East Palo Alto City Council
July 19, 2022

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 5
Figure I-6.

Public Housing Buildings, San Mateo County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 6
Figure I-7.

Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 7
SECTION II. Integration and Segregation
Race and ethnicity.

Figure II-1.

Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-2.

Population by Race and Ethnicity, East Palo Alto, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 8
Figure II-3.

Senior and Youth Population by Race, East Palo Alto, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-4.

Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, East Palo Alto, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 9
Figure II-5.

Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, East Palo Alto, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 10
Figure II-6.
% Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 11
Figure II-7.

White Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 12
Figure II-8.

Asian Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 13
Figure II-9.

Hispanic Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 14
Figure II-10.

Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 15
Figure II-11.

Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 16
Figure II-12.

Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 17
Disability status.

Figure II-13.

Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 18
Figure II-14.
% of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 19
Familial status.

Figure II-15.

Age Distribution, East Palo Alto, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-16.

Share of Households by Size, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 20
Figure II-17.

Share of Households by Type, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-18.

Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 21
Figure II-19.

Housing Type by Tenure, East Palo Alto, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-20.

Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, East Palo Alto, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 22
Figure II-21.
% of Children in Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 23
Figure II-22. [legend missing in HCD provided map]
% Households with Single Female with Children by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 24
Figure II-23. [legend missing in HCD provided map]
% of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 25
Figure II-24. [legend missing in HCD provided map]
% of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 26
Household income.

Figure II-25.

Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 27
Figure II-26.

Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 28
Figure II-27.

Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 29
Figure II-28.

Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 30
Figure II-29.

R/ECAPs and Edge R/ECAPs, 2010
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).

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 31
Figure II-30.

R/ECAPs and Edge R/ECAPs, 2019
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 (19.1% 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 (12.8% in 2019).

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 32
SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
Education
Figure III-1.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 33
Employment
Figure III-2.

Jobs by Industry, East Palo Alto, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 34
Figure III-3.

Job Holders by Industry, East Palo Alto, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-4.

Jobs to Household Ratio, East Palo Alto, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 35
Figure III-5.

Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, East Palo Alto, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-6.

Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 36
Figure III-7.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 37
Figure III-8.

Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 38
Transportation
[TCAC’s transportation opportunity score and maps were not available at the time of this report]
Environment
Figure III-9.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 39
Figure III-10.

CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 40
Figure III-11.

Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 41
Patterns in disparities in access to opportunity.

Figure III-12.

Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, East Palo Alto, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-13.

Population with Limited English Proficiency, East Palo Alto, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 42
Figure III-14.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 43
Figure III-15.

Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 44
Figure III-16.

SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 45
Disparities in access to opportunity for persons with disabilities.

Figure III-17.

Population by Disability Status, East Palo Alto, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-18.

Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18 Years and Over, East Palo Alto, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 46
Figure III-19.

Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), East Palo Alto, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-20.

Employment by Disability Status, East Palo Alto, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 47
Figure III-21.

Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 48
Figure III-22
[PLACEHOLDER] Mateo County Housing Policies and Programs Analysis Source: ABAG.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 49
SECTION IV. Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing needs.

Figure IV-1.

Population Indexed to 1990
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-2.

Housing Permits
Issued by Income
Group, East Palo
Alto, 2015-2019
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data
Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 50
Figure IV-3.

Housing Units by Year
Built, East Palo Alto
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-4.

Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 51
Figure IV-5.

Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-6.

Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 52
Figure IV-7.

Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Cost burden and severe cost burden.

Figure IV-8.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 53
Figure IV-9.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, East Palo Alto, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-10.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), East Palo Alto, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 54
Figure IV-11.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, East Palo Alto, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-12.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, East Palo Alto, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 55
Figure IV-13.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 56
Figure IV-14.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 57
Overcrowding.

Figure IV-15.

Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-16.

Occupants per Room by Tenure, East Palo Alto, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 58
Figure IV-17.

Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, East Palo Alto, 2019 Note: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-18.

Occupants per Room by AMI, East Palo Alto, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 59
Figure IV-19.

Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 60
Substandard housing.

Figure IV-20.

Percent of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities, East Palo Alto, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Homelessness.

Figure IV-21.

Homelessness by
Household Type
and Shelter Status,
San Mateo County,
2019
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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 61
Figure IV-22.

Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-23.

Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 62
Figure IV-24.

Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Displacement.

Figure IV-25.

Location of Population One Year Ago, East Palo Alto, 2019 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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 63
Figure IV-26.

Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, East Palo Alto, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-27.

Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, East Palo Alto, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
East Palo Alto 466 0 0 0 466
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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 64
Figure IV-28.

Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 65
Figure IV-29.

Location Affordability Index by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 66
Figure IV-30.

Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 67
Figure IV-31.

Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2000
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 68
Other considerations.

Figure IV-32.

Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, East Palo Alto, 2018-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-33.

Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, East Palo Alto, 2018-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 1
AFFH Appendix.

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

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

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

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

Sampling note. The survey respondents do not represent a random sample of the county or jurisdictions’ population. A true random sample is a sample in which each individual in the

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 2
population has an equal chance of being selected for the survey. The self-selected 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.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 3
Figure 1.

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

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 4
Primary Findings
The survey data present a unique picture of the housing choices, challenges, needs, and access to economic opportunity of San Mateo County residents.

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 5
 Of respondents reporting a disability, about 25% report that their current housing situation does not meet their accessibility needs. The three top greatest housing needs identified by respondents included installation of grab bars in bathroom or bench in shower, supportive services to help maintain housing, and ramps.
 On average, respondents are fairly satisfied with their transportation situation. Groups with the highest proportion of respondents somewhat or not at all satisfied with their transportation options included African American, single parents, precariously housed, and Brisbane respondents.

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

Resident Survey Findings
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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 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
Figure 2.

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

Source:

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

Figure 3.

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

Source:

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 7
Housing, Neighborhood and Affordability Challenges
Housing challenges: overall. 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.

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

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

Figure 4.

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

Source:

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

Figure 5.

Survey Respondents
by Selected
Household
Characteristics
Note:

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

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 8
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.
 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 most common areas where respondents’ needs were higher than the county overall were:
 Overall, half of the jurisdictions’ respondents reported I need help taking care of myself/my home and can’t find or afford to hire someone at a higher rate than the county.  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.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 9
Figure 6a.

Top 10 Housing Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,159 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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 10
The following three figures segment the answers by:
 Housing affordability challenges only; and
 Neighborhood challenges only.

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

Conversely, 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. .

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 11
Figure 6b.

Top 5 Affordability Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,130 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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 12
Neighborhood challenges. As shown in Figure 6c, residents in East Palo Alto, Brisbane, Daly City, and Pacifica experience neighborhood challenges at a higher rate than the county.

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

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

There are a handful of jurisdictions who experience specific neighborhood challenges at a disproportionate rate compared to the county.  For instance, East Palo Alto 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.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 13
Figure 6c.

Top 5 Neighborhood Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,079 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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 14
Differences in needs by race and ethnicity and housing tenure. As shown in Figure 7a, and compared to the county overall:
 African American, Hispanic, and Other race respondents, 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.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 15
Figure 7a.

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 16
The above trends are similar for the most acute housing affordability challenges. As shown in Figure 7b, African American and Hispanic households, as well as renters and those precariously housed, experience affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. Non-Hispanic White residents and homeowners experience these same challenges at a lower rate than the county.
 African American residents experience all five affordability challenges at a greater rate than the county overall.
 In addition to being more likely to not pay utility bills or rent on time, African American residents are more than four times as likely than the average county respondent to have a Section 8 voucher and worry that their landlord will raise their rent more than the voucher payment.
 Along with African American residents, Hispanic households, renters, and precariously housed households are most likely to experience difficulty paying utility bills, as well as have bad credit or eviction/foreclosure history impacting their ability to find a place to rent.  These groups, with the exception of those precariously housed, are also more likely to be late on their rent payments.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 17
Figure 7b.

Top 5 Affordability Challenges Experienced by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,130 132 487 391 146 739 983 953 293
10% 22% 11% 17% 14% 5% 5% 15% 15%
8% 13% 6% 12% 12% 4% 1% 15% 8%
6% 16% 8% 4% 5% 7% 9% 5% 14%
4% 5% 3% 8% 4% 2% 1% 6% 11%
4% 18% 5% 6% 7% 2% 2% 7% 8%
None of the above 73% 32% 70% 63% 64% 83% 84% 61% 54%
County
African
American Asian Hispanic
Valid cases
I can't keep up with my utilities
I'm often late on my rent payments
I can't keep up with my property taxes
I have bad credit/history of evictions/foreclosure
and cannot find a place to rent
I have Section 8 and I am worried my landlord will
raise my rent higher than my voucher payment
Non-Hispanic
White Homeowner Renter
Precariously
Affordability Challenges Housed
Other
Race

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 18
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.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 19
Figure 7c.

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 20
Differences in needs by household status. As shown in Figure 8a, single parents, households making less than $50,000, households with children under 18 and 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.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 21
Figure 8a.

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 22
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, single parent households are most acutely impacted. These households are more than three times as likely to have a Section 8 voucher and fear their landlord will raise the rent impacting the viability of their voucher, more than twice as likely to miss utility payments and have bad credit/eviction or foreclosure history impacting their ability to rent, and twice as likely to have trouble keeping up with their property taxes.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 23
Figure 8b.

Top 5 Affordability Challenges Experienced by Income and Household Characteristics Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,130 276 260 509 703 830 279 239 699 716
10% 16% 16% 12% 3% 16% 14% 23% 15% 8%
8% 19% 16% 6% 1% 11% 12% 15% 11% 4%
6% 7% 9% 8% 5% 9% 4% 12% 8% 7%
4% 8% 7% 4% 1% 5% 6% 10% 6% 3%
4% 11% 6% 4% 1% 7% 3% 14% 8% 5%
73% 46% 56% 72% 90% 59% 70% 32% 59% 75%
Adults
(age 65+)
I have Section 8 and I am worried my landlord
will raise my rent higher than my voucher
payment
None of the above
County
Less than
$25,000
$25,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
Affordability Challenges $99,999
Valid cases
I can't keep up with my utilities
I'm often late on my rent payments
I can't keep up with my property taxes
I have bad credit/history of
evictions/foreclosure and cannot find a place
to rent
Above
$100,000
Children
under 18
Large
Households
Single
Parent Disability

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 24
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.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 25
Figure 8c.

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 26
Experience Finding Housing
This section explores residents’ experience seeking a place to rent or buy in the county and the extent to which displacement—having to move when they do not want to move—is prevalent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 27
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.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 28
Figure 9. If you looked seriously for housing to rent in San Mateo County in the past five years, were you ever denied housing?
Note: The "Percent Seriously Looked for Housing" column includes all respondents, not just those who indicated they rent.

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

Jurisdiction
County 56% 26% 22% 14% 45% 928
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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 29
Recent experience seeking housing to buy. Figure 10 presents the proportion of respondents who seriously looked to buy housing in the county, by jurisdiction, and selected respondent characteristics, as well as the reasons for denial. As noted above, 56% of county respondents have seriously looked for housing in the past five years.

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 30
Figure 10. If you looked seriously for housing to buy in San Mateo County in the past five years, were you ever denied housing?
Note: The "Percent Seriously Looked for Housing" column includes all respondents, not just those who indicated they 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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 31
Denied housing to rent or buy. Figure 11 presents the proportion of those who looked and were denied housing to rent or buy for the county, jurisdictions, and selected respondent characteristics, as well as reason for denial. As shown, nearly 4 in 10 county respondents who looked for housing experienced denial of housing. African American/Black respondents, precariously housed respondents, households with income below $50,000, and single parent respondents have denial rates of 60% or higher. African American (79%) and single parent (74%) respondents report the highest rates of denial.

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 32
Figure 11. If you looked seriously for housing to rent or buy in San Mateo County in the past five years, were you ever denied housing?
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 39% 1154 18% 44% 19% 21% 449
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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 33
Experience using housing vouchers. It is “difficult” or “very difficult” for eight out of 10 voucher holders to find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher (Figure 13).

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

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

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

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

Figure 12.

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

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Figure 13. How difficult is it to find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher? Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Displacement. Figure 14 presents the proportion of residents who experienced displacement in the past five years, as well as the reason for displacement.  Overall, 21% of survey respondents experienced displacement in the past five years. Among all survey respondents, the main reason for displacement was rent increased more than I could pay (29%).
 Respondents who are precariously housed have higher rates of recent displacement than homeowners or renters; this suggests that when displaced a unit these housing-insecure tenants are more likely to couch surf or experience homelessness for some period of time before securing a new place to live.
 Among respondents by race/ethnicity, African American respondents reported the highest rate of displacement (59%). The primary reason reported by African American respondents for their displacement was housing was unsafe (e.g., domestic assault, harassment).

Twenty eight percent also reported that they were forced out for no reason.  Asian households, as well as homeowners, households that make less than $25,000, single parent households, households that include a member experiencing a disability, and Millbrae, Brisbane and Pacifica residents are also more likely than other respondents to have been displaced due to an unsafe housing situation (e.g., domestic assault, harassment).  Additionally, Asian, precariously housed respondents, households making less than $25,000, 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. The most common moves to and from cities included:
 Moved within South San Francisco (28 respondents)
 Moved from outside San Mateo County to San Mateo (10 respondents)  Moved from San Bruno to South San Francisco (9 respondents)  Moved from Daly City to South San Francisco (9 respondents)  Moved within Burlingame (8 respondents)

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Figure 14. Displacement Experience and Reasons for Displacement Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Children changing schools after displacement. Overall, for households with children that were displaced in the past five years, 60% of children in those households have changed schools. The most common outcomes reported among these respondents included school is more challenging (28%), they feel less safe at the new school (25%), and they are in a worse school (24%) (Figure 15).

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

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

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

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Figure 15. Children Changing Schools and Outcomes, Displaced Households Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Experience with housing discrimination. Overall, 19% of survey respondents felt they were discriminated against when they looked for housing in the area.1 As shown in Figure 16, African American respondents (62%), single parent households (44%) and precariously housed respondents (39%) are most likely to say they experienced housing discrimination. Residents with income above $100,000 and homeowners are least likely (11%).

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

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

Among top responses for actions taken in response to experienced discrimination, every group reported Nothing/I wasn’t sure what to do with the exception of African American 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 for discrimination. Respondents who believed they experienced discrimination when looking for housing in the county provided the reasons why they thought they were discriminated against. Note that the basis offered by residents is not necessarily protected by federal, state, or local fair housing law, as respondents could provide open-ended and multiple reasons why they thought they experienced discrimination.

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Appearance/Characteristics
 “Because of my race and ethnicity”
 “[We] were given a subprime loan for home purchase for being Latinx, low-income and primarily Spanish-speaking; refinance last year was lower than expected.”  “It was clear my disability is the reason”
 “I have a child and a couple places told me they wouldn’t rent to me due to my son.”  “The agent asked if I was a tech worker. When I said no, the agent said the place was just rented, even though it was on the listing as active.”
 “I was approved for the unit and when they met my partner, who is Black, they said [the unit] was rented.”
Source of Income/Credit
 “Income was through SSDI”
 “The landlord wanted an excellent credit score…”
 “We were not able to provide all the requirement to rent, like SSN [social security number], income proof, employment, and we don’t make enough income…”  “They wanted someone with income from employment not due to disability.”  “I was discriminated against because of my race and the fact that I had Section 8 at the time.

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Figure 16. Percent of respondents who felt they were discriminated against and how was it addressed Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Experience of persons with disabilities. Overall, 35% of respondents’ households include a member experiencing a disability. Of these households, 26% said their housing does not meet their accessibility needs; 74% report that their current housing situation meets their needs. The three top greatest housing needs expressed by respondents included grab bars in bathroom or bench in shower (34%), supportive services to help maintain housing (33%), and ramps (26%). Other needs expressed by a substantial proportion of groups included wider doorways, reserved accessible parking spot by the entrance, and more private space in the facility in which I live.

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

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Figure 17. Respondents experiencing a disability and their top three greatest housing needs Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Transportation. Over 80% of respondents indicated the type of transportation used most often is driving a personal vehicle. This share was relatively similar across the majority of jurisdictions and was the number one type of transportation used across all jurisdictions and demographic characteristics.

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

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

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT
POLICY RESEARCHRESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX,PAGE 45
Figure 18.

Are you satisfied
with your current
transportation
options?
Source:

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 46
Solutions offered by residents. Respondents were asked a series of questions about how to improve their situations related to housing, employment, health, education and neighborhood.

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

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 47
 Half Moon Bay residents, 27%
Help me pay rent each month
 Income less than $25,000, 35%
 Single parent, 31%
Find a landlord who accepts Section 8
 Black or African American, 37%
Improve neighborhood situation. When asked what could improve a respondent’s neighborhood situation, nearly every respondent group by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics identified Better lighting. Other solutions flagged by multiple respondent groups to improve their neighborhood situations includes Improve street crossings and none of the above.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Better lighting includes:
 East Palo Alto residents, 45%
 Millbrae residents, 45%
 Other race, 42%
 Daly City residents, 41%
 Hispanic 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%

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 48
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.

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

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 49
Additionally, African American (34%) and San Bruno (29%) respondents identified Better access to mental health care as a solution to help improve their health situations.

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

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

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

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

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 50
 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.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) Sites Inventory Analysis – Sites List
Ministerially Approved or Entitled Projects
965 WEEKS STREET
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-232-210
063-232-220
063-232-230
Acreage 2.52
Current GP and
Zoning
High Density Residential (General Plan) R-HD zoning 22-43 du/acre
Urban Residential (Specific Plan) up to 40 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 42 VLI, 93 LI, 1 Above Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Entitled project on vacant, City-owned parcel. Fully affordable project with financing plan that includes Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and other sources of public funding, including City loans.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
This is an entitled project that has applied for several rounds of state funding and was provided City loan funds. Unit mix and affordability codified in regulatory agreement with City are reflected here.

Environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the site completed during entitlement phase.

Infrastructure Water –There will likely be on-site water storage, though this project will benefit from City capital improvements; most significantly, the Cooley/University Water Main project. Applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from EPASD.

Other
constraints
None known.
1804 BAY ROAD
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-231-240
Acreage .99 acre
Current GP and
Zoning
Mixed-Use Corridor (General Plan) MUC-2 zoning 22-65 du/acre Bay Road Central (Specific Plan) zoning 50 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 10 VLI, 65 Above-Mod

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
SB 35-approved mixed-use residential and retail project with density bonus. Owner currently considering options to sell ministerially-approved project plans and could require
discretionary review if major changes proposed.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Development application and SB 35 zoning clearance.

Environmental N/A due to SB 35.

Infrastructure Water – applicant will be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant will be required to obtain clearance from EPASD.

Other
constraints
None known.

UNIVERSITY CLARUM CORNER 2331 UNIVERSITY (Nonvacant)
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-201-250, 063-201-260, 063-201-290
Acreage .89 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Mixed Use Corridor (General Plan) MUC-2 zoning 22-65 du/acre Unit Breakdown 4 LI, 3 MOD, 26 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Multifamily mixed-use; condominiums over ground floor retail.

Demolition of existing single-family home on property.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
This project was entitled with the unit mix shown here. The unit mix may change if the entitlements are sold to another developer.

Conditions of approval include right of first refusal for current tenant for one of the below market-rate units in the new development and tenant relocation assistance to be provided to tenant.

Environmental CEQA Categorical Exemption.

The site contains no wetlands, creeks, natural areas, and is not located adjacent to the Bay. Based on the General Plan EIR (2016), the site does not contain the aquatic, salt marsh, riparian or other habitats that may support special status species.

The property was the subject of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Lowney Associates, 2003) that concluded that no hazardous materials incidents have been reported in this

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) location or nearby locations that would likely affect the site.

Kimley-Horn (2020) performed an updated regulatory database search and found that no new recorded hazardous sites are located at the project site.

Infrastructure As a project designated as mixed-use in the City’s General Plan and studied in the General Plan EIR, the Clarum Corner Notice of Exemption found that the site can be serviced by all existing utilities and public services.

Applicant remains responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire and for obtaining a permit from EPASD and/or paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
1201 RUNNYMEDE
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-271-090
Acreage .932 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
High Density Residential (General Plan) zoning 22-43 du/acre Urban Residential (Specific Plan) up to 40 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 3 LI, 3 MOD, 26 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Entitled multifamily condominium project on a vacant lot.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
This project was entitled with the unit mix shown here. The unit mix may change if the entitlements are sold to another developer.

Environmental CEQA Categorical Exemption.

The site contains no wetlands, creeks, natural areas, and is not located adjacent to the Bay. Based on the General Plan EIR (2016), the site does not contain the aquatic, salt marsh, riparian or other habitats that may support special status species.

Kimley-Horn (2020) performed an updated regulatory database search and found that no new recorded hazardous sites are located at the project site.

Infrastructure As a project designated as mixed-use in the City’s General Plan and studied in the General Plan EIR, the Clarum Corner Notice of

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Exemption found that the site can be serviced by all existing utilities and public services.

Applicant remains responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire and permit from EPASD and/or for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
760 WEEKS STREET
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-252-320
Acreage .52 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Medium Density Residential (General Plan) RMD-2 zoning 12-22 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 1 LI, 1 MOD, 8 Above-Mod units.

Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
SB 35-approved townhome project with density bonus on a vacant lot.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Based on ministerially-approved development proposal.

Environmental N/A due to SB 35.

Infrastructure Water – applicant will still be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
120-126 MAPLE LANE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-720-190, 063-720-180, 063-720-170, 063-720-160
Acreage .177 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Medium Density Residential (General Plan) RMD-1 zoning 12-15 du/acre

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Unit Breakdown 4 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
4- unit subdivision on vacant land. Inclusionary Housing Agreement between the City and the developer required
developer to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing 2 residential units affordable to VLI and LI households.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Entitled project, as described in Inclusionary Housing Agreement.

Environmental CEQA Categorical Exemption (assumed)
Infrastructure Water – applicant will still be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.

NO ADDRESS/APN 063265300 (Runnymede/Clarke)
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-265-300
Acreage .156 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Medium Density Residential (General Plan) RMD-1 zoning 12-15 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 1 LI, 2 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Deed-restricted ADU at 70% AMI pursuant to Inclusionary Housing Agreement with City of East Palo Alto, as approved by the City Council.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Approved plans and executed Inclusionary Housing Agreement.

Environmental CEQA Categorical Exemption
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Other
constraints
None known.

Projects Not Approved, but High Probability of Development

WOODLAND PARK COMMUNITIES EUCLID IMPROVEMENTS (NONVACANT) Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-282-010, 063-282-020, 063-282-030, 063-282-040, 063-282- 050, 063-282-060, 063-282-070, 063-282-580, 063-282-090, 063- 281-020, 063-281-030, 063-281-040, 063-281-100, 063-281-110 Acreage 3.9 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Multifamily High-Density R-HD-5 zoning 22-43 du/acre
And R-UHD Multifamily Urban High Density 43-86 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 444 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Redevelopment of 161 existing rent-controlled apartments to 605 units, or 444 net new units. This project is requesting a General Plan Amendment (to create “Neighborhood Center Residential Overlay”) and zoning code changes. Project is subject to Westside Area Plan anti-displacement policies.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
The number of total units and affordable units is based on the development application, inclusionary housing ordinance, and pending Development Agreement between the City and the
developer, Sand Hill/Woodland Park Communities.

Environmental On July 1, 2021, the City issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a 76-day public comment period which ended on September 15, 2021. A Final EIR is being prepared.

Infrastructure Domestic water capacity is sufficient to support the proposed project. However, East Palo Alto’s water supply distribution is insufficient to provide adequate pressure and flow for the Euclid Improvements Project’s fire suppression. Menlo Park Fire District has required that the applicant provide approximately 0.5 million gallons (MG) of water for fire flow, and the Applicant will construct a 1.5M gallon tank at an offsite location to improve water pressure and flow for the Westside neighborhood.

Applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from EPASD prior to starting construction.

Staff does not believe that these infrastructure constraints will result in a lower number of units.

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Other
constraints
Project subject to Development Agreement and lengthy approval process.

FOUR CORNERS 1675 BAY RD.

Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-111-250
Acreage 6.1 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Mixed Use High (General Plan) MUH zoning – up to 86 du/acre 4 Corners (Specific Plan) up to 60 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 36 VLI, 144 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Mixed-use project on a vacant site with retail, housing, and office.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
The number of total units and affordable units is based on the development application and inclusionary housing ordinance requirement of 20%. Using the 20% requirement, rather than assuming all affordable units is a conservative estimate given the zoning, which allows for a density suitable for lower-income housing.

Environmental EIR forthcoming. Notice of Preparation pending.

Infrastructure Water – applicant will still be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other necessary measures will be determined by the EIR.

Other
constraints
The project must request an amendment to the current Specific Plan to accommodate one of the proposed uses (life
science/laboratory) and the proposed height. The proposed community and office space will respectively require an administrative use permit and a conditional use permit to be in conformance with Specific Plan. Alternatively, updates to the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan may better align the proposed project and the Specific Plan, which could help the project achieve greater density for the residential component. 717 DONAHOE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-374-350
Acreage .66 acres

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Current GP and
Zoning
Medium Density Residential (General Plan) RMD-2 zoning
12-22 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 1 LI, 1 MOD, 12 Above-Mod units.

Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Vacant lot multifamily condominium project.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Based on development proposal and inclusionary requirement.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption.

Analysis shows that there are no serpentine soils, riparian, wetland, or other aquatic areas on or adjacent to the site.

As a project with more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, it will be subject to the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) for the San Francisco Bay Area and must implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff.

Infrastructure Water – The proposed 14 multi-family residences would result in a relatively small incremental increase in water demand and is consistent with the City’s projected growth. The project would connect to the existing water main in Donohoe Street.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees. However, the project is expected to cause a relatively small incremental increase in sanitary sewer demand, consistent with projected growth in the General Plan, and would connect to the existing sewer main in Donohoe Street.

Applicant is still responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire and EPASD.

Other
constraints
None known.
990 GARDEN
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-344-420, 063-344-450
Acreage 1.32 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Low Density Residential (General Plan) R-LD zoning up to 12 du/acre

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Unit Breakdown 2 LI, 6 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Lot merger and subdivision of two vacant parcels for 6 single family dwellings with ADUs and one duplex. While the inclusionary portion of this project has been approved by the City Council (the developer proposed an alternative), the project has not yet been approved by the Planning Commission.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Based on development proposal and inclusionary requirement.

Environmental CEQA Categorical Exemption.

The site does not contain wetlands, creeks, or natural areas, and is not connected to nearby baylands or marsh habitat. Based on the General Plan EIR (2016), the site does not contain the aquatic, salt marsh, riparian or other habitats that may support special status species. Kimley-Horn (July 2021) performed an updated regulatory database search of the Department of Toxic
Substances Control Envirostor website and the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Geotracker website to identify if any new hazardous material regulated facilities or sites within or proximate to the project are present. The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by Kimley-Horn.

Infrastructure The project would connect to existing electrical, communications, water, sewer and storm drain infrastructure that currently exists within public rights of way. The project included a utility plan, domestic water analysis and sewer capacity analysis to confirm that the project can be served by existing infrastructure. Applicant is still responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees. However, the project is expected to cause a small increase in sanitary sewer demand from 8 units.

Other
constraints
None known.
2340 COOLEY (Nonvacant)
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-253-410
Acreage .26 acres

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Current GP and
Zoning
Medium Density Residential (General Plan) RMD-2 zoning 12-22 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 1 LI, 7 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Redevelopment of site with single family home (owner-occupied) with density bonus. Planning Commission review anticipated in fall 2022.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Development proposal and inclusionary requirement/density bonus analysis.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.

Projects with Lower Probability of Development, But Development Interest 547 RUNNYMEDE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-201-190
Acreage .45
Current GP and
Zoning
Medium-Density Residential (General Plan) RMD-2 zoning 12-22 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 7 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Preliminary proposal for a townhome development on vacant parcel.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Assumed density for unit calculation is 15 du/acre, which is comparable to other developments with this zoning and adjusted downwards due to smaller size of site.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
1062 RUNNYMEDE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-262-060
Acreage .92
Current GP and
Zoning
Low Density Residential (General Plan) R-LD zoning up to 12 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 6 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Preliminary proposal for subdivision with four single family homes (and 4 ADUs).

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Unit calculation assumes 6 du/acre, which is comparable to other R-LD-zoned projects of this size.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
812 GREEN
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-373-110
Acreage .89
Current GP and
Zoning
Low Density Residential (General Plan) R-LD zoning up to 12 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 5 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Site has a preliminary proposal for a subdivision with five single family homes.

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Assumes 6 du/acre, which is comparable to other R-LD-zoned projects of this size.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
842 GREEN
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-373-130
Acreage .59
Current GP and
Zoning
Low Density Residential (General Plan) R-LD zoning up to 12 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 4 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Preliminary proposal on this site for a subdivision with three single family homes.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Assumes 6 du/acre, which is comparable to other R-LD-zoned projects of this size.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
801 DONOHOE

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-373-110
Acreage .45
Current GP and
Zoning
Medium Density Residential (General Plan) R-MD-2 zoning 12 to 22 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 5 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Parcel has a preliminary proposal for a subdivision with five single family homes. While single family homes may not be the primary intended use of a site with this zoning per the General Plan, the density may be more realistic, given the size of the site.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Assumed density for unit calculation of 12 du/acre (the minimum) results in 5 units.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
755 SCHEMBRI LANE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-361-400, 063-361-260
Acreage 1.435 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
2 lots: R-LD zoning up to 12 du/acre and RMD-1 zoning 12-15 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 17 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Some preliminary property owner interest in building 6 single family homes on the property. However, design remains
conceptual.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Unit calculation based on 12 du/acre, which is reasonable given density of other projects with this zoning and size of site.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
807 E. BAYSHORE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 062-221-340
Acreage .55 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Low-Density Mixed-Use (General Plan) MUL-1 zoning up to 22 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 12 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Preapplication to demolish commercial space and build 6 apartments on second and third floor of new building.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Assumed density at 15 du/acre, given density of other projects with this zoning and tentative nature of preapplication.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.

LINCOLN ST. (APN 063-186-270)
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-186-270
Acreage .254 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Low-Density Residential (General Plan) R-LD zoning up to 12 du/acre

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Unit Breakdown 1 VLI, 2 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
SB 9 application to build 2 rental units with 2 ADUs on vacant lot.

The inclusionary component of the development proposal will be reviewed at a City Council public hearing on July 19, 2022. The proposal is to deed-restrict an attached ADU as an alternative compliance option to paying the Inclusionary In-Lieu Fee.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Development proposal.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
851 WEEKS
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-221-240
Acreage .65 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
High Density Residential (General Plan) High Density Residential zoning 22-43 du/acre
Urban Residential (Specific Plan) up to 40 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 16 VLI, 10 LI
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Site was recently considered for affordable housing as part of another development in the city to fulfill the project’s inclusionary housing obligation. No preapplication was submitted, but feasibility was discussed for affordable units. A future developer would seek to maximize the density, as affordable developers have done elsewhere in the City, likely leveraging density bonus. For purposes of analysis, assumed 40 du/acre.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Applied RHNA 6 distribution to total units to calculate VLI and LI units.

Environmental Potential CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.

Publicly-Owned Sites with Potential for Development or Redevelopment 2415 UNIVERSITY – 2 parcels (Nonvacant)
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-103-370, 063-103-360
Acreage .76 acres, 1.285 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Public/Institutional (General Plan) – nonresidential zoning 4 Corners (Specific Plan) up to 60 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 61 VLI
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
County-owned Government Center currently under study; there is some potential for housing on the site.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
4 Corners zoning allows for maximum 60 du/acre on the site.

Given existing use as Government Center, continued need to accommodate these uses, and underutilized space in the form of surface parking adjacent to Government Center, staff is assuming 30 du/acre for housing density. Staff has also taken into consideration the proposed density of the development across University Ave., Four Corners (currently proposed as 30 du/acre but is subject to change).

Environmental Anticipated Initial Study.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
County and City are currently working on feasibility study of these sites. However, this cooperation must continue to ensure development over the next 8 years.
2277 UNIVERSITY (Nonvacant)

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-302-460
Acreage .36 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Mixed-Use Corridor MUC-1 zoning 22-65 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 20 VLI
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
City-owned parcel to be exchanged with County of San Mateo for the site at 2216 Beech St. and developed as housing. There is currently a single family home structure on the site used by the City. It is possible the County may acquire a neighboring site, which would result in a parcel just over .5 acres.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
The current zoning of MUC-1 allows for 22-65 du/acre. For comparison, there are two entitled developments on this list with MUC-2 zoning, which contains the same density
minimum/maximum (22-65 du/acre), but which allows for uses other than residential above the ground floor, whereas MUC-1 zoning allows for residential uses only above the ground floor.

Those two developments proposed a density of 75 du/acre (65 maximum plus density bonus) and 37 du/acre, respectively. Given the intention to use this site as affordable housing, staff assumes 55 du/acre, roughly the average of the two other sites. Assumes all units VLI.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
560 BELL ST.* (nonvacant; *would require rezoning)
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-292-320
Acreage 3.86 acres (assumes .736 acres, or 20% of site, for redevelopment)

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Current GP and
Zoning
Parks and Recreation (General Plan) PR zoning - nonresidential Unit Breakdown 14 VLI, 8 LI
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Site not zoned for housing, but there is some interest in redevelopment with housing.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Applied 30 du/acre density to 20% of the parcel (.736 acres), which is the area expected to be redeveloped for housing on the second floor, for total of 22 units, with VLI/LI breakdown based on RHNA 6 distribution. Surrounding uses include Mixed-Use High zoning, which allows for up to 86 du/acre.

Environmental Unknown. Anticipated Initial Study.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
Building housing on this parcel would require rezoning.

RAVENSWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT BAY RD. SITE/APN 063090080 Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-090-080
Acreage 2.59 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Public/Institutional (General Plan) – nonresidential zoning Unit Breakdown Assumed breakdown: 26 VLI, 26 LI, 26 Mod.

Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Ravenswood School District vacant site planned for teacher affordable housing.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Based on size of parcel and surrounding zoning (single family residential), assumed 30 du/acre for a total of 78 affordable units.

Environmental To be determined. Possible EIR.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Other
constraints
The Ravenswood Elementary School District would be required to work with the state to develop this site as housing, as its City zoning designation currently does not allow for residential. The project is dependent upon the school district’s progress during the eight-year planning period.

Nonresidential Zoning, But Residential Development Application (RBD)

EPA WATERFRONT
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-050-050
Acreage 29.6 (but developable area approx. 9 acres)
Current GP and
Zoning
Industrial Buffer (General Plan) -- non-residential
Industrial Flex Overlay (Specific Plan) – non-residential Unit Breakdown 52 VLI, 208 Above-Mod
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
This is a vacant parcel, much of which isrestricted to open space or recreation. It is likely to be rezoned to allow for housing. Of this, there would be a minimum 20% inclusionary requirement, and potentially additional affordable housing required as part of RBD update process/rezoning.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
While the zoning currently does not allow for housing, re-zoning would allow the developer to build housing units on this parcel (without infringing on sensitive environmental areas). The 260-unit total is contained in the applicant’s 2021 proposal. City could assume all lower-income units on this site, given the size and zoning of the parcel. However, knowing there is a development application for market-rate units, staff is assuming 20% (inclusionary) as the default.

Environmental This project will require an EIR. The NOP is pending.

Infrastructure Water – applicant will still be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other necessary measures will be determined by the EIR.

Other
constraints
Aside from zoning, this project contains commercial square footage that cumulatively (together with other proposed projects in the Specific Plan area) exceeds the commercial square footage evaluated in the 2013 RBD EIR. The project is expected to build a

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) lower amount of commercial than proposed, subject to the RBD update process. This is not, however, expected to affect the number of proposed housing units. This is a staff-recommended site for rezoning to allow for residential.

HARVEST THE LANDING HOUSING OFFSITE 1103 WEEKS (Nonvacant) Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063240360, 063240370, 063240380, 063240270
Acreage 1.6 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
General Industrial (General Plan) -- nonresidential zoning Ravenswood Employment Center (Specific Plan)
Unit Breakdown 95 VLI
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Applicant is partnering with Eden Housing to develop a 95- unit affordable project with ground floor civic/nonprofit space on ground floor. Site contains an unoccupied (according to applicant; must be verified) single family unit. Would require re-zoning of the parcel.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Based on affordable housing proposal.

Environmental This project will require an EIR. The NOP is pending.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
This site must be re-zoned for housing and is therefore subject to the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Update process and its related rezoning. However, this is a staff-recommended site for rezoning to allow for residential.

SOUTH OF WEEKS/FORMER PRIMARY SCHOOL SITE/ APN 063271490 Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-271-490
Acreage 2.7 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Industrial Transition (Specific Plan) - nonresidential

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Unit Breakdown 51 VLI, 30 LI
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
This site is not zoned for housing and does not have a
development application or known developer interest. However, the size is properly sized for lower-income housing and is one of the focus parcels for the RBD update (to be rezoned for residential).

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
If rezoned to an existing zoning, such as Urban Residential, which would allow for up to 40 du/acre, the site could accommodate up to 108 units. This calculation assumes development of site with 30 du/acre density, or a total of 81 units.

Environmental Anticipated Categorical Exemption given size of site and location within RBD area.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.

Sites with (Re)development Potential in Ravenswood Business District 791 WEEKS (Nonvacant)
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-221-390
Acreage .89
Current GP and
Zoning
High Density Residential (General Plan) R-HD zoning 22-43 du/acre
Urban Residential (Specific Plan) up to 40 du/acre
Unit Breakdown 22 VLI, 12 LI
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Well-sized site with single family home on the property and zoning that supports higher-density housing. Assumes 30 du/acre realistic development capacity for 34 total units.

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Applied RHNA 6 distribution to 34 total units to calculate VLI and LI units.

Environmental To be determined. Assumed CEQA Categorical Exemption, given size of site.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
None known.
1923 BAY RD.

Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-132-110
Acreage .99 acres
Current GP and
Zoning
Mixed-Use Corridor (General Plan) MUC-2 zoning 22-65 du/acre Bay Road Central (Specific Plan) zoning up to 50 du/acre Unit Breakdown 25 VLI, 15 LI
Site Details
(incl. existing
use)
Vacant site. Potential interest in developing mixed-use on the site.

Density sufficient to support lower-income housing. Calculation assumes 40 du/acre, which is reasonable given proposals for developments in the area (e.g., 1804 Bay Rd. has a density of 75 du/acre with density bonus, or 65 du/acre without).

Methodology
used to
determine
realistic
capacity
Applied RHNA 6 distribution to 40 total units to calculate VLI and LI units.

Environmental Unknown. Assumed Initial Study, given history of property.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other
constraints
Site has an active code enforcement case. Site may require environmental remediation, given current use (parked vehicles).

9.4.d
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Draft Sites Inventory Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Draft Housing Element Policies & Programs as of 7.19.22 The below policies reflect additions based on City Council and Planning Commission direction and input from the public; some ongoing or incomplete policies and programs from the RHNA 5 Housing Element Workplan will be carried over.

Please note that this list of policies will be refined and transferred into a workplan format of goals, objectives, and policies/programs that includes timelines for completion, lead division, and budget implications.

Theme: More housing, and more housing that is affordable to East Palo Alto residents
Objective: Incentivize affordable housing development.

Policy: Evaluate the feasibility and utility of an affordable housing overlay zone for nonprofit properties to incentivize affordable housing beyond available incentives in the state Density Bonus law.

Objective: Encourage smaller-scale housing that is relatively more affordable, including duplexes/triplexes and market-rate accessory dwelling units (ADUs.).

Policy: Develop a “next-phase” streamlining effort for ADUs and JADUs, SB 9 projects, and any future small-development, ministerial approval process that builds on lessons learned from the ADU Streamlining collaboration with EPACANDO and City Systems.

Policy: Study feasibility and desirability of reducing fees or delaying payment of fees for small projects, e.g. 2 or fewer units.

Policy: Develop a robust outreach and plan targeting smaller developers aimed at informing future applicants, creating a dialogue with local developers, and improving the quality of Planning applications received.

Policy or Program: Revisit feasibility of a preapproved ADU designs program or clearinghouse to facilitate streamlined review and reduce design costs of ADUs.

Objective: Incentivize production of deed-restricted ADUs to add to the City’s affordable housing stock.

Policy: Develop a formalized legalization process for unpermitted second units.

Policy: Research all available public and private sources of rehabilitation/repair funding and strengthen partnership with organizations in this area, i.e., Habitat for Humanity.

9.4.e
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Draft Policies and Programs (2350 : Housing Element Update) Policy: Leverage new sources of state funding, i.e., additional CalHome grants, to continue supporting low-income households to build deedrestricted affordable ADUs.

Objective: Develop long-term, sustainable funding sources that are flexible and may be used for affordable housing production and preservation and to prevent displacement and homelessness.

Policy: Pursue a 2022 ballot measure to increase and expand the City’s existing Gross Receipts Tax on rental residential properties.

Program: Develop an Affordable Housing Fund plan that lays out funding goals and priorities for the City’s affordable housing revenue sources for a finite period (1 to 5 years).

Program: Collaboratively (Planning and Housing) pursue state grant funds wherever possible to support affordable housing and address homelessness in the city.

Program: Seek “Prohousing” designation from HCD, which gives preference to the jurisdiction when applying for affordable housing funding.

Objective: Take reasonable measures to reduce overall processing times for residential development applications while maintaining robust community outreach and engagement.

Policy: Develop objective development and design standards that simplify and improve approval certainty and timing.

Policy or Program: Establish and implement a plan to address the SMCLAFCo Municipal Service Review and to resolve the delays to housing development caused by issues with the East Palo Alto Sanitary District.

Objective: Take reasonable measures to reduce the cost of development for fully affordable housing developments.

Policy: Study feasibility and desirability of fee waivers or delayed fee payments for fully affordable projects.

Policy: Study feasibility and desirability of reducing parking minimums for affordable projects.

Objective: Encourage housing on sites zoned for mixed use in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Area.

9.4.e
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Draft Policies and Programs (2350 : Housing Element Update) Policy: Develop a feasible minimum residential density requirement for sites identified in the sites inventory that are located in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Area.

Objective: Leverage available public lands for affordable housing development where feasible and beneficial to the community.

Program: Study and determine feasibility for redevelopment of Senior Center at 560 Bell St. to include affordable housing.

Program: Work with County of San Mateo to complete land swap and study and determine feasibility of the County developing affordable housing at 2277 University.

Program: Work with Sequoia Elementary School District to facilitate the development of the district-owned parcel as affordable teacher housing.

Objective: Build housing in areas zoned for exclusive retail use, where the market has made retail less feasible.

Policy: Study feasibility and desirability of Gateway 101 retail center as potential conversion to more mixed-use with additional housing.

Theme: More homeownership opportunities for East Palo Alto residents and stability for existing homeowners
Objective: Promote financial literacy as a means of encouraging homeownership and support first-time homebuyers.

Policy: Leverage all available federal funding support for downpayment and first-time homebuyer assistance.

Policy: Study feasibility of a City-led first-time homeowner program or partnership with HEART or EPACANDO.

Policy: Design financial literacy and/or first-time homeowner program that focuses on 1.) younger households seeking homeownership options and

2.) seniors looking to downsize.

Program: Study and determine how East Palo Alto residents can benefit from the California Dream for All downpayment program for first-time homebuyers.

Policy: Advocate for the above programs at regional level.

Theme: Promote stewardship and preservation of City’s existing affordable housing stock.

Objective: Ensure that the City’s deed-restricted affordable housing and BMR portfolio remain well-maintained and monitored.

9.4.e
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Draft Policies and Programs (2350 : Housing Element Update) Program: Continue working with EPACANDO and BAAHA on existing BMR Program contract and draft RFP for next phase of BMR Program management, including additional rental and for-sale inclusionary housing units.

Objective: Improve data on affordability of the City’s rental housing stock outside of the Rent Stabilized portfolio.

Program: Study feasibility of creating of a city rent registry.

Objective: Leverage County initiatives and resources to increase public awareness of affordable housing opportunities in East Palo Alto.

Program: Work with the County to list all affordable housing projects and inclusionary units on Doorway, a new regional platform for searching and applying for affordable housing.

Theme: Prevent displacement of East Palo Alto residents.

Objective: Connect the creation of new jobs in the city from commercial development to the creation of new housing at the appropriate affordability levels.

Policy: Develop a new requirement to build or produce new housing at specified levels of affordability based on a numerical linkage to office/R&D square footage in Ravenswood Business District (RBD).

Program: Participate in countywide nexus study to update the existing Commercial Linkage Fee.

Objective: Promote the preservation of existing housing stock and rehabilitation of housing that is at-risk due to age, structural deficiencies, etc.

Policy: Develop a preservation “strategy” that addresses funding sources, identification of properties, and partnerships that can lead to preservation of affordable housing in East Palo Alto.

Policy: Identify and maintain a list of at-risk and substandard buildings throughout the City and highest-priority rehab and repairs.

Policy: Develop recommendations for a City process for addressing code violations on residential properties, including, but not limited to, unpermitted second units.

Objective: Support housing stability of existing lower-income homeowners and enable the community’s seniors to age in place.

9.4.e
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Draft Policies and Programs (2350 : Housing Element Update) Policy: Research all public sources and potential city-level initiatives to assist low-income homeowners in East Palo Alto with major repairs and rehab to address acute safety issues.

Policy: Study models of foreclosure prevention at the local level in similarly-sized cities, whether through local investment or leveraging outside funding.

Objective: Promote community/cooperative ownership of land and housing in East Palo Alto
Program: Evaluate opportunities to support and/or leverage local community land trusts (CLTs) to create community ownership of new or preserved affordable housing, e.g. through scattered-site ADUs, small inclusionary projects, or preservation projects.

Objective: Prevent displacement due to high housing cost burden and barriers to housing, such as deposits.

Policy: Consider developing a direct financial assistance program for first and last month’s rent/deposit assistance.

Policy: Appropriate funds for direct emergency financial assistance to be administered by a qualified organization identified through an RFP process (Measure O).

Objective: Promote tenant education and create pathways to affordable rental and homeownership opportunities.

Policy: Release RFP for anti-displacement and tenant education services and work with awarded organizations to report at regular intervals (Measure O).

Policy: Study and develop an Opportunity to Purchase Act policy that builds on prior research and City Council direction in 2021-22.

Objective: Implement an effective Local Preference Policy.

Policy: Complete guidelines on City’s existing Local Preference Policy and create a designated section of the City’s Housing Division website that tracks which developments have Local Preference units.

Theme: Apply environmental justice principles in planning for new housing development.

9.4.e
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Draft Policies and Programs (2350 : Housing Element Update) Objective: Address water and sewer system constraints to housing production, to the extent they are within the City’s control, through targeted capital and governance improvements.

Policy: Develop a plan to resolve issues with EPASD to improve sanitary sewer infrastructure and allow much-needed housing units to be built.

Program: Complete the Water System Master Plan and complete the firstphase capital improvements in the plan.

Objective: Minimize new housing in highest-risk areas prone to flooding/sea level rise or due to environmental contamination.

Program: Develop environmental “overlay” with most up-to-date data to avoid housing in at-risk areas or with prescribed mitigation measures.

Theme: Promote safe and healthy housing in East Palo Alto.

Objective: Strengthen monitoring and enforcement of habitability issues.

Policy: Review the City’s ordinances and evaluate whether any changes or updates may be made to how the City addresses habitability complaints and concerns.

Objective: Incorporate amenities into multifamily housing that support households with children.

Policy: Study the most effective means of incentivizing or requiring childcare facilities in new affordable housing developments.

Theme: Create more housing opportunities for special needs households, including large households, people at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and individuals with disabilities.

Objective: Incorporate special housing needs into City-supported future affordable housing developments.

Policy: In review of projects, require developers of affordable housing to demonstrate how they will serve these populations in their development.

Objective: Provide housing solutions for unhoused residents of East Palo Alto.

Program: Complete the Master Temporary Use Permit for temporary housing program rollout to provide housing for individuals experiencing homelessness in the community.

Program: Evaluate lessons learned and options for longer-term, holistic solutions to RVs parked in public right of way with the conclusion of the RV Safe Parking Program.

9.4.e
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Draft Policies and Programs (2350 : Housing Element Update) Program: Work with the County of San Mateo on a multi-year strategy to address homelessness in East Palo Alto.

Program: Research all available public funding sources to address homelessness and consider City investment of funds in homeless outreach and case management to supplement the countywide system.

Theme: Improve transparency and communication between the City and the public on housing issues.

Objective: Make the City website, social media, and newsletter a reliable source of housing information and make parallel efforts to reach residents through mailers and in-person meetings.

Program: Develop digital information plan on Housing and incorporate it into the City’s website, social media, and newsletter.

Policy: Create a budget for mailers and non-digital outreach on Housing workplan items at the start of each fiscal year.

Theme: Build City capacity for long-term housing planning and implementation of a range of Housing programs and initiatives.

Objective: Efficiently use staff resources to run effective programs while simultaneously implementing the Housing Element Workplan and other workplans the Housing Division is responsible for.

Program: Join with other cities in San Mateo County to share housing staff to support longer-term housing initiatives and programs.

Objective: Work in close collaboration with the Planning Division to more efficiently achieve both divisions’ goals and workplan items.

Program: Utilize existing SB 2 and other already-appropriated funding to collaboratively and update the City’s Development Code, with an emphasis on known inconsistencies with the objectives of the City’s General Plan.

9.4.e
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Draft Policies and Programs (2350 : Housing Element Update)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of Measure C Funding to Support Two Community-Based Organization Initiatives: Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse and One East Palo Alto/El Concilio’s Sponsored Employment Program Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to enter into agreements, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) and the Sponsored Employment Program (SEP) offered by One East Palo Alto and El Concilio to provide services related to implementation of Measure C.

Background
On June 7, 2022, the City Council:

1. Appropriated $15,000 of Measure C funding to support the Senior Center reopening efforts; and

2. Directed staff to invite CORA and One East Palo Alto/El Concilio’s SEP to be considered for Measure C funding in the amount of $199,000.

In late June 2022, representatives from CORA and SEP submitted their proposals for consideration.

Staff reviewed the two proposals and prepared recommendations for City Council consideration.

Analysis
CORA
In response to the strong demand from the City of East Palo Alto (EPA), Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) launched the East Palo Alto Domestic Violence

9.5 Packet Pg. 443
Community Advocacy Pilot Project (Project) in January 2017. Since the Project launch, CORA has continuously offered EPA residents access to culturally-informed education, outreach, and advocacy focused on domestic violence.

With a CORA Community Coordinator physically located in EPA for 5 years, CORA has been able to build trust with local community leaders, local stakeholders, and most importantly, residents. Intensive outreach work by staff has included: door to door outreach in the community; participating in planning and production of community events with community partners; posting fliers/posters in laundromats, stores, and public buildings; and meetings with community-based organizations and faith-based organizations.

Since the Project’s inception, more than 271 households have been served. Approximately 54% of these households were monolingual Spanish speaking, 3% disclosed a head of household with a disability, and 32% had children. Among these households, 19 received emergency shelter or emergency hotel stays and 12 received housing assistance, including one family that received Emergency Housing Vouchers. Conservative estimates of the value of these contributions to clients in need through December 2021 is $191,985, of which $102,446 was provided in 2021 alone. The value of the Emergency Housing Voucher is approximately $30,000 per year (plus rent increases) in perpetuity and is not included in this calculation.

These needed resources were provided for residents of EPA at no cost to the City.

CORA Proposal – 18-Month Agreement $113,637
CORA proposes comprehensive services that focus on the following:
• Outreach
• Prevention and Education
• Crisis Intervention
• Advocacy
Please see Attachment 2 for more details describing the CORA Proposal.

Measure C funding would support the following positions and expenses to implement the CORA Proposal1:
• EPA Community Coordinator
• Outreach Specialist
• Crisis Counselor
• Housing and Advocacy Manager
• Data Systems Coordinator
• Volunteer Manager
• Marketing Materials
• Technology
• Additional Supplies
About One East Palo Alto/El Concilio’s SEP Program
One East Palo Alto (OEPA) is a youth-focused organization with a twenty-year history and mission to develop resident leaders, broker resources and services, build the capacity of individuals and organizations, and advocate for change leading to the improved social, physical, spiritual, educational, and economic well-being of East Palo Alto residents and

9.5 Packet Pg. 444
families.

SEP is a partnership-based, crime prevention initiative that provides summer jobs, mentoring, and community connectedness opportunities to at risk individuals aged 14-24. Participants receive intensive soft skills training and career focused professional development, are placed for six weeks at work sites hosted by SEP Employer Sponsors and are supported by one-onone relationships with SEP Peer Mentor college students and other community members.

SEP Proposal – Summer 2023 $86,363
OEPA requests $86,363 to support 25 SEP participants during summer 2023. Measure C funding would support the following activities:
• Stipends for 25 Participants
• Two Peer Mentors and Additional OEPA Staff
• Live in Peace Staff
• Marketing Materials
• Training
• Events
Please see Attachment 3 for more information regarding the OEPA Proposal.

Fiscal Impact
The funding requested in this staff report ($199,000) would represent the final expenditures of the Measure C program.

Public Notice
Standard.

Environmental
Standard.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. CORA Proposal

3. OEPA Proposal

9.5 Packet Pg. 445
1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH COMMUNITY

OVERCOMING RELATIONSHIP ABUSE (CORA) AND THE SPONSORED EMPLOYMENT

PROGRAM (SEP) OFFERED BY ONE EAST PALO ALTO AND EL CONCILIO TO PROVIDE

SERVICES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURE C
WHEREAS, since 2007, Measure C funds have been distributed to community-based organizations that provide critically needed services to children, youth, families, seniors, formerly incarcerated individuals, and victims of domestic violence.; to date, the City has collected and reinvested $7.2 M in Measure C funding. ; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022, the City Council directed staff to invite CORA and One East Palo Alto/El Concilio’s SEP to be considered for Measure C funding in the amount of $199,000; and WHEREAS, in late June, 2022, representatives from CORA and SEP submitted their proposals for consideration; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the two proposals and prepared recommendations for City Council consideration.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY authorizes the City Manager to enter into agreements, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) and the Sponsored Employment Program (SEP) offered by One East Palo Alto and El Concilio to provide services related to implementation of Measure C.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19
th day of July 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Resolution (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) CORA – Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse July 2022 East Palo Alto Office

East Palo Alto CORA Partnership Report
July 2022
Request
Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) seeks support for its East Palo Alto outreach, crisis intervention and family intervention services. This proposal puts forth a program that can be implemented for 12 months, 18 months or 2 years depending on funding level considered.

Proposed Funding Project Period
$75,064 12 months
$113,637 18 months
$152,210 24 months
Background and Need
In response to the strong demand from the City of East Palo Alto (EPA), Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) launched the East Palo Alto Domestic Violence Community Advocacy Pilot Project (Project) in January 2017. Since the project launch, CORA has continuously offered EPA residents, including youth, with culturally-informed education, outreach, and advocacy focused on domestic violence.

With a CORA Community Coordinator physically located in EPA for 5 years, CORA has been able to build trust with local community leaders, local stakeholders, and most importantly, residents. Intensive outreach work by staff has included: door to door outreach in the community; participating in planning and production of community events with community partners; posting fliers/posters in laundromats, stores, and public buildings; meeting with community-based organizations and faith-based organizations. Primary collaborators include:

Ravenswood Family Health Clinic (RFHC), East Palo Alto Police Department (EPAPD), Planned Parenthood (RWC), Women, Infants & Children Program (WIC), Behavioral Health Recovery Services (BHRS), Foundation for a College Education (FCE), Family Resource Center (FRC in EPA), One East Palo Alto (OEPA) and its BHAGAT (Behavioral Health Advisory Group Ambassador Team). Just a few of the many faith-based organizations reached out to over the last five years include Apostolic Assembly of The Faith in Christ (EPA church of Christ), Iglesia Pan De Vida, Faith Missionary Baptist Church of Christ, Born Again Christian Center/Zion Missionary, Samoan First Assembly of God, St. John Baptist Church, Vietnamese Buddhist Church, Tongan Christian Assembly of God, and St. Mark African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. This outreach has led to a reduction of barriers that historically existed to accessing services, including resistance to “outside” resources, lack of information about available services, proximity to and accessibility of services, etc.), thereby increasing service volume, and allowing for an even greater impact in the EPA community.

9.5.b
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: CORA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) CORA – Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse July 2022 East Palo Alto Office

This vital program has been made possible by funds leveraged across multiple resources for sustainability. These resources include federal Victim of Crime Act (VOCA) funds through a partnership with San Mateo County District Attorney Victim Services, EPA Transiency Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue and a generous anonymous donor connected to this work by former Chief of Police Albert Pardini. Since 2020 the program has been supported solely through the anonymous donor funding. This last month the anonymous donor indicated a commitment to provide funding for this program on an ongoing basis.

Target Population
Since the CORA EPA program’s inception, over 271 households have been served. About 54% of these households were monolingual Spanish speaking, 3% disclosed a head of household with a disability, and 32% had children. Among these households, 19 received emergency shelter or emergency hotel stays and 12 received housing assistance, including one family that received Emergency Housing Vouchers. Conservative estimates of the value of these contributions to clients in need through 12/31/21 is $191,985, of which $102,446 was provided in 2021 alone.

The value of the Emergency Housing Voucher is approximately $30,000 per year (plus rent increases) in perpetuity and is not included in this calculation. These needed resources were provided for residents of EPA at no cost to the City.

CORA has been successful in its outreach to the Latinx community. In order to better serve the Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Black and White residents of East Palo Alto CORA will direct its outreach to community agencies serving those populations. 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
African American/Black Latinx/Any Race Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
White
2021 Services by CORA in EPA compared to 2020 Census
Census CORA

9.5.b
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: CORA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) CORA – Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse July 2022 East Palo Alto Office

CORA East Palo Alto Model to Date
Through start-up funding from the City of EPA, CORA’s Project was able to bring access to our array of crisis intervention and advocacy services directly to EPA residents, within their city of residence. Funding made it possible for CORA to open an office near other key community resources and across the street from the Ravenswood Family Health Center, a highly utilized community center, thereby making CORA’s services more readily accessible to EPA residents than ever before.

CORA’s EPA office is staffed by a 1.0 FTE EPA Community Coordinator whose full-time role is to provide direct services to EPA residents impacted by domestic violence, in addition to contributing to and attending community meetings and fairs, and conducting outreach in the EPA community. The Community Coordinator is supported by the Manager of Housing and Advocacy, who provides direct supervision and assistance with outreach.

With an on-site Community Coordinator in EPA, CORA has been able to forge closer relationships with well-established and trusted stakeholders within the EPA community, thereby removing barriers to services for clients. For example, Ravenswood Family Health Center routinely refers clients to CORA, and is located directly across the street from CORA’s EPA office. As such, CORA’s EPA Community Coordinator can meet with a client at the Ravenswood Family Health Center or elsewhere within the community - as needed by the client. Additionally, CORA’s EPA Community Coordinator and Manager of Housing and Advocacy both continue to partner with the EPA Police Department and conduct regular outreach to community agencies, church groups, schools, and other resources serving survivors.

With the ability to meet with clients face-to-face in their home community, CORA has been able to build trust sooner with clients, resulting in clients being more forthcoming in disclosing the severity of their abuse. The majority of EPA clients – at least 70% – have disclosed facts of abuse that indicate a high risk for lethality. By comparison, when working with a similar number of clients by phone in CORA’s San Mateo office the year before her transfer to EPA, the same EPA Community Coordinator would hear from an average of one client per week with such a high lethality risk. While it is unclear whether this disparity is due to greater confidence in their relationship with the EPA Community Coordinator, or an actual higher incidence of lethality in EPA, what remains clear from our Project is that EPA residents confronted with domestic violence need crisis intervention and advocacy services that are physically based in EPA.

Program Adaptations During Shelter in Place
COVID shelter in place orders and managing the health of CORA staff, volunteers and clients had an impact on the EPA program. Specifically:

9.5.b
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: CORA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) CORA – Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse July 2022 East Palo Alto Office

• Community outreach to new potential collaborators were limited as all gatherings were intermittently not allowed or restrained by the need for social distancing. This was particularly impactful as EPA is a door to door outreach community; Zoom and other like methods were not a substitute.
• Program staff were able maintain contact with primary collaborators during much of the shelter in place and social distancing periods via Zoom. • Mobile advocacy was curtailed -- especially for high risk cases, however the program was able to work with CORA’s legal team for some court cases. • Not all clients were able to access virtual (e.g., Zoom) sessions due to lack of safety in the home, discomfort and/or unfamiliarity with the technology, or lack of access to technology needed to conduct virtual meetings.
• Our emergency hoteling had to be extended to allow for testing clients for COVID prior to their entering our shelter and due to limiting emergency shelter capacity in order to ensure social distancing. This resulted in an increase of 780% in hoteling costs, agencywide.

Proposal for Contract Period
Based on the lessons learned over the last five years, CORA proposes the following:

OUTREACH Reconnecting with the community in person after two years of the pandemic is critical. A key element of the CORA EPA program’s success has been focused outreach conducted by the EPA team in the community.

With a two year pause on in-person outreach due to the need for social distancing, CORA will place an emphasis in the coming year on both reconnecting with established contacts and forging new contacts among those representing communities who are not currently being served at a level consistent with their community distribution. This proposal adds a .5FTE of staffing focused specifically on expanding our capacity to provide Community Outreach as well as the below described Prevention and Education.

PREVENTION &

EDUCATION
Violence is learned and can be unlearned. Using culturally-appropriate prevention and education, CORA intends to re-set the norm among those who accept violence as an expected part of a relationship. As youth are becoming young adults and emerging as new leaders in East Palo Alto, the time is now to re-set their expectations about what constitutes appropriate relationship behavior so they can be allies in the work to end domestic violence. As such, in the coming year CORA will be focusing more prevention and education work on: (a) the youth in the community and (b) specific communities that have been known to experience higher levels of domestic violence. Key to this work will be helping develop stronger perceived norms against dating/domestic violence, reducing

9.5.b
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: CORA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) CORA – Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse July 2022 East Palo Alto Office

CRISIS

INTERVENTION

ADVOCACY
gender stereotyping, increasing or developing conflict-management skills, improvement in prosocial skills, promoting help-seeking and increasing awareness of services related to healthy relationships and domestic violence.

Emergencies occur all hours of the day, any day of the week. The program office in East Palo Alto is open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. During times when the office is not open, the hotline Advocates are ready to assist residents with crisis intervention, safety planning, advocacy and referrals to resources. As such, this proposal includes support for the toll free CORA crisis line.

Community members have come to trust the CPA Community
Coordinator to provide community resource navigation and advocacy.

This service includes connecting clients to county benefits, to local resources – such as food pantries and childcare services, and to CORA’s comprehensive legal, mental health and housing programs. This proposal includes leveraged funding for ongoing support for a full time Community Coordinator to continue to offer this critical intervention support.

THREE BUDGET PROPOSALS
The following three tables show a 12-month, an 18-month and a 24-month budget. Each proposal has the same line items but costs are configured differently for the first 12 months, the second 12 months and the hybrid of 18 months. CORA is asking for funding from City of East Palo Alto to directly support the staffing necessary for this expansion of the CORA EPA office with an Outreach Specialist. Additionally, CORA is seeking support for a quarter of one hotline staff member to ensure we have the capacity to continue full 24/7 hotline services access. CORA also seeks support for Data Systems and Volunteer Management to build our capacity as a community-based satellite office. Under Operating Expenses, CORA has delineated the costs both direct and indirect associated with running the office. This includes the support for our full time EPA Community Coordinator who provides case management and direct client intervention support services. The Other Funding CORA contributes to this project includes both the individual donor funding CORA receives for the EPA office as well as general foundation and government grant support CORA receives that can be leveraged.

For the second year of the program, the costs of COLA/ Merit increases are added in, however the one-time costs for the laptop are removed. For the 18-month configuration, the costs are built on the full 12-month items, plus 50% of the second-year costs. 12 MONTH PROPOSAL

PERSONNEL EXPENSES FTE REQUEST OTHER FUNDING TOTAL
EPA Community Coordinator 1.0 $ - $ 65,520 $ 65,520
Outreach Specialist 0.50 $ 23,400 $ - $ 23,400

9.5.b
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: CORA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) CORA – Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse July 2022 East Palo Alto Office

Crisis Counselor 0.25 $ 11,700 $ - $ 11,700
Housing and Advocacy Manager 0.10 $ - $ 8,400 $ 8,400
Data Systems Coordinator 0.05 $ 3,276 $ - $ 3,276
Volunteer Manager 0.05 $ 3,750 $ - $ 3,750
SUBTOTAL WAGES $ 42,126 $ 73,920 $ 116,046
Fringe at 25% $ 10,532 $ 18,480 $ 29,012
TOTAL PERSONNEL EXPENSES $ 52,658 $ 92,400 $ 145,058

OPERATING EXPENSES
Mileage (25 miles per week @
$0.625/mile) $ 813 $ - $ 813
Marketing Materials $ 1,200 $ 1,200
Tabling swag $ - $ 1,200 $ 1,200
Community Events (BBQ's/day
in the park @3 each) $ 3,000 $ - $ 3,000
Cell Phone Service (2 @
$30/month each) $ 720 $ - $ 720
Laptop, including Microsoft
Office (Year One only) $ 1,210 $ - $ 1,210
Staff Training $ 600 $ - $ 600
Advertising and Social Media $ 500 $ - $ 500
Program Supplies ($100 per
month, 12 months) $ 1,200 $ - $ 1,200
Facility Rental- annual $ - $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Subtotal $ 9,243 $ 7,200 $ 16,443
Indirect to cover administration
of the program $ 13,164 $ 24,900 $ 38,064

TOTAL OF OPERATING
EXPENSES $ 22,407 $ 32,100 $ 54,507

TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES
FOR YEAR 1 $ 75,064 $ 124,500.00 $ 199,564
18 MONTH PROPOSAL

PERSONNEL EXPENSES FTE REQUEST OTHER FUNDING TOTAL
EPA Community Coordinator 1.0 $ - $ 99,918 $ 99,918
Outreach Specialist 0.50 $ 35,685 $ - $ 35,685
Crisis Counselor 0.25 $ 17,843 $ - $ 17,843
Housing and Advocacy Manager 0.10 $ - $ 12,810 $ 12,810 Data Systems Coordinator 0.05 $ 4,996 $ - $ 4,996
Volunteer Manager 0.05 $ 5,719 $ - $ 5,719
SUBTOTAL WAGES $ 64,242 $ 112,728 $ 176,970
Fringe at 25% $ 16,061 $ 28,182 $ 44,243

9.5.b
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: CORA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) CORA – Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse July 2022 East Palo Alto Office

TOTAL PERSONNEL EXPENSES $ 80,303 $ 140,910 $ 221,213

OPERATING EXPENSES
Mileage (15 miles per week @
$0.625/mile) $ 1,219 $ - $ 1,219
Marketing Materials $ 1,800 $ 1,800
Tabling swag $ - $ 1,200 $ 1,200
Community Events (BBQ's/day
in the park @3 each) $ 4,500 $ - $ 4,500
Cell Phone Service (2 @
$50/month) $ 1,080 $ - $ 1,080
Laptop, including Microsoft
Office (Year One only) $ 1,210 $ - $ 1,210
Staff Training $ 900 $ - $ 900
Advertising and Social Media $ 750 $ - $ 750
Program Supplies ($100 per
month, 12 months) $ 1,800 $ - $ 1,800
Facility Rental- annual $ - $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Subtotal $ 13,259 $ 7,200 $ 20,459
Indirect to cover administration $ 20,076 $ 37,028 $ 57,103

TOTAL OF OPERATING
EXPENSES $ 33,334 $ 44,228 $ 77,562

TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES
FOR YEAR 1 & 50% of YEAR 2 $ 113,637 $ 185,137.50 $ 298,775 24 MONTH PROPOSAL

PERSONNEL EXPENSES FTE REQUEST OTHER FUNDING TOTAL
EPA Community Coordinator 1.0 $ - $ 134,316 $ 134,316
Outreach Specialist 0.50 $ 47,970 $ - $ 47,970
Crisis Counselor 0.25 $ 23,985 $ - $ 23,985
Housing and Advocacy Manager 0.10 $ - $ 17,220 $ 17,220 Data Systems Coordinator 0.05 $ 6,716 $ - $ 6,716
Volunteer Manager 0.05 $ 7,688 $ - $ 7,688
SUBTOTAL WAGES $ 86,358 $ 151,536 $ 237,894
Fringe at 25% $ 21,590 $ 37,884 $ 59,474
TOTAL PERSONNEL EXPENSES $ 107,948 $ 189,420 $ 297,368

OPERATING EXPENSES
Mileage (15 miles per week @
$0.625/mile) $ 1,625 $ - $ 1,625
Marketing Materials $ 2,400 $ 2,400
Tabling swag $ - $ 1,200 $ 1,200

9.5.b
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: CORA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) CORA – Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse July 2022 East Palo Alto Office

Community Events (BBQ's/day
in the park @3 each) $ 6,000 $ - $ 6,000
Cell Phone Service (2 @
$50/month) $ 1,440 $ - $ 1,440
Laptop, including Microsoft
Office (Year One only) $ 1,210 $ - $ 1,210
Staff Training $ 1,200 $ - $ 1,200
Advertising and Social Media $ 1,000 $ - $ 1,000
Program Supplies ($100 per
month) $ 2,400 $ - $ 2,400
Facility Rental- annual $ 12,000 $ 12,000
Subtotal $ 17,275 $ 13,200 $ 30,475
Indirect to cover administration $ 26,987 $ 50,655 $ 77,642

TOTAL OF OPERATING
EXPENSES $ 44,262 $ 63,855 $ 108,117

TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES
FOR YEAR 1 & 2 $ 152,210 $ 253,275.00 $ 405,485

9.5.b
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: CORA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) BUDGET CHART One East Palo Alto/Sponsored Employment Program Title / Item Justification Narrative
Measure C /TOT
Funds
% of Grant
Request
In-Kind
Match Cash Match Total Budget
Example: Staff 1 Name
and Title
1 person @
$18/h @ 220
hours
Staff 1 will be the Project Manager; inkind support provided by existing organization funding; cash match
provided by RYV Foundation; etc.
$1,800 12% $700 $1,100 $3,960
One East Palo Alto
(OEPA) Executive
Director (AED)
.06FTE for 2.5
mos w/27%
benefits
ED responsible for program oversight
and stakeholder engagement. In kind
match provided by OEPA
1,750 $1,750
Subtotal Personnel $1,750
Benefits at X% 0%
Total Personnel $1,750 $0 $1,750
Title / Item Justification Narrative
Measure C
Funds
% of Grant
Request
In-Kind
Match Cash Match Total Budget
Example: Direct
Services Volunteers
12 @ 4hrs @
6 wks @
$15/hour
Volunteers provided by XYZ community
group.
60% $4,320 $4,321
Stipends for 25 youth 25 @
$16.00/hour
for 120 hours
and 14%
benefits
Stipends are for the six week work
experience
$54,720 63% $54,720
Stipend for 1 Peer Mentor 1 @
$20.00/hour
for 250 hours
and 14%
benefits
Stipend is for mentoring, role modeling
and assisting with program operations.
$5,700 7% $5,700
Workers Compensation Calculated
after end of
program
Fees for workers compensation $481 1% $481
ECSMC Executive Director .06FTE for 2
mos w/27%
benefits
Planning, Oversight; in-kind match
provided by ECSMC
$1,172 $1,172
College Track Site Director .06FTE for 2
mos w/27%
benefits
Planning, Oversight; in-kind match
provided by College Track
$1,172 $1,172
Belle Haven Community
Development Fund
.06FTE for 2
mos w/27%
benefits
Planning, Oversight; in kind match
provided by BHCDF
$1,172 $1,172
Staff or personnel cost should not exceed 30% of the total sought from the Measure C/TOT Fund. Expenses incurred prior to grant awards are not eligible for funding. Insert additional rows as needed. Please round to the nearest dollar.

Personnel (lead applicant staff)
Contractors/ Collaborative Partners

9.5.c
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: OEPA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) BUDGET CHART One East Palo Alto/Sponsored Employment Program Live In Peace .06FTE for 2
mos w/27%
benefits
Planning, Oversight; in kind match
provided by Live in Peace
$1,172 $1,172
JobTrain Executive
Director
.06FTE for 2
mos w/27%
benefits
Planning, Oversight; in-kind match
provided by JobTrain
$1,172 $1,172
$60,901 71% $5,860 $66,761
Title / Item Justification Narrative
Measure C
Funds
% of Grant
Request
In-Kind
Match Cash Match Total Budget
Professional Services Various
Contractors
Coordination of operations, translation,
youth incentives, fingerprinting, liability
insurance, payroll processing; multilanguage materials & sexual harassment insurance included; in-kind
match provided by raised funds
$15,545 18% $587 $16,131.45
Events & Training Events
implementatio
n expenses
Materials plus hospitality $300 0% $300.00
Marketing, Travel, Rent &
Custodial
Communitywide
advertising;
mileage and
facility-related
costs
Necessary expenses for maintaining
contact with mentees at sites as far as
Belmont; in-kind match provided by
raised funds from foundations
$381 1% $113 $494.00
Telephones, Internet,
Equipment Rental,
Computer Maintenance
Office Set up
for SEP staff
and Peer
Mentors
Necessary expenses for maintaining
contact with mentees at sites as far as
Belmont; in-kind match provided by
raised funds from foundations
$3,455 4% $113 $3,567.52
Employment Materials &
Workshop Costs
Self-created
Resources
Miscellaneous expenses $350 1% $350.00
Completion Ceremony Gala
celebration
with local
dignitaries
Printed programs, hospitality et al $250 1% $250.00
$20,281 24% $813 $21,093
Title / Item Justification Narrative
Measure C
Funds
% of Grant
Request
In-Kind
Match Cash Match Total Budget
Total Contractual
Materials and Supplies
Total Materials/Supplies
Other

9.5.c
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: OEPA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) BUDGET CHART One East Palo Alto/Sponsored Employment Program Admin. & Overhead OEPA houses
SEP staff and
Peer Mentors
OEPA provides SEP with a full array of
access to office resources including Inkind office space; computers, printing, photocopying, scanning, non-SEP staff
support etc.
$5,182 5% $5,182
$5,182 5% $5,182
$86,363 100% $8,423 $94,786
$86,363 100% $8,423 $94,786
Amount Time Frame

OTHER GRANT SOURCES FOR THE PROJECT
List grants that have already been awarded to support the project, if any.

Funder Additional Information
TOTAL PROJECT (direct plus indirect)

ADDITIONAL BUDGET NOTES
Total Other
SUBTOTAL PROJECT (personnel, contractors, materials, other)

9.5.c
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: OEPA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) One East Palo Alto | 903 Weeks Street, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, Program Operations: 2396 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.980-1809(ph) | [email protected]
One East Palo Alto Neighborhood Improvement Initiative
One community where residents are celebrated for their diversity and are engaged, informed and empowered to attain …and maintain a good quality of life.

NARRATIVE

1. CAPACITY BUILDING QUALIFICATIONS:

MISSION: Implement a mentor-supported training and paid work experience program affording youth and young adults (YYA) opportunities to stay productive, explore jobs and careers, learn valuable 21st century skills, especially those that will increase their capacity to thrive in a virtual work environment, and develop relationships with caring community adults.

ORGANIZATION DESCRIPTION: One East Palo Alto (OEPA) is a 22-year old youth-focused organization with a mission to develop resident leaders, broker resources and services, build the capacity of individuals and organizations, and advocate for change leading to the improved social, physical, spiritual, educational and economic wellbeing of East Palo Alto residents and families.

OEPA was launched in 2000 as an East Palo Alto (EPA)-based comprehensive community change and neighborhood revitalization initiative. Today, OEPA has evolved into a successful youthfocused, 501(c)(3) nonprofit that operates as the City of East Palo Alto’s only community-based intermediary and premiere convener. Its current work aims to build resilience of EPA youth and families at highest risk via community organizing/convening and offering direct services such as the partnership based Sponsored Employment Program. Additionally, OEPA serves the East Palo Alto community through its work in YouthEastPaloAlto, a comprehensive, formerly federally funded, youth led initiative to prevent and reduce alcohol and other drug use among EPA youth. Since September, 2019 YouthEastPaloAlto has actively engaged residents in responding to the 2020 Census and the November 2020 & 2022 election and in 2021 tackled Racial Justice. Other OEPA services include The Barbara A. Mouton Multicultural Wellness Center (drop-in center for consumers of mental health services), the Behavioral Health Advisory Group Ambassador Team project (mental health crisis intervention services for middle school youth coping with traumarelated violence); Youth Empowerment Strategies for Success (YESS), a 44 member collaborative of youth serving agencies; the Pacific Islander Know Your Rights Initiative (convenings to equip Pacific Islanders with the tools to navigate immigration challenges); Our Community-All of Us Census Awareness Raising Campaign (a partnership based initiative to assure an accurate count in Census 2020); and the East Palo Alto Homeless Drop-in Center (A multi-organization initiative addressing the void in resources for unsheltered residents of EPA/EMP).

A Measure C grant will allow the organization to offer young people increased opportunities to find their specific niche in this virtual world of work, develop marketable skills and contacts in their specific area of interest and to work alongside seasoned professionals to experience overcoming challenges such as those presented in times of pandemic and global reset.

OEPA’s ideal capacity to successfully improve stability while serving the target population is best seen in the pivotal work it did to respond to community need at the height of the 2020-2021 pandemic. As need dictated OEPA shifted to virtual operations and still managed to broker funds and resources to its partners. Additionally, OEPA and its partners completely reimagined SEP to provide a safe and healthy alternative to the traditional SEP by weaving the Census 2020 awareness raising efforts into a viable work as well as provided COVID-19 outreach and awareness efforts in 2021, virtual training and mentoring experience.

OEPA is well qualified to serve EPA youth and families demonstrated principally by the 1300 plus YYA and 54 college aged Peer Mentors SEP has served since 2005 and its inherent penchant for collaboration and partnerships. To date OEPA has successfully partnered with over 59 organizations including the 44-member organization known as Youth Empowerment Strategies for Success (YESS). Additionally, many of OEPA’s staff members were groomed in SEP and seasoned in post SEP internships at OEPA. Many other OEPA-trained young people are serving and making their marks nationally as Marriage and Family Therapists, and locally as Ravenswood School Board members, and Facebook and Google executives et al.

9.5.c
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: OEPA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) One East Palo Alto | 903 Weeks Street, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, Program Operations: 2396 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.980.1809(ph) | [email protected]
One East Palo Alto Neighborhood Improvement Initiative
One community where residents are celebrated for their diversity and are engaged, informed and empowered to attain …and maintain a good quality of life.

OEPA has a proven track record for sustainability beyond the life of a grant. As an example, federal funding for YouthEPA ended in August of 2019 and the program continues to thrive by taking engagement lessons learned and applying them in other arenas such as the 2020 Census and Voter Education and Engagement and Racial Justice.

STAFF STRUCTURE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF PROJECT PERSONNEL OEPA is led by Executive Director, Kava Tulua, M.A., the former Special Projects Consultant for OEPA.

Ms. Tulua has led all of the organization’s mental health initiatives since 2007, was the Community Mentor Coordinator for SEP for six years and was groomed by the late Dr. Faye McNair-Knox. She instituted the highly touted Family Awareness Night, as well as the Community Mentor Career Connection event for SEP, assisted in launching the BHAGAT project and was the Acting Executive Director during Dr. McNair-Knox’s extended illness. In her tenure as Executive Director Ms. Tulua has taken the reins, embraced the challenge and taken the organization to new heights in every regard. Ms. Tulua is joined in this project by an eminently qualified supporting staff and by Rev. Teirrah McNair who has coordinated SEP operations since 2009. Rev. McNair is a pastor, educator, and people builder who has developed and managed soft skills and successful living programs and curriculum for over 25 years.

2. SCOPE OF WORK
PROPOSED PROJECT: One East Palo Alto (OEPA) is requesting $86,363 from Measure C in the Career Exposure and Employment service category to cover costs of providing 25 YYA stipends, materials and supplies for their participation in the Summer 2023 Sponsored Employment Program (SEP). SEP is a partnership-based, crime prevention initiative that provides summer jobs, mentoring and community connectedness opportunities for up to 100 YYA at highest risk in EPA and EMP. Selected EPA & EMP YYA, ages 14-24, receive intensive soft skills training and career focused professional development, are placed for six weeks at work sites hosted by SEP EmployerSponsors and are supported by one-on-one relationships with SEP Peer Mentor college students and adult Community Mentors representing a variety of professions.

GOAL. SEP’s overall goal is to provide positive income-earning alternatives and mentoring for EPA and EMP YYA at highest risk, a population that is alarmingly vulnerable to involvement in crime and violence, either as perpetrators or victims or both. As an important part of this goal, SEP targets YYA with multiple barriers to employment and helps them find the jobs they want and need to stay productive in the summer, learn valuable employment skills, be exposed to a variety of careers, help support themselves and their families and develop productive relationships with caring adults.

OBJECTIVES. ►Provide an employer-mentor relationship-based job training experience and develop community service leadership activities for up to 50 YYA in their work assignments. ► Create a project implementation structure in which local residents and stakeholders can lead the design and implementation of project activities. ► Coordinate the development of a network of supporting organizations and seasoned professionals local and otherwise and that can be tapped to make specific contributions to project implementation.

NUMBER OF EAST PALO ALTO CLIENTS (40) AND TOTAL CLIENTS (10) PROJECT TIMELINE. The SEP timeline of key project activities is as follows: SEP Planning & Fundraising January-May 2023; Program and YYA Recruitment/Selection; March 13- June 13, 2023; Peer Mentor, Community Mentor, Employer-Sponsor & YYA Orientation & Training June 7-20, 2023; Six Week Work Experience June 22-August 2, 2023; Virtual Exhibit and Awards Ceremony August 4, 2023

9.5.c
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: OEPA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding) One East Palo Alto | 903 Weeks Street, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, Program Operations: 2396 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.980.1809(ph) | [email protected]
One East Palo Alto Neighborhood Improvement Initiative
One community where residents are celebrated for their diversity and are engaged, informed and empowered to attain …and maintain a good quality of life.

HOW PROJECT HELPS ORGANIZATION FULFIL ITS BROADER
ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION. One East Palo Alto (OEPA) is a youth-focused, communitybased intermediary nonprofit that works to achieve comprehensive revitalization of the City of East Palo Alto (EPA), California. OEPA’s mission is to develop resident leadership, broker resources and services, build the capacity of individuals and organizations, and advocate for change leading to the improved social, physical, spiritual, educational and economic well-being of East Palo Alto, CA. The primary purpose of OEPA’s current work is on developing and sustaining a quality of life improvement initiative called YESS, a formal mechanism through which local agencies can more effectively collaborate, share data and resources to build youth and family resilience among EPA residents in greatest need. To this end, SEP addresses the broader groups’ goal of providing Job Readiness and Employment Opportunities, Neighborhood Safety and Mentoring.

RATIONALE BEHIND PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AND IMPACT OF THESE

ACTIVITIES
In 2009, 96 SEP participants were asked, “If you had not been selected for SEP what would you be doing this summer?” An alarming 47% said they would be “in the streets.” In end of program surveys conducted 2011-2021, 95% of respondents said their post-SEP activity would be returning to school and/or looking for more work. Role modeling by college aged Peer Mentors as well as regular interface with the community’s caring adults has impacted the way YYA think about both their individual and their community’s future.

EVIDENCE OR RESEARCH BEHIND SELECTED STRATEGIES. SEP is aligned with best practices recommended by the Center for Disease Control and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Both organizations promote jobs, mentoring and connecting with caring adults as a powerful strategy for preventing violence and dismantling the school to prison pipeline(www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention;https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence /pdf/ opportunities-for-action.pdf; www.vimeo.com/85566060/NationalMentoringSummit). SEP is also aligned with standards for Career Ready Practice as defined by the California Department of Education, 2015. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/documents/ctescrpflyer.pdf)

HOW SERVICES WILL OFFER A SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT

FOR YOUTH, SENIORS, FAMILIES AND/OR REENTRY/REUNIFICATION OF EAST PALO ALTO RESIDENTS. SEP creates a community of caring adult mentors and college age Peer Mentors and integrates them into every aspect of program operations. The result is an environment where crime is neither the only option nor a highly celebrated option. Instead, excellence, positive career pathways and accountability to community are touted as the way to go.

3. BUDGET
SEP’s 2023 budget is $200,000 total, which includes $86,363 for the twenty-five (25) YYA and one (1) Peer Mentor supported by this proposal. Direct service funds will be strategically used to support training, mentoring and community engagement activities to the diverse target audience and their families.

A robust award and endorsement from the City of EPA will likely open doors to new funding from Bay Area corporations and foundations. Additionally, OEPA expects to receive renewal funding from the Chan Zuckerburg Initiative, El Concilio of San Mateo County, Facebook, Palo Alto Community Fund, PG&E, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Wells Fargo Bank and the White Family Fund.

9.5.c
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: OEPA Proposal (2348 : Consideration of Measure C Funding)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: City Hall and Tate Street Reopening Plan
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council: provide direction to City Manager to reopen City offices to the public per staff recommendation with a proposed start date of Tuesday, September 6, 2022.

Background
At the start of the COVID-19 Pandemic (COVID), all City facilities were closed to protect public and employee health. During this period, City business shifted to primarily virtual public interactions and meetings. Technology enhancements were quickly implemented to expand and facilitate conducting City business virtually and remotely. The learning experience has suggested longer-term service delivery enhancements and options.

Many Bay Area jurisdictions are in various stages of reopening their facilities to employees and the public but are mindful of the uncertainty of the COVID-19 situation which requires a flexible and nimble approach. For public health and safety, enhanced hygiene measures have been put in place in accordance with County Health protocols (e.g., hand sanitizers and extra cleaning), and hybrid employee work schedules have been implemented. East Palo Alto has been operating in a hybrid format for a while with allowance for part-time work from home and part-time work in the office. However, most customer and staff meetings continue to be conducted virtually, which many find convenient and beneficial through the enhanced technology tools.

While many residents and customers have become accustomed to interacting virtually with City staff during the past two years, including submitting electronic and online submittals, it has always been anticipated that in-person services would be reinstituted at the appropriate time.

With the gradual easing of COVID-19 restrictions by the San Mateo County Department of Health, the Council discussed the reopening of City Hall on June 7, 2022, and directed the City Manager to return to the Council in July 2022 with a reopening strategy for City offices.

9.6 Packet Pg. 461
Also on June 7, 2022, the City Council directed the Interim City Manager return to the Council at a later date with options regarding hybrid public meetings.

Analysis
City staff has discussed reopening the offices at City Hall (2415 University Avenue) and the City Permit Center (1960 Tate Street) for in-person customer services. The common goal is the safety of the public and employees when reopening City offices for services. While the objective is to reinstitute public office hours, virtual meetings and appointments will continue to be encouraged and is still preferred whenever feasible.

Hybrid employee work schedules with a combination office and remote work hours will continue and will vary among departments based on the level of public interaction for each City department. However, hybrid work schedules will be adjusted as needed to ensure sufficient staff coverage during the hours when City offices are open to the public The primary operational change that is recommended at this time is reopening City offices for in-person customer services. Slight differences in public office hours are suggested for City Hall and the City Permit Counter to reflect the different service functions and the level and type of visitor needs. The proposed hours for both locations are indicated below:

Table A
Proposed City Public Office Hours
Weekday City Hall City Permit Center
Monday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm 9:00 am to 4:00 pm1
Tuesday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm 9:00 am to 4:00 pm
Wednesday By Appointment or Virtual Only
9:00 am to 5:00 pm
By Appointment or Virtual Only
9:00 am to 4:00 pm
Thursday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm 9:00 am to 6:00 pm
Friday By Appointment or Virtual Only
9:00 am to 4:00 pm
By Appointment or Virtual Only
9:00 am to 4:00 pm
Both offices will be closed from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM for lunch.

The proposed schedule in Table A provide staff with the ability to serve the public while being able to keep a pulse on any exposures to COVID-19. To manage staff and the community’s potential exposure to COVID-19, it is imperative to have at least two days per week where the offices are not open to the public for face-to-face interactions. Reason being, if a staff member tests positive for COVID-19, or staff is made aware of a potential exposure, having two days to professionally clean the office and adjust to a virtual option only, is key.

The above City Public Office Hours are subject to a “meet and confer” discussion with the City’s employee groups. Therefore, along with allowing adequate time for staff to plan a smooth transition for reopening City offices, staff proposes to reopen offices to the public on Tuesday, September 6, 2022, after the Labor Day weekend unless the COVID-19 situation affects reopening plans.

9.6 Packet Pg. 462
While both City offices are proposed to be closed to the public on Fridays, some staff will still be working on Fridays at both City offices and will be available to handle urgent drop offs/pick ups from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM.

City Permit Center
The City Permit Center is expected to receive a higher volume of in-person customers than City Hall, During the Permit Center hours, on-call staff will be available from the Community and Economic Development Department (Building, Planning, Housing) and the Public Works Department for “one-stop” services. However, staff will continue to encourage customers to make appointments to ensure that appropriate staff are available to address their needs.

Virtual meetings and online plan submittals will also continue to be emphasized for efficiency.

Since space is constrained, a maximum number of customers will be allowed in the Permit Center, with an outdoor sitting area provided if needed.

Office hours are shorter in the afternoon than at City Hall to allow staff to complete administrative work, process plans and permits, and return phone calls before the end of the workday. For the convenience of customers that may find it difficult to drop by the Permit Center before 4:00 pm, extended office hours will be offered once a week until 6:00 pm. Staff will monitor the level of customer activity and staff support. Adjustments will be proposed as needed with the goal of ensuring responsive city services.

City Hall
Public office hours at City Hall are proposed to be available four days per week, but hybrid work schedules for City Hall staff will continue to be considered where feasible. Most of the public services at City Hall before COVID-19 were conducted online or by phone, and this is expected to continue. Because City Hall only permits controlled access, visitors will be encouraged to make an appointment, or drop-in visitors will be required check-in at the lobby to enter City offices. Staff will contact the County to confirm that City offices can be open to the public at 9:00 am, which is an hour earlier than the opening of the library.

Other Considerations to Enhance Service Delivery to the Community One of the principal reasons customers visit City Hall or the Tate Street office is to inquire and or apply for a business license. On June 7, 2022 the Council awarded HdL an agreement to provide Business License Tax Administration. The Business License Tax Administration Service is a turnkey approach for the City, meaning that City staff will no longer be engaged in the day to day operations of providing Business Licenses. HdL will manage all of the business tax operations conducted by the City. Part of this solution will be to provide a website where businesses, in addition to filing and paying for taxes, can obtain copies of applications, general support and FAQs, schedule appointments, and request copies of their tax registration.

Businesses will also be able to inquire, apply and pay for their Business License Tax over the phone. To support the online application process following this transition, staff proposes a computer be set up at Tate Street that people can utilize to apply for a business license should they not have access easily themselves and prefer not to use the phone.

Hybrid Options for Public Meetings
The City Council appropriated funding in the FY 2022-2023 budget to accommodate the technology that may be needed to offer hybrid public meetings. Hybrid public meetings would allow for the participants in the public meetings (Council/Board members, staff/consultants and

9.6 Packet Pg. 463
the public) to attend and participate either in person or remotely. That is, a hybrid of the way meetings were held prior to COVID-19 restrictions and how they are held currently. The expected cost exceeds the City Manager’s authority to enter into contract now to procure the necessary services to modify the Council Chambers for a hybrid scenario. Staff will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) on or before July 22, 2022 and will immediately review submittals. Staff intends to return to the City Council in September with a contract for the necessary services required to convert the City Council Chambers to a hybrid set up with the ultimate goal of having the hybrid option available in October 2022.

Next Steps
Staff will meet and confer with the City employee groups on the proposed reopening of City offices and contact the County regarding the proposed office hours. While hybrid employee work schedules will continue, adequate staff coverage will be provided during public office hours. Staff will also monitor any changes in the COViD-19 situation that might affect the reopening.

The City Manager requests authority to make minor changes to the proposal described in this staff report at the conclusion of the meet and confer process, if necessary.

9.6 Packet Pg. 464

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: COVID-19 Vaccination Program Regular Update
Recommendation
Discuss the COVID-19 vaccination program update and provide direction to staff.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Ø Priority #5: Improve Communication and Enhance Community Engagement Ø Priority #6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
On a weekly basis the Mayor and Vice Mayor meet with key staff to discuss and coordinate City of East Palo Alto COVID-19 Vaccination Program efforts and progress.

The purpose of this report is to present the information regarding the abovementioned program and efforts in an open forum engaging all members of the Council and the public.

Analysis
See Attachment 1.

The attachments included in this report routinely cover the items typically discussed at the COVID-19 vaccination briefing with the Mayor and Vice Mayor as well as key staff.

The format is discussed as follows:

1. Review of previous week vaccination efforts. This item identifies each event by the date at which it occurred, the time, the location provider, the address, and the vaccination numbers (sometimes by vaccination type and 1st or 2nd dose).

9.7 Packet Pg. 465

2. Review of upcoming vaccination events for the week. This follows the same content format as number 1 but concentrates on the efforts to make the upcoming event organized and successful.

3. Outreach efforts (not always discussed). This item typically involved a review of outreach efforts as discussed in item 2 but in more detail and/or a change in strategy as circumstances may change.

4. Future Efforts

5. Incentives (Previously considered).

Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this agenda item by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official bulletin outside City Hall and making the agenda and report available at the City’s website and the San Mateo County Library at 2145 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Fiscal Impact
N/A as this is an informational report.

Environmental
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” pursuant to 15378(b)(4) because it is a fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.

Attachments

1. Vaccination Meeting Agenda

9.7 Packet Pg. 466

VACCINATION MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, July 19TH, 2022

1. Review of Previous Clinics
Dates Location Toddlers
Peds
1st
Peds
2nd
Peds
Booster
1st
Dose
2nd
Dose
3rd
Dose
1st
Booster
2nd
Booster Total
July 7 RFHC 4 7 2 3 5 6 11 18 12 68
July 5 YMCA EPA 1 1 7 6 14
July 9 Woodland 26 5 3 2 21 57
July 12 YMCA
July 14 RFHC
July 16 Woodland
139
By Brand:

Clinic
Location
Pfizer
Baby
Pfizer
Pedi
Pfizer
Adult
Moderna
Adult J&J Total
RFHC 4 12 30 22 68
YMCA EPA 3 5 6 14
Woodland 5 26 21 10 57
Total 4 41 56 38 0 139

9.7.a
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Vaccination Meeting Agenda (2357 : COVID-19 Vaccination Program Regular Update)

2. Review of Upcoming Vaccination Events
Day Partners Pop. Age Time Location Address
Tuesday County of San
Mateo/Lookout Health
5+ 2:00 pm – 7:00
pm
Lewis & Joan Platt
East Palo Alto
Family YMCA
2180 Euclid Ave.

Saturday Ravenswood Family
Health Clinic
5+ 9:00 am – 11:00
am
Ravenswood Family
Health Clinic
1885 Bay Rd.

Saturday County of San Mateo/
Stanford
6 Month+ 11:00 am – 6:00
pm
Woodland Park
Apartments
2021 Euclid Ave.

3. Review of Testing Sites
Date Time Location Address
Tuesday - Saturday 9:30am – 5:00pm Ravenswood Shopping
Center-Curative 1781 E Bayshore Rd
Monday - Friday 12:00pm- 7:00pm
(weekends 10am-4pm)
(Stanford) North Fair Oaks -
Drive Through
2685 Bay Road,
Redwood City, CA
Thursday Only 8:00am-8:00pm North Fair Oaks Library 2500 Middlefield Rd, Redwood City

9.7.a
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Vaccination Meeting Agenda (2357 : COVID-19 Vaccination Program Regular Update)