Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element — East Palo Alto City Council, February 21, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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 OVER-05.

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).

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).

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).

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.

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).

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) 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.

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).

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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
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).

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).

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 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%) 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%).

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 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
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%
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
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.

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%.

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.

-
APPENDIX B2 SAN MATEO COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS DATA
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix B: Housing Needs Data - 62 -
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
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%
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%
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
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
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
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
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix C:Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
APPENDIX C: AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
[Intentionally Left Blank]
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
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
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 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
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 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 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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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
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
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 Appendix C1: AFFH Data Report -Page 1
Figure III-22
Mateo County Housing Policies and Programs Analysis
Source: ABAG.

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
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
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
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
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.

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
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 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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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§
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix C2: ADDH Segregation Report
APPENDIX C2 AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT
[Intentionally Left Blank]
AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT: EAST

PALO ALTO
UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 15:54:04
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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
-
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix C3: AFFH Community Engagement
APPENDIX C3: AFFH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
[Intentionally Left Blank]
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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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
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.
.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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
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.

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+)
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.

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
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.

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+)
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%).

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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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.

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)
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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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%).

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.

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.

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.

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
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 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.

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:

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. [Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix D: Sites Inventory
APPENDIX D: SITES INVENTORY
[Intentionally Left Blank]
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]
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 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 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]
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.

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

Environmental CEQA Categorical Exemption.

Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project was found to be qualified for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption: Section 15332- Infill Development Projects. The Class 32 “Infill” Categorical Exemption exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain requirements. Infill projects that are consistent with the local General Plan and Zoning requirements and have negligible environmental impacts may be eligible for this exemption.

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

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 16
D.1.5.3 Projects Not Approved, but High Probability of Development FOUR CORNERS 1675 BAY RD.

Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-111-250
Acreage 6.1 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Submitted Planning application; under review.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
4 Corners (up to 60 du/acre)
Zoned 4 Corners in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Area Specific Plan for up to 60 dwelling units per acre; General Plan designation of Mixed Use High zoning for up to 86 du/acre.

Unit Breakdown 36 VLI, 144 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Mixed-use project on a vacant site with retail, housing, and office.

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

Environmental EIR under preparation.

Infrastructure Water – applicant will still be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System on University Avenue and Bay Road.

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

Other necessary measures will be determined by the EIR.

Other constraints The project must request an amendment to the current Specific Plan to accommodate one of the proposed uses (life science/laboratory) and the proposed height. The proposed community and office space will respectively require an administrative use permit and a conditional use permit to be in conformance with Specific Plan. Alternatively, updates to the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan may better align the proposed project and the Specific Plan, which could help the project achieve greater density for the residential component.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 17
717 DONOHOE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-374-350
Acreage .66 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Units
Project Status Undergoing Planning Review with Planning staff. Approved Inclusionary Housing Plan.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Zoning: R-MD-2 Multiple-Family Medium Density Residential (12-22 du/acre) General Plan: Medium Density Residential (12.1-22 du/ac) Unit Breakdown 1 LI, 2 MOD, 11 Above-Mod units.

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

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Based on development proposal and inclusionary requirement. Project’s Inclusionary Housing Plan to provide one median-income unit and two moderateincome units, as an Alternative Compliance Option, was approved by City Council on November 15, 2022. The inclusionary units will be comparable to the marketrate units in size interior/exterior, amenities, and uniform open space.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption.

Analysis shows that there are no serpentine soils, riparian, wetland, or other aquatic areas on or adjacent to the site. As a project with more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, it will be subject to the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) for the San Francisco Bay Area and must implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff.

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

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

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

Other constraints Site access based on Engineering’s comments.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 18
2340 COOLEY
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-253-410
Acreage .26 acres
Vacant? No
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale
Project Status Planning Application under review by Planning Staff.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Zoning Designation: R-MD-2 Multiple-Family Medium Density Residential(12-22 du/acre)
General Plan: Medium Density Residential (12.1-22 du/ac) Unit Breakdown 1 LI, 7 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Redevelopment of site with an existing single-family home (owner-occupied) with density bonus.

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

Planning Commission review anticipated in Spring 2023.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 19
842 GREEN
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-373-130
Acreage .59
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale
Project Status Design Review and Tentative Map application being reviewed by Planning Staff.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD (up to 12 du/acre)
Zoned for Residential Low Density (R-LD) for up to 12 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.

Unit Breakdown 3 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Design Review and Tentative Map application for vacant lot subdivision to construct three single family homes.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Applicant proposing density of six dwelling units per acre, which is comparable to other R-LD-zoned projects of this size. Applicant proposing to pay in-lieu fee.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 20
1201 RUNNYMEDE
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-271-090
Acreage .932 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Units
Project Status Anticipated submittal of revised proposal, which will require new entitlement process.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Urban Residential (up to 40 du/acre)
Zoned as Urban Residential for up to 40 dwelling units per acre in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan, consistent with the General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential with 22-43 du/acre.

Unit Breakdown 4 MOD, 16 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Previously entitled multifamily condominium project on a vacant lot. In December 2022, developer submitted preliminary plans for 20 townhouses in anticipation of formal submittal. Inclusionary housing proposal to be determined.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
This project was previously entitled for 32 multifamily units. Applicant has submitted new plans for lower density; this would require new Planning entitlement. Assumed 4 moderate-income units, although inclusionary housing ordinance will require two units deed-restricted at 70% AMI and two units deedrestricted at 110% AMI.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption.

Class 32 Categorical Exemption: Section 15332- Infill Development Projects. The Class 32 “Infill” Categorical Exemption exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain requirements. Infill projects that are consistent with the local General Plan and Zoning requirements and have negligible environmental impacts may be eligible for this exemption.

Infrastructure As a project designated as High Density Residential in the City’s General Plan and studied in the General Plan EIR, the Notice of Exemption found that the site can be serviced by all existing utilities and public services. Water to be provided by the City’s system on Runnymede Street.

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 21
755 SCHEMBRI LANE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-361-400
063-361-260
Acreage 1.381 acres (.918 acres where housing proposed) Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status A Planning application currently under review by staff.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD and RMD-1
The project consists of two parcels. The first is 1.13 acres with a zoning of R-LD Single-Family Residential and a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (up to 12 du/acre). The second is 0.25 acres and zoned RMD-1 Multiple-Family Medium Density Residential with a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (12-15 du/acre).The Single-Family Residential zoned parcel is being proposed to be subdivided into four parcels of which two will remain open space while each of the other two will be developed with one primary dwelling and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The MultipleFamily Medium Density Residential zone parcel is proposed for two single-family attached residential units or a duplex.

Unit Breakdown Four (4) Above-Mod units and two (2) Above-Mod ADUs Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Both existing parcels are currently vacant with no infrastructure. The project proposes to transform the two-parcel site to a total of five parcels with easements for utilities and access.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Received application to build 6 dwelling units comprising two single-family detached homes, a duplex (two single-family attached homes), and two Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). However, design remains conceptual. Developer is proposing to pay fees in-lieu of construction of a unit for the 0.8 unit inclusionary requirement applicable on the single-family homes and duplex. Developer wants to maintain ownership of lots and rent units.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 22
851 WEEKS
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-221-240
Acreage .65 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Application submitted for Planning review January 2023.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Urban Residential (up to 40 du/acre); Density Bonus
Zoned as Urban Residential in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan for up to 40 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential at 22-43 du/acre.

Unit Breakdown 66 VLI, 23 LI
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Vacant site was recently considered for affordable housing as part of another development in the City to fulfill the project’s inclusionary housing obligation.

Feasibility was discussed for affordable units. Eden Housing submitted application seeking to maximize the density, as affordable developers have done elsewhere in the City, leveraging SB 35 and density bonus. Development will likely go through ministerial approval process.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Eden Housing is working with the developer of the Woodland Park Euclid Improvements project to develop its inclusionary housing project at 851 Weeks, and submitted for preliminary review via SB 330 (objective design standards) on January 20, 2023. 100% affordable housing project with 89 units total. Eden Housing submitted application seeking to maximize the density, as affordable developers have done elsewhere in the City, leveraging SB 35 for by-right approval and density bonus. Proposing 62 studios, 26 1-bedroom units, and 1 2-bedroom unit for staff. The breakdown of the very low- and low-income units is an estimate, and the final breakdown is pending.
89 off-site inclusionary units: 22 assumed to be extremely low-income at 35% of the area median income (“AMI”); 44 assumed to be very low-income at 50% AMI; and 23 assumed to be low-income at 60% AMI, in accordance with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance.

Environmental Potential CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System
Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 23
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other constraints None known.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 24
D1.5.4 Projects with Development Interest and Pre-Applications 547 RUNNYMEDE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-201-190
Acreage .45
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale
Project Status Submitted Preliminary Proposal.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
RMD-2 (12-22 du/acre)
Zoned for Residential Medium Density-2 (RMD-2) for 12-22 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Medium-Density Residential.

Unit Breakdown 8 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Preliminary proposal for a townhome development on vacant parcel.

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

Inclusionary housing agreement to be determined.

This site benefits from greater density zoning and General Plan designation, increasing its feasibility. Several projects with a smaller than .5-acre lot size zoned for lower density (R-LD) have been approved, including 990 Garden St, Lincoln St., and 1215 Cypress, Several projects less than 0.5 acres on R-MD-2 zoning are currently undergoing planning review, including 717 Donohoe and 2340 Cooley.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 25
1062 RUNNYMEDE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-262-060
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale
Project Status Submitted Preliminary Proposal.

Acreage .92
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD (up to 12 du/acre)
Zoned for Residential Low Density (R-LD) for up to 12 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.

Unit Breakdown 6 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Preliminary proposal for subdivision with four single family homes (and 4 ADUs).

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

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 26
812 GREEN
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-373-110
Acreage .89
Vacant? No
Tenure Ownership/For Sale Units
Project Status Submitted Preliminary Proposal.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD (up to 12 du/acre)
Zoned for Residential Low Density for up to 12 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.

Unit Breakdown 5 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Complete redevelopment of site and demolition of current site is being proposed.

Site has a preliminary proposal for a subdivision with five single family homes.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Currently large, underdeveloped site with one single family home. Assumes 6 du/acre, which is comparable to other R-LD-zoned projects of this size.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 27
801 DONOHOE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-374-170
Acreage .45
Vacant? No
Tenure Ownership/For Sale Units
Project Status Owner representative contacted staff with interest. Site is underdeveloped with one single family home.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-MD-2 (12 to 22 du/acre)
Zoned as Residential Medium Density-2 (R-MD-2) for 12 to 22 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential.

Unit Breakdown 5 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Parcel has a preliminary proposal for a subdivision with five single family homes.

Inclusionary housing agreement not yet determined.

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

While single family homes may not be the primary intended use of a site with this zoning per the General Plan, the density may be more realistic, given the size of the site.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 28
807 E. BAYSHORE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 062-221-340
Acreage .55 acres
Vacant? No
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Property owner representative submitted pre-application that is currently under review. Underutilized site with one one-story commercial building likely to be redeveloped due to age.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
MUL-1 (up to 22 du/acre)
Zoned as Mixed-Use Low-1 for up to 22 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low-Density Mixed-Use.

Unit Breakdown 8 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Preapplication to demolish commercial space and build 6 apartments on second and third floor of new building.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Assumed density at 15 du/acre, given density of other projects with this zoning and tentative nature of preapplication. Inclusionary housing agreement not yet determined.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 29
D1.5.5 Publicly Owned Sites with Potential for Development or Redevelopment 2277 UNIVERSITY
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-302-460
Vacant? No
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Initial conversations with County and expressed County interest (see Appendix D3).

Acreage .36 acres
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
MUC-1 (22-65 du/acre)
Zoned as Mixed Use Corridor-1 (MUC-1) for 22-65 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use Corridor that allows up to 65 du/acre. Allows for multi-family residential development.

Mixed Use Corridor Zone Description. This zone provides for vertical and horizontal mixed use developments along arterial roads and other high-activity areas. The zone supports structures with different uses (i.e., office, retail, service and residential) or other compatible uses. Structures located on individual parcels should contain a vertical mix of uses. In certain locations, ground floor retail or other active ground floor uses are required for a portion of the structure's frontage in order to activate the public realm. Structures in this zone are required to front the primary roadway and shall be designed to create an attractive pedestrian environment, regardless of the ground floor use. Mixed use projects located along corridors shall be developed in a manner that protects and preserves the adjacent residential neighborhoods by stepping down in density or height, and/or by providing appropriate buffer areas between the structure and the adjacent neighborhood. This zone implements the Corridor (MUC) land use designation in the General Plan. The MUC zone further specifies two subzones: MUC-1 and MUC-2.

General Plan Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) Description: This designation provides for vertical and horizontal mixed use developments along arterial roads and other high-activity areas throughout the City. The designation supports buildings with different uses such as office, retail and residential or other compatible uses. Uses on individual parcels may contain a vertical mix of uses, or be either stand-along residential or commercial uses. In certain locations, ground floor retail or other Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 30
active ground floor uses are required for a portion of the building frontage in order to activate the public realm. Buildings in this designation are required to front the primary roadway and shall be designed to create an attractive pedestrian environment, regardless of the ground floor use. New buildings with parking fronting the main corridor should not be allowed. Mixed-use projects along corridors should be developed in a manner that protects and preserves the adjacent residential neighborhoods by stepping down in density or height, and/or by providing appropriate buffer areas between the building and the neighborhood. This designation will be applied to a variety of parcel sizes and the City expects that parcel assembly may be necessary to build to the maximum density. The City shall implement policies and/or incentives to promote parcel aggregation along and behind University Avenue and other areas with this designation Unit Breakdown 20 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
City-owned parcel to be exchanged with County of San Mateo for the site at 2216 Beech St. and developed as housing. There is currently an underdeveloped singlefamily home structure on the site used by the City.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
According to Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A), sites smaller than a half-acre size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the Housing Element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing.

The current zoning of MUC-1 allows for 22-65 du/acre. For comparison, there are two entitled developments on the sites inventory list with MUC-2 zoning, which contains the same density minimum/maximum (22-65 du/acre), but which allows for uses other than residential above the ground floor, whereas MUC-1 zoning allows for residential uses only above the ground floor. Those two developments proposed a density of 75 du/acre (65 maximum plus density bonus) and 37 du/acre, respectively. Given the intention to use this site as affordable housing, and the likelihood the County will merge the parcel with the neighboring parcel to total over 0.5 acres, this site could be developed with 20 very-low-income units.

However, given HCD constraints for suitability of sites, staff assumes 20 above moderate-income units at 55 du/acre, roughly the average of the two other sites.

See Appendix D1 for more information, and Appendix D3 for the County’s letter of interest.

No lot splits needed. No City plans to sell the property during the planning period.

The City will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 31
Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 if any disposition of land occurs.

Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.

Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Project may benefit from University main upgrade.

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

Other constraints None known.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 32
RAVENSWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT BAY RD. SITE/APN 063090080 Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-090-080
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Initial school district conversations. In January 2023, school board directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals.

Acreage 2.59 acres
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
PI. This site may require rezoning.

Zoned for Public Institutional (PI), consistent with General Plan land use designation of Public/Institutional.

PI - Public Institutional Zone Description. This zone provides for public uses. The zone also allows for a variety of support uses. Appropriate land uses include City buildings, City corporation yards, public schools, fire stations, police stations, and other public uses. Intensity of use is not regulated. This zone implements the Public/Institutional (PI) land use designation in the General Plan.

Public/Institutional (PI) General Plan Description: This designation provides for public uses such as government buildings, public schools (does not include private schools), colleges, community centers, water storage facilities, and utility stations or rights-of way. The designation also allows for a variety of support uses such as restaurants, housing and retail/service.

Allowed Land Uses: Education, city buildings, fire stations, police stations, city corporation yards, and other public and related ancillary uses.

Density/Intensity: N/A
Unit Breakdown Assumed breakdown: 26 VLI, 26 LI, 26 MOD.

Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Ravenswood School District vacant site planned for staff affordable housing. See attached letter in Appendix D2 demonstrating the district’s intent.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Based on size of parcel and surrounding zoning (single family residential), assumed 30 du/acre for a total of 78 affordable units. The General Plan states that the site “allows for a variety of support uses such as restaurants, housing and retail/service, while the zoning code may encompass housing under “and other public uses.” Environmental To be determined. Possible EIR.

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

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 33
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.

Other constraints The Ravenswood Elementary School District would be required to work with the state to develop this site as housing, as its City zoning designation currently may not allow for residential. The project is dependent upon the school district’s progress during the eight-year planning period. This site may have to go through the City’s process and would therefore require rezoning. Rezoning of this site will [Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 34
D1.5.6 Nonresidential Zoning, But Residential Development Application (RBD)

EPA WATERFRONT
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-050-050
Acreage Developable project area of 9 acres (29.6 acres for total site) Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Planning application under review by planning staff.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Industrial Flex Overlay– non-residential
Zoned as Industrial Flex Overlay in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan (RBD), consistent with General Plan designation of Industrial Buffer. Requires rezoning through RBD update to accommodate mixed-use residential.

Unit Breakdown 52 VLI, 208 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
This is a vacant parcel, much of which is restricted to open space or recreation. It is likely to be rezoned to allow for housing. Of this, there would be a minimum 20% inclusionary requirement, and potentially additional affordable housing required as part of RBD update process/rezoning.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
According to Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A), sites 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. The EPA Waterfront project is suitable for lower income housing because the developable land size is only 9 acres, and re-zoning through the RBD update will allow the developer to build denser housing on this parcel (without infringing on sensitive environmental areas). The 260-unit total project is contained in the applicant’s 2021 proposal. The City could assume all lower-income units on this site, given the size and potential zoning of the parcel. However, knowing there is a development application for market-rate units, staff is assuming 20% (inclusionary) as the default and as a conservative estimate.

The community and City Council have provided strong support for affordable housing in the RBD area, and for providing a jobs-housing balance that expands housing at all affordability levels when new jobs are created. Neighboring sites in the RBD are proposing similar projects on their developable land. For example, Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 35
Colibri Commons (formerly known as 965 Weeks), is a 95-unit 100% affordable housing project being developed at a higher density of 54 dwelling units per acre.

The developer for EPA Waterfront, Emerson Collective, is a mission-driven organization that strives to provide every individual with access to opportunity.

Environmental A program EIR is being prepared for the RBD Specific Plan update, of which this site is included. Additional project specific analysis will be required and the specific CEQA clearance will be determined at that time Infrastructure Water – applicant will still be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire.

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

Other necessary measures will be determined by the EIR.

Other constraints Aside from zoning, this project contains commercial square footage that cumulatively (together with other proposed projects in the RBD) exceeds the commercial square footage evaluated in the 2013 RBD EIR. The project is expected to build a lower amount of commercial than proposed, subject to the RBD update process. This is not, however, expected to affect the number of proposed housing units. This is a staffrecommended site for rezoning to allow for residential.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 36
HARVEST THE LANDING HOUSING OFFSITE 1103 WEEKS (Nonvacant) Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063240360, 063240370, 063240380, 063240270
Acreage 1.6 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Planning application under review by planning staff.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Ravenswood Employment Center - nonresidential zoning
Zoned as Ravenswood Employment Center in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan (RBD), consistent with General Plan designation of General Industrial. Requires rezoning as part of RBD update.

Unit Breakdown 95 VLI
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Applicant is partnering with Eden Housing to develop a 95-unit affordable project with ground floor civic/nonprofit space on ground floor. Site contains an unoccupied (according to applicant; must be verified) single family unit. Would require re-zoning of the parcel.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Based on affordable housing proposal. Applicant is making land donation to Eden Housing, increasing project’s feasibility.

Environmental A program EIR is being prepared for the Specific Plan update, of which this site is included. Additional project specific analysis will be required and the specific CEQA clearance will be determined at that time.

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

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

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

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 37
SOUTH OF WEEKS/FORMER PRIMARY SCHOOL SITE (1200 Weeks St.)/ APN 063271490 Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-271-490
Acreage 2.7 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status No application or interest yet.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Industrial Transition (Specific Plan) – nonresidential
Zoned for Industrial Transition in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan (RBD), consistent with General Plan land use designation. Requires rezoning.

Unit Breakdown 51 VLI, 30 LI
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
This site is not zoned for housing and does not have a development application or known developer interest. However, the size is properly sized for lower-income housing and is one of the focus parcels for the RBD update (to be rezoned for residential).

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

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

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

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 38
D1.5.7 Sites with (Re)development Potential in Ravenswood Business District 791 WEEKS
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-221-390
Acreage .89
Vacant? No
Tenure Rental
Project Status No application submitted, however, Ravenwood Business District Area is being redeveloped to allow for housing.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Urban Residential (up to 40 du/acre)
Zoned as Urban Residential in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan (RBD) for up to 40 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (R-HD) at 22-43 dwelling units per acre.

Unit Breakdown 22 VLI, 12 LI
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Underdeveloped well-sized site with single family home on the property and zoning that supports higher-density housing. Assumes 30 du/acre realistic development capacity for 34 total units.

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

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

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

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

Other constraints None known.

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 39
1923 BAY RD.

Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-132-110
Acreage .99 acres
Vacant? Yes
Project Status Developer expressed interest; Ravenwood Business District Area is being redeveloped to allow for housing.

Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Mixed-Use Corridor (General Plan) MUC-2 zoning 22-65 du/acre Bay Road Central (Specific Plan) zoning up to 50 du/acre Unit Breakdown 25 VLI, 15 LI
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Underdeveloped vacant site currently used to store cars.

Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Property owner of underdeveloped vacant site has approached the City to change the designation, which will be done through Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan update. Potential interest in developing mixed-use on the site.

Density sufficient to support lower-income housing. Calculation assumes 40 du/acre, which is reasonable given proposals for developments in the area (e.g., 1804 Bay Rd. has a density of 75 du/acre with density bonus, or 65 du/acre without). Other applications within a mile radius include Harvest/The Landing, EPA Waterfront, Four Corners, and South of Weeks site. Applied RHNA 6 distribution to 40 total units to calculate VLI and LI units.

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

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

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

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

Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 40
D1.5.8 Future Potential Moderate-Income Units from SB 9 Eligible Sites Beyond the sites identified to meet the RHNA 6, East Palo Alto has identified Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) projected units as an additional strategy to encourage housing production, providing flexibility for more housing to be built. While potential SB 9 sites are not listed toward the City’s RHNA obligation, they are an integral part of the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing and proactively encourage housing throughout the community.

There has been significant interest from local developers in the use of SB 9 for projects on parcels zoned R-LD, or Low Density Residential. The City has multiple parcels that are deep and developed with only one residential unit. Due to the prevalence of these underdeveloped lots, the city has had a great level of interest in additional development and subdivision via SB 9. SB 9 allows for urban lot splits and a minimum of two units on each parcel zoned for single family homes. The application of SB 9 allows for a single-family zoned parcel to be split into two and for more units to be built on a lot than a single-family zoning designation.

Most lots in East Palo Alto are not large enough to be split into two lots of at least 5,000 square feet (sq ft) each, the minimum lot size to develop a single unit required in the City’s Development Code. Of the 125 SingleFamily Residential lots with more than 10,000 sq ft that can split in half, 8 are vacant. Most of these >10,000 sq ft vacant parcels are in the Weeks neighborhood (southeast in the City; east of Highway 101) or in the Palo Alto Park neighborhood (northeast in the City; east of Highway 101).

Table 5.9.A: Vacant Lots in East Palo Alto 10,000 Square Feet and Above Accessor’s Parcel Number
(APN)
Street Name Lot Size
(square feet)
63262200 N/A 11,947
63185210 N/A 12,887
63340999 N/A 12,968
63344140 N/A 26,810
63262060 Runnymede St 40,677
63262080 Runnymede St 40,684
63371170 Green St 41,157
63344420 Garden St 51,079
By enabling an urban lot split or two units on a single lot, SB 9 allows for housing types such as duplexes, or duplexes with ADUs, on parcels where it was previously not possible. Smaller units or attached units tend to be more affordable than large single-family homes, potentially resulting in a less expensive housing option, with rents that approximate a Moderate-Income unit (up to 120% of the Area Median Income). The City has already updated its website to include factsheets
Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 41
Between January 2022, when SB 9 became effective, and December 2022, three projects have been entitled through SB 9. Their characteristics are listed below:

Table 5.9.B: SB 9 Projects Ministerially Approved in 2022 Site Size
(sq ft)
Zoning Existing Project Description Flood
Zone
Lincoln St.
(APN 063-186-
270)
5,149 R-LD Vacant lot Two units (Unit 1 at first floor: 1,030 sq ft/Unit 2 at second floor: 1,424 sq ft) with
one attached 511 sq ft ADU deed-restricted
at 35% AMI (inclusionary housing unit)
and one detached 727 sq ft ADU
N/A
805
Runnymede
(APN 063-253-
010)
40,075 R-LD Existing
single-family
dwelling on
lot
One 3,607 sq ft second unit with existing
dwelling on the same lot (total of 2 units
on the lot)
N/A
1215 Cypress
(APN 063-383-
280)
10,273 R-LD Vacant lot One 1,200 sq ft unit 100-year
floodplain
There are three incoming SB 9 projects that have already expressed interest, meaning they have spoken with staff and/or submitted a pre-application. These projects include:

Table 5.9.C: SB 9 Projects with Submitted Applications
Site Size
(sq ft)
Zoning Existing Project Description Flood
Zone
2127 Lincoln
(APN 063-181-
190)
5,000 R-LD Existing
single-family
dwelling on
lot
Lot split with duplex on each lot N/A
2268
Dumbarton
(APN 063-191-
030)
8,971.
35 R-LD Existing
single-family
dwelling on
lot
Lot split and construct a second unit on the
second lot.

N/A
785 Schembri
(APN 063-361-
440)
5,889 R-LD Vacant lot Construct a second unit on existing lot N/A Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 42
A small number of parcels may be considered as high-potential SB 9 sites based on their size and current SingleFamily Residential zoning. Given the interest in SB 9 in East Palo Alto, it is reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of eligible parcels could be the subject of an SB 9 application over the next eight years.

Of the 3,169 parcels zoned Single-Family Residential and with less than 10,000 square feet in size but more than 2,400 square feet—and therefore not suitable for more than a single unit under the City’s Development Code— approximately 61 of these are vacant.

Table 5.9.D provides a count of East Palo Alto sites zoned for Single-Family Residential.

Source: Raimi + Associates
Map 5.9.A shows potential SB 9 sites (meaning they are less than 10,000 sq ft and vacant) distributed throughout the City. Most of these <10,000 sq ft vacant parcels are in the Weeks neighborhood (southeast in the City; east of Highway 101) or in the Palo Alto Park neighborhood (northeast in the City; east of Highway 101).

Map 5.9.B shows in yellow and in red all the eligible SB 9 lots, both vacant and non-vacant, that could be counted toward the RHNA. Vacant lots are outlined in purple.

Staff assume that 25% of the 61 SB 9-eligible vacant parcels could be developed with two units via SB 9.

Approximately 25% of all eligible SB 9 lots (vacant and non-vacant) are also 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. This would result in 15 lots, where 30 units could be developed. These 30 units may count toward moderateincome units in the Sites Inventory, given they may serve as infill and “missing middle” developments. These 61 SB-9 eligible vacant parcels could account for 7% of the total RHNA 6 and 38% of the moderate-income RHNA allocation.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Table 5.9.D: Single-Family Residential Parcels in East Palo Alto All R-LD parcels Count, Total Vacant
Less than 2,400 sq ft 15 14
2,401 – 9,999 sq ft 3,169 61
More than 10,000 sq ft 125 8
Total 3,309 83
Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 43
Map 5.9.A: SB 9 Eligible Parcels (Vacant)
Source: Source: 2015 General Plan, 2010 U.S. Census, San Mateo County GIS Enterprise Database and Santa Clara County, 2012, and Raimi + Associates
Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 44
Map 5.9.B: SB 9 Eligible Parcels, by Lot Size (Vacant and Non-Vacant) Source: Source: 2015 General Plan, 2010 U.S. Census, San Mateo County GIS Enterprise Database and Santa Clara County, 2012, and Raimi + Associates
Appendix D2: Sites Inventory Letter of Interest
APPENDIX D2: RAVENSWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER OF INTEREST [Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix D2: Sites Inventory Letter of Interest – Page 1 October 12, 2022
City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Ms. Camacho –
I am writing on behalf of the Ravenswood City School District (Ravenswood) about the City of East Palo Alto’s Housing Element. Ravenswood owns a significant amount of land across the City of East Palo Alto and is committed to using that land to provide all students with an excellent education,
At this time, we are interested in seriously exploring changing the zoning at an underutilized field located off Bay Road that we own (highlighted in red below) as part of the parcel Ravenswood owns at 2450 Ralmar Avenue, East Palo Alto, 94303.

To be clear: at this time the Ravenswood Board of Trustees has not authorized a specific project for that site. However, the District is interested in exploring various options for the site and is interested in potentially using that site to address the significant need for housing among our staff and to address the regional housing crisis.

Happy to answer any questions that could be helpful.

Sincerely,
Will
William Eger
Ravenswood City School District
Chief Business Officer
[email protected]
650-329-2800
Appendix D2: Sites Inventory Letter of Interest– Page 2 Appendix D3: Sites Inventory Letter of Interest– Page 1 APPENDIX D3: COUNTY OF SAN MATEO LETTER OF INTEREST
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix D3: Sites Inventory Letter of Interest– Page 2 Main Office – Department of Housing
264 Harbor Blvd., Building A Belmont, CA 94002-4017
Housing & Community Development (HCD)
Tel: (650) 802-5050
Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo (HACSM)
Tel: (650) 802-3300
Board of Supervisors:

Dave Pine
Carole Groom
Don Horsley
Warren Slocum
David Canepa
Director: Raymond Hodges
December 19, 2022
City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Ms. Camacho –
I am writing on behalf of the County of San Mateo (County) regarding the City of East Palo Alto’s (City) Housing Element. County is exploring the opportunity to develop affordable housing at 2277 University (APN 063-302-460) and has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the City (dated April 14, 2022) regarding the potential for a land swap to occur between the City’s site at 2277 University and the County’s site at Beech Street which sets forth the terms by which City and County will explore various options for each site and benefits of a land swap.

At this time, the County Board of Supervisors has not authorized specific projects for the abovementioned sites.

Happy to answer any questions that could be helpful.

Sincerely,
Babs Deffenderfer
Housing and Community Development Supervisor
County of San Mateo Department of Housing
p: 669-252-2317 [email protected]
Department of Housing (DOH) website: www.smchousing.org • E-mail: [email protected] [Intentionally Left Blank]
APPENDIX E: RHNA 5 HOUSING WORKPLAN PROGRESS
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 1
Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress
RHNA 5 Housing Element
Program
Program Description and Objective Progress and Appropriateness

1.1 Meet with local non-profit
housing developers
Meet with local non-profit and for-profit developers to promote the affordable housing goals outlined in this Housing Element.

Timeframe: annually. City Staff has worked with EPA CAN DO, Eden Housing, and MidPen to develop affordable
housing (Light Tree Apartments, 965 Weeks) and preserve affordable housing (Nugent Square, Bay Oaks).

1.2 Consortium of non-profit
developers
Support the continuation of a consortium of non-profit
affordable housing developers to acquire and maintain
property as affordable housing and to redevelop property for the purpose of preserving or developing housing.

Timeframe: annually. There is no existing consortium of non-profit developers. However, in April 2020, the City held a “Meet & Greet” for affordable housing developers and East Palo Alto faith communities hosted by the City.

1.3 Make loans to developers
using set aside
Make loans, as feasible, to developers using the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to create affordable units.

Timeframe: variable; depends on revenue. The City made a loan commitment to the 965 Weeks project from its Housing Successor fund ($714,000) and an additional conditional commitment of $1.7 million to the project through the Local Housing Trust Fund program; that program was awarded in 2021.

1.4 Encourage 2nd Unit
Development
Encourage the production of second units as an affordable housing alternative and achieve an average of eight new secondary units annually. Evaluate success of recent policy changes. Consider implementing an amnesty program for
illegal second units.

Timeframe: ongoing. The ADU Technical Working Group
continued to meet monthly throughout 2021/2. The City
collaborated with EPACANDO and City Systems on the ADU
Streamlining initiative (funded by an SB 2 grant) and with EPACANDO on the CalHOME grant for ADUs/JADUs.

1.5 Secure two million dollars
for housing development
Secure at least $2,000,000 for housing development, and seek loan and grant funds from private, County, State, and federal sources. Funding will provide gap financing and/or
infrastructure improvements, as necessary and appropriate for affordable housing projects
Timeframe: ongoing. The Local Housing Trust Fund
application for 965 Weeks included a match for a City
commitment of $1.7 million. The City applied for and
received a CalHOME grant award of $2 million in 2019.

The 965 Weeks affordable housing development received
an AHSC award in 2021. The awards far exceeded the goal of $2 million.

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 2

1.6 Acquire development sites Continue to acquire potential development sites for affordable housing, particularly for large family households. Use funds from the Affordable Housing Program to purchase sites.

Evaluate opportunities as resources become available.

Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions in the Housing
Element period.

1.7 Mobile Home and
Manufactured Homes
Continue to support development opportunities that allow for or incorporate mobile homes and manufactured homes within the City as a low-cost housing option.

Timeframe: ongoing. The application for 2 modular units was approved by the Planning Department in 2020 for
placement on the City-owned Tanklage site (1798 Bay Rd.).

An application for temporary use of 2081 Bay Rd. and
adjacent sites for production of manufactured housing was approved in 2022.

1.8 Permit Manufactured Homes
on permanent foundations
Continue to permit manufactured housing on permanent
foundations in single-family neighborhoods, and treat them the same as traditional single-family housing during the design review process
Timeframe: ongoing. There is an ongoing effort to support this housing type, though the City has not taken additional actions during this RHNA period. Under the provisions of State Law, the Planning Division treats manufactured
homes in the same manner as originally constructed single family homes.

1.9 Improve Earthquake
Readiness and Resilience
Improve East Palo Alto’s Earthquake Readiness and Resilience:
• Create a fragile housing inventory,
• If appropriate, develop and implement a soft
story retrofit program,
• Develop and implement a cripple wall retrofit program, • Require hazard disclosure for renters, and
• Ensure that major upgrades and repairs to
existing buildings address seismic and floodrelated hazards Timeframe: ongoing. The City adopted the MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2017. Work to renew this Plan began in 2021 and was completed in 2022.

1.10 Floodplain Management Continue to implement Government Code Section 65302, which involves analysis and policies regarding flood hazard and management. Annually review floodplain management
policies in accordance with FEMA regulations and the CRS program.

Additionally, review the Land Use Element for areas subject to flooding to facilitate the identification of sites for future Housing Element updates.

Timeframe: annually. Flood risk has been incorporated into the Housing Element update for the RHNA 6 cycle.

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 3

1.11 Multi-Family Rental
Inspection
Consider developing a multifamily rental inspection program. Timeframe: Not completed as of 2022. San Mateo County is the lead party on conducting multi-family rental inspections.

The Building Division conducts life-safety inspections by referrals/complaints.

1.12 New Buildings follow
Crime Prevention
through Environmental
Design
Ensure that new buildings follow the principals of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.

Timeframe: ongoing. City staff conducts CPTED analysis on all major projects via the East Palo Alto Police Department.

2.1 Four Corners TOD
Specific Plan
Implement the Ravenswood / 4 Corners TOD Specific Plan, which guides the conversion of the existing light and heavy industrial uses into higher density residential, commercial, and mixed-use uses that will support a future potential transit station.

Timeframe: ongoing. The Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2013. The City is currently making targeted updates to the Specific Plan area due to the amount of development interest. This is expected to be completed in 2023.

3.1 Review city ordinances
and policies to reduce
barriers to housing
On a regular basis, review City ordinances and programs regulating residential uses and construction practices to ensure consistency with the Housing Element and the rest of the General Plan and identify/correct any provisions that: (a) unnecessarily increase the cost of housing; (b) extend the time required for processing applications; or (c) preclude provision of housing to meet special needs.

Timeframe: annually. The City updated its zoning code in 2018 to address issues and concerns with development and is once again reviewing the code to ensure consistency
throughout. Updates to the zoning code are expected to take place in 2023.

3.2 965 Weeks Street
redeveloped as affordable
housing
Ensure that 965 Weeks (Olson Property) is redeveloped as affordable housing. Complete RFP and select a developer to complete the housing for lower income households.

Timeframe: 2019. A developer (MidPen Housing) was
selected via an RFP process and the Planning Commission approved the project in December 2019. City Council
approved the Disposition, Development, and Loan
Agreement and Ground Lease for the project in December
2020.

4.1 Improve permit
processing times
especially for affordable
housing projects
Continue to process residential development permits
expeditiously, providing priority review status for affordable housing to reduce holding and administration costs.

Timeframe: annual review of processing procedures. The
City reviewed its first “streamlined” project under SB 35 in 2020 (completed early 2021). ADU processing times were
reduced with the Zoning Clearance process for ministerial review of projects, and the process continues to be
improved upon. No other specific actions were taken to
shorten processing times.

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 4

4.2 Continue to implement
Affordable Housing
Program
Continue to implement the Affordable Housing Program,
which requires developers to pay into a fund that is used to mitigate the impacts of their development.

Timeframe: ongoing. The City maintains an Inclusionary
Housing program, Commercial Linkage Fee program, and
Local Preference program, and monitors its BMR portfolio through EPACANDO.

4.3 Provide low-interest loans
and/ or grants for
affordable housing to
extremely low, very low,
and low income
Explore the possibility of providing low-interest loans and/or grants to pay for housing affordable to extremely low-, very low- and low-income households (when built by nonprofit developer), as well as the waiving of building and planning fees for said housing. If there is funding and appropriate opportunities, provide funding.

Timeframe: annual assessment of resources. As of January 21, 2020, the full amount of the Catalyst Fund, an affordable housing fund received from Facebook and administered by Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), was
committed to the Light Tree Apartments project and the 965 Weeks Street project. The City committed a loan of
$714,000 to the 965 Weeks project from the Housing
Successor Fund in December 2020. The City also rolled out its CalHome ADU/JADU Loan program for low-income
households in 2022, which includes a deed restriction on the ADU or JADU to be rented to a low-income household.

4.4 Evaluate, improve, and
promote City ordinances
that facilitate affordable
housing
Evaluate, improve, and promote City ordinances that facilitate affordable housing development, including: (a) secondary units;
(b) off-street parking standards; (c) development standards; (d) Planned Unit Development; (e) BMR; (f) density bonus; and (g) mixed-use/high-density residential development in Ravenswood and University Corner/Bay Road areas. Provide information on these mechanisms to developers to promote their use
Timeframe: annually. The City updated its ADU ordinance in 2020 to reflect changes in state law. The City is reviewing its Development Code to make necessary updates to align with state law, and to ensure internal consistency. A targeted zoning code update is expected in 2023. 2020 and 2021 saw a significant increase in ADU applications and approvals with affordability restrictions on ADUs.

4.5 Determine feasibility of
forming a local land trust
Support local land trust(s) as a way to expand affordable housing opportunities, once one is begun, or take steps to have one land trust in operation.

Timeframe: ongoing. The City participates in the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) of San Mateo
County, which is recognized by HCD as a Regional Housing Trust Fund. The City and its partners continue to implement the two-year Challenge Grant (2020-22) and subsequent
Breakthrough Grant (2022-24) from the San Francisco
Foundation to establish a community land trust and
cooperative ownership opportunities in East Palo Alto.

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 5

4.6 Provide better
information to the
public and policymakers
about housing issues
Develop and disseminate newsletters, fact sheets, brochures, and other mediums to communicate to the public the City’s policies and programs regarding housing development in an adequate and timely manner.

Timeframe: ongoing/as-needed. City staff began a revision of the City’s website in 2020, with improvements to the Planning webpage that include updated fact sheets and
forms. The Inclusionary Housing Guidelines were approved by City Council in October 2020 (posted in 2021). The City submitted multiple comment letters to HCD on major
housing grant programs (e.g., AHSC) and to CDLAC
regarding tax-exempt bond allocations.

4.7 Encourage development on
small parcels
Disseminate the design toolkit to assist developers of small parcels. This toolkit provides ideas and examples of
techniques to develop small lots while providing usable open space, contributing to a pedestrian environment, and
enhancing community character.

Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions taken during the Housing Element period.

4.8 Bring wells into operation at
Gloria Bay and Pad D
Bring wells into operation at Gloria Bay and Pad D site to provide potable water to the city, including completing water treatment facilities if necessary.

Timeframe: 2018. Gloria Bay Well was completed in
2018. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was for
Pad D was certified in December 2020. Construction on
Pad D was near completion in 2022.

5.1 Encourage Senior Housing Continue to support senior projects by permitting smaller unit sizes, parking requirement reduction, and common dining facilities.

Timeframe: ongoing. No new applications have been
submitted for senior housing projects in the Housing
Element period..

5.2 Reasonable Accommodations
Ordinance
Implement the reasonable accommodation ordinance, which provides zoning and land use exceptions for housing serving persons with disabilities. The ordinance, adopted in 2011, provides people with disabilities a simple, ministerial process to receive minor exemptions to land use, zoning and building regulations. Publicize ordinance through the city’s website, notices at city offices, in the city newsletter and mailings, and with relevant stakeholder groups.

Timeframe: ongoing/publicize annually. No specific actions in the Housing Element period.

5.3 Financial Assistance/Priority
Planning for Affordable
Housing
Provide financial assistance and priority permitting for at least one affordable housing development in East Palo Alto.

Base funding decisions on the Comprehensive Affordable
Housing Plan. Objective is to assist 40 units.

Timeframe: ongoing. The City Council adopted a five-year Affordable Housing Strategy in 2018; the goal was to
produce an additional 500 deed-restricted affordable units.

The City has permitted two affordable housing developments during this time (Light Tree, 965 Weeks).

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 6

5.4 Promote Emergency Shelters Continue to permit emergency shelters in the Light Industrial (M-1) zone without discretionary permits.

Within this zone, emergency shelters are subject to the same development and management standards that apply
to the other permitted uses.

Timeframe: ongoing. The City’s only shelter, a Low
Barrier Navigation Center, is located outside of this zone.

No emergency shelters were permitted in the M-1 zone in the Housing Element period,

5.5 Transitional and Supportive
Housing
Continue to permit transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions in the Housing
Element period.

5.6 Encourage Transitional
Housing
Accommodate and facilitate the development of additional transitional housing facilities that serve victims of domestic violence, homeless individuals, and/or formerly incarcerated persons.

Timeframe: bi-annual assessment of needs and resources.

No specific action in the Housing Element period.

5.7 Single Room Occupancy
(SRO) Housing
Continue to allow by right the development of Single-RoomOccupancy projects in High Density Residential Zones.Timeframe: annual review and confirmation. No specific action in the Housing Element period.

5.8 Residential Care Facilities Continue to enforce the spacing requirement for residential care facilities, as identified in Section 6515.5 of the East Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, which is currently seven hundred and fifty feet (750) for facilities that house ten persons or more, and 500 feet for facilities that house 6-10 residents.

Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions in the Housing
Element period.

5.9 Implement High Priority
Items
Implement high priority items from Homeless Solutions Plan:
• Identify Point Person on Homelessness
• Create a Year-Round “Services Lite” Shelter
• Expand Homeless Outreach Team
• Develop Rapid Re-Housing Capacity Create
Permanent Supportive Housing
Timeframe: 2020. The City began regularly reporting to
City Council on homelessness starting in 2021. An
interdepartmental staff team continues to meet, as do
monthly City-led meetings with the County of San Mateo
Homeless Services Agency and service providers LifeMoves and Project WeHOPE. The County and these partners have
significantly increased capacity for homeless outreach and rapid-rehousing since 2020.

6.1 Rent Stabilization Implement the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Just Cause Ordinance.

Timeframe: ongoing. City staff continues to implement the June 2010 Rent Stabilization Ordinance adopted by the
voters.

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 7

6.2 Maximum Legal Rents Annually certify maximum legal rents that can be charged in the city.

Timeframe: annually. City staff is annually certifying the legal rents that can be charged in the City.

6.3 Working with Nonprofits Work with non-profit housing service providers to provide education and legal assistance to secure tenant rights.

Timeframe: Ongoing. City staff refer residents to
Community Legal Services and the Legal Aid Society of
San Mateo County for certain housing related issues. In 2019, the City released an RFP for tenant services, and in 2020, local nonprofits Community Legal Aid Services in
East Palo Alto, Youth United for Community Action, and
Nuestra Casa received funding for tenant education, tenant protections, and emergency assistance. Also in 2020, the City provided additional funding to nonprofit agencies to assist tenants with COVID-19-related financial hardships and prevent evictions. The City released an RFP for tenant education and assistance in fall 2022.

6.4 Monitor BMR Units Monitor housing units developed as part of the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Ordinance to ensure
compliance. Monitor affordable units with deed-restrictions to ensure long-term availability of these units as affordable housing. Current terms of affordability are 59 years for ownership and 99 years for rental, both resetting when
properties are sold.

Timeframe: annually. The City has contracted with
EPACANDO since 2019 to administer the City's BMR
portfolio. This is an ongoing endeavor that included the refinancing and re-sale of BMR units in 2020-2022.

6.5 BMR and Condo Conversion
Ordinance
Monitor the effectiveness of the City’s affordable housing mitigation programs, including the Affordable Housing
Program and the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, as
tools to facilitate affordable housing development. In
particular, the fees associated with each program will be reassessed to confirm their ability to meet the City’s
affordable housing goals.

Timeframe: ongoing, fees are reassessed annually. City staff continues to monitor the City's BMR units and Condo
Conversion Ordinance.

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 8

6.6 Affordable Housing Strategy Develop a Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy to identify ways of increasing the supply of affordable housing in the city. The study should examine the success of current programs, including the density bonus ordinance, as well as the potential for new programs (e.g., affordable housing overlay zone). Topics to study include affordable housing overlay zone, the strategy should also prioritize spending for the city’s affordable housing trust fund and access to
affordable housing.

Timeframe: 2016. The City completed an Affordable
Housing Strategy in 2018; some of the workplan items are included in this report. Staff provide updates at regular intervals to City Council.

6.7 Discourage Mobile Home
Removal or Relocation
Discourage removal or relocation of conforming mobile
home parks by enforcing East Palo Alto’s mobile home park closure and relocation requirements.

Timeframe: ongoing. City staff ensure compliance with
State laws related to mobile home parks on an ongoing
basis. Since September 2020, staff have closely monitored the conversion process of the Palo Mobile Estates Mobile Home Park.

6.8 Mobile Home Park
Ownership Program Funds
Assist eligible mobile home park residents in receiving Mobile Home Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP)
funds.

Timeframe: ongoing, based on State funding opportunities.

Staff began preparing an application to the Mobile home Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program
(MPRROP) program to support the Palo Mobile Estates
conversion in September 2020 but were unable to submit the application in this cycle because the project did not yet meet key threshold criteria.

6.9 Mobile Home Funds Work with the property owners of existing mobile home parks to prepare infrastructure studies of said parks.

Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions during the Housing Element period.

6.10 Home Sharing Program Support HIP Housing Home Sharing Program as part of a collection of policies, programs, and practices for addressing the housing needs of those at the lowest income levels
including seniors, those living with disabilities, those at risk of homelessness and female head of households. Objective is to make 10 home sharing placements by 2022.

Timeframe: ongoing. - The City refers individuals to the HIP home sharing program on an ongoing basis and contributes to the Home Sharing Program annually.

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 9

7.1 Financial/Credit Counseling Make first-time homebuyer funds and mortgage enhancement available through as many means as possible, including:
• Participate in the San Mateo County Mortgage
Credit Certificate Program (MCC), which aims to
enhance the affordability of both new and existing
homes for first- time low- to moderate-income
homebuyers. Educate prospective buyers about the
MCC (i.e., distribute materials), seeking to enroll at
least 5 lower- and moderate-income East Palo Alto
households annually.
• Provide first-time homebuyer assistance to lowerand moderate-income households with funding available from the County HOME program.

Timeframe: ongoing implementation of existing programs.

The City’s BMR administrator, EPACANDO, provides
financial counseling to homeowners in the City’s BMR
portfolio.

7.2 First-Time Homebuyer
Assistance/Low-Interest
Loans
Work with lenders and fair-housing service providers to provide credit counseling workshops in East Palo Alto that assist residents in understanding home improvement and
purchase processes and how to access financing. Inform
households about opportunities to increase access to housing through credit repair to enhance, while educating them to recognize predatory lending and discrimination.

Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions during the Housing Element period.

7.3 City Resident / Employee
Housing Assistance
Investigate new program possibilities that provide down payment assistance and/or low-interest loans for City
employees and residents. Use new programs to provide down payment assistance and/or low-interest loans to at least five very low-, low-, or moderate- income households by 2022.

Timeframe: 2018. No actions taken on this item in the Housing Element period.

8.1 Condominium Conversion
Ordinance
Implement the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions taken in the Housing Element period.

8.2 Replacement and
Preservation of RentStabilized Units
Conserve units governed by the Rent Stabilization Program by limiting commercial redevelopment which would reduce the supply of affordable units.

Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions taken in the
Housing Element period.

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 10

8.3 No Net Loss If legally defensible, implement a no net loss housing policy ensuring that development in the West Side that results in the loss of affordable housing be required to replace that
affordable housing.

Timeframe: Policy developed in 2015. Most recently, the City reviewed the Woodland Park Communities
development proposal (for 605 residential units on the
Westside) for compliance with the 2035 General Plan; in particular, the specific policies within Chapter 11 (Westside Area Plan) that require newly- rezoned properties to provide affordable housing.

8.4 Short-Term Rentals Monitor the use of homes as short-term vacation rentals. If appropriate, consider additional legislation.

Timeframe: annually. The City began study of a shortterm rental ordinance in 2020, with specific updates to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) policy related to shortterm rentals included as part of a 2020 ballot measure. The ballot measure did not succeed and work on short-term
rental policy was temporarily de-prioritized due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This work has not resumed.

9.1 Public Outreach on health
and safety
Distribute literature on the health and safety risks of leadbased paint and continue to work with the San Mateo County Housing and Code Enforcement Division to explore
resources and programs available to address lead-based paint in the City’s housing stock.

Timeframe: ongoing. City staff refer residents to the County Health Department on health issues related to housing. No specific actions during the Housing Element period.

9.2 Home Repair Program Refer East Palo Alto homeowners to the San Mateo County Housing and Community Development Division’s Home
Repair Program and explore ways to increase homeowner
participation. Disseminate information on the Home Repair Program through brochures available at public counters and the City’s website.

Timeframe: ongoing, through referrals. This program is no longer available. While partnerships with Rebuilding
Together and other organizations provided assistance to households with unpermitted garage conversions prior to 2020, some programs are longer funded. Staff continues to disseminate information about resources such as Habitat for Humanity, dependent on funding.

9.3 County Funded
Rehabilitation Program
Inform homeowners on the availability of County-funded
rehabilitation assistance with County brochures and multilingual postings to the City of East Palo’s website. Work with the County to host local workshops on rehabilitation
assistance for City residents.

Timeframe: ongoing. Staff provides information at the
counter and on the City’s website, but this is dependent upon availability of programs. The City is not aware of any rehabilitation assistance programs at this time.

9.4 Rehabilitation of Programs
(Home)
Assist eligible extremely low-, very low-income and lowincome homeowners in the City in pursuing funds to aid in the rehabilitation and renovation of their homes.

Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions in the Housing
Element period.

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 11

9.5 Foreclosure Assistance Provide resources for homeowners facing foreclosure on the City’s website, including links to loan servicers and agencies that can provide counseling and legal assistance.

Timeframe: ongoing. Residents are referred to Community Legal Services and the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo
County for foreclosure issues.

9.6 Affordable Project Housing
Management
For affordable housing projects that have received financial assistance from the City, identify projects where a history of complaints and failed inspections by authorized agencies indicate continued and uncorrected mismanagement. Contact identified property managers to determine a Timeframe: for correction or negotiate change in property management per the stipulations set forth in the financial agreement between the City and the affordable housing developer.

Timeframe: ongoing. The City reviews annual compliance
reporting from all deed-restricted multifamily housing sites in East Palo Alto. In February 2020, the City issued a
Notice of Default to the Courtyard at Bay Road
Apartments for non- compliance and Health and Building
Code violations. The City continued to follow up in 2020 with the owner. This activity is ongoing.

10.1 Fair Housing Program
Referrals
Support, publicize, and make referrals to fair housing and legal assistance programs that provide information,
counseling, and investigation services concerning housing discrimination.

Publicize ordinance through the city’s website, notices at city offices, in the city newsletter and mailings, and with relevant stakeholder groups.

Timeframe: ongoing. City staff, on an ongoing basis, refer residents to housing and legal assistance programs
concerning housing discrimination.

10.2 Predatory Lending
Protections
Support local, regional, State, and federal initiatives in addressing predatory lending practices to protect the most vulnerable segments of the community.

Timeframe: ongoing. City staff, on an ongoing basis, refer residents to local, regional, State and Federal initiatives that address predatory lending.

10.3 Housing Discrimination
Prevention
Support private and public efforts to prevent discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.

Timeframe: ongoing. City staff comply with state and
federal laws related to fair housing.

11.1 Annual Housing Element
Monitoring
Allocate financial and staff resources to maintain a
monitoring system that collects information on the
accomplishments and lessons learned of concerning the
Housing Element’s objectives and programs. Prepare detailed progress report for review by the City Council, stakeholders, and the general public.

Timeframe: annually, through annual progress reports.

City staff annually prepare a Housing Element Progress
Report in accordance with State law.

Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 12

11.2 Housing Study Sessions The City Council shall hold public meetings and study sessions to discuss various housing policies in the city and to exchange input and information with residents and
developers about housing needs, resources, and program
options. To the extent possible, publish a schedule of study sessions.

Timeframe: annually, through public meetings and study
sessions. Study sessions were held throughout the Housing Element period on a variety of housing topics, including individual residential developments, the Inclusionary
Housing program, and a potential affordable housing
overlay zone.

11.3 Website Updates Update the website and explore other means to communicate important housing concerns, policies, and programs to the general public.

Timeframe: ongoing, overview and update annually. The
City migrated its website to a new platform in 2020 and staff continues to improve department webpages.

11.4 Annual Housing Reports Report to the City Council on the state of housing in East Palo Alto.

Timeframe: annually. The City provides semiannual
updates to the City Council on progress on the 5-year
Affordable Housing Strategy and other housing topics
throughout the year.

12.1 Enforce State Energy Codes Enforce State Energy Code for new residential construction and additions/renovations to existing structures.

Timeframe: ongoing. Building Division staff, on an ongoing basis, enforce the State Energy Code for new residential and additions/constructions to existing units. The City adopted a Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Reach Codes Ordinance in October 2020.

12.2 Grants for Energy
Efficiency
Pursue funding sources for rehabilitation loans and grants to low-income homeowners to improve energy
efficiencies, such as replacing existing energy inefficient appliances.

Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions during the Housing Element period.

East Palo Alto City CouncilFebruary 21, 2023

East Palo Alto City Council
February 21, 2023