East Palo Alto City Council
July 19, 2022

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 1
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
What is AFFH?
The State of California’s 2018 Assembly Bill (AB 686) requires that all public agencies in the state affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.

AB 686 requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation”1
AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14. 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 2
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
History of segregation in the region. The
United States’ oldest cities have a history of
mandating segregated living patterns—and
Northern California cities are no exception. ABAG, in
its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment,
attributes segregation in the Bay Area to historically
discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and
discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as
“structural inequities” in society, and “self
segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar
people).

Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color
of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our
Government Segregated America chronicles how
the public sector contributed to the segregation that
exists today. Rothstein highlights several significant
developments in the Bay Area region that played a
large role in where the region’s non-White residents
settled.

Pre-civil rights San Mateo County faced resistance to racial integration, yet it was reportedly less direct than in some Northern California communities, taking the form of “blockbusting” and “steering” or intervention by public officials. These local discriminatory practices were exacerbated by actions of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) which excluded low income neighborhoods, where the majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program.

According to the San Mateo County Historical Association, San Mateo County’s early African Americans worked in a variety of industries, from logging, to agriculture, to restaurants and entertainment. Expansion of jobs, particularly related to shipbuilding during and after World War II attracted many new residents into the Peninsula, including the first sizable migration of African Americans. Enforcement of racial covenants after the war forced the migration of the county’s African Americans into neighborhoods where they were allowed to occupy housing—housing segregated into less desirable areas, next to highways, and concentrated in public housing and urban renewal developments.

The private sector contributed to segregation through activities that discouraged (blockbusting) or prohibited (restrictive covenants) integrated neighborhoods. The segregatory effect of blockbusting activities, which exploited racial fear to encourage segregation, is well-documented in East Palo Alto. In 1954, after a White family in East Palo Alto sold their home to an African American family, the then-president of the California Real Estate Association set up an office in East Palo Alto to scare White families into selling their homes (“for fear of declining property values”) to agents and speculators. These This history of segregation
in the region is important
not only to understand how
residential settlement
patterns came about—but,
more importantly, to
explain differences in
housing opportunity among
residents today. In sum, not
all residents had the ability
to build housing wealth or
achieve economic
opportunity. This
historically unequal playing
field in part determines why
residents have different
housing needs today.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 3
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
agents then marketed and sold these homes at over-inflated prices to African American buyers, some of whom had trouble making their payments. Within six years, East Palo Alto—initially established with “Whites only” neighborhoods—became 82% African American. The FHA and Veterans Administration prevented re-integration by refusing to insure mortgages held by White buyers wanting to reside in East Palo Alto. This discrimination was further enforced by state-regulated insurance companies that declared as policy not to issue mortgages to Whites in integrated neighborhoods.

As a consequence, within six years, East Palo Alto’s population became 82% Black and African American. Exclusion from other Bay Area neighborhoods forced many Black and African American households to double-up in single family homes, creating conditions for neighborhood deterioration.

Throughout the county, neighborhood associations and city leaders attempted to thwart integration of communities. Although some neighborhood residents supported integration, most did not, and it was not unusual for neighborhood associations to require acceptance of all new buyers. Builders with intentions to develop for all types of buyers (regardless of race) found that their development sites were rezoned by planning councils, required very large minimum lot sizes, and\or were denied public infrastructure to support their developments or charged prohibitively high amounts for infrastructure.

The timeline of major federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appears on the following page.

As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s.

Courts struck down only the most discriminatory, and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act.

For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for people of color, including immigrants.

The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning ordinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over low income housing toward locally-tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 4
Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 5
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
The widening of the Highway 101 in the late 1950’s was another major contributing factor to today’s segregation and disparities, as it destroyed the City’s once-thriving business district, the Whiskey Gulch. In the same decade, Palo Alto and Menlo Park annexed land from East Palo Alto, decreasing the area and size of the City to 2.5 square miles.

Romic Environmental Technologies and its predecessor hazardous waste management facilities that operated in East Palo Alto since the 1950’s until 2007, contaminated the soil and ground water beneath. Today, several parts of the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan, the new designated area for the city’s missing business district, lie on this contaminated land that requires further remediation to allow for mixed-use development.

The lack of political power and agency over County and regional agency decisions, in addition to other factors led to the City’s long fight for incorporation from the late 1950’s until the City’s incorporation in 1983. Following incorporation, the City struggled with its revenue sources as it had previously depended on San Mateo County resources. This disinvestment and other systematic issues such as poverty and the criminalization of Black communities created new challenges, including environmental, health and racial disparities.

East Palo Alto receives a meager 1.9 million gallons per day from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, allocated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), because the City was not incorporated when San Mateo County made the deal with SFPUC to divide the shares. This is the lowest per-capita amount on the Peninsula. In 2016, East Palo Alto adopted a water moratorium due to its city-wide water supply shortage, creating a de facto development moratorium. In 2017, the City went into an agreement with the City of Mountain View to pay $5 million for 1 million gallons of water per day that would help supply the northern part of the city. In 2018, East Palo Alto received a half-million gallons per day of water at no cost from Palo Alto to resume development, including the development of a 120-unit low-income affordable housing development at 965 Weeks Street, two commercial developments and a primary school.

The water moratorium was lifted in 2018, creating an influx of development proposals.

Today, the majority of the City’s multi-family affordable housing lies west of the Highway 101, while the majority of the single-family housing, unaffordable to younger generations, lies east of the highway. The City has the potential to allocate more affordable housing development on the eastside to balance the housing stock disparity created by the Highway 101.

The City of East Palo Alto is at a crossroads. Data show that East Palo Alto residents have higher rates of asthma, diabetes, and poor health outcomes than the County. Continued exposure to carbon emissions due to the city’s high-transit location, low access to affordable 2–3-bedroom housing for larger family sizes, lack of infrastructure and active transportation systems, lack of access to fresh foods, and ongoing home and rent increase EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 6
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
pressures from the tech industry, as well as other issues will continue to impact the City’s health outcomes if transformational steps are not taken.

Report content and organization. This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021 State of California State Guidance for AFFH. The study was conducted as part of the 21 Elements process, which facilitates the completion of Housing Elements for all San Mateo County jurisdictions.

Primary Findings, Contributing Factors, and Fair Housing Action Plan identifies the primary factors contributing to fair housing challenges and the plan for taking meaningful actions to improve access to housing and economic opportunity.

Section I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement actions/complaints against the jurisdiction; compliance with state fair housing laws and regulations; and jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.

Section II. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.

Section III. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.

Section IV. Disparate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk.

Appendices.
 Map and Data packet—includes data tables and maps that support this section  Resident survey results—findings from a survey of San Mateo County residents on their experience finding and remaining in housing
 Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities—findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class.  State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations—summary of key state laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice.

Primary findings. This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for East Palo Alto including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the city’s fair housing action plan.  9% (five complaints) of fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County from 2017 to 2021 were in East Palo Alto—the city accounts for only 4% of the county’s EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 7
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
population. The issues cited were terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities (4 complaints), and refusal to rent (one complaint).  The majority of residents living in East Palo Alto are renters (60%). Female headed households are the most likely to be renters, with seven out of ten female-headed households renting. The area of the city bordering Menlo Park has a higher concentration of households made up of female-headed households with children.  Compared to the county, East Palo Alto has a relatively high share of households that include children (49% in the city v. 33% countywide).
 East Palo Alto is also home to larger share of Hispanic or Latinx and Black or African American residents compared to the county (Figure II-1). Although not presented separately under ABAG’s estimates, East Palo Alto also has a larger share of Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian population, accounting for 4.6% of the total population; in comparison, the county share is 1.3%. The share of the Black or African American population decreased significantly from 23% to 11% since 2000, while the Hispanic or Latinx population increased from 60% to 66% and the non-Hispanic White population increased from 7% to 10%.
 Most Racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population in East Palo Alto. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities, especially Hispanic and Black or African American residents, are more likely to be denied for a home mortgage loan.
 Racial and ethnic minorities have higher rates of poverty (Figure II-5) and lower household incomes (Figure II-4) compared to the non-Hispanic White population in East Palo Alto.
 Overcrowding in the city is significantly higher than the county (Figure IV-15).

Hispanic households have the highest share of overcrowded households, while Black or African American households have the lowest (Figure IV-17).  Countywide, people who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black or African American, White, and Hispanic or Latinx are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population (Figure IV-22).
 Hispanic or Latinx, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Black or African American households have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019 (Figure IV-33).
 Compared to the county, East Palo Alto residents are more likely to be living in poverty (Figure II-28).

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 8
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
 Geospatially, the area bordering Menlo Park and west of Highway 101 tends to be disproportionately impacted by high poverty, low education opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households, overcrowding, and low resource scores.

This area also has a concentration of renter households, and female headed households (Figure IV-13 and Figure II-22). These areas have:
 Education opportunity scores between 0 and 0.25—meaning they have the lowest education scores compared to the rest of the city (Figure III-1).  Low economic opportunity scores between zero and 0.25 (Figure III-7).  The composite opportunity score for East Palo Alto shows census tracts in this area of the city fall within low resource areas while the rest of the city is within moderate areas (Figure III-14).
 The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster. This area of the city is more vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).
 Concentration (60% to 80% of households) of cost burdened renter households (Figure IV-13). Overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened households (Figure IV-19).
 The entire city is considered vulnerable to displacement (Figure IV-28).  The share of the population living with at least one disability is 6% in East Palo Alto, a slightly lower incidence than in San Mateo County. Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability at 18% compared to 4% for residents without a disability in East Palo Alto—particularly when compared to the county (Figure III-20).
 East Palo Alto is served by the Ravenswood City Elementary School District (Ravenswood City Elementary); and the Sequoia Union Unified High School District (Sequoia Union). Eighty-three percent of students qualify for reduced lunch in Ravenswood City Elementary, and 30% of students are experiencing homelessness.

This is an outlier in the county, where overall just 2% are experiencing homelessness.

Ravenswood also has a much higher share of Hispanic students than San Mateo County (84% v. 38%).
 The city has relatively low education opportunity scores overall and disparities are present for minority students:
 Hispanic students at Ravenswood City Elementary are the least likely to have met or exceeded mathematics and English testing standards in the county.  At the high school level, Sequoia Union district has the highest dropout rate in the county (10%), and dropout rates among Pacific Islander (20%), Hispanic (16%), and Black (12%) students are much higher.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 9
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
 Almost 60% of all renter households in East Palo Alto are cost burdened— spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and close to one third are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV-9). Hispanic (58%) households experience the highest rates of cost burden, followed by Black or African American households (55%).

Resident needs collected through local survey. A survey administered to capture residents’ needs and to support the AFFH found the following housing challenges.

A total of 53 residents completed the survey:
 About 41% of respondents indicated they would like to move but can’t afford anything that is available.
 About 35% of respondents said their house or apartment is too small for their family.  About 20% of respondents said they are often late on rent payments and 16% indicated they can’t keep up with utilities.
 40% of respondents indicated their neighborhood does not have good sidewalks, walking areas, and/or lighting, and 25% indicated schools in their neighborhood are poor quality.
 32% of respondents said they have experienced displacement in the past five years, common reasons for displacement included:
 Rent increased more than I could pay; and
 Landlord wanted to rent to someone else.
 29% of respondents indicated they had been discriminated against when looking for housing.

Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan. The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, the inability of the broader region to respond to housing demand, concentrations of low income populations within East Palo Alto, regional barriers to open housing choice, and, until recently, very limited resources to respond to needs. Specifically, Fair housing issue: Disproportionate housing needs are found in higher rates of cost burden for Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American households and overcrowding for Hispanic households.

Contributing factors:
 Higher poverty rates among East Palo Alto’s Black/African American and Hispanic residents stem from decades of discrimination in employment, education, and housing markets. These residents have faced greater challenges building wealth through economic mobility and homeownership because of employment and housing market discrimination.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 10
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
 East Palo Alto offers relatively more affordable housing opportunities than surrounding cities. As such, households needing affordable housing migrate to East Palo Alto for the city’s housing opportunities which leads to a concentration of affordable housing and low income households in the city.

The limited opportunity of residents to reside in surrounding areas leads to higher shares of poverty-level and low income households in East Palo Alto.  Low income residents seeking affordable housing are more likely than other types of households to work low wage jobs that do not support the city’s— and the region’s—housing prices, resulting in cost burden and overcrowding.
 Future employment opportunities by low income households and Black/African American and Hispanic households are further constrained by K-12 achievement gaps and being less likely to meet university admission standards.

Fair housing issue: The entire city of East Palo Alto is considered vulnerable to displacement.

Contributing factors:
 Concentration of low income households in East Palo Alto due to limited opportunity of residents to reside in surrounding areas leaves residents in East Palo Alto vulnerable to displacement.
 Lower income households are more likely to be renters and the majority of residents living in East Palo Alto are renters (60%). Furthermore, female headed households are the most likely to be renters, with seven out of ten female-headed households renting. The area of the city bordering Menlo Park has a higher concentration of households made up of female-headed households with children, a population that is particularly vulnerable to displacement.

Fair housing issue: In some neighborhoods, East Palo Alto residents lack sidewalks, good street lighting, and walkability. This limits recreational opportunities and affects safety.

Contributing factors:
 Historically low private sector investment.
 Inadequate public sector resources to respond to needs.

Fair housing issue: East Palo Alto residents face high rates of fair housing discrimination.

Contributing factors:
 Discrimination that disproportionately affects people of color.

Fair housing issue: East Palo Alto applicants for mortgage loans face high rates of denial; denials are highest for Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx applicants.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 11
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Contributing factors:
 Historic discrimination in employment and housing markets that has limited the ability of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx households to accumulate wealth and be competitive in the current housing market.  Despite the fact that discrimination in most housing transactions has been illegal since the 1960s, recent research2 shows that non-White and Hispanic/Latinx homeowners still face financial discrimination. This is because race-blind policies may still generate outcomes which are not raceneutral, as well as the under-valuation of land and property due to past discriminatory practices, like blockbusting.

Fair housing issue: East Palo Alto has a higher proportion of children than in the county, and these children are much more likely to attend lower performing schools than children in the county overall.

Contributing factors:
 The schools that serve East Palo Alto have high concentrations of poverty and children living in homelessness.
 Neighborhoods in the county with the highest performing schools have very high housing prices, pushing families into areas that are relatively affordable but which feed schools that have fewer resources to adequately address the complexities of child poverty and homelessness.

The Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) below details how the City of East Palo Alto proposes to respond to the factors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis.
2 The Assessment Gap: Racial Inequalities in Property Taxation. https://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/the_assessment_gap_- _racial_inequalities_in_property_taxation.pdf
EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 12
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and
Outreach Capacity
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity.

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

The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”.3 DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD.

DFEH’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.4 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

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

From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—9% of complaints were in East Palo Alto (five complaints). Countywide, most complaints cited disability status as the bias (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial status (14%). In East Palo Alto, 3 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/
4 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 13
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
the issues cited were terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities (4 complaints), and refusal to rent (one complaint).

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

Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to 5, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached 6 by mid-2021.

Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%).

Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county.

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
 First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership.  Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment—1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.  Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies—reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.5
5 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/ EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 14
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Outreach and capacity. East Palo Alto City’s website provides easy to follow links to the rent stabilization program and housing programs, as well as the opportunity to share input on the Housing Element. The City could improve the accessibility of fair housing information on the website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. This could be improved by providing contact information for local fair housing organizations, legal assistance, and general information about the Fair Housing Act and discrimination. Language accessibility could be improved by providing some Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021 Number Percent
Disability 32 56%
Race 11 19%
Familial Status 8 14%
National Origin 3 5%
Religion 2 4%
Sex 1 2%
Total cases 57 100%
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021) 26 24
16 9
9 9
7 7
6 6
5 4
2 1
San Mateo
Redwood City
Daly City
Menlo Park
Belmont
Pacifica
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Burlingame
South San Francisco
San Bruno
San Carlos
Woodside
Half Moon Bay
9 6
8 5
2 3
5 0
5 4
4 2
0 1
HUD Fair Housing
Complaints
HCD Fair Housing
Inquiries
EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 15
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
information in both English and Spanish, as well as placing the option to select a different language at the top of the website, rather than at the bottom.

Compliance with state law. East Palo Alto is compliant with the following state laws that promote fair and affordable housing. The city has not been alleged or found in violation of the following:
 Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocations;
 No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to accommodate unmet RHNA allocations;
 Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.1);
 Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.2);  Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5).

Housing specific policies enacted locally. East Palo Alto identified, according to the 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey and community input, the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the city.

Local policies and programs in place
to encourage affordable housing
development.
 Inclusionary in-lieu fee encouraging
on-site construction of affordable
housing
 Measure O gross receipts tax revenue
for general fund purposes, such as
funding programs to increase
affordable housing, protect local
residents from displacement and from
homelessness.
 Measure HH commercial office space
special parcel tax for the creation of
new affordable or supportive housing
and for access to job opportunities
 CalHOME program for creation of
affordable ADU units and ADU
streamlining
Local barriers to affordable housing
development.
 High parking requirements
 Lengthy processing times and
requirements to develop multi-family
properties
 Development impact fees
 Missing ADU legalization program to
complement ADU streamlining
 Low staffing capacity in the Building,
Code Enforcement, Planning, and
Housing departments
 Infrastructure needs in sanitary sewer
services
EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 16
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Local policies and programs that are
NOT in place but would provide the
best outcomes in addressing housing
shortages.
 Homebuyer assistance programs
 Tenant Opportunity to Purchase
Act/Community Opportunity to
Purchase Act
 Mortgage and rental assistance
(beyond pandemic)
Local policies that are NOT in place,
but have potential Council interest for
further exploration.
 Anti-Displacement Plan
 Rental registry
 Homebuyer assistance program
 Foreclosure assistance
 Living wage employment ordinances
 Housing counseling
 Acquisition of unsubsidized properties
with affordable rents
 Engaging the school district to address
performance gaps
 Construction of 2-3 bedroom
affordable housing units for larger
families
 Seeking funding from private sector to
improve infrastructure needs
 Exploring establishment of
cooperatives/community ownership of
housing
 Standardized review metrics and
objective design standards to increase
development process predictability
and streamline permitting process
Local policies and programs in place
to mitigate or prevent displacement
of low income households.
 Rent stabilization/rent control
 Rent review board and/or mediation
 Mobile home rent
stabilization/relocation and
displacement prevention
 Condominium conversion regulations
 Affordable housing impact/linkage fee
on new commercial development
 Inclusionary zoning
 Community land trusts
 First source hiring ordinances
 Just cause eviction
 Tenant relocation requirements
 Fair housing legal services
 Local preference
 Rental assistance and tenant
education and empowerment (e.g.
security deposit/1st and last month’s
rent assistance)
 Fund home sharing program (HIP
Housing)
EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 17
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), East Palo Alto does not have any public housing buildings.

However, the city does have a moderate (5% to 15%) share of households using housing vouchers.

Compared to nearby Menlo Park and Palo Alto, East Palo Alto appears accommodating to renters with housing vouchers because the city has a greater share of voucher holders compared to the surrounding communities. The presence of housing voucher users indicates available rental supply to house these residents and a reduced exclusionary behavior from landlords in the city.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 18
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
SECTION II. Integration and Segregation
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

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

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

Race and ethnicity. The population distribution by race and ethnicity in East Palo Alto is more diverse compared to the county. East Palo Alto shows the largest portion of the population being Hispanic or Latinx (66% v. 24% in the county), followed by Black or African American (11% v. 2% in the county).6 The Asian and non-Hispanic White population make up 10% of the population each. Although not presented separately under ABAG’s estimates, East Palo Alto also has a larger share of Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian population, accounting for 4.6% of the total population; in comparison, the county share is

1.3%. The share of the Black or African American population decreased significantly from 23% to 11% since 2000, while the Hispanic or Latinx population increased from 60% to 66% and the non-Hispanic White increased from 7% to 10%. The share of the Asian population has remained stable.

The share of the population age 65 and over that is Black or African American is 30% compared to only 6% of the population under age 17.
6 The share of the population that identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native is less than 1%.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 19
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty and lower household incomes compared to the non-Hispanic White population in East Palo Alto.

Geospatially, East Palo Alto has no non-Hispanic White majority census tracts7 and a couple of Hispanic or Latinx-majority census tracts.8
Dissimilarity and isolation indices. The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community. The DI is an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the county overall.

DI values range from 0 to 100—where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation. Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

The isolation index is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident shares an area with a member of the same minority, it ranges from 0 to 100 and higher values of isolation tend to indicate higher levels of segregation.

ABAG and UC Merced completed an analysis of segregation in East Palo Alto. Several indices were used to assess segregation in the city and determine how East Palo Alto differs from patterns of segregation and integration in the region overall. That analysis found:
 The isolation index is highest for Hispanic/Latinx residents and much higher than for any other racial group. Hispanic/Latinx residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups.  Overall, however, as measured by the dissimilarity index, segregation is very low in East Palo Alto. Segregation is lower in East Palo Alto than the Bay area overall for all racial groups. The Black/African American population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.
 Very Low-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in East Palo Alto. Very Low-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups. Among all income 7 Majority census tracts show the predominant racial or ethnic group by tract compared to the next most populous. 8 Redlining maps, otherwise known as Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps, are not available for San Mateo County.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 20
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
groups, the Very Low-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
 Segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has decreased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in East Palo Alto between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

Disability status. The share of the population living with at least one disability is 6% in East Palo Alto, slightly lower than in San Mateo County’s 8%. There are no census tracts in the city with a share of the population living with a disability that reach 10%.

Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicates the area has ample access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this population.

Familial status. East Palo Alto is home to more large households (5-person or more) than the county with 27% of households compared to only 11% in the county. Additionally, there are fewer married couple households in the city and more female-headed family households compared to the county (21% v. 10% in the county). Female-headed households tend to have higher poverty rates, be younger and more diverse than the overall population.

East Palo alto also has a higher share of households with children compared to the county (49% v. 33%). The area of the city bordering Menlo Park has a higher concentration of single female with children households.

The majority of residents living in East Palo Alto are renters (60%). Female headed households are the most likely to be renters, with seven out of ten female-headed households renting.

Household income. The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in East Palo Alto is more concentrated at lower incomes than the county. In East Palo Alto 50% of households have incomes below 50% AMI compared to 24% in the county.

There are several census block groups in the city that have median incomes below the 2020 state median income of $87,100. In addition, census block groups with median incomes below $55,000 are located in the central part of the city and west of Highway 101.

Compared to the county, East Palo Alto has higher poverty rates between 10% and 20% but the city has no concentrations of census tracts with poverty rates between 20% and 30%.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 21
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly non-Hispanic White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for Segregation and Integration
Population by Protected Class
East Palo Alto City San Mateo County
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH 0% 0%
Asian / API, NH 10% 30%
Black or African American, NH 11% 2%
White, Non-Hispanic (NH) 10% 39%
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH 3% 4%
Hispanic or Latinx 66% 24%
Disability Status
With a disability 6% 8%
Without a disability 94% 92%
Familial Status
Female-Headed Family Households 21% 10%
Male-headed Family Households 7% 5%
Married-couple Family Households 48% 55%
Other Non-Family Households 8% 8%
Single-person Households 17% 22%
Household Income
0%-30% of AMI 25% 13%
31%-50% of AMI 25% 11%
51%-80% of AMI 22% 16%
81%-100% of AMI 10% 10%
Greater than 100% of AMI 17% 49%
0%
10%
11%
10%
3%
66%
0%
30%
2%
39%
4%
24%
6%
94%
8%
92%
21%
7%
48%
8%
17%
10%
5%
55%
8%
22%
25%
25%
22%
10%
17%
13%
11%
16%
10%
49%
EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 22
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.9 It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

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

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

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

In 2010 there were three census tracts that qualified as R/ECAPs (19.4% poverty rate) in the county and 11 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (13% poverty rate). One of the R/ECAPs was located in East Palo Alto in 2010, and 2 edge R/ECAPs were located in East Palo Alto covering the entire area of the city east of Highway 101.

In 2019 there were two census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the county and 14 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate). Three of the 2019 edge R/ECAPs are located in East Palo Alto—which means they are majority people of color and have a poverty rate two times higher than the countywide census tract average, and none of the census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs are located in East Palo Alto. The 9 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124 EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 23
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
area that used to be an R/ECAP is located west of Menlo Park Business Park area but east of Highway 101. The poverty rate in this area decreased from 26% in 2010 to 11% in 2019.

While the overall share of residents who are people of color remained stable, the share of Black/African American residents decreased and the shares of Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latinx residents increased.

RCAAs. HCD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence is:
 A census tract that has a percentage of total non-Hispanic White population that is

1.25 times higher than the average percentage of total non-Hispanic White population in the given county, and a median income that was 2 times higher than the countywide AMI.

RCAAs are generally understood to be neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households and high household income. There are no RCAAs in East Palo Alto.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 24
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.

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

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

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

Education. TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, all areas in East Palo Alto score below 0.50—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes. Census tracts bordering Menlo Park and east of Highway 101 score below 0.25.

East Palo Alto is served by the Ravenswood City Elementary School District; and the Sequoia Union Unified High School District.

Enrollment in Ravenswood City Elementary decreased 30%. This represents a much larger decrease than the 1% decrease experienced in the county.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 25
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Enrollment in Sequoia Union increased by 18% from 2010 to 2020.

Ravenswood City Elementary has a much higher share of Hispanic students than San Mateo County (84% v. 38%). The enrollment composition in Sequoia Union is similar to the countywide distribution.

Overall, 29% of public school students in San Mateo County qualify for reduced lunch. This was substantially higher in Ravenswood City Elementary School District, where 83% of students qualify for reduced lunch. In Ravenswood City Elementary, 30% of students are experiencing homelessness. This is an outlier in the county, where overall just 2% are experiencing homelessness.

County-wide, 20% of public school students are English learners. Again, this rate is highest at Ravenswood City Elementary, where 53% of students are English learners.

In addition to the high concentration, Hispanic students at Ravenswood City Elementary are the least likely to have met or exceeded mathematics and English testing standards in the county.

Countywide 27% of Hispanic students met or exceeded mathematics testing standards and 40% met or exceeded English testing standards. These almost double the 15% and 21% in Ravenswood City Elementary.

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

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

In addition, Sequoia Union district has the highest drop out rate in the County (10%), and drop out rates among Pacific Islander (20%), Hispanic (16%), and Black (12%) students are much higher.

Employment. The top industry by number of jobs in East Palo Alto is the health and educational services, followed by retail, and arts, recreation, and other services. The top industries by workers living in East Palo Alto are the health and educational services, professional and managerial services, and arts, recreation, and other services.

East Palo Alto has a lower job to household ratio when compared to the county at 0.57 and

1.59 respectively. This makes the city an exporter of workers to other communities.

The city also has a higher unemployment rate than the county and the Bay Area, at 8.6% compared to 5.9% in the county and 6.6% in the Bay Area.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 26
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. East Palo Alto scores are below 0.50 and areas with the lowest economic opportunity scores—below 0.25— are concentrated in the part of the city that borders Menlo Park and are east of Highway 101.

HUD’s job proximity index shows these areas are in relatively close proximity to jobs. On a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs the majority of the city scores above 60.

Transportation. This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves East Palo Alto and the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access in the city. The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.

In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in San Mateo and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to East Palo Alto and San Mateo County.
“San Mateo’s PCC and County Health System, as well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked cars blocking sidewalk rightof-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate motorized scooters and wheelchairs. Transportation information, emerging mobility providers, and transit fares were other common themes.

While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”
10 Transit improvements recommended for East Palo Alto include:
10 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 27
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
 “East Palo Alto individuals do not have direct, fixed-route service to San Mateo Medical Center. A transfer and drop off is located at El Camino Real and 37th Avenue, but patients are still required to walk the remaining distance up a hill to the SM Medical Center (County Hospital). The cost of this trip and transfers is a great hardship for low income individuals. Craig added that getting to this medical facility is a hardship for many people because of the distance to the stop and the terrain.” A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco bay, served by MTC.”11
As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.” The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.12 MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18 month pilot project— in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.13
Environment. TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites. 11 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
12 https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_Disabilit ies.html
13 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 28
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
East Palo Alto has worse scores than neighboring communities. The city also scores lower on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC).

The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.14 The area east of Highway 101 close to Menlo Park scores the lowest on the HPI.

Disparities in access to opportunity. Data show that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in low resource areas compared to non-Hispanic White residents. Two thirds (64%) of the population living in low resource areas are Hispanic.

TCAC’s composite opportunity score for East Palo Alto shows census tracts in the west of Highway 101 and Tracts closer to Menlo Park fall within low resource areas while the rest of the city is within moderate resource areas.

The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. The area east of Highway 101 and close to Menlo Park is most vulnerable according to the SVI.

Most of the area east of Highway 101 in East Palo Alto qualifies as a disadvantaged community as defined under SB 535, “disadvantaged communities are defined as the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”15
Disparities specific to the population living with a disability. Six percent of the population in East Palo Alto are living with at least one disability, a lower share than the county. The most common disabilities in East Palo Alto are ambulatory (4%), cognitive (2.6%), and independent living (2.5%).

Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36. 14 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/
15 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 29
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
For the population 65 and over the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases. As mentioned above under access to transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging, therefore this population with a disability is likely to increase.

Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability at 18% compared to 4% for residents without a disability. High unemployment rates among this population points to a need for increased services and resources to connect this population with employment opportunities.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 30
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
East Palo Alto San Mateo County
Jobs to Household Ratio 0.57 1.59
Unemployment Rate 9% 6%
LEP Population 14% 7%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in East Palo Alto Employment by Disability Status
96%
82%
4%
18%
No Disability
With A Disability
East Palo Alto
97%
96%
3%
4%
No Disability
With A Disability
Employed Unemployed
San Mateo County
10% 11% 11% 3% 64% Low Resource or High Segregation
and Poverty Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx
Low Resource or High
Segregation and Poverty Area
EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 31
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
SECTION IV. Disparate Housing Needs
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.

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

Housing needs. Population growth in East Palo Alto accelerated during the 2000’s and experienced a sharp decrease after the Great Recession in the mid-2000s. Between 2009 and 2010 the city lost around 5,000 residents (15%). Since then, population trends have followed countywide trends more closely.

Since 2015, the housing permitted to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate and low income households with 35 and 34 permits issued respectively.

During the same period 20 permits were issued for very low income households and 6 for above moderate income households. The majority of the housing inventory in East Palo Alto was constructed between 1940 to 1980. The Housing Needs Data Report for East Palo Alto indicates new construction has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.” 16
The variety of housing types available in the city in 2020 are predominately single family (54%) and medium to large scale multifamily (37%). From 2010 to 2020, the multifamily inventory increased less than single family, and the city has a lower share of multifamily housing compared to other communities in the region. 17 16 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 17 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 32
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Compared to San Mateo County, East Palo Alto’s owner occupied housing market has a greater share of units priced below $1 million—77% of units in the city fall within this price range compared to 44% in the county. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices experienced remarkable growth in the city but have slowed since 2018. East Palo Alto home values remain more affordable than home values in the County and the Bay Area.

Compared to the county, East Palo Alto has more affordable rental units—42% of units rent for less than $1,500 in the city compared to 19% in the county.

Cost burden and severe cost burden. Fifty eight percent of all renter households in East Palo Alto are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and close to one third are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs. Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare. Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness.

The rates of cost burden in East Palo Alto are higher than the county overall. Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. Over two thirds of households earning less than 30% AMI—considered extremely low income households—are severely cost burdened.

There are disparities in housing cost burden in East Palo Alto by race and ethnicity.

Hispanic (58%) and other or multi racial (58%) households experience the highest rates of cost burden in the city, followed by Black or African American (55%) households. NonHispanic White (45%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (47%) households experience the lowest cost burden.

Overcrowding. The rates of overcrowding— indicated by more than one occupant per room —are significantly higher than the county (26% v. 8% in the county). Renter households are significantly more likely to be overcrowded with 35.8% of households with more than one occupant per room compared to 11.1% of owner households.

Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. Hispanic households (44%), and other or multiple race households (36%), experience the highest rates of overcrowding. Low and moderate income households are also more likely to be overcrowded.

Geographically, overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened renter households, to the west of Highway 101 and closer to Menlo Park.

EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 33
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Substandard housing. Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys.

In East Palo Alto, renter households are also more likely to have substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities compared to owner households. Generally, a low share of households are lacking kitchen or plumbing. For renters, 2% are lacking kitchen facilities while 1.6% are lacking plumbing. For owners, 1.5% are lacking kitchen facilities or plumbing facilities.

Homelessness. In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county (107 people in East Palo Alto), 40% of people were in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children.

People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native (6% homeless, less than 1% general population), Black (13%, 2%), White (67%, 51%), and Hispanic (38%, 28%) are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population. People struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental illness (305), and domestic violence (127) represent a substantial share of the homeless population in 2019.

Displacement. Owner households generally enjoy a greater amount of housing stability whereas renter households are more mobile. In East Palo Alto all of the 466 income assisted rental units are at low risk for displacement. In San Mateo County, 417 units are at risk—8% of the total assisted housing units in the county.

Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
 They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
 Share of very low income residents is above 20%, 2017  AND
 The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 34
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
− Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
− They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
• Percent change in rent above county median for rent
increases, 2012-2017
OR
 Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.

According to the Urban Displacement Project, the entire East Palo Alto area is vulnerable to displacement. An estimated 1,818 owner and 3,158 renter households are susceptible to or experiencing displacement. The highest concentration of renter households (over 80%) is found west of Highway 101.

Access to mortgage loans. Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. Hispanic (41% denial rate), and Black or African American (43%) have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019. Conversely, Asian (22%), and non-Hispanic White households (18%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time.

Zoning and land use.
[Placeholder to discuss local opposition to affordable housing, problematic language in CC&Rs, and zoning practices in neighborhoods where relevant.] EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 35
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, East Palo Alto, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, East Palo Alto, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Substandard Housing, East Palo Alto, 2019
Incomplete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure
Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 6% 0%
Asian / API 6% 30%
Black or African American 13% 2%
White 67% 51%
Other Race or Multiple Races 8% 17%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement East Palo Alto City San Mateo County Number of Units 0 417
% of Assisted Units 0% 8%
18%
25%
52%
71%
93%
14%
50%
41%
22%
7%
68%
25%
7%
7%
0%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

0.0%

1.5%

2.0%

1.6%
Kitchen
Plumbing
Owner Renter

18.3%

17.5%

7.9%

3.2%

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

1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room
EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 36
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Placeholder for Site Inventory Analysis
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing.

Once sites are identified, the analysis will be placed here and will consist of:
 Map of identified sites by lower income, moderate income, and above moderate income units;
 Identification of sites within or proximity to R/ECAPs and edge R/ECAPs and/or low income/poverty concentrations; Proportion of low and very low income units located in that area, as well as concentrations of Housing Choice Vouchers, How the distribution of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units—and the share located in low, moderate, and high resourced areas—will change with proposed site inventory development; Proximity to:
 High proficiency K-12 education institutions;
 High-resourced areas/positive economic outcome areas;  Low social vulnerability;
 Good jobs proximity;
 Access to transportation;
 Healthy places; and
 Flood hazards.

MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 1
SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Capacity
Figure I-1.

Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, San Mateo County Source: Organization Websites
Name
Project
Sentinel  Northern California
1490 El Camino
Real, Santa Clara,
CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Legal Aid
Society of San
Mateo County
San Mateo County
330 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 123,
Redwood City, CA
94065
(650) 558-0915 https://www.legalaidsmc.org/h
ousing-resources
Community
Legal Services
of East Palo
Alto
East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park,
Burlingame,
Mountain View,
Redwood City, and
San Francisco
1861 Bay Road,
East Palo Alto, CA
94303
(650)-326-6440 https://clsepa.org/services/#ho
using
Service Area Address Phone Website
MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 2
Figure I-2.

Fair Housing
Complaints
Filed with HUD
by Basis, San
Mateo County,
2017-2021
Source:

HUD.

Figure I-3.

HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021)
Source: Organization Websites.

Disability 8 9 3 9 3 32 56%
Race 3 5 2 1 11 19%
Familial Status 4 3 1 8 14%
National Origin 2 1 3 5%
Religion 1 1 2 4%
Sex 1 1 2%
Total cases 17 18 5 11 6 57 100%
2017-2021 Total
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cases % of Total
MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 3
Figure I-4.

FHEO Inquiries by City to HUD, San Mateo County, 2013-2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 4
Figure I-5.

HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Jurisdiction
Atherton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belmont 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 9
Brisbane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burlingame 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 6
Colma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daly City 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 17
East Palo Alto 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
Foster City 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Half Moon Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 11
Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacifica 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 9
Portola Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood City 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 24
San Bruno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
San Carlos 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
San Mateo 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 27
South San Francisco 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
Woodside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Disability Race Total
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex Color
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 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 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
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
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
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 MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 11
Figure II-7.

White Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 12
Figure II-8.

Asian Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 13
Figure II-9.

Hispanic Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 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 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 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 MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 17
Disability status.

Figure II-13.

Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
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 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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 33
Employment
Figure III-2.

Jobs by Industry, East Palo Alto, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 44
Figure III-16.

SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 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
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
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 MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 48
Figure III-22
[PLACEHOLDER] Mateo County Housing Policies and Programs Analysis Source: ABAG.

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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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
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. .

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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+)
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.

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
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.

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+)
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 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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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.

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)
Figure 14. Displacement Experience and Reasons for Displacement Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

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.

Figure 15. Children Changing Schools and Outcomes, Displaced Households Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

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.

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).

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.

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%).

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.

Transportation. Over 80% of respondents indicated the type of transportation used most often is driving a personal vehicle. This share was relatively similar across the majority of jurisdictions and was the number one type of transportation used across all jurisdictions and demographic characteristics.

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

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

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

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 45
Figure 18.

Are you satisfied
with your current
transportation
options?
Source:

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

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%
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%
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%
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%
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.