excluding the Lower Brisbane Acres, were identified to accommodate some housing on the majority of the submissions as well, with the Sierra Point, Parkside, South Bayshore Boulevard, Central Brisbane, and Guadalupe Hills planning areas receiving housing units on 48-62 percent of the submissions.

Planning Area Site
Baylands Northwest (NW)
Central Brisbane
Single and Multifamily (SFD/MFD)
Visitacion Ave
ADUs
Guadalupe Hills Levinson
Peking
Parkside
PAOZ-1
PAOZ-2
PAOZ-2 Extension
PAOZ-3
Sierra Point Marina
South Bayshore Blvd
Southwest Bayshore (SW)
Southeast Bayshore (SE)
aka Former VWR
Lower Brisbane Acres Lower Thomas Hill
Table 1: Sites by Planning Area
ATTACHMENT 5
646
K.

APPENDIX E
E-11
Figure 1: Percentage of submissions that identified housing by planning area in January and at close in February.

However, while the submissions showed participants indicated housing could be accommodated within multiple planning areas throughout the City, the quantities of housing units they submitted, excluding those on the Baylands, was fairly low. Figure 2 illustrates the average number of housing units allocated by site. The Baylands received by and far the most average number of housing units. This is in part because Measure JJ allows between 1,800 and

AVERAGE HOUSING UNIT ALLOCATION BY SITE
Results as of
01/27/22
Results as of
02/06/22
Figure 2: Average Housing Unit Allocation by site.

ATTACHMENT 5
647
K.

APPENDIX E CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
E-12
2,200 housing units to be developed within the northwest quadrant of the site and the simulation did not allow users to select fewer units, unless they decided no units would be constructed on the Baylands due to the Specific Plan not being adopted in time. Figure 3, shows the average, median, and mode of all submission, by planning area in January and at close; there was very little difference between the January snapshot and at close.

Table 2 provides a more detailed breakdown of Figure 2, the average number of housing units allocated by site. The table indicates the lowest, highest, and average number of housing units submitted for each site within the planning areas.

As indicated previously, nearly all submissions allocated housing units to the Baylands; only 4 submissions allocated zero housing units to the Baylands. It could also accommodate nearly all of Brisbane’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) if the Specific Plan is adopted within the statutory deadline prescribed under State law. Should the Baylands not accommodate any of Brisbane’s RHNA, Table 3 shows the lowest, highest, and average number of housing units of the 4 submissions that allocated zero units to the Baylands.

Figure 3: Housing Unit Allocation by subarea in January 2022 and at close in February.

Tables 2 and 3 also indicate if the average number of housing units submitted per site could qualify as accommodating affordable housing. To qualify under State law, the minimum density of a site must be 20 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC) in order to be claimed as affordable. As shown in Table 2, no sites other than the Baylands could be classified as affordable using the average number of housing units from the submissions. However, when only considering the submissions that excluded the Baylands, Table 3, 4 sites could be classified as affordable at the densities preferred by respondents.

Results as of 01/27/22 Results as of 02/06/22

COMPARISON OF HOUSING UNIT ALLOCATION BY SUBAREA
ATTACHMENT 5
648
K.

APPENDIX E
E-13
Table 2: Low, High, and Average Number of Housing Units Allocated by Site and Affordability SITE
Amount Submitted Gross Net Qualifies as
Low High Average Acres DU/AC Acres DU/AC affordable?
BAYLANDS (NW) 0 2,200 1,800 55 32.73 Yes
CENTRAL BRISBANE 0 104 16 8.95 1.79 No
VISITATION AVE 0 25 7 0.81 8.64 No
ADUS 0 122 26 NA NA *
LEVINSON 0 940 99 21.95 4.51 10.98 0.41 No
PEKING 0 350 50 9.37 5.34 2.81 1.90 No
PAOZ-1 0 105 25 2.36 10.59 No
PAOZ-2 0 190 34 6.85 4.96 No
PAOZ-2 EXTENSION 0 250 39 8.96 4.35 No
PAOZ-3 0 260 32 7.85 4.08 No
MARINA 0 760 92 6.51 14.13 No
SW BAYSHORE 0 195 36 12.03 2.99 No
SE BAYSHORE (VWR) 0 1,050 178 17.5 10.17 No
LOWER THOMAS HILL 0 480 50 9.6 5.21 No
TOTAL 2,484
EXCLUDING BAYLANDS 684
* 60% OF ADU PRODUCTION COULD QUALIFY AS AFFORDABLE PER THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY INNOVATION, OR 16 ADUS
Table 3: Low, High, and Average Number of Housing Units Allocated by Site and Affordability – for submissions that allocated zero housing units to the Baylands SITE
Amount Submitted Gross Net Qualifies as
Low High Average Acres DU/AC Acres DU/AC affordable?
CENTRAL BRISBANE 0 38 21 8.95 2.35 No
VISITATION AVE 0 25 13 0.81 16.05 No
ADUS 56 122 96 NA NA *
LEVINSON 40 940 340 21.95 15.49 10.98 30.97 Yes
PEKING 0 350 173 9.37 18.46 2.81 61.57 Yes
PAOZ-1 0 105 76 2.36 32.20 Yes
PAOZ-2 0 190 110 6.85 16.06 No
PAOZ-2 EXTENSION 0 250 135 8.96 15.07 No
PAOZ-3 0 260 140 7.85 17.83 No
MARINA 0 760 204 6.51 31.34 Yes
SW BAYSHORE 0 195 101 12.03 8.40 No
SE BAYSHORE (VWR) 50 1,050 350 17.5 20.00 Yes
LOWER THOMAS HILL 30 480 158 9.6 16.46 No
TOTAL 1,917
* 60% OF ADU PRODUCTION COULD QUALIFY AS AFFORDABLE PER THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY INNOVATION, OR 58 ADUS
ATTACHMENT 5
649
K.

APPENDIX E CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
E-14
Simulation Comments:

Balance Brisbane also allowed participants to submit comments as part of their submissions, and many participates did so. The list below contains recurring concerns or comments offered by participants:

Recuring comments:
▪ Water forecasting/allocation for increased housing units/population ▪ Transportation, traffic management, and circulation must improve (with increased density) e.g.:
i. More/increased rush hour shuttles to BART/Caltrain/Muni in San Francisco/Oyster Point ferry
ii. Extend Muni (San Francisco Municipal Railway) to Central Brisbane iii. More bike/pedestrian paths to transit
▪ Housing at Sierra Point would serve jobs and create a mixed-use neighborhood ▪ Sea level rise implications
▪ Importance of quality of life, i.e., noise, traffic, and environmental impacts should be thoroughly understood, considered, and addressed
Participants were also asked to identify additional sites that were not included in the simulation. The list below includes every additional site mentioned by participants, excluding any that were already included within the simulation. Some sites, such as Crocker Industrial Park and parcels along Bayshore Boulevard were mentioned more than once.

Other sites to consider comments:
▪ All of Crocker Industrial Park
▪ Along Bayshore Blvd, Visitacion Ave, and San Francisco Ave ▪ Vacant industrial sites
▪ All of Sierra Point
▪ Above Lagoon Rd (Nonresidential portion of Baylands)
▪ Infill on Ridge
▪ The Quarry
ATTACHMENT 5
650
K.

ATTACHMENT E.1
Public Comments Received During 30-day Public Review Period ATTACHMENT 5
651
K.

This message was sent from outside the company by someone with a display name matching a user in your organization.

Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.

Question/Comment via website
dolores <[email protected]>
Mon 8/15/2022 2:32 PM
To: Ayres, Julia <[email protected]>
Submitted on Monday, August 15, 2022 - 2:32pm
Submitted by anonymous user: 45.26.48.234
Submitted values are:

First Name dolores
Last Name GOMEZ
Phone Number
Email Address [email protected]
Is this related to Brisbane's Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element? Yes Would you like all or part of the draft Housing Element to be translated to Simplified Chinese or Spanish? No
Question/Comment
No one is addressing; WATER, TRAFFIC. Are we talking these dwelling to be on theBaylands? If so , okay. But Brisbane proper is FULL. Please do not cram more housing and people here.

The results of this submission may be viewed at:
https://www.brisbaneca.org/node/15871/submission/10472
ATTACHMENT 5
652
K.

To: Planning Commission, Staff
From Dana Dillworth
RE: Housing Element 2022 GPA 1, Housing Element Update
August 25, 2022
Has this Housing Element been circulated through the State Clearing House? What is its number? Perhaps it needs to be recirculated.

I wonder how the County of San Mateo and the State of California’s Natural Resources departments would respond to a Housing Element which seeks to take irreplaceable, environmentally sensitive habitat (with 60% protection) out of the mix for no-limits, no further study or review dense housing. The City has stated that they have the ability to repay the funders for these properties, however Our General Plan (R-BA) has a stated goal of limiting housing to be protective. This element is inconsistent with our General Plan and our goals of environmental protection for San Bruno Mountain.

I question your lack of CEQA review. In addition, I question the goal to meet ever-increasing RHNA numbers and their impact on a town of this size. It should be questioned, if not challenged.

How do our RHNA numbers keep increasing? How is this a “fair-share” of 2,226 units required of a town of 2,100? We have rezoned multiple times to meet the same goal. (ADU’s could +/- double the town, Parkside overlay, and Baylands). Seriously, the only stated goal of our housing element should be to provide low and very-low income housing with protections that they should never be placed into market-rate service without an equivalent in-situ remedy.

Not subject to CEQA in this moment, but a complete CEQA review IS required because you are advising on a foreseeable action by the City that will have enormous environmental impacts.

If the Brisbane Baylands EIR is the only environmental review for this element, in spite of how impressive, the Baylands EIR was not done with the knowledge of SB 9 or imminent State legislation(s) that will further take our Public Open Space resources, Parking facilities, and Transportation corridors to the benefit of dense housing developers.

The Baylands EIR never imagined an elimination of R-1 housing which quadruples housing stock over night under new State mandates. Mums the word, let’s not tell the public what is really happening. Additionally, the stated purpose of the Baylands EIR was to meet one developer’s goal. It requires adhering to sustainability standards that are not required throughout town because our conservation element hasn’t had equal updates. It also requires sufficient water suppy to support a new population of 4,000, now even more new residents and building supportive infrastructure. What part(s) of the Bayland’s agreement for Open Space, Recreation, Infrastructure, and Community Facilities will be required of the landowners in the Brisbane Acres or other places you might move this high-density zoning to? CEQA requires that all elements in the General Plan be in balance. When was the last time you studied and mapped open space, conservation, our natural resources, and safety requirements with such diligence? It was 1991-1994 for me. What does the recent 20-year drought mean and how did Covid impact the need and dynamics of housing? What about sea-level rise? Those are the types of studies that are necessary for this Housing Element to be current.

Brisbane Acres are inaccurately being mapped and referred to as Central Brisbane. (Figure B.7.2) I object to this new map, if approved, because Central Brisbane is a specific land use.

The map homogenizes the town, it ignores the difference and importance of our R-BA districts which is mentioned in our Open Space Plan as having a special ecological importance. Many ATTACHMENT 5
653
K.
acres were purchased with Open Space funds for improvement for habitat of rare and endangered species. There is an existing environmental determination that requires lower impacts and not scarring the hillside for infrastructure. To speak so casually of the Brisbane Acres’ ability to meet or may meet thousands of units of housing needs is unacceptable because you have not considered the impacts to our streets.

As I see block-long cranes and laden cement trucks lumber up a wide part of Humboldt Road to only back down the hill because of the potential jack-knifing or break failures at every turn, I wonder about the future of Brisbane if we adopt a housing plan that would have enormous impacts to our upper acres and the safety of our residents without looking at the obvious constraints, as an exercise.

The city is in negotiations with the Baylands developer. I cannot believe that out of 1800 housing units there will only be about 200 units for low-income housing. Are you aware that the Baylands developers, with city approval, have asked for $3.5 millions of dollars from the state for clean-up funds? We were told that the reason for so many units, was to pay for the clean-up. What gives?
This element includes language of what to do, where to find units if the current land uses don’t produce. Is that a reality? Baylands could renege and we have to place hundreds of units of low-income housing elsewhere? That language should be addressed so that we don’t have surprise re-zonings, because alternatives were considered in a public forum, but none have been studied.

Why are the Baylands developers in stakeholder meetings only being asked to do the minimum? In 600 acres, there are many opportunities for housing (if proven to be safe) to meet the needs for all sectors of society, for assisted and transitional housing, for experimental off-grid communities. Near a transit hub, all pluses. How is it that the Baylands developer is not being considered as a greater resource for meeting the needs of the community as a whole? Perhaps the mandate is too low or too weak. Given our years of no new affordable housing, our plan should be immediate solutions. Not the rehashing of systems that don’t work expecting a for-profit developer to uphold community values and commitments.

I ask that you send this back to the council for further studies. I ask that you learn the impacts of the new legislation from Sacramento and invite speakers from Community Catalysts https:// catalystsca.org to provide an alternative view of the Housing mandates. I ask that you question our RHNA numbers and learn what other communities are doing with viewing a presentation from Pam Lee an attorney representing communities who question the recent long arm reach of Sacramento: https://vimeo.com/738853753 and question whether we have unlimited resources for developers who don’t uphold their promises or contribute to the good of their community.

Where was a discussion of sustainability, of eco-villages? Of truly affordable, life-supporting community housing? Of local food production? Where is the James Wine’s concept of garden cities? As my family seeks a different, affordable community, we are reminded of the developments of the 70’s that had lesser impacts to the land and created livable spaces. I shutter at the thought that you have allowed the developer of the Baylands to be required to do so little for the overriding considerations you are asking us to once more consider.

Thank you.

ATTACHMENT 5
654
K.
1 Viana, Alberto
From: Anthony Lavaysse <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 12:53 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Attn: Planning Commission
Hello Commissioners,
My name is Tony Lavaysse, and I recently spoke at the Planning Commission meeting on 8-25-22. My comments were related to the Housing Element and our construction workforce.

As I said, I have been a carpenter for over 27 years. It has been my experience that there is a great disparity between local carpenters wages from contractor to contractor.

As a Union Organizer, it is part of my job to walk job sites in an effort to meet with workers and gather information. The data has shown that the unrepresented carpenters make substantially less per hour with little, or more often, no benefits. This highlights the need to hire RESPONSIBLE contractors.

My hope is to raise the bottom for all carpenters in an effort to improve the quality of life for them and their families. Thus elevating the community as a whole. We achieve this through Area Labor Standards.

Local Hire
Health Care
A Living Wage
I hope this provides you with a better understanding of the challenges of the unrepresented workforce.

There is a definite need for Area Labor Standards, and responsible General Contractors and Sub-Contractors.

I look forward to discussing this with you further.

Respectfully,
Anthony Lavaysse
Field Representative
Nor Cal Carpenters Union
(341)688-1494
ATTACHMENT 5
655
K.
1 Ayres, Julia
From: Kendra Ma <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 3:58 PM
To: Swiecki, John; Johnson, Kenneth; Ayres, Julia
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Brisbane Draft Housing Element Comment
Attachments: Brisbane HE Comments_TransForm.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Brisbane Community Development Team,
My name is Kendra and I am the Policy Analyst at TransForm. We are a nonprofit policy advocacy organization focusing on better land use and transportation policy at the local, regional, and state level. Thank you for releasing a draft of the City's Housing Element for review and public comment. Our team has put together some feedback that we would like to see addressed in the Housing Element.

We applaud the City for releasing their draft Housing Element for feedback. We'd love to see if the Element can include clearer goals and language around parking policies and TDM strategies. Please see the attachment in this email to see our comments and recommendations.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions - we know this is a busy time of year and we thank you so much for your hard work around this!
Thanks,
Kendra
--
Kendra Ma, Policy Analyst
(she/her/hers)
TransForm
560 14th Street, Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94612
Sign up for our emails at www.TransFormCA.org. Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Linkedin, too.

ATTACHMENT 5
656
K.

August 23, 2022
Community Development Department
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
Re: Draft Housing Element Needs Ambitious Parking Updates Dear Brisbane Community Development Department,
TransForm is a regional non-profit focused on creating connected and healthy communities that can meet climate goals, reduce traffic, and include housing affordable for everyone. We applaud Brisbane’s work to date on the Draft Housing Element. However, to meet housing, transportation, and climate goals, Brisbane needs to expand on its successful programs and initiate some new ones.

In particular, there will need to be an effective mix of:
● Reducing parking provision and providing incentives and programs to drive less (Transportation Demand Management or TDM)
● Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA We appreciate Program 6.A.5 which will continue a study to potentially lower parking standards.

However this program has an excessive timeline given it is a continued policy from the previous cycle, and does not commit to any specific parking reforms. We do support the work Brisbane has done in this area, including the last cycle’s parking reforms which lowered parking space requirements and linked parking provision to unit size, yet as the housing crisis grows and as we see stronger, newer models of parking policy it is time for stronger commitments to reform.

The need to eliminate or greatly reduce parking minimums is more important than ever. Each new parking space costs $30,000-$80,000.
1 With inflation driving up construction costs since
these estimates, two spaces may now cost up to $200,000. Beyond construction costs, parking takes up essential space that could provide more homes, services, or community amenities. 1 https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/Cutting-the-Cost-of-Parking-Requireme nts.pdf
560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 1 ATTACHMENT 5
657
K.

TransForm recommends that Brisbane consider the following policies in the Housing Element:

1. Requiring unbundled parking for certain transit oriented developments. This is easier for building managers to implement now with new parking tech tools like Parkade.

2. Implementing TDMs such as requiring developers to buy annual bus passes for residents at a discounted bulk rate.

To show the tremendous transportation and climate benefits of these policies, as well as some of the financial savings for residents and reduced costs for development, we have used our GreenTRIP Connect tool to create scenarios for a potential future development site at 145 Park Lane. This site is identified in Brisbane’s draft Housing Element Site Inventory as a potential future opportunity site outside of any specific zoning district with lower parking provision. The California Office of Planning and Research recommends GreenTRIP Connect as a tool to use while developing General Plans and is especially useful during the development of Housing Elements (the tool is free to use and supports better planning at the site and city-wide level).

By implementing the strategies above at 145 Park Lane, GreenTRIP Connect predicts:

1. Implementing unbundling and providing transit passes at this site would decrease demand for parking by 36% and result in resident transportation savings of $792 per year.

2. With right-sized parking, incorporating the benefits of unbundled parking and free transit passes, the development would cost $6,378,000 less to build relative to current parking standards.

3. When combined with 100% affordable housing these strategies resulted in an incredible 60% reduction in driving and greenhouse gas emissions for the site, compared to the city average.

4. If an affordable development with smart parking strategies were built on this site each household would drive 6,282 less miles per year creating a greener and safer community.

By eliminating the high costs of parking, homes can be offered at more affordable prices, reducing the number of community members that face extreme housing cost burdens, getting priced out of their community, and/or becoming unsheltered. Residents, new and old alike, will greatly benefit from the reduction in vehicle traffic and associated air pollution (see scenarios here).

In addition to parking and transportation strategies, we applaud some of the proposed strategies to support more affordable homes, since these would have such tremendous benefits as noted in the GreenTRIP scenario. Two of the most important are Programs 2.D.1 and 2.E.1 that streamline affordable development to help reach RHNA goals, by subsidizing the cost of affordable housing through fee waivers and adopting an Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, respectively. These programs are a cost-effective complement to strategies focused on housing production.
560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 2 ATTACHMENT 5
658
K.

The GreenTRIP scenarios and the chart on the final page of our Scenario document also show the imperative of programs to accelerate development of affordable homes, like Programs 2.D.1 and 2.E.1. Not only do these households use transit more and drive much less than average, but success in this area can help provide homes for unsheltered individuals and families. A commitment to these programs will show that Brisbane is committed to planning for all levels of the 803 BMR RHNA units anticipated in this cycle.

Please let me know if you have any questions. TransForm hopes this information explains why Brisbane should make parking reform a priority in the Housing Element update.

Sincerely,
Kendra Ma
Housing Policy Analyst
[email protected]
560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 3 ATTACHMENT 5
659
K.

City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
To the honorable Brisbane City Council,
The San Mateo Anti-Displacement Coalition (SMADC) appreciates this opportunity to urge you to take swift action to stop a wave of evictions by passing a robust just cause for eviction ordinance.

SMADC works with communities and their leaders to preserve, protect, and produce quality affordable homes. We represent community organizations across San Mateo County committed to fight housing displacement for low-income people, communities of color, people living with disabilities, and others who have faced structural and systemic barriers to safe, stable, healthy, and affordable homes. Our members provide direct services for tenants, organize residents, and advocate for low-income communities of color.

Thousands of San Mateo County residents are facing evictions that threaten to cause displacement or even homelessness. The Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County has seen the number of unlawful detainer evictions increase by 60% in May this year compared to the first four months of 2022. Evictions create lasting harm to individuals, families, and our communities. Evictions disrupt childrens’ education, cause workers to miss work and lose employment, force people into precarious housing situations or out of our communities entirely, and lead to lasting mental and physical health impacts.

A local just cause for eviction ordinance is one of the most powerful tools our cities can implement to prevent evictions. Just cause for eviction ordinances, which already exist in two dozen California cities, require landlords to have “good cause” when pursuing eviction, such as the tenant failing to comply with the lease or the owner moving in. They give tenants stability, security, and legal protection against unfair and arbitrary evictions. They protect tenants who speak up against poor living conditions, discrimination, or landlord harassment from retaliatory evictions. A recent study in four California cities, including East Palo Alto, found that evictions and eviction filings decreased after passing local just cause for eviction ordinances.

San Mateo County is increasingly becoming a home to renters, and our laws need to catch up to safeguard their homes. Across the county, 40% of households are renters. This rate is much higher for people of color due to decades of discrimination and exclusion from homeownership opportunities: 58% of Black, 62% of Latino, 53% of South Asian, and 46% of Filipino households in San Mateo County are renters (Bay Area Equity Atlas). Nearly half of all renters in the county are cost-burdened, spending more than one-third of their income on rent. A staggering 71% of Central American residents are cost burdened, leaving little left over for food, child care, healthcare, or other basic needs (Bay Area Equity Atlas).
1 ATTACHMENT 5
660
K.

California passed the Tenant Protection Act (TPA), a state just cause for eviction law in 2019, but that 1 law leaves out many tenants and has loopholes that have limited its effectiveness. This law explicitly authorizes cities to pass stronger local ordinances, because the state legislature intended the state law to be a floor, not a ceiling, on tenant protections. We also note that cities are not constrained by the Costa- 2 Hawkins Act in enacting local just cause laws.

Local eviction protections allow us to add protections based on the problems we see locally. San Mateo County is at the epicenter of one of the most dire housing crises in the state, and we need stronger local protections.

Though Brisbane is moving in the right direction by surpassing its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals for moderate and above moderate-income housing over the 5th cycle, the city needs to pay more attention to the lower-income sector of the population. More than 40 percent of households are cost burdened, meaning that they pay higher than 30 percent of their income in rent. As a result, Brisbane’s lower-income population has suffered displacement.

Brisbane can better demonstrate its commitment to protecting renters by promoting a range of best practices.

Local just cause for eviction should:

1. Regulate Ellis Act evictions. California’s Ellis Act allows landlords to take their property off the 3 rental market, while giving localities the power to regulate these evictions to protect tenants and prevent abuse. Under state law, removing the property from the rental market is an allowable just cause reason to evict, but without any local regulation, this reason is a loophole that 4 threatens to swallow the rule. A local just cause ordinance should provide explicit procedures and protections, including: requiring landlords to follow a transparent process in order to remove a property from the rental market; providing tenants with longer notice (120-days or 1- year for tenants who are elderly or have disabilities); requiring landlords to remove the entire building from the rental market, not just a single unit; establishing penalties for landlords who re-rent the property after pursuing a bad faith Ellis Act eviction; and giving tenants the right to return at the same rent if the property is re-rented.

2. Regulate owner move-in evictions. Under state law, the owner move-in just cause provision5 lacks specificity and has been frequently abused. Local ordinances like Richmond’s provide Civil Code § 1946.2. 1
Civil Code § 1946.2(g)(1)(B). 2
Gov. Code § 7060 et seq. 3
Civil Code § 1946.2(b)(2)(B). 4
Civil Code § 1946.2(b)(2)(A). 5
2 ATTACHMENT 5
661
K.
further regulation to prevent this abuse. A local just cause ordinance should include detailed provisions to prevent abuse, including: prevent corporate landlords from using owner move-in as a just cause reason to evict; require the notice to state the name, address, and relationship to the landlord of the person intended to occupy the unit; restrict owner move-ins when there are vacant units in the building or in other properties owned by the landlord, or when the person moving in already lives in the property or in another property owned by the landlord; and provide that the landlord or their relative must intend in good faith to move in within 90 days after the tenant vacates and occupy the unit as their primary residence for at least 36 consecutive months. If the landlord or their relative specified in the notice fails to move in within 90 days, the landlord should be required to offer the unit to the tenant who vacated and pay for the tenant’s moving expenses. A local just cause ordinance should also bar owner move-in evictions where the tenant has lived in the unit for at least five years and is either elderly, disabled, or terminally ill.

3. Increase relocation payments for all no-fault evictions. State law only provides for relocation payments equal to one month of the tenant’s rent, which is inadequate to cover the costs of 6 moving, security deposits, first and last month’s rent at a new rental unit, and increased rent levels. These are all unplanned expenses for the tenant, and the tenant should be reasonably compensated commensurate with the loss of their housing through no fault of their own.. A local just cause ordinance should cover a minimum of four months of the tenant’s rent to cover the full costs of relocation for all no-fault evictions, with additional payments for tenants who are low-income, disabled, elderly, have minor children, or are long-term tenants.

4. Expand which units are governed by just cause. State law excludes many types of housing units from just cause protections, including units less than 15 years old and many single-family home rentals. A local just cause law should cover all units on the market, with only narrow 7 exceptions for certain types of housing (e.g. deed restricted units in affordable developments).

In East Palo Alto, the vast majority of single-family homes are covered by their just cause for eviction ordinance..

5. Provide greater specificity for all “no-fault” just cause eviction reasons to ensure maximum compliance. Legal aid service providers frequently report that some property owners use the ambiguity in state law to evict tenants without cause using the no-fault reasons – including substantial remodel, removing the property from the rental market and owner move-in, as discussed above. To protect tenants from eviction and homelessness due to abuse of the law, many cities have developed best practices around providing further specificity to the definitions of these no-fault reasons. A local just cause ordinance should provide greater specificity for all no-fault reasons to ensure tenants are not evicted without just cause

6. More specifically define “at-fault” just cause reasons for eviction. Local just cause ordinances should also enumerate and specifically define “at-fault” just causes for eviction, to ensure that things such as minor curable lease violations do not lead to immediate evictions.

Civil Code § 1946.2(d)(2)-(3). 6
Civil Code § 1946.2(e). 7
3 ATTACHMENT 5
662
K.

7. Provide tenants with recourse if their landlord attempts to recover possession in violation of the law. State law lacks adequate enforcement mechanisms. A local just cause ordinance should clearly state that a tenant may assert their landlord’s failure to comply with any requirement of the ordinance as an affirmative defense in an eviction case and provide aggrieved tenants with a private right of action for equitable relief, damages, and restitution so tenants can enforce their rights if their landlord violates the law. A local just cause ordinance should also provide for enforcement by the City Attorney or County Counsel.

8. Create a rental registry. Listing all properties available for rent in the city, especially affordable rentals. Aggregating information about rental availability helps tenants with special housing needs.

Many communities across the state and in San Mateo County have passed strong local just cause for eviction protections, including East Palo Alto and Mountain View. In order to create a just cause for eviction ordinance, we urge you to take the following actions:
- Include a housing element program to adopt a local just cause for eviction ordinance. Every Bay Area jurisdiction must update its housing element by January of 2023, and every housing element must include actions to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). Renters are disproportionately people of color, due to decades of discrimination and outright exclusion from homeownership opportunities. Moreover, arbitrary evictions often target people of color, immigrants, and other members of protected classes who may be “less desirable” renters in the minds of some landlords. Cities should include a commitment to adopt a just cause for eviction ordinance in the program of actions that will be taken in order to meet the AFFH requirements, address the housing needs of low-income renters, as well as to meet the requirement to preserve existing, non-subsidized, affordable housing stock. - Prioritize just cause for eviction for council consideration in 2022. With evictions already on the rise, we need just cause for eviction passed this year. We urge you to take a public position to support passing a strong local ordinance in 2022.

Cities such as Richmond, Berkeley, and many others have already passed strong just cause for eviction 8 9 ordinances, creating strong models for your city to follow. The Anti-Displacement Coalition is also happy to arrange meetings between jurisdiction representatives and renter protection advocates to help you craft an ordinance that works best for your community.

Ultimately, our communities need long-term, permanent solutions to stop and reverse displacement and create safe, affordable, healthy, and stable housing for all. As we build towards these long term solutions, we urge you to take action today to expand & pass just cause for eviction protections.

Chapter 11.100 of Richmond City Code. 8
Chapter 13.76.130 of Berkeley City Code. 9
4 ATTACHMENT 5
663
K.

We look forward to working with you to advance this and other important policy solutions, Sincerely,
Ramon Quintero
Urban Habitat
Suzanne Moore
Pacifica Housing 4 All
Adriana Guzman
Faith in Action
Karyl Eldridge
One San Mateo
Maria Chatterjee
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
David Carducci
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
Jeremy Levine
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Maria Paula Moreno
Nuestra Casa in East Palo Alto
Diana Reddy
One Redwood City
Ofelia Bello
YUCA
5 ATTACHMENT 5
664
K.

Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The City of Brisbane
Via email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
September 9, 2022
Re: Brisbane’s Draft Housing Element
To the City of Brisbane:

The Campaign for Fair Housing Elements and YIMBY Law thank the City for its draft housing element. We have but a few comments.

The Draft correctly notes there is much work to be done to accommodate the City’s housing need. Today, Brisbane hosts almost twice as many workers as residents (Draft, p.I-2). Virtually all of these workers and residents commute into or out of Brisbane; almost no one lives and works in the City (id. p.II-10). This living pattern emits greenhouse gases, and the City should endeavor to change it. For Brisbane to be sustainable, it needs to be affordable.

A key part of the problem is that the City’s zoning laws enforce an artificial shortfall of at least 1,182 homes below need (id. p.II-28). A shortfall of such magnitude requires bold reforms. We credit the City’s intent to adopt the Baylands Specific Plan to meet its housing need on paper (id. pp.III-2, V-7, B-6), but note the City does not actually believe its lower-income need will be met (id. p.V-2).

We therefore challenge the City to go farther. A large, vacant site such as the Baylands is an opportunity that few Bay Area cities have: why restrict most of it to low-density development? (See id. p.III-7.) The City should also “remove,” as State law requires, the ATTACHMENT 5
665
K.
constraints that its R-2, R-3, and NCRO-2 zoning districts admittedly impose on “affordable housing development.” (Compare id. p.IV-2 with Gov. Code § 65583(c)(3).) We also approve the City’s attention to protecting residents from displacement, and look forward to seeing Brisbane’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan next year. (See Draft, p.V-16.) There is no Program 3.E.1 listed, however, as Policy 2.D suggests. (Compare id. p.V-9 with id. p.V-15.) We would like to see this clarified.

Please contact me if you have questions, and good luck.

Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org 2
ATTACHMENT 5
666
K.

City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
To the honorable Brisbane City Council,
The Housing Leadership Council (HLC) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the city of Brisbane’s housing element. HLC works with communities and their leaders to create and preserve quality affordable homes. We were founded by service providers and affordable housing professionals over 20 years ago to change the policies at the root cause of our housing shortage.

Though Brisbane has surpassed its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals for moderate- and above moderate-income housing over the 5th cycle, the city faces significant challenges as it plans for housing at all levels of affordability over the next eight years. Home prices have more than doubled over 20 years, from less than $500,000 in 2002 to more than $1 million in 2020.1 More than 40% of households are cost burdened, meaning they pay more than 30% of their income in rent.2 As a result, Brisbane’s lower- and middle-income population has collapsed. 903 households made less than $75,000 per year in 2000; by 2020, just 601 did. The city has lost almost 80% of its residents earning less than $25,000 per year over just 20 years.3 In response to Brisbane’s urgent housing need, this letter provides proposals for changes and additions to the housing element that will enable the city to meet its housing obligations for all residents regardless of income. The first part of this letter examines Brisbane’s site inventory analysis, evaluating whether the city has demonstrated capacity for affordable housing as required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The second portion of this letter suggests changes and additions to Brisbane’s goals, policies, and programs that will help the city better meet the housing needs of all its residents.

Site Inventory & Methodology
With their site inventory, cities demonstrate that they have adequate locations with the necessary policies in place to produce the RHNA allocations. Recent changes to state law require cities to meet a higher burden of proof for affordable housing in their site inventories.

Sites projected for lower-income housing must demonstrate substantial evidence that the 3 Chaper 2: Needs Analysis, p. 13
2 Appendix D: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report, p. 7
1 Appendix D: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report, p. 33 ATTACHMENT 5
667
K.
existing use will be discontinued during the planning period, particularly if more than 50% of sites projected for lower-income housing are non-vacant.4 Brisbane’s draft housing element claims that 49% of its low-income homes in the 6th RHNA cycle will be built on non-vacant sites. If true, the city would not need to provide substantial evidence that non-vacant sites will be redeveloped for lower-income housing over the planning period. However, HLC will demonstrate that Brisbane’s housing element relies on nonvacant sites for a majority of its lower-income housing and so must provide more evidence to justify the inclusion of some sites in the inventory or identify new policies and programs to support its claims. Most likely, the draft housing element will need to do both.

The housing element site inventory & methodology section claims to demonstrate capacity for 500 lower-income units, 254 of which will be built on vacant sites and 246 of which will be built on nonvacant sites. Of the 254 lower-income units projected for vacant sites, 225 are supposed to come from the Brisbane Baylands project, 24 are supposed to come from ADUs, and another 5 are supposed to come from pending projects.5
However, the inventory significantly overestimates the number of units that will be built at the Brisbane Baylands site over the planning period. Under Brisbane’s current housing element policies and programs, the site is unlikely to be fully developed during the planning period.

Brisbane’s housing element outlines a simple story: The city approved Measure JJ in 2018, allowing 1,800-2,200 homes to be built on the Baylands site. The housing element claims that “the City is conservatively calculating the realistic capacity of the Baylands” by assuming that 1,800 units will be built on the site, the lower bound approved by Measure JJ.6 The housing element’s narrative regarding the Baylands omits several relevant details. For example, the housing element does not mention that the owner of the Baylands proposed a Baylands Specific Plan in 2010 that would have allowed up to 4,434 homes on the site.7 A 2013 environmental impact report found that the Baylands project would produce a lower environmental impact if a larger quantity of housing were placed near the planned commercial areas. Yet no significant action was taken on the project until 2018, when Brisbane’s city council voted to approve a General Plan amendment allowing a maximum of just 2,200 homes, less than half the original proposal.

Now that the Baylands are able to move forward, there is still a low likelihood that the site will be developed over the planning period. As proposed in the 2011 revised draft Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan, the project was planned to be built over a 30-year schedule. The housing element presents no evidence that the residential portion of the new project would move forward on a faster timeline.
7 Brisbane Baylands Environmental Impact Report: Project Description, p. 30 6 Appendix B: Sites Selection Methodology & Inventory, p. 11 5 Appendix B: Sites Selection Methodology & Inventory, p. 9 4 HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 27
ATTACHMENT 5
668
K.

In fact, the housing element indicates there will be further delays. According to program 2.A.2 in the housing element, the city does not plan to approve the current proposed Baylands Specific Plan until January 31, 2026, the maximum time the city can legally delay upzoning.8 Even after the Baylands Specific Plan is approved, Brisbane City Manager Clay Holstine has publicly said soil remediation and other environmental cleanup will take at least three years.9 The housing element recognizes environmental remediation could be a constraint, but does not acknowledge the projected timeline.10 HLC believes this constraint could be addressed by allowing environmental remediation to occur concurrently with the project approval process, but the housing element makes no such commitments nor analyzes whether they are even possible pursuant to Measure JJ.

Under the very best case scenario outlined in Brisbane’s housing element, the Baylands doesn’t even start to break ground until 2029, meaning the proposed 1,800 minimum homes will certainly not be developed within the planning period. However, HLC believes amendments could be made to the housing element that would justify inclusion the Baylands as an opportunity site, though at a reduced realistic capacity reflecting the fact that some homes will not be built within the planning period.

In order to justify inclusion of any portion of the Baylands in its site inventory, the housing element must commit to expedite approval of the Baylands Specific Plan by the end of 2023 (rather than the start of 2026), expedite all relevant permit processing for the Baylands project, and allow remediation to occur concurrently with the approval process so actual development can occur as rapidly as possible. The city should also share plans from the Baylands developer demonstrating that they intend to develop housing at the Baylands site within the planning period.

Then, the city should only count the number of units expected to be built before 2031 toward its 6th cycle RHNA allocation, meaning the site should have a lower realistic capacity for this planning period. HLC believes a reasonable estimate for the Baylands’s realistic capacity during this planning cycle is 50%, amounting to 900 total homes, though we would support a different number if the city could provide credible evidence the Baylands will be built on a faster timeline Lastly, the city should either (1) create a basket of development incentives to ensure the Baylands developer actually builds the planned affordable housing, (2) pressent a written commitment from the Baylands developer to meet the affordability goals outlined in the housing element, or (3) adjust the housing element’s affordability assumptions for the Baylands downward. Either way, even in the best case scenario, Brisbane will likely need to reduce the absolute number of affordable housing units it projects at the Baylands, which will reduce its affordable housing count as well. If Brisbane has to count at least 8 fewer affordable units at the Baylands site, which would be the case if the city uses an appropriate site capacity, the city will 10 Chapter 4: Constraints, pp. 6-7
9 SF Curbed, Baylands housing could take ten years
8 Chapter 5: Housing Plan, p. 7
ATTACHMENT 5
669
K.
be planning for a majority of its affordable housing on nonvacant sites in the Parkside neighborhood and must therefore provide substantial evidence that those sites are realistic.

Absent the evidence described above, the state department of Housing and Community Development should not allow any part of the Brisbane Baylands to be counted towards the housing element. Even if the Baylands is accepted as an opportunity site, it should be accepted at a lower realistic capacity absent evidence to the contrary. The city likely needs to identify capacity elsewhere, which will require significant upzoning and other policy changes.

Regardless of whether or not HCD accepts the Baylands as an opportunity site, Brisbane’s site inventory has several other gaps. For example, the city includes dozens of single-family parcels in its site inventory that were used in both the 4th and 5th cycles, meaning the city needs to provide a site-by-site analysis demonstrating its projections for these sites are realistic. No such analysis is provided in the draft housing element.

The housing element also assumes 246 lower-income homes will be built in its Parkside neighborhood on six non-vacant parcels located in its POAZ-1 and POAZ-2 districts, all of which are non-vacant. The housing element assumes that 100% of new homes built on these sites will be affordable, an unlikely assumption considering there is no track record of building affordable homes in Brisbane. To HLC’s knowledge, no project with affordable homes has been proposed in the Parkside neighborhood since the districts were implemented in 2018. The city needs to provide substantial evidence of redevelopment over the planning period and change local policies in order to include these sites in the inventory.

Several constraints to housing do not receive adequate consideration in the site inventory or the constraints analysis and so require further discussion as well. Table B.4.2 in the site inventory document, Current Land Use and Development Standards, describes development standards that may constrain housing development, but which are not adequately analyzed in the constraints analysis. In particular, HLC notes the following standards likely pose a constraint on housing and should be addressed in the goals, policies, and programs:
- Floor Area Ratio of 0.72 in R-3 districts constrains multi-family homes in this district. - Max density in R-3, SCRO-1, PAOZ-1, and PAOZ-2 zones is too low for the vast majority of affordable housing projects to qualify for tax credits, and it also precludes for-profit developers taking significant advantage of the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance. Density in these zones should be increased to at least 50 du/ac. - Parking minimums remain a barrier in the city, though Brisbane’s council made some progress by passing an ordinance reducing parking minimums for housing serving disabled populations in 2016.11 Brisbane is a transit rich city, and its parking minimums pose an unnecessary constraint on new homes. Brisbane should remove all parking requirements for housing serving populations with special housing needs and create an overlay zone cutting parking requirements in half for all new homes in all districts within

0.75 miles of a CalTrain station.
11 Chapter 4: Constraints, p. 4; Brisbane City Code Section 17.34.020: Minimum Parking Requirements ATTACHMENT 5
670
K.
- Height limits are identified as a constraint in the housing element in some zoning districts: “In informal discussions with non-profit housing developers regarding the potential to develop city-owned lots for affordable housing in Central Brisbane, a four to five story height limit has been identified as necessary.”12 But the city does not adequately consider how height limits constrain development throughout its multi-family districts or take any action to address the constraint. Therefore, the city should anticipate housing need by raising height limits in the R-3, SCRO-1, PAOZ-1, and PAOZ-2 zones.

Other constraints may go underanalyzed and unaddressed as well. In order to demonstrate substantial evidence that any of its opportunity sites are realistic, Brisbane will need to make significant changes to its programs to address barriers to development and identify new sites.

Goals, Policies, and Programs
In the following section, HLC describes how Brisbane can strengthen its Goals, Policies, and Programs to more effectively promote low- and very low-income housing as needed to create a viable site inventory. The city already has a number of strong policies and programs in place.

However, several programs that would otherwise be adequate lack clear timelines and quantified objectives. Some opportunities to promote affordable housing go unconsidered New state laws have added new requirements to the goals, policies, and programs section of a housing element. Passed in 2018, AB 1397 requires cities to directly connect policies and programs to the identified needs, governmental constraints, and site inventory, among other analyses.13 Another 2018 law, AB 686, implemented Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing mandates, specifically requiring cities to consider how their goals, policies, and programs can better advance fair housing goals, especially the production of low- and very low-income housing. The specific programs cities implement must include “concrete steps, timelines and measurable outcomes.”14
As released for public comment, Brisbane’s draft housing element has several policies that meet these criteria, for which the city merits recognition. Program 2.C.1, “Amend the density bonus ordinance,” promises a series of useful improvements to the city’s density bonus laws. Program

2.E.5, “Adopt an ordinance establishing … a nexus fee applicable to new commercial development to fund affordable housing,” could raise substantial revenue for affordable homes.

However, Brisbane’s goals, policies, and programs include some proposals that indicate the city needs to do more outreach before its housing element merits certification. Program 2.E.1, “Adopt and implement an Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (AHSP),” describes several of the routine actions Brisbane was supposed to have taken before submitting its housing element. All 14 HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidebook, p. 55 13 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65583, subds. (b), (c); HCD, Building Blocks, at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/ index.shtml 12 Chapter 4: Constraints, p. 2
ATTACHMENT 5
671
K.
of the steps that Brisbane describes in this program should have already been taken in order to produce the draft housing element.15 In order to improve this program, Brisbane should:
- Commit to issuing an annual Notice of Funding Availability for a 100% affordable housing development within the first two years of the planning period. The housing element implies the city has current affordable housing funds and proposes to raise further revenue, but presents no clear plan to allocate funding. 16 - Set a revenue raising goal for Program 2.E.5 to ensure the city raises adequate revenue to finance its affordable housing goals.
- Identify at least one city-owned site to be dedicated to affordable housing and amend Program 2.E.6. Commit to issuing a Request for Proposals within the first two years of the planning period and provide a metric for the city’s housing goals on the site. - Create a community engagement plan to commence immediately, from now until January 2023, that engages the stakeholders described in Program 2.E.1. Input from these stakeholders should be used to inform other new policies and programs in the housing element once Brisbane receives comments from HCD on its first draft.

Other programs intended to support Brisbane’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan require stronger commitments and deliverables. Program 2.D.1, “Evaluate methods to subsidize the cost of affordable or special needs housing,” and Program 2.F.3, “evaluate potential to acquire vacant sites and underdeveloped properties in order to … land bank for future affordable housing projects,” describe significant steps the city might take as part of the AHSP, both of which should have been taken as part of the standard housing element process.

As is, neither program will reliably lead to any new incentives for affordable housing because they both promise to “evaluate” changes, not actually make them. These programs can be improved by making stronger commitments to take specific actions that will subsidize the cost of affordable housing and land bank for future affordable housing.

At times, Brisbane proposes programs with actions that are antithetical to the goals they are supposedly trying to promote, though often with the best of intentions. Program 4.A.1, “Adopt and implement anti-displacement programs,” considers some misguided policies while ignoring best practices. The program proposes a local preference for residents in affordable housing. “Local Preference” policies make it impossible for affordable housing developers to qualify for state and federal tax credits, which do not allow exclusion of any kind. As such, this action represents a constraint on housing for the very communities this program attempts to help.

Brisbane can better demonstrate its commitment to protecting renters by promoting a range of best practices. Some proposals that Brisbane could add to Program 4.A.1 include:
- Increase relocation payments for no-fault evictions from one month to two months rent. Current state law mandates only one month of relocation benefits for renters, which typically does not cover the full cost and disruption of unplanned moves. 16 Chapter 5: Housing Plan, p. 6, 10
15 Chapter 5: Housing Plan, p. 10
ATTACHMENT 5
672
K.
- Extend “just cause for eviction” protections to tenants from their first day of residency. State law AB 1482 only extends just cause for eviction protections to tenants after one years of residency, exposing many renters to disruptive evictions. - Create a rental registry listing all properties available for rent in the city, especially affordable rentals. Aggregating information about rental availability helps tenants with special housing needs locate the best options to accomodate them.

Several other policies and programs could be added or improved to make affordable housing development in Brisbane more likely, as described below:
- Add Policy 1.C, “Promote fair housing by creating incentives for development of affordable housing and special needs housing development.” - Add Program 1.C.1, “Rightsize parking,” to allow
- a. Halve parking minimums for all developments located within 0.5 miles of a CalTrain station or the Camino Real commercial corridor. - b. Eliminate parking minimums entirely for all units made accessible to those with mental or physical disabilities. Members of disabled groups are less likely to drive, so the city can easily cut costs and promote more affordable housing choices by allowing facilities to rightsize parking.
- Add Program 1.C.2, “Affordable housing overlay zone,” to create an overlay zone that - a. Eliminates parking requirements, floor area ratio, density limits, and lot coverage maximums for 100% affordable housing developments in which at least 60% of homes serve lower-income households, to apply throughout the R-1, R-2, R-3, NCRO-1, NCRO-2, SCRO-1 zones.
- b. Increases height limits to 45 feet for 100% affordable housing developments as previously described in this program.
- c. Waives or defers impact fees for 100% affordable housing developments as previously described in this program.
- d. Expedites permit processing and environmental review for 100% affordable housing developments as previously described in this program. - Add Program 1.C.3, “Allow housing on sites with institutional uses.” - a. Apply Brisbane’s housing overlay zone (as described in the prior policy) to all sites used for institutional purposes, such as educational facilities and churches, regardless of underlying zoning.
- Amend Program 2.D.2, “encourage development of ADUs and junior ADUs,” to include - a. Create preapproved ADU designs which receive by-right approval and expedited permit processing. This program has been included in many San Mateo County housing elements, from smaller communities like Portola Valley and Atherton to larger cities like Redwood City.
- b. Waive impact fees for ADUs with at least 15-year deed restrictions for low- or very low-income housing. In order to justify its projections for affordable ADUs, Brisbane needs substantial new policies to promote ADU production of lower-income housing.
- Amend Program 2.A.2, “Adopt the Baylands/Specific Plan,” to - a. Expedite approval of the Baylands Specific Plan by the end of 2023 ATTACHMENT 5
673
K.
- b. Expedite all relevant permit processing for the Baylands project - c. Expedite any supplemental environmental review of the Baylands so as to ensure remediation can occur as rapidly as possible.
- d. Offer concessions and waivers to the Baylands pursuant to density bonus law. - Add Program 2.A.7, “Update Zoning Code,” to
- a. Increase allowable building heights to 50 feet in NCRO-2, SCRO-1, PAOZ-1, and PAOZ-2 zones. Increase allowable building height to 35 feet in R-3 zones. - b. Increase allowable density to
- 100 dwelling units per acre in NCRO-2 and SCRO-1 zones - 50 dwelling units/acre in PAOZ-1 and PAOZ-2 zones
- 35 dwelling units/acre in R-3 zones
- c. Increase FAR to 3 in R-3 zones.

All of the above programs should be implemented as early in the planning period as possible, particularly the zoning code updates that will make new homes much more feasible to build. The draft housing element may benefit from adoption or adjustment of other policies as well, which HLC may recommend in the coming months as we review the document more closely.

HLC wants to be a partner to the city, sharing our collective knowledge of state law and best practices to facilitate fair housing. Please contact me or other HLC staff if you would like to talk further about how Brisbane can identify and implement policies that will best meet the community’s needs.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Policy Manager, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County ATTACHMENT 5
674
K.

This message was sent from outside the company by someone with a display name matching a user in your organization.

Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.

Question/Comment via website
Ronald <[email protected]>
Fri 9/9/2022 1:40 PM
To: Ayres, Julia <[email protected]>
Submitted on Friday, September 9, 2022 - 1:40pm
Submitted by anonymous user: 207.62.246.90
Submitted values are:

First Name Ronald
Last Name Colonna
Phone Number 650-533-6748
Email Address [email protected]
Is this related to Brisbane's Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element? Yes Would you like all or part of the draft Housing Element to be translated to Simplified Chinese or Spanish? No
Question/Comment
As a long time resident of Paul Ave. I am asking that some attention by the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element be paid to state which property owners had placed on them by actions of the City. That state is one of inaction because of the imposition of excessive conditions/ costs under which anything can be done. Prior to a city council action - done on the spur of the moment many years ago, because of the city attorney's interjection when it became apparent that a group of property owners were intent on moving forward with development - lots in the Acres were treated the same as lots in the City Proper survey area: one had to improve the street in front of his/her lot as a condition of moving forward. Now, any lot on Margaret or Paul has to improve ALL of Margaret and ALL of Paul Avenues in order to move forward.

For those wanting open space at any cost to others this was a marvelous solution, and it had all the honorable justifications on its face, such as 'excessive slopes, no fire truck turn-around, environmental sensitivity, etc.

Some points in fact: 1) There have been full sized fire trucks up there (a small fire at what is now 91 Paul Ave. many years ago). All the emergency vehicles were able to leave by backing down to the Paul/ Margaret intersection to turn around. Just this past year a full sized fire truck accessed Paul Ave. for testing street access purposes and retreated without incident. (For that matter a proper turn-around could be accomplished at the location where the Paul Ave. water tank had been located (that tank's handling by the City is a whole other story).
2) There are many houses on the upper City Proper streets that are on slopes equal to and far-inexcess-of slopes on Paul and Margaret. In other words, slope acceptance for individual lots should be based on the lot itself and not on a blanket inclusion in a survey section - as the council did in its distinction regarding street improvement requirements.
3) The environmental concerns involved are environmental conceits of a few that have been easily adopted by others once it's clear that there will be no cost to any of them. Example: Do the right/ legal ATTACHMENT 5
675
K.
thing and pay the market price for the properties that are so desired: No way. The entire community would likely never agree to spending the relatively small amount assessed to each for these treasures when it's confided to them that, though the 'taking' of these property rights is illegal, if it can be done by 'hook or crook' at great expense to those with the foresight to have purchased those rights - then so be it ! (I recognize the 'back-handed compliment' that any attempted theft confers in recognizing the foresight.)
I am desirous that a study be done - one done soon - so that people can move forward.

Whether I'm dealing with a City that has purchased the vacant lots at market value or the individuals owning them, we can move forward on improvements if some honest resolutions are found.

An aside: I don't believe that the City, or the involved property owners, or the people walking the paths up the mountain would want to see the streets developed to the fullest extent that the codes ask. Neither aesthetically, nor financially. There's a small developed area on a hillside in Orinda in which they did such, and it looks terrible and out-of-place......

Thank you.

The results of this submission may be viewed at:
https://www.brisbaneca.org/node/15871/submission/10505
ATTACHMENT 5
676
K.

This message was sent from outside the company by someone with a display name matching a user in your organization.

Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.

Question/Comment via website
Peter <[email protected]>
Fri 9/9/2022 1:51 PM
To: Ayres, Julia <[email protected]>
Submitted on Friday, September 9, 2022 - 1:51pm
Submitted by anonymous user: 24.4.153.254
Submitted values are:

First Name Peter
Last Name Sutherland
Phone Number 4154682077
Email Address [email protected]
Is this related to Brisbane's Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element? Yes Would you like all or part of the draft Housing Element to be translated to Simplified Chinese or Spanish?
Question/Comment
This is concerning the potential development of the Lower Acres section of the 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element. I would like to expand and elaborate on the following section of the draft survey I recently completed and submitted:
"Encourage preservation of privately-owned parcels in the Residential Brisbane Acres (R-BA) zoning district by allowing the development potential of those parcels to be transferred to other sites in the City that are more suitable for residential development (e.g., sites without sensitive habitat, sites with existing street and utility infrastructure, sites near community amenities). (See Draft Housing Element Program 2.G.1)"
I think the above is a very good idea. However, as in the purchase of the former Bank of America site, I would greatly welcome and support the purchase of said, privately owned lots by the City of Brisbane, if a land swap cannot be achieved or is not viable. There are several very important reasons to support such actions: 1. The lower acres is now a natural, forested habitat for extensive and diverse wildlife such as owls, falcons, grey foxes, endangered butterflies, opossums, coyotes, skunks, rare plants, etc.

Development will, more likely than not, drive wildlife further down the hill into our established streets and backyards - as opposed to further up the (very steep) hill. 2. Clearing trees, forest, and brush for development will facilitate mudslides and floods - not covered by homeowner's insurance policies.

Ground and soil quality has been proven to be subpar in previous mudslide incidents. Large storms, hurricanes, and super-storms are most certainly in our future (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/12/climate/california-rain-storm.html). Those that live downhill could also suffer big consequences. 3. Increased vulnerability, fatality and liability in fire situations. In order to support infrastructure and other services, many big and expensive homes will need to be built on the Lower Acres which will certainly include numerous vehicles per household . In the event of fire, which has happened several times before on our hill, large amounts of vehicles will be flooding Kings Rd., Humboldt, Margaret, Glenn Park, Paul, San Mateo, etc, - mostly on single lane ATTACHMENT 5
677
K.
roads- including police SUVs, fire trucks, large SUVs, trucks, etc. Chaos and potential injury/death is the most likely outcome in this scenario. Single lane streets simply cannot support a proper and timely evacuation under such devastating and disastrous circumstances. 4. Increased traffic on single lane, and narrow roads- both before and after construction- will heavily impede access for existing residents of the upper Brisbane streets. Delivery, mail, moving, and construction trucks and vehicles are often already an impediment on the aforementioned streets. Full-scale street blockage is also a familiar phenomenon and all would only increase in occurrences.

Lastly, I would like to bring attention to above-mentioned issues and considerations for the future development of other areas of Brisbane that would be affected in a similar fashion which, unfortunately, I know less about, but may have similar, negative consequences as a result of significant development. Thank you for your consideration...

The results of this submission may be viewed at:
https://www.brisbaneca.org/node/15871/submission/10506
ATTACHMENT 5
678
K.

APPENDIX E CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
ATTACHMENT E.2
City Responses to Public Comments Received During 30-day Public Review Period ATTACHMENT 5
679
K.

E.2-1
APPENDIX E.2 CITY’S RESPONSES TO PUBLIC

COMMENTS
Nine comment emails or letters were received during the public comment period, from 8/8/22 to 9/9/22. These are provided separately within this Appendix and included:

1. Dolores Gomez (8/15/22)

2. Dana Dilworth (8/25/22)

3. Transform (8/23/22)

4. Anthony Lavaysse (8/26/22)

5. San Mateo Anti-displacement Coalition (SMADC) (9/9/22)

6. Campaign for Fair Housing Elements and YIMBY Law (9/9/22)

7. Housing Leadership Council (9/9/22)

8. Ronald Colonna (9/9/22)

9. Peter Sutherland (9/9/22)
The following provides a brief synopsis of the comments and the City’s response.

DOLORES GOMEZ
Dolorez Gomez questioned water supply and traffic impacts within central Brisbane. Note that the rezoning to provide for housing where it is not already permitted is planned for the Baylands only.

DANA DILWORTH
Dana Dilworth provided various comments related to CEQA. Note that the City’s CEQA determination is that the Housing Element is exempt, per CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3) because it involves adoption of policies and programs that would not cause a significant effect on the environment and per Section 15183(d) for proposed and existing zoning programs, including those to meet the RHNA shortfall. Additionally, the Housing Element would not reduce the environmental protections within the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan area.

TRANSFORM
Transform requested specific parking and transportation demand management (TDM) reforms, to drive less, and noted the importance of program strategies to support more affordable homes, such as 2.D.1 and 2.E.1. The comments are noted. The program to review parking 6.A.5 and the related program 6.B.1 to develop TDM policy is sufficiently inclusive to address Transform’s comments through the future study to follow. Typographic errors in the parking table 4.1 have been corrected.

ATTACHMENT 5
680
K.

APPENDIX E.2 CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT

ANTHOINY LAVAYSSE
Anthony Lavaysse requested provision of labor standards for housing construction workers.

SMADC
SMADC requests a just cause eviction ordinance. In response, a new anti-displacement program has been included and prioritized for 2023, Program 4.A.14, “Adopt a just cause eviction ordinance to protect renters from arbitrary and unjustified evictions.”

CAMPAIGN FOR FAIR HOUSING ELEMENTS AND YIMBY LAW
Comments were made about the opportunities and challenges in meeting the housing need, especially the opportunity provided by the Baylands. Per government code section 65583(b) the quantified objectives provided in Section 5.1 of the Housing Element provide a best estimate of actual production and are not required to match the RHNA. The typographic error referencing Program 3.E.1 has been changed to 2.E.1.

HOUSING LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
HLC takes issue with the City’s reliance on the Parkside PAOZ-1 and PAOZ-2 and the Baylands areas for meeting the RHNA.

The Parkside areas are non-vacant sites, developed with aging warehouses, and were rezoned to allow for housing within the last Housing Element period, 5 th cycle RHNA. These sites are consistent
with Government Code Section 65583.2 which provides that the City may use nonvacant sites for up to 50 percent of the lower income housing need, provided the site zoning accommodates development at a density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac; ref. Govt Code Section 65582.2(c)(3)(B)). The minimum density in the PAOZ-1 district is 20 du/ac and the minimum density in the PAOZ-2 district is 24 du/ac. They also meet the requirements of Gov’t Code Section 65583.2(c) which allows the City to use nonvacant sites identified in a previous housing element providing that the sites are zoned to permit by-right developments in which at least 20% of the units are affordable to low-income households, as residential development in the PAOZ districts are permitted by-right without discretionary review (ref: BMC CHapter 17.27) The portion of the Baylands subarea identified for rezoning in this Housing Element is vacant, as defined by HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook, and will be rezoned, via Specific Plan adoption, within the first 3 years of this 6th cycle RHNA, to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), per Program 2.A.2 and 2.B1.

The Baylands accommodates the majority of the City’s RHNA and its development will approximately double the size of the City’s population, with either the minimum of 1,800 new housing units or the owner-developer proposed 2,200 new housing units. The owner-developer E.2-2
ATTACHMENT 5
681
K.

APPENDIX E.2
submitted a draft Specific Plan in the Spring of 2022 proposing development of 2,200 units and has indicated their readiness to move forward with development upon its adoption.

The Draft Specific Plan submitted by the developer identifies residential construction in the first phase of project buildout. The State Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Regional Water Quality Control Board have also approved remedial action plans for the land areas proposed to be developed with residential uses. Regarding HLC’s comments on other programs, the City contends that the proposed programs meet the State Housing Element law, both in letter and intent. While there are some programs that direct that the City will study an item, such as parking via Program 6.A.5, and therefore do not have firm a commitment to adopt a specific standard, these are additional voluntary initiatives that go above and beyond state requirements.

Finally, a number of programs are suggested by HLC to rezone Central Brisbane zoning districts and the surrounding residential districts. As detailed in the draft Housing Element, these areas are predominately made up of small sites under separate ownerships, and are largely nonvacant or have other constraints. Therefore, even with aggressive adjustments to development standards, these sites would not be likely to redevelop and are not a viable means to accommodate the City’s RHNA.

RONALD COLONNA
It’s noted that Ronald Colonna expressed concerns about past actions related to the Brisbane Acres and requested a study be done related to acquisition of open space and housing.

PETER SUTHERLAND
Peter Sutherland expressed support for the program to consider density transfer from the Brisbane Acres to other districts.

E.2-3
ATTACHMENT 5
682
K.

APPENDIX E
ATTACHMENT E.3
Community Survey Responses
ATTACHMENT 5
683
K.

Housing Element Survey
1 / 53

96.83% 122

3.17% 4
Q1 Are you a Brisbane resident?
Answered: 126 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 126
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
ATTACHMENT 5
684
K.

Housing Element Survey
2 / 53

81.51% 97

18.49% 22
Q2 Do you own your place of residence?
Answered: 119 Skipped: 7
TOTAL 119
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
ATTACHMENT 5
685
K.

Housing Element Survey
3 / 53

41.49% 39

58.51% 55
Q3 Have you considered adding an accessory dwelling unit to your property?
Answered: 94 Skipped: 32
TOTAL 94
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
ATTACHMENT 5
686
K.

Housing Element Survey
4 / 53

31.18% 29

2.15% 2

29.03% 27

8.60% 8

29.03% 27
Q4 What do you see as the biggest impediment to adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)?
Answered: 93 Skipped: 33
TOTAL 93
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Knowing where to start - > engineer, architect, etc 9/28/2022 12:19 PM 2 I live on the Ridge. Option not available 9/24/2022 6:08 AM 3 parking 9/20/2022 12:27 PM
4 Planning to move in the next few years and don't wish to make this investment. 9/14/2022 1:44 PM 5 impact on parking 9/12/2022 11:11 AM
6 Parking 9/10/2022 1:01 PM
7 We do have an ADU already. 9/8/2022 5:15 PM
8 all of the above + privacy 9/8/2022 12:14 PM
9 Definitely PARKING 9/8/2022 12:12 PM
10 Space; small house; not interested 9/8/2022 11:30 AM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Up-front
financial...

Return on
Investment
Space
Zoning Concerns
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Up-front financial concerns
Return on Investment
Space
Zoning Concerns
Other (please specify)
ATTACHMENT 5
687
K.

Housing Element Survey
5 / 53
11 The city not letting us have 80 units within our home without building out the footprint. No I cant you have two ADS? If you’re not building out of the footprint? 9/6/2022 2:07 PM
12 live in condo 9/4/2022 4:32 PM
13 We do not want an ADU 9/2/2022 8:06 AM
14 up front financial concerns, renturn on investment; PUD's + HOA condos don't allow for ADU's.

Brisbane parking spaces are inadequate & will get worse. 8/30/2022 2:43 PM
15 I don't want additional folks living on my property 8/29/2022 11:47 AM 16 I already have an ADU 8/27/2022 9:29 PM
17 No need 8/22/2022 11:36 PM
18 misuse of ADUs for the purposes of short-term rentals (either using the ADU as a short-term rental or using your house as a short-term rental after moving into the ADU), parking, additional demands for scarce water supplies, etc.
8/21/2022 1:25 PM
19 Can’t 8/21/2022 12:38 PM
20 Parking 8/21/2022 8:21 AM
21 having the time to figure out all of the above, and etc. 8/20/2022 9:57 PM 22 City restrictions 8/20/2022 6:17 AM
23 not enough parking already 8/18/2022 7:34 PM
24 Large easement 8/18/2022 6:14 PM
25 Finances, privacy concerns, not wanting a tenant 8/18/2022 6:46 AM 26 Bad tenants 8/15/2022 8:30 PM
27 Parking for autos 8/12/2022 3:20 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
688
K.

Housing Element Survey
6 / 53

13.83% 13

86.17% 81
Q5 Are you are having difficulty maintaining your home due to costs? Answered: 94 Skipped: 32
TOTAL 94
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
ATTACHMENT 5
689
K.

Housing Element Survey
7 / 53

56.84% 54

43.16% 41
Q6 Would you would like to make energy improvements to your home, but are delaying due to affordability?
Answered: 95 Skipped: 31
TOTAL 95
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
ATTACHMENT 5
690
K.

Housing Element Survey
8 / 53

33.33% 18

66.67% 36
Q7 If renting, do you feel that you are at risk of displacement due to rising rental rates?
Answered: 54 Skipped: 72
TOTAL 54
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
ATTACHMENT 5
691
K.

Housing Element Survey
9 / 53

53.15% 59

33.33% 37

13.51% 15
Q8 How would you characterize your housing costs relative to your household income, either rent or house payment including taxes and insurance?
Answered: 111 Skipped: 15
TOTAL 111
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than 30%
30 to 50%
More than 50%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Less than 30%
30 to 50%
More than 50%
ATTACHMENT 5
692
K.

Housing Element Survey
10 / 53

21.67% 26

78.33% 94
Q9 Do you work in Brisbane?
Answered: 120 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 120
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
ATTACHMENT 5
693
K.

Housing Element Survey
11 / 53

10.00% 12

90.00% 108
Q10 Are you a landlord or residential property manager in Brisbane? Answered: 120 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 120
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
ATTACHMENT 5
694
K.

Housing Element Survey
12 / 53

54.55% 6

36.36% 4

9.09% 1

0.00% 0
Q11 How many residential housing units do you manage or own in Brisbane?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 115
TOTAL 11
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1 2 - 3
4 - 10
11+

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
1 2 - 3
4 - 10
11+
ATTACHMENT 5
695
K.

Housing Element Survey
13 / 53

64.76% 68

20.00% 21

18.10% 19

4.76% 5

1.90% 2
Q12 Are you, or is someone you know, seeking housing in Brisbane that fits in one or more of the following categories (check all that apply):

Answered: 105 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 105
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the
above
Below market
rate/afforda...

Senior housing
(age...

Housing for
special need...

Emergency
shelter

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of the above
Below market rate/affordable (deed restricted)
Senior housing (age restricted)
Housing for special needs (disability, etc.)
Emergency shelter
ATTACHMENT 5
696
K.

Housing Element Survey
14 / 53
Q13 Study zoning districts that allow residential development where reducing minimum lot sizes may be appropriate to encourage development of tiny homes, row-homes, bungalows, or other similar small-scale housing developments. (See Draft Housing Element Program

2.A.5)
Answered: 105 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 105
# DATE
1 3 9/28/2022 12:21 PM
2 4 9/28/2022 12:18 PM
3 5 9/28/2022 12:16 PM
4 2 9/28/2022 12:13 PM
5 4 9/24/2022 9:39 AM
6 5 9/23/2022 7:33 PM
7 5 9/23/2022 6:40 PM
8 3 9/22/2022 1:30 PM
9 1 9/20/2022 12:36 PM
10 5 9/20/2022 12:32 PM
11 1 9/20/2022 12:30 PM
12 5 9/19/2022 5:30 PM
13 5 9/19/2022 1:33 PM
14 1 9/14/2022 1:54 PM
15 4 9/14/2022 1:46 PM
16 5 9/13/2022 11:31 AM
ATTACHMENT 5
697
K.

Housing Element Survey
15 / 53
17 5 9/13/2022 11:28 AM
18 1 9/13/2022 11:26 AM
19 3 9/13/2022 11:23 AM
20 3 9/13/2022 11:22 AM
21 5 9/12/2022 11:17 AM
22 3 9/12/2022 11:12 AM
23 3 9/9/2022 8:04 PM
24 4 9/8/2022 5:19 PM
25 5 9/8/2022 12:31 PM
26 3 9/8/2022 12:29 PM
27 5 9/8/2022 12:22 PM
28 5 9/8/2022 12:20 PM
29 3 9/8/2022 12:17 PM
30 4 9/8/2022 12:13 PM
31 3 9/8/2022 12:11 PM
32 2 9/8/2022 12:09 PM
33 5 9/8/2022 12:07 PM
34 3 9/8/2022 11:36 AM
35 1 9/6/2022 3:45 PM
36 4 9/6/2022 3:30 PM
37 5 9/6/2022 2:18 PM
38 4 9/4/2022 10:54 PM
39 3 9/4/2022 4:35 PM
40 5 9/4/2022 10:31 AM
41 5 9/3/2022 3:18 PM
42 4 9/3/2022 1:51 PM
43 5 9/2/2022 11:28 AM
44 4 9/2/2022 11:26 AM
45 5 9/2/2022 11:15 AM
46 2 9/2/2022 11:11 AM
47 3 9/2/2022 8:14 AM
48 3 9/1/2022 6:18 PM
49 3 8/30/2022 4:27 PM
50 5 8/30/2022 2:47 PM
51 1 8/29/2022 11:51 AM
52 2 8/28/2022 5:46 PM
53 1 8/27/2022 9:36 PM
54 2 8/27/2022 8:30 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
698
K.

Housing Element Survey
16 / 53
55 1 8/27/2022 7:22 PM
56 2 8/27/2022 4:50 PM
57 5 8/27/2022 4:16 PM
58 1 8/27/2022 12:11 PM
59 3 8/27/2022 7:10 AM
60 5 8/25/2022 4:40 PM
61 1 8/24/2022 2:43 PM
62 1 8/24/2022 2:36 PM
63 3 8/24/2022 2:23 PM
64 5 8/24/2022 12:48 PM
65 1 8/24/2022 8:32 AM
66 3 8/23/2022 10:39 AM
67 1 8/23/2022 4:40 AM
68 3 8/22/2022 6:13 PM
69 1 8/22/2022 3:20 PM
70 1 8/21/2022 7:15 PM
71 1 8/21/2022 4:33 PM
72 2 8/21/2022 2:05 PM
73 4 8/21/2022 12:51 PM
74 4 8/21/2022 9:27 AM
75 4 8/21/2022 9:26 AM
76 3 8/21/2022 8:24 AM
77 5 8/20/2022 2:43 PM
78 2 8/20/2022 6:19 AM
79 4 8/20/2022 12:05 AM
80 2 8/19/2022 7:03 PM
81 5 8/19/2022 6:02 PM
82 4 8/19/2022 5:05 PM
83 4 8/19/2022 4:51 PM
84 1 8/18/2022 9:19 PM
85 1 8/18/2022 7:40 PM
86 5 8/18/2022 6:58 PM
87 4 8/18/2022 6:18 PM
88 3 8/18/2022 1:49 PM
89 4 8/18/2022 1:20 PM
90 4 8/18/2022 1:16 PM
91 4 8/18/2022 1:07 PM
92 5 8/18/2022 1:03 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
699
K.

Housing Element Survey
17 / 53
93 2 8/18/2022 6:54 AM
94 1 8/15/2022 8:39 PM
95 5 8/15/2022 12:30 PM
96 1 8/15/2022 11:35 AM
97 2 8/13/2022 11:47 PM
98 3 8/13/2022 7:36 PM
99 1 8/13/2022 12:59 AM
100 2 8/12/2022 8:21 PM
101 3 8/12/2022 8:00 PM
102 5 8/12/2022 6:53 PM
103 3 8/12/2022 6:47 PM
104 4 8/12/2022 5:07 PM
105 5 8/11/2022 5:21 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
700
K.

Housing Element Survey
18 / 53
Q14 Encourage the production of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by funding a loan program to help offset the cost of ADU construction or adopting fee waivers. (See Draft Housing Element Program 2.D.2) Answered: 105 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 105
# DATE
1 3 9/28/2022 12:21 PM
2 5 9/28/2022 12:18 PM
3 5 9/28/2022 12:16 PM
4 3 9/28/2022 12:13 PM
5 5 9/24/2022 9:39 AM
6 5 9/23/2022 7:33 PM
7 3 9/23/2022 6:40 PM
8 2 9/22/2022 1:30 PM
9 5 9/20/2022 12:36 PM
10 5 9/20/2022 12:32 PM
11 1 9/20/2022 12:30 PM
12 3 9/19/2022 5:30 PM
13 1 9/19/2022 1:33 PM
14 1 9/14/2022 1:54 PM
15 4 9/14/2022 1:46 PM
16 5 9/13/2022 11:31 AM
17 5 9/13/2022 11:28 AM
18 2 9/13/2022 11:26 AM
ATTACHMENT 5
701
K.

Housing Element Survey
19 / 53
19 3 9/13/2022 11:23 AM
20 3 9/13/2022 11:22 AM
21 3 9/12/2022 11:17 AM
22 1 9/12/2022 11:12 AM
23 3 9/9/2022 8:04 PM
24 4 9/8/2022 5:19 PM
25 3 9/8/2022 12:31 PM
26 5 9/8/2022 12:29 PM
27 1 9/8/2022 12:22 PM
28 1 9/8/2022 12:20 PM
29 3 9/8/2022 12:17 PM
30 1 9/8/2022 12:13 PM
31 3 9/8/2022 12:11 PM
32 1 9/8/2022 12:09 PM
33 5 9/8/2022 12:07 PM
34 2 9/8/2022 11:36 AM
35 5 9/6/2022 3:45 PM
36 4 9/6/2022 3:30 PM
37 5 9/6/2022 2:18 PM
38 5 9/4/2022 10:54 PM
39 3 9/4/2022 4:35 PM
40 5 9/4/2022 10:31 AM
41 5 9/3/2022 3:18 PM
42 4 9/3/2022 1:51 PM
43 3 9/2/2022 11:28 AM
44 4 9/2/2022 11:26 AM
45 2 9/2/2022 11:15 AM
46 1 9/2/2022 11:11 AM
47 4 9/2/2022 8:14 AM
48 3 9/1/2022 6:18 PM
49 4 8/30/2022 4:27 PM
50 1 8/30/2022 2:47 PM
51 1 8/29/2022 11:51 AM
52 4 8/28/2022 5:46 PM
53 3 8/27/2022 9:36 PM
54 4 8/27/2022 8:30 PM
55 1 8/27/2022 7:22 PM
56 4 8/27/2022 4:50 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
702
K.

Housing Element Survey
20 / 53
57 5 8/27/2022 4:16 PM
58 1 8/27/2022 12:11 PM
59 5 8/27/2022 7:10 AM
60 4 8/25/2022 4:40 PM
61 1 8/24/2022 2:43 PM
62 1 8/24/2022 2:36 PM
63 4 8/24/2022 2:23 PM
64 3 8/24/2022 12:48 PM
65 1 8/24/2022 8:32 AM
66 3 8/23/2022 10:39 AM
67 1 8/23/2022 4:40 AM
68 5 8/22/2022 6:13 PM
69 1 8/22/2022 3:20 PM
70 1 8/21/2022 7:15 PM
71 3 8/21/2022 4:33 PM
72 1 8/21/2022 2:05 PM
73 5 8/21/2022 12:51 PM
74 4 8/21/2022 9:27 AM
75 4 8/21/2022 9:26 AM
76 3 8/21/2022 8:24 AM
77 2 8/20/2022 2:43 PM
78 3 8/20/2022 6:19 AM
79 5 8/20/2022 12:05 AM
80 2 8/19/2022 7:03 PM
81 5 8/19/2022 6:02 PM
82 1 8/19/2022 5:05 PM
83 4 8/19/2022 4:51 PM
84 1 8/18/2022 9:19 PM
85 1 8/18/2022 7:40 PM
86 5 8/18/2022 6:58 PM
87 5 8/18/2022 6:18 PM
88 3 8/18/2022 1:49 PM
89 5 8/18/2022 1:20 PM
90 3 8/18/2022 1:16 PM
91 3 8/18/2022 1:07 PM
92 5 8/18/2022 1:03 PM
93 4 8/18/2022 6:54 AM
94 3 8/15/2022 8:39 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
703
K.

Housing Element Survey
21 / 53
95 3 8/15/2022 12:30 PM
96 3 8/15/2022 11:35 AM
97 5 8/13/2022 11:47 PM
98 4 8/13/2022 7:36 PM
99 3 8/13/2022 12:59 AM
100 3 8/12/2022 8:21 PM
101 5 8/12/2022 8:00 PM
102 5 8/12/2022 6:53 PM
103 1 8/12/2022 6:47 PM
104 1 8/12/2022 5:07 PM
105 5 8/11/2022 5:21 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
704
K.

Housing Element Survey
22 / 53
Q15 Encourage preservation of privately-owned parcels in the Residential Brisbane Acres (R-BA) zoning district by allowing the development potential of those parcels to be transferred to other sites in the City that are more suitable for residential development (e.g., sites without sensitive habitat, sites with existing street and utility infrastructure, sites near community amenities). (See Draft Housing Element Program 2.G.1) Answered: 105 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 105
# DATE
1 5 9/28/2022 12:21 PM
2 5 9/28/2022 12:18 PM
3 5 9/28/2022 12:16 PM
4 5 9/28/2022 12:13 PM
5 3 9/24/2022 9:39 AM
6 1 9/23/2022 7:33 PM
7 3 9/23/2022 6:40 PM
8 5 9/22/2022 1:30 PM
9 5 9/20/2022 12:36 PM
10 1 9/20/2022 12:32 PM
11 3 9/20/2022 12:30 PM
12 1 9/19/2022 5:30 PM
13 5 9/19/2022 1:33 PM
14 1 9/14/2022 1:54 PM
15 3 9/14/2022 1:46 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
705
K.

Housing Element Survey
23 / 53
16 5 9/13/2022 11:31 AM
17 1 9/13/2022 11:28 AM
18 2 9/13/2022 11:26 AM
19 5 9/13/2022 11:23 AM
20 3 9/13/2022 11:22 AM
21 3 9/12/2022 11:17 AM
22 5 9/12/2022 11:12 AM
23 2 9/9/2022 8:04 PM
24 4 9/8/2022 5:19 PM
25 4 9/8/2022 12:31 PM
26 5 9/8/2022 12:29 PM
27 1 9/8/2022 12:22 PM
28 1 9/8/2022 12:20 PM
29 3 9/8/2022 12:17 PM
30 3 9/8/2022 12:13 PM
31 5 9/8/2022 12:11 PM
32 3 9/8/2022 12:09 PM
33 3 9/8/2022 12:07 PM
34 3 9/8/2022 11:36 AM
35 5 9/6/2022 3:45 PM
36 2 9/6/2022 3:30 PM
37 5 9/6/2022 2:18 PM
38 3 9/4/2022 10:54 PM
39 5 9/4/2022 4:35 PM
40 1 9/4/2022 10:31 AM
41 4 9/3/2022 3:18 PM
42 5 9/3/2022 1:51 PM
43 4 9/2/2022 11:28 AM
44 3 9/2/2022 11:26 AM
45 4 9/2/2022 11:15 AM
46 1 9/2/2022 11:11 AM
47 5 9/2/2022 8:14 AM
48 2 9/1/2022 6:18 PM
49 5 8/30/2022 4:27 PM
50 5 8/30/2022 2:47 PM
51 1 8/29/2022 11:51 AM
52 3 8/28/2022 5:46 PM
53 4 8/27/2022 9:36 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
706
K.

Housing Element Survey
24 / 53
54 3 8/27/2022 8:30 PM
55 1 8/27/2022 7:22 PM
56 4 8/27/2022 4:50 PM
57 3 8/27/2022 4:16 PM
58 4 8/27/2022 12:11 PM
59 5 8/27/2022 7:10 AM
60 3 8/25/2022 4:40 PM
61 5 8/24/2022 2:43 PM
62 5 8/24/2022 2:36 PM
63 3 8/24/2022 2:23 PM
64 2 8/24/2022 12:48 PM
65 1 8/24/2022 8:32 AM
66 5 8/23/2022 10:39 AM
67 5 8/23/2022 4:40 AM
68 5 8/22/2022 6:13 PM
69 5 8/22/2022 3:20 PM
70 5 8/21/2022 7:15 PM
71 1 8/21/2022 4:33 PM
72 5 8/21/2022 2:05 PM
73 5 8/21/2022 12:51 PM
74 5 8/21/2022 9:27 AM
75 5 8/21/2022 9:26 AM
76 5 8/21/2022 8:24 AM
77 4 8/20/2022 2:43 PM
78 4 8/20/2022 6:19 AM
79 5 8/20/2022 12:05 AM
80 2 8/19/2022 7:03 PM
81 5 8/19/2022 6:02 PM
82 1 8/19/2022 5:05 PM
83 4 8/19/2022 4:51 PM
84 1 8/18/2022 9:19 PM
85 5 8/18/2022 7:40 PM
86 5 8/18/2022 6:58 PM
87 4 8/18/2022 6:18 PM
88 3 8/18/2022 1:49 PM
89 5 8/18/2022 1:20 PM
90 5 8/18/2022 1:16 PM
91 3 8/18/2022 1:07 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
707
K.

Housing Element Survey
25 / 53
92 3 8/18/2022 1:03 PM
93 3 8/18/2022 6:54 AM
94 3 8/15/2022 8:39 PM
95 5 8/15/2022 12:30 PM
96 5 8/15/2022 11:35 AM
97 5 8/13/2022 11:47 PM
98 4 8/13/2022 7:36 PM
99 2 8/13/2022 12:59 AM
100 1 8/12/2022 8:21 PM
101 5 8/12/2022 8:00 PM
102 5 8/12/2022 6:53 PM
103 2 8/12/2022 6:47 PM
104 3 8/12/2022 5:07 PM
105 3 8/11/2022 5:21 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
708
K.

Housing Element Survey
26 / 53
Q16 Increase the housing options for low income households with Housing Choice Vouchers in Brisbane by launching an education/outreach campaign targeting landlords/managers. (See Draft Housing Element Program 3.B.1)
Answered: 105 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 105
# DATE
1 4 9/28/2022 12:21 PM
2 1 9/28/2022 12:18 PM
3 5 9/28/2022 12:16 PM
4 5 9/28/2022 12:13 PM
5 3 9/24/2022 9:39 AM
6 1 9/23/2022 7:33 PM
7 2 9/23/2022 6:40 PM
8 3 9/22/2022 1:30 PM
9 1 9/20/2022 12:36 PM
10 1 9/20/2022 12:32 PM
11 1 9/20/2022 12:30 PM
12 4 9/19/2022 5:30 PM
13 5 9/19/2022 1:33 PM
14 1 9/14/2022 1:54 PM
15 3 9/14/2022 1:46 PM
16 5 9/13/2022 11:31 AM
17 3 9/13/2022 11:28 AM
ATTACHMENT 5
709
K.

Housing Element Survey
27 / 53
18 4 9/13/2022 11:26 AM
19 5 9/13/2022 11:23 AM
20 4 9/13/2022 11:22 AM
21 3 9/12/2022 11:17 AM
22 5 9/12/2022 11:12 AM
23 4 9/9/2022 8:04 PM
24 4 9/8/2022 5:19 PM
25 3 9/8/2022 12:31 PM
26 2 9/8/2022 12:29 PM
27 1 9/8/2022 12:22 PM
28 1 9/8/2022 12:20 PM
29 3 9/8/2022 12:17 PM
30 1 9/8/2022 12:13 PM
31 3 9/8/2022 12:11 PM
32 1 9/8/2022 12:09 PM
33 1 9/8/2022 12:07 PM
34 1 9/8/2022 11:36 AM
35 4 9/6/2022 3:45 PM
36 3 9/6/2022 3:30 PM
37 1 9/6/2022 2:18 PM
38 4 9/4/2022 10:54 PM
39 4 9/4/2022 4:35 PM
40 3 9/4/2022 10:31 AM
41 2 9/3/2022 3:18 PM
42 3 9/3/2022 1:51 PM
43 5 9/2/2022 11:28 AM
44 4 9/2/2022 11:26 AM
45 1 9/2/2022 11:15 AM
46 1 9/2/2022 11:11 AM
47 3 9/2/2022 8:14 AM
48 3 9/1/2022 6:18 PM
49 2 8/30/2022 4:27 PM
50 1 8/30/2022 2:47 PM
51 1 8/29/2022 11:51 AM
52 1 8/28/2022 5:46 PM
53 1 8/27/2022 9:36 PM
54 4 8/27/2022 8:30 PM
55 1 8/27/2022 7:22 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
710
K.

Housing Element Survey
28 / 53
56 4 8/27/2022 4:50 PM
57 5 8/27/2022 4:16 PM
58 1 8/27/2022 12:11 PM
59 3 8/27/2022 7:10 AM
60 4 8/25/2022 4:40 PM
61 1 8/24/2022 2:43 PM
62 3 8/24/2022 2:36 PM
63 5 8/24/2022 2:23 PM
64 3 8/24/2022 12:48 PM
65 1 8/24/2022 8:32 AM
66 3 8/23/2022 10:39 AM
67 1 8/23/2022 4:40 AM
68 5 8/22/2022 6:13 PM
69 1 8/22/2022 3:20 PM
70 1 8/21/2022 7:15 PM
71 3 8/21/2022 4:33 PM
72 5 8/21/2022 2:05 PM
73 3 8/21/2022 12:51 PM
74 1 8/21/2022 9:27 AM
75 5 8/21/2022 9:26 AM
76 5 8/21/2022 8:24 AM
77 5 8/20/2022 2:43 PM
78 2 8/20/2022 6:19 AM
79 3 8/20/2022 12:05 AM
80 2 8/19/2022 7:03 PM
81 5 8/19/2022 6:02 PM
82 1 8/19/2022 5:05 PM
83 4 8/19/2022 4:51 PM
84 2 8/18/2022 9:19 PM
85 1 8/18/2022 7:40 PM
86 5 8/18/2022 6:58 PM
87 5 8/18/2022 6:18 PM
88 4 8/18/2022 1:49 PM
89 3 8/18/2022 1:20 PM
90 4 8/18/2022 1:16 PM
91 4 8/18/2022 1:07 PM
92 4 8/18/2022 1:03 PM
93 3 8/18/2022 6:54 AM
ATTACHMENT 5
711
K.

Housing Element Survey
29 / 53
94 4 8/15/2022 8:39 PM
95 4 8/15/2022 12:30 PM
96 4 8/15/2022 11:35 AM
97 2 8/13/2022 11:47 PM
98 4 8/13/2022 7:36 PM
99 1 8/13/2022 12:59 AM
100 2 8/12/2022 8:21 PM
101 5 8/12/2022 8:00 PM
102 2 8/12/2022 6:53 PM
103 4 8/12/2022 6:47 PM
104 1 8/12/2022 5:07 PM
105 2 8/11/2022 5:21 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
712
K.

Housing Element Survey
30 / 53
Q17 Reduce housing discrimination by providing fair housing training for landlords and tenants, and to provide training on financial literacy and housing counseling services for tenants. (See Draft Housing Element Program 4.A.3)
Answered: 105 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 105
# DATE
1 5 9/28/2022 12:21 PM
2 1 9/28/2022 12:18 PM
3 5 9/28/2022 12:16 PM
4 5 9/28/2022 12:13 PM
5 5 9/24/2022 9:39 AM
6 2 9/23/2022 7:33 PM
7 4 9/23/2022 6:40 PM
8 2 9/22/2022 1:30 PM
9 3 9/20/2022 12:36 PM
10 1 9/20/2022 12:32 PM
11 1 9/20/2022 12:30 PM
12 4 9/19/2022 5:30 PM
13 1 9/19/2022 1:33 PM
14 1 9/14/2022 1:54 PM
15 3 9/14/2022 1:46 PM
16 5 9/13/2022 11:31 AM
17 2 9/13/2022 11:28 AM
ATTACHMENT 5
713
K.

Housing Element Survey
31 / 53
18 4 9/13/2022 11:26 AM
19 5 9/13/2022 11:23 AM
20 4 9/13/2022 11:22 AM
21 3 9/12/2022 11:17 AM
22 5 9/12/2022 11:12 AM
23 5 9/9/2022 8:04 PM
24 3 9/8/2022 5:19 PM
25 3 9/8/2022 12:31 PM
26 3 9/8/2022 12:29 PM
27 1 9/8/2022 12:22 PM
28 1 9/8/2022 12:20 PM
29 3 9/8/2022 12:17 PM
30 1 9/8/2022 12:13 PM
31 4 9/8/2022 12:11 PM
32 1 9/8/2022 12:09 PM
33 3 9/8/2022 12:07 PM
34 4 9/8/2022 11:36 AM
35 3 9/6/2022 3:45 PM
36 1 9/6/2022 3:30 PM
37 1 9/6/2022 2:18 PM
38 5 9/4/2022 10:54 PM
39 4 9/4/2022 4:35 PM
40 3 9/4/2022 10:31 AM
41 1 9/3/2022 3:18 PM
42 4 9/3/2022 1:51 PM
43 3 9/2/2022 11:28 AM
44 4 9/2/2022 11:26 AM
45 1 9/2/2022 11:15 AM
46 1 9/2/2022 11:11 AM
47 4 9/2/2022 8:14 AM
48 3 9/1/2022 6:18 PM
49 3 8/30/2022 4:27 PM
50 1 8/30/2022 2:47 PM
51 3 8/29/2022 11:51 AM
52 3 8/28/2022 5:46 PM
53 1 8/27/2022 9:36 PM
54 3 8/27/2022 8:30 PM
55 1 8/27/2022 7:22 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
714
K.

Housing Element Survey
32 / 53
56 4 8/27/2022 4:50 PM
57 4 8/27/2022 4:16 PM
58 1 8/27/2022 12:11 PM
59 5 8/27/2022 7:10 AM
60 5 8/25/2022 4:40 PM
61 1 8/24/2022 2:43 PM
62 3 8/24/2022 2:36 PM
63 3 8/24/2022 2:23 PM
64 3 8/24/2022 12:48 PM
65 5 8/24/2022 8:32 AM
66 2 8/23/2022 10:39 AM
67 1 8/23/2022 4:40 AM
68 3 8/22/2022 6:13 PM
69 1 8/22/2022 3:20 PM
70 1 8/21/2022 7:15 PM
71 5 8/21/2022 4:33 PM
72 5 8/21/2022 2:05 PM
73 5 8/21/2022 12:51 PM
74 4 8/21/2022 9:27 AM
75 5 8/21/2022 9:26 AM
76 5 8/21/2022 8:24 AM
77 5 8/20/2022 2:43 PM
78 2 8/20/2022 6:19 AM
79 5 8/20/2022 12:05 AM
80 2 8/19/2022 7:03 PM
81 5 8/19/2022 6:02 PM
82 2 8/19/2022 5:05 PM
83 5 8/19/2022 4:51 PM
84 5 8/18/2022 9:19 PM
85 3 8/18/2022 7:40 PM
86 5 8/18/2022 6:58 PM
87 5 8/18/2022 6:18 PM
88 4 8/18/2022 1:49 PM
89 3 8/18/2022 1:20 PM
90 4 8/18/2022 1:16 PM
91 2 8/18/2022 1:07 PM
92 3 8/18/2022 1:03 PM
93 3 8/18/2022 6:54 AM
ATTACHMENT 5
715
K.

Housing Element Survey
33 / 53
94 3 8/15/2022 8:39 PM
95 5 8/15/2022 12:30 PM
96 4 8/15/2022 11:35 AM
97 2 8/13/2022 11:47 PM
98 3 8/13/2022 7:36 PM
99 1 8/13/2022 12:59 AM
100 2 8/12/2022 8:21 PM
101 5 8/12/2022 8:00 PM
102 2 8/12/2022 6:53 PM
103 3 8/12/2022 6:47 PM
104 1 8/12/2022 5:07 PM
105 2 8/11/2022 5:21 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
716
K.

Housing Element Survey
34 / 53
Q18 Study whether residential rent control provisions State law may be appropriate in Brisbane to help prevent displacement of renters. (See Draft Housing Element Program 4.A.7)
Answered: 105 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 105
# DATE
1 3 9/28/2022 12:21 PM
2 1 9/28/2022 12:18 PM
3 5 9/28/2022 12:16 PM
4 3 9/28/2022 12:13 PM
5 5 9/24/2022 9:39 AM
6 3 9/23/2022 7:33 PM
7 4 9/23/2022 6:40 PM
8 2 9/22/2022 1:30 PM
9 1 9/20/2022 12:36 PM
10 1 9/20/2022 12:32 PM
11 1 9/20/2022 12:30 PM
12 4 9/19/2022 5:30 PM
13 1 9/19/2022 1:33 PM
14 3 9/14/2022 1:54 PM
15 3 9/14/2022 1:46 PM
16 5 9/13/2022 11:31 AM
17 1 9/13/2022 11:28 AM
18 1 9/13/2022 11:26 AM
ATTACHMENT 5
717
K.

Housing Element Survey
35 / 53
19 5 9/13/2022 11:23 AM
20 5 9/13/2022 11:22 AM
21 5 9/12/2022 11:17 AM
22 1 9/12/2022 11:12 AM
23 5 9/9/2022 8:04 PM
24 4 9/8/2022 5:19 PM
25 2 9/8/2022 12:31 PM
26 5 9/8/2022 12:29 PM
27 1 9/8/2022 12:22 PM
28 1 9/8/2022 12:20 PM
29 1 9/8/2022 12:17 PM
30 5 9/8/2022 12:13 PM
31 4 9/8/2022 12:11 PM
32 5 9/8/2022 12:09 PM
33 3 9/8/2022 12:07 PM
34 2 9/8/2022 11:36 AM
35 2 9/6/2022 3:45 PM
36 2 9/6/2022 3:30 PM
37 1 9/6/2022 2:18 PM
38 5 9/4/2022 10:54 PM
39 5 9/4/2022 4:35 PM
40 1 9/4/2022 10:31 AM
41 2 9/3/2022 3:18 PM
42 3 9/3/2022 1:51 PM
43 5 9/2/2022 11:28 AM
44 2 9/2/2022 11:26 AM
45 4 9/2/2022 11:15 AM
46 5 9/2/2022 11:11 AM
47 5 9/2/2022 8:14 AM
48 1 9/1/2022 6:18 PM
49 3 8/30/2022 4:27 PM
50 1 8/30/2022 2:47 PM
51 1 8/29/2022 11:51 AM
52 2 8/28/2022 5:46 PM
53 1 8/27/2022 9:36 PM
54 4 8/27/2022 8:30 PM
55 3 8/27/2022 7:22 PM
56 2 8/27/2022 4:50 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
718
K.

Housing Element Survey
36 / 53
57 5 8/27/2022 4:16 PM
58 1 8/27/2022 12:11 PM
59 3 8/27/2022 7:10 AM
60 4 8/25/2022 4:40 PM
61 1 8/24/2022 2:43 PM
62 5 8/24/2022 2:36 PM
63 5 8/24/2022 2:23 PM
64 3 8/24/2022 12:48 PM
65 5 8/24/2022 8:32 AM
66 1 8/23/2022 10:39 AM
67 5 8/23/2022 4:40 AM
68 4 8/22/2022 6:13 PM
69 4 8/22/2022 3:20 PM
70 1 8/21/2022 7:15 PM
71 5 8/21/2022 4:33 PM
72 5 8/21/2022 2:05 PM
73 1 8/21/2022 12:51 PM
74 5 8/21/2022 9:27 AM
75 5 8/21/2022 9:26 AM
76 5 8/21/2022 8:24 AM
77 5 8/20/2022 2:43 PM
78 2 8/20/2022 6:19 AM
79 5 8/20/2022 12:05 AM
80 3 8/19/2022 7:03 PM
81 5 8/19/2022 6:02 PM
82 1 8/19/2022 5:05 PM
83 5 8/19/2022 4:51 PM
84 2 8/18/2022 9:19 PM
85 1 8/18/2022 7:40 PM
86 5 8/18/2022 6:58 PM
87 4 8/18/2022 6:18 PM
88 4 8/18/2022 1:49 PM
89 3 8/18/2022 1:20 PM
90 4 8/18/2022 1:16 PM
91 5 8/18/2022 1:07 PM
92 1 8/18/2022 1:03 PM
93 5 8/18/2022 6:54 AM
94 1 8/15/2022 8:39 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
719
K.

Housing Element Survey
37 / 53
95 5 8/15/2022 12:30 PM
96 3 8/15/2022 11:35 AM
97 1 8/13/2022 11:47 PM
98 5 8/13/2022 7:36 PM
99 1 8/13/2022 12:59 AM
100 1 8/12/2022 8:21 PM
101 3 8/12/2022 8:00 PM
102 1 8/12/2022 6:53 PM
103 4 8/12/2022 6:47 PM
104 1 8/12/2022 5:07 PM
105 2 8/11/2022 5:21 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
720
K.

Housing Element Survey
38 / 53
Q19 Imposing special fees on new commercial development that the City can use to fund the development of new housing for lower income residents or to help lower income residents stay in their existing housing? Answered: 105 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 105
# DATE
1 4 9/28/2022 12:21 PM
2 4 9/28/2022 12:18 PM
3 5 9/28/2022 12:16 PM
4 3 9/28/2022 12:13 PM
5 1 9/24/2022 9:39 AM
6 4 9/23/2022 7:33 PM
7 4 9/23/2022 6:40 PM
8 2 9/22/2022 1:30 PM
9 1 9/20/2022 12:36 PM
10 5 9/20/2022 12:32 PM
11 1 9/20/2022 12:30 PM
12 4 9/19/2022 5:30 PM
13 5 9/19/2022 1:33 PM
14 1 9/14/2022 1:54 PM
15 1 9/14/2022 1:46 PM
16 5 9/13/2022 11:31 AM
17 3 9/13/2022 11:28 AM
18 5 9/13/2022 11:26 AM
ATTACHMENT 5
721
K.

Housing Element Survey
39 / 53
19 5 9/13/2022 11:23 AM
20 5 9/13/2022 11:22 AM
21 5 9/12/2022 11:17 AM
22 5 9/12/2022 11:12 AM
23 1 9/9/2022 8:04 PM
24 5 9/8/2022 5:19 PM
25 2 9/8/2022 12:31 PM
26 4 9/8/2022 12:29 PM
27 1 9/8/2022 12:22 PM
28 1 9/8/2022 12:20 PM
29 3 9/8/2022 12:17 PM
30 1 9/8/2022 12:13 PM
31 3 9/8/2022 12:11 PM
32 3 9/8/2022 12:09 PM
33 3 9/8/2022 12:07 PM
34 4 9/8/2022 11:36 AM
35 3 9/6/2022 3:45 PM
36 4 9/6/2022 3:30 PM
37 2 9/6/2022 2:18 PM
38 5 9/4/2022 10:54 PM
39 3 9/4/2022 4:35 PM
40 5 9/4/2022 10:31 AM
41 3 9/3/2022 3:18 PM
42 3 9/3/2022 1:51 PM
43 4 9/2/2022 11:28 AM
44 2 9/2/2022 11:26 AM
45 3 9/2/2022 11:15 AM
46 5 9/2/2022 11:11 AM
47 3 9/2/2022 8:14 AM
48 2 9/1/2022 6:18 PM
49 4 8/30/2022 4:27 PM
50 1 8/30/2022 2:47 PM
51 1 8/29/2022 11:51 AM
52 3 8/28/2022 5:46 PM
53 1 8/27/2022 9:36 PM
54 5 8/27/2022 8:30 PM
55 1 8/27/2022 7:22 PM
56 2 8/27/2022 4:50 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
722
K.

Housing Element Survey
40 / 53
57 5 8/27/2022 4:16 PM
58 1 8/27/2022 12:11 PM
59 5 8/27/2022 7:10 AM
60 3 8/25/2022 4:40 PM
61 3 8/24/2022 2:43 PM
62 5 8/24/2022 2:36 PM
63 4 8/24/2022 2:23 PM
64 5 8/24/2022 12:48 PM
65 1 8/24/2022 8:32 AM
66 2 8/23/2022 10:39 AM
67 5 8/23/2022 4:40 AM
68 5 8/22/2022 6:13 PM
69 1 8/22/2022 3:20 PM
70 1 8/21/2022 7:15 PM
71 3 8/21/2022 4:33 PM
72 5 8/21/2022 2:05 PM
73 4 8/21/2022 12:51 PM
74 5 8/21/2022 9:27 AM
75 5 8/21/2022 9:26 AM
76 5 8/21/2022 8:24 AM
77 5 8/20/2022 2:43 PM
78 4 8/20/2022 6:19 AM
79 5 8/20/2022 12:05 AM
80 4 8/19/2022 7:03 PM
81 3 8/19/2022 6:02 PM
82 1 8/19/2022 5:05 PM
83 5 8/19/2022 4:51 PM
84 3 8/18/2022 9:19 PM
85 5 8/18/2022 7:40 PM
86 5 8/18/2022 6:58 PM
87 5 8/18/2022 6:18 PM
88 3 8/18/2022 1:49 PM
89 3 8/18/2022 1:20 PM
90 5 8/18/2022 1:16 PM
91 4 8/18/2022 1:07 PM
92 3 8/18/2022 1:03 PM
93 5 8/18/2022 6:54 AM
94 4 8/15/2022 8:39 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
723
K.

Housing Element Survey
41 / 53
95 5 8/15/2022 12:30 PM
96 3 8/15/2022 11:35 AM
97 2 8/13/2022 11:47 PM
98 3 8/13/2022 7:36 PM
99 1 8/13/2022 12:59 AM
100 1 8/12/2022 8:21 PM
101 1 8/12/2022 8:00 PM
102 3 8/12/2022 6:53 PM
103 4 8/12/2022 6:47 PM
104 1 8/12/2022 5:07 PM
105 1 8/11/2022 5:21 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
724
K.

Housing Element Survey
42 / 53
Q20 Fund programs that assist low-income households to manage their utility costs, such as providing low-flow and other water or energyconserving appliances, and training and counseling on water conservation measures in landscape design. (See Draft Housing Element Program

6.A.3)
Answered: 105 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 105
# DATE
1 3 9/28/2022 12:21 PM
2 5 9/28/2022 12:18 PM
3 5 9/28/2022 12:16 PM
4 4 9/28/2022 12:13 PM
5 5 9/24/2022 9:39 AM
6 4 9/23/2022 7:33 PM
7 3 9/23/2022 6:40 PM
8 2 9/22/2022 1:30 PM
9 4 9/20/2022 12:36 PM
10 5 9/20/2022 12:32 PM
11 1 9/20/2022 12:30 PM
12 2 9/19/2022 5:30 PM
13 5 9/19/2022 1:33 PM
14 5 9/14/2022 1:54 PM
15 2 9/14/2022 1:46 PM
16 5 9/13/2022 11:31 AM
ATTACHMENT 5
725
K.

Housing Element Survey
43 / 53
17 3 9/13/2022 11:28 AM
18 3 9/13/2022 11:26 AM
19 5 9/13/2022 11:23 AM
20 4 9/13/2022 11:22 AM
21 5 9/12/2022 11:17 AM
22 3 9/12/2022 11:12 AM
23 4 9/9/2022 8:04 PM
24 5 9/8/2022 5:19 PM
25 2 9/8/2022 12:31 PM
26 3 9/8/2022 12:29 PM
27 1 9/8/2022 12:22 PM
28 1 9/8/2022 12:20 PM
29 3 9/8/2022 12:17 PM
30 1 9/8/2022 12:13 PM
31 4 9/8/2022 12:11 PM
32 4 9/8/2022 12:09 PM
33 2 9/8/2022 12:07 PM
34 4 9/8/2022 11:36 AM
35 3 9/6/2022 3:45 PM
36 3 9/6/2022 3:30 PM
37 1 9/6/2022 2:18 PM
38 5 9/4/2022 10:54 PM
39 3 9/4/2022 4:35 PM
40 5 9/4/2022 10:31 AM
41 3 9/3/2022 3:18 PM
42 2 9/3/2022 1:51 PM
43 5 9/2/2022 11:28 AM
44 4 9/2/2022 11:26 AM
45 5 9/2/2022 11:15 AM
46 5 9/2/2022 11:11 AM
47 3 9/2/2022 8:14 AM
48 3 9/1/2022 6:18 PM
49 3 8/30/2022 4:27 PM
50 1 8/30/2022 2:47 PM
51 1 8/29/2022 11:51 AM
52 3 8/28/2022 5:46 PM
53 1 8/27/2022 9:36 PM
54 5 8/27/2022 8:30 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
726
K.

Housing Element Survey
44 / 53
55 3 8/27/2022 7:22 PM
56 5 8/27/2022 4:50 PM
57 3 8/27/2022 4:16 PM
58 1 8/27/2022 12:11 PM
59 4 8/27/2022 7:10 AM
60 3 8/25/2022 4:40 PM
61 3 8/24/2022 2:43 PM
62 5 8/24/2022 2:36 PM
63 5 8/24/2022 2:23 PM
64 3 8/24/2022 12:48 PM
65 5 8/24/2022 8:32 AM
66 3 8/23/2022 10:39 AM
67 5 8/23/2022 4:40 AM
68 5 8/22/2022 6:13 PM
69 1 8/22/2022 3:20 PM
70 1 8/21/2022 7:15 PM
71 5 8/21/2022 4:33 PM
72 5 8/21/2022 2:05 PM
73 4 8/21/2022 12:51 PM
74 1 8/21/2022 9:27 AM
75 5 8/21/2022 9:26 AM
76 5 8/21/2022 8:24 AM
77 5 8/20/2022 2:43 PM
78 2 8/20/2022 6:19 AM
79 3 8/20/2022 12:05 AM
80 4 8/19/2022 7:03 PM
81 5 8/19/2022 6:02 PM
82 1 8/19/2022 5:05 PM
83 4 8/19/2022 4:51 PM
84 5 8/18/2022 9:19 PM
85 3 8/18/2022 7:40 PM
86 5 8/18/2022 6:58 PM
87 4 8/18/2022 6:18 PM
88 4 8/18/2022 1:49 PM
89 3 8/18/2022 1:20 PM
90 4 8/18/2022 1:16 PM
91 5 8/18/2022 1:07 PM
92 2 8/18/2022 1:03 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
727
K.

Housing Element Survey
45 / 53
93 4 8/18/2022 6:54 AM
94 2 8/15/2022 8:39 PM
95 5 8/15/2022 12:30 PM
96 5 8/15/2022 11:35 AM
97 2 8/13/2022 11:47 PM
98 4 8/13/2022 7:36 PM
99 1 8/13/2022 12:59 AM
100 5 8/12/2022 8:21 PM
101 5 8/12/2022 8:00 PM
102 2 8/12/2022 6:53 PM
103 5 8/12/2022 6:47 PM
104 1 8/12/2022 5:07 PM
105 3 8/11/2022 5:21 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
728
K.

Housing Element Survey
46 / 53
Q21 Study potential updates to the zoning ordinance to reduce parking requirements for residential developments that provide and/or promote alternative modes of transportation for residents, such as prepaid transit fare cards, rideshare app credits, prepaid memberships to on-demand car rental on-site (e.g., ZipCar), or are in close proximity to high quality transit. (See Draft Housing Element Program 6.A.5)
Answered: 105 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 105
# DATE
1 1 9/28/2022 12:21 PM
2 5 9/28/2022 12:18 PM
3 5 9/28/2022 12:16 PM
4 5 9/28/2022 12:13 PM
5 3 9/24/2022 9:39 AM
6 3 9/23/2022 7:33 PM
7 2 9/23/2022 6:40 PM
8 3 9/22/2022 1:30 PM
9 1 9/20/2022 12:36 PM
10 1 9/20/2022 12:32 PM
11 1 9/20/2022 12:30 PM
12 5 9/19/2022 5:30 PM
13 5 9/19/2022 1:33 PM
14 1 9/14/2022 1:54 PM
15 5 9/14/2022 1:46 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
729
K.

Housing Element Survey
47 / 53
16 5 9/13/2022 11:31 AM
17 4 9/13/2022 11:28 AM
18 1 9/13/2022 11:26 AM
19 5 9/13/2022 11:23 AM
20 1 9/13/2022 11:22 AM
21 5 9/12/2022 11:17 AM
22 5 9/12/2022 11:12 AM
23 5 9/9/2022 8:04 PM
24 3 9/8/2022 5:19 PM
25 2 9/8/2022 12:31 PM
26 4 9/8/2022 12:29 PM
27 1 9/8/2022 12:22 PM
28 1 9/8/2022 12:20 PM
29 4 9/8/2022 12:17 PM
30 1 9/8/2022 12:13 PM
31 4 9/8/2022 12:11 PM
32 4 9/8/2022 12:09 PM
33 3 9/8/2022 12:07 PM
34 2 9/8/2022 11:36 AM
35 2 9/6/2022 3:45 PM
36 2 9/6/2022 3:30 PM
37 2 9/6/2022 2:18 PM
38 5 9/4/2022 10:54 PM
39 3 9/4/2022 4:35 PM
40 5 9/4/2022 10:31 AM
41 5 9/3/2022 3:18 PM
42 2 9/3/2022 1:51 PM
43 4 9/2/2022 11:28 AM
44 4 9/2/2022 11:26 AM
45 1 9/2/2022 11:15 AM
46 5 9/2/2022 11:11 AM
47 4 9/2/2022 8:14 AM
48 1 9/1/2022 6:18 PM
49 3 8/30/2022 4:27 PM
50 1 8/30/2022 2:47 PM
51 3 8/29/2022 11:51 AM
52 4 8/28/2022 5:46 PM
53 1 8/27/2022 9:36 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
730
K.

Housing Element Survey
48 / 53
54 5 8/27/2022 8:30 PM
55 1 8/27/2022 7:22 PM
56 5 8/27/2022 4:50 PM
57 5 8/27/2022 4:16 PM
58 1 8/27/2022 12:11 PM
59 5 8/27/2022 7:10 AM
60 5 8/25/2022 4:40 PM
61 5 8/24/2022 2:43 PM
62 4 8/24/2022 2:36 PM
63 3 8/24/2022 2:23 PM
64 1 8/24/2022 12:48 PM
65 5 8/24/2022 8:32 AM
66 1 8/23/2022 10:39 AM
67 1 8/23/2022 4:40 AM
68 1 8/22/2022 6:13 PM
69 1 8/22/2022 3:20 PM
70 1 8/21/2022 7:15 PM
71 5 8/21/2022 4:33 PM
72 5 8/21/2022 2:05 PM
73 3 8/21/2022 12:51 PM
74 1 8/21/2022 9:27 AM
75 3 8/21/2022 9:26 AM
76 4 8/21/2022 8:24 AM
77 3 8/20/2022 2:43 PM
78 2 8/20/2022 6:19 AM
79 2 8/20/2022 12:05 AM
80 2 8/19/2022 7:03 PM
81 5 8/19/2022 6:02 PM
82 4 8/19/2022 5:05 PM
83 5 8/19/2022 4:51 PM
84 2 8/18/2022 9:19 PM
85 5 8/18/2022 7:40 PM
86 5 8/18/2022 6:58 PM
87 5 8/18/2022 6:18 PM
88 2 8/18/2022 1:49 PM
89 3 8/18/2022 1:20 PM
90 3 8/18/2022 1:16 PM
91 3 8/18/2022 1:07 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
731
K.

Housing Element Survey
49 / 53
92 4 8/18/2022 1:03 PM
93 4 8/18/2022 6:54 AM
94 1 8/15/2022 8:39 PM
95 5 8/15/2022 12:30 PM
96 2 8/15/2022 11:35 AM
97 1 8/13/2022 11:47 PM
98 4 8/13/2022 7:36 PM
99 1 8/13/2022 12:59 AM
100 3 8/12/2022 8:21 PM
101 5 8/12/2022 8:00 PM
102 3 8/12/2022 6:53 PM
103 4 8/12/2022 6:47 PM
104 5 8/12/2022 5:07 PM
105 5 8/11/2022 5:21 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
732
K.

Housing Element Survey
50 / 53
Q22 Do you have other housing-related comments?
Answered: 59 Skipped: 67
# RESPONSES DATE
1 In regards to the very last question of the survey, parking is a separate issue from proximity to transportation which is important.
9/28/2022 12:21 PM
2 Stop listening to supporting "Old Timers" of Brisbane. You talk the talk- but stop allowing "founders" control who have already demonstrated racism. How many people of color own property here since the 1970s? On the "we look forward to seeing you at future housing Element meetings," not true. You write this to say this- but you allow "long time Founding Families" control. They will never change slow "progress." Delay/deflect/study- so they can stay in control.
9/28/2022 12:13 PM
3 No 9/24/2022 9:39 AM
4 Yes, there are a staggering amount of abandoned houses in substandard condition in Brisbane.

Create mechanisms to force improvements or sell to someone who is happy to improve the properties. I did this here in town and would happily do it again to make brisbane a nicer place.

Also creating better restaurants and amenities to bring people to town would improve real estate investment.
9/23/2022 7:33 PM
5 Relax requirements on added parking where a homeowner needs to add a (1) bedroom to stay in home
9/23/2022 6:40 PM
6 As far as I understand, Brisbane is short on fulfilling it's housing zoning requirements and I don't see anything happening with the baylands. The fundamental problem with our city, region, state, country and even world is a chronic shortage of housing. There is one simple way to alleviate this problem and that is just to allow housing development. I think it's unconscionable that we continue to make life tough for so many people. 9/22/2022 1:30 PM
7 Please don't copy San Francisco! Credit Card and money management should be taught in Brisbane schools. Also no email Can you send Housing Element Update information to M.C.Kiser at 359 Kings, Brisbane, CA 94005.
9/20/2022 12:36 PM
8 You've had years to produce housing. DO IT!!!! 9/20/2022 12:32 PM 9 no wonder people are leaving town. How dense does our housing have to be? there is no parking anymore.
9/20/2022 12:30 PM
10 We need to build as much new housing as fast as we can manage it. We cannot claim to be for the environment, for diversity & inclusion, or for economic development while continuing to delay development.
9/19/2022 5:30 PM
11 Limit 2 cars per household. No more housing in Brisbane and only 2 children. Send the homeless elsewhere. We don't want Star City to become a homeless encampment. Small houses at Sierra Point or the East side of Tunnel Ave. Move dirt to west side of Tunnel Ave. - For question about increasing housing options for low-income: this is not a low income community. -Reduce Housing discrimination question: I'm proud of our diversity and flags. 9/14/2022 1:54 PM
12 -Parking reqs shouldn't be reduced; we already have a parking problem -quality of life issues and the streets of a densely populated environment should be taken into account 9/13/2022 11:26 AM
13 Homes cost too much!! Can't buy now. 9/13/2022 11:23 AM 14 No 9/9/2022 8:04 PM
15 It seems that there are properties on Visitacion that are underutilized that could be used for housing.
9/8/2022 5:19 PM
16 No rent control. No reduction in off-street parking 9/8/2022 12:31 PM 17 Second half with the questions with the scale were to confusing for me to understand. 9/8/2022 12:22 PM ATTACHMENT 5
733
K.

Housing Element Survey
51 / 53
18 hard to understand the second part of the questions with the scale. 9/8/2022 12:20 PM 19 Zoning sucks as property line setbacks 400 sq ft restriction which increase code requirements. 9/8/2022 12:17 PM 20 Please expand and build more houses, apartments and condos (no HOAs) 9/6/2022 3:30 PM 21 What about building a D used inside your own house without going out of the footprint? 9/6/2022 2:18 PM 22 I lived here for 36 years, rented all 36 years with a dependent I take care of & now my SSA is less than my rent.
9/2/2022 11:28 AM
23 Study becoming a "Chapter City" to get back more home rule. 9/2/2022 11:15 AM 24 Parking is a frequent issue of concern for Brisbane residents. Only until access to reliable, high-quality transit options is vastly improved for Brisbane should any waivers for parking requirements on new construction even be considered. Separately, out-of-area speculative investment in Brisbane real estate is worthy of further investigation. Anecdotally, walking through town, apparently unoccupied homes are a frequent sight. In some cases, longtime residents sell, then the home remains vacant, sometimes "flipped" and resold, often left untouched and unoccupied. This trend depresses the number of available housing units, exacerbating housing scarcity and prices, while creating unideal neighborhood conditions (fewer "eyes on the street"). Efforts to incentivize or encourage homes to be occupied, by renters or owner-occupants, rather than speculated upon by absentee investors or institutional buyers could alleviate some housing scarcity and support Brisbane continuing to be a vibrant community.
9/1/2022 6:18 PM
25 Get more creative - the city was not planed for 100 year growth. Valley Dr, Crocker Par is where new housing belongs. Move the commercial businesses to the Baylands. 8/30/2022 2:47 PM
26 No 8/29/2022 11:51 AM
27 Yes I do. Why build more housing when California has a severe water shortage? Makes no sense.
8/27/2022 9:36 PM
28 No 8/27/2022 7:22 PM
29 The Bay Area needs much more housing if it intends to address cost and homelessness issues. Also transportation infrastructure etc.
8/27/2022 4:16 PM
30 State mandated RHNA numbers should be summarily dismissed. The problem is not lack of housing, but too many people in the State.
8/27/2022 12:11 PM
31 The City of Brisbane needs to build more housing in the coming years to meet the large demand that the Bay Area will see over the coming decade. With an abundance of economic opportunities and an attractive climate as climate change causes temperature rise outside of Coastal California, Brisbane needs to step-up it's building of affordable and market rate housing to attract a diverse grouping of residents. The City should also focus on transit-oriented development and expanding the non-automobile based transit options in the City to improve sustainability and provide more transportation options to residents. 8/25/2022 4:40 PM
32 I can't believe the existing senior housing has no elevator! Please protect the Lower Acres. 8/24/2022 2:43 PM 33 Do not impose parking permits 8/24/2022 2:36 PM
34 Encourage development of Parkside and we need to develop more senior housing in Brisbane.

The wait list for what we have is ridiculous.
8/24/2022 12:48 PM
35 no 8/23/2022 4:40 AM
36 Water and energy conserving appliances are a great start, but I would love to see us leveraging passive house building techniques, in tandem with efficient all electric appliances, paired with on site solar generation and storage for this type of development. Especially for low income families its hard enough to make ends meet in the Bay Area as it is. It would be great to see the city making strides on affordable housing as we also make these residences as self sufficient as possible – aggressively reducing or largely eliminating a majority of utility bills for our most vulnerable residents.
8/22/2022 6:13 PM
37 There are many houses in Brisbane that have been sitting empty for years such as 125 San Bruno Ave, 213 Visitacion, 128 Alvarado St., and so many others. Efforts to get existing yet empty housing available for purchase or rent should be the #1 priority. Whether through 8/22/2022 3:20 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
734
K.

Housing Element Survey
52 / 53
incentives or penalties, the city should be working with the property owners to make these empty houses available. This should happen before any new construction, zoning changes, or other programs are considered.
38 None 8/21/2022 4:33 PM
39 The vast majority of the proposed housing is not affordable to anyone who does not work in the tech sector and is not intended for people like teachers, police officers, firefighters, nurses, retail workers, and everyone else who keeps society working. Until the problem of affordability is addressed on a large scale (and not just, say, 10-15% of proposed housing units), the proposed housing will resolve none of the existing problems. And in fact, many of the tech companies have either left the San Francisco Bay Area or have downsized their staffing here (Tesla, Hewlett Packard, Oracle, Airbnb, Uber, Salesforce, Twitter, and many others) which has left vacant a huge amount of office space in San Francisco which could be converted to living space to address the new post-pandemic reality. And that utilization of vacant office space should be the objective now, not tiny homes/ADUs/etc.
8/21/2022 2:05 PM
40 not at this time 8/20/2022 2:43 PM
41 Regarding the question about whether I work in Brisbane, I said yes because I work from home, however my employer is not located in Brisbane. The question wasn't too clear. Parking requirements should not be reduced for new construction (with the possible exception of certain ADUs), regardless of how many incentives there are to take public transportation, because residents will still have cars that they park at home when they commute to work, especially if they live walking distance to a bus/train station. 8/20/2022 12:05 AM
42 We need to build apartments, not ADUs 8/19/2022 7:03 PM 43 Do not plan for housing on San Bruno Mountain. There is no entitlement that says everyone should be able to afford live, everywhere, anytime. Government helps affordability with right policies, but does not cancel out market forces.
8/19/2022 5:05 PM
44 No 8/18/2022 9:19 PM
45 this city needs to look into homes in Brisbane with 7 or more cars blocking the streets near them and using their garage space for an auto work shop 8/18/2022 7:40 PM
46 There are several "fallow" lots around Brisbane - sites that remain unoccupied for > 5 years - that could be developed. Also, space for parking cars is a big limitation given existing street widths.
8/18/2022 6:18 PM
47 A penalty structure should be imposed on homes that are kept vacant by the owner or some other mitigation effort to prevent investors to buy properties here and keep them vacant. 8/18/2022 1:20 PM
48 Rent control is covered already by CA State law - we don't need another rent control law for Brisbane. Yes, lower restrictions/requirements for tiny homes, small ADU's, etc. The new restrictions on homeowner short-term rentals (SRO's) have pushed us out of the ability to make money from our house when we are on vacation - this has made it harder to afford to live here.
8/18/2022 1:03 PM
49 There isn't much the City can do to control the cost of buying a home, but anything the City can do to control rent gouging would be helpful.
8/18/2022 6:54 AM
50 Do NOT reduce parking provision requirements, but yes look at zipcar or transit pass or rideshare. Multiunit dwellings MUST provide own underground parking. I'd look at an accessory unit but one bad scofflaw unevictable tenant can destroy your home and multiple years of rents. Scary.
8/15/2022 8:39 PM
51 We've built way to much in Brisbane for parking and eliminated convienent public transportation to make it easier to ride Muni, SamTrans or the Train. Brisbane needs a convient Cal Train Station at the parkinglot or a reliable form of local transportation. The existing buses are not reliable
8/15/2022 12:30 PM
52 While I understand that it is hard to escape development, I'd love Brisbane to remain Brisbane na for it to preserve as much nature and habitats as possible. 8/15/2022 11:35 AM
53 Provide education on how to decrease housing expenses to ALL Brisbane residents, not just low income.
8/13/2022 11:47 PM
54 I have been renting in Brisbane since 2009, since then my rent has increased 120%. I think 8/13/2022 7:36 PM ATTACHMENT 5
735
K.

Housing Element Survey
53 / 53
rent control will help a low income people, that every year has to find a second job or share the apart. to be able to cover monthly expenses. Affordable housing for people who work hard, but not able to buy a home.
55 With increased population we also need to consider increased needs of school resources, public recreational areas and parking. There's been some contradictory elements in the past that if we're planning for increasing housing and population, maybe we shouldn't have reduced the public parking availability on the commercial streets. Please consider these elements as we increase housing as per California state requirements. We should also try to avoid extreme high density housing to maintain the culture and community of Brisbane. 8/13/2022 12:59 AM
56 We all like Brisbane as it is, we don't want a metropolis with hoards of people creating crowded and unsafe streets. I am thankful to live here.
8/12/2022 8:21 PM
57 Mo 8/12/2022 6:53 PM
58 I belive we should allow the badlands project to move forward. This project would really help the housing issues for brisbane as required for the state 8/12/2022 6:47 PM
59 Build more housing in central Brisbane! It is unacceptable that it is majority single family homes. Allow more dense development in a good part of the peninsula. Development on or near Baylands is toxic and is not a great solution.
8/11/2022 5:21 PM
ATTACHMENT 5
736
K.

APPENDIX E CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
ATTACHMENT E.4
Public Comments Received After First Submittal to HCD
(October 2022-February 2023)
ATTACHMENT 5
737
K.

City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
To the honorable Brisbane City Council and planning staff, The Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County appreciates this opportunity to engage the City of Brisbane on its housing element. On September 9, 2022, HLC sent the city a letter outlining opportunities to improve the initial draft of its housing element to better comply with state law and plan for new affordable homes. The city made few changes in response to HLC’s comments before submitting the draft to the state department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review.

On January 4, 2023, HCD sent a review letter to the City of Brisbane requesting numerous changes to its draft housing element. Based on HCD's feedback and the current policy commitments stated in the housing element draft to be reviewed by Brisbane's planning commission, HLC maintains that Brisbane must include significant new policy changes in order to comply with housing element law.

The housing element under consideration by Brisbane’s planning commission–apparently unchanged from the draft first submitted to HCD–relies primarily on the Baylands to meet Brisbane’s housing need. Considering the long history of arbitrary delays to housing development on this site, it is absolutely critical that Brisbane do everything it can to promote development on the Baylands as soon as possible. To that end, HLC is glad to see the inclusion of the Baylands in Brisbane’s housing element.

However, Brisbane’s housing element provides few incentives to promote development of housing at the Baylands. In fact, the housing element anticipates potential delays, committing to approve a specific plan as late as 2026–and that is just the first of many steps on the road toward completing this development. In order to complete a valid housing element, the City must outline, in detail, a realistic schedule for the entitlement and development of the Baylands with necessary incentives, including:
● Expedite approval of the Baylands Specific Plan by the end of 2023, entitlements by the end of 2024, and supplemental environmental review (if needed) by the end of 2024 ● Allow environmental remediation to occur concurrently with the entitlements process ● Offer concessions and waivers to the Baylands pursuant to density bonus law ● Allow base densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre and 40 feet height throughout the entirety of the Baylands residential portion and allow up to 60 du/ac and 70 feet height within a half mile of CalTrain.

ATTACHMENT 5
738
K.

Realistically, even with ideal incentives, many of the housing units projected for the Baylands site will be built after 2030, after the end of the 6th RHNA cycle. The Department of Housing and Community Development’s review letter explicitly says Brisbane must fully consider “the affordability and availability for developing in the planning period of the Baylands” and then “adjust residential capacity assumptions.” As demonstrated in HLC’s September 9, 2022 letter, due to development constraints on the site, Brisbane must likely reduce the number of units it projects from the Baylands to be built in the 6th RHNA cycle by 50% or more.

As a result of the reduction of units on the Baylands, more than 50% of Brisbane’s low-income housing units will be located on other non-vacant sites located in the city’s PAOZ zones. The city will then be required to analyze whether the preexisting uses on these sites pose a potential barrier to new housing development. This analysis will likely reveal that the preexisting uses on several of these sites preclude development of lower income housing, requiring the city to further identify new sites and rezone appropriately.

Brisbane’s lack of adequate opportunity sites to demonstrate capacity for lower income homes will necessitate rezonings to comply with housing element law. As described in HLC’s September 9, 2022 letter, the city could create new opportunity sites and meet its RHNA allocation by adding Program 2.A.7, “Update Zoning Code,” to ● Increase allowable building heights to 50 feet in NCRO-2, SCRO-1, PAOZ-1, and PAOZ-2 zones. Increase allowable building height to 35 feet in R-3 zones. ● Increase allowable density to
○ 60 dwelling units per acre in NCRO-2 and SCRO-1 zones ○ 50 dwelling units/acre in PAOZ-1 and PAOZ-2 zones
○ 35 dwelling units/acre in R-3 zones
● Increase FAR to 3 in R-3 zones.

The city should pursue a number of other policy changes to promote fair housing and remove barriers to its development. Again, thorough policy recommendations to address the majority of HCD comments are described in HLC’s September 9, 2022 comment letter. For the above reasons, Brisbane’s planning commission should direct staff to make significant changes to the housing element as requested by HCD and HLC and seek certification from HCD before pursuing housing element adoption.

HLC recognizes that some of our proposed changes, particularly the rezoning proposals, may require substantial delay to housing element adoption as the city undergoes an EIR and other necessary public processes. Though unfortunate, these delays may be necessary for Brisbane to meet its legal obligations to plan for new homes.

Fundamentally, cities cannot analyze their way into new homes, nor can they analyze their way into compliance with state law. The housing element process challenges cities to provide a series of analyses and then commit to substantially change local policies in ways that incentivize new housing development within the planning period. Brisbane’s current housing ATTACHMENT 5
739
K.
element neither adequately analyzes nor takes action to address the barriers to fair housing development in the city.

HLC looks forward to continue working with Brisbane’s leaders as they strive to implement more significant policies and programs that will help the city meet the housing needs of the entire community over the next eight years.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Policy Manager, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County ATTACHMENT 5
740
K.

Brisbane Housing Element 2023- 20XXX
This is a train-wreck waiting to happen. By not questioning the fairness of our double-the-sizeof-your-town RHNA number assignment, we are now forced to have shovel to groundsomewhere, anywhere whether appropriate or not, whether safe or not. These laws amount to extortion… “Do this or we’re taking away your open space, your environmentally sensitive lands, your parking, your recreation areas… even your CC&R’s…” The law(s) you are trying to comply with, to bypass CEQA for only one element of the General Plan, this is out of balance, it has to be challenged.

Does today create our 30-day window for public comment period? The closing period is not clear. Have you properly informed the public of the changes, amendments since comments from the state? Have you informed the public that the elimination of R-1will mean your neighbor can multiplex to any height, shade out your solar system, eat up your parking, tie into your sewer lines without any environmental or mitigating compensations? Stand up to the profit-driven bullies in Sacramento and say NO, we can come up with a better low-income housing plan without destroying our whole town. Our RHNA number compliance is dependent on water availability and we don’t have the water. We don’t have any agreements in place to widen the roads or the myriad of improvements deemed necessary to support the growth for doubling our town…. to just to make 500 low-income units… based on a prior thoughtful community-reflected EIR. Where are your overriding considerations and agreements that the City will now take on these developer obligations? It’s implied.

SB 9, SB 10 and a multitude of housing reform laws were placed into service since 2018, the document you referenced for CEQA compliance. The effects of these laws have not been properly vetted. To undergo NO environmental review at the tipping point of the shift from the exercise of RHNA numbers to the implementation anywhere without covenants to mitigate the impacts, is tantamount to conspiring to defraud the citizens. Please don’t.

Incorporate by reference information regarding Housing Law changes for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022.
2019 : https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2018/10/californias-2019-housinglaws-what-you-need-to-kno 2020 : https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2019/10/californias-2020-housinglaws-what-you-need-to-know 2021: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/09/californias-2021-housing-lawswhat-you-need-to-know 2022 : https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2021/10/californias-2022-housinglaws-what-you-need-to-know Brisbane had the mechanism to serve our low-income community’s housing needs. It was the 20% set-aside tax revenue from our redevelopment projects. With the capital improvements going on at Sierra Point, and if you were to be sincere in your efforts to provide housing for all segments of the society, you could implement the set-aside requirement and have sufficient funds to produce low-income housing. It worked in the past. It is disciplined and fair.

At the time, we had a city council that made it a priority to produce mandated housing in order to not lose their set-aside funds. Instead, through this multiple-year RHNA exercise, you have ATTACHMENT 5
741
K.
participated in allowing the city of Brisbane to play a game of monopoly with our public housing funds, to withhold funds and sit on properties for over decades, swap out for nonhousing uses, and actually lose one unit due to burdensome regulations. There should be more accountability than to look at the issue, once again, and come up with a program at some later date. You have a one-year window for compliance.

The 20% set-aside tax policy works… no need for more time to figure it out, straight to implementation. At least that is a recommendation to make to the council.

You have to look at council and city manager bias as our stumbling block. If you don’t, I will.

To have a council member refer to this responsibility as serving “those people” with fearful remarks about folks from “the East Bay,” and all council members nodding in unison… I think the issue is that our council does not have the capacity to carry out their responsibility to the public. You have a legal background, It’s your job to generate laws to protect us from extortionists and fraud. Please do so.

The meeting I refer to council bias is on this clip between the minutes of 30:15 and 30:35. https://www.brisbaneca.org/citycouncil/page/joint-city-council-brisbane-gvmid-financingauthority-housing-authority-meeting I oppose approving this element because the alternate areas you considered for dense housing may be environmentally sensitive, inappropriate, and have land-use restrictions. We don’t have any studies or protections for sea-level rise. Please ask the city for an assessment of mud slides and closed roadways during this last storm event to determine whether denser housing should be allowed on our steep, clay hillsides or safe on our landfills subject to liquefaction. Are we prepared for 4x the housing?

This is a multiplying event with multiple impacts and you choose to not look at them. If approved tonight, you appear to be complicit with this theft. I ask that you vote no or excuse yourselves from creating a law that violates our rights to equal representation by our public officials.

Please recirculate this document. Please inform the public of the true impacts and please create regulations that protect all of us of the theft of our public assets, from wearing-out our infrastructure, all for the benefit of for-profit foreign speculator development.

Thank you,
Dana Dillworth
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 5
742
K.

The Housing Element update represents a critical opportunity for Brisbane to improve its housing policies in a way that promotes abundant, affordable, and secure housing opportunities for all its residents. While we commend city staff for their efforts in this process, Brisbane’s Draft Housing Element still has deficiencies in regard to detailing its pipeline projects that will render it unlikely to receive HCD certification. As such, we recommend that Brisbane add additional evidence to their site inventory in order to meet HCD’s pipeline requirements.

Site Inventory & Methodology
Brisbane’s RHNA for this sixth cycle Housing Element update is 1,588 housing units. The Housing Element notes that Brisbane lacks adequate sites to meet RHNA, and as such a program was included for rezoning on the Bayland via adoption of a specific plan.

Based in part on the results of Balance Brisbane and the expertise of staff, consultants, and developers, the City identified the Baylands subarea as the most logical site to be put forward as meeting the RHNA plus the buffer, given that a range of 1,800 to 2,200 housing units is permitted per a General Plan Amendment completed in 2019, a single landowner/developer owns the multi-parceled site and is actively pursuing development of the site with housing, and it is vacant.

While the City General Plan allows for 1800-2200 housing units within the Baylands, it is currently zoned commercial C-1, which does not allow for housing. However, a specific plan is in process which will rezone the site for housing consistent with the adopted general plan. 1 This site inventory was developed to meet all statutory requirements and provide a realistic and achievable roadmap for the city to meet and exceed RHNA. 1Appendix B-6
ATTACHMENT 5
743
K.

As currently drafted, the site inventory relies on the existence and rezoning of the Baylands in order to meet RHNA requirements. We agree with staff’s analysis that the Baylands is an incredible site for housing, and can certainly meet the city’s housing requirements.

However, in order for this site to be included in Brisbane’s pipeline projects, it must meet HCD’s requirement to show schedules for entitlement and development.

Specifically, “While the element may utilize pipeline and potential development projects toward the RHNA, it must also demonstrate their affordability and availability in the planning period.

Affordability must be demonstrated based on actual sales price, rent level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). Availability should account for the likelihood of project completion in the planning period and should address the status, necessary steps to issue permits, any barriers to development and other relevant factors.

For availability, the analysis should address the anticipated schedule for development, including completion, any known barriers to development in the planning period, impacts of remediation plans on site availability, infrastructure, phasing requirements, build out horizons and any other factors impacting the availability of sites in the planning period. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should adjust residential capacity assumptions for the planning period.

We ask that staff provide substantial evidence that the Baylands site will be redeveloped and include a written schedule for the entitlement and development process into the Housing Element. Without this additional evidence, the housing element will be rejected from HCD, and Brisbane will be out of compliance.

Whether or not HCD accepts the Baylands as an opportunity site, Brisbane’s site inventory still has several other gaps. For example, the city includes dozens of single-family parcels in its site inventory that were used in both the 4th and 5th cycles, meaning the city needs to provide a site-by-site analysis demonstrating its projections for these sites are realistic. No such analysis is provided in the draft housing element.

Several other policies and programs could be added or improved to encourage more affordable housing development in Brisbane as described below:
- Amend Program 2.A.2, “Adopt the Baylands/Specific Plan,” to - a. Expedite approval of the Baylands Specific Plan by the end of 2023. - b. Expedite all relevant permit processing for the Baylands project. - c. Expedite any supplemental environmental review of the Baylands so as to ensure remediation can occur as rapidly as possible.
- d. Offer concessions and waivers to the Baylands pursuant to density bonus law.

We ask that if staff is going to prioritize the Baylands as the primary opportunity site ATTACHMENT 5
744
K.
for development, that they codify a written schedule for entitlement and development as well as expedite approvals and permitting in order to ensure the Baylands moves forward during this RHNA cycle.

Thank you very much for your consideration,
Ali Sapirman
South Bay & Peninsula Organizer / Affordable Housing
Advocate Housing Action Coalition
ATTACHMENT 5
745
K.

Department of Housing and Community Development
Housing Policy Division
January 24, 2023
RE: Comment on Housing Element of the City of Brisbane
On behalf of the Bay Area Council, I write to express my concerns with the City of Brisbane’s draft housing element. We urge the Department of Housing and Community Development to not approve a version of its element without clear and reliable commitments to moving forward the Brisbane Baylands project, which represents the vast majority of the housing growth that Brisbane forecasts in its draft housing element.

The Bay Area Council represents 300 of the region’s largest businesses, and many of our members have direct experience building in the Bay Area. As a part of developing our comments on all housing elements we work on, we worked with our members to identify the strategies that their experiences teach them would build more housing in the Bay Area. Their perspective is especially valuable because they work in many cities in the Bay Area and can compare Brisbane to other similar jurisdictions.

As the legislative sponsor of SB 828 (Wiener), the Council and our members are especially keen to see housing element law succeed in the Bay Area. In addition to collecting our members’ views, the Council developed several principles for housing element review. In general, we look for ways to:
• Reduce or eliminate discretionary review opportunities, • Identify the cumulative impact of cost drivers, such as fee, and • Review the approval process and set better timeline goals for project.

In reviewing Brisbane’s element, we were challenged to apply these principles because so much of Brisbane’s needs are going to be met by the Brisbane Baylands. Given that the Baylands plays such an outsized role in Brisbane’s housing element, the City’s housing element should follow these three principles to the highest degree possible for that specific project within the housing element itself, which we admit is not a usual practice for a city.

In general, we agree with HCD’s request that Brisbane needs to enhance certainty that the City will approve the Baylands within the next year, so that the project can be completed within the housing element cycle period. To accomplish that, Brisbane should establish mandatory timelines for reviewing and approving the project that are clear and create actionable consequences if the City does not meet its own timelines. If these timelines are not met, housing element compliance should be revoked by triggers built into the element itself. There should be bright line tests for how the project is moving ATTACHMENT 5
746
K.
along to ensure that the housing element as a whole is making progress on its housing goals, as most cities must do for their total housing pipeline during the housing element process.

On January 4, 2023, HCD sent a review letter to Brisbane requesting significant changes to its draft housing element. Based on HCD's feedback and the current policy commitments stated in the housing element draft, BAC encourages HCD to ensure that Brisbane’s pipeline projections comply with housing element law, which generally requires that pipeline projections be based on past success or reasonably expected under new programmatic commitments to HCD.

To accomplish this, as HCD’s letter points out, Brisbane’s housing element should include a comprehensive development schedule for the Baylands project. Brisbane should commit to specific, measurable, and attainable programs that facilitate the development. Specifically, BAC recommends Brisbane:
• Provide a detailed scheduled for the approval of the Baylands Specific Plan in 2023, entitlement approval by the end of 2024, and supplemental environmental review (if necessary) by the end of 2024.
• Allow environmental remediation to occur concurrently with the entitlement process. • Support funding applications for the Baylands development, including for any necessary water infrastructure.

Without these changes, Brisbane’s pipeline projection cannot reasonably be expected to result from new programmatic commitments or from past performance. To the extent Brisbane adopts the programs we recommend, we believe its housing element should be valid only if they are making progress to those commitments. If Brisbane does not make these commitments, we recommend HCD not certify its element. The Bay Area Council thanks you for the consideration of our comments, and we would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Best wishes,
Louis Mirante, Bay Area Council
Vice President of Public Policy
[email protected]

SENT VIA EMAIL
CC: City of Brisbane and staff
ATTACHMENT 5
747
K.

TO: Brisbane City Council
FROM: Dana Dillworth
RE: Certification and Adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Findings of Categorical Exemptions Abusing the Intent of CEQA When New Material Information Exists February 2, 2023

1.) Don’t pass this General Plan Amendment and findings under the threat of “builder’s remedy.” Sounds like extortion to me.

Please refer to Penal Codes 518 and PC524 for Extortion and Attempted Extortion and all statutes for Criminal Conspiracy PC182, Misappropriation of Public Funds PC424, the Public Information, Rightto-Know, Transparency “Sunshine Laws” that apply, both federal and state.

You reference a “recent interpretation of State Law by HCD staff…” Provide us with a transcript of that conversation or the legal interpretation presented to be part of the record. Please state who made that claim, their basis, and their legal credentials.

2.) Don’t pass this General Plan Amendment and findings without the Public’s 30-day chance to review the corrections YET TO BE formulated by staff.

Approve now with mistakes, (or insertions of uncirculated, unapproved material Figure 3-1.2) and provide standards later? CEQA requires studies and full disclosure of environmental conditions to support the legislation BEFORE you pass it instead of utilizing a hodgepodge of ways to circumvent environmental laws.

CEQA requires a current environmental condition assessment. New conditions, not previously assessed are:
• Recent storms, their impacts on our infrastructure, (pg. 4-13) and • New studies on sea-level rise penetrating into previously considered safe zones. (SFEI’s recent report located in this L.A. Times article https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-01-17/ new-sea-level-rise-maps-show-hidden-flood-risk-in-bay-area ,) and • VWR having new land covenants restricting housing and hospitals due to persistent “forever chemicals.”
• Changes in work/live patterns due to Covid.

My objections to insufficient studies and insufficient environmental settings prior to approval are multiple, are otherwise hereby incorporated by reference.

3.) Four days to review a document with this many references hidden in appendices is daunting.

Please make the corrections and circulate for public review PRIOR to certification. It’s not a legal, certifiable document in its current state.

4.) Make certain this is in compliance with the General Plan.

In the 1994 Brisbane General Plan, and when planning for the Northeast Ridge occurred, in a multitude of required studies, there was recognition that we have a higher percentage of recreational opportunities per capita/unit of housing. It creates the low-crime, positivity of our community. Will that be the case in the future? How is sufficient Open Space, Transportation, and Recreation for new residents being addressed in this plan? Particularly the aging population referenced in 2.1.

ATTACHMENT 5
748
K.

Our roadway’s level-of-service were above average. We had a balance between new business and affordable housing because there was a redevelopment mechanism, 20% set-aside. Balance seems to be missing in this document.

Thirty years later, a succession of laws have been passed in Sacramento to weaken the clean-up and risk-assessment standards and now blindly enforce high-density housing where it doesn’t belong without any further environmental review. Builder willingness is the only need? Stand up to this nonsense.

HCD has made many recommendations that I am happy to see. But compliance with our General Plan needs to be done BEFORE you approve.

5.) The Public Trust: The Public is being betrayed. The City staff, council, commissions, and some builders/their councils, have openly conspired to take away our Public lands and resources with the State. (Appendix E, page 9). Is this still the case that these lands (Brisbane Acres (upper and lower), VWR and Sierra Point) are still on the table? Land use covenants, restricted use and access means nothing?
I would have hoped that, working in the Public’s interest, you would have greater leverage with the Baylands developer (percentage-wise) when you signed the documents for $3,000,000 Public Funds for clean-up studies. We were told we needed this vast number of housing units to get affordable housing and pencil things out… but the minimum, only 17% low-income housing? Their current intention is to put high-rises along the rail corridor for developmentally disabled communities. Does the Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities agree? The loudest, most polluted zone? It’s hard for me, teaching in magnet schools for people with various challenges seeking integration with society, to find this map and tone acceptable.

Brisbane’s plan should be an Alternative Plan to integrate the necessary low-income housing units within existing housing, (vie for a lower RHNA number please) as we have done before, maximize ADU potential first, and not spot-zone. We haven’t reviewed the Environmental Impacts nor guarantees of the newly mentioned Contra Costa County Water agreement. You are incorporating Baylands documents that are NOT YET public. We have the right to know before it’s incorporated into our General Plan.

I totally object to you having $500,000 in hand for low-income home rehabilitation and plan to sit on it for two more years. It seems criminal and seems endemic to this council.

5.) CEQA requires alternative plans. There is mention in the SB9 literature that Alternatives to R-1 = R-3 or 4 can be submitted. Where are the Alternatives? No mention of live-aboards, short-term RV rentals, or pod hotels.

Take a ride on BART and see how homeless people find respite. A pod hotel, even portable units with bathing—- quick and easy. Please, propose something more immediate than report out in three years.

6.) Complete studies FIRST: Your Planning Commission workshops are not a substitute for studies.

The State can utilize other laws you didn’t cover in your cursory PC 11/10/22 virtual workshop that includes the ability to change CC&R’s. Please study and provide us the cumulative impacts of the new housing laws before you incorporate them by reference.

7.) Sustainability: Please define how the practice of converting every Public space to housing is sustainable. It’s cannibalistic. It’s an unfair advantage to people who have no sense of community.

Stand up for local control, come up with a better plan. I would take ADU support in a hot minute.

ATTACHMENT 5
749
K.

ATTACHMENT 5
750
K.

Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The City of Brisbane
Via email: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
February 2, 2023
To the City of Brisbane:

As we wrote in September, the housing shortage in Brisbane demands “bold reforms” to ensure the City meets its fair share of the regional housing need. Since almost all of the City’s plan depends on one large development—the Baylands—we write with concern that tonight’s draft housing element does not make the Baylands’ timely development realistic.

Section 65583(c) of the Government Code requires the City to “remove” constraints on development where possible. (This is “appropriate” in a housing shortage.) The plan (pp. 5-6 to -8) only proposes by-right development in the Baylands at 20 units an acre, when much more is needed. The City reserves for later much “study,” “monitor[ing],” and “identify[ing]” when the surer course of action would be to legalize density now.

Brisbane has a rare vacant site that should be a shoo-in for affordable development.

Please see to it that City permitting procedures do not stand in its way.

Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 5
751
K.

F-1
APPENDIX F - 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLETENESS

CHECKLIST
The Dept of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides a completeness checklist to assist local governments in the preparation of their housing element. It includes the statutory requirements of Government Code section 65580 – 65588.

HCD has indicated that completion of the checklist is not an indication of statutory compliance but is intended to provide a check to ensure that relevant requirements are included in the housing element prior to submittal to the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Government Code section 65585(b). Also, for purposes of the Checklist the term “analysis” is defined as a description and evaluation of specific needs, characteristics, and resources available to address identified needs.

ATTACHMENT 5
752
K.

APPENDIX F CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
F-2
Public Participation
Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(8)
Description of Requirement Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Description of the diligent efforts the jurisdiction made to include all economic segments of the community and/or their representatives in the development and update of the housing element
Chapter 1,
Section 1.3
and
Appendix E
1-5 and 1-6
E-1 through
E-9
All of
Appendix E
Summary of the public input received and a description of how it will be considered and incorporated into the housing element.

Chapter 1
and
Appendix E
1-5 and 1-6
Appendix E,
Attachments
E.1 and E.2
Review and Revise
Government Code section 65588, subdivision (a)
Description of Requirement Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Progress in implementation – A description of the actual results or outcomes of the previous element’s goals, objectives, policies, and programs (e.g. what happened).

Appendix A,
Sections 2
and 3
A-1 and A-3
Effectiveness of the element – For each program, include an analysis comparing the differences between what was projected or planned in the element and what was achieved.

Appendix A,
Table A.4
A-13
Appropriateness of goals, objectives, policies, and programs –A description of how the goals, objectives, policies, and programs in the updated element are being changed or adjusted to incorporate what has been learned from the results of the previous element. (e.g. continued, modified, or deleted.) Appendix A,
Table A.3
A-9
Special needs populations – Provide a description of how past programs were effective in addressing the housing needs of the special populations. This analysis can be done as part of describing the effectiveness of the program pursuant to (2) if the jurisdiction has multiple programs to specifically address housing needs of special needs populations or if specific programs were not included, provide a summary of the cumulative results of the programs in
addressing the housing need terms of units or services by special need group.

Chapter 2,
Section 2.3
and 2.3.1,
Appendix A,
section 2,
and Section
5, and
Appendix D
See also
Programs

3.B.1, 3.B.3,

3.B.4, and

3.B.6
2-25- 2-32, A1
AB 1233 – Shortfall of sites from the 5th cycle planning period – Failure to implement rezoning required due to a shortfall of adequate sites to accommodate the 5th cycle planning period RHNA for lower-income households triggers the provisions of Government Code section 65584.09.

No shortfall
for 5th cycle.
4 th cycle
shortfall
3-4
ATTACHMENT 5
753
K.

Housing Element Completeness Checklist 1/1/2021
3 F-3
rezoning
described in
Chapter 3,
Section

3.1.2, and
Appendix A,
Table A.4
ATTACHMENT 5
754
K.

APPENDIX F CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
F-4
Housing Needs Assessment – Quantification and Analysis of Need Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(1)(2) and section 65583.1, subdivision (d)
For information on how to credit reductions to RHNA See “Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook” at HCD’s technical assistance memos (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml) Description of Requirement Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Population (e.g., by age, size, ethnicity, households by tenure) and employment trends
Chapter 2,
Section 2.1;
Appendix D
Sec. 4
2-1
D-10
Household characteristics including trends, tenure, overcrowdings and severe overcrowding
Chapter 2,
Section 2.2;
Appendix D
Sec. 4 & 5
2-13
D-10 & D-28
Overpayment by income and tenure Chapter 2,
Section

2.2.8;
Appendix D
Sec. 5.5
2-17
D-35
Existing housing need for extremely low-income households Chapter 2, Section

2.1.13;
Appendix D
Sec. 4.5
2-10
D-19
Projected housing needs: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by income group, including projected extremely low-income households Chapter 2,
Section 2.3,
subsection

2.3.1 and
Table 2.31;
also refer to
section

3.2.1.10 2-25
Housing stock conditions, including housing type, housing costs, vacancy rate Chapter 2, Section 2.2;
Appendix D
Sec. 5
2-13
D-28
Estimate of the number of units in need of replacement and rehabilitation Chapter 2, Section

2.2.10 2-23
ATTACHMENT 5
755
K.

Housing Element Completeness Checklist 1/1/2021

APPENDIX F
F-5
Identification and Analysis of the Housing Needs for Special Needs Populations
Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(7)
Description of Requirement Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Elderly Chapter 2,
Sections

2.1.8 and

2.3.2;
Appendix D
Sec. 6.3
2-6; 2-28
D-47
Persons with Disabilities, including Developmental Disabilities Chapter 2, Sections

2.1.9 and

2.3.3;
Appendix D
Sec. 6.4
2-7; 2-29
D-48
Large Households Chapter 2,
Sections

2.1.4 and

2.3.4;
Appendix D
Sec. 6.1
2-4; 2-29
D-44
Farmworkers (seasonal and permanent) Chapter 2,
Sections

2.1.12 and

2.3.6;
Appendix D
Sec. 6.6
2-10; 2-31
D-55
Female Headed Households Chapter 2,
Sections

2.1.3 and

2.3.5;
Appendix D
Sec. 6.2
2-3; 2-30
D-45
Homeless (seasonal and annual based on the point in time count Chapter 2, Sections

2.1.6 and

2.3.7;
Appendix D
Sec. 6.5
2-5; 2-31
D-50
Optional: Other (e.g. students, military)
Institutional/group homes
Chapter 2,
Section 2.1;
2-1
ATTACHMENT 5
756
K.

APPENDIX F CITY OF BRISBANE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
F-6
Appendix D
Sec. 6.7
D-56
ATTACHMENT 5
757
K.

Housing Element Completeness Checklist 1/1/2021

APPENDIX F
F-7
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing - An Assessment of Fair Housing – Required for Housing Element due after 1/1/2021.

Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(10)(A)
Part 1 Outreach
Description of Requirement Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Does the element describe and incorporate meaningful engagement that represents all segments of the community into the development of the housing element, including goals and actions?
Chapter 1,
Section 1.3;
Appendix C;
Appendix E
1-5 to 1-6,
Appendix C,
Appendix E
Part 2 Assessment of Fair Housing
Description of Requirement Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Does the element include a summary of fair housing enforcement and capacity in the jurisdiction?
Appendix C,
Section I
Appendix
C.1, Section I
C-13
C.1-1
The element must include an analysis of these four areas: