Agenda packet — East Palo Alto City Council, February 21, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

Housing needs. Population growth in East Palo Alto accelerated during the 2000’s and experienced a sharp decrease after the Financial Crisis. 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.” 55 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. 56
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 55 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 56 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 4 – Page 36
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 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 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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 4 – Page 37
There are disparities in housing
cost burden in East Palo Alto by
race and ethnicity.

Hispanic/Latinx (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. Non-Hispanic
White (45%) and Asian/API (47%)
experience the lowest cost
burden.

In areas where renters are cost
burdened, it is likely that
homeowners are also
overpaying for housing. The
map below shows that all
homeowners in East Palo Alto
dedicate 40-60% of their
income towards their home.

The concentration of cost
burden extends west into
Menlo Park, but stops south of
East Palo Alto. This suggests
that south of the city, people
have incomes that are
adequate enough to keep pace
with housing costs.

Overcrowding. The majority
of households (74%) in East Palo Alto are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room. However, the rates of overcrowdings 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/Latinx 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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 4 – Page 38
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. The map below
shows overcrowding in the
region. Outside of East Palo
Alto and Menlo Park there
are less households
experiencing overcrowding,
suggesting that households
in those regions are able to
afford homes that
accommodate their
household size or do not
have to double-up to afford
the home.

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 or plumbing facilities.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 4 – Page 39
As shown in Figure IV-35, excluding Redwood City, East Palo Alto has the highest percentage of households experiencing severe housing problems in the region. As previously noted, housing condition data are limited, making it difficult to explain why a greater proportion of households in East Palo Alto live in substandard conditions. It could, however, be attributed to East Palo Alto’s housing costs being some of the highest in the region for its lower income population. With such high costs, households—especially lower-income households and renters—may have no option but to live in substandard conditions as that is all they can afford. Alternatively, it may also be related to East Palo Alto’s higher proportion of residents over the age of 5 identifying as speaking English not well or not at all (13.8% v. 8% throughout the entire region)57 as residents may be unaware of their rights, resources to contact, or hesitant to engage with landlords or property owners and managers.

Chapter 2, Section 2.12.2.D of the Housing Element provides a description of where substandard housing is located throughout the City of East Palo Alto.

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/African American (13%, 2%), White (67%, 51%), and Hispanic/Latinx (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.
57https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/housing/page/19915/c2_abag_mtc_housing_needs_da ta_report_east_palo_alto_w_toc_1.pdf.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 4 – Page 40
Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
 They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
➢ Share of very low income residents is above 20%, 2017 ➢ AND
➢ The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
− Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
− They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
• Percent change in rent above county median for rent
increases, 2012-2017
OR
 Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
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.

Natural disasters. Natural disasters, specifically flooding, also places East Palo Alto residents at greater risk for displacement. As shown in Figure IV-31, over half of East Palo Alto is federally considered a flood hazard area, with areas located North and Northeast of Highway 101 at particular high risk of natural disasters.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 4 – Page 41
To preemptively address this threat to residents, the City implemented an ordinance in Chapter

14.12 of its Municipal Code titled “Tenants Displaced by Disasters.”58 The ordinance qualifies a disaster as any unforeseen circumstance that causes damage or loss including, but not limited to, fires, floods, earthquakes, and other accidents. According to the City’s Code, once repairs (due to a disaster) are completed, landlords must offer to the tenant the same unit under the same terms and conditions within 30 days. The tenant then has 30 days to accept or reject the offer and, if accepted, has 45 days to reoccupy the unit. Costs to repair damage not covered by insurance can legally be “passed through to the tenant”59 but tenants must be notified 30 days prior to rent increases.

Access to mortgage loans. Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. Hispanic/Latinx (41% denial rate), and Black or African American (43%) have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019. Conversely, non-Hispanic Asian (22%), and White households (18%) have the lowest rates during the same time. 58https://library.municode.com/ca/east_palo_alto/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=EAPAALCA. 59 Ibid.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 4 – Page 1

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) [Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 1
5 SITES INVENTORY ANALYSIS
A critical component of the Housing Element is identification of sites for future housing development, and evaluation of the ability of these sites to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
California state law requires that each city and county has land zoned to accommodate its fair share of regional housing needs over the course of the Housing Element planning period.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for determining the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for each region’s planning body. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted a methodology for the RHNA in the Bay Area covering the 2023-2031 planning cycle (also known as the sixth cycle) and dividing housing needs into four income categories: very low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate- income. HCD determined that the projected housing need for the Bay Area region is 441,176 new housing units for the sixth cycle Housing Element planning period. ABAG allocated this projected growth to the various cities and unincorporated county areas within the ABAG region, creating the RHNA. East Palo Alto’s RHNA for the projection period is 829 housing units, with the units distributed among the four income categories as shown in Table 5.0.A. As illustrated in this chapter, East Palo Alto has sufficient capacity under existing land use policy to meet its 2023-2031 RHNA obligations.

Table 5.0.A: East Palo Alto RHNA 6
Income Group Percent of
County Area
Median Income
(AMI)
Number of
RHNA 6
Housing Units
Percentage
of Units
Very Low Income (VLI) 0-50% 165 20%
Low Income (LI) 51-80% 95 11%
Moderate Income (MOD) 81-120% 159 19%
Above Moderate Income
(Above Mod)
120%+ 410 50%
Total 829 100%
Sites Inventory
For the Sites Inventory, jurisdictions must provide a site-by-site analysis of parcels in the City where housing development is expected to occur over the eight-year planning period to meet RHNA goals. Using an HCDprovided form, jurisdictions must provide information about each site to illustrate the key assumptions used to

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 2
calculate the estimated number of units. This form is included as Appendix A. The total number of units, by income category, from the sites in the Sites Inventory must meet or exceed the City’s RHNA.

While cities and counties are only required to plan for 100 percent of the RHNA goals, East Palo Alto’s sites inventory targets approximately 216 percent of the required RHNA, or approximately 1794 homes. Planning for more housing allows for more flexibility in future development and in ensuring housing development goals are met. The City will rezone its Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan Area to allow for additional housing density in mixed use zones. With these rezonings, the City will have enough development sites to exceed RHNA obligations and meet a 116 percent surplus of the RHNA 6 target.

Each site must be detailed in the Sites Inventory list with the following:

Table 5.0.A: Summary of Sites Inventory Details
Entry Description
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
Size HCD considers the appropriate size range for lower-income housing to be sites that can support 50 to 150 units, or between .5 acres and 10 acres. Smaller or larger sites can be considered for market-rate housing.

General Plan land use
designation
As identified in General Plan.

Zoning designation Existing zoning, e.g., RMD-1, in General Plan and Specific Plan, if applicable Allowable density
(minimum and maximum)
Density, or dwelling units per acre (“du/acre”)
Development capacity Estimate the number of units likely to be built on the site. Jurisdictions must justify these estimates and state their assumptions in the narrative section of the Housing Element. See “capacity adjustment” below.

RHNA affordability levels Indicate which levels of affordability will be served by the site (lower-income, moderate, above-moderate). For lower-income RHNA, default density of the site must be a minimum of 30 du/acre. HCD encourages jurisdictions to choose sites near transit, high-performing schools, jobs, amenities (e.g., parks, grocery stores, healthcare), with good infrastructure and no environmental mitigation needed.

Existing use If site is nonvacant, describe what is currently on the site.

Publicly owned Any sites owned by City, County or federal government.

Site status Indicate whether the site is available or whether there is a pending project on it.

Infrastructure availability Address whether there are sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities available and accessible to support housing Development. If not, include a program in the Housing Element that ensures access and availability to infrastructure to accommodate development within the planning period.

Environmental constraints To the extent the information is available, provide a general description of any known environmental or other features (e.g., presence of floodplains, protected

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 3
wetlands, oak tree preserves, very high fire hazard severity zones) that have the potential to impact the development viability of the identified sites.

Included in prior Housing
Element(s)
If the site was used in a prior sites inventory, the jurisdiction must demonstrate why it is likely that the parcel will develop in the next RHNA cycle.

AB 725
For jurisdictions that are considered Metropolitan, the Housing Element must identify at least 25 percent of the remaining moderate and above moderate RHNA on sites that allow at least four units of housing (e.g., four plex or greater) (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(4)). At least 25% of the City of East Palo Alto’s RHNA 6 moderateand above-moderate-income units are located in zoning districts that allow for at least four units or greater.

Extremely Low-Income Units
Based on Figure 11 in Appendix B, 3,837 of East Palo Alto’s households are 0-50% area median income (AMI), while 1,918 are extremely low-income. Therefore, extremely low-income (ELI) households represent 50 percent of households who are 0-50% AMI, as 1,918 divided by 3,827 is 50%. The projected housing need for ELI households is therefore 83 ELI units. This methodology aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies as extremely low-income households.

Half or 50 percent of the very low-income households in the RHNA (165) is 83 units.

There are approximately 231 projected extremely low-income units for the 2023-2031 planning period (half of 461 projected very low-income units is 230.5). The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) requires for rental developments to provide on-site rental units as inclusionary compliance broken down as follows: 5% ELI (at 35% AMI), 10% VLI (at 50% AMI) and 5% LI (at 60%). If the inclusionary requirement for rental units results in a fraction of a unit, the developer can provide a unit (such as an Accessory Dwelling Unit) at the lowest level of affordability (35% AMI), or any other Alternative Compliance Option, to be approved by City Council. Based on this data and the City’s IHO, the City will continue to prioritize extremely low-income units to address the City’s housing needs.

Sites Identified in Prior Planning Periods
Appendix D1 indicates which parcels in the City’s RHNA 6 sites inventory were identified in prior planning periods. Sites identified in prior planning periods cannot be deemed adequate to accommodate the housing needs for lower-income households unless a program, meeting statutory requirements, requires rezoning within three years. Of the sites identified in previous planning years, some are already approved and are now proceeding to the building permit stage. The remaining projects do not require rezoning within three years, as they are not designated to accommodate the housing needs for lower-income households or they have already been rezoned to allow for the number of units designated in the sites inventory.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 4
Replacement Housing Requirements
According to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (g), if the sites inventory identifies sites with existing residential uses, the housing element must include a replacement housing program for units affordable to lower-income households. Projects in the City are subject to Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), when applicable, and are required to provide replacement units.

Small Sites, Large Sites, and Vacant Sites
According to HCD guidance for choosing suitable sites to accommodate the RHNA, lower-income housing is best accommodated on sites larger than 0.5 acres or smaller than 10 acres and zoned for a minimum 30 dwelling units per acre density.61 Nonvacant sites should not exceed 50% of all sites in the Sites Inventory.

Sites smaller than half an acre or greater than ten acres are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated, with sufficient evidence, that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or other evidence demonstrates the suitability of these sites.

Not all sites in the City’s Sites Inventory fall within the 0.5-to-10-acre limits. These sites may be used to account for Above-Moderate (market-rate) units only.62 Other sites have already been approved or will be receiving approval soon, and sufficient evidence is provided in Appendix D1 demonstrating suitability of the sites. 63 Well over half of the sites are vacant, with some key redevelopment sites.

Quantified Objectives
In addition to the sites inventoy, the City needs to provide an estimate of actual housing units that will be produced, rehabilitated and preserved. Table 5.0.B summarizes East Palo Alto’s quantified objectives for the next five years. Unless specifically identified, these numbers do not correspond to specific development proposals, rather than are an attempt to estimate what may happen in the future. 61 This is the “default density” for lower-income housing for San Mateo and other metropolitan jurisdictions, according to HCD:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks/analysis-sites-and-zoning 62 For example, 2277 University and Waterfront are less than half an acre and are only counted toward the above-moderate income category.
63 See Table 5.2.A and Appendix D1.5.2 for the already approved projects and Table 5.3.A and Appendix D1.5.3 for projects expected to be approved soon.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 5
Table 5.0.B Quantified Objectives Over Next 5 Years: 2023-2028 Program New
Construction Renovation Conservation
Extremely Low
Income 115 19 0
Very Low Income 116 83 0
Low Income 122 19 0
Moderate Income 171 2 0
Above Moderate
Income
375 0 0
Total 899 123 0
Note: The Quantified Objectives for new construction over the next five years were taken as a half of the total opportunity sites numbers for each category: 231 VLI/ELI, 122 LI, 171 MOD, 375 Above-Mod. [Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 6

5.1 OVERVIEW OF TYPES OF SITES IN THE SITES INVENTORY
The number of estimated units total over the RHNA 6 period from all sites included in the Sites Inventory, also referred to as “Housing Opportunity Sites,” is summarized in Table 5.1.A. These Housing Opportunity Sites serve as quantified objectives for 2023-2031 because they provide the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed and redeveloped in the City over an eight-year timeframe. For the 2023-2031 housing cycle, the city’s quantified objectives for construction are 1,794 units, with 704 of those being affordable to East Palo Alto residents (very low income or low income).

Table 5.1.A: Total Units from Sites Inventory Sites vs. RHNA 6 VLI LI MOD Above-Mod Total
Housing Opportunity Sites 461 243 341 749 1794
RHNA 6 165 95 159 410 829
Percentage of RHNA 6 280% 256% 214% 183% 216%
Difference 296 148 182 339 965
Percentage Difference 179% over 156% over 114% over 83% over 116% over Note: Assumed 115 additional Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs (30% VLI, 30% LI, 30% MOD, and 10% Above-Mod) based on prior years’ ADU counts. See methodology below in Section 5.8.

The East Palo Alto Sites Inventory or Housing Opportunity Sites contains many “pipeline units,” or units in projects that have been entitled or received SB 35 Zoning Clearance, and that are expected to apply for a building permit or begin construction after July 1, 2022, or in subsequent years. All such units are included in the Sites Inventory and will count towards the 6th RHNA cycle. Taking these unit counts into account, the City can meet and slightly exceed the RHNA in every category.

For other sites in the Sites Inventory, there is an active development application with a high level of confidence they will lead to construction of units within the eight-year Housing Element cycle (2023-2031) – or there is significant developer interest and potential feasibility, but the ability to develop residential units relies on a rezoning of the parcel. For these reasons, in many the development proposal or preapplication was used to calculate the realistic capacity of the sites.

The Sites Inventory is broken down into the types of projects listed below (see Sections 5.2 to 5.8), each with its own description and further evidence of potential development, including whether the project is on a vacant site, what stage of the review process it is in, and under what conditions the site is currently in, in Appendix D1. In all the following charts, “Zoned Density” refers to the density permitted for that zoning type. “Assumed Density” is in nearly all cases the density of the proposed project, and in a few cases where rezoning is needed, the density used to calculate the number of units in each income category. Zoning and assumed densities are provided in dwelling units per acre (du/acre). The zoned densities are taken from either the Zoning Code or the

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 7
Ravenswood/Four Corners Area Specific Plan (“RBD”) zoning if the project falls within the RBD. City-wide the zoning is consistent with the General Plan because the City of East Palo Alto is not a charter City; it is a general law City. The only inconsistencies pertain to parcels/projects within the RBD area, and are being addressed with the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Area Specific Plan update that is currently underway with the tentative completion date of December 2023. [Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 8

5.2 ENTITLED OR APPROVED PROJECTS
Table 5.2.A shows an inventory of units that will be produced by projects already underway, including projects approved by planning via entitlements or preliminarily approved to proceed through the SB 9 process64 or the SB 35 process,
65 or substantially advanced in the permitting and approval process, but which have not yet been constructed. State law allows projects that have been approved but are not expected to be completed prior to June 30, 2022 to count toward the City’s RHNA. The units attributable to each project, in total and by income category, are based on specific project documents, and are not an estimate, assumption, or projection.

Collectively, these projects equal 719 units, or over 40 percent of the minimum RHNA target. See Appendix D, Section D1.5.2 for details on these approved projects.

Table 5.2.A: Entitled or Approved Projects
Site Size
(acres)
Zoned
Density
(du/acre)
Assumed
Density
(du/acre)
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
965 Weeks 2.52 up to 40 54 42 93 1 136
1804 Bay Rd. .99 up to 50 75 10 65 75
2331 University .89 22 to 65
(MUC-1) 37 4 3 26 33
760 Weeks .52 12 to 22 19 1 1 8 10
120-126 Maple Lane .177 12 to 15 15 4 4
APN 063265300
Runnymede/Clarke .156 12 to 15 15 1 2 3
805 Runnymede .92 up to 12 8 1 1
1215 Cypress .236 up to 12 4 1 1
APN 063186270
Lincoln St.
.254 up to 12 12 1 3 4
Woodland Park
Euclid Improvements

3.9 up to 175 155 271 173 444
990 Garden 1.32 up to 12 6 2 6 8
Total 53 101 275 290 719
Percentage of
RHNA 6
32% 106% 173% 71% 87%
64 SB 9 preliminarily approved projects include 805 Runnymede, 1215 Cypress, and Lincoln St. APN 063186270. 65 SB 35 preliminarily approved projects include 1804 Bay Rd. and 760 Weeks.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 9

5.3 PROJECTS NOT APPROVED, BUT HIGH PROBABILITY OF

DEVELOPMENT
This additional “pipeline” category includes sites with a minimum 30 du/acre and size between 0.5 and 10 acres, which can support lower-income housing, in addition to some lower-density or smaller infill sites with an active Planning application. Multiple sites zoned RMD-2, with allowable density between 12-22 du/acre, have seen development interest. Where the developer has agreed to meet the requirements of the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, this results in a small number of affordable units in the project. See Appendix D, Section D1.5.3 for details on how these sites were identified to accommodate the RHNA.

Table 5.3: Projects Not Approved, but High Probability of Development Site Size
(acres)
Zoned
Density
(du/acre)
Assumed
Density
(du/acre)
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
Four Corners 6.1 up to 60 30 36 144 180
717 Donohoe .66 12
to 22 21 1 2 11 14
2340 Cooley .26 12
to 22 31 1 7 8
842 Green .59 up to
12 5 3 3
1201 Runnymede .93 up to 40 22 4 16 20
755 Schembri 1.381 up
to 15
4 6 6
851 Weeks .65 Up to 40 137 66 23 0 89
Total 102 25 6 187 320
Percentage of
RHNA 6 62% 26% 4% 46% 39%
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 10

5.4 PROJECTS WITH DEVELOPMENT INTEREST
The following sites have submitted preliminary review planning applications and/or have had substantial conversations with staff. This category consists largely of underdeveloped sites with just a single-family house, very low-density, above-moderate developments with proposed single family-home or townhome subdivisions and some smaller sites (less than 0.5 acres) to develop above-moderate income units. These new proposed developments will be subject to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, but inclusionary housing assumptions have not yet been applied given the preliminary stage of the applications. Most of the projects in this Section 5.4 are similar to other projects in the City that have been redeveloped with multiple units. For example, 990 Garden, an 8-unit ownership project (with 2 deed-restricted inclusionary units) on 1.32 acres in R-LD zoning received Zoning Clearance in January 2023. Lincoln St (APN 063-186-270), a 3 rental unit project (with one deed-restricted attached ADU inclusionary unit) on .254 acres in R-LD zoning received approval via SB 9 in July 2022. See Appendix D, Section D1.5.4 for details on how these sites were identified to accommodate the RHNA.

Table 5.4: Projects with Development Interest
Site Size
(acres)
Zoned
Density
(du/acre)
Assumed
Density
(du/acre)
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
547 Runnymede .45 12 to 22 15 8 8
1062
Runnymede
.92 up to 12 6 6 6
812 Green .89 up to 12 6 5 5
801 Donohoe .45 12 to 22 6 5 5
807 E. Bayshore .55 up to 22 15 8 8
Total 0 0 0 32 32
Percentage of
RHNA 6 0% 0% 0% 8% 4%
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 11

5.5 PUBLICLY OWNED SITES WITH POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OR

REDEVELOPMENT
These sites include a City-owned site and a site owned by the Ravenswood Elementary School District with housing development interest and a certain level of commitment from the respective agencies. Appendix D2 is a letter from the Ravenswood Elementary School District stating their interest in developing housing at the school site on Bay Road/Ralmar. Appendix D3 is a letter from the County of San Mateo stating their interest in developing affordable housing at the City site at 2277 University, after a land swap. The City will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 if there is any sale of City property. See Appendix D, Section D1.5.5 for details on how these sites were identified to accommodate the RHNA.

Table 5.5: Publicly Owned Sites with Potential for Development or Redevelopment Site Size
(acres)
Zoned
Density
(du/acre)
Assumed
Density
(du/acre)
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
2277 University .36 22 to 60 30 0 20 20
APN 063090080
Bay Rd.

2.59 N/A 30 26 26 26 78
Total 26 26 26 20 98
Percentage of
RHNA 6 16% 27% 16% 5% 12%
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 12

5.6 SITES WITH NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING, BUT RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IN RAVENSWOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT These nonresidential zoning sites are in the Ravenswood Business District (RBD) area and have potential for rezoning to allow for residential development through the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan update. See Appendix D, Section D1.5.6 for details on how these sites were identified to accommodate the RHNA.

Table 5.6: Sites with Nonresidential Zoning, But Residential Development Application in RBD Site Size
(acre)
Zoned
Density
(du/acre)
Assumed
Density
(du/acre)
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
EPA
Waterfront
9 N/A 30 52 208 260
1103 Weeks St
(Harvest the
Landing)

1.6 N/A 60 95 95
1200 Weeks St
(South of
Weeks)

2.7 up to 60
du/acre
30 51 30 81
Total 198 30 0 208 436
Percentage of
RHNA 6 120% 32% 0% 51% 53%
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 13

5.7 SITES WITH (RE)DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN RAVENSWOOD

BUSINESS DISTRICT
These sites are located in the RBD area and are zoned for relatively dense housing. See Appendix D, Section D1.5.7 for details on how these sites were identified to accommodate the RHNA.

Table 5.7: Sites with (Re)development Potential in Ravenswood Business District Site Size
(acre)
Zoned
Density
(du/acre)
Assumed
Density
(du/acre)
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
791 Weeks .89 up to 40 30 22 12 34
1923 Bay Rd. .99 up to 50 40 25 15 40
Total 1.88 N/A N/A 47 27 0 0 74
Percentage of
RHNA 6 28% 28% 0% 0% 9%
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 14

5.8 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUS)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) may be counted toward the RHNA based on past permitted units and other relevant factors. An ADU is accessory to a primary residence and has complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. ADUs can be new living spaces, detached or attached, to the primary residence. Existing space within a primary dwelling, an accessory structure, or an attached or detached garages may be converted to an ADU. This form of housing has enormous benefits for both renters and homeowners. Such units are considered natural affordable housing as market rents tend to be lower. These units also provide more flexible housing options for extended families, such as aging parents and adult children. ADUs also offer a solution for seniors to “age-in-place" while creating rental income to cover housing and living costs. This section includes projected ADUs for the eight-year planning period to count toward the RHNA Cycle 6.

Table 5.8.A shows the number of units permitted between the years 2018 to 2022, which can also be found on the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Annual Progress Reports site. 66 Several
ADU streamlining bills have passed since 2018, which has created a steady growth in ADU permits over the years. In 2022, Senate Bill 9 added further ADU streamlining (see Appendix D1.5.8 for an overview of potential SB 9 sites). With additional state and City policy and program changes underway, the City projects even further growth in ADU permits. Between 2018-2022, the City has issued an average of 14.4 ADU permits per year.

The City projects 115 ADUs being permitted over the next eight-year planning period.

Table 5.8.A: ADU Permitting Trends
Year Permitted ADUs (Total)
2018 0
2019 8
2020 11
2021 30
2022 23
Total (2019-2022) 72
Average (2019-2022) 14.4
Projected (2023-2031) 115
66 See Annual Progress Reports – Data Dashboard and Downloads, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-andcommunity-development/housing-open-data-tools/housing-element-implementation-and-apr-dashboard.

Note that the City will rectify any discrepancies in past Annual Progress Reports stemming from non-standardized labeling of Accessory Dwelling Units, and has started standardizing tracking and data collection.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 15
Using ABAG’s survey data to distribute the projected units by income category produces the following estimates:

City ADU Regulations
During the past decade, the California Legislature has passed multiple laws to allow ADUs by right in singlefamily and multi-family zoning districts. The objective of these laws is to facilitate the supply of a relatively affordable rental housing type within all residential communities in California. The latest bill, SB 897, took effect January 1, 2023. The City is working toward updating its City ADU regulations to conform with state legislation.

In June 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance 380 to allow second units/ADUs, garage conversions to habitable space, and guest houses to promote local affordable housing options. Ordinance 380 was the subject of extensive community engagement and reflects the City’s interest in supporting these types of developments.

In January 2017, the City Council amended the ADU Ordinance to bring the regulations into compliance with the 2016 ADU legislation. The updated ADU regulations were codified in Chapter 18.96 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code (EPAMC) as part of the comprehensive Development Code updates in 2018.

In November 2020, the City revised its ADU ordinance and brought the City's ADU regulations into compliance with then-current state legislation on ADUs. The 2017 ADU Ordinance was a critical reference point, as it provided a baseline of requirements that were adjusted for conformance with state legislation, as well as to reflect the City Council’s approach on such issues as the maintenance of community character through neighborhood compatibility.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element policies and programs provide objectives and milestones to complete a comprehensive amendment of the Development Code ADU regulations to bring provisions and requirements into conformance with current state ADU legislation, and to create greater flexibility and objective design standards.

Table 5.8.B: ADU Estimates for RHNA 6 Period
Income Category Percentage Total
Very low 30% 35
Low 30% 34
Moderate 30% 34
Above moderate 10% 12

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 16
Financial Assistance
The City has a CalHome ADU/JADU loan program (“CalHome Program”) to provide low-interest loans of up to $80,000 to income-qualified homeowners interested in building ADU/JADUs, in exchange for renting their units to income-eligible East Palo Alto households (at 80% area median income). The California State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) awarded the City with the CalHome program award in an amount of $2 million in July 2020. On October 19, 2021, the City issued an agreement with East Palo Alto Community Alliance and Neighborhood Development Organization (“EPACANDO”) to help administer the CalHome program until June 2024, and launched the program on January 19, 2022. The CalHome Program helps pay for plans and permits, necessary site upgrades, and construction costs.

Since the program launch, EPACANDO has been working with several potential applicants. Knowing the universe of CalHome Program applicants and their overlap with code enforcement issues has led the City to consider other ways to support rehabilitation/repairs and formalize a City legalization program through development code and design review changes. The City is committed to continuing to apply for funding sources that support affordable housing development and rehabilitation, which includes ADUs.

Pre-Review/Approval of ADU Model Plans
With the growing interest among homeowners to construct ADUs, the design and construction industry have responded with model architectural plans and prefabricated or modular units for ADUs which provide “off-theshelf" design options for homeowners. These options can reduce the cost of hiring an architect or designer to prepare a customized plan for a client. While these plans still require a building permit from the City (or for prefabricated or modular units a state certification), the permit process can be simplified and streamlined. The City may consider pre-approved plans as a streamlining option, to provide homeowners with greater assurance that their plans meet building and fire code standards. It should be noted however that Zoning Clearance and a Building Permit are still required to confirm conformance with zoning standards and to review the foundation design, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work.

Affordable Housing Deed Restriction
While ADUs are recognized as providing a good option for affordable housing, it does not guarantee that an ADU will be offered at an affordable rent or that the ADU will be available as a rental unit. Homeowners may choose to build an ADU to create more living space for an extended or growing family without the intent of generating income from the unit. The City may explore offering financial incentives if a homeowner, non-profit organization, or other entity is willing to record a deed restriction on a property to maintain an ADU as an affordable rental or ownership unit for a defined time period. Discussions have included targeting these units for veterans, disabled individuals, at-risk youths, unhoused persons, or other special needs populations.

Currently, the City has a Below Market Rate Program administrator that ensures deed-restriction compliance of ownership/for-sale units. In mid-2023, the City will be issuing another Request for Proposals to include

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 17
monitoring of deed-restricted rental and ownership Accessory Dwelling Units as part of its Below Market Rate administration and monitoring program.
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 18

5.9 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING CONSIDERATIONS FOR

SITES INVENTORY
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing.

The Sites Inventory must demonstrate that the sites chosen are not concentrated in one area of a jurisdiction, especially when a jurisdiction has sites of varying “opportunity” levels, as based on the TCAC Opportunity Map.68 Furthermore, the Sites Inventory should limit the number of lower-income housing sites in areas deemed Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (“R/ECAPs”).69 As the maps provided in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing overview demonstrate, East Palo Alto does not have high variation in terms of “opportunity” areas, nor does it contain R/ECAPs. However, in 2019, three Census tracts deemed “edge R/ECAPs” existed 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. Given the overall data on housing needs, location of housing sites is less of a concern within the city than within the region in which East Palo Alto is situated.

The selection of sites in the Sites Inventory reflects different areas of the city, with an emphasis on larger parcels in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Area (“RBD”). The Sites Inventory also reflects denser housing development not concentrated on the Westside, where most of the city’s rental housing stock is located, with the exception of the Woodland Park Communities Euclid Improvements project. Staff does not find that the selection of sites in the Sites Inventory would contribute further to the trends identified in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing assessment.

The following is an analysis of the proposed sites for future development or “Sites Inventory,” which includes:
sites that have been ministerially approved or entitled projects; projects not yet approved, but highly probable; projects with lower probability of development, but with development interest; and non-residential zoning sites with residential development applications.

The sites inventory is well-distributed throughout the city, with the exception of the Ravenswood Business District (RBD) / 4 Corners Specific Plan area in the northeast of the city, which is uniquely available to address 68 TCAC opportunity map: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2022-tcac-opportunity-map 69 According to the AFFH analysis provided, R/ECAPs “are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity.” Racial Concentrated Areas of Affluence (“RCAAs ”), on the other hand, “are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.” 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) AND a poverty rate of 40% or more; OR a census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-people of color) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County, whichever is lower.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 19
the community’s jobs and housing needs. Maps 5.9.A to 5.9.C illustrate the city’s structure and where referenced RBD/4 Corners Specific Plan area sites reside. [Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter
5– Page 20
Map 5.9.A: Land Use Characteristics
Source: Vista 2035 General Plan, City of East Palo Alto

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter
5– Page 21
Map 5.9.B: City Structure, Activity Centers, and Transit Hubs
Map 5.9.C: RBD / 4 Corners Specific Plan Update
Source: Vista 2035 General Plan, City of East Palo Alto Source: Vista 2035 General Plan, City of East Palo Alto

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 22
Sites Inventory and Area Median Income
Map 3 provides the sites inventory overlayed on median household incomes based on the 2022 State Income Limits for San Mateo County.

The majority of the sites inventory is in census block areas with very low-income households (area median incomes between $54,800 - $91,350) and low-income households (area median incomes between $91,350-$146,350). There is only one census block area that consists of higher-income earners, and that is a single-family home neighborhood in the lower East side with no proposed housing development.

Sites Inventory and R/ECAPs
Three edge Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) are located in East Palo Alto, west of the Highway 101 (on the “Westside”). Maps 4 to 7 provide insight into the location of these edge R/ECAP areas, as they demonstrate the location of racial and ethnic populations, and the lowest income areas. The maps show that three census blocks in East Palo Alto, which are located west of Highway 101, are extremely low-income and have a majority of people of color. One redevelopment project (Woodland Park Communities Euclid Improvements) is located in this area, and will replace the existing 160 rent stabilized units one-for-one to allow these extremely low-income households to return, while also building 444 net new units (271 of which are considered moderate income and 173 of which are considered abovemoderate income), promoting greater integration in the Westside and lower racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty.

Source: ACS Table B19013, 2015-2019 5-Year Estimate.

Map 3: Sites Inventory and Median Household Income

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 23
Map 4: Sites Inventory and Hispanic/Latinx Population (2020) Map 5: Sites Inventory and Black/African American Population (2020) Source: ACS Table B19013, 2015-2019 5-Year Estimate.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 24
Map 6: Sites Inventory and Asian/Pacific Islander Population (2020) Map 7: Sites Inventory and Median Household Income Source: ACS Table B19013, 2015-2019 5-Year Estimate.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 25
Distribution of Lower, Moderate- and Above-Income Units in the Sites Inventory The following maps demonstrate where the future development of housing units is located, broken down by affordability levels.

Sites Inventory – Very Low-Income Units
Very low-income units are primarily planned on the East side of Highway 101, where on average, there are fewer extremely low-income households. They are also primarily located in the Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan area (RBD) in close proximity to future job centers and in accordance with the City’s transit-oriented development plan. They are also located along transited streets such as Bay Road “Main Street,” University Avenue corridor, and Pulgas Avenue. This helps
create a more even distribution of lower-income
units due to a high proportion of
extremely low-income units
currently residing on the Westside
of Highway 101.
• 1804 Bay Road (10 units)
• 1923 Bay Rd. (25 units)
• 791 Weeks (22 units)
• 851 Weeks (66 units)
• 965 Weeks Street (42
units)
• EPA Waterfront (52 units)
• Four Corners 1675 Bay
Rd. (36 units)
• Harvest The Landing
Housing Offsite 1103
Weeks (95 units)
• Lincoln St. (APN 063-
186-270) (1 unit)
• Ravenswood Elementary
School District Bay Rd. Site (26 units)
• South Of Weeks (51 units)
Map 8: Distribution of Very Low-Income Units in Sites Inventory

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 26
Sites Inventory – Low-Income Units
Low-income units are primarily planned on the East side of Highway 101, where on average, there are currently fewer extremely low-income households. They are planned along transited streets such as: Bay Road “Main Street,” University Avenue corridor, Weeks street, Pulgas Avenue, and East Bayshore Road. This helps create a more even distribution of lower-income units due to a high proportion of extremely low-income units currently residing on the Westside of Highway 101.
• 1923 Bay Rd. (15 units)
• 2340 Cooley (1 unit)
• 717 Donohoe (1 unit)
• 760 Weeks Street (1 unit)
• 791 Weeks (12 units)
• 851 Weeks (23 units)
• 965 Weeks Street (93 units)
• 990 Garden (2 unit)
• APN 063265300
(Runnymede/Clarke) (1 unit)
• Ravenswood Elementary
School District Bay Rd.

Site/APN 063090080 (26
units)
• South Of Weeks (1200
Weeks St) (30 units)
• University Clarum Corner
2331 University (4 units)
Map 9: Distribution of Low-Income Units in Sites Inventory

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter
5– Page 27
Sites Inventory Moderate Income Units
Moderate-income units are planned
on the East side of Highway 101,
where on average, there are fewer
extremely low-income households,
and on the West side of Highway 101,
where on average, there are more
extremely low-income households.

They are planned along transited
streets such as: Bay Road “Main
Street,” University Avenue corridor,
Pulgas Avenue, and East Bayshore
Road.
• University Clarum Corner
2331 University (3 units)
• 1201 Runnymede (4 units)
• 760 Weeks Street (1 unit) • 717 Donohoe (1 unit) • Ravenswood Elementary School District Bay Rd. Site
(26 units)
• Woodland Park Euclid
Improvements (271)
Map 10: Distribution of Moderate-Income Units in Sites Inventory

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 28
Sites Inventory Above-Moderate Income Units
Above moderate-income units are evenly
distributed throughout the City, and
scattered along transited streets such as:

Bay Road “Main Street,” University
Avenue corridor, Pulgas Avenue, and
West Bayshore Road. They are also
concentrated in the RBD/4 Corners
Specific Plan area.
• 965 Weeks Street (1 unit)
• 1804 Bay Road (65 units)
• University Clarum Corner 2331
University (26 units)
• 1201 Runnymede (16 units)
• 760 Weeks Street (8 units)
• 120-126 Maple Ln (4 units)
• APN 063265300 (Runnymede/
Clarke) (2 units)
• Lincoln St. (3 units)
• Woodland Park Communities
Euclid Improvements (173 units)
• Four Corners 1675 Bay Rd. (144
units)
• 717 Donohoe (11 units)
• 990 Garden (6 units)
• 2340 Cooley (7 units)
• 1215 Cypress (1)
• 547 Runnymede (8 units)
• 805 Runnymede (1 unit)
• 1062 Runnymede (6 units)
• 812 Green (5 units)
• 842 Green (3 units)
• 801 Donohoe (5 units)
• 755 Schembri Lane (6 units)
• 807 E. Bayshore (8 units)
• EPA Waterfront (208 units)
• 2277 University (20 units)
Map 11: Distribution of Above-Moderate-Income Units in Sites Inventory

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 29

5.10 SITES INVENTORY PROXIMITY TO AREAS
East Palo Alto is only 2.5 square miles and has limited variation between its census tracts. The following describes where the sites inventory units are distributed within the city. o High-resourced areas:
▪ 0.0% of residents in East Palo Alto live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research. All the sites inventory is therefore within “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas.
o High proficiency K-12 education institutions:
▪ According to Figure III-1, a majority of the City has a TCAC Opportunity Area Education Score of less than 0.50. Most of the sites inventory is therefore in areas with less positive education outcomes. There is little the City can do to change these outcomes without broader, state and district policy changes affecting school choice.
o Low social vulnerability:
▪ According to Figure III-15, a majority of the City has a higher Social Vulnerability Index. Most of the sites inventory is therefore in areas with high social vulnerability. o Good jobs proximity:
▪ East Palo Alto has more low-wage residents than low-wage jobs (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the City has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000).

Discussions are currently underway to ensure that the sites in the Ravenwood Business District Specific Plan provide mixed-use development that provides a job-housing balance addressing the community’s needs.
o Healthy places:
▪ According to Figure III-11, a majority of the City has a Healthy Places Index less than 60%, which is lower than surrounding communities. Most of the sites inventory is therefore in areas with lower health.
o Flood hazards:
▪ A large portion of East Palo Alto is within the flood zone. See Flood Zone map here. Most sites inventory are therefore in high-flood risk areas. The largest contributors to 100-year storm flooding in East Palo Alto are spills from San Francisquito Creek and tidal inundation from San Francisco Bay. Learn about the City’s and San Francisquito Joint Powers Authority’s plans to add improved flood protection along the south and west sides of East Palo Alto and decrease flood risk in the 2014 Storm Drain Master Plan here.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 5 – Page 30
o Access to transportation:
▪ East Palo Alto has approximately seven SamTrans bus routes: 81, 83, 280, 281, 296, 296O, and 397. The majority of sites inventory are located along major transit coordinators (i.e., University Avenue, Bay Road, Pulgas Avenue, East Bayshore, and West Bayshore). See bus routes here. o Water access:
▪ Most of the City’s water connections (about 80%) are served by the City of East Palo Alto water system operated by Veolia, which supplies water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The remaining connections are served by either Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company or O’Connor Tract Co-Op Water Company. See the City’s water service areas map here.
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 1
6 POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
This chapter incorporates themes and findings from several other sections of the Housing Element, including input from the community through various channels of community outreach; analysis of fair housing issues in compliance with Affirmative Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements; review of housing needs data; review of governmental and non-governmental constraints; and evaluation of the current 2015-2023 Housing Element.

The goals, policies, and programs in this chapter are intended to respond to these findings and constitute the actions that the City will take over the next eight years to address the City’s affordable and fair housing challenges and improve the overall state of housing in East Palo Alto.

This chapter builds upon the City’s accomplishments since RHNA 5, outlined in the Review of the Prior Housing Element chapter, positioning the City to pursue policies and programs aimed at addressing the City’s most challenging housing needs.

6.1 STRUCTURE OF RHNA 6 HOUSING ELEMENT WORKPLAN AND

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
In this Housing Element Workplan, there are nine overarching goals. Each goal is organized into objectives, which are then further broken down into policies and programs in a workplan format, with an emphasis on the timeline, staffing, and other resources needed to accomplish each one.

Common themes from the public, which, along with the AFFH Analysis, formed the guiding principles of this Housing Element Workplan, include: the need for more affordable housing to serve all household income categories, special needs populations, and racial groups, ensuring there is a jobs-housing balance, ensuring new jobs do not create displacement pressures on current residents and particularly vulnerable populations, and creating new and rehabilitated units that have better habitability.

6.2 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
Addressing the issue of fair housing, equity and access is a key goal for the City, and as such, an analysis of the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing is not only a stand-alone objective, but one that is incorporated throughout the Housing Element, including the policies and programs.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 2
Identifying AFFH Issues
A County-wide AFFH survey was administered to capture residents’ needs regarding affirmatively furthering fair housing, and found the following housing challenges (based on responses from 53 East Palo Alto residents):
a. About 41% of respondents indicated they would like to move but can’t afford anything that is available.
b. About 35% of respondents said their house or apartment is too small for their family. c. About 20% of respondents said they are often late on rent payments and 16% indicated they can’t keep up with utilities.
d. 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. e. 32% of respondents said they have experienced displacement in the past five years, common reasons for displacement included:
f. Rent increased more than I could pay; and
g. Landlord wanted to rent to someone else.
h. 29% of respondents indicated they had been discriminated against when looking for housing.

The AFFH Appendix C3 compares survey responses with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, allowing for a comparative analysis. These survey results align with what staff heard in past community engagement activities.

Fair Housing Issues and Possible Contributing Factors
The County-wide AFFH survey helped identify a few key fair housing issues in East Palo Alto. These key fair housing issues include:
• Cost burden for Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American households • Entire City is considered vulnerable to displacement. • Lack of sidewalks, good street lighting and walkability in some neighborhoods • High rates of fair housing discrimination
• Applicants for mortgage face high rates of denial, highest for Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx applicants
• Higher portion of children than rest of county attending lower-performing schools An analysis of the City’s history of segregation and discrimination helps answer what may be some contributing factors to these fair housing issues. Possible contributing factors include:
• Decades of discrimination in employment, education, and housing markets • Race-blind policies still generate disparate outcomes

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 3
• Migration to East Palo Alto due to relatively more affordable rents and home prices; neighborhoods with highest performing schools have high housing prices, pushing families into areas with schools that have fewer resources
• Low-income residents seeking affordable housing more likely to work low wage jobs that do not support cost of living, resulting in cost burden and overcrowding • K-12 achievement gaps impacting future employment opportunities • Historically low private sector investment
Recommendations to Address Fair Housing Issues
The Housing Elements encourages examining specific policies and programs that may help address systemic challenges to furthering fair housing. The “Housing-specific policies enacted locally” section in the AFFH Chapter identifies the following policy and program ideas, which are incorporated into the RHNA 6 Goals, Objectives, Policies & Programs. References to applicable Housing Element policies and programs for each fair housing issue are noted:
• Anti-Displacement Plan – 1.15, 1.17. 4.9, 4.11, 4.12, 5.1, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 6.1, 6.4, 10.1 • Rental registry – 3.2, 3.3, 3.4
• Homebuyer assistance program – 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 9.4 • Mortgage and rental assistance (beyond pandemic) – 4.9, 4.11, 4.12 • Foreclosure assistance – 4.9
• Living wage employment ordinances – 4.14
• Housing counseling – 5.7, 5.8, 5.9,
• Affordable housing development – 1.6, 1.15, 1.17, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24 • Housing rehabilitation programs – 1.14, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6. • Affordable housing units for larger families – 1.4, 7.7 • Alternative affordable home ownership models – 4.10
• Standardized development review metrics (including ADUs and SB 9) 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4,

1.11, 1.12, 1.21, 1.21, 1.25, 10.7, 10.8
• Special needs populations – 1.4, 4.8, 5.9, 7.1
• Unhoused population – 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 10.2

6.3 GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS SUMMARY
Table 6.1 summarizes the RHNA 6 Goals, Objectives, Policies & Programs. This is followed by a detailed overview of the implementation plan for each. The main RHNA 6 Goals include:
• Goal 1: Create more housing opportunities, and more housing that is affordable to East Palo Alto residents.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 4
• Goal 2: Create homeownership opportunities for East Palo Alto residents and stability for existing homeowners.
• Goal 3: Promote stewardship and preservation of the City’s existing affordable housing stock. • Goal 4: Prevent displacement of East Palo Alto residents. • Goal 5: Apply environmental justice principles in planning for new housing development. • Goal 6: Promote safe and healthy housing in East Palo Alto. • Goal 7: Create more housing opportunities for special needs households, including large households, people at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and individuals with disabilities. • Goal 8: Improve transparency and communication between the City and the public on housing issues.
• Goal 9: Build City capacity for long-term housing planning and implementation of a range of Housing programs and initiatives.
• Goal 10: Amend zoning and other development regulations to facilitate the construction of housing.

For an overview of how these goals compare to RHNA 5 goals, see Review of Prior Housing Element chapter.
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 5
Table 6.1: Summary of RHNA 6 Goals, Objectives, and Policies & Programs Goal 1: Create more housing opportunities, and more housing that is affordable to East Palo Alto residents.

Implement measures to reduce overall processing times for residential development applications while maintaining robust community outreach and engagement.

Lead: Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
Policy 1.1: Develop objective development and design standards for all single-family and multifamily developments that simplify, clarify, and improve approval certainty and reduce the time for permit processing.

Policy 1.2: Implement existing processing guidelines and checklists for projects that qualify for byright, ministerial, or administrative approval and CEQA exemption under SB 35 and SB330.

Policy 1.3: Program: Review and adjust building permit review and approval procedures as needed to comply with the streamlining requirements in AB2234.

Incentivize affordable housing development.

Leads: Planning, Housing and Economic Development
Policy 1.5: Adopt by-right zoning for parcels in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan area where there is a minimum of 20% lower-income units.

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

Lead: Planning
Policy 1.7: Develop a “next-phase” streamlining effort for ADUs and JADUs, SB 9 projects, and any future small-development, ministerial approval process that builds on lessons learned from the ADU Streamlining collaboration with EPACANDO and City Systems. (See also ADU zoning amendments in Goal 10.)
Policy 1.8: Study feasibility and desirability of waiving or reducing fees or delaying payment of permit fees and development impact fees for ADUs and small projects, e.g., two or fewer units.

Program 1.9: Develop outreach materials targeting smaller developers aimed at informing future applicants and improving the quality of Planning and Building applications received.

Program. 1.10: Implement a preapproved and modular ADU designs program or participate in proposed 21 Elements clearinghouse to facilitate streamlined review and reduce design costs of ADUs.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 6
Program 1.11: Develop proposals for relaxing or allowing flexible zoning standards (e.g., building setbacks and height, open space, parking, and density) to facilitate the developing of SB 9 and small infill housing projects to increase housing opportunities and housing types throughout the community.

Incentivize production of deed-restricted ADUs, including deed-restricted units, to add to the City’s affordable housing stock.

Policy 1.13: Support and participate in a potential county-wide initiative to create a resource center to effectively educate homeowners, provide resources, and promote the construction of ADUs.

Policy 1.14: Research all available public and private sources of rehabilitation/repair funding and strengthen partnership with organizations in this area, such as Habitat for Humanity.

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

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 1.15: Implement the 2022 approval of Measure L which increased and expanded the City’s existing Gross Receipts Tax on rental residential properties for affordable housing and support programs.

Program 1.16: Update the City’s five-year strategic plan that lays out funding goals and priorities for the City’s affordable housing revenue sources for a finite period (1 year to 5 years).

Policy 1.17: Collaboratively (Planning and Housing) pursue state grant funds wherever possible to support affordable housing projects and programs and to address homelessness in the City.

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

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

Lead: Planning
Policy 1,21: For sites within the RBD Specific Plan Area, study feasibility and effectiveness of an RBD-specific density bonus and relaxed zoning controls and incorporate possible provisions into the Specific Plan Update.

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

Program 1.22: Determine the feasibility and develop a proposal for redevelopment of Senior Center at 560 Bell St. to include affordable housing

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 7
Leads: City Manager’s Office, Housing and Economic
Development
Responsible Agencies: County of San Mateo, Sequoia
Elementary School District
Program 1.23: Work with County of San Mateo to complete land swap and determine feasibility of the County developing affordable housing at 2277 University.

Program 1.24: Work with Sequoia Elementary School District to facilitate the development of the district-owned parcel at 2450 Ralmar Ave. as affordable public school employee housing.

Incentivize “missing middle” housing, or smaller-scale housing that is affordable to households at 80-120% of Area Median Income.

Lead: Planning
Policy 1.25: Revise City zoning standards to increase compatibility with SB 9 (e.g., flexible zoning standards for setbacks, open space, height and density) and make process improvements to encourage application of SB 9 on appropriately zoned parcels. Conduct informational outreach to property owners whose properties are prime candidates for SB 9 projects.

Monitor progress on Sites Inventory.

Leads: Planning. Housing and Economic Development
Policy1.26: At least every two years, evaluate the progress on meeting the City’s RHNA and adjust the Sites Inventory as needed. Track the production of inclusionary housing units, ADUs, SB 9 units, and housing for special needs populations.

Goal 2: Create homeownership opportunities for East Palo Alto residents and stability for existing homeowners.

Promote financial literacy as a means of encouraging
homeownership and support first-time homebuyers.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 2.1: Develop a City led homebuyer support program or programs tailored to the needs of households in East Palo Alto. Conduct proactive outreach to seek interested applicants.

Policy 2.2: With the assistance of the City’s grant coordinator. seek and apply for funds from state and other sources to create and finance this program.

Create pathways to affordable homeownership opportunities.

Advocate for homebuyer and homeownership programs at the regional level.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 2.4: Advocate for the homebuyer and homeownership programs at the county, regional, and state levels.

Goal 3: Promote stewardship and preservation of the City’s existing affordable housing stock.

Ensure that the City’s deed-restricted affordable housing and Below Market-Rate (BMR) portfolio remain well-maintained and monitored.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Program 3.1: Continue working with EPACANDO and Bay Area Affordable Homeownership Alliance (BAAHA) on the existing BMR Program contract and draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for next phase of BMR Program management, including additional rental and for-sale inclusionary housing units.

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

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Program 3.2: Prepare a feasibility study to create and fund a City rent registry and present to City Council for direction.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 8
Leverage County initiatives and affordable housing resources to increase public awareness of affordable housing
opportunities in East Palo Alto.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Responsible Agency: County of San Mateo
Program 3.3: Work with the County of San Mateo to list all affordable housing projects and inclusionary units on Doorway, a new regional platform for searching and applying for affordable housing and finding affordable housing resources; conduct proactive outreach.

Protect and preserve the City’s supply of rent-stabilized affordable housing units.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 3.4: Continue to support the function of the Rent Stabilization Board to enforce the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance to protect tenants from unreasonable rent increase, to protect tenants from unlawful evictions, and to allow landlords sufficient rental income for maintenance and operating expenses and capital improvements.

Goal 4: Prevent displacement of East Palo Alto residents.

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

Leads: Planning, Housing and Economic Development
Policy 4.1: As part of the RBD Specific Plan update, develop a requirement to build new housing at specified levels of affordability based on a numerical linkage to office/R&D square footage in Ravenswood Business District (RBD).

Program 4.2: Participate in countywide nexus study led by 21 Elements to update the existing Commercial Linkage Fee.

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

Policy 4.4: Identify and maintain a list of at-risk units and substandard buildings throughout the City.

Ensure property owners comply with the State Preservation Notice Law. Actively engage with property owners to reach agreements to preserve at-risk units and properly maintain their properties.

Policy 4.5: Study improvements to the City’s process for addressing code violations on residential properties, including, but not limited to, unpermitted second units.

Program 4.6: Develop a City housing rehabilitation program for City Council consideration that covers both single-family homes and multi-family apartments to preserve affordable housing opportunities, encourage proper maintenance and repairs, and increase energy conservation.

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

Develop a public outreach plan and also inform homeowners of financial assistance available from other agencies such as energy conservation and electrification incentives.

Policy 4.8: Continue to implement public accessibility improvements in accordance with the City’s ADA Compliance Plan, and allow for reasonable accommodations through Municipal Code Chapter

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 9

14.10 – Reasonable Accommodations and Development Code Chapter 18.98 – Reasonable Accommodations
Policy 4.9: Study models of foreclosure prevention at the local level in similarly sized cities, whether through local investment or leveraging outside funding; evaluate establishing a mortgage assistance program for low-income households.

Promote community/cooperative ownership of land and
housing in East Palo Alto.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Program 4.10: Evaluate opportunities to support and/or leverage local community land trusts (CLTs) to create community ownership of new or preserved affordable housing, e.g., through scattered-site ADUs, small inclusionary projects, or preservation projects.

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

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 4.11: Continue to appropriate funds and consider increasing funds for direct emergency financial assistance or rent relief to be administered by a qualified organization identified through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. Conduct proactive public outreach, particularly to lower-income households and neighborhoods where a high housing cost burden has been documented in the fair housing assessment.

Policy 4.12: Develop a proposal for City Council consideration for a direct financial assistance program for first and last month’s rent/deposit assistance.

Implement an effective and fair housing compliant Local Preference Policy.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 4.13: Complete and enforce guidelines on City’s existing Local Preference Policy.

Provide access to living wage jobs to allow residents to afford to remain to live in East Palo Alto.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Program 4.14: Through Measure HH, a parcel tax on large office developments approved by East Palo Alto residents in 2018, implement a Workforce Development Program to provide job training, apprenticeships, and job placement services to residents through partnerships with community-based non-profit organizations and private companies. Programs shall include proactive outreach to East Palo Alto residents, and service agreements shall define performance goals and metrics and required deliverables.

Goal 5: Apply environmental justice principles in planning for new housing development.

Adopt policies and programs to address environmental justice issues in the community.

Lead: Planning, Housing and Economic Development
Program 5.1: Update the Environmental Justice Element (Health and Equity) in the City’s General Plan to include a comprehensive set of policies and programs and an implementation plan to address environmental justice issues and public outreach, engagement and transparency; scope of work to include a robust community engagement process is integrated into the preparation of this Element.

Address water and sewer system constraints to housing
production, to the extent they are within the City’s control, through targeted capital and governance improvements.

Lead: City Manager’s Office, Public Works
Program 5.2: Establish and implement a plan to address the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (SMCLAFCo) Municipal Service Review and to resolve the delays to housing development caused by issues with the East Palo Alto Sanitary District.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 10
Responsible Agencies: San Mateo County Local Formation
Commission (SMCLFCo), East Palo Alto Sanitary District
Program 5.3: Implement the Water System Master Plan adopted in 2022 and complete the first-phase capital improvements in the plan. Update the Urban Water Management Plan to conform with the Master Plan and ensure adequate water service to parcels in the Sites Inventory (adequate water supply but water infrastructure upgrades may be needed for certain locations.) Policy 5.4: Work with water and sewer service providers to adopt a policy that prioritizes water and sewer capacity allocations to affordable housing projects and low-income households per SB1097.

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

Lead: Public Works
Program 5.5: Leverage community partnerships to utilize and maintain data and maps wherever possible to monitor areas subject to flooding and identify sites for future development and to comply with Government Code 65302.

Program 5.6: Develop environmental “overlay” map with most up-to-date data to avoid housing in atrisk areas or with prescribed mitigation measures.

Expand and establish program to promote fair housing
practices for East Palo Alto residents.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Program 5.7: Implement fair housing and anti-eviction programs using Measure O and other qualifying local revenue sources to fund community-based organizations to provide legal services, financial assistance, case management, referrals, proactive community outreach (social media, workshops, flyers), posted resource information, and a citizen advocacy committee. Contracts with organizations will specify quantified deliverables for each of these areas.

Policy 5.8: Continue to support agencies such as Project Sentinel that provide consultation and landlord/tenant mediation services for residents.

Target proactive public outreach to lower resource neighborhoods such as western and northern areas in East Palo Alto or projects where there is a higher presence of special needs populations based on the fair housing analysis
Goal 6: Promote safe and healthy housing in East Palo Alto.

Strengthen monitoring and enforcement of habitability issues.

Leads: Housing and Economic Development, Building and
Code Enforcement
Policy 6.1: Annually review the City’s habitability complaints and the Rent Stabilization Ordinance’s rules and regulations and evaluate whether any changes or updates may be made to how the City enforces habitability issues.

Incorporate amenities into multifamily housing that support households with children.

Lead: Planning
Policy 6.2: Determine the most effective means of incentivizing or requiring childcare facilities in new affordable housing developments and commercial developments.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 11
Improve energy conservation and reduce the carbon footprint of residential buildings.

Lead: Planning, Public Works, Building
Program 6.4: Complete and implement the recently updated Multi-Generational Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Ensure implementation and enforcement of flood protection and prevention measures.

Lead: Public Works, Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement
Responsible Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Policy 6.6: Continue to disseminate information through onsite resources and workshops to homeowners, property owners, and developers on FEMA, state, and local regulations on floodplain construction and management practices.

Program 6.7: Continue to participate in FEMA’s Community Rating System Program to ensure that new housing development complies with floodplain construction standards with submittal of required certifications.

Goal 7: Create more housing opportunities for special needs households, including large households, people at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and individuals with disabilities.

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

Provide housing solutions and support services for unhoused residents in East Palo Alto.

Program 7.3: Evaluate lessons learned and options for longer-term, holistic solutions to RVs parked in public right of way with the conclusion of the RV Safe Parking Program.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 12
Policy 7.6: Continue to support the low barrier navigation center and emergency shelter operated by WeHope, a community-based non-profit organization, that provides an interim shelter and supportive services for unhoused individuals. Accommodate the special needs of at-risk youths, households with children, and persons with disabilities.

Reduce overcrowding and unsafe housing conditions related to housing affordability in East Palo Alto.

Policy 7.8: Continue to require residential projects to include Extremely Low-Income housing units through the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program. Encourage production of deed-restricted ADUs serving Extremely Low and Very Low-Income households as an Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance option instead paying in-lieu fees for fractional unit requirements Goal 8: Improve transparency and communication between the City and the public on housing issues.

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

Policy 8.2: Create a budget for mailers and non-digital outreach on Housing workplan items at the start of each fiscal year.

Incorporate language accessibility/language justice into City materials and meetings.

Goal 9: Build City capacity for long-term housing planning and implementation of a range of Housing programs and initiatives.

Maintain sufficient Housing Division staff to implement Housing Element programs.

Seek efficiencies and collaborative staffing and resource opportunities to simultaneously implement the Housing
Element programs and other Housing Division responsibilities.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Program 9.2: Join with other cities in San Mateo County to share housing staff to support longer-term housing initiatives and programs.

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

Program 9.3: Collaboratively update the City’s Development Code to align Planning and Housing objectives, with an emphasis of resolving inconsistencies and ensuring consistency with the City’s General Plan.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 13
Leads: Planning, Housing and Economic Development
Seek financing sources for affordable housing construction and preservation.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 9,4: As Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) are issued (typically annually), proactively work with the City’s grant coordinator to selectively apply for regional, state, and federal grants to finance qualifying affordable housing projects and to fund Housing Element programs, such as housing rehabilitation program and first-time homebuyers program Monitor Housing Element Implementation Plan
Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 9.5: Review the Sites Inventory annually to assess progress in achieving the City’s RHNA allocation and, as needed, consider identifying additional sites or adjusting development policies, programs, and priorities.

Goal 10: Amend Zoning and Other Development Regulations to Facilitate the Construction of Housing Require replacement housing to be provided for applicable housing developments.

Update zoning and development standards as needed for
Emergency Shelters.

Lead: Planning
Program 10.2: Evaluate current sites, development standards, and approval process and update zoning regulations and procedures to comply with AB139/Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).

Update zoning as needed for By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing.

Lead: Planning
Program 10.3: Update zoning to require permanent supportive housing to be allowed by-right in residential and mixed-use zoning districts per Government Code 65651.

Update zoning as needed for Housing for Farmworkers.

Lead: Planning
Program 10,4: Update zoning and the definition of a “housekeeping unit” to comply with the Employee Housing Act.

Update zoning as needed for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Lead: Planning
Program 10.5: Bring the ADU zoning regulations into compliance with the latest state laws, including addressing programs and policies to facilitate construction of ADUs in Goal 1. Consider additional measures to remove zoning impediments such as relaxing side and rear yard setback and open space standards and facilitating conversion of unpermitted accessory structures to ADUs.

Update zoning as needed for Residential Care Facilities.

Lead: Planning
Program 10.6: Update zoning regulations for residential care facilities to comply with state law and to reduce barriers for establishing facilities for special needs populations such as persons with disabilities.

Update other zoning ordinance regulations to comply with latest state law and reduce impediments for residential development.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 14
Adopt update to Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan to include residential uses at designated locations.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 15

6.4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Goal 1: Create more housing opportunities, and more housing that is affordable to East Palo Alto residents.

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

Lead: Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
Policy 1.1: Develop objective development and design standards that simplify and improve approval certainty and timing.
• Starting Fall 2023 and completion Fall 2024: engage consultant through ABAG Regional Early Action Planning Grant program to begin drafting standards. Conduct community outreach through 2023-2024. • Fall 2024: Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. • First quarter 2025: Draft standards available.

Policy 1.2: Implement existing processing guidelines and checklists for projects that qualify for by-right, ministerial, or administrative approval and CEQA exemption under SB 35 and SB330. • Ongoing
Policy 1.3: Program: Review and adjust building permit review and approval procedures as needed to comply with the streamlining requirements in AB2234.
• Effective January 1, 2028 for East Palo Alto; develop procedures by end of 2027.

Policy 1.4: Develop standards to prioritize, incentivize, and expedite processing of residential projects that commit housing units for special needs populations such as the developmentally disabled, single-female head of households, atrisk youths, large family households, extremely low-income households, and unhoused individuals. • Start Fall 2023 and complete Fall 2024
• Conduct proactive outreach to special needs populations and organizations serving these populations.

Objective: Incentivize affordable housing development.

Leads: Planning, Housing and Economic Development
Policy 1.5: Adopt by-right zoning for parcels in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan area where there is a minimum of 20% lower-income units.
• January 2024 completion: Include in Specific Plan to be adopted by the City Council.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 16
• Approval process include community workshop, stakeholder meetings, EIR certification, and combined Planning Commission/City Council study sessions.
• Specific Plan will also include the zoning regulations for the properties in the plan area.

Policy 1.6: Seek and support financial resources from state, regional, and county housing programs, tax credits, and other sources that provide funding assistance for affordable housing projects to cover design and development costs and off-site public improvements.
• Annually review available grants and other funding sources and work with City’s grant coordinator to submit application in response to Notice of Funding Availability that most suitable for East Palo Alto.

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

Lead: Planning
Policy 1.7: Develop a “next-phase” streamlining effort for ADUs and JADUs, SB 9 projects, and any future smalldevelopment, ministerial approval process that builds on lessons learned from the ADU Streamlining collaboration with EPACANDO and City Systems. (See also ADU zoning amendments in Goal 10.) • Second quarter 2024: Survey surrounding jurisdictions with amnesty and/or legalization programs and make recommendations for an unpermitted second unit program. • Resource implications: Funds may be required for consultant costs. May be able to use SB 2 funds or REAP funds.

Policy 1.8: Study feasibility and desirability of waiving or reducing fees or delaying payment of permit fees and development impact fees for ADUs and small projects, e.g., two or fewer units. • Second quarter 2024: Bring proposal to City Council for adoption. • Obtain public input and determine possible sources for covering the fiscal impact of waiving, reducing, or deferring permit and development fees.
• Resource implication: City will need to absorb the staff costs of permit processing and uncollected development impact fees.

Program 1.9: Develop outreach materials targeting smaller developers aimed at informing future applicants and improving the quality of Planning and Building applications received. • Spring 2024: Review existing materials and update informational handouts for residents and developers. • Complete work after updating and adopting zoning amendments in Goal 10.

Program. 1.10: Implement a preapproved and modular ADU designs program or participate in proposed 21 Elements clearinghouse to facilitate streamlined review and reduce design costs of ADUs. • Fall 2024: Work with Building to preapprove plans, publicize to homeowners, and post on website.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 17
• Coordinate with regional effort by San Mateo County 21 Elements consortium that is considering a similar program.

Program 1.11: Develop proposals for relaxing or allowing flexible zoning standards (e.g., building setbacks and height, open space, parking, and density) to facilitate the developing of SB 9 and small infill housing projects to increase housing opportunities and housing types throughout the community. • Spring 2025: Bring recommended zoning amendment to City Council for consideration. • Conduct public meetings to receive input and obtain Planning Commission recommendation.

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

Leads: Planning, Housing and Economic Development
Program 1.12: Develop a formalized legalization process for unpermitted second units. Identify zoning amendments to reduce the impediment to building ADUs, such as setback and open space standards. • Second quarter 2024: Survey surrounding jurisdictions with amnesty and/or legalization programs and make recommendations to City Council for an unpermitted second unit program.

Policy 1.13: Support and participate in a potential county-wide initiative to create a resource center to effectively educate homeowners, provide resources, and promote the construction of ADUs. • 2023-2024: Timing dependent on project schedule with 21 Elements consortium and participation of other San Mateo County jurisdictions.

Policy 1.14: Research all available public and private sources of rehabilitation/repair funding and strengthen partnership with organizations in this area, such as Habitat for Humanity. • Ongoing: Staff research all funding opportunities on an annual basis. • Ongoing: Pursue CalHOME in next available funding round to continue supporting low-income households to build deed restricted affordable ADUs.
• Ongoing: Work with community partners in the ADU Working Group to pursue philanthropic funds.

Resource implications: Funds may be required for consultant costs. May be able to use SB 2 funds or REAP funds.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 18
• Beginning of 2023 to end of 2024: Work with staff to implement changes to Gross Receipts Tax (Measure L).
• Resource implications: The ballot measure is expected to increase revenue for affordable housing, but it will require staff coordination between Housing and Finance to ensure that taxes can be properly collected.

Program 1.16: Update the City’s five-year strategic plan that lays out funding goals and priorities for the City’s affordable housing revenue sources for a finite period (1 year to 5 years). • End of 2024 and annually: Incorporate into the City Council Priority-Setting process completed at the start of each year. Create plan based on City Council-directed funding priorities for the coming year.

Policy 1.17: Collaboratively (Planning and Housing) pursue state grant funds wherever possible to support affordable housing projects and programs and to address homelessness in the City. • Pursue next round of Regional Early Action Planning grants, additional planning grants from HCD, next round of CalHOME grants, and research funding for homelessness.

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

Leads: Planning, Housing and Economic Development
Policy 1.18: Use the opportunity of the RBD Specific Plan Update or initiate a city-wide study on the feasibility and desirability of fee waivers or reductions or deferred fee payments for fully affordable housing projects; additionally, consider providing City financial assistance to cover these fees. • End of 2025: Study waiver or reduction of impact fees for fully affordable housing projects in the RBD area based on fiscal impact analyses performed for each of the major projects in RBD. • Resource implications: This may be combined with existing scope of for the RBD update process and/or ensuing implementation.

Policy 1.20: Incorporate parking reductions into the City’s Transportation Demand Management Program including compliance with AB2097 and related state laws that eliminates parking minimums within one=half mile major transit stops and radius and parking maximums for affordable housing projects. • End of 2025: Leverage existing consultant work on transportation and a potential Transportation Management Association (TMA) in the RBD area to establish a TDM program.

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

Lead: Planning
Policy 1.21: For sites within the RBD Specific Plan Area, study feasibility and effectiveness of an RBD-specific density bonus and relaxed zoning controls and incorporate possible provisions into the Specific Plan Update.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 19
• End of 2026: Complete study of a by-right density bonus and higher floor area ratio for mixed-use projects with a minimum percentage of affordable units, or a similar policy, and make a recommendation for the RBD Specific Plan area.
• Resource implications: This may be funded out of the Regional Early Action Planning grant for objective design and development standards, other City-funded contract associated with the RBD Update, or through the City’s participation in 21 Elements.

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

Leads: City Manager’s Office, Housing and Economic Development Responsible Agencies: County of San Mateo, Sequoia Elementary School District Program 1.22: Determine the feasibility and develop a proposal for redevelopment of Senior Center at 560 Bell St. to include affordable housing.
• End of 2025: Engage consultant and commence feasibility study for redevelopment of Senior Center. • Second quarter 2026: Provide recommendations to City Council on redevelopment of Senior Center. • End of 2027: If directed by City Council, and if requirements of Surplus Lands Act (Government Code Section 54222 et. Seq.) are fulfilled, secure a developer for Senior Center site. • Resource implications: Consultant costs for feasibility study not yet appropriated. Likely General Fund.

Program 1.23: Work with County of San Mateo to complete land swap and determine feasibility of the County developing affordable housing at 2277 University.
• Fourth Quarter 2023: complete and execute Exchange Agreement with the County of San Mateo. • First Quarter 2025, complete due diligence and environmental review, and make Surplus Lands Act findings pursuant to Government Code Section 54222(f) prior the exchange of properties.

Program 1.24: Work with Sequoia Elementary School District to facilitate the development of the district-owned parcel at 2450 Ralmar Ave. as affordable public school employee housing. • Fourth quarter 2023: Determine in collaboration with the School District whether a rezoning of the parcel is necessary.
• The timeframe of this development will be largely driven by the School District, including the Surplus Land Act requirements (Government Code 54222).
• Resource implications: If rezoning of the parcel(s) is necessary, it is likely the City must seek additional funds to support this work.

Objective: Incentivize “missing middle” housing, or smaller-scale housing that is affordable to households at 80-120% of Area Median Income.

Lead: Planning

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 20
Policy 1.25: Revise City zoning standards to increase compatibility with SB 9 (e.g., flexible zoning standards for setbacks, open space, heights and density) and make process improvements to encourage application of SB 9 on appropriately zoned parcels. Conduct informational outreach to property owners whose properties are prime candidates for SB 9 projects.
• Second Quarter of 2025: Fully implement process improvements for ministerial approvals, including templates for SB 9 and SB 35 projects.
• End of 2025: Complete review of Development Code to ensure there are no barriers to utilization of SB 9 and propose changes (or full ordinance adoption) as necessary. Initial review completed.

Objective: Monitor progress on Sites Inventory.

Leads: Planning. Housing and Economic Development
Policy 1.26: At least every two years, evaluate the progress on meeting the City’s RHNA and adjust the Sites Inventory as needed. Track the production of inclusionary housing units, ADUs, SB 9 units, and housing for special needs populations.
• Ongoing: Report in Annual Progress Report.

Goal 2: Create homeownership opportunities for Palo Alto residents and stability for existing homeowners.

Objective: Promote financial literacy as a means of encouraging homeownership and support first-time homebuyers.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 2.1: Develop a City-led homebuyer support program or programs tailored to the needs of households in East Palo Alto. Conduct proactive outreach to seek interested applicants. • By end of 2023: Staff research and report to City Council on the barriers to homebuying for households in East Palo Alto and effectiveness of federal, state, and local programs, with recommendation of either a City led program or partnership with local organization. Determine how such a program should be funded, and whether a Request for Proposals (RFP) is needed.
• 2024- 2025: Study and determine how East Palo Alto residents can benefit from the California Dream for All down payment program for first-time homebuyers.
• First quarter 2025: Launch a City or partner-led financial literacy, including credit counseling, and first-time homeowner program that focuses on 1.) younger households seeking homeownership options and 2.) seniors looking to downsize.
• Resource implications: Housing staff time with additional resources required for potential RFP.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 21
Policy 2.2: With the assistance of the City’s grant coordinator. seek and apply for funds from state and other sources to create and finance this program.
• Ongoing: On an annual basis, review grant opportunities and other sources that can fund programs and prepare and submit applications where East Palo Alto is most competitive.

Objective: Create pathways to affordable homeownership opportunities.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 2.3: Continue to study and develop an Opportunity to Purchase Act policy for tenants and/or qualified non-profits that builds on prior research and City Council direction in 2021-22. • Spring 2023: Return to City Council with update policy and obtain direction. • By end of 2023: Implement direction provide by the City Council. • Resource implications: provide staffing and resources to develop and administer program.

Objective: Advocate for homebuyer and homeownership programs at the regional level.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 2.4: Advocate for the homebuyer and homeownership programs at the county, regional, and state levels. • Ongoing: Monitor regional and state legislation proposed programs and brief City Council on submitting possible support and advocacy positions.

Goal 3: Promote stewardship and preservation of the City’s existing affordable housing stock.

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

Improve data on affordability of the City’s rental housing stock outside of the Rent Stabilized portfolio. • First quarter 2023: Report on progress made under existing BMR contract and seek City Council direction on future BMR administration.
• When directed, release RFP for future BMR administration. • Resource implications: Utilize available Affordable Housing funds.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 22
Objective: Improve data on affordability of the City’s rental housing stock outside of the Rent Stabilized portfolio.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Program 3.2: Prepare a feasibility study to create and fund a City rent registry and present to City Council for direction. • By end of 2024: Study models of rent registries in the Bay Area and report to City Council with recommendations on potential creation of a rent registry in East Palo Alto.

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

Objective: Protect and preserve the City’s supply of rent-stabilized affordable housing units.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 3.4: Continue to support the function of the Rent Stabilization Board (RSB)to enforce the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance to protect tenants from unreasonable rent increase, to protect tenants from unlawful evictions, and to allow landlords sufficient rental income for maintenance and operating expenses and capital improvements. • Ongoing: Provide continuing staff support to inquiries from tenants and refer items to RSB for consideration as needed.

Goal 4: Prevent displacement of East Palo Alto residents.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 23
• Second quarter 2024: Present to City Council the jobs-housing linkage requirement, together with the baseline requirements and community amenities that will apply to proposed projects in the RBD Specific Plan Area.
• Resource implications: This is incorporated into the current scope of work performed by Raimi + Associates for the overall RBD Specific Plan Update.

Program 4.2: Participate in countywide nexus study led by 21 Elements to update the existing Commercial Linkage Fee.
• End of 2024: Work with 21 Elements to determine scope and cost and report to City Council. • Resource implications: City Affordable Housing funds or General Fund. This multi-city effort should greatly reduce the cost of the study.

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

Leads: Housing and Economic Development, Building and Code Enforcement Policy 4.3: Develop a preservation strategy that addresses funding sources, identification of properties, and partnerships that can lead to preservation of affordable housing in East Palo Alto. • End of 2024: Work with Partnership for the Bay’s Future (PBF) Policy Grant Fellow to research and develop recommendations for preservation strategies.
• Resource implications: Policy Grant Fellow began working with the City in 2022 and is funded through mid2024 through a grant from the Partnership for the Bay’s Future.

Policy 4.4: Identify and maintain a list of at-risk units and substandard buildings throughout the City. Ensure property owners comply with the State Preservation Notice Law. Actively engage with property owners to reach agreements to preserve at-risk units and properly maintain their properties. • End of 2024: Update list of at-risk and substandard unit. • Ongoing: Engage and outreach to property owners on possible resources to address deficiencies.

Policy 4.5: Study improvements to the City’s process for addressing code violations on residential properties, including, but not limited to, unpermitted second units.
• End of 2024: Study programs in other Bay Area jurisdictions for best practices.

Program 4.6: Develop a City housing rehabilitation program for City Council consideration that covers both singlefamily homes and multi-family apartments to preserve affordable housing opportunities, encourage proper maintenance and repairs, and increase energy conservation.
• End of 2025: Bring a proposal to City Council for consideration. • 2026: Implement program per City Council recommendation.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 24
• Resource implications: allocate eligible local funds; provide staffing or contract assistance to administer program; seek grants other financial assistance; explore partnerships for leveraging staffing and resources.

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

Lead: Public Works, Planning, Building, Housing and Economic Development Policy 4.7: Research establishing and funding a City home repairs program to assist low-income homeowners with major repairs and rehabilitation to address acute safety and livability issues. Develop a public outreach plan and also inform homeowners of financial assistance available from other agencies such as energy conservation and electrification incentives.
• End of 2024: Staff report to City Council on funding sources and potential programs based on other Bay Area jurisdictions.
• 2025: Implement direction provided by the City Council. • Resource implications: allocate eligible local funds; provide staffing or contract assistance to administer program; seek grants other financial assistance; explore partnerships for leveraging staffing and resources.

Policy 4.8: Continue to implement public accessibility improvements in accordance with the City’s ADA Compliance Plan and allow for reasonable accommodations through Municipal Code Chapter 14.10 – Reasonable Accommodations and Development Code Chapter 18.98 – Reasonable Accommodations. • Ongoing: Continue to implement existing City programs and ordinances.

Policy 4.9: Study models of foreclosure prevention at the local level in similarly sized cities, whether through local investment or leveraging outside funding; evaluate establishing a mortgage assistance program for low-income households.
• End of 2024: Staff survey other jurisdictions and report to City Council on findings in conjunction with reporting on City efforts to support homeownership.
• 2025: Implement direction provided by the City Council. • Resource implications: allocate eligible local funds; provide staffing or contract assistance to administer program; seek grants other financial assistance; explore partnerships for leveraging staffing and resources.

Objective: Promote community/cooperative ownership of land and housing in East Palo Alto.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 25
• Beginning of 2024: Work with Partnership for the Bay’s Future Policy Grant Fellow to research and develop recommendations for community/cooperative ownership of land in conjunction with housing preservation strategies.
• Resource implications: Policy Grant Fellow began working with the City in 2022 and is funded through mid2024 through a grant from the Partnership for the Bay’s Future.

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

Conduct proactive public outreach, particularly to lower-income households and neighborhoods where a high housing cost burden has been documented in the fair housing assessment. • End of 2023: Release RFP and, if qualified organizations respond, provide funding recommendations to City Council for this purpose.
• 2023-2024: Establish program if approved by City Council; monitor direct financial assistance for duration of contract and report on the program to City Council at its conclusion in 2024. • Resource implications: Funds from the General Fund (“Measure O”) have already been appropriated for this RFP.

Policy 4.12: Develop a proposal for City Council consideration for a direct financial assistance program for first and last month’s rent/deposit assistance.
• End of 2024: Provide recommendations to City Council on a potential direct financial assistance program for rental deposit assistance.
• Resource implications: allocate eligible local funds; provide staffing or contract assistance to administer program; seek grants other financial assistance; explore partnerships for leveraging staffing and resources.

Objective: Implement an effective and fair housing compliant Local Preference Policy.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 4.13: Complete and enforce guidelines on City’s existing Local Preference Policy. • End of 2023: Complete guidelines on Local Preference Policy and post to website.

Objective: Provide access to living wage jobs to allow residents to afford to remain to live in East Palo Alto.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 26
Program 4.14: Through Measure HH, a parcel tax on large office developments approved by East Palo Alto residents in 2018, implement a Workforce Development Program to provide job training, apprenticeships, and job placement services to residents through partnerships with community-based non-profit organizations and private companies.

Programs shall include proactive outreach to East Palo Alto residents, and service agreements shall define performance goals and metrics and required deliverables.
• Pilot Workforce Development Program approved by the City Council in October 2022 with authorization of Measure HH funds and City Manager to enter into agreements with three organizations. • Spring 2023: Execute agreements with organizations for 18-month pilot period. • Ongoing: Allocate funds upon submittal of quarterly invoices and performance reports; monitor success of meeting performance goals and quantified metrics.

Goal 5: Apply environmental justice principles in planning for new housing development.

Objective: Adopt policies and programs to address environmental justice issues in the community.

Resource implications: Obtain budget allocation from City Council to fund City’s share of consultant contract in Spring 2023.

Objective: Address water and sewer system constraints to housing production, to the extent they are within the City’s control, through targeted capital and governance improvements.

Lead: City Manager’s Office, Public Works
Responsible Agencies: San Mateo County Local Formation Commission (SMCLFCo), East Palo Alto Sanitary District Program 5.2: Establish and implement a plan to address the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (SMCLAFCo) Municipal Service Review and to resolve the delays to housing development caused by issues with the East Palo Alto Sanitary District.
• Early 2023: Draft resolution with draft application to SMCLAFCo to initiate the process of establishing EPASD as a Subsidiary District of the City.
• 2024: Completion of process depends on option selected and SMCLAFCo legal and procedural requirements.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 27
Program 5.3: Implement the Water System Master Plan adopted in 2022 and complete the first-phase capital improvements in the plan. Update the Urban Water Management Plan to conform with the Master Plan and ensure adequate water service to parcels in the Sites Inventory (adequate water supply but water infrastructure upgrades needed for certain locations.)
• End of 2022: City Council adoption of Water System Master Plan (completed). • End of 2023: Complete construction of University Ave. and Cooley Ave. 12-in Water Transmission Main. • End of 2023: Complete Pad D Standby Well construction. • End of 2025: Purdue Ave. 16-inch transmission main, which includes installation of a new turnout connection to the SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission) system to feed the Ravenswood Business District.
• Resource implications: The Water System Master Plan is a 20-year capital improvement program to help guide future capital expenditures in the City. Funding for capital projects is outlined in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.

Policy 5.4: Work with water and sanitary sewer service providers to adopt a policy that prioritizes water and sewer capacity allocations to affordable housing projects and low-income households per SB1097. • 2023: Coordinate with water and sanitary sewer service providers to adopt policy. Implementation of policy will be dependent on each service provider.

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

Program 5.6: Develop environmental “overlay” map with most up-to-date data to avoid housing in at-risk areas or with prescribed mitigation measures.
• End of 2023: Housing, Planning, and Public Works staff work with regional partners to obtain data and create a map that can be featured on the City’s website.

Objective: Expand and establish program to promote fair housing practices for East Palo Alto residents.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 28
referrals, proactive community outreach (social media, workshops, flyers), posted resource information, and a citizen advocacy committee. Contracts with organizations will specify quantified deliverables for each of these areas. • Winter 2022: Conduct RFP process and receive City Council authorization of Measure O funds for antidisplacement services (completed) • Early 2023: Execute agreements with three service providers to provide prescribed services. • Ongoing: Monitor delivery of services and completion of deliverables specified in agreements.

Policy 5.8: Continue to support agencies such as Project Sentinel that provide consultation and landlord/tenant mediation services for residents.
• Ongoing: Continue existing resident referral procedures and conduct informational outreach.

Policy 5.9: Place program priority on providing fair housing and support services to special needs populations such as extremely low-income households, persons with disabilities, female heads of households, large family households, seniors, at-risk youths, and households at-risk of homelessness. Target proactive public outreach to lower resource neighborhoods such as western and northern areas in East Palo Alto or projects where there is a higher presence of special needs populations based on the fair housing analysis. • Ongoing: Conduct proactive outreach with targeted outreach to special needs populations. Coordinate with Measure O service providers that under contract with City to provide anti-displacement services.

Goal 6: Promote safe and healthy housing in East Palo Alto.

Objective: Strengthen monitoring and enforcement of habitability issues.

Leads: Housing and Economic Development, Building and Code Enforcement Policy 6.1: Annually review the City’s ordinances and enact amendments or updates, as needed, to effectively address and enforce habitability complaints and concerns.
• Ongoing: Conduct annual review and implement changes or updates as needed.

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

Lead: Planning
Policy 6.2: Determine the most effective means of incentivizing or requiring childcare facilities in new affordable housing developments and commercial development.
• End of 2024: Meet with affordable housing developers, nonprofits, and foundations for feedback on how childcare is incorporated into new developments and make recommendations to City Council for future Citysubsidized affordable housing developments or affordable housing in the RBD Specific Plan area.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 29
Objection: Improve energy conservation and reduce the carbon footprint of residential buildings.

Lead: Building and Code Enforcement
Program 6.3: Implement the East Palo Alto Reach Codes, which became effective in January 2021 and apply to all new construction and substantial rehabilitations and additions; continue to explore expanding building electrification requirements and support incentive programs for retrofitting existing buildings. • Spring 2023: Present recommendation to City Council to adopt amendments to Reach Code. • Ongoing: Continue to educate developers and property owners on Reach Code requirements and review building permits for compliance of Reach Code regulations.

Objective: Improve earthquake readiness and resilience.

Lead: Planning, Public Works, Building
Program 6.4: Complete and implement the recently updated Multi-Generational Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. • Ongoing staff work program.

Program 6.5: Update the City’s Safety Element to address earthquakes, flooding, and other natural and manmade hazards; consider policies such as establishing a seismic retrofit program to address vulnerable populations living in soft-story buildings and establishing a program for remediation of lead-based paint in older residential buildings; incorporate targeted outreach to vulnerable and special needs populations to ensure their needs are well-addressed. • 2024 Completion: Coordinated effort through 21 Elements with participation of multiple cities in San Mateo County. Begin community engagement in Summer 2023 and coordinate with update of Environmental Justice Element.
• Resource implications: Obtain budget allocation from City Council to fund City’s share of consultant contract in Spring 2023.

Objective: Ensure implementation and enforcement of flood protection and prevention measures.

Lead: Public Works, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Responsible Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Policy 6.6: Continue to disseminate information through onsite resources and workshops to homeowners, property owners, and developers on FEMA, state, and local regulations on floodplain construction and management practices. • Ongoing staff work program.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 30
Goal 7: Create more housing opportunities for special needs households, including large households, people at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and individuals with disabilities.

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

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 7.1: For affordable housing projects located near high-quality transit and on City-owned land, with City subsidy, or where otherwise legally defensible, require developers of affordable housing to demonstrate how they will serve people with disabilities in the development.
• Upon the next appropriate affordable housing development:
o Require a minimum percentage of Acutely Low-Income and Extremely Low-Income units with varying bedroom counts to serve the housing needs of special needs populations. o Require developers to affirmatively market accessible units to disability-serving organizations in San Mateo County (i.e., Golden Gate Regional Center, Housing Choices Coalition for Person with Developmental Disabilities, Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities, the Mental Health Alliance, and others).
o Encourage developers to coordinate onsite supportive services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center.
• By 2031, reach 40 new Extremely Low-Income (ELI) units for residents with developmental disabilities.

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

Leads: Housing and Economic Development, Planning
Program 7.2: Finalize the Master Temporary Use Permit process for temporary housing program rollout that includes City coverage of permit fees to provide housing for individuals experiencing homelessness in the community. • Council authorized this program in December 2022.
• First Quarter 2023: Create page on City website for potential applicants with contact information and supplemental TUP application. (Completed in 2022)
• First Quarter 2023: Authorize staff to use housing funds (from Transient Occupancy Tax) to cover permit fees and additional City expenses for Master TUP for temporary housing (Completed Dec. 2022) • First quarter 2023: Reach out to faith communities in East Palo Alto to raise awareness of the Master TUP and encourage applications.
• Resource implications: Housing and Planning staff time; an additional appropriation of $60,000 in Transient Occupancy Tax revenue to fund permit fees and cover additional City expenses for Master TUP applications, up to a maximum of $15,000 per application.

Program 7.3: Evaluate lessons learned and options for longer-term, holistic solutions to RVs parked in public right of way with the conclusion of the RV Safe Parking Program.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 31
• Ongoing: Continue monthly meetings with City staff, County of San Mateo, and Life Moves and Project WeHOPE to assess options for RVs parked in the public right of way in the coming year, with a view towards concluding the RV Safe Parking Program in April 2023. • Second quarter 2023: Work with Project WeHOPE to report on the successes and lessons learned from the RV Safe Parking Program from 2019-2023. Make recommendations to City Council.

Program 7.4: Research all available public funding sources to address homelessness and consider City investment of funds for homeless outreach, case management and supportive housing to supplement the countywide system. • Ongoing: research and report to City Council on funding opportunities that can support the City’s homelessness response.

Policy 7.5: Pursue expansion of support programs for unhoused residents by establishing partnerships with other public agencies, private corporations and foundations, and non-profit service providers. • 2023 and Ongoing: Continue to seek opportunities for partnerships and financial assistance.

Policy 7.6: Continue to support the low barrier navigation center and emergency shelter operated by WeHope, a community-based non-profit organization, that provides an interim shelter and supportive services for unhoused individuals. Accommodate the special needs of at-risk youths, households with children, and persons with disabilities. • Ongoing: Continue support to WeHope to operate low barrier navigation center and emergency shelter. • 2024: Explore opportunities to establish a facility that can cater to special needs populations.

Objective: Reduce overcrowding and unsafe housing conditions related to housing affordability in East Palo Alto.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development, Planning
Policy 7.7: Develop options for incentivizing deeply affordable housing units that serve larger household sizes, such as allowing additional density or other relaxed or flexible zoning regulations. • Spring 2024: Collect survey data or analyze existing data to identify whether East Palo Alto households consist of direct family, extended family, or other less common household formations to identify bedroom size needs.
• Spring 2024: Incorporate incentivizing larger affordable units into the Community Benefits Framework and broader analysis for implementation of the Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan.

Policy 7.8: Continue to require residential projects to include Extremely Low-Income housing units through the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program. Encourage production of deed-restricted ADUs serving Extremely Low and Very LowIncome households as an Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance option instead paying in-lieu fees for fractional unit requirements
• End of 2024: On the City website, demonstrate examples of prior projects that have provided inclusionary ADUs and successfully leveraged incentive programs such as Density Bonus and SB 9.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 32
Goal 8: Improve transparency and communication between the City and the public on housing issues.

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

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Program 8.1: Improve and maintain the Housing website as a primary means of communicating the work of the Division. Expand proactive measures to inform homeowners, landlords, and tenants about available local and County housing resources and supportive services.
• Ongoing: Continue to expand and update the Housing Division website to provide a central resource for East Palo Alto residents on housing programs and services.

Policy 8.2: Create a budget for mailers and non-digital outreach on Housing workplan items at the start of each fiscal year.
• First quarter of each year: Review Housing budget for mailers/non-digital outreach. • On a quarterly basis, review Housing website and make improvements as necessary.

Objective: Incorporate language accessibility/language justice into City materials and meetings.

Leads: City Manager’s Office, Planning, Housing and Economic Development Policy 8.3: Provide translation of materials and interpretation of City Council, Planning Commission, Rent Stabilization, and other City meetings in alignment with City’s Language Policy. • Dependent upon timeframe of Citywide Language Policy adoption (goal 2023) Goal 9: Build City capacity for long-term housing planning and implementation of a range of Housing programs and initiatives.

Objective: Maintain sufficient Housing Division staff to implement Housing Element programs.

Leads: Housing and Economic Development, City Manager’s Office Policy 9.1: Regularly assess the level of staffing or contract assistance to ensure that sufficient staffing is committed to implement the 6th cycle Housing Element policies and programs in a timely manner per the Implementation Plan. • Ongoing: Annual review staffing and contract needs during the budget process based on Housing Element work program for the following fiscal year and include sufficient funds in Community Economic Development Department budget,
• Resource implications: Budget for necessary staff and contract costs.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 33
Objective: Seek efficiencies and collaborative staffing and resource opportunities to simultaneously implement the Housing Element programs and other Housing Division responsibilities.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Program 9.2: Join with other cities in San Mateo County to share housing staff to support longer-term housing initiatives and programs.
• The program is projected to be launched in July 2023. Obtain City Council authorization to appropriate funds for the shared housing staff program and execute the relevant agreements with San Mateo County before the end of 2023.
• First quarter 2024: Begin first project with shared housing staff. • Resource Implications: Evaluate City allocation of funds for shared staffing.

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

Leads: Housing and Economic Development, Planning
Program 9.3: Collaboratively update the City’s Development Code to align Planning and Housing objectives, with an emphasis of resolving inconsistencies and ensuring consistency with the City’s General Plan. • End of 2023: Begin Development Code updates.
• End of 2025: Complete Development Code updates (amendments may be phased) • Resource implications: Funds available in existing contract with 21 Elements but may require an additional appropriation by the City Council or other grant sources.

Objective: Seek financing sources for affordable housing construction and preservation.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 9,4: As Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) are issued, proactively work with the City’s grant coordinator to selectively apply for regional, state, and federal grants to finance qualifying affordable housing projects and to fund Housing Element programs, such as housing rehabilitation program and first-time homebuyers program. • Ongoing: Annually survey available funding programs and NOFAs and agency announcements.

Objective: Monitor Housing Element Implementation Plan
Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 9.5: Review the Sites Inventory annually to assess progress in achieving the City’s RHNA allocation and, as needed, consider identifying additional sites or adjusting development policies, programs, and priorities.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 34
• Ongoing: Evaluate during preparation or Annual Progress Report for Housing Element.

Goal 10: Amend Zoning and Other Development Regulations to Facilitate the Construction of Housing.

Objective: Require replacement housing to be provided for applicable housing developments.

Lead: Housing and Economic Development
Policy 10.1: For applicable development projects that will be removing residential units, require a replacement housing program for lower-income households in accordance with Government Code 65583.2(g). • Ongoing: Projects will be reviewed with conditions of approval and agreements executed as needed to ensure compliance with state law.

Objective: Update zoning and development standards to comply with state laws.

Lead: Planning
Program 10.2: Emergency Shelters - Evaluate current sites, development standards, and approval process and update zoning regulations and procedures to comply with AB139/Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).

Program 10.3: Permanent Supportive Housing - Update zoning to require permanent supportive housing to be allowed by-right in residential and mixed-use zoning districts per Government Code 65651.

Program 10,4: Housekeeping Unit - Update zoning and the definition of a “housekeeping unit” to comply with the Employee Housing Act.

Program 10.5: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) - Bring the ADU zoning regulations into compliance with the latest state laws, including addressing programs and policies to facilitate construction of ADUs in Goal 1. Consider additional measures to remove zoning impediments such as relaxing side and rear yard setback and open space standards and facilitating conversion of unpermitted accessory structures to ADUs.

Program 10.6: Residential Care Facilities - Update zoning regulations for residential care facilities to comply with state law and to reduce barriers for establishing facilities for special needs populations such as persons with disabilities. • End of 2023: Begin Development Code updates and with proactive community outreach to receive input; include English language translation in outreach materials and availability of language translation at meetings.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6 – Page 35
• End of 2025: City Council adoption of Development Code updates (amendments may be phased) • Resource implications: Funds available in existing contract with 21 Elements but may require an additional appropriation by the City Council or other grant sources.

Objective: Update other zoning ordinance regulations to comply with latest state law and reduce impediments for residential development.

Lead: Planning
Program10,7: Review zoning ordinance regulations and reduce development impediments or provide incentives such as standards pertaining to parking, open space, density bonuses, and objective design standards. • 2023 – 2035: Incorporate zoning amendments and incentives into Development Code update process with objective to further to streamline development review and remove zoning impediments Objective: Adopt update to Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan to include residential uses at designated locations.

Lead: Planning
Program 10,8: Adopt update to Specific Plan to allow residential and mixed-use development at designated locations in plan area and address provisions as noted in other Housing Element policies/programs. Additionally. address byright approval, objective design standards, minimum residential requirements for mixed use zoning, parking, open space, transportation demand management (TDM) program, and other development standards. Further, resolve inconsistencies between the General Plan and current Specific Plan. • Specific Plan Update is currently being prepared by staff with a consultant team and include an environmental impact report.
• End of 2023: Adopt Specific Plan Update, which will also serve as the development code for the plan area and include policies and zoning regulations to address above planning issues. • End of 2023: Plan area sites included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory will be rezoned as part of adoption of the Specific Plan Update.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 6
– Page 36
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 7- Page 1
7 REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT
State housing element law requires communities to reflect on the outcomes of the previous Housing Element’s goals, objectives, policies, and programs. This evaluation helps ensure that the updated element for 2023-2031 builds on success, learns from lessons learned, and responds to the community’s housing priorities.

7.1 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF RHNA 5 HOUSING ELEMENT PERIOD
The following summary highlights key accomplishments and challenges from the previous Housing Element’s planning period (2015 to 2022).

Adoption and Implementation of the City’s 2018-2023 Affordable Housing Strategy. The Affordable Housing Strategy was adopted by the City Council in October 2018, a document with ten overarching affordable housing goals and comprehensive workplan comprised of 50 actions that complement and further the policies and programs of the 2015-2022 Housing Element. Since the adoption of the Affordable Housing Strategy, the City has made major progress across all ten areas, with all but three actions completed or in progress. Highlights include:
• Light Tree and 965 Weeks affordable housing developments: the redevelopment of Light Tree will result in 91 net new affordable units and is under active construction, with the final phase of construction completed by end of 2023; 965 Weeks will result in 136 new affordable units on a Cityowned parcel and is expected to begin construction in fall 2023. The building permit application was submitted in mid-December 2022. Light Tree is preserving/renovating 94 existing units and adding 91 new apartments affordable to extremely low-income and very low-income residents, and sets aside as many as 41 units for households with special needs: formerly homeless residents, youth aging out of foster care and households with a family member who has a disability. Light Tree is also the first allelectric affordable housing development in San Mateo County. 965 Weeks is building136 extremely low-income and low-income affordable housing units, ranging from studios to four-bedroom apartments, on a city-owned parcel. It will provide services to residents including a financial literacy program, a vocational development center, afterschool/summer programs and leadership development for youth, and functional assessment and cognitive/behavioral modification for people with special needs.
• Inclusionary Housing: the City Council adopted the most recent Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in November 2019, establishing an inclusionary program for both rental and for-sale units. Since the Ordinance became effective, the City has processed several Inclusionary Housing applications-- often in conjunction with a Density Bonus, and two applications under SB 35—creating a significant pipeline

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 7- Page 2
of lower-income rental and moderate-income for-sale units. It should be noted that the inclusionary housing ordinance has helped create greater integration, as it requires a mix of housing units, and housing for larger households, as it applies to all new housing development, including single-family homes, condos and townhomes.
• Investments in Affordable Housing: the City has made major investments in affordable housing in recent years, committing the $10 million in Catalyst Housing Funds to the Light Tree and 965 Weeks affordable housing developments; $714,000 in Housing Successor funds to 965 Weeks; and $1.7 million of Measure HH and Transient Occupancy Tax funds as a local match for the Local Housing Trust Fund program to benefit 965 Weeks.
• Leveraging State Funds for Affordable Housing: the City was a successful co-applicant on two Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grants for the Light Tree and 965 Weeks affordable housing developments. Housing and Planning staff have secured a ($2 million) CalHOME, ($160,000) SB 2, ($150,000) Local Early Action Planning, and ($70,000) Regional Early Action Planning (as a sub-allocation) grant over the last three years. • RV Safe Parking: this pilot program on a City-owned site at 1798 Bay Rd. in partnership with Project WeHOPE opened to the first RV households in May 2019; the program has continued with success through 2022, with over 35 individuals housed since the program’s start. This program has helped support persons experiencing homelessness.
• Accessory Dwelling Units: the City has partnered with local organizations to address unpermitted garage conversions and second units for several years and has most recently promoted ADUs through such efforts as: the ADU Streamlining contract, with EPACANDO and City Systems, funded by SB 2, the CalHOME ADU/JADU loan program, and monthly meetings of the ADU Working Group. Since new ADU laws became effective in 2020, the City has seen a more than doubling of ADU applications and permits. Work on legalization of second units continues as a cross-departmental City effort. At a City Council study session the Council directed staff to explore opportunities to encourage the development of ADUs. The City will work with a consultant to update the development code to be consistent with state legislative changes and to encourage more ADUs. This program has helped support large households and elderly residents who want live in single-family homes and want to build an accessory dwelling unit.
• Below Market-Rate Housing Administration: the City released an RFP for BMR Program Administration in 2018 to create a more efficient and cost-effective program. EPACANDO has administered the program since 2019, conducting annual monitoring, facilitating refinances and resales, and establishing ongoing contact with the owners of the City’s 53 BMR for-sale units. By establishing a proper filing system, protocols and guidelines, and a point of contact for public inquiries, EPACANDO has vastly improved the administration of the City’s portfolio and positioned the City well for an increase in units through the Inclusionary Housing Program.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 7- Page 3
• Homelessness Response: the City has consistently convened a group comprised of County of San Mateo Human Services Agency and Behavioral Health and Recovery Services staff, service providers LifeMoves and Project WeHOPE, and City staff from the Housing Division, Public Works, and Police Department since April 2021. The ongoing dialogue across agencies has created better coordination for housing individuals, monitoring and cleaning up encampments and RVs parked in the public right of way, and providing services to residents in East Palo Alto. • Improved Processing for Streamlined Projects. The City has developed materials for developers, such as zoning clearance forms for ADUs, SB 35, and SB 9 projects, and made internal process improvements to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of state housing law. This has resulted in successful implementation of housing streamlining on mixed-use and residential projects, most of which combine multiple policies – Inclusionary Housing, Density Bonus, and SB 35 or SB 9, for example. In 2021, a total of 88 units from three multifamily residential projects were entitled or received SB 35 Zoning Clearance. Each of these three projects included an inclusionary housing component, for a total of 13 deed-restricted inclusionary units ranging from 35-120% AMI. • Tenant Protections and Outreach. In addition to ongoing implementation of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance which covers approximately 2,500 rental units citywide, the Rent Stabilization Program oversees the City’s various tenant protections, including just cause for eviction, tenant relocation, and others. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Rent Stabilization Program oversaw an emergency financial assistance program in partnership with Samaritan House and funded local organizations Nuestra Casa, Youth United for Community Action, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto to assist local residents with accessing state rental assistance and prevent evictions due to pandemicrelated rental hardships. Special needs populations, including elderly persons, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, and farmworkers have benefitted from the tenant protections and outreach, which is targeted toward the most vulnerable populations.

Updates and Re-Zoning Efforts to General and Specific Plan Areas. The City adopted the Vista 2035 General Plan in 2016, including upzoning in strategic areas and other major changes, such as mixed-use corridors along University Ave, with an emphasis on improving public health through active transportation choices, access to open space, and safe and affordable housing. The Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Area, the City’s only Priority Development Area, was established in 2013 and is currently undergoing a targeted update that began in 2021 and will significantly increase the number of housing units, including affordable housing units, located near job centers and transit.2
Preservation Efforts. The City received a Challenge Grant and a Breakthrough Grant (“Policy Grants”) from the San Francisco Foundation’s Partnership for the Bay’s Future (PBF), each of which provides a two-year midcareer fellow to pursue housing preservation policies. The City Council considered an Opportunity to Purchase Act ordinance, which is expected to return in a revised form in 2023, and the current fellow is researching cooperative housing models, such as community land trusts, to preserve affordable housing.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 7- Page 4

7.2 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRESS
Appendix E provides a program-by-program review of the City’s progress in implementing the 2015-2023 Housing Element programs and objectives, and indication of the programs’ continued appropriateness.

7.3 PROGRESS TOWARDS LOWER-INCOME RHNA 5 TARGETS
To date, the City has made major progress on the very low-income RHNA, exceeding the target by 65 units.

The City fell short of its low-income RHNA by only 19 units, with the largest deficit (196 units) in the abovemoderate income category. Overall, the City has met 53% of its RHNA. By income category, the City has met 27% of its market rate housing target and 88% of its affordable housing target.

Table 7.3 shows the City’s RHNA 5 targets and progress from 2015 to today:

Table 7.3: RHNA 5 Progress, 2015-2022
Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Totals RHNA Deficit
Extremely Low (0%-30% AMI) 16 26 8 50 n/a
Very Low (31%-49% AMI) 4 68 7 79 -65
Low (50%-80% AMI) 24 2 3 6 35 19
Moderate (81%-120% AMI) 1 5 1 2 2 6 17 66
Above Moderate (> 120% AMI) 50 2 5 3 1 4 5 70 196
Total 91 7 5 4 9 103 32 251 216
While the above Table 7.3 illustrates shortfalls in the City’s RHNA 5 targets, it does not show the number of units in the City’s pipeline. There are several major project applications currently under review that, together with several smaller developments, will add over 1,000 units to the City’s housing stock. This includes projects such as the Woodland Park Communities Euclid Improvements, a 605-unit redevelopment of a complex that currently contains 160 rent-stabilized units, for a net increase of 444 units; the EPA Waterfront proposal, a mixed-use project that would add 260 units, and the Harvest: The Landing off-site affordable housing proposal, which would add 95 lower-income units. It should be noted that all housing development in East Palo Alto was delayed due to the Water Moratorium in place from 2016 to 2018. Even with the moratorium no longer in effect, developers have faced further delays due to issues with the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. City Council has been working with the East Palo Alto Sanitary District to express concerns about delays and work toward a solution.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Chapter 7- Page 5

7.4 ONGOING CHALLENGES TO MEETING THE CITY’S HOUSING NEEDS Infrastructure. The chief impediment to further housing development in East Palo Alto remains infrastructure-related. Pipeline projects are experiencing significant delay as the City and developers of affected projects work with the East Palo Alto Sanitary District to find a feasible solution to the system’s capacity. In addition, while the City has largely met its water supply needs, water distribution with the current network of pipelines remains a challenge.

In addition, the City must balance environmental preservation with the utility and feasibility of building out transportation. This is particularly the case in the Ravenswood Business District (RBD)/4 Corners Specific Plan Area, the area of the City where concentrated commercial space and jobs growth, dense housing, and upgrades to transportation infrastructure are planned. Even with these improvements, the City lacks a rail connection.

These issues and the steps the City is taking to ameliorate them are detailed further in the Governmental Constraints analysis in the Housing Constraints chapter, and policies and programs addressing infrastructure are included in the Policies and Programs chapter.

Staffing resources. With limitations on City staff resources, the City is constrained in the actions it can take to counter strong market forces, which continue to push housing prices higher, threaten to displace residents, and fail to produce the types of housing needed most in the community.

Displacement pressures. Residents of East Palo Alto continue to face displacement pressures as housing prices rise in the region and within the city. Data show that, the median income within East Palo Alto is less than half that of the County of San Mateo median, making rents and home sales prices now further out of reach for many households. Overcrowding and substandard housing conditions are prevalent and are a direct result of the housing cost burden many residents face. As additional market-rate housing is proposed for East Palo Alto, it is important that the City pursue ambitious preservation efforts, explore new anti-displacement policies, and prioritize affordable housing as part of the City’s growth, especially in the RBD/4 Corners Specific Plan Area.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) [Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) APPENDIX A. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 1
APPENDIX A1 WEBPAGE PERFORMANCE
The following is a report of the City’s Housing Element Webpage analytics from its launch date of March 22, 2021, to July 7, 2022. As shown, the webpage had 640 desktop views, 79 mobile views, and 1 tablet view. The average time a resident spent on the page was 3 minutes. This is 0.15% of the total views the City of East Palo Alto website received in the same timeframe.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 2
APPENDIX A2 SOCIAL MEDIA PERFORMANCE
The City promoted events and surveys on the City’s Facebook page, which has a total of 3.1K followers as of July 2022, in both English and Spanish (with an option to translate into other languages available through Facebook’s translation system).

Data analytics on Facebook post performance is only available for 90 days, between the dates of April 8, 2022, to July 7, 2022. “Post Reach” provides the number of people who saw any of the posts at least once (and does not include multiple views by the same people), while “Engagement” provides the number of times people engaged with the posts through reactions, comments shares, views and clicks.

In summary:

Our “Help us balance East Palo Alto’s potential future housing development” post on June 3, 2022, reached 494 people, and engaged 33 people.

Our “We’re updating East Palo Alto’s housing plan, and we want you to be part of the conversation” post on May 4, 2022, promoting the May 5, 2022, Community Meeting reached 3386 people and engaged 149 people.

Our “Join us on May 5th at 6pm!” post on May 3, 2022, promoting the May 5, 2022, Community Meeting reached 1284 people and engaged 79 people.

Our “Join us in-person on Thursday, May 5th at 6pm for a community meeting” post on April 28, 2022, promoting the May 5, 2022, Community Meeting reached 662 people and engaged 39.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 3
Our “Join the joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the Housing Element Update tonight at 6pm!” post promoting a public meeting held on April 26, 2022, reached 354 people and engaged 5 people.

Our “On Tuesday, July 19th, City Council will be discussing the Housing Element Update” post promoting a public meeting held on July 19, 2022, reached 683 people and engaged 24 people.

Data analytics on Event Page performance show a lower success rate in reaching people via event pages compared to posts.

Our May 5, 2022, Community Meeting event page reached 87 people and received 10 responses.

Our February 24, 2022, Community Meeting event page reached 205 people and received 5 responses.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 4
The following is our highest-performing social media post, demonstrating that short text, strong visuals, and direct links performed better:

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 5
A3 EMAIL ALERTS PERFORMANCE
The City of East Palo Alto sent email alerts to community members subscribed to the Housing Element Update email alerts (15 subscribers until February 2022 and 100+ subscribers after May 2022), and to 500+ community members subscribed to the Ravenwood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan email list interested in the Housing Element Update process. The email alerts averaged a 57% open rate and a 9% click rate.

July 19, 2021, Community Meeting Alert:

February 24, 2022, Community Meeting Alert:

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 6
April 28, 2022, Joint Planning Commission and City Council Study Session Alert:

May 5, 2022, Community Meeting Alert:

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation
- Page7
Balancing Act Survey Alert:

July 19, 2022, City Council Meeting Alert:

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation
- Page8
Sample Email Alert – Campaign Preview
1 2 3

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 9
Sample Email Alert – Plain Text Preview
Community meeting on Thursday, May 5 at 6pm.

Reunión comunitaria el jueves, 5 de mayo a las 6pm.

Register | Regístrese | Lesisita (https://us06web.zoom.us/we9egistergister/WN_a9WceWfNQYeAoS9VbiaZg) ----------------------------------------------------------’- We're holding an in-person community meeting to gather your input on the City of East Pal’ Alto's housing plan.

WHEN: Thursday, May 5, 2022, from 6:00-8:00 PM
WHERE: Cooley Landing (at the end of Bay Road) or Zoom
REGISTER: www.tinyurl.com/EPAHousingElement3
If you can't join us in-person you can watch the meeting as a webinar online. Spanish, Tongan, and Samoan interpretation will be available. We will also have free food and childcare. Note that COVID-19 safety precautions will be taken. Please register for the meeting details.

There are other ways to also engage:
* Fill out this survey (https://tinyurl.com/HousingElementSurvey) on Housing Element policies and programs. We want to hear your thoughts on how we are doing with our housing policies and programs, which policies we should keep, and which new policies we should consider to prioritize for the next 8 years!
* Visit Jamboard (https://tinyurl.com/HousingElementJamboard) to share your ideas about the following: what types of housing do you want to see, what locations/sites do you want to see explored, what environmental issues bring you the most concern, and what environmental considerations should we have when zoning for new housing.
* Watch the recent joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the Housing Element Update here
(http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1808&MinutesID=15 29&Format=Minutes&MediaFileFormat=mpeg4).
* Visit the Housing Element Update (https://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/housing/page/housing-elementupdate-community-meeting-0)webpage.

What is the Housing Element?
The Housing Element is a chapter in the City’s General Plan that is updated every 8 years to plan for new housing and lays out the goals, policies and programs to meet the community’s housing needs. Every California City and county adopts a Housing Element!
Why is my participation in the Housing Element Update important? Your participation in the Housing Element, Safety Element, and Environmental Justice Element updates will help shape our City’s planning documents and determine the goals, policies and programs that will shape our community’s future. Your participation helps us ensure our process is as inclusive and community driven as possible.

What if I can’t make it?
Stay up-to-date and explore our Housing Element page at www.cityofepa.org/housing. You can also submit your comments to [email protected], using “Housing Element Update” in the subject line.

Find Out More (https://www.cityofepa.org/housing/page/housing-element-update-1) ------------------------------------------------------------ La Ciudad tendrá una reunión comunitaria en persona para obtener su opinión sobre el plan de vivienda de la Ciudad de East Palo Alto.

CUÁNDO: Jueves, 5 de mayo del 2022 de las 6:00-8:00 PM
DÓNDE: Cooley Landing (al final de Bay Road) o Zoom
REGÍSTRESE: www.tinyurl.com/EPAHousingElement3
Si no puede asistir en persona puede mirar la reunión como un seminario en línea. Habrá interpretación al español, tongano y samoano. También habrá comida gratis y cuidado de niños.

Tenga en cuenta que tomaremos precauciones de salud para evitar el contagio de COVID-19.

Por favor regístrese para los detalles de la junta.

Hay otras maneras de también involucrarse:
* Complete esta encuesta (https://tinyurl.com/HousingElementEncuesta) sobre las políticas y los programas del Elemento de Vivienda. ¡Queremos escuchar sus opiniones de cómo nos va con nuestras políticas y programas de vivienda, qué políticas debemos mantener y qué nuevas políticas debemos considerar para priorizar durante los próximos 8 años! * Visite Jamboard (https://tinyurl.com/HousingElementJamboard)para compartir sus ideas sobre lo siguiente: qué tipos de viviendas le gustaría ver, qué ubicaciones/sitios le gustaría ver explorados, qué problemas medioambientales le preocupan más y qué consideraciones medioambientales deberíamos tener al zonificar para nuevas viviendas. * Mire la Sesión Especial reciente con el Concejo Municipal y la Comisión de Planificación sobre el Elemento de Vivienda aquí
(http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1808&Minute sID=1529&Format=Minutes&MediaFileFormat=mpeg4).
* Visite la página sobre la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda (https://www.ci.east-paloalto.ca.us/housing/page/housing-element-update-community-meeting-0). ¿Qué es el Elemento Vivienda?
El Elemento de Vivienda es un capítulo del Plan General de la Ciudad que se actualiza cada 8 años para planificar el desarrollo de nuevas viviendas y establece las metas, pólizas y programas para satisfacer las necesidades de vivienda de la comunidad. ¡Todas las ciudades y condados de California adoptan un Elemento de Vivienda! ¿Por qué es importante mi participación en la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda? Su participación en las actualizaciones del Elemento de Vivienda, Elemento de Seguridad y Elemento de Justicia Ambiental ayudará a dar forma a los documentos de planificación de nuestra Ciudad y a determinar las metas, políticas y programas que darán forma al futuro de nuestra comunidad. Su participación nos ayuda a garantizar que nuestro proceso sea lo más inclusivo y comunitario posible.
¿Qué pasa si no puedo participar?
Manténgase actualizado/a visitando nuestra página de Elemento de Vivienda en www.cityofepa.org/housing. También puede enviar sus comentarios a [email protected], utilizando "Elemento de Vivienda" en la línea de asunto.

Más información (https://www.cityofepa.org/housing/page/housing-element-update-1)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 10 A4 COMMUNITY MEETINGS REPORT
The following is a summary of community meeting participation in the East Palo Alto community meetings and surveys, and how that compares to 2020 census demographics data.

Demographics Summary
Owner vs Renter Occupancy: Approximately 48% of community members that engaged in the Housing Element Update process were homeowners, and 52% were renters. This compares to a 40:60 ratio of owners vs. renters in the City Age: A majority of community members that engaged in the Housing Element Update process were between 30-49 years old; the second-largest engaged group were 50–69-year-olds. The City has a larger young population of 18 years or under, and a smaller older population of 70+ years.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 11 Race & Ethnicity: Approximately 46% of community members that engaged in the Housing Element Update process were Hispanic/Latinx, 19% were non-Hispanic White, 16% were Black/African American, and 16% were Asian/Pacific Islander. The largest East Palo Alto population is Hispanic/Latinx at 66%.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 12 Demographic Breakdown by Community Meeting
Community Meeting #1 – July 19, 2021
No registrant or participant data is available.

Community Meeting #2 - February 24, 2022
Registration & Participation Report
Registration
Time Participated Race/Ethnicity Housing Situation Neighborhood Primary
Language Age
1/28/2022 19:41 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 1/28/2022 21:53 Yes Black/African American Tenant (single-family/duplex) The Gardens English 40 – 59 1/28/2022 23:30 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 1/29/2022 8:49 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 1/29/2022 10:16 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 1/31/2022 17:20 Yes Other Live but not work in EPA Not applicable English 25 – 29 2/3/2022 12:36 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/3/2022 14:01 Yes White/European Landlord Weeks Area English 60+ 2/5/2022 6:48 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/5/2022 13:07 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/5/2022 15:59 Yes Asian Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/8/2022 11:29 No White/European Tenant (multi-family) Midtown English 30 – 39 2/9/2022 17:27 Yes Asian Work but not live in EPA Not applicable English 30 – 39 2/16/2022 8:51 Yes Black/African American Homeowner The Westside English 60+ 2/16/2022 14:51 No Hispanic/Latinx Other Not applicable English 40 – 59 2/17/2022 15:08 No Black/African American Landlord The Village English 60+ 2/18/2022 16:03 No Asian Homeowner The Gardens Other 40 – 59 2/18/2022 16:28 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/18/2022 16:48 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) The Westside English 40 – 59 2/18/2022 17:15 Yes Black/African American Homeowner The Gardens English Unknown 2/18/2022 18:26 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/18/2022 19:59 Yes White/European Homeowner with tenants Midtown English 60+ 2/18/2022 22:33 No Black/African American Live but not work in EPA The Westside English 60+ 2/18/2022 23:23 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Unknown Español 30 – 39 2/19/2022 6:33 No White/European Unknown Unknown English Unknown 2/19/2022 6:59 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/20/2022 7:41 No White/European Homeowner The Westside English 60+ 2/20/2022 20:23 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside Español 40 – 59 2/21/2022 9:09 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/21/2022 9:27 Yes White/European Live but not work in EPA Not applicable English 60+ 2/21/2022 11:18 No Other Tenant (multi-family) The Westside English 60+ 2/21/2022 14:07 Yes White/European Other Not applicable English 60+ 2/24/2022 8:35 Yes White/European Other Not applicable English Unknown 2/24/2022 9:57 Yes Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside English 25 – 29 2/24/2022 11:00 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/24/2022 17:09 Yes Hispanic/Latinx Homeowner The Gardens English 40 – 59 2/24/2022 17:56 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/24/2022 17:59 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/24/2022 18:01 Yes Asian Tenant (multi-family) Not applicable English 18 – 24

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 13 Participant Demographics
Participation Rate:

Out of the 39 registrants, 20 people total (51%) participated.

Race/Ethnicity:

A larger share of participants was White/European and Black/African American.

Housing Situation:

A larger share of homeowners participated compared to tenants.

Neighborhood:

A larger share of participants indicated they live in The Gardens neighborhood, compared to other neighborhoods.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 0
Language:

A majority of participants were English-speaking.

Age:

A larger share of participants were 60 years and older compared to other age groups.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 1
Community Meeting #3 – May 5, 2022
Registration & Participation Report
Registration
Time Participated Race/Ethnicity Housing Situation Neighborhood Age Language
Interpretation Used Shuttle
4/28/2022 9:25 Yes, virtually American Indian/Alaska Native Unknown Unknown English 4/28/2022 9:30 Yes, virtually Black/African American Work but not live in EPA The Village 30 – 39 English 5/3/2022 13:20
Yes virtually &
in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) Unknown 40 – 59 Español Yes 5/3/2022 14:47 Yes, virtually Black/African American Homeowner The Gardens 60+ English 5/3/2022 15:07 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) Unknown 30 – 39 English 5/3/2022 15:56 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Unknown 40 – 59 Español 5/3/2022 19:13 Yes, virtually Black/African American Homeowner Not applicable 60+ English 5/4/2022 1:40 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Other Unknown 30 – 39 Español 5/4/2022 12:20 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 40 – 59 Español 5/4/2022 15:00 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Work but not live in EPA Not applicable 30 – 39 English 5/4/2022 15:57 Yes, virtually Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Single family home landlord Midtown 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 7:19 Yes, virtually Unknown Unknown Unknown English 5/5/2022 9:07
Yes virtually &
in-person Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Homeowner Not applicable 40 – 59 Tongan 5/5/2022 10:29 Yes, virtually Asian Work but not live in EPA Not applicable 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 16:42 Yes, virtually Black/African American Homeowner The Gardens 60+ English 5/5/2022 17:36 Yes, virtually Asian Landlord Not applicable 60+ English 5/5/2022 17:41 Yes, virtually Asian Single family home landlord Not applicable 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 17:42 Yes, virtually Unknown Unknown Unknown English 5/5/2022 17:49 Yes, virtually Unknown Unknown Unknown English 5/5/2022 17:49 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Homeowner Unknown 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 17:57 Yes, virtually Black/African American Work but not live in EPA Unknown 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 17:59 Yes, virtually White/European Homeowner Unknown 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 17:59 Yes, virtually Asian Homeowner Unknown 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 17:59 Yes, virtually Asian Work but not live in EPA Not applicable 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 18:05 Yes, virtually White/European Work but not live in EPA Not applicable 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 18:05 Yes, virtually Asian Homeowner The Gardens 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 18:05 Yes, virtually Asian Homeowner Unknown 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 18:21 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 18:31 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Other The Gardens 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 18:32 Yes, virtually Unknown Unknown English
5/5/2022 18:52 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Landlord Unknown 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 19:12 Yes, virtually Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 19:40 Yes, virtually White/European Homeowner Midtown 40 – 59 English 4/28/2022 9:34 Yes, in-person Asian Homeowner Not applicable 25 – 29 English 5/2/2022 17:12 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 40 – 59 English Yes 5/3/2022 21:00 Yes, in-person Black/African American Unknown Unknown 60+ English 5/4/2022 19:48 Yes, in-person Black/African American Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 8:51 Yes, in-person White/European Homeowner Not applicable 60+ English 5/5/2022 16:46 Yes, in-person Asian, Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 25 – 29 English 5/5/2022 16:49 Yes, in-person
Hispanic/Latinx, Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other Midtown 18 – 24 English 5/5/2022 16:54 Yes, in-person Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Work but not live in EPA The Westside 18 – 24 English

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 2
4/28/2022 9:29 No Black/African American Tenant (single-family/duplex) The Village 30 – 39 English 4/28/2022 10:48 No Black/African American Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 40 – 59 English 4/28/2022 15:07 No Other Other Not applicable 60+ English 4/29/2022 19:10 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) Unknown 40 – 59 Español 4/30/2022 11:10 No Unknown Unknown Unknown 40 – 59 English 4/30/2022 11:48 No Hispanic/Latinx Landlord Not applicable 40 – 59 English 5/1/2022 19:02 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Unknown 40 – 59 English Yes 5/3/2022 8:28 No Unknown Work but not live in EPA Unknown English 5/3/2022 14:22 No Black/African American Homeowner Midtown 60+ English 5/3/2022 14:52 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Unknown 25 – 29 English 5/3/2022 14:57 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) The Gardens 30 – 39 English 5/3/2022 20:24 No Black/African American Homeowner The Gardens 60+ English 5/3/2022 21:02 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Village 40 – 59 English 5/3/2022 22:55 No Black/African American Tenant (single-family/duplex) The Gardens 40 – 59 English Yes 5/4/2022 7:31 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (ADU) The Westside 30 – 39 Español Yes 5/4/2022 9:52 No Black/African American Homeowner The Gardens 40 – 59 English 5/4/2022 11:07 No Black/African American Other Unknown 40 – 59 English 5/4/2022 11:29 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 25 – 29 English Yes 5/4/2022 14:47 No Hispanic/Latinx Other Midtown 30 – 39 English 5/4/2022 19:00 No Hispanic/Latinx Single family home landlord The Gardens 40 – 59 Español 5/4/2022 22:52 No Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Unknown 30 – 39 Español 5/5/2022 10:39 No Hispanic/Latinx Other Midtown 40 – 59 Español 5/5/2022 12:54 No White/European Homeowner Unknown 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 16:40 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 18 – 24 English 5/5/2022 16:53 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Midtown 18 – 24 English 5/5/2022 18:36 No White/European Homeowner The Gardens 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 18:42 No Unknown Unknown Unknown 40 – 59 Español 5/5/2022 19:04 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Unknown 60+ English Yes 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant Unknown 18-29 English Yes 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person White/European Homeowner Unknown 50-69 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person White/European Homeowner Unknown 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Unknown Unknown 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Asian, Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Unknown 50-69 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Asian, Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Unknown 50-69 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant The Westside 30-49 Español 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant The Westside 30-49 Español 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant The Westside 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Black/African American Tenant Unknown 70+ English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Black/African American Unknown Unknown 50-69 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person White/European Unknown Unknown 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Black/African American Unknown The Westside 50-69 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Unknown 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Unknown 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Black/African American Unknown Unknown 50-69 English

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 3
Participant Demographics
Participation Rate:

Of the 85 registrants, 67% participated (24 participated in-person, 31 participated virtually, and 2 participated both in-person and virtually).

Race/Ethnicity:

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 4
Photos from May 5, 2022, Hybrid (In-Person and Virtual) Community Meeting

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 5
A5 COUNTYWIDE MEETING SUMMARY
A series of countywide meetings about the Housing Element update were held from March to May 2021.

Each meeting provided community members with an introduction the Housing Element update, why it matters, information on the Let’s Talk Housing outreach effort and countywide trends. Breakout room discussions with individual cities and towns followed.

Who We Heard From
In total 1,024 registered for the series and 264 registered for the All About RHNA meeting. Of those who registered for the series, the majority identified as White (66%) or Asian (15%) and were 50 years or older; nearly half were 50 to 69 years old and almost a fifth were over 70. Almost half had lived over 21 years in their homes, and three-fourths owned their own homes.

East Palo Alto was part of the May 30th introductory meeting, along with Burlingame, Hillsborough, Millbrae and San Mateo City. Due to technical difficulties, a second meeting was held on May 6th.One person who lives in East Palo Alto registered as a participant. She was a renter who had lived in the City between 0 and 5 years. Demographically, she was a White woman between the ages of 50 and 69. This is not an appropriate sample of the participants, however, because between 10 and 15 people participated in the breakout room.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 6
What We Heard
Main Meeting
People were asked to share a word in the chat describing housing now at the beginning of the meeting, and the housing they envisioned in their communities ten years from now.

Now In 2030
Breakout Session
There was a lively discussion with approximately 10-15 people in attendance. There was a feeling that East Palo Alto was doing a lot, with one participant saying, “It seems like EPA is the most ambitious City on the peninsula,” but that a lot is not enough. The primary concern heard from the group was the lack of affordable housing. This applied to both housing for extremely low-income households as well as moderate income/ownership opportunities. There was support for tiny homes and looking at employers to do more.

Post Event Survey
The post-event survey reflected the variety of opinions present on issues ranging from a desire to preserve communities as they are, to an appeal for more and diverse housing everywhere in the county. Despite the technical difficulties, community members responded that they valued the space and the information provided within it and looked forward to spaces where more meaningful and engaged discussion could take place.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation
- Page7
A6 SURVEYS REPORT
Whiteboard Survey
Results
Input on July 19, 2021, Community Meeting
Note: Clearer version of sticky note responses is unavailable.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation
- Page8
Jamboard Survey
Results
Slide 1 – Input from May 5, 2022 – July 7, 2022

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation
- Page9
Slide 2 - Input from February 24, 2022 – July 7, 2022

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation
- Page 10
Survey Themes • Improved housing & neighborhood conditions • Deeper housing affordability • More homeownership opportunities • Reduced constraints to affordable housing • Environmentally sustainable development • Anti-displacement Slide 3 - Input from February 24, 2022 – July 7, 2022 Slide 4 - Input from February 24, 2022 – July 7, 2022

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 11 May 5, 2022, Community Meeting In-Person Survey Results Online and In-Person Interactive Activity

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation
- Page 12
In-Person Post-It Activity

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 13 Policies and Programs Survey
Survey Results

1. Which of the following goals is most important to you? • GOAL 1: Meet the RHNA & produce all housing types
• GOAL 2: Link jobs + housing
• GOAL 3: Available sites for the development of housing • GOAL 4: Reduced constraints & enhanced incentives for housing development • GOAL 5: Special needs housing
• GOAL 6: Financial or policy assistance to low-income households • GOAL 7: Increased homeownership opportunities
• GOAL 8: Minimized tenant displacement
• GOAL 9: Improved housing & neighborhood conditions
• GOAL 10: Fair Housing & decent, safe living environments for all • GOAL 11: Implementation & use of housing policies
• GOAL 12: Energy efficiency
• OTHER (written responses):
• Protection of the green space and wildlife habitat especially on the West Side • Finding a solution that benefits both tenants and homeowners • More trees and more parking spaces
• Enforce existing laws, parking on sidewalks, speeding and reckless driving, animal control, noise violations, fireworks, housing code enforcement etc… • Deal with the sewer company issues that have prevented housing or that will make low income folks pay for new sewer lines. Crazy!
• Re goal #6, increased first-time homeownership opportunities specifically for low-income, long-time residents and young people through policies like TOPA/COPA and more. • Homeless Transition Housing plus integrated social services • Have a clean and safe community where the law is enforce

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 14

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 15 Goal 1: Sufficient numbers and varieties of housing units (houses, townhomes, condominiums, and apartments) needed to: meet the State’s mandate to replace affordable units/bedrooms demolished due to Redevelopment Agency action; address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Determination; and facilitate housing development for all incomes segments within East Palo Alto, including extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, and above-moderate income housing.

GOAL 2: Balanced development that links housing to jobs.

GOAL 3: Available residential sites for the development of a range of housing types.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 16 GOAL 4: Reduced constraints and enhanced incentives for housing development within the City, particularly in regard to affordable housing.

GOAL 5: Adequate housing for special needs groups in the City, including seniors, physically challenged, HIV positive or living with AIDS, homeless, at-risk youth (leaving the foster care system), small and large families, veterans, farm workers, people with developmental disabilities, and female headed households.

GOAL 6: Financial and policy assistance for low- and moderate-income households to ease housing cost burden and overcrowding.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 17 GOAL 7: Increased homeownership opportunities for income-qualified households (focused on existing residents and workers in East Palo Alto).

GOAL 8: Minimized Displacement of Renter.

GOAL 9: Improved Housing and Neighborhood Conditions in East Palo Alto.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 18 GOAL 10: Decent, safe living environments for City residents regardless of age, gender, race, color, ancestry, national origin, familial status, marital status, sexual preference, religion, disability, language, or any other arbitrary factor.

GOAL 11: Implemented housing policies and broad participation in associated programs.

GOAL 12: Increased energy efficiency in existing and new housing development, in part as a means of reducing housing cost.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation
- Page 19
Balancing Act Survey
Balancing Act Page Preview
[

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation
- Page 20
Sample Survey Questions

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 21 Performance Analytics
The City of East Palo Alto received the second-highest engagement compared to other California cities participating in this simulation tool, with 12 unique respondents total.

Extensive outreach via the City’s website, City newsletters, direct email communications, social media, and in-person flyer distribution helped us receive 196 page views for a total of 20 hours of site use; despite these efforts, the response rate was only 6%. This outcome illustrates the challenges of engaging residents through tools that require technological knowledge.

Balancing Act Survey Respondent Demographics
Resident Age Race/ Ethnicity Neighborhood Housing Situation 1 Yes 40 - 59 Other Westside Tenant (single-family/duplex) 2 Yes 30 - 39 Asian Westside Homeowner
3 Yes 40 - 59 White/European Gardens Homeowner
4 Yes 40 - 59 White/European Gardens Homeowner
5 No 60+ White/European Not applicable Work in EPA but live elsewhere 6 Yes 60+ White/European Unknown Single family home landlord 7 Yes 60+ White/European Unknown Homeowner
8 No 40 - 59 White/European Not applicable Work in EPA but live elsewhere 9 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Homeowner
10 Yes 40 - 59 Other Village Tenant (single-family/duplex) 11 Yes 30 - 39 Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Tenant (single-family/duplex) 12 Yes 40 - 59 Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Other

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 22 Balancing Act Survey Results
The following table summarizes the Balancing Act survey results:

East Palo Alto Balancing Act Sites Inventory Survey Results

Respondents
Choosing “Higher
Density”
Respondents
Choosing
“Lower
Density”
Respondents
Choosing “No
housing”
Average Unit
Count Selected–
1a - RBD Zoned for Housing  75%  25%   0%   592 –
1b - RBD Zoned for Housing  50% 50%  0%  127–
2 - Four Corners  67% 25%  8%  397–
3 - South of Weeks  42%  25%  25%  80–
4 - EPA Waterfront  25%  33%  42%  152–
5 - Harvest Affordable Housing Proposal  42%  0%  17%  73 – 6A - Pulgas East Site 1  42%  17%  42%  57 –
6B - Pulgas East Site 2  42%  17%  42%  53 –
6C - Pulgas East Site 3  58% 25%  17%  123–
7 - City of East Palo Alto  50% 8%  42%  13–
8 - San Mateo County Government Center  17%  17%  67% 39– 9 - Ravenswood School District  42%  25%  33%  104–
A - Weeks Street  50% 33%  17%  37–
B - University Avenue  83% 0%  17%  11–
C - Schembri Lane  33%  42%  25%  7–
D - Runnymede Street  33%  33%  33%  6–
E - Green Street 1  33%  42%  25%  6–
F - Green Street 2  33%  42%  25%  4–
G - Donohoe Street  50% 25%  25%  7–
H - East Bayshore  58% 17%  25%  8

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 23 The Balancing Act survey results demonstrate there is more appetite for housing. Most residents supported higher density housing on the Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Area Plan sites. A majority (50% or more) also supported higher density on the following sites:
a. Pulgas Street East Site 3 (APN 63240310)
b. East Bayshore site (807 East Bayshore)
c. Weeks Street site (851 Weeks Street)
d. Donohoe Street site (801 Donohoe Street)
e. City of East Palo Alto site (2277 University Avenue) An overwhelming majority supported higher density along University Avenue, and a large majority (67%) did not support housing on the San Mateo County Government Center site at 2415 University Ave., where the East Palo Alto City Hall is currently located. Due to community input, and later conversations regarding feasibility on the site, 2415 University Ave. was not included in the sites inventory for future development.

Intercept Survey
Survey Results
On June 18, 2022, and June 15, 2022, we spoke with 30 East Palo Alto residents in-person at East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Markets and received further input on housing density and future housing development.

Of the 30 residents we engaged, 53% indicated they wanted to see higher-density housing, 20% indicated they wanted to see lower-density housing, and 24% indicated they would visit the City website to learn more.

Residents also expressed their thoughts and opinions on the proposed sites inventory, and common input included the need for more affordable housing, ensuring there is a jobs-housing balance, ensuring new jobs do not create displacement pressures on current residents, creating new units that have better habitability, and ensuring there is enough parking.

Respondent Demographics
Of the 30 respondents, approximately 13 were
homeowners, 15 were tenants, and 2 were young
people under the age of 18 and living with their
parents.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation
- Page 24
The majority of respondents (80%) were
monolingual Spanish-speakers.

The majority of respondents were women
between the ages of 30-49.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 25 A7 – EQUITY ADVISORY GROUP INPUT
Following a series of Housing Element presentations by San Mateo County jurisdictions to the Equity Advisory Group (EAG), some members of the EAG followed up to 21 Element jurisdictions with a collaborative letter to send all their Housing Element feedback summarized in one letter. The following is the letter in its entirety:

To the 21 Elements team and all San Mateo County jurisdictions, The Equity Advisory Group exists to help San Mateo County jurisdictions implement policies that promote fair housing choice and access to opportunity for members of historically marginalized groups. We are a group of service providers and housing activists, convened to inform equitable policy making in housing elements.

Thank you to the 21 Elements team for promoting the EAG and thank you to the City staff that are giving us this opportunity to share our perspectives.

With this letter, the EAG proposes specific policies San Mateo County jurisdictions can implement to promote equity through their housing elements. These policies were selected by EAG members because of their proven track record for promoting equity goals, primarily the production of affordable homes and protection of renters. As service providers and advocates, we take a broad approach to housing equity. To us, equity means that everyone in a community, regardless of background, has access to safe, stable, affordable housing.

However, housing equity does not stop at a jurisdiction’s borders. True equity means that no one is excluded from a community because of lack of access to housing. “Lack of access” can come in many forms, whether that be physical inaccessibility, language barriers, distance from community resources, or prohibitive cost. In order to ensure that no one is excluded from a community, jurisdictions must affirmatively promote fair housing for all by regularly changing regulations to facilitate a wider range of housing types.

In practice, equity can be controversial, because increasing equity sometimes requires changes to status quo policies. We see this process as an opportunity for jurisdictions to commit to implementing new policies with the support of the state of California behind you.

Policy Recommendations
Guidance from HCD on how to affirmatively further fair housing states that jurisdictions must promote fair housing choice and access to opportunity in their goals, policies, and programs. HCD defines fair housing choice as encompassing:
• Actual choice, meaning the existence of realistic housing options • Protected choice, meaning housing that can be accessed without discrimination; and • Enabled choice, meaning realistic access to sufficient information regarding options so that any choice is informed.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 26 Jurisdictions cannot meet the requirement to promote fair housing choice and access to opportunity without first completing a thorough and meaningful assessment of the housing needs of residents, including factors which may limit fair housing choice as well as both governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production. Jurisdictions should complete all relevant analyses before formulating their policies and programs. As such, appropriate policies and programs for each jurisdiction will vary based on the needs of your specific community.

Below are a list of general policies which the EAG would recommend as a minimum to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in your jurisdiction. Programs to implement these policies, as defined by HCD, must include concrete steps, timelines, and measurable outcomes.

Policy Description How does it AFFH?
Just cause eviction, relocation
benefits, and first right of
return
Tenant protections beyond state
law. (Ex: Oakland Just Cause for
Eviction Ordinance; Redwood
City Relocation Assistance
Program, LAHD Rent
Stabilization Ordinance)
Implemented in tandem, this set of policies
can protect lower-income tenants living in
NOAH who are evicted through no fault of
their own, providing them the resources to
relocate or the option to first right of return.

Prioritize City affordable
housing funds,
City-owned land, and land
dedicated to affordable
housing for projects which
include more units at deeper
levels of affordability or for
special needs populations at
greatest risk of homelessness
or displacement.

Scoring guidelines for RFPs for
these City resources should give
greater preference for projects
which include more units at
deeper levels of affordability or
target special needs populations.

In 2021, the SMC HSA Center on
Homelessness reported that 96% of
Homeless Outreach and Shelter Clients were
extremely low income. Jurisdictions cannot
begin to address the needs of the unhoused
and other at-risk populations without
addressing the lack of deeply affordable
housing.

Expand local funding
sources for development of
affordable housing
Can include policies such as
commercial linkage fees,
vacancy taxes, transfer tax, etc.
(Ex: San Jose Measure E)
Most affordable housing projects require a
source of gap funding in order to be
financially feasible, especially if they are
targeting deeper levels of affordability.

Local investment in these projects can also
make them more competitive for state and
federal funding.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 27 Rent stabilization Tenant protections beyond state
law. (Ex: Oakland Rent
Adjustment Program, LAHD
Rent Stabilization Ordinance)
Stagnant wages for the lowest income
residents have not kept pace with rising
housing costs, becoming one of the largest
contributors to our current housing crisis.

Local rent control with greater protections
beyond state law will help to keep more
lower income renters stably housed.

Fee exemptions for 100%
affordable housing projects
According to the 21 Elements Fee Survey,
jurisdictions charge fees ranging from $6,824-
$167,210 per
unit in multifamily housing. These
additional fees can make many affordable
housing projects, which rely on public
subsidy, infeasible. Waiving or lowering
fees for 100% affordable housing projects
can promote the production of more
affordable housing across a spectrum of
income levels.

Allow exceptions to
development standards for
100% affordable housing
projects
Can include but is not limited to
reduced/waived parking
requirements, Minimum lot
sizes, widths, setbacks, etc (Ex:

Half Moon Bay)
Many projects utilize State Density Bonus
Law (SDBL) to increase financial feasibility
of projects through incentives and
concessions. Local exceptions to
development standards for 100% affordable
housing projects increases feasibility above
and beyond what would be enabled through
SDBL.

Implement inclusive
design standards
Implement design standards
beyond state and federal law to
increase cross-disability access
to housing (Refer to The
Kelsey’s Housing Design
Standards for Inclusion and
Accessibility)
While landlords are required to approve
reasonable accommodations requested by
persons with disabilities, often the burden of
financing physical modifications of a unit
falls upon the tenant, many of whom cannot
afford these expensive renovations.

Inclusive design can significantly reduce
requests for reasonable accommodations and
lower overall costs of modifying units.

Inclusive design also supports cross-disability
access.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 28 Increase language
accessibility
Require affirmative
marketing of units to nonEnglish speakers, make
multilingual
applications available, and
perform active outreach to newly
arrived immigrants and
refugees.

Language can create one of the highest
barriers to access for affordable housing.

Affirmative marketing to non-English
speakers will ensure all members of our
communities can access the resources
available to them, regardless of country of
origin.

Promote fair housing
information to residents
Provide residents with information
about renter protections and
monetary relief available to
victims of unlawful housing
practices. Post information in
easily
Renters are often unaware of the protection
and resources afforded them under
California state law.

Jurisdictions can help promote fair housing by
proactively ensuring that renters are aware of
their rights.
available locations on jurisdiction
websites and send regular mailers
to renters within the community.

Analyze past racially
discriminatory policies and
report data regarding ongoing
impacts

1.Conduct a systematic review of
the preliminary title report and
eradicate any language of
racially restrictive covenants.

2. Provide information re: location
and ratio of renters and owners
and their correlation with the
patterns of racial and ethnic
segregation in San Mateo
County.

3. Provide information re:
demographics and
environmental health – identify
disparities in access to
environmentally healthy
neighborhoods.

Jurisdictions are most likely to reduce the
racial homeownership gap if they actively
identify the ways in which past racially
restrictive regulations and current barriers to
affordable housing create our socioeconomic
disparity in home ownership. Home
ownership is one of the most powerful
vehicles for multigenerational economic
security. Employing a health-equity lens
throughout planning and re-zoning efforts
will further fair housing policy goals.

Affordable housing overlay
for nonprofits and religious
institutions
Create a housing overlay allowing
at least the local mullin density
(20 or 30 du/ac) on all nonprofitor religious institution-owned land throughout the entirety of
jurisdiction. Relax design
standards and zoning regulations
for projects with 20% extremely
low income, 30% very low
Jurisdictions promote equity when they
allow affordable, multi-family housing in
new areas. Nonprofits and religious
institutions have strong incentives to
promote affordable housing development.

By facilitating affordable housing on land
owned by religious institutions, regardless of
local zoning, jurisdictions can help those
institutions accomplish their missions of

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 29 income, or 50% low income
units.
providing for the needy while also
affirmatively furthering fair housing in new
areas.

Accessible housing near
transit
Reduce parking minimums for
developments within 0.5 miles of
transit. Eliminate parking
minimums entirely for
developments within 0.5 miles of
transit that serve residents with
disabilities and low-, very low-, or
extremely low-income
households.

Parking minimums raise the price of housing
and de facto subsidize car ownership.

Especially when located near transit, these
policies impose a significant burden on
housing. In the cases of low-income
households, which can typically afford no
or limited car ownership, and the disabled,
these policies become entirely superfluous.

The Equity Advisory Group recommends that every jurisdiction in San Mateo County implement these proposals to the best of their abilities. Implementing these policies will demonstrate your community’s commitment to affirmatively furthering fair housing for all.

Thank you for your consideration, Kalisha Webster
Senior Housing Advocate, Housing Choices
Hyun-mi Kim
Housing Advocacy Director, Puente de la Costa Sur
Jeremy Levine
Policy Manager, Housing Leadership Council
Signed on behalf of the 21 Elements Equity Advisory Group

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 30 A8 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Table A8.A summarizes the comments received during the public review period between August 29, 2022 and October 3, 2022, and how they are addressed in the Housing Element. An additional comment letter was received after the review period, on November 22, 2022, and is also included below.

Table A8.A: Comments During First Public Review Period
Date From Summary How It Is Addressed
9/29/2022 Victoria Wong,
MidPen
Housing
Asks for clarifying language regarding City capital
improvements and water line upgrades that will benefit the 965 Weeks development project.

Clarifying language was added.
9/29/2022 Melissa Borgesi,
Midpeninsula
Regional Open
Space District
Comments on development in the Ravenwood Business
District/4 Corners Specific Plan. Asks for additional park and open space requirements within RBD/4 Corners Specific
Plan, because new housing in the area can exasperate demand in visitation. Recommends several active transportation options when integration parking reduction.

City is still reviewing potential
densities.
9/30/2022 Corinne I.

Calfee, Opterra
Law Inc.
representing
Sand Hill
Property
Company
Highlights importance of entitled and highly probable
projects getting entitled and built. Comments on probability of two major development projects. Comments on processing times being longer, and need for streamlining.

City Council approved
Woodland Park Euclid
Improvements Development
Project on November 15, 2022.
which required General
Plan/zoning amendments to
significantly increase density,
an EIR, a tenant relocation plan,
infrastructure improvements,
and a development agreement.

City is prioritizing streamlining
development.
9/30/2022 Keith Diggs,
YIMBY Law
Commends City for doubling lower-income allocations.

Offers support if state law does not offer right of return support for displaced residents. Water is more important than design review. Also, need for shorter process times for new apartments.

City is prioritizing
streamlining development.

City also recently adopted
Master Water Plan (on
October 4, 2022). More

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 31 discussion around water was
added.
9/30/2022 Jeanne Yu,
resident
Comments on programs and policies recommended for nonprofits to own, acquire, and build property and land. Asks that nonprofits not interfere with home selling process.

City is still studying program,
no decision has been made.
9/30/2022 Kevin Keating,
14 year resident
Comments on density and zoning. Asks for re-evaluation of lots zoned higher density or urban residential near single family neighborhoods. Asks that higher density be along major thoroughfares (University Ave/Bay Road), close to transit and major arteries.

Housing opportunity sites take
into consideration transit
concerns.
9/30/2022 Moana Kofutua,
Youth United
for Community
Action
Asks for Spanish and Tongan translation and simplification of the Housing Element documents. Wants clarity on why
many affordable housing developments have not shown
promise for community members.

City Language Access Plan is
under way. City is prioritizing
development of extremely and
very low-income units in
alignment with community
needs.
9/30/2022 Julian Sierra,
Youth United
for Community
Action
Suggests breaking down abbreviations, translation in
Spanish and Tongan, and simplification of wording. Asked for more details on water sources. Asks for more City
staffing. Recommends community forum to actively
dismiss misinformation.

City Language Access Plan is
under way. Abbreviations
were broken down. Water
sources details were added.

City staffing is mentioned.
9/30/2022 Dani Montes,
Youth United
for Community
Action
Recommends focusing on incentivizing building affordable ADUs.

Plan for ADU streamlining
and incentives is in Policies
and Programs.
9/30/2022 Hailey Romero,
Youth United
for Community
Action
Comments on need for better marketing of affordable
housing units. Comments that the average housing income in East Palo Alto is lower than the moderate and above
moderate incomes. Comments on project delays generally.

Program for improved
dissemination of information
is in the City’s housing plan.

City is prioritizing
streamlining development.
9/30/2022 Estefani Ruiz,
Youth United
for Community
Action
Comments on need for translation of City fliers and notices. City Language Access Plan is under way.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 32 9/30/2022 Jaliyah Minor,
Youth United
for Community
Action
Comments on need for quality education, and prioritizing ADUs.

Plan for ADU streamlining is
in Policies and Programs.
9/30/2022 Ingrid Ruiz,
Youth United
for Community
Action
Questions how moderate and above moderate housing will
benefit the community if the majority of East Palo Alto residents are low-income. Comments on need for more
affordable housing. Asks for accountability in carrying out Housing Element.

City is planning for moderate
and above moderate housing
to comply with RHNA 6
requirements.
9/30/2022 Ivan Valencia,
Youth United
for Community
Action
Comments on need for better quality education, and
addressing displacement and gentrification. Suggests
simplifying Housing Element language.

Plan to address displacement
and gentrification is in
Policies and Programs.

Abbreviations were broken
down for greater access.
9/30/2022 Xenia
Hernandez,
Youth United
for Community
Action
Comments on translation need for Spanish and Tongan
speakers to make the Housing Element more inclusive.

City Language Access Plan is
under way.
9/30/2022 Fernando
Medrano, Youth
United for
Community
Action
Comments on need to advertise new low income housing
(for LightTree apartments and Weeks).

Program for improved
dissemination of information
is in the City’s housing plan.
9/30/2022 Filiberto
Zaragoza, Youth
United for
Community
Action
Comments on need for lower income units, rather than
moderate and above moderate units because East Palo Alto is a low income community. Comments on need for
programs that support families in becoming homeowners.

City is planning for moderate
and above moderate housing
to comply with RHNA 6
requirements. Program for
homeownership opportunities
is in the City’s housing plan.
10/3/2022 Harvey
McKeon,
NorCal
Carpenters
Union 217
Comments on Four Corners and the Ravenwood Business
District Specific Plan Area. Asks that the City’s CEQA
analyze the impacts resulting from construction-related employment and the environmental impacts on the Project’s construction workers.

Environmental review of
RBD/4 Corners Specific Plan
Area is underway.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 33 11/22/2022 Jeremy Levine,
Housing
Leadership
Council of San
Mateo County
Comments on City’s progress toward RHNA 6.

Examines sites inventory and constraints. Requests
additional evidence for realistic development on non-vacant sites. Comments that projected affordability levels of units at 2277 University Ave might be too low and financially infeasible. Requests 560 Bell rezoning to “Mixed-Use
High” to match surrounding area. Requests Bay Rd. site
rezoning to MUC-1 to facilitate school district development of site. Requests City commits to rezoning EPA Waterfront, 1103 Weeks St., and 1200 Weeks St., and reduce the
number of very low- and low-income units to include a
proportion of moderate and above-moderate income
housing. Recommends following changes to governmental
constraints: 1) increasing FARs; 2) reducing rear setbacks for high-density areas; 3) make firm commitments to
reduce discretionary approval times.

Evaluates goals, policies and programs, and provides
recommendations to remove constraints. Requests direct
connection to identified needs, governmental constraints, and sites inventory.

See Appendix D for
additional evidence for
realistic development on nonvacant sites.
2277 University Ave
assumptions based on
potential site merge. 560 Bell
removed from sites inventory
For FARs, setbacks, etc., sites
may be subject to density
bonus law, which creates
more flexibility. The City will
continue to convert subjective
standards to objective
standards, which will create
more certainty and efficiency.

Policies and Programs
updated to reflect
commitment to reducing
governmental constraints.

Table A8.B summarizes the comments in the months of January and February 2023, after releasing a revised draft of the Housing Element for additional public review. A second revised draft was released on January 17, 2023, before a Planning Commission discussion of the Housing Element on January 23, 2023, and a third revised draft was released February 6, 2023 for a 7-day review period.

Table A8.B: Comments During Second Public Review Period Date From Summary How It Is Addressed
1/17/2023 Jeremy Levine,

HLC-SMC
Sought response to letter from City Council Responses included in Appendix A8.A
1/23/2023 Federico
Andrade Garcia,
resident
City should focus on production of multi-family housing rather than preservation of single-family dwellings. City should “think outside the box” and have mixed-use
developments with apartments over retail or markets. Retail is City is encouraging mixed-use
development along the
University corridor and in the
Ravenswood Business

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 34 far away, people need to get in their cars. Stop impacting single family homeowners with OPA and search for other
solutions that benefit everyone.

District/Four Corners Specific
Plan Area. OPA is policy
consideration for housing
preservation and is only in
exploratory stage.
1/25/2023 Corie Calfee,
Opterra Law
Inc. representing
Sand Hill
Property
Company and
Woodland Park
Communities
Process unclear and confusing. Public review period needs to extend to full 7 days. No agenda posted for noticed January 24 City Council meeting. Need accurate, clear information.

Comments regarding 1) Governmental Constraints to
Housing, and 2) Feasibility/Likelihood of Development.

Regarding 1) Governmental Constraints: a) Housing Element does not address infeasibility of inclusionary housing
ordinance due to high level of inclusionary housing and deep affordability; it creates cost burden and threatens viability of market rate rental projects. Euclid Improvements had to seek alternative compliance to attempt to make project feasible.

City considering onerous requirements for projects in RBD that will make housing construction expensive; b) processing time for Euclid Improvements project took 46 months for submission of required entitlements pre-application, and City required 20 public meetings to approve. c) Four Corners project in process also long. Not clear how average
processing time is lower; d) business license taxes are governmental constraint. Regarding 2) Feasibility/Likelihood of Development within Housing Element Cycle: a) Housing Element should rely on projects expected to be developed during planning period, but concerned Euclid Improvements project unlikely to be developed during planning period.

Given climate of high interest rates and high construction costs, not reasonable for City to rely upon Euclid
improvements to meet RHNA.

Inclusionary housing ordinance
and business license tax added
to governmental constraints.

Note that these policies and
programs help affirmatively
further fair housing .

Project processing times further
differentiated for typical
projects that do not require
General Plan and zoning
changes. Euclid Improvements
Project required General Plan
and zoning changes, and a
Development Agreement with
complex relocation plan,
infrastructure issues, and offsite affordable housing
compliance.

Added policies and programs to
streamline development review.

City committed to
implementing AB 2234 to
permit streamlining for postentitlement building and related construction permits.
1/26/2023 Auria
Maleksalehi,
attorney, broker,
contractor
Sought copy of HCD comment letter and update on January 23, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting.

Information available on
Housing Element webpage.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 35 2/2/2023 Wyatt Meyer,
The Mulholland
Drive Company
Asked if the Housing Element has been adopted and if the City is planning on rezoning properties in the Housing
Element
Information available on
Housing Element webpage.
2/3/2023 Ofelia Bello,
Youth United
for Community
Action
Comments regarding: 1) Governmental Constraints, 2)
Levels of Review, 3) Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing, and 4) Policies and Programs. Regarding 1)
Governmental Constraints, 1) urges City to explore
incentives and approaches that allows Low-Barrier
Navigating Center to support youth experiencing
homelessness; 2) asks City to continue to prioritize fair and lawful review processes in housing development, provides Woodland Park Euclid Improvements Project as example;
3) asks City to increase staffing capacity for Building, Code Enforcement, Planning and Housing departments; 4a) asks that OPA be included in Housing Element given its
incorporation in City’s 2018 Affordable Housing Strategy; 4b) urges City to prioritize work to address habitability issues; 4c) asks City to hire additional staff and prioritize building capacity for long-term housing planning and
implementation of programs
City can work with LBNC to
seek additional youth support;
Housing Element policies that
affirmatively further fair
housing balance need for
streamlining and community
input; increasing staffing
capacity included under
Policies and Program goals.
2/13/2023 Corie Calfee,
Opterra Law
Inc. representing
Sand Hill
Property
Company and
Woodland Park
Communities
Comments regarding:
1) City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance– provides that the ordinance is infeasible and the City as had no rental projects in compliance with the ordinance;
2) City’s Local Processing Times – questions accuracy of revised processing times for multi-family projects, states average underestimates amount of time projects take, and that the City does not propose any modifications to
processes to facilitate approvals;
3) City Fees and Taxes – adds City’s business license tax as governmental constraint;
1) Inclusionary Housing is in
governmental constraints.

City’s inclusionary housing
ordinance is in compliance
with state law and comparable
to other jurisdictions’
ordinances, allowing for
alternative compliance
options, incentivizing
construction of units over
paying in-lieu fees (including
an exemption for deedrestricted affordable units),
and promoting integration.

Several rental projects have
been approved in compliance

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 36 4) Feasibility and Likelihood of Projects – states Euclid Improvements project is unlikely to be constructed within planning period given City’s requirements for approval and current market conditions of high interest rates and high construction costs; states Four Corners site has been
delayed and City should commit to items beyond “study”. 5) Quantified Objectives – states unclear how quantified objectives were calculated, and Euclid Improvements and Four Corners projects should be removed from quantified objectives.
with the ordinance. 2)
Processing Times – the City
has approved two large multifamily projects: LightTree Apartments and 965 Weeks.

The processing times for the
Euclid Improvements Project
was an outlier, given nature
of the project, including the
number of units, required
entitlements (zoning text and
General Plan amendments), a
development agreement with
a robust relocation and antidisplacement plan,
3) Fees – the City added the
business license tax, Measure
L, to government constraints.

The fee will go toward
affordable housing
preservation and rental
assistance to protect tenants
from displacement
(affirmatively furthering fair
housing);
4) Feasibility – State Law
allows approved projects to be
counted in RHNA, including
the Euclid Improvements
project. Further, the additional
analysis identified (e.g.,
barriers to development) only
applies to projects not entitled

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix A: Public Outreach and Participation - Page 37 after June 30, 2021.70 City
committed to implementation
of AB 2234 to allow for
streamlined processing.
5) Quantified objectives
section was amended to
reflect methodology.
70 City of Union City’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element (ca.gov) (requiring Union City “clarify the availability or likelihood these projects will be completed in the planning period, including necessary and anticipated steps for completion, phasing, build out horizons, any barriers to development and other factors and adjust projections as needed” because the project was not entitled after June 30, 2021).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) [Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data

APPENDIX B HOUSING NEEDS DATA
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 1
APPENDIX B1 EAST PALO ALTO HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: EAST

PALO ALTO
ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning
2021-04-02

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 2

0.1 Table of content

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

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

0.3 List of tables ......................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5 2 Summary of Key Facts ................................................................................................... 6 3 Looking to the Future: Regional Housing Needs ..................................................................... 9

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination ........................................................................... 9

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................................................................ 9 4 Population, Employment and Household Characteristics ......................................................... 11

4.1 Population...........................................................................................................11

4.2 Age ...................................................................................................................12

4.3 Race and Ethnicity..................................................................................................14

4.4 Employment Trends ................................................................................................15

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers ................................................................................15

4.4.2 Sector Composition ...........................................................................................19

4.4.3 Unemployment ................................................................................................20

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households ...............................................................................21

4.6 Tenure ...............................................................................................................24

4.7 Displacement........................................................................................................28 5 Housing Stock Characteristics ........................................................................................ 30

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits...............................................................30

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion .........................................................33

5.3 Substandard Housing ...............................................................................................34

5.4 Home and Rent Values .............................................................................................35

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding ..................................................................................38 6 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................. 47

6.1 Large Households ...................................................................................................47

6.2 Female-Headed Households .......................................................................................48

6.3 Seniors ...............................................................................................................50

6.4 People with Disabilities............................................................................................51

6.5 Homelessness........................................................................................................53

6.6 Farmworkers ........................................................................................................63

6.7 Non-English Speakers...............................................................................................64

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 3

0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends .........................................................................................12 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019 .....................................................................................13 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race .............................................................................14 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 ....................................................................................15 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction ...............................................................................................16 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence ..............................17 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ..............................................................................18 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio ...............................................................................................19 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry .................................................................................20 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate...............................................................................................21 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level .........................................................................22 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure ..............................................................................23 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race ............................................................................................24 Figure 14: Housing Tenure ....................................................................................................25 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ........................................................................26 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age ............................................................................................27 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type.................................................................................28 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure ..................................................................29 Figure 19: Housing Type Trends ..............................................................................................30 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ...........................................................................31 Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type..............................................................................................32 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues .......................................................................................35 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units..........................................................................36 Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)..................................................................................36 Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ......................................................................37 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent .............................................................................................38 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure ............................................................................................39 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level.....................................................................................40 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race...............................................................................................41 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size...................................................................................42 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ............................................................43 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ...........................................................................44 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity....................................................................45 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race.............................................................................................46 Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure.........................................................................................47 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms ..........................................................................48 Figure 37: Household Type ....................................................................................................49 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status .................................................................50 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure.......................................................................51 Figure 40: Disability by Type..................................................................................................52 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County....................................54 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County ..............................55 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County......................................56 Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County.........................62 Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, San Mateo County..............................................64 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency ....................................................................65

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 4

0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology .......................................10 Table 2: Population Growth Trends ..........................................................................................11 Table 3: Housing Permitting ..................................................................................................32 Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ...............................................................................33 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ..............................................................53 Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence.......................................................53 Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ...................................................62 Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population ................................................................................63

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 5
1 INTRODUCTION
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 6
2 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
• Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of East Palo Alto increased by 4.4% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay Area.
• Age – In 2019, East Palo Alto’s youth population under the age of 18 was 8,381 and senior population 65 and older was 2,033. These age groups represent 28.3% and 6.9%, respectively, of East Palo Alto’s population.
• Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 10.1% of East Palo Alto’s population was White while 10.9% was African American, 9.6% was Asian, and 66.1% was Latinx. People of color in East Palo Alto comprise a proportion above the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.71 • Employment – East Palo Alto residents most commonly work in the Health & Educational Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in East Palo Alto decreased by 5.4 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 470 (13.2%). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in East Palo Alto has increased from 0.37 in 2002 to 0.57 jobs per household in 2018.
• Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in East Palo Alto increased, 1.3% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for San Mateo County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period.
• Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all East Palo Alto residents to live and thrive in the community.
– Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $750k-$1M in 2019. Home prices increased by 160.0% from 2010 to 2020. – Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in East Palo Alto was $1,630 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 65.7% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $65,560 per year.72 • Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 54.1% of homes in East Palo Alto were single family detached, 4.1% were single family attached, 3.4% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 36.6% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more than multi-family units. Generally, in East Palo Alto, the 71 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source. 72 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 7
share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region.
• Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs.

A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In East Palo Alto, 28.8% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 25.2% of households are severely cost burdened and use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, 64.7% of households in East Palo Alto live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification. 0.0% of households in East Palo Alto live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. Although the data show no risk of gentrification, anecdotally, the City has heard about the gentrification pressures residents are facing. There are various ways to address displacement including protection, preservation, and production policies.
• Neighborhood – 0.0% of residents in East Palo Alto live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 100.0% of residents live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.73 These neighborhood designations hinder the City’s ability to access Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and other state resources for affordable housing developments that target funding to high-resource areas.
• Special Housing Needs – Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In East Palo Alto, 6.4% of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 27.5% of East Palo Alto households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with two bedrooms or more.74 20.6% of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

Note on Data
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing
73 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as part of new Housing Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. ABAG/MTC will be providing jurisdictions with technical assistance on this topic this summer, following the release of additional guidance from HCD.
74 The assumption for larger (2+) bedroom size came from public input and the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Survey, where respondents indicated not having enough space for all members of their household.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 8
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. We use the five-year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for the smaller cities, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly.

Additionally, there may be instances where there is no data available for a jurisdiction for particular data point, or where a value is 0 and the automatically generated text cannot perform a calculation. In these cases, the automatically generated text is “NODATA.” Staff should reword these sentences before using them in the context of the Housing Element or other documents.

Note on Figures
Any figure that does not specify geography in the figure name represents data for East Palo Alto.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 9
3 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination
The Plan Bay Area 205075 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year time frame covered by this Housing Element Update, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very low-income households to market rate housing.76 This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from California Department of Finance, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households, and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.77 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State Housing Element Law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to 441,776. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needsallocation Almost all jurisdictions in the Bay Area are likely to receive a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last cycle, primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared to previous cycles.

In January 2021, ABAG adopted a Draft RHNA Methodology, which is currently being reviewed by HCD.

For East Palo Alto, the proposed RHNA to be planned for this cycle is 829 units, a slated increase from the last cycle. Please note that the previously stated figures are merely illustrative, as ABAG has yet to issue Final RHNA allocations. The Final RHNA allocations that local jurisdictions will use for 75 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing and transportation 76 HCD divides the RHND into the following four income categories:

Very Low-income: 0-50% of Area Median Income
Low-income: 50-80% of Area Median Income
Moderate-income: 80-120% of Area Median Income
Above Moderate-income: 120% or more of Area Median Income 77 For more information on HCD’s RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on June 9, 2020: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-final060920(r).pdf

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 10
their Housing Elements will be released at the end of 2021. The potential allocation that East Palo Alto would receive from the Draft RHNA Methodology is broken down by income category as follows:

Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology Income Group
East Palo
Alto
Units
San Mateo
County
Units
Bay Area
Units
East Palo
Alto
Percent
San Mateo
County
Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI) 165 12196 114442 19.9% 25.6% 25.9%
Low Income (50%-
80% of AMI) 95 7023 65892 11.5% 14.7% 14.9%
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of AMI) 159 7937 72712 19.2% 16.6% 16.5%
Above Moderate
Income (>120% of
AMI)
410 20531 188130 49.5% 43.1% 42.6%
Total 829 47687 441176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Methodology and tentative numbers were approved by ABAG’s Executive board on January 21, 2021 (Resolution No. 02-2021). The numbers were submitted for review to California Housing and Community Development in February 2021, after which an appeals process will take place during the Summer and Fall of 2021.

THESE NUMBERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER HCD REVIEW

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 11
4 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD

CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, East Palo Alto’s population has increased by

4.4%; this rate is below that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In East Palo Alto, roughly 10.6% of its population moved during the past year, a number 2.8 percentage points smaller than the regional rate of 13.4%.

Table 2: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
East Palo Alto 23451 24710 29506 32080 28155 30236 30794 San Mateo County 649623 685354 707163 719844 718451 761748 773244 Bay Area 6020147 6381961 6784348 7073912 7150739 7595694 7790537 Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

In 2020, the population of East Palo Alto was estimated to be 30,794 (see Table 2). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 25.8%, while it decreased by 4.6% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 9.4%. The population of East Palo Alto makes up

4.0% of San Mateo County.78
78 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e. percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 12
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year.

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

DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

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

In East Palo Alto, the median age in 2000 was 25.8; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 30 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-and-over population has increased (see Figure 2).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 13
Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.

Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.

People of color79 make up 68.2% of seniors and 65.9% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3). 79 Here, we count all non-white racial groups

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 14
Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02.

4.3 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today80. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in East Palo Alto identifying as White has increased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has decreased – by 3.4 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 2,991 (see Figure 4). In absolute terms, the Hispanic or Latinx population increased the most while the Black or African American, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.
80 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 15
Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-02.

4.4 Employment Trends

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

One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in East Palo Alto increased by 46.9% (see Figure 5).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 16
Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.

There are 15,101 employed residents, and 5,225 jobs81 in East Palo Alto - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 0.35; East Palo Alto is a net exporter of workers.

Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively lowincome workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. East Palo Alto has more low-wage residents than low-wage jobs (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000) (see Figure 6).82
81 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey. 82 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 17
Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence
Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.

Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 18
Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.

Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.

New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in East Palo Alto has increased from 0.37 in 2002, to 0.57 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 19
Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.

4.4.2 Sector Composition
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which East Palo Alto residents work is Health & Educational Services, and the largest sector in which San Mateo residents work is Health & Educational Services (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 20
Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables:

Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail:

C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information: C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06.

4.4.3 Unemployment
In East Palo Alto, there was a 5.4 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 21
Figure 10: Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonallyadjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.

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

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15.

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state83.

In East Palo Alto, 17.4% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)84, compared to 25.5% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 11).
83 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
84 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 22
Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than 30% AMI. In San Mateo County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $44,000 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

According to the data shown below (Figure 11), 3,837 of East Palo Alto’s households are 0-50% AMI while 1,918 are extremely low-income. Therefore, extremely low-income households represent 50.0% of households who are 0-50% AMI, as 1,918 divided by 3,837 is 50.0%. This option aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, as the information in Figure 11 represents a tabulation of Census Bureau Data. See the estimate of extremely low-income units in the RHNA 6 opportunity sites in Chapter 5 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 23
can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA numbers.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01.

Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.

In East Palo Alto, the largest proportion of renters falls in the 0%-30% of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure 12).

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

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents.85 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In East Palo Alto, American Indian or Alaska 85 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 24
Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure 13).

Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.

4.6 Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In East Palo Alto there are a total of 7,724 housing units, and more residents rent than own their homes: 60.2% versus 39.8% (see Figure 14). By comparison, 39.8% of households in San Mateo County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 25
Figure 14: Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16.

Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for White residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.86 In East Palo Alto, 60.2% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 60.0% for Asian households, 27.7% for Latinx households, and 31.9% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.
86 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 26
Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.

The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In East Palo Alto, 74.3% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 26.4% of householders over 65 are (see Figure 16).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 27
Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18.

In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In East Palo Alto, 63.6% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 6.0% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 17).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 28
Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-22.

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

The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in East Palo Alto, 64.7% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification.

Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 0.0% of households in East Palo Alto live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.87
87 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 29
Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure
Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: LowIncome/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 30
5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

The housing stock of East Palo Alto in 2020 was made up of 54.1% single family detached homes, 4.1% single family attached homes, 3.4% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 36.6% multifamily homes with 5 or more units, and 1.9% mobile homes (see Figure 19). In East Palo Alto, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Detached.

Figure 19: Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-01.

Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In East Palo Alto, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1940 to 1959, with 3,262 units constructed during this period (see Figure 20). Since 2010, 1.5% of the current housing stock was built, which is 128 units.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 31
Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.

Vacant units make up 7.4% of the overall housing stock in East Palo Alto. The rental vacancy stands at

8.5%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 2.4%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is For Rent (see Figure 21).88
Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for shortterm periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like Airbnb are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.89 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting 88 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (7.4%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant.
89 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 32
in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.90
Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.

Between 2015 and 2019, 95 housing units were issued permits in East Palo Alto. 6.3% of permits issued in East Palo Alto were for above moderate-income housing, 36.8% were for moderate-income housing, and 56.8% were for low- or very low-income housing (see Table 3).

Table 3: Housing Permitting
Income Group value
Moderate Income Permits 35
Low Income Permits 34
Very Low Income Permits 20
Above Moderate Income Permits 6
90 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 33
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HSG-11.

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

The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 466 assisted units in East Palo Alto in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 0.0% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.91 HCD requires that Housing Elements list the assisted housing developments at risk of converting to market-rate uses. The list can be found in Chapter 2, Section 2.12.2 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income East Palo Alto San Mateo County Bay Area
Low 466 4656 110177
Moderate 0 191 3375
High 0 359 1854
91 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

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

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

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

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 34
Income East Palo Alto San Mateo County Bay Area
Very High 0 58 1053
Total Assisted Units in Database 466 5264 116459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing developments at-risk of converting to market rate uses. This document provides aggregate numbers of at-risk units for each jurisdiction, but local planning staff should contact Danielle Mazzella with the California Housing Partnership at [email protected] to obtain a list of affordable properties that fall under this designation. California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are atrisk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Low Risk: affordable homes that are atrisk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table RISK-01.

5.3 Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in East Palo Alto. For example, 2.0% of renters in East Palo Alto reported lacking a kitchen and 1.6% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.0% of owners who lack a kitchen and 1.5% of owners who lack plumbing.

HCD requires Housing Elements to estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. As a data source for housing units in need of rehabilitation and replacement is not available for all jurisdictions in the region, ABAG was not able to provide this required data point in this document. To produce an estimate of housing needs in need of rehabilitation and replacement, staff supplemented the data below on substandard housing issues with additional local information from code enforcement and the rent stabilization program. See this supplemental data in Chapter 2, Section 2.12.2.D of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 35
Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06.

5.4 Home and Rent Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in East Palo Alto was estimated at $936,680 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $750k-$1M (see Figure 23). By comparison, the typical home value is $1,418,330 in San Mateo County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $1m-$1.5m (county) and $500k-$750k (region).

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 151.0% in East Palo Alto from $373,130 to $936,680. This change is above the change in San Mateo County, and above the change for the region (see Figure 24).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 36
Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07.

Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 37
ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts.

Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.

Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.

Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In East Palo Alto, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $1500-$2000 category, totaling 30.7%, followed by 25.6% of units renting in the Rent $1000-$1500 category (see Figure 25).

Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $3000 or more category (county) compared to the $1500-$2000 category for the region as a whole.

Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.

Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 65.7% in East Palo Alto, from $1,210 to $1,630 per month (see Figure 26). In San Mateo County, the median rent has increased 41.1%, from $1,560 to $2,200.

The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.92 For supplemental rent trends data, see Chapter 2, Section 2.7 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
92 While the data on home values shown in Figure 24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 38
Figure 26: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness. reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 39
Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06.

Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in East Palo Alto, 26.2% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 19.8% of those that own (see Figure 27). Additionally, 29.4% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 21.9% of owners are severely cost-burdened.

In East Palo Alto, 25.2% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 28.8% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 28). For example,

67.5% of East Palo Alto households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For East Palo Alto residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 0.0% are severely costburdened, and 93.2% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 40
Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 42.2% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened with 29.6% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 29).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 41
Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In East Palo Alto, 29.0% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 24.8% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 28.7% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 25.3% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 30).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 42
Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 55.8% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, 84.7% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 31).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 43
Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In East Palo Alto, 17.5% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 3.2% of households that own (see Figure 32). In East Palo Alto, 18.3% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 7.9% for those own.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 44
Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 8.6% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 7.9% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 33).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 45
Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In East Palo Alto, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Hispanic or Latinx (see Figure 34)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 46
Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and nonHispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 47
6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

6.1 Large Households
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In East Palo Alto, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (63.3%) are renter occupied (see Figure 35). In 2017, 48.3% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).

Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.

The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.

Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 3,678 units in East Palo Alto. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 32.3% are owner-occupied and 67.7% are renter occupied (see Figure 36).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 48
Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05.

6.2 Female-Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly femaleheaded households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In East Palo Alto, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 48.1% of total, while Female-Headed Households make up 20.6% of all households.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 49
Figure 37: Household Type
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.

Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

In East Palo Alto, 30.9% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 1.0% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 38).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 50
Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status
Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.

6.3 Seniors
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0%-30% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group 0%-30% of AMI (see Figure 39).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 51
Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

6.4 People with Disabilities
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 40 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of East Palo Alto. Overall, 6.4% of people in East Palo Alto have a disability of any kind.93
93 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 52
Figure 40: Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:

Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty:
has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.

State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.94 In East Palo Alto, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 50.0%, while adults account for 50.0%.
94 For more information or data on developmental disabilities in your jurisdiction, contact the Golden Gate Regional Center for Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; the North Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties; the Regional Center for the East Bay for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 53
Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group value
Age 18+ 93
Age Under 18 93
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.

The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in East Palo Alto is the home of parent /family /guardian.

Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type value
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 173
Independent /Supported Living 13
Other 0
Foster /Family Home 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Community Care Facility 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.

6.5 Homelessness

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 54
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In San Mateo County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.5% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in transitional housing (see Figure 41).

Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01.

People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In San Mateo County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for

66.6% of the homeless population, while making up 50.6% of the overall population (see Figure 42).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 55
Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table.

Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02.

In San Mateo, Latinx residents represent 38.1% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 24.7% of the general population (see Figure 43).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 56
Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In San Mateo County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 305 reporting this condition (see Figure 12). Of those, some 62.0% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

Notably all the data on homelessness provided above is for the entire county. This data comes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Point in Time count, which is the most comprehensive publicly available data source on people experiencing homelessness. HUD only provides this data at the county-level and not for specific jurisdictions. However, Housing Element law requires local jurisdictions to estimate or count of the daily average number of people lacking shelter.

Number of People Experiencing Homelessness
In August 2022, the County of San Mateo released a One Day Homeless Count and Survey report. The 2022 count found that there were 1,808 people experiencing homelessness in San Mateo County on the night of February 23, 2022. The number includes: 1,092 people experiencing unsheltered homelessness on streets, in Safe Parking programs, in vehicles (cars, vans, and recreational vehicles [RVs]), or in

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 57
structures (tents, encampments, and other structures); and 716 people experiencing sheltered homelessness in emergency shelters and transitional housing.

Number of Homeless Households
The 1,808 people experiencing homelessness (including both unsheltered and sheltered) were members of 1,248 households, consisting of the following household types:
• 1,138 adult-only households, i.e., households with adults ages 18 and older without dependent children (91.2%);
• 109 family households, i.e., households with dependent children (8.7%); and • 1 child household, i.e., households with only children (0.1%) Table 1 below taken from the 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey summarizes the sleeping locations where people were counted for each household type.

Source: 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey The unsheltered count also includes information about the locations where people experiencing unsheltered homelessness slept on the night of the count: on the streets, in safe parking programs, in vehicles, or in structures. As illustrated in Figure 1 below, taken from the 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey, the majority of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness slept in cars or vans (30%) and RVs (26%). An additional 9% slept in vehicles in safe parking programs. The remaining 34% slept on the street (16%), in tents and encampments (16%), or in other locations including abandoned buildings, boats, and other uncategorized vehicles or structures (2%)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 58
Source: 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey Unsheltered Count Totals by Location
The Table 4 below, taken from the 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey, summarizes the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness by geographic location in 2022, and Table 5 below displays summaries for each count from 2011 to 2022. Consistent with prior years, a large proportion of people experiencing homelessness were living in three geographic locations in 2022: Redwood City, East Palo Alto, and Pacifica.

East Palo Alto had a Point in Time (PIT) count of 169 unsheltered people in 2022, which is 15% of the total unsheltered population in the County. The percent of unsheltered population in East Palo Alto is disproportionately higher than the rest of the County, as East Palo Alto comprises only 4% of the general County population.

Between 2011 and 2015, East Palo Alto saw a decline in the unsheltered homeless count. Between 2015-2022, East Palo Alto saw an increase in the unsheltered homeless count. In 2020 and 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the County did not administer a One Day Homeless County and Survey. To better understand the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on homelessness, the survey administered to people experiencing unsheltered homelessness asked whether the COVID-19 pandemic was the cause of homelessness and about their vaccination status. Among those surveyed, 15% reported that the COVID19 pandemic caused them to become homeless. Of those who reported experiencing homelessness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the most common causes were loss of job (44%), eviction (10%), having their rent raised (5%), and having their work hours reduced (5%).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 59
TABLE 4. Unsheltered Count by Jurisdiction
City 2022 Count
Atherton 3
Belmont 13
Brisbane 6
Burlingame 10
Colma 1
Daly City 49
East Palo Alto 169
Foster City 4
Half Moon Bay 68
Hillsborough 0
Menlo Park 56
Millbrae 9
Pacifica 161
Portola Valley 0
Redwood City 245
San Bruno 63
San Carlos 14
San Francisco International Airport 14
San Mateo 60
South San Francisco 42
Unincorporated Total 105
Coastside 62
North 7
Central 0
South 36
Woodside 0
TOTAL 1,092
Source: 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 60
Source: 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey Proportionately more Black, African American, or African people and American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous people were unsheltered than sheltered. All Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander persons observed on the night of the count were either staying in emergency shelters or transitional housing.

See Figure 6 taken from the 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey below.

TABLE 5. Unsheltered Homeless Count by Jurisdiction by Year City 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2022
Atherton 1 0 1 0 1 3
Belmont 1 43 11 3 7 13
Brisbane 0 34 21 19 4 6
Burlingame 3 13 7 21 25 10
Colma 1 7 3 1 8 1
Daly City 44 27 32 17 66 49
East Palo Alto 385 119 95 98 107 169
Foster City 0 7 0 6 4 4
Half Moon Bay 41 114 84 43 54 68
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 72 16 27 47 27 56
Millbrae 1 21 8 7 9 9
Pacifica 95 150 63 112 116 161
Portola Valley 16 2 0 1 0 0
Redwood City 233 306 223 94 221 245
San Bruno 14 98 8 26 12 63
San Carlos 9 10 20 28 30 14
San Francisco International Airport 9 5 1 3 21 14
San Mateo 68 103 82 48 74 60
South San Francisco 122 172 55 33 42 42
Unincorporated Total 47 46 32 30 73 105
Coastside - - 22 22 60 62
Central - - 0 0 0 0
North - - 0 3 6 7
South - - 10 5 7 36
Woodside 0 6 2 0 0 0
TOTAL 1,162 1,299 775 637 901 1,092

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 61
Source: 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey 70%
63% 63%
60%
50% 46%
40%
30%
21%
20% 18%
10% 5% 3%
6%
9% 9%
5% 6% 6% 4%
0% 0% 0%

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 62
Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

In East Palo Alto, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 524 during the 2019-20 school year and decreased by 31.7% since the 2016-17 school year. By comparison, San Mateo County has seen a 37.5% decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%.

During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

The number of students in East Palo Alto experiencing homelessness in 2019 represents 43.9% of the San Mateo County total and 3.8% of the Bay Area total.

Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Academic Year East Palo Alto San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 767 1910 14990

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 63
Academic Year East Palo Alto San Mateo County Bay Area
2017-18 441 1337 15142
2018-19 946 1934 15427
2019-20 524 1194 13718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.

6.6 Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

In East Palo Alto, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 57.1% decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year.

Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year East Palo Alto San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 58 657 4630
2017-18 0 418 4607
2018-19 0 307 4075
2019-20 0 282 3976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 64
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in San Mateo County has decreased since 2002, totaling 978 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 343 in 2017 (see Figure 45).

Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, San Mateo County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.

6.7 Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In East Palo Alto, 13.8% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is above the proportion for San Mateo County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data – Page 65
Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) -
APPENDIX B2 SAN MATEO COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS DATA
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data - 62 -

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data - 63 -

INTRODUCTION
People
Housing
Jobs
▪ By 2026, one out of five residents will be 65 or over ▪ San Mateo County’s population is becoming more diverse ▪ The number of households will continue to grow
▪ Housing prices and rents will continue to increase
▪ The number of jobs will continue to grow
▪ Although the median income is high, many jobs paylow
wages

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data - 64 -
PEOPLE
By 2026, one outof
five residents will
be 65 or over
Under 25 25-44 45-64 65+
San Mateo County makes up 10 percent of the total
Bay Area population, which is the fifth largest
metropolitan area in the country. The number of people
living here has steadily grown over the past few
decades. In 2020, our population was estimated to be
773,244, an increase of 19 percent since 1990.
1 That
trend is expected to continue–despite the impact of
the pandemic–because jobs continue to be added.

People are also living longer, with those 65 and over
expected to make up nearly 20 percent ofthe
population by 2026. Equally important is the fact that
Millennials recently surpassed the Baby Boomers as
our largest generation. As Millennials enter their 40s, they will continue to shape countywide housing needs.

By 2026, people 25-44 and 45-64 will make up more
than 50 percent of the population.
2 What does this mean for housing needs?
Both seniors and Millennials have shown a preference
for more walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods that are
close to work, schools, parks, and amenities. The majority of seniors prefer to stay in their homes and communities, known as aging-in-place. Yet many live on fixed incomes and may have mobility issues as they age, which require supportive services.

Simultaneously, Millennials are less likely to own homes and have less savings than previous generations; they
are more likely to live alone and delay marriage; and as they start families, may be in greater need of support
when purchasing their first home. Coupled with
increasing housing prices, it is more difficult for
younger generations to rent or purchase a home than it
was for current residents.

We must address how to support our seniors as they get
older so they can stay in their homes and communities,
and make sure young people, new families, and our
workers can find housing they can afford that meets
their needs.
1 U.S. Census, American Community Survey
2 Claritias Population Facts 2021
15%
28%
Age
2020
27% 29%
19%
28%
Age
2026
27% 26%

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data - 65 -
Our population is
becoming more
diverse
Asian Latinx Other *
.5%

21.8%

4.6%

29.6%
Black White
*
San Mateo County is a very diverse place to live, even
when compared to the State of California. Countywide,
more than one-third of the population is foreign-born
and almost half speaks a language other than English
at home. By contrast, a quarter of all Californians are foreign-born and less than a quarter speak a language
other than English at home. Over 120 identified
languages are spoken in San Mateo County, with top
languages including Spanish (17 percent), Chinese (8
percent) and Tagalog (6 percent).

Our population has become increasingly more diverse
over time. In 2000, more than half of people
identified as White, which fell to 39 percent in 2019,
and is expected to decrease further to 35 percent by
2026. However, while the Asian and Latinx populations
increased during that time, but the Black population
decreased by almost half, from 3.5 to 2.2 percent.
1 What does this mean for housing needs?
When planning for housing, we need to consider a
variety of housing needs—like larger homes for multigenerational families or those with more children—and how to create opportunities for everyone to access
quality, affordable housing near schools, transit, jobs, and services.

Past exclusionary practices have prevented people
of color from purchasing homes, living in certain
neighborhoods, and building wealth over time. As a
result, they are more likely to experience poverty,
housing insecurity, displacement, and homelessness.

And while many of our communities are very diverse,
we are still contending with segregation and a lack of
equitable opportunities. To help prevent
displacement due to gentrification and to create a
future where it is possible for everyone to find the
housing they need, it will be important to plan for a
variety of housing types and affordability options in
all neighborhoods.
1 U.S. Census, American Community Survey

39.2% 24.4%

2.2%
Race +
Ethnicity
2019

51.5% 22.6%
Race +
Ethnicity
2000

3.5%

DIVERSITY
Past and projected percentage of Black,
Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)
49%
2000 2019 2026
Since 2000:

BIPOC population growth
from 48.5% to 60.8%
Asian Population growth
from 21.8% to 29.6%
Black Population decline
from 3.5% to 2.2%

12.3%

7.8%

2.3%
35%
46%
120
of the population is foreign born
speak a language other thanEnglish
different languages are spoken
*Due to small percentage, Other is grouped as American Indian, Alaska Native, “Other” or Multiple Races

DIVERSITY
Past and projected percentage of Black,
Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)
49%
2000 2019 2026
2000 to 2019:

BIPOC population growth
from 48.5% to 60.8%
Asian Population growth
from 21.8% to 29.6%
Black Population decline
from 3.5% to 2.2%

12.3%

7.8%

2.2%
35%
46%
120
of the population is foreign born
speak a language other than
English
different languages are spoken
61%
65%

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data - 66 -
for
every
HOUSEHOLDS + HOUSING
The number
of households
will continue to
grow
That’s a
48%
increase
Over the past 30 years, new home construction has not
kept up with the number of jobs added to the economy.

This has led to a housing shortage.

In 2020, there were 265,000 households in San
Mateo County. By 2050 we expect that to increase
by almost 50 percent, to 394,000.
1 This growing
demand will continue to put pressure on home prices
and rents. Given that nearly 75 percent of our housing
was built before 1980, there will also be a need to
upgrade older homes. While upgrades will be essential
to make sure housing is of high quality and safe to
residents, redevelopment or repair can sometimes
result in a loss of affordable housing, especially in older multifamily or apartment buildings.

For every six low-wage jobs ($20/hour) there is one
home in the county that is affordable to such a
worker (monthly rent of $1,500).
2 What does this mean for housing needs?
Along with planning for more housing, we also need to
consider how to best support the development of low
and moderate income housing options while preserving
existing affordable homes. This includes transitional
and supportive housing options for the unhoused and
universal design to meet accessibility and mobility
needs.

Although the majority of housing produced in the past
few decades has been single-family homes or larger
multifamily buildings, some households have become
increasingly interested in “missing middle” housing—
smaller homes that include duplexes, triplexes,
townhomes, cottage clusters, garden apartments, and
accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These smaller homes
may provide more options to a diversity of community
members across income, age, and household size.
28%
5+ unit
multifamily
Housing
stock
55%
single family
homes
68%
of households
are families
76%
of existing housing
was built before 1980
2-4 unit multifamily
and mobile homes
6 1 17% 5,264
1 Plan Bay Area 2050 Projected Growth Pattern, U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5 Association of Bay Area Governments Jobs Housing Fit
61%
17%
Built 1975
$

265K
Households in 2020
394K
Households in 2050
low wage jobs
(153,000 in total)
affordable home
(25,000 in total)
2-4 unit multifamilyand
mobile homes
of households spend
half or more of their income on
housing
existing affordable units are at
risk of being converted to
market rate

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data - 67 -
Housing rent
and prices
continue to
increase
2009 to 2020
per m

The Bay Area is a great place to live, but throughout the region and county there just isn’t enough housing for
all income levels, which has caused costs to go up.

Home prices and rents have been steadily increasing
the past two decades, but in recent years the jump has
been dramatic. Since 2009, median rent increased 41
percent to $2,200, and median home values have
more than doubled to $1,445,000.
1 Overall, many residents are paying too much for
housing, while many others have been priced out
entirely. If a household spends more than 30 percent
of its monthly income on housing, it is considered
cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50 percent, it
is considered severely cost-burdened. Renters are
usually more cost-burdened than homeowners. While
home prices have increased dramatically, homeowners
often benefit from mortgages at fixed rates, whereas
renters are subject to ups and downs of the market.

In San Mateo County, 17 percent of households spend
half or more of their income on housing, while 19
percent spend between a one-third to half. However,
these rates vary greatly across income and race. Of
those who are extremely low income—making 30
percent or less of the area median income (AMI)—88
percent spend more than half of their income on
housing. Latino renters and Black homeowners are
disproportionately cost burdened and severely costburdened. Given that people in this situation have a small amount ofincome to start with, spending more
than half what they make on housing leaves them with
very little to meet other costs, such as food and
healthcare. Very low-income households paying more
than 50 percent of their income on rent are often at a
greater risk of homelessness.2
As a result, more people are living in overcrowded or
unsafe living conditions. They are also making the
tough choice to move further away and commute long
distances to work or school, which has created more
traffic. Since low income residents and communities of
color are the most cost burdened, they are at the highest risk for eviction, displacement, and homelessness.

What does this mean for housing needs?
Although there are complex supply, demand, and
economic factors impacting costs, not having enough
housing across all incomes has meant rent and prices are just higher. Programs and policies that can support more homes across all income levels, particularly very low,
low, and moderate income, are essential, as
are more safe, affordable housing options to address
homelessness.
1 San Mateo County Association of Realtors, Zillow
7 U.S. Census, American Community Survey
$2.2K
per month

RENTER SNAPSHOT
54% are under 44 years old
76% are people of color and ata
higher risk of being displaced
1 in 4 renters...
spend 50% of income on rent
live in overcrowded households –
89% of these renters are BIPOC
Latinx are the most cost burdened
31% spend more than half and
18% spend a third to half of their
income on rent
$1.4M
$1.56K
Median rent increased 41% Home values more than doubled $$675KK

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data - 68 -
JOBS
The number of jobs
will continueto grow
The Bay Area and San Mateo County have had very
strong economies for decades. While some
communities have more jobs and some have less, we
have all been impacted by the imbalance of job growth
and housing.

Since 2010, we have added over 100,000 jobs but
only 10,000 homes.
1 At the same time, our population
is growing naturally, meaning more people are living
longer while our children are growing up and moving
out into homes of their own. All of this impacts housing demand and contributes to the rising cost of homes.

We need more housing to create a better balance.

In 2020, there were 416,700 jobs, and by 2050 we
expect that to increase 22 percent to 507,000.
2 While some jobs pay very well, wages for many others
haven’t kept up with how costly it is to live here.

That’s a
22%
increase
What does this mean for housing needs?
As we plan for housing, we need to consider the needs
of our workforce—folks who are a part of our
communities but often end their day by commuting long
distances to a place they can afford. Many have been
displaced in recent decades or years, as housing rent
and prices soared along with a job-generating economy.

The lack of workforce housing affects us all, with
teachers, fire fighters, health care professionals, food service providers, and many essential workers being
excluded from the communities they contribute to every
day. The long-term sustainability of our communities
depends on our ability to create more affordable and
equitable housing options.

NEW JOBS TO NEW HOUSING
2010 - 2020
New jobs continue to
outpace new homes
added to the County
Jobs Homes
More people
living longer
1 U.S. Census American Community Survey, State of CA Employment Development Dept (EDD) 9 Plan Bay Area 2050 Projected Growth Pattern
children
growing up and
moving out
natural growth
and more
housing needed
100K
416.7K
Jobs in 2020
507K
Jobs in 2050
10K

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix B: Housing Needs Data - 69 -
Our median
income is high, but
the wage gap
continues to grow
2021 Household Income:

H
To be considered low or moderate income in the Bay
Area means a very different thing than in most parts of the country. The income or wage gap—the difference
between the highest and lowest wages—is large in our
region. Affordable housing here can mean that your
favorite hairstylist, your child’s principal, or the friendly medical assistant at your doctor’s office can qualify
for—and often needs—below marketrate or subsidized
affordable housing so they can live close to their work.

The starting point for this calculation is the Area
Median Income (AMI)—the middle spot between the
lowest and highest incomes earned in San Mateo
County. Simply put, half of households make more,
and half of households make less. Moderate income is
80 to 120 percent of the AMI, low income is 50 to 80
percent AMI, and very low income is 30 to 50 percent
AMI. Below 30 percent AMI is considered extremely
low income. The rule of thumb is households should
expect to pay about a third of their income on housing.

In San Mateo County, the AMI is $104,700 for a
single person, $119,700 for a household of two and
$149,600 for a family of four. When we talk about
affordable housing, we mean housing that is
moderately priced for low or moderate income
residents so that new families and the workforce can
live in our communities. Affordable housing programs
are generally for those who earn 80 percent or below
the AMI, which is $102,450 for a single person,
$117,100 for a household of two, and $146,350 a
yearfor a household of four.
1 What does this mean for housing needs?
Given the price of land in San Mateo County and what it costs to build new housing, creating affordable housing is extremely challenging—and often impossible without
some form of subsidy. Sometimes this is in the form
of donated land from a local government or school
district. Sometimes this is in the form ofincentives to 1 State of CA Dept of Housing and Community Development (HCD) $117K
$102K
$120K
$105K 80% AMI 100% AMI
INCOME LEVELS + WAGES Extremely Low 30% AMI
Grocery Store Clerkor
Barista
$29K/Yr or $15/Hr
83% of income spent on housing*
Very Low 50% AMI
Hair Stylist
or Administrative Assistant
$38K/Yr or $20/Hr
63% of income spent on housing* Low 80% AMI
Medical Assistant
or Preschool Teacher
$52K/Yr or $27/Hr
46% of income spent on housing*
School Administrator or
Social Worker
$86K/Yr or $45/Hr
28% of income spent on housing*
*income spent on housing based on 2k per month/studio or 1 bedroom $146K
Household of 1 Household of 2 Household of 4 Income Income Income $150K

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) [Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C:Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
APPENDIX C: AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 1
APPENDIX C1 AFFH DATA REPORT
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 5
Figure I-6.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 6
Figure I-7.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 9
Figure II-5.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 10
Figure II-6.
% Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 11
Figure II-7.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 12
Figure II-8.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 13
Figure II-9.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 14
Figure II-10.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 15
Figure II-11.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 16
Figure II-12.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 17
Disability status.

Figure II-13.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 26
Household income.

Figure II-25.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 27
Figure II-26.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 28
Figure II-27.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 29
Figure II-28.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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 non-white 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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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 non-white 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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 33
Employment
Figure III-2.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 37
Figure III-8.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 39
Figure III-10.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 40
Figure III-11.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 43
Figure III-15.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 44
Figure III-16.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 1
Figure III-22
Mateo County Housing Policies and Programs Analysis
Source: ABAG.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 1
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 2
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 3
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 4
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 5
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
Based on Figures IV-9 and IV-10, there is a higher likelihood that renter-occupied households are overpaying than owner-occupied households.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 6
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 7
Figure IV-13.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 8
Figure IV-14.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 9
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 10
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 11
Figure IV-19.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 12
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 13
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 14
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 15
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 16
Figure IV-28.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 17
Figure IV-29.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 18
Figure IV-30.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 19
Figure IV-31.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 20
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§

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) [Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report
APPENDIX C2 AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT: EAST

PALO ALTO
UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 15:54:04

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 2 -

0.1 Table of content

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

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

0.3 List of tables ......................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Purpose of this Report .............................................................................................. 4

1.2 Defining Segregation ................................................................................................ 5

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area ............................................................................. 5

1.4 Segregation and Land Use .......................................................................................... 6 2 Racial Segregation in City of East Palo Alto........................................................................... 7

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of East Palo Alto) ....................................... 7

2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between East Palo Alto and other jurisdictions)..............................15 3 Income Segregation in City of East Palo Alto ....................................................................... 20

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within East Palo Alto)..............................................20

3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between East Palo Alto and other jurisdictions).............................26 4 Appendix 1: Summary of Findings.................................................................................... 30

4.1 Segregation in City of East Palo Alto.............................................................................30

4.2 Segregation Between City of East Palo Alto and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region ..............30 5 Appendix 2: Segregation Data ........................................................................................ 32 6 References............................................................................................................... 36

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 3 -

0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of East Palo Alto (2020)............................................................................ 8 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ........10 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ....13 Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)............................................................................................................................14 Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of East Palo Alto and Surrounding Areas (2020)................................................15 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of East Palo Alto Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ......................17 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in East Palo Alto and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020).............18 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of East Palo Alto (2015) .........................................................................21 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)23 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)............................................................................................................................24 Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...................................................................................................................................26 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of East Palo Alto and Surrounding Areas (2015) .............................................27 Figure 13: Income Demographics of East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)................28

0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within East Palo Alto ............................................. 9 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within East Palo Alto ........................................12 Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within East Palo Alto............................................14 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, East Palo Alto and the Region .....................................................16 Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures .............................................................................19 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within East Palo Alto ...................................22 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within East Palo Alto...............................24 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within East Palo Alto ..........................................25 Table 9: Population by Income Group, East Palo Alto and the Region....................................................27 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures ..........................................................................29 Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in East Palo Alto .....................................................32 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in East Palo Alto ....................................................33 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures ............................................................................34 Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures ..........................................................................34 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, East Palo Alto and the Region....................................................35 Table 16: Population by Income Group, East Palo Alto and the Region ..................................................35

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 4 -
1 INTRODUCTION
The requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial status and disability.96 The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity.9798 AB 686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues. ABAG and UC Merced have prepared this report to assist Bay Area jurisdictions with the Assessment of Fair Housing section of the Housing Element.

Assessment of Fair Housing Components
The Assessment of Fair Housing includes five components, which are discussed in detail on pages 22-43 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo:

A: Summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity B: Integration and segregation patterns, and trends related to people with protected characteristics
C: Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty D: Disparities in access to opportunity
E: Disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk

1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report describes racial and income segregation in Bay Area jurisdictions. Local jurisdiction staff can use the information in this report to help fulfill a portion of the second component of the Assessment of Fair Housing, which requires analysis of integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics and lower incomes. Jurisdictions will still need to perform a similar analysis for familial status and populations with disability.

This report provides segregation measures for both the local jurisdiction and the region using several indices. For segregation between neighborhoods within a city (intra-city segregation), this report includes isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Theil’s-H index. The isolation index measures segregation for a single group, while the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two groups. 96 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2
97 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo
98 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 5 -
The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. HCD’s AFFH guidelines require local jurisdictions to include isolation indices and dissimilarity indices in the Housing Element. Theil’s H index is provided in addition to these required measures. For segregation between cities within the Bay Area (inter-city segregation), this report includes dissimilarity indices at the regional level as required by HCD’s AFFH guidelines. HCD’s AFFH guidelines also require jurisdictions to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region; and this report presents the difference in the racial and income composition of a jurisdiction relative to the region as a whole to satisfy the comparison requirement.

1.2 Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This report examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20% Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80% Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.

City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.

Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein 2017).

Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.

Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety (Trounstine 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013).

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough 7 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 6 -
residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.”99 However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.

1.4 Segregation and Land Use
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).100 ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.

Definition of Terms - Geographies
Neighborhood: In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by tracts.101 Tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, tracts contain on average 4,500 residents. Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts.

Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is used to refer to the 109 cities, towns, and unincorporated county areas that are members of ABAG. Though not all ABAG jurisdictions are cities, this report also uses the term “city” interchangeably with “jurisdiction” in some places.

Region: The region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County.
99 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 100 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I. 101 Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data.

However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census blocks, while the income group dot maps in Figure 8 and Figure 12 use data from census block groups. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to groups. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 7 -
2 RACIAL SEGREGATION IN CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
Definition of Terms - Racial/Ethnic Groups
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies racial groups (e.g. white or Black/African American) separately from Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.
102 This report
combines U.S. Census Bureau definitions for race and ethnicity into the following racial groups:

White: Non-Hispanic white
Latinx: Hispanic or Latino of any race103
Black: Non-Hispanic Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander: Non-Hispanic Asian or Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander People of Color: All who are not non-Hispanic white (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)104

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of East Palo Alto)
Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of East Palo Alto in Figure 47 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher. 102 More information about the Census Bureau’s definitions of racial groups is available here:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html. 103 The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx to refer to this racial/ethnic group. 104 Given the uncertainty in the data for population size estimates for racial and ethnic groups not included in the Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories, this report only analyzes these racial groups in the aggregate People of Color category.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 8 -
Figure 47: Racial Dot Map of East Palo Alto (2020)
Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of East Palo Alto and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.

There are many ways to quantitatively measure segregation. Each measure captures a different aspect of the ways in which groups are divided within a community. One way to measure segregation is by using an isolation index:
• The isolation index compares each neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole.
• This index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more isolated from other groups.
• Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact between different groups. The index can be interpreted as the experience of the average member of that group. For example, if the isolation index is .65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.

Within City of East Palo Alto the most isolated racial group is Latinx residents. East Palo Alto’s isolation index of 0.672 for Latinx residents means that the average Latinx resident lives in a neighborhood that is 67.2% Latinx. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in East Palo Alto for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 9 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the Black population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 9 -
The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020.105 The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 9 indicates the average isolation index value for white residents across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.491, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1% white.

Table 9: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within East Palo Alto East Palo Alto Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.098 0.114 0.123 0.245
Black/African American 0.251 0.172 0.124 0.053
Latinx 0.578 0.634 0.672 0.251
White 0.150 0.137 0.084 0.491
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Figure 48 below shows how racial isolation index values in East Palo Alto compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the isolation index value for that group in City of East Palo Alto, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for racial groups in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region. 105 This average only includes the 104 jurisdictions that have more than one census tract, which is true for all comparisons of Bay Area jurisdictions’ segregation measures in this report. The segregation measures in this report are calculated by comparing the demographics of a jurisdiction’s census tracts to the jurisdiction’s demographics, and such calculations cannot be made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 10 -
Figure 48: Racial Isolation Index Values for East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Another way to measure segregation is by using a dissimilarity index:
• This index measures how evenly any two groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall. The dissimilarity index at the jurisdiction level can be interpreted as the share of one group that would have to move neighborhoods to create perfect integration for these two groups.
• The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (e.g. they tend to live in different neighborhoods).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 11 -
Dissimilarity Index Guidance for Cities with Small Racial Group Populations The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population.

HCD’s AFFH guidance requires the Housing Element to include the dissimilarity index values for racial groups, but also offers flexibility in emphasizing the importance of various measures. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 12), jurisdiction staff use the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of their jurisdiction’s neighborhood-level segregation patterns (intra-city segregation).

If a jurisdiction has a very small population of a racial group, this indicates that segregation between the jurisdiction and the region (inter-city segregation) is likely to be an important feature of the jurisdiction’s segregation patterns.

City of East Palo Alto has no groups making up less than 5 percent of its population.

Table 10 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in East Palo Alto between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).

In East Palo Alto the highest segregation is between Black and white residents (see Table 10). East Palo Alto’s Black /white dissimilarity index of 0.225 means that 22.5% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and white residents.

The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average dissimilarity index values for these racial group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation between communities of color are from white residents in this jurisdiction.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 12 -
For example, Table 10 indicates that the average Latinx/white dissimilarity index for a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.207, so on average 20.7% of Latinx (or white residents) in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect integration between Latinx and white residents in that jurisdiction.

Table 10: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.451* 0.370 0.127 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.537 0.439 0.225 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.406 0.341 0.170 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.443 0.361 0.149 0.168
Universe: Population.

Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.

Figure 49 below shows how dissimilarity index values in City of East Palo Alto compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in East Palo Alto, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Similar to Figure 48, local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between white residents and communities of color in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region. However, staff should be mindful of whether a racial group in their jurisdiction has a small population (approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population), as the dissimilarity index value is less reliable for small populations.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 13 -
Figure 49: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Note: The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.

The Theil’s H Index can be used to measure segregation between all groups within a jurisdiction:
• This index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the whole city. Neighborhoods are weighted by their size, so that larger neighborhoods play a more significant role in determining the total measure of segregation. • The index ranges from 0 to 1. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all neighborhoods within a city have the same demographics as the whole city. A value of 1 would mean each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.
• For jurisdictions with a high degree of diversity (multiple racial groups comprise more than 10% of the population), Theil’s H offers the clearest summary of overall segregation.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood racial segregation in East Palo Alto for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 11 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in the table provides the average Theil’s H Index across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in East Palo Alto declined, suggesting that there is now less neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in East Palo Alto was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in East Palo Alto is less than in the average Bay Area city.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 14 -
Table 11: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within East Palo Alto East Palo Alto Bay Area
Average
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.040 0.035 0.018 0.042
Universe: Population.

Figure 50 below shows how Theil’s H index values for racial segregation in East Palo Alto compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction.

Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for neighborhood racial segregation in East Palo Alto, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood racial segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

Figure 50: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 15 -

2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between East Palo Alto and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between neighborhoods. Racial dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood racial segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore the racial demographic differences between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure 51 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in East Palo Alto as well as in nearby Bay Area cities.

Figure 51: Racial Dot Map of East Palo Alto and Surrounding Areas (2020) Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

To understand how each city contributes to the total segregation of the Bay Area, one can look at the difference in the racial composition of a jurisdiction compared to the racial composition of the region as a whole. The racial demographics in East Palo Alto for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 12 below. The table also provides the racial composition of the nine-county Bay Area. As of 2020, East Palo Alto has a lower share of white residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of Latinx residents, a higher share of Black residents, and a lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 16 -
Table 12: Population by Racial Group, East Palo Alto and the Region East Palo Alto Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 2.1% 11.0% 11.9% 28.2%
Black/African American 22.5% 15.8% 10.6% 5.6%
Latinx 58.8% 64.5% 66.5% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 10.1% 2.4% 3.3% 5.9%
White 6.5% 6.2% 7.7% 35.8%
Universe: Population.

Figure 52 below compares the racial demographics in East Palo Alto to those of all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions.106 In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the percentage of the population of City of East Palo Alto represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among all 109 jurisdictions.

Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different racial groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region. 106 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 17 -
Figure 52: Racial Demographics of East Palo Alto Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

The map in Figure 53 below also illustrates regional racial segregation between East Palo Alto and other jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in East Palo Alto and surrounding jurisdictions compares to the Bay Area as a whole:
• Jurisdictions shaded orange have a share of people of color that is less than the Bay Area as a whole, and the degree of difference is greater than five percentage points. • Jurisdictions shaded white have a share of people of color comparable to the regional percentage of people of color (within five percentage points). • Jurisdictions shaded grey have a share of people of color that is more than five percentage points greater than the regional percentage of people of color.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 18 -
Figure 53: Comparing the Share of People of Color in East Palo Alto and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)
Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Note: People of color refer to persons not identifying as non-Hispanic white. The nine-county Bay Area is the reference region for this map.

Segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Table 13 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for racial segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2020. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level racial segregation, these indices were calculated by comparing the racial demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 13, these measures are calculated by comparing the racial demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s racial makeup. For example, looking at the 2020 data, Table 13 shows the white isolation index value for the region is 0.429, meaning that on average white Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 42.9% white in 2020. An example of regional dissimilarity index values in Table 13 is the Black/white dissimilarity index value of 0.459, which means that across the region 45.9% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to evenly distribute Black and white residents across Bay Area jurisdictions. The dissimilarity index values in Table 13 reflect recommendations made in HCD’s AFFH guidance for calculating dissimilarity at the region level.107 The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how 107 For more information on HCD’s recommendations regarding data considerations for analyzing integration and segregation patterns, see page 31 of the AFFH Guidance Memo.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 19 -
diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the racial diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same racial demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each racial group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for racial segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2020, meaning that racial groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.

Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 20 -
3 INCOME SEGREGATION IN CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
Definition of Terms - Income Groups
When analyzing segregation by income, this report uses income group designations consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element:

Very low-income: individuals earning less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI)
Low-income: individuals earning 50%-80% of AMI
Moderate-income: individuals earning 80%-120% of AMI
Above moderate-income: individuals earning 120% or more of AMI Additionally, this report uses the term “lower-income” to refer to all people who earn less than 80% of AMI, which includes both low-income and very low-income individuals.

The income groups described above are based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculations for AMI. HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and VallejoFairfield Metro Area (Solano County).

The income categories used in this report are based on the AMI for the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within East Palo Alto) Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot maps, similar to the racial dot maps shown in Figures 47 and 51, are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of East Palo Alto in Figure 54 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of income groups within the jurisdiction.

As with the racial dot maps, when the dots show lack of a pattern or clustering, income segregation measures tend to be lower, and conversely, when clusters are apparent, the segregation measures may be higher as well.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 21 -
Figure 54: Income Dot Map of East Palo Alto (2015)
Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of East Palo Alto and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.

The isolation index values for all income groups in East Palo Alto for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 14 below.108 Very Low-income residents are the most isolated income group in East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto’s isolation index of 0.561 for these residents means that the average Very Lowincome resident in East Palo Alto lives in a neighborhood that is 56.1% Very Low-income. Among all income groups, the Very Low-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.

Similar to the tables presented earlier for neighborhood racial segregation, the “Bay Area Average” column in Table 14 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by income groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 14 indicates the average isolation index value for very low-income residents across Bay Area 108 This report presents data for income segregation for the years 2010 and 2015, which is different than the time periods used for racial segregation. This deviation stems from the data source recommended for income segregation calculations in HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. This data source most recently updated with data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. For more information on HCD’s recommendations for calculating income segregation, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidelines.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 22 -
jurisdictions is 0.269, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a very low-income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 26.9% very low-income.

Table 14: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.503 0.561 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.256 0.200 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.131 0.149 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.142 0.116 0.507
Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

Figure 55 below shows how income group isolation index values in East Palo Alto compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each income group notes the isolation index value for that group in East Palo Alto, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for income groups in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 23 -
Figure 55: Income Group Isolation Index Values for East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

Table 15 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in East Palo Alto between residents who are lower-income (earning less than 80% of AMI) and those who are not lower-income (earning above 80% of AMI). This data aligns with the requirements described in HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo for identifying dissimilarity for lower-income households.109 Segregation in East Palo Alto between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income decreased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table 15 shows dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation in Albany between residents who are very low-income (earning less than 50% of AMI) and those who are above moderate-income (earning above 120% of AMI). This supplementary data point provides additional nuance to an analysis of income segregation, as this index value indicates the extent to which a jurisdiction’s lowest and highest income residents live in separate neighborhoods.

Similar to other tables in this report, the “Bay Area Average” column shows the average dissimilarity index values for these income group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. For example, Table 15 indicates that the average dissimilarity index between lower-income residents and other residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.198, so on average 19.8% of lower-income residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in that jurisdiction.

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 (See Table 15). This means that the lower109 For more information, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 24 -
income residents are less segregated from other residents within East Palo Alto compared to other Jurisdictions in the region.

Table 15: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.103 0.090 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.114 0.106 0.253
Universe: Population.

Figure 56 below shows how dissimilarity index values for income segregation in East Palo Alto compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each income group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in East Palo Alto, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between lower-income residents and wealthier residents in their jurisdiction compared to the rest of the region.

Figure 56: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 25 -
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in East Palo Alto for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 16 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average Theil’s H Index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. By 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income segregation in East Palo Alto was about the same amount as it had been in 2010. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in East Palo Alto was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is less neighborhood level income segregation in East Palo Alto than in the average Bay Area city.

Table 16: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within East Palo Alto East Palo Alto Bay Area
Average
Index 2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi-income 0.014 0.011 0.043
Universe: Population.

Figure 57 below shows how Theil’s H index values for income group segregation in East Palo Alto compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for income group segregation in East Palo Alto, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood income group segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 26 -
Figure 57: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between East Palo Alto and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between jurisdictions instead of between neighborhoods.

Income dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood income segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore income demographic differences between jurisdictions in the region. Figure 58 below presents an income dot map showing the spatial distribution of income groups in East Palo Alto as well as in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 27 -
Figure 58: Income Dot Map of East Palo Alto and Surrounding Areas (2015) Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

When looking at income segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area, one can examine how East Palo Alto differs from the region. The income demographics in East Palo Alto for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 17 below. The table also provides the income composition of the ninecounty Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, East Palo Alto had a higher share of very low-income residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of low-income residents, a lower share of moderate-income residents, and a lower share of above moderate-income residents.

Table 17: Population by Income Group, East Palo Alto and the Region East Palo Alto Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 51.2% 57.96% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 25.29% 19.04% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 11.99% 14.12% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 11.52% 8.88% 39.4%
Universe: Population.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 28 -
Source: Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

Figure 59 below compares the income demographics in East Palo Alto to other Bay Area jurisdictions.110 Like the chart in Figure 49, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions. The smallest range is among jurisdictions’ moderate-income populations, while Bay Area jurisdictions vary the most in the share of their population that is above moderate-income. Additionally, the black lines within each income group note the percentage of East Palo Alto population represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among other jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different income groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.

Figure 59: Income Demographics of East Palo Alto Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

Income segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Similar to the regional racial segregation measures shown in Table 13, Table 18 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index 110 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 29 -
values for income segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2015. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level income segregation, segregation indices were calculated by comparing the income demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 18, these measures are calculated by comparing the income demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s income group makeup. For example, looking at 2015 data, Table 18 shows the regional isolation index value for very low-income residents is 0.315 for 2015, meaning that on average very low-income Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 31.5% very low-income. The regional dissimilarity index for lower-income residents and other residents is 0.194 in 2015, which means that across the region 19.4% of lower-income residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in the Bay Area as a whole. The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the income group diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same income demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each income group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for income segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2015, meaning that income groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.

Table 18: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 30 -
4 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

4.1 Segregation in City of East Palo Alto
• The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. • As of 2020, Latinx residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in East Palo Alto, as measured by the isolation index. Latinx residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups. • Among all racial groups, the Black population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. • According to the dissimilarity index, within East Palo Alto the highest level of racial segregation is between Black and white residents.111
• According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in East Palo Alto declined between 2010 and 2020. Neighborhood income segregation stayed about the same between 2010 and 2015.
• 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 groups, the Very Low-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
• According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has decreased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in East Palo Alto between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

4.2 Segregation Between City of East Palo Alto and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region
• East Palo Alto has a lower share of white residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of Latinx residents, a higher share of Black residents, and a lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
111 The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 23 in Appendix 2), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 31 -
• Regarding income groups, East Palo Alto has a higher share of very low-income residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of low-income residents, a lower share of moderate-income residents, and a lower share of above moderate-income residents.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 32 -
5 APPENDIX 2: SEGREGATION DATA
Appendix 2 combines tabular data presented throughout this report into a more condensed format. This data compilation is intended to enable local jurisdiction staff and their consultants to easily reference this data and re-use the data in the Housing Element or other relevant documents/analyses.

Table 19 in this appendix combines data from Table 9, Table 10, and Table 11 in the body of the report. Table 20 in this appendix combines data from Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16 in the body of the report. Table 21 represents a duplication of Table 13 in the body of the report; Table 22 represents a duplication of Table 18 in the body of the report; Table 23 in this appendix represents a duplication of Table 12 in the body of the report, while Table 24 represents a duplication of Table 17 in the body of the report.

Table 19: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in East Palo Alto East Palo Alto Bay Area
Average
Index Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Isolation
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.098 0.114 0.123 0.245
Black/African American 0.251 0.172 0.124 0.053
Latinx 0.578 0.634 0.672 0.251
White 0.150 0.137 0.084 0.491
Dissimilarity
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.451* 0.370 0.127 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.537 0.439 0.225 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.406 0.341 0.170 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.443 0.361 0.149 0.168
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.040 0.035 0.018 0.042
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 33 -
Table 20: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in East Palo Alto East Palo Alto Bay Area
Average
Index Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Isolation
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.503 0.561 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.256 0.200 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.131 0.149 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.142 0.116 0.507
Dissimilarity
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.103 0.090 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.114 0.106 0.253
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.014 0.011 0.043
Universe: Population.

Source: Income data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 34 -
Table 21: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.

Table 22: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 35 -
Table 23: Population by Racial Group, East Palo Alto and the Region East Palo Alto Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 2.1% 11.04% 11.9% 35.8%
Black/African American 22.51% 15.83% 10.62% 5.6%
Latinx 58.79% 64.45% 66.47% 28.2%
Other or Multiple Races 10.06% 2.44% 3.33% 24.4%
White 6.54% 6.23% 7.67% 5.9%
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Table 24: Population by Income Group, East Palo Alto and the Region East Palo Alto Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 51.2% 57.96% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 25.29% 19.04% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 11.99% 14.12% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 11.52% 8.88% 39.4%
Universe: Population.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report - Page 36 -
6 REFERENCES
Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans. 2011. “The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 34-

66. Bayer, Patrick, Robert McMillan, and Kim S. Rueben. 2004. “What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence using Census Microdata,” Journal of Urban Economics 56(3): 514-535.

Burch, Traci. 2014. “The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment,” Law and Policy 36(3): 223-255.

Chetty, Raj and Nathanial Hendren. 2018. “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3):1107-1162 Cutler, David M., and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. “Are ghettos good or bad?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-72.

Lens, Michael and Paavo Monkkonen. 2016. “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?,” Journal of the American Planning Association 82(1): 6–21.

Pendall, Rolf. 2000. “Local Land-Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion,” Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2): 125-142.

Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of how our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing.

Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trounstine, Jessica. 2015. “Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods,” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 709-725.

Trounstine, Jessica. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) -
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement
APPENDIX C3: AFFH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 2
Sampling note. The survey respondents do not represent a random sample of the county or jurisdictions’ population. A true random sample is a sample in which each individual in the population has an equal chance of being selected for the survey. The 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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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 respondents reported they are precariously housed (Figure 3). Four in ten respondents reported having

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 6
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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.

Notable trends in housing, neighborhood, and affordability challenges by geographic area include:

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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 8
 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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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.
.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – 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.

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 19
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 20
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+)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 21
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 22
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 23
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 24
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+)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 25
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%).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 26
Single parents (79%) and households with children under 18 (66%) also reported the highest percentage of those who seriously looked for housing in the past five years among the selected household characteristics respondent groups. In addition to sharing the top two reasons for denial with the county, 25% of single parent household respondents also reported they were denied housing because the landlord told me I can’t have a service or emotional support animal.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 27
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 28
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 29
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 30
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 31
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 32
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 33
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 34
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 the city of 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)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 35
Figure 14. Displacement Experience and Reasons for Displacement Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 36
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 37
Figure 15. Children Changing Schools and Outcomes, Displaced Households Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 38
Experience with housing discrimination. Overall, 19% of survey respondents felt they were discriminated against when they looked for housing in the area.112 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 openended responses to the survey, include:
112 Note that this question applies to all respondents, not just those who seriously looked for housing in the past five years.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 39
Appearance/Characteristics
 “Because of my race and ethnicity”
 “[We] were given a subprime loan for home purchase for being Latinx, low-income and primarily Spanishspeaking; 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).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 40
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 41
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%).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 42
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 43
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 44
Figure 18.

Are you satisfied
with your current
transportation
options?
Source:

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 45
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%
 Half Moon Bay residents, 27%
Help me pay rent each month

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 46
 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%
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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 47
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%
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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 48
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%
 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:

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement – Page 49
 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.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) [Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D: Sites Inventory
APPENDIX D: SITES INVENTORY
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 1
APPENDIX D1: SITES INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
D1.5.2 Entitled or Approved Projects
965 WEEKS STREET “COLIBRI COMMONS”
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes. Site was rezoned with last Ravenswood Business District Specific Area Plan adopted in 2013.

APN 063-232-210
063-232-220
063-232-230
Acreage 2.52
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Entitled. Building Permit Application Submitted in December 2022.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Urban Residential (up to 40 du/acre); Density Bonus
Zoned as Urban Residential in the Ravenswood Business District Area Specific Plan for up to 40 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), consistent with High Density Residential (R-HD) land use designation in the General Plan (22-43 dwelling units per acre).

Unit Breakdown 42 VLI, 93 LI, 1 Above Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Colibri Commons (formerly known as 965 Weeks) is an entitled Density Bonus project on a vacant, City-owned parcel. Fully affordable project with financing plan that includes Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and other sources of public funding, including City loans.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Entitled project that has applied for several rounds of state funding and provided with City loan funds. Unit mix and affordability codified in regulatory agreement with City are reflected here. City is allowing developer to access land with a $1 lease. City’s funding of a portion of the $7.6 million allocated for the design and construction of water projects would provide the improved water flow needed to serve project’s future development. Project is currently applying for state tax credits and if successful, will break ground in October 2023.

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

Infrastructure Water –This project will benefit from City capital improvements; most significantly, the upgrade of the Weeks Street water line between Cooley and Pulgas, and the upgrade of the University Avenue water transmission main.

Applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.

Sewer – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from EPASD.

Other constraints None known.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 2
1804 BAY ROAD
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-231-240
Acreage .99 acre
Vacant? No
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Planning approved to submit for building permit for ministerial approval via SB 35.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Bay Road Central (50 du/acre); Density Bonus
Zoned as Bay Road Central in the Ravenswood Business District Area Specific Plan for up to 50 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), consistent with Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor (MUC-2) land use designation in the General Plan (22-65 du/acre).

Unit Breakdown 10 VLI, 65 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
SB 35-cleared mixed-use residential and retail project with density bonus. Owner currently considering options to sell the land and preliminarily approved plans and a new project could require discretionary review if major changes are proposed.

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

Environmental N/A due to SB 35.

Infrastructure Water – applicant will be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire. Water is provided by the City System along Bay Road.

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

Other constraints None known.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 3
2331 UNIVERSITY - UNIVERSITY CLARUM CORNER
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-201-250, 063-201-260, 063-201-290
Acreage .89 acres
Vacant? No
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Units
Project Status Entitled.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
MUC-1 (22-65 du/acre)
Zoning is MUC-1 (22-65 dwelling units per acre), consistent with General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use Corridor (up to 65 du/acre).

Unit Breakdown 4 LI, 3 MOD, 26 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Multifamily mixed-use; condominiums over ground floor retail. Demolition of existing single-family home on property.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
This project was entitled with the unit mix shown here. Conditions of approval include right of first refusal for current tenant for one of the below market-rate units in the new development and tenant relocation assistance to be provided to tenant.

Environmental CEQA Categorical Exemption.

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

The property was the subject of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Lowney Associates, 2003) that concluded that no hazardous materials incidents have been reported in this location or nearby locations that would likely affect the site. Kimley-Horn (2020) performed an updated regulatory database search and found that no new recorded hazardous sites are located at the project site.

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

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

Other constraints None known.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 4
760 WEEKS STREET
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-252-320
Acreage .52 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Units
Project Status Approved to submit for a building permit for ministerial approval via SB 35.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
RMD-2 (12-22 du/acre)
Zoned as RMD-2 (12-22 dwelling units per acre), consistent with General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential. Project just outside Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Area Plan.

Unit Breakdown 1 LI, 1 MOD, 8 Above-Mod units.

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

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Based on development proposal approved for building permit submittal. Received approval for on-site inclusionary housing compliance of two for-sale units; one low-income and 1 moderate-income deed-restricted unit in conformance with City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Environmental N/A due to SB 35.

Infrastructure Water – applicant will still be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System on Weeks Street.

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

Other constraints None known.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 5
120-126 MAPLE LANE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-720-190, 063-720-180, 063-720-170, 063-720-160
Acreage .177 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Units
Project Status Expected approval at the end of February 2023.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
RMD-1 (12-15 du/acre)
Zoned as Residential Medium Density-1 (12-15 dwelling units per acre), consistent with General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential.

Unit Breakdown 4 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
4- unit subdivision on vacant land. Inclusionary Housing Agreement between the City and the developer required developer to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing 2 residential units affordable to very low-income and low-income households.

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

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

Adequate water can be provided by the existing private water system in the Maple Lane Subdivision.

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

Other constraints None known.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 6
NO ADDRESS/APN 063265300 (RUNNYMEDE/CLARKE)
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-265-300
Acreage .156 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Units
Project Status Entitled.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
RMD-1 zoning (12-15 du/acre)
Zoned as Residential Medium Density-1 (RMD-1) at 12-15 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential.

Unit Breakdown 1 LI, 2 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Deed-restricted ADU at 70% AMI pursuant to Inclusionary Housing Agreement with City of East Palo Alto, as approved by the City Council.

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

Environmental CEQA Categorical Exemption
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System on Runnymede Street which is fed from Clarke Avenue.

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

Other constraints None known.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 7
805 RUNNYMEDE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-253-010
Acreage .92 acres
Vacant? No
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Unit
Project Status Approved to submit for a building permit for ministerial approval via SB 9.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD-1 (up to 12 du/acre)
Zoned as Residential Low-Density-1 (R-LD-1) for up to 12 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Residential Low-Density.

Unit Breakdown 1 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
SB 9 project to build one 3,607 square foot second unit with existing dwelling on same lot. Developer will pay In-Lieu Fee for inclusionary requirement before issuance of a building permit.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Qualified for SB 9.

Environmental Not subject to CEQA as ministerial permit.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System on Runnymede Street which is fed from Clarke Avenue.

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

Other constraints None known.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 8
1215 CYPRESS
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-383-280
Acreage .236 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Unit
Project Status Approved to submit for a building permit for ministerial approval via SB 9.

Building Permit application under review.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD-1 (up to 12 du/acre)
Zoned as Residential Low Density-1 (up to 12 dwelling units per acre), consistent with General Plan land use designation of Residential Low Density.

Unit Breakdown 1 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Ministerially approved SB 9 project to build one 1,200 sq ft unit on vacant lot.

Developer will pay In-Lieu Fee for inclusionary requirement before issuance of a building permit.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Qualified for SB 9.

Environmental Not subject to CEQA as ministerial project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System on Runnymede Street which is fed from Clarke Avenue.

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

Other constraints Development is in 100-year floodplain.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 9
APN 063-186-270 LINCOLN STREET
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-186-270
Acreage .254 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Approved to submit for a building permit for ministerial approval via SB 9.

Building Permit application under review.

Unit Breakdown 1 VLI, 3 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Planning reviewed and approved SB 9 project to build 2 rental units with 2 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on vacant lot. The inclusionary component of the development proposal to deed-restrict an attached ADU as an alternative compliance option to paying the Inclusionary In-Lieu Fee was approved by City Council on July 19, 2022.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Qualified for SB 9.

Environmental Not subject to CEQA as ministerial application.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water provided by Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company.

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

Other constraints None known.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 10

WOODLAND PARK COMMUNITIES EUCLID IMPROVEMENTS
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-282-010, 063-282-020, 063-282-030, 063-282-040, 063-282-050, 063-282- 060, 063-282-070, 063-282-580, 063-282-090, 063-281-020, 063-281-030, 063- 281-040, 063-281-100, 063-281-110
Acreage 3.9 acres
Vacant? No
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status? Entitled. No building application submitted yet.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Rezoned for up to 175 du/acre
Zoning changed from Multifamily High-Density (R-HD-5) at 22-43 dwelling units per acre, to Neighborhood Center Overlay at up to 175 du/acre. The General Plan designation was also modified from Multifamily Urban High Density (R-UHD) at 43-86 du/acre to Neighborhood Center Overlay.

Unit Breakdown 271 MOD; 173 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Redevelopment of 161 existing rent-controlled apartments to 605 units, or 444 net new units. This project requested a General Plan Amendment (to create “Neighborhood Center Residential Overlay”) and zoning code changes. Project is subject to Westside Area Plan anti-displacement policies that affirmatively further fair housing, including tenant relocation and inclusionary housing ordinance.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
The number of total units and affordable units is based on the development application, inclusionary housing ordinance, and Development Agreement between the City and the developer, Sand Hill/Woodland Park Communities, approved by City Council on November 15, 2022. (Continued below).

Environmental The final EIR was certified on October 4, 2022.

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

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

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

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 11
Other constraints Project was subject to Development Agreement and lengthy approval process due to rezoning and overlay zone request.

The project will demolish and rebuild 160 rent-stabilized units as a part of the new development, which will remain restricted to the Annual General Adjustment (AGA) each year or revert to market-rate if these units are or become vacant upon the completion of the new development due to Costa Hawkins vacancy decontrol. In the chart above chart, only the net-new, market-rate units are counted.

Project Background
On November 15, 2022, City Council approved the Woodland Park Euclid Improvements project, a 445-unit multi-family development that demolishes 160 rent stabilized units and 1 above-moderate income unit, and rebuilds 605 units, 444 of which are net new. The Woodland Park Euclid Improvements project rezoned and received an overlay zone of Neighborhood Center Overly (“NCO”), of up to 175 dwelling units per acre. The NCO overlay General Plan designation has a density allowance of 86 to 175 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan is therefore consistent with the rezoning.

In order to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, Woodland Park/Sandhill Properties, in partnership with Eden Housing, proposed to provide up to 89 inclusionary units off-site (an in-lieu fee will be paid for the difference if not all 89 are built off-site), which will be deed-restricted to 35-60% of the area median income (AMI). These inclusionary housing units are counted separately in the next chart under the site name of 851 Weeks due to its different stage in the process and need for SB 35 and density bonus.

Methodology for Moderate-Income Unit Designation
According to the developer’s project plan, the 444 net new units are expected to have an average monthly rent per unit of $3,067 and an average household income of $94,369. See Table D1.5.2.A below for the unit breakdown.
[Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 12
Table D1.5.2.A Annual Household Income Estimates
Source: Table 8 of developer’s fiscal impact report.

Table D1.5.2.B below provides the units mix breakdown of the proposed 444 net new units: 135 studios with average area of 405 square feet (“sq ft”), 126 1-bedrooms with an average area of 650 sq ft, and 173 2-bedrooms with average area of 960 sq ft. The City of East Palo Alto assumes a household size of 1, 2, and 3 for studios, 1-bedrooms, and 2-bedrooms respectively, using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s assumptions for household size. Once we account for utilities, the studio and 1-bedroom units are below moderate-income, while the 2-bedroom units are slightly above moderate-income. Based on this data, we assume 271 of the 444 net new units fall in the Moderate-Income (“MOD”) category, and 173 fall in the AboveModerate (“Above-Mod”) Income category.

Table D1.5.2.B: Unit Mix
# of
Market
Rate Units
# of
Bedrooms
Avg Unit
Size
(sq ft)
Estimated Max
Avg Monthly Rent,
Unadjusted
Estimated Max
Avg. Housing
Costs, Adjusted
Max ModerateIncome Affordable
Rent, Adjusted
Income
Category
135 Studio 405 sf $2,600 $2,798 $3,288 MOD
136 1 650 sf $3,340 $3,554 $3,770 MOD
173 2 960 sf $4,250 $4,512 $4,221 Above Mod
Notes: Estimated maximum average monthly rents provided by developer are unadjusted (do not include utility costs for multi-family apartments). The maximum monthly affordable rents for moderate-income households are

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 13
adjusted to include utility costs for multi-family residential apartments. See Tables D1.5.2.D and D1.5.2.E for more details.

Source: Sandhill Properties, State Department of Housing and Community Development and San Mateo County, 2022.

According to the 2022 San Mateo County Income Limits, an average household size of one, two, and three has an annual income of $139,450, $159,350 and $179,300, respectively. See Table D1.5.2.C for a breakdown.

Source: 2022 San Mateo County Income Limits, available at: https://www.smcgov.org/housing/income-limits and 2022 State Department of Housing and Community Development Income Limits, available at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants-and-funding/inc2k22.pdf.

The 2022 Maximum Monthly Rents, adjusted for utilities, for a household size of one, two and three, are:
$3,288, $3,770, and $4,221, respectively,. See Table D1.5.2.D for a breakdown.

Table D1.5.2.D: Maximum Affordable Rents, Adjusted
Area Median Incomes (AMI)
Household
Size of 1 /
Studio
Household
Size of 2 /
1 Bedroom
Household
Size of 3 /
2 Bedrooms
Household
Size of 4 /
3 Bedrooms
Extremely Low (30% AMI) $781 $905 $997 $1,080
Very Low (50% AMI) $1,433 $1,651 $1,836 $2,012
Low (80% AMI) $2,412 $2,769 $3,093 $3,410
Median (100% AMI) $2,707 $3,106 $3,473 $3,832
Moderate (120% AMI) $3,288 $3,770 $4,221 $4,662
Notes: Affordable rents calculated based on 30% of annual income divided by 12 months, and adjusted to include utility costs for multi-family residential apartments, using the 2022 San Mateo County Utility Allowance Schedules, available at: https://www.smcgov.org/housing/utility-allowance-schedules. The utility (including all-electric) adjustments are: $198 for studios, $214 for 1-bedrooms and $262 for 2-bedrooms.

Table D1.5.2.C: 2022 San Mateo County Income Limits
Area Median Incomes (AMI)
Household
Size of 1 /
Studio
Household
Size of 2 /
1 Bedroom
Household
Size of 3 /
2 Bedrooms
Household
Size of 4 /
3 Bedrooms
Extremely Low (30% AMI) $39,150 $44,750 $50,350 $55,900 Very Low (50% AMI) $65,250 $74,600 $83,900 $93,200
Low (80% AMI) $104,400 $119,300 $134,200 $149,100
Median (100% AMI) $116,200 $132,800 $149,400 $166,000
Moderate (120% AMI) $139,450 $159,350 $179,300 $199,200

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 14
Source: San Mateo County Housing, State Department of Housing and Community Development, and San Mateo County Utility Allowance Schedules.

According to Zillow rent data from February 2023, two 3-bedroom, 1–2-bathroom single-family homes between 880 and 962 square feet are renting for $3,700 to $3,800 a month. This is far below the proposed 2- bedroom, 960 sq ft monthly unadjusted rent of $4,250 for the Euclid Improvements units. A 1-bedroom, 400 sq ft studio on single a family home lot is renting for $2,000, which is also far below the proposed monthly unadjusted rent for studios of $2,600 for a 405 sq ft studio. Based on this data, it is assumed that the likelihood that the 271 moderate-income units will be rented at above-moderate is low. [Intentionally Left Blank]

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 15
990 GARDEN
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-344-420, 063-344-450
Acreage 1.32 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Units
Project Status Design Review approved on January 23, 2023.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD (up to 12 du/acre)
Zoned Residential Low Density (R-LD) for up to 12 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.

Unit Breakdown 2 LI, 6 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Lot merger and subdivision of two vacant parcels for 6 single family dwellings with ADUs and a future duplex. Lot merger and tentative map approved by Planning Commission on June 13, 2022. Design review approval for six lots on January 23, 2023. Proposed inclusionary housing Alternative Compliance Option for low-income deed-restricted duplex approved by City Council and will be reviewed via SB 9.

East Palo Alto City CouncilFebruary 21, 2023

East Palo Alto City Council
February 21, 2023