Agenda packet — Foster City City Council, March 20, 2024 (part 2 of 7)

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.

Figure 33: Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-08.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 249
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-48 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
In Foster City, 12.2% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 9.0% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 18.4% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 13.5% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 34).

Figure 34: 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. 74.3% 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, 85.6% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 35).

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 250
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-49
Figure 35: 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. Citywide, 5,2% of households are considered overcrowded, including 1.7% that are severely overcrowded.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 251
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-50 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
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 Foster City, 3.7% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.1% of households that own (see Figure 36). In Foster City, 5.9% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 1.4% for those own.

Figure 36: 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 252
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-51
Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 3.5% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 0.9% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 37).

Figure 37: 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 253
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-52 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
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 Foster City, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) (see Figure 38).

Figure 38: Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 254
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-53
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 Foster City, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (58.3%) are owner occupied (see Figure 39). In 2017, 1.2% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).

Figure 39: 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 6,778 units in Foster City. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 17.6% are renter-occupied and 82.4% are owner-occupied (see Figure 40).

The City worked to address this need by requiring that the rental developments permitted include some three-bedroom units. Of the 583 rental units completed during the RHNA 5 Planning Period, 35 are threebedroom units. The City’s 20% inclusionary requirement and requiring that the bedroom mix of the affordable units matches the bedroom mix of the market rate units ensures that larger apartments are provided at a variety of income levels.

The ownership units constructed during the RHNA 5 Planning Period included 65% three- and fourbedroom units.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 255
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-54 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 40: 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 Foster City, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 62.2% of total, while FemaleHeaded Households make up 7.9% of all households.

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 Foster City, 7.8% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while

8.2% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 42).

The City worked to address this need by requiring that the rental developments permitted include some two and three-bedroom affordable units. Of the 583 rental units completed during the RHNA 5 Planning Period, 204 are two-bedroom units and 35 are three-bedroom units. The City’s 20% inclusionary requirement and requiring that the bedroom mix of the affordable units matches the bedroom mix of the market rate units ensures that larger apartments are provided at a variety of income levels.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 256
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-55
Figure 41: 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.

Figure 42: 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 257
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-56 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

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 Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 43).

Figure 43: 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.

The City worked to address senior housing needs during the RHNA 5 Planning Period primarily with the development of Foster Square. The City contributed funding for the 66-unit Alma Point Senior Apartments completed in 2016 which includes 65 very low-income and extremely low-income units, 5 units for persons with specified health care needs, and 2 units for homeless. The City approved the 131- unit/24 bed Atria Assisted Living facility completed in 2016. Senior market rate condominiums (200 units) at Foster Square were completed. In addition, beyond Foster Square there are 4 licensed Adult Residential care homes and 6 licensed Assisted Living care homes in the City.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 258
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-57
In 2020, Foster City began work on the Age-Friendly Community Initiative (AFC). This work resulted in the formation of an Age-Friendly Community Task Force who would lead the initiative as well as several focus group meetings and one-on-one surveys which culminated in the development project goals.

At the regular City Council meeting on November 16, 2020, the Council passed a resolution (Res. # 2020- 117) supporting Foster City’s initiative in joining the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Age-Friendly Global Network and authorizing the submittal of an application and letter to the Association of Retired Persons (AARP) with the Mayor as the designated signatory on behalf of the City. The application outlined (4) inaugural projects for Foster City’s AFC Initiative in which to pursue over the next 5 years.

These included:
o Project 1: Coordination and support of the Foster City AFC Initiative to ensure continued progress and stability.
o Project 2: A multi-faceted plan to promote existing civic engagement and employment opportunities and develop new ones.
o Project 3: A multi-faceted communication and information plan about services and recreational opportunities for older adults and their families.
o Project 4: A multi-faceted respect and inclusion plan for Foster City’s older adult residents.

Information on the City’s AFC initiative can be found on the City’s website: Foster City Age Friendly Community Initiative. The Foster City AFC initiative is a 5-year commitment with Years 1-2 dedicated to the development of a strategic action plan. Some of this work has been completed, but further work is needed to complete the City’s strategic plan. In Years 3-5, action items identified in the strategic plan are acted upon. At the end of Year 5, a progress evaluation is completed with further planning done for continual improvement.

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 44 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Foster City. Overall, 7.1% of people in Foster City have a disability of any kind. 36
36 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 259
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-58 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 44: 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. Developmental disabilities include intellectual disability, autism, Down syndrome, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and other disabling conditions similar in their functional impact to an intellectual disability. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In

3.32%

2.62%

2.14%

1.77%

1.52%

0.94%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty
With a
hearing
difficulty
With a
cognitive
difficulty
With a selfcare difficultyWith a vision
difficulty
Proportion of Adult Population Reporting Disability
Type

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 260
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-59
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. 37 Under California’s Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people with developmental disabilities are entitled to receive community-based services that allow them to live in the least restrictive community setting. This shift to deinstitutionalization has led to the closure of the most restrictive segregated settings and to the requirement that local jurisdictions in their Housing Elements assess and plan specifically for the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Regional Center in order to live in their home community.

Faster Growth than the General Population. Foster City is home to 169 people with developmental disabilities of whom 94 are adults and 75 are under age 18. This represents a 13% increase over the 149 people with developmental disabilities living in Foster City reported in the 2015-2023 Housing Element and shows faster growth as compared to a 10% increase in the general population of Foster City during that same time period. Growth in the population of adults with developmental disabilities has significant implications for the Housing Element because many of the adults will need housing outside the family home in the coming years.

Table 4: Population with Developmental
Disabilities by Age
Age 2014 2021 % Change
Under age 18 70 75 7%
18 and older 79 94 19%
Total 149 169 13%
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Note: The 2014 data were submitted by Golden Gate Regional Center for inclusion in the Foster City Housing Element 2015 to 2023. To calculate the number under age 18 in 2014, the number of people 15, 16, and 17 years of age was estimated to be a pro rata share of the group reported in 2014 to be between ages 15 and 29. This adjustment was necessary in order to compare the 2014 data that is specific to Foster City to the currently available data published in June 2021 at the zip code level for zip code 94404 by the California Department of Developmental Services.

Living Arrangement of Foster City Adults. The family home is the most prevalent living arrangement for Foster City’s adults with developmental disabilities, with 64% of adults continuing to live in the family home in 2021, an increase of 12% since last reported in the 2015-2023 Housing Element, when only 52% of Foster City adults with developmental disabilities lived in the family home. Only 2.1% of Foster City adults with developmental disabilities have successfully transitioned to living in their own apartment compared to 11% in San Mateo County. And although the number of adults with developmental disabilities has increased 19% since the 2015-2031 Housing Element, the number living in licensed care facilities has declined. Only 32% of Foster City adults with developmental disabilities were living in licensed care facilities in 2021 as compared to 43% in 2014. As discussed below, opportunities for adults 37 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 261
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-60 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
to live in a licensed facility are declining in San Mateo County, fueling the need for Foster City to increase opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities to live in affordable housing with supportive services.

Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Living Arrangements
2014
Number
2014
Percent
of Total
2021
Number
2021
Percent
of Total
Change in
Percent
of Total
In the family home 41 52% 60 64% 12%
Own apartment with supportive services 2 2.5% 2 2.1% -0.4% Licensed Facilities 34 43% 30 32% -11%
Other (including homeless) 2 2.5% 2 2.1% -0.4%
Total 79 94
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 cross-walked 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.

Decline in Licensed Care Facilities. The California Department of Developmental Services reports that between September 2015 and June 2021, San Mateo County lost 5% of its supply of licensed care facilities for people with developmental disabilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities), thereby increasing the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services funded by the Regional Center. The countywide loss of supply of licensed care facilities increases the likelihood that Foster City adults with developmental disabilities will become homeless or will be displaced from the county when they lose the security of their family home.

Increase of Autism Diagnosis Reflected in Increase in Adults in their 20s and 30s. Growth in the Foster City adult population with developmental disabilities correlates with a significant annual increase in the diagnosis of autism that began in the mid-1980s and did not level out until after 2015. The cumulative impact of this trend is already seen in the growth in the San Mateo County population age 18 to 41 with developmental disabilities. This trend will continue into the future and is the reason for projecting significant growth in housing needs among Foster City adults during the period of the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element.

Longer Life Spans. Between September 2015 and June 2021, the California Department of Developmental Services reports that the number of San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 33% (Table 6). This is not due to migration of senior citizens with developmental disabilities to high-cost San Mateo County, but rather to well-documented gains in life span among people with developmental disabilities. With longer life expectancy, more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are the single largest source of housing for adults with developmental disabilities in Foster City. Longer life spans also slow the pace

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 262
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-61
of resident turnover in the county’s limited supply of licensed care facilities, which further reduces opportunities for people with developmental disabilities to secure a space in a licensed care facility.

Table 6: Changes in Age Distribution of Adult
Population in San Mateo County
Age 2015 Number 2021 Number % Change
18 to 31 1,023 1,189 16%
32 to 41 397 457 15%
41 to 52 382 335 -12%
52 to 61 385 348 -10%
62 plus 327 435 33%
Total Adults 2,514 2,764 10%
Source: Department of Developmental Services data reported at the county level in June 2021 and September 2015.

6.4.1 Challenges Faced by Persons with Disabilities
Displacement. The California Department of Developmental Services has documented a 12% decline in the age group 42 to 51 and a 10% decline in the age group 52 to 61 in San Mateo County between September 2015 and June 2021 (Table 6). In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of the lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years of living in Foster City.

Higher Rates of Physical Disabilities. People with developmental disabilities are more likely than the general population to have an accompanying physical disability. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities have limited mobility, and 13% have a vision or hearing impairment. The need for an accessible unit coupled with the need for coordinated supportive services compounds the housing barriers faced by those with co-occurring intellectual and physical disabilities.

Ineligibility for Many Affordable Rental Units. Some adults with developmental disabilities depend on monthly income of around $1,000 from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, pricing them out of even the limited number of Extremely Low-Income affordable housing units in Foster City. Those with employment tend to work part-time in the lowest paid jobs and also struggle to income-qualify for many of the affordable housing units for rent in Foster City.

Overpayment. Residents of San Mateo County with a disability are more likely to be cost burdened or severely cost burdened than residents without a disability. Extreme cost burden is highest among Black residents with a disability in comparison to other racial and ethnic groups with and without a disability.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 263
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-62 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Disability Bias. Though fair housing complaints and inquiries are rather low in Foster City, four of seven inquiries in the past eight years (2013-2021) were cited as “disability” bias—higher than all other jurisdictions excluding Redwood City (five) and the City of San Mateo (four). Countywide, from 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints were filed with HUD, although none were from Foster City. 56% of those complaints were cited as disability bias.

Transit-Dependent. Further, most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car and rely on public transit as a means to integration in the larger community.

6.4.2 Strategies Addressing Needs of Persons with Disabilities Transportation. Nearly 17,000 jobs in Foster City can be accessed via public transportation and 89% of the city’s stations and vehicles are considered ADA-accessible—similar to the county overall (89%).

Affordable Housing. With the development of the City’s 100% affordable senior apartments—including accessible units for persons with disabilities—residents of Foster City will have access to high resource areas, be provided with more affordable housing options, and have the option to age-in-place or live independently.

Adaptable/Accessible Units. The City ensures that new developments meet the requirements for adaptable and accessible units. For the City-owned 22-unit Workforce Apartments completed in late 2022, the City amended the tenant preferences to provide persons with mobility-related disabilities the highest preference for the accessible units.

6.4.3 Resources for Persons with Disabilities
Foster City maintains a website with information about local fair housing ordinances with live links to Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center. 38 The site also lists resources for persons with disabilities seeking services, including:
 Contact Information for Supportive Housing Providers
 A Complete List of Affordable Supportive Housing Developments  Information About Available Housing Authority Programs  Contact Information for an Organization that Modifies Homes to Make Them Accessible

6.4.4 Gaps and Magnitude of Needs of Persons with Disabilities In the resident survey conducted of San Mateo County by Roots Policy Research to support AFFH analysis (further described in Appendix B, Affordable and Fair Housing), most respondents who have a disability (30% of respondents) reported that their homes meet the needs of their disability; 16% said their homes do not. Modifications that are needed include: wider doorways and supportive services. 38 https://www.fostercity.org/commdev/page/fair-housing.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 264
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-63

6.4.5 Proposed Programs Addressing Needs of People with Disabilities  H-B-2-a: Lower-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans
 H-B-2-b: Facilitate Non-Profit Rehabilitation/Maintenance Assistance  H-D-4-b: ADU/JADU Financial Incentive Program
 H-D-6-c: Amend Parking Requirements
 H-E-1-a: Existing Unit Purchase Program-Opportunities for Supportive Housing  H-E-2-b: Affordable Housing Overlay Inclusionary 15% Requirement Including Extremely Low Income
 H-E-9-b: Small Housing Units
 H-F-1-a: Facilities and Services for Special Needs
 H-F-1-c: Adaptable/Accessible Units for the Disabled
 H-F-1-d: Reasonable Accommodation
 H-F-1-e: Home Sharing for Special Needs Population
 H-F-1-f: Support Services for Special Needs Population  H-F-1-g: Extremely Low-Income Units for Special Needs  H-F-1-i: Community Care Facilities
 H-F-1-j: Public Investment in Accessibility
 H-G-1-a: Non-Discrimination
 H-G-2-a: Anti-Discrimination Regulations
 H-G-2-b: Fair Housing Training for Landlords and Tenants  H-G-2-c: Information Specific to Fair Housing
 H-G-2-d: Multilingual Tenant Resources
 H-G-2-e: Rental Registry

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 265
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-64 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

6.5 Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In San Mateo County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.5% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in transitional housing (see Figure 45).

Figure 45: 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 266
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-65
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 46).

Figure 46: 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 267
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-66 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
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 47).

Figure 47: 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 268
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-67
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 48). Of those, some 62.0% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

Figure 48: 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.

NOTE: San Mateo County conducted the latest Point in Time (PIT) Count from February 24, 2022 through March 3, 2022. Volunteers were deployed to conduct an observational count of those experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Detailed data from the 2022 PIT Count will be available later in 2022 in a report by the County’s Center on Homelessness. In both 2019 and 2022, Foster City had four unsheltered homeless according to the San Mateo County PIT data (34Thttps://www.smcgov.org/hsa/2019-one-dayhomeless-count and https://www.smcgov.org/media/125526/download?inline=)34T. Foster City’s strategy has been to support Countywide efforts and agencies that are better located to be effective (see Figure 12).

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 269
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-68 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 7: Number of Unsheltered Individuals by San Mateo County Cities
City 2013 Count 2015 Count 2017 Count 2019 Count 2022 Count Atherton 0 1 0 1 3
Belmont 43 11 3p 7 13
Brisbane 34 21 19 4 6
Burlingame 13 7 21 25 10
Colma 7 3 1 8 1
Daly City 27 32 17 66 49
East Palo Alto 119 95 98 107 169
Foster City 7 0 6 4 4
Half Moon Bay 114 84 43 54 68
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 16 27 47 27 56
Millbrae 21 8 7 9 9
Pacifica 150 63 112 116 161
Portola Valley 2 0 1 0 0
Redwood City 306 223 94 221 245
San Bruno 98 8 26 12 63
San Carlos 10 20 28 30 14
San Francisco International
Airport 5 1 3 21 14
San Mateo 103 82 48 74 60
South San Francisco 173 55 33 42 42
Unincorporated 46 32 30 73 43
Woodside 6 2 0 0 0
Total 1,299 775 637 901 1,092
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Source: San Mateo County: Annual Point in Time Count Report.

In Foster City, there were no reported students experiencing homeless in the 2019-20 school year. By comparison, San Mateo County has seen a 37.5% decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 270
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-69
Table 8: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing
Homelessness
Academic Year Foster City San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 0 1,910 14,990
2017-18 0 1,337 15,142
2018-19 0 1,934 15,427
2019-20 0 1,194 13,718
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 are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through seasonal agricultural work. Farmworkers have special housing needs because they earn lower incomes than many other workers and move throughout the season from one harvest to the next. Farmers and farmworkers are the keystone of the larger food sector, which includes the industries that provide farmers with fertilizer and equipment; farms to produce crops and livestock; and the industries that process, transport, and distribute food to consumers. While overall the Bay Area has shifted away from our historical agricultural economic base, Bay Area counties still preserve strong agricultural roots. And yet, the responsibility for farmworker housing is not just with these counties. In many counties, farmworkers choose to live within incorporated cities due to the diversity and availability of housing, proximity to schools and other employment opportunities for other family members, and overall affordability. Many farmworker households tend to have difficulties securing safe, decent, and affordable housing. Far too often, farmworkers are forced to occupy substandard homes or live in overcrowded situations.

In the Bay Area, about 3.7% of farmworkers, including both seasonal and permanent residents, are in San Mateo County. However, per the USDA, today’s farmworkers can commute up to 75 miles to the workplace. Based on this, the need for housing for agricultural workers is not just the responsibility of Bay Area counties with a robust agricultural economy. In Foster City, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), there are approximately 75 residents employed in the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries.

In Foster City, 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 271
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-70 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 9: Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year Foster City San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 0 657 4,630
2017-18 0 418 4,607
2018-19 0 307 4,075
2019-20 0 282 3,976
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.

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 49).

Figure 49: 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 272
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-71

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 Foster City, 5.8% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for San Mateo County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.

Figure 50: 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. 7 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)
Since 1969, the State of California has required that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in their communities. To meet this requirement, each city or county must develop a Housing Element as part of its General Plan (the local government’s long-range blueprint for growth) that shows how it will meet its community’s housing needs. There are many laws that govern this process, and collectively they are known as Housing Element Law.

The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process is the part of Housing Element Law used to determine how many new homes, and the affordability of those homes, each local government must plan for in its Housing Element. This process is repeated every eight years, and for this cycle the Bay Area is planning for the period from 2023 to 2031.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 273
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-72 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies the total number of homes for which each region in California must plan in order to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels. The four income categories included in the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) are:
 Very Low-Income: 0-50% of Area Median Income
 Low-Income: 50-80% of Area Median Income
 Moderate-Income: 80-120% of Area Median Income
 Above Moderate-Income: 120% or more of Area Median Income For San Mateo County in 2021, the median income for a family of four is $149,600. Because San Mateo County is considered a high-cost area, HUD and HCD make some adjustments when calculating the income limits, which results in the very low-income and low-income limits actually being higher than 50% and 80% of the median income, respectively. Below is a summary of the very low-, low- and moderateincome levels, based on household size, for San Mateo County.

Table 10: San Mateo County 2021 Household Income Schedule Number of Persons
in Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Acutely Low 15,700 17,950 20,200 22,450 24,250 26,050 27,850 29,650 Extremely Low 38,400 43,850 49,350 54,800 59,200 63,600 68,000 72,350 Very Low-Income 63,950 73,100 82,250 91,350 98,700 106,000 113,300 120,600 Low-Income 102,450 117,100 131,750 146,350 158,100 169,800 181,500 193,200 Median Income 104,700 119,700 134,650 149,600 161,550 173,550 185,500 197,450 Moderate-Income 125,650 143,600 161,550 179,500 193,850 208,200 222,600 236,950 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

In the case of the San Francisco Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) determine the number of housing units that should be produced in the region. This determination of need is primarily based on estimated job growth. ABAG then allocated that need for each jurisdiction, based on their share of the region’s households and adjusted for access to high opportunity areas, proximity of jobs to transportation and transit, and an equity adjustment to ensure that each jurisdiction receives an allocation of lower-income units that is at least proportional to its share of the region’s total households in 2020.

Table 11: Foster City’s Current and Past RHNA
Housing Element Cycle Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total 2001 – 2006 96 53 166 375 690
2007 – 2014 111 80 94 201 486
2015 – 2022 (5th Cycle) 148 87 76 119 430
2023 – 2031 (6th Cycle) 520 299 300 777 1,896
Source: Foster City Community Development Department

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 274
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-73
As shown above, the amount of housing being required is significantly higher than required for the last Housing Element. Approximately 43% of all new housing is required to be affordable to low- and very low-income households.
8 ASSISTED RENTAL HOUSING “AT RISK” OF CONVERSION

8.1 INTRODUCTION
State law requires the analysis of, and a program for, preserving assisted housing developments and atrisk units that could be lost over the next ten years and adequately planning for preventing or minimizing tenant displacement and reduction in the local affordable housing stock. At-risk units are defined as multi-family, rental housing complexes that receive government assistance under any of the federal, state, and/or local programs or any combination of rental assistance, mortgage insurance, interest reductions, and/or direct loan programs and are eligible to convert to market-rate units due to termination (opt-out) of a rent subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or other expiring use restrictions within 10 years of the beginning of the housing-element planning period. The following at-risk analysis covers the 10-year period between 2023 and 2032.

8.2 INVENTORY OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING UNITS RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE Table 12 inventories all the government assisted rental properties in the City, not including Section 8 vouchers used for individual unit rental subsidies that are dispersed throughout the City. These properties are subject to affordability agreements with the City (or the former Foster City Community Development Agency, now the City as the Successor Agency). In addition, some properties are subject to other regulatory agreements related to the use of tax credits, bonds, or other funding programs. Other databases often report only properties subject to tax credits, bonds, or other state or federal funding.

The affordability agreements specify the number of units required at each income level and also identify the sections of the California Health and Safety Code to be used to establish the maximum allowable income and rent.

8.3 IDENTIFICATION OF RENTAL UNITS AT-RISK OF CONVERSION TO MARKET RATE Deed restricted affordable rental housing units within Foster City are located in nine properties with an additional six units comprising the City’s Existing Unit Purchase Program (dispersed throughout the City) counted as a tenth property. Four of the ten properties are at low risk of conversion because they are owned by the City or a non-profit housing provider. Two of the remaining properties owned by for-profit companies are secured in perpetuity. The remaining four developments owned by for-profit companies include Foster’s Landing (discussed below) or have restrictions that will expire in 2068-2072. The 10 remaining units at Foster’s Landing that are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2023, are considered to be at high risk for conversion to market rate within the next 10 years.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 275
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-74 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 12: Assisted Rental Properties in Foster City
Name of Project Address Target Group
Funding
Program
Assisted
Units
Total
Units Ownership Expiration Risk
Fosters Landing Bounty Drive Small & Large
Families, Elderly RDA 10* 490 For-Profit 12/31/2023 High Metro Senior
Apartments 101 Town Green Ln & 100 Village Ln Seniors RDA, LIHTC 60 60 Nonprofit 7/25/2050 Low Marlin Cove 1000 Foster City Blvd General RDA, Bonds 84 280 For-Profit Perpetuity Low Miramar 1288 E. Hillsdale Blvd General RDA, LIHTC 48 159 For-Profit Perpetuity Low Triton Plaza One & Three Plaza View Lane General RDA 60 307 For-Profit 8/19/2068 Mediumlong term 100 Grand 100 Grand Lane General Inclusionary 33 166 For-Profit 7/21/2070 Mediumlong term Alma Point Alma Point Lane Seniors
LIHTC, City,
San Mateo
County, HOME
66 66 Nonprofit 7/17/2072 Low
The Triton 55 Triton Park Lane General Inclusionary 48 220 For-Profit 1/27/2072 Mediumlong term Workforce 501 Pilgrim Drive General/Public
Safety City 22 22 City 6/17/2119 Low
Existing Unit Purchase
Program Various Large families RDA 6 6 City 4/11/2066 Low Total 437
* Foster’s Landing originally included 74 deed-restricted units but as of 1/1/2023, there will be 10 restricted units remaining.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 276
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-75
Foster’s Landing originally had 74 restricted units, 64 of which have expiration dates in phases between December 31, 2020, and December 31, 2022. In the absence of sufficient funds to purchase the units or purchase extensions of the affordability covenants and the landlord’s plans to convert the units to market rate, there were no viable options to prevent the conversion of the units. The City has worked extensively with the landlord to develop and implement several programs to assist the tenants, as described in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Foster’s Landing BMR Tenant Programs
Program Description Status
At-risk Tenants
Preference Category
Program
On March 18, 2020, the City Council voted 5-0-0 to adopt Resolution 2020-24, the amendment of Resolution 2000-123 to include tenants atrisk of displacement because of termination of affordability restrictions. The Amendment to Resolution 2000-123 creates an additional preference category (1a) for tenants at-risk of displacement by termination of affordability restrictions consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan, Program H-E-5-e. Essentially, this means that a Foster’s Landing resident that has resided in a BMR unit for at least 1 year and is set to expire within the next 3 years will be categorized as Tier 1a (top of the list) on a waiting list for the Housing Developments in Foster City.

Approved 3/18/2020
Third Amendment
Agreement (an
amendment to the
existing affordable
housing contract)
The Third Amendment, approved by Resolution 2020-52, allows Foster’s Landing residents in the BMR program to break their lease without penalty and establishes a funding source for the Early Relocation Assistance Program.

Signed 7/14/2020
Effective Date 6/11/2020
Post BMR Expiration
Rent Agreement
This Agreement, approved by Resolution 2020-101, provides that Essex and the City will subsidize the rent difference (difference between the tenant paid rent and market rent) for the Phase I tenants for 1 year (known as the Subsidy Period.)  The City and Essex have allocated up to $800,000 for the program.

Approved by City
Council 9/28/2020
Early Relocation
Assistance Program
The Early Relocation Assistance Program aims to provide the residents of Foster’s Landing Below Market Rate Program, scheduled to expire between December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2023, with financial assistance to off-set the up-front cost associated with relocating and assist the residents in finding replacement housing. This program is being administered by Housing Industry Foundation (HIF).

Approved by City
Council 2/1/2021
Tenant Relocation
Assistance Services
The City was able to obtain a grant of Permanent Local Housing Assistance (PLHA) funds from San Mateo County to provide relocation assistance services and, if relocation is not possible, rental subsidies.

Approved by City
Council 9/20/2021

8.4 PRESERVATION OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AT-RISK AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK California state law requires that housing elements analyze options to preserve at-risk units. The following analysis compares various preservation methods and their costs.

Rental Assistance
State, local, or other funding sources can be used to provide rental subsidies to maintain the affordability of the units. This is being done through the PLHA grant if the tenants are unable to relocate. The total annual subsidy required for the 10 units remaining after January 1, 2023, is $103,444.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 277
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-76 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Transfer of Ownership
If the current owner were willing, transfer of ownership to a nonprofit housing organization is a way to preserve the affordability of units. Using a market value of $350,000 per unit, the estimated market value for the ten units is $3.5 million.

Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new below market rate housing is a way to replace the at-risk units. Using the construction cost data provided by Century Urban 39 and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 40 (referenced in Appendix C, Constraints) of between $786,500 to $847,788 per unit, the cost to replace the ten units would be between $7.8 and $8.5 million.

8.5 ENTITIES INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN CALIFORNIA’S FIRSTRIGHT OF REFUSAL PROGRAM Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65863.11, owners of government-assisted projects cannot terminate subsidy contracts, prepay a federally-assisted mortgage, or discontinue use restrictions without first providing an exclusive Notice of Opportunity to Submit an Offer to Purchase. This Notice is required to be sent to Qualified Entities at least twelve months prior to sale or termination of use restrictions. Qualified Entities are nonprofit or for-profit organizations or individuals that agree to maintain the long-term affordability of projects. HCD maintains a list of Qualified Entities who are interested in purchasing government-subsidized multi-family housing projects. HCD has identified six entities that may be interested in participating in California’s First Right of Refusal Program in San Mateo County: 41
 Affordable Housing Foundation
 Alta Housing (Previously Palo Alto Housing Corp)
 Housing Corporation of America
 Northern California Land trust, Inc.
 Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation
 ROEM Development Corporation

8.6 FUNDING SOURCES
With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, a primary source of potential funding for preservation of at-risk units was eliminated. Foster City adopted a commercial linkage fee in 2016 but the first revenue from this fee did not occur until 2020 and was not sufficient to purchase units or extensions of covenants.

In the process of searching for potential funding to preserve the Foster’s Landing units, the City found very little funding that could be used for preservation of these units because: 1) most of the available affordable housing funding targets new construction, 2) preservation funding was targeted at tax credit projects, and 3) many other sources of funding for affordable housing are restricted to or provide 39 Century Urban, Memo “San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Cost & San Mateo County Unit Mix Research, April 7, 2022.
40 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Draft Report “Rental Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee,” January 20, 2022. 41 California Department of Housing and Community Development website accessed April 30, 2022. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ policy-research/preserving-existing-affordable-housing/docs/qualified-entities.xlsx.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 278
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-77
preferences for affordable units near high quality transit, which is not available in Foster City. With the assistance of San Mateo County, PLHA funds were able to be utilized to provide relocation assistance and rental subsidies.

For the units with restrictions due to expire in 2068 or later, other sources of funding may become available by that time and the City may have had the opportunity to accumulate funds in the City Affordable Housing Fund from commercial linkage fees and other sources.

Funds that may be available for construction of replacement units include the following types of funding:

Federal Funding:
 HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program
 Project-Based Vouchers (Section 8)
 Section 811 Project Rental Assistance
State Funding:
 Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF)
 Project Homekey
 Housing for a Healthy California
 Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF)
 Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP)
 National Housing Trust Fund
 Predevelopment Loan Program
Regional, Local, and Nonprofit Funding:
 San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund
 Foster City Affordable Housing Fund
 HEART Developer Loans
The following program is included in the Housing Element related to at-risk units:

H-C-2-b Continue to Monitor Expiration of Affordability Covenants. Monitor affordable housing developments that area at risk of conversion to market rate. Work with landlords, tenants, and other agencies prior to the expiration of affordability covenants to minimize the impacts of the expiration of affordability covenants through extension of affordability covenants, use of rental vouchers, preference at other affordable housing sites, or other means.

Housing Needs Action Plan
This Appendix has analyzed a wide variety of housing needs in Foster City. Table 14 below identified the links between the housing needs and highlights of the actions proposed to address these needs. Some of these needs and actions overlap with those discussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix B regarding Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 279
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-78 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 14: Housing Needs Action Plan
Housing Need Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines About 32.6% of renters and 32.9% of owners
are cost burdened or severely cost burdened.

Growth in rents and sales prices have
outpaced income growth.

Lack of adequate supply of housing has
increased demand and prices.

Increase the supply of affordable
housing through a variety of
programs:
 H-A-5-b: Local, State and Federal
Funding for Affordable Housing
 Apply for at least one funding
opportunity per year
 H-A-5-e: NOFAs for Affordable
Housing
 Biannually beginning in 2024
 H-C-4-a: Rental Housing Assistance
Informa�on
 December 2023 and then annually
 Increase number of housing vouchers
used in Foster City by 2 per year
 H-D-1-b: General Plan and Zoning
Amendments to Facilitate Housing on
Housing Opportunity Sites in the Sites
Inventory
 Prior to or upon adop�on of Housing
Element
 H-D-4-a: ADUs  24 ADUs by 2031
 H-D-4-b: ADU/JADU Financial
Incen�ve Program
 Implement program by December
2024
 Provide 5 8 income-restricted ADU
units by 2031
 H-D-4-c: Preapproved ADU/JADU
Designs and Expedited Review
 December 2024
 H-D-4-d: Improved Public Informa�on
on ADUs
 Improve website and counter
informa�on by December 2023
 H-D-4-e: Amnesty Program for
Exis�ng Unapproved ADUs
 Implement program by December
2025
 H-D-4-f: Objec�ve Design Standards
for ADUs
 Adopt standards by December 2024
 H-D-4-g: Mul�-Family ADUs  40 70 mul�-family ADUs by 2031  H-D-4-i: Provide New Housing Choices
and Affordability in High Opportunity
Areas through Addi�onal ADUs in R-1
Zoned Areas
 Allow up to 3 ADUs per single-family
lot by December 2023
 H-D-4-j ADUs and JADUs in Religious
and Ins�tu�onal Uses and School Sites
 12 units in religious and ins�tu�onal
sites by 2031
 12 units in school sites by 2031

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 280
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-79
Housing Need Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines  H-E-2-a: Inclusionary 20%
Requirement
 Ensure inclusionary units are provided
consistent with ordinance
requirements
 H-E-2-b: Affordable Housing Overlay
Inclusionary 15% Requirements
Including Extremely Low-Income
 Ensure inclusionary units are provided
consistent with ordinance
requirements
 H-E-6-a: Home Sharing Program  Ongoing: at least 5 new matches per year
 H-E-10-a: Improve Housing Mobility
and Increase Missing Middle Housing
Choices
 Implement a suite of programs with
mid-cycle review in 2027
Increasing senior population results in needs
to age in place, move to multi-family and/or
accessible units.

Many seniors on fixed incomes find it
difficult to keep up with increases in
housing cost.

Increase support for seniors to age in
place or move to appropriate
housing:
 Support Services for Special Needs
Popula�on
 Host roundtable annually beginning
by December 2024
 H-F-1-h: Age Friendly Ini�a�ve  Adop�on of Age-Friendly Ac�on Plan by December 2024
Increase in jobs to household ratio creates
need for more units.

Foster City (and San Mateo County as a
whole) has added more jobs than housing
units in the past 10 years.

Increase the supply of affordable
housing through a variety of programs
(described above).

Home ownership costs are out of reach for
households earning a low or moderate
income.

Growth in sales prices has outpaced
income growth.

Provide assistance to lower income
homeowners:
 H-B-2-a: Lower-Income Homeowners
Rehabilita�on Loans
 18 new loans by 2031, half very low
income and half low-income
 H-B-2-b: Facilitate Non-Profit
Rehabilita�on/Maintenance
Assistance
 6 units improved with assistance by
2031 or 1 very low-income owner unit
improved with assistance per year
Persons with disabilities face additional
housing challenges
Difficulties are compounded with low
income, racial discrimination, need for
supportive services, and/or other factors.

Persons with disabilities often need
extremely low-income housing.

Provide housing that addresses special
needs for accessibility and supportive
services:
 H-B-2-a: Lower-Income Homeowners
Rehabilita�on Loans
 18 new loans by 2031, half very low
income and half low-income
 H-B-2-b: Facilitate Non-Profit
Rehabilita�on/Maintenance
Assistance
 6 units improved with assistance by
2031 or 1 very low-income owner unit
improved with assistance per year

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 281
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-80 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Housing Need Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines  H-D-4-b: ADU/JADU Financial
Incen�ve Program
 H-D-6-c: Amend Parking
Requirements
 H-E-1-a: Exis�ng Unit Purchase
Program-Opportuni�es for Suppor�ve
Housing
 One (1) unit converted to suppor�ve
housing by 2031
 H-E-2-b: Affordable Housing Overlay
Inclusionary 15% Requirement
 Ensure inclusionary units are provided
consistent with ordinance
requirements
 H-E-9-a: Family Friendly Housing  Facilitate ten (10) rental units of 3 or more bedrooms by 2031.
 H-E-9-b: Small Housing Units  Facilitate ten (10) rental units less than 500 SF by 2031
 H-F-1-a: Facili�es and Services for
Special Needs
 Establish expedited permit review
process and begin annual proac�ve
outreach by December 2023
 Facilitate at least one (1) new facility
serving special needs popula�on
during the planning period
 H-F-1-c: Adaptable/Accessible Units
for the Disabled
 Ensure accessible and adaptable units
are provided consistent with the
California Building Code and that
affirma�ve marke�ng is included
consistent with Chapter 17.90 and the
City’s BMR Administra�ve Guidelines
 H-F-1-d: Reasonable Accommoda�on  Amend Chapter 17.84 by December 2023
 Update City’s website by December
2023
 H-F-1-e: Home Sharing for Special
Needs Popula�on
 At least 50% of home share matches
assist someone with special needs
 H-F-1-f: Support Services for Special
Needs Popula�on
 Host roundtable annually beginning
by December 2024
 H-F-1-g: Extremely Low-Income Units
for Special Needs
 Ensure affirma�ve marke�ng plan is
provided and implemented for ELI
units

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 282
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 A-81
Housing Need Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines  H-F-1-h: Age Friendly Ini�a�ve  Adopt Age-Friendly Ac�on Plan by December 2024
 H-F-1-i: Community Care Facili�es  Amend regula�ons by December 2024
 H-F-2-d: Emergency Shelter Zoning  Amend Municipal Code by May 2024.  H-F-3-a: Transi�onal and Suppor�ve
Housing Zoning
 Ensure regula�ons are applied so that
transi�onal and suppor�ve housing is
subject only to the same restric�ons
as other residen�al uses in the same
zone
 H-F-3-b: Suppor�ve Housing  Amend regula�ons by December 2023
 H-F-1-j: Public Investment in
Accessibility
 Target areas with higher disabled
popula�ons – Census Tracts 6083 and
6080.25
 Number of capital improvement
projects iden�fied in the CIP budget
each year that include accessibility
improvements
 H-F-3-a: Transi�onal and Suppor�ve
Housing Zoning
 Ensure regula�ons are applied so that
transi�onal and suppor�ve housing is
subject only to the same restric�ons
as other residen�al uses in the same
zone
 H-F-3-b: Suppor�ve Housing  Amend regula�ons by December 2023
 H-C-3-c: Facilitate Resolu�on of
Rental Disputes
 Ongoing
 H-C-3-d: Facilitate Tenant Protec�on
Act of 2019 (AB 1482)
 Update website by December 2023
 Provide at least one informa�on
session per year
 H-G-1-a: Non-Discrimina�on  Update website by December 2023  Hold at least one (1) informa�onal
sessions for landlords and tenants
annually beginning in 2024
 H-G-2-a: An�-Discrimina�on
Regula�ons
 Implement program by December
2023

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 283
APPENDIX A:HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-82 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Housing Need Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines  Provide updated informa�on annually
 H-G-2-b: Fair Housing Training for
Landlords and Tenants
 Conduct at least one fair housing
training for tenants and landlords
annually, beginning in 2024
 H-G-2-c: Informa�on Specific to Fair
Housing
 Implement program by December
2023
 Number of physical loca�ons the
resources are made available without
requiring internet access
 H-G-2-d: Mul�lingual Tenant
Resources
 Implement program by December
2024
 Collabora�on for provision of
mul�lingual fair housing services
 H-G-2-e: Rental Registry  Research op�ons and report to City Council by December 2024
Very few housing units are available for
extremely low-income households.

Growth in rents and sales prices have
outpaced income growth.

Lack of adequate supply of housing has
increased demand and prices.

Increase the supply of extremely lowincome housing:
 H-E-2-b: Affordable Housing Overlay
Inclusionary 15% Requirements
including Extremely Low-Income
 Ensure inclusionary units are provided
consistent with ordinance
requirements
 H-E-9-b: Small Housing Units  Facilitate ten (10) rental units less than 500 SF by 2031
A variety of housing types in all areas of the
city are needed to provide housing choices
for all types of households.

Growth in rents and sales prices have
outpaced income growth.

Lack of adequate supply of housing has
increased demand and prices.

Provide sites in the Sites Inventory
that expand BMR units geographically
and provide programs that provide a
variety of housing unit types:
 H-D-4-a-h: ADUs  24 ADUs by 2031
 H-E-6-a: Home Sharing Program  Ongoing: at least 5 new matches per year
 H-E-9-a: Family Friendly Housing  Facilitate ten (10) rental units of 3 or more bedrooms by 2031.
 H-E-9-b: Small Housing Units  Facilitate ten (10) rental units less than 500 SF by 2031

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 284
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-i
APPENDIX B | FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING

ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents
REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION............................................................................................................ 1 I INTRODUCTION AND PRIMARY FINDINGS.................................................................................................... 2

1.1 What is AFFH? .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 City of Foster City Housing Element 2023-2031................................................................................... 3

1.3 Foster City Land Use and Zoning History ............................................................................................ 8

1.4 Primary Findings ................................................................................................................................. 9

1.5 Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Action Plan ........................................................................... 15 2 FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH CAPACITY......................................................................17

2.1 Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries ...............................................................................................17

2.2 Foster City Fair Housing Legal Cases................................................................................................. 20

2.3 Outreach and Program Capacity ...................................................................................................... 20

2.4 Compliance with State and Federal Law ........................................................................................... 22

2.5 Local Housing Policies...................................................................................................................... 23 3 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION............................................................................................................. 27

3.1 Defining Segregation........................................................................................................................ 27

3.2 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of Foster City).................................................. 30

3.3 Regional Racial Segregation (between Foster City and Other Jurisdictions) ...................................... 33

3.4 Local and County-Wide Diversity .......................................................................................................37

3.5 Income Segregation in City of Foster City ......................................................................................... 40

3.6 Disability Status................................................................................................................................ 50

3.7 Familial Status .................................................................................................................................. 53

3.8 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas ......................................................................................... 57

3.9 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence ......................................................................................... 58 4 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY ......................................................................................................................... 60

4.1 Education.......................................................................................................................................... 60

4.2 Employment..................................................................................................................................... 68

4.3 Transportation.................................................................................................................................. 76

4.4 Environment..................................................................................................................................... 83

4.5 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ................................................................................................. 87

4.6 Disparities Specific to the Population Living with a Disability............................................................ 89 5 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS...................................................................................................... 92

5.1 Housing Needs.................................................................................................................................. 92

5.2 Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden................................................................................................ 94

5.3 Overcrowding ................................................................................................................................... 99

5.4 Substandard Housing...................................................................................................................... 104

5.5 Homelessness ................................................................................................................................. 104

5.6 Displacement.................................................................................................................................. 105

5.7 Access to Mortgage Loans .............................................................................................................. 109 6 SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................... 111 7 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN................................................................ 119 8 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................................135

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 285
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-ii CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bay Area Demographics .................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: San Mateo County Demographics ..................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Foster City Housing Mix: 1974-2022................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4: Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing ............................................. 10 Figure 5: Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, San Mateo County ............................................................. 18 Figure 6: Fair Housing Complaints and Enquiries............................................................................................ 19 Figure 7: Foster City Census Tracts: 2020....................................................................................................... 24 Figure 8: Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract....................................................................................... 25 Figure 9: Population by Race and Ethnicity, Foster City, 2000-2019 ............................................................... 29 Figure 10: Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Foster City, 2019 ..................................................................... 30 Figure 11: Racial Dot Map of Foster City and Surrounding Areas (2020)........................................................... 34 Figure 12: Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019 ...........................................................................35 Figure 13: Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018............................................................................................... 36 Figure 14: Racial Demographics of Foster City Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ......................... 38 Figure 15: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Foster City and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020).............. 39 Figure 16: Income Dot Map of Foster City (2015).............................................................................................. 41 Figure 17: Income Dot Map of Foster City and Surrounding Areas (2015) ......................................................... 44 Figure 18: Income Demographics of Foster City Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) .................. 45 Figure 19: Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019 ............................................................................ 47 Figure 20: Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019.............................................................................................. 48 Figure 21: Segregation and Integration............................................................................................................ 49 Figure 22: FHEO Cases by Disability Bias, 2020.................................................................................................51 Figure 23: Percent of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 ......................................................... 52 Figure 24: Household Type, 2019......................................................................................................................53 Figure 25: Households by Presence of Children, 2019....................................................................................... 54 Figure 26: Age Distribution, Foster City, 2000-2019 ......................................................................................... 55 Figure 27: Household Type by Tenure, Foster City, 2019.................................................................................. 56 Figure 28: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Foster City, 2019 ............................................ 56 Figure 29: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence by Census Tract, 2015-2019............................................. 59 Figure 30: College-Going Rates, 2014-2015 to 2017-2018................................................................................. 62 Figure 31: College-Going Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2017-2018.................................................................... 63 Figure 32: College-Going Rates for Students with Disabilities and English Learners, 2017-2018 ....................... 64 Figure 33: Median Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment, 2019.............................................................. 64 Figure 34: Chronic Absenteeism by Race and Ethnicity, 2016-2017 and 2018-2019........................................... 65 Figure 35: Chronic Absenteeism by Race/Ethnicity and District, 2018-2019...................................................... 66 Figure 36: TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2022.................................................... 67 Figure 37: Jobs by Industry, Foster City, 2002-2018.......................................................................................... 68 Figure 38: Job Holders by Industry, Foster City, 2002-2018 .............................................................................. 69 Figure 39: Jobs to Household Ratio, 2002-2018................................................................................................ 69 Figure 40: Unemployment Rates in Foster City, 2018....................................................................................... 70 Figure 41: TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021 .....................................................71 Figure 42: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017 .......................................................................................73 Figure 43: Low- to Moderate-Income Population by Census Tract, 2020.......................................................... 74 Figure 44: Racial Demographics by Block Group, 2018......................................................................................75 Figure 45: Foster City Transit Lines, 2022.......................................................................................................... 77 Figure 46: Foster City Transit Lines, 2022......................................................................................................... 78 Figure 47: Unemployment Percent Point Change, 2010 to 2014....................................................................... 79 Figure 48: Percent Change for Population Living in Poverty by Census Tract, 2000 to 2014.............................. 81 Figure 49: Change in Seniors Aged 65 and Over by Census Tract, 2000 and 2014 ............................................. 82 Figure 50: TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021............................................. 84 Figure 51: Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021..................................................................................... 85

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 286
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-iii
Figure 52: Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, Foster City, 2019 ................................................................................................................................................ 87 Figure 53: Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018.............................................................................. 88 Figure 54: All Races/Ethnicities: Disparities in Rent-Burden among San Mateo County Residents with and without Disabilities ................................................................................................................... 89 Figure 55: Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 ............................................................ 91 Figure 56: Housing Permits Issued by Income Group, Foster City, 2015-2019 ................................................... 93 Figure 57: Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019........................................................... 93 Figure 58: Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020............................................................................................... 94 Figure 59: Overpayment (Cost Burden), 2019 .................................................................................................. 94 Figure 60: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Income Level, 2017......................................................................... 95 Figure 61: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, 2019 .................................................................................. 96 Figure 62: Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019 ..................................... 97 Figure 63: Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 ..................................... 98 Figure 64: Overcrowding Severity, 2017........................................................................................................... 99 Figure 65: Occupants per Room by Tenure, Foster City, 2019 .......................................................................... 99 Figure 66: Overcrowding by Renter-Occupied Units and Census Tract, 2020 ................................................. 100 Figure 67: Overcrowding by Owner-Occupied Units, 2020..............................................................................101 Figure 68: Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Foster City, 2019 ................................................................. 102 Figure 69: Occupants per Room by AMI, Foster City, 2019 ............................................................................. 102 Figure 70: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019............................................................................103 Figure 71: Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement.................................................................................... 106 Figure 72: Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019.........................................................107 Figure 73: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, 2018-2019 ..........................................................110 Figure 74: Foster City Neighborhoods.............................................................................................................112 Figure 75: Sites Inventory Map........................................................................................................................ 115

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 287
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-iv CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
List of Tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Foster City .......................................................31 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Foster City ................................................ 32 Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Foster City .......................................................33 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Foster City and the Region .................................................................. 34 Table 5: Population Change by Race/Ethnicity by Census Tract, 2010 to 2020................................................37 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Foster City ......................................... 41 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Foster City.................................... 42 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Foster City .................................................... 43 Table 9: Population by Income Group, Foster City and the Region ................................................................ 43 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures.......................................................................................... 46 Table 11: Population Change by Household Income by Census Tract, 2010 to 2020........................................ 46 Table 12: Change in Population of Persons with Disabilities by Age by Census Tract, 2012 to 2020................. 50 Table 13: Earnings of Foster City Employed Residents Compared to for Jobs Located in Foster City, San Mateo, and San Mateo County .........................................................................................................72 Table 14: Units with Reported Lack of Complete Plumbing or Complete Kitchen ......................................... 104 Table 15: RHNA Distribution by Census Tract with Socio-Economic Factors .................................................. 113 Table 16: Sites Inventory by Census Tract......................................................................................................114 Table 17: Summary Matrix of Fair Housing Issues and Actions ...................................................................... 120 Table 18: AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix ....................................................................................................125

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 288
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-1

REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION
Section I. Introduction and Primary Findings.

Section 2. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement actions/complaints against the jurisdiction; compliance with state fair housing laws and regulations; and jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.

Section 3. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation, including racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or affluence.

Section 4. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.

Section 5. Disproportionate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk.

Section 6. Site Inventory Analysis analyzes the Sites Inventory to ensure sites for lower-income housing are located equitably with fair access to opportunities and resources.

Section 7. Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Action Plan identifies the primary factors contributing to fair housing challenges and provides the plan for taking meaningful actions to improve access to housing and economic opportunity.

Section 8. References.

Attachment 1: AFFH Appendix-Community Engagement reports the findings from the resident survey conducted of San Mateo County residents by Roots Policy Research to support the AFFH analysis of the Housing Element.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 289
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-2 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

I INTRODUCTION AND PRIMARY FINDINGS

1.1 WHAT IS AFFH?
The State of California’s 2018 Assembly Bill (AB 686) requires that all public agencies in the state affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.

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

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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 290
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-3

1.2 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
History of Segregation in the Region
The United States’ oldest cities have a history of mandating segregated living patterns—and Northern California cities are no exception. ABAG, in its recent Fair Housing Equity
Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to
historically discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as
“structural inequities” in society, and “self-segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar people).

As noted in Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area by Stephen Menendaian and Samir Gambhir (2018),
segregation is one of our nation’s most enduring and
intractable problems. More than 60 years since the Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision
denounced racial segregation in primary and secondary public schools, and 50 years since the enactment of the federal Fair Housing Act, our neighborhoods and schools have yet to
reflect the rich diversity of our nation as a whole. In far too many cases, racial segregation is as severe or worse today than a generation ago. Racially segregated neighborhoods and schools are visible in every part of the United States.

As illustrated in Figure 1 below, in the Bay Area:
 Whites are just under 40 percent of the population of the Bay Area, 184 census tracts (of 1582) are more than 75 percent white, 359 tracts are more than 66 percent white, and 663 tracts are more than 50 percent white.
 Asians are just 26 percent of the population of the Bay Area, they are a majority of the population is 181 census tracts, more than 66 percent in 50 census tracts, and compose 75 percent or more in 18 census tracts.
 Latinos are 24 percent of the population in the Bay Area, but are 50 percent or more of the population 143 census tracts, more than 66 percent of the population in 50 census tracts, and more than 75 percent of the population in 20 census tracts.
 African Americans are just 6 percent of the population of the Bay Area, but are more than 25 percent of the population in 93 census tracts, more than 40 percent of the population in 40 census tracts, and more than 50 percent of the population in 18 census tracts. African Americans are the most racially concentrated group in the Bay Area, with 75 percent of the Bay Area’s Black residents residing in just 26 percent of the region’s census tracts.

These patterns of racial segregation are not “natural,” or simply the result of individual housing preferences, but the by-product of exclusionary policies as well as private housing discrimination.

This history of segregation in
the region is important not
only to understand how
residential settlement patterns
came about—but, more
importantly, to explain
differences in housing
opportunity among residents
today. In sum, not all residents
had the ability to build housing
wealth or achieve economic
opportunity. This historically
unequal playing field in part
determines why residents have
different housing needs today.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 291
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-4 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 1: Bay Area Demographics
Source: Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 1 by Stephen Menendian and Samir Gambhir, October 30, 2018

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 292
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-5
San Mateo County is one of the most affluent places in America and home to a number of corporate campuses for Fortune 500 and 100 companies. It is also a highly segregated county. Few census tracts reflect the demographics of the county for any racial group. Just 24 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 24 percent, 28 percent, and 2 percent, respectively (Figure 2).

Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America chronicles how the public sector contributed to the segregation that exists today.

Rothstein highlights several significant developments in the Bay Area region that played a large role in where the region’s non-White residents settled.

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

According to the San Mateo County Historical Association. San Mateo County’s early African Americans worked in a variety of industries, from logging, to agriculture, to restaurants and entertainment.

Expansion of jobs, particularly related to shipbuilding during and after World War II attracted many new residents into the Peninsula, including the first sizable migration of African Americans. Enforcement of racial covenants after the war forced the migration of the county’s African Americans into neighborhoods where they were allowed to occupy housing—housing segregated into less desirable areas, next to highways, and concentrated in public housing and urban renewal developments.

The private sector contributed to segregation through activities that discouraged (blockbusting) or prohibited (restrictive covenants) integrated neighborhoods. In the City of San Mateo, for example, builders of the Hillsdale neighborhood in the mid-1900s recorded deeds that specified that only “members of the Caucasian or White race shall be permitted” to occupy sold homes—the exception being “domestics in the employ[ment] on the premises.”2 This developer went on to develop many racerestricted neighborhoods in the Bay Area, became president of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), became national president of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and was inducted into California’s Homebuilding Foundation Hall of Fame.

Developer Joseph Eichler took a different path, building and selling homes for residents of all races and religions. He resigned from the NAHB in 1958 because they refused to support a nondiscrimination policy.3 Eichler built many homes in what was comparably affordable Foster City; these homes are interspersed in several neighborhoods in the city.
2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/opinion/sunday/blm-residential-segregation.html. 3 Lempert, Sue, “The reckoning: San Mateo then and now”, San Mateo Daily Journal, August 24, 2020.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 293
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-6 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 2: San Mateo County Demographics
Source: Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 1 by Stephen Menendian and Samir Gambhir, October 30, 2018

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 294
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-7
The segregatory effect of blockbusting activities is well-documented in East Palo Alto. In 1954, after a White family in East Palo Alto sold their home to an African American family, the then-president of the California Real Estate Association set up an office in East Palo Alto to scare White families into selling their homes (“for fear of declining property values”) to agents and speculators. These agents then sold these homes at over-inflated prices to African American buyers, some of whom had trouble making their payments. Within six years, East Palo Alto—initially established with “whites only” neighborhoods— became 82% African American. The FHA prevented re-integration by refusing to insure mortgages held by White buyers residing in East Palo Alto.

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

In addition to historical discriminatory practices that embedded segregation into living patterns throughout the Bay Area, it’s also necessary to recognize the historical impacts of colonization and genocide on Indigenous populations and how the effects of those atrocities are still being felt today. The original inhabitants of present-day San Mateo County are the Ramaytush Ohlone, who have “…lived on the San Francisco Peninsula for thousands of years and continue to live here as respectful stewards of the land.”4 However, “[d]ue to the devastating policies and practices of a succession of explorers, missionaries, settlers, and various levels of government over the centuries since European expansion, the Ramaytush Ohlone lost the vast majority of their population as well as their land.”5 The lasting influence of these policies and practices have contributed directly to the disparate housing and economic outcomes collectively experienced by Native populations today.6 The timeline of major federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use (Figure 4) appears on page B-10.

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

As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s. Courts struck down only the most discriminatory and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v.

Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multi-family apartments were the only housing options for people of color, including immigrants. 4 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html. 5 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html. 6 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 295
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-8 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

1.3 FOSTER CITY LAND USE AND ZONINGHISTORY
Planning for Foster City began in the 1950s at a time when exclusionary deed restrictions were common.

From the outset, T. Jack Foster was determined to not follow this pattern. As noted in “The Development of Foster City” by T. Jack Foster, Jr., one of the requirements of the builder from the beginning was that “There was to be no racial discrimination."7 He was also intentional in hiring Eichler to build in Foster City, as noted in his book:
“Among the many honors that were bestowed on Eichler Homes, including many design awards, were awards for their well-known policy of totally open housing, meaning that there was no racial discrimination in the neighborhoods which they developed. With one stroke, by bringing Eichler into Foster City, we effectively announced to the world that no one would be denied the opportunity to own a home in Foster City because of race.”8
Foster also includes in his book comments from Ike Tribble, a noted leader in the Black community, that in spite of the Rumford Act there was still widespread discrimination in the communities of the Bay Area, except for one, and that was Foster City.9 There was a Foster City Association of Black Residents formed in 1967 that “served to welcome new Black families into the community and provided a social and civic connection.”10
Foster City has continued to celebrate the various cultures represented in the community. Regular cultural events include the Polynesian Festival, Chinese New Year, Diwali Festival of Lights, Holi Festival of Colors, and others.

From its beginnings, Foster City has provided a variety of housing types. Higher density multi-family development in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts is included in all of the City’s residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. Although homes sales started with single-family homes in 1963, by 1974, the provision of a mix of apartments, townhouses, condominiums, and single-family homes provided housing choices for a wide variety of household sizes and income levels, as indicated in Figure 3 below.

Over time, as increases in rents and sales prices for housing have outpaced wage growth, middle and lower income households have been squeezed out of the housing market. In the Terner Center’s publication, “The Landscape of Middle-Income Housing Affordability in California,” they note “For many occupations that have traditionally been considered middle class, wages have not kept up with rising house prices. This mismatch between housing costs and incomes—especially in the state’s coastal areas—are straining household budgets and putting homeownership increasingly out of reach for middle-income families.” This problem is not unique to Foster City but is a common problem throughout San Mateo County and the Bay Area, resulting in a lack of access to housing choices and affordability. 7 T. Jack Foster, Jr., The Development of Foster City (2012), 64. 8 Ibid, 66. 9 Ibid, 73.
10 Foster City Historical Society, Images of America Foster City (2005), 104.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 296
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-9
Figure 3: Foster City Housing Mix: 1974-2022
Source: Foster City Community Development Department

1.4 PRIMARY FINDINGS
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for Foster City including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the city’s fair housing action plan.
 Foster City replicates the County and region overall in terms of household size and household composition but diverges in household income and racial diversity: Foster City has a much higher proportion of households with incomes greater than 100% AMI than the County or region, a much lower proportion of < 50% AMI households, and a much higher share of Asian households. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of lower-income households (<$50,000) in Foster City declined by 22%, either because they left the city or moved to a higher-income bracket. This was offset by an increase in higher-income households ($100,000 or more) (an increase of 36%). Middle-income households ($50,000 up to $100,000) also declined in the city and county, though Foster City’s population declined the greatest at 44% compared to the decline in the County at 27%.  In regards to racial diversity in comparison to the county, Foster City has a much higher share of Asian households (48% in Foster City compared to 30% in San Mateo County). Foster City’s residents have grown more racially diverse since 2000 largely due to the growth of Asian residents, primarily Asian Indian and Chinese. There has also been notable growth in the city’s population of residents identifying as Black/African American (from 282 people in 2010 to 717 people in 2020) and Hispanic/Latino (an increase of 717 people between 2010 and 2020), although these populations have remained small overall (1.4% Black/African American and 7.2% Latinx in 2020) in comparison to White (31.8% in 2020) and Asian (58.8% in 2020) residents. Overall, the city has low to moderate diversity and is less diverse than the City of San Mateo and Redwood City, but somewhat more diverse than other nearby higher income communities.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1974 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2022
Foster City Housing Mix: 1974-2022
Single Family Second Units Apartment Townhouse Condominium Duplex

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 297
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-10 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 4: Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing Source: Roots Policy Research

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 298
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-11
 Where segregation exists in the city, it is for Asian residents. From 2000 to 2020, Asian residents have become increasingly more isolated, while White residents have become less segregated from other racial groups. In comparison to the average Bay Area city, in Foster City, Asian residents are more segregated and White residents are less segregated. There are no concentrations of above moderate income residents in Foster City, and there is less neighborhood level income segregation in Foster City than in the average Bay Area city.
 The share of the population living with at least one disability is 7% in Foster City compared to 8% in San Mateo County and 10% in the Bay Area. Foster City has no Census tracts where the population of persons with disabilities exceeds 10%. Foster City’s population of residents with a disability significantly declined between 2012 and 2020 with 84% of residents under 65 and 94% over 65 leaving the city. This is substantially higher than the county overall where younger populations have minimally decreased (-4%) and older populations increased (28%).  Foster City’s households are mostly made up of 3- to 4-person households (38%) and 2-person households (36%). Compared to the County and Bay area overall, Foster City has slightly fewer 1- person households (20% compared to 22% in the county) and 5-person households (6% v. 11%).  Poverty rates vary modestly across races and ethnicities—except for residents identifying as “other” races or mixed-race. More than one-fourth (26.4%) of residents identifying as “other race or multiple races” live below the poverty line, many of whom are children. Hispanic/Latinx residents also have lower income distribution and higher poverty rates (8.3%). In Foster City, 3.5% of the 2020 population lives below the poverty line, compared to 6.7% in San Mateo County.  Foster City scores well on positive environmental outcomes, with no census tracts in the City scoring poorly. The City also scores high on California Healthy Places Index (HPI)—based on 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and health care. o The city’s location, on the coast and away from uses that emit pollution, is a major factor that contributes to such positive environmental outcomes. With less congestion and traffic, coastal cities often experienced reduced air pollution, improving livability indexes and both environmental and health outcomes.
o Both Foster City and San Mateo County have also prioritized planning and policy identification for anticipated climate impacts in the Bay Area.
o In order to maintain FEMA accreditation and keep Foster City properties out of the flood zone, Foster City voters approved Measure P in 2018, authorizing the City to issue a $90 million general obligation (GO) bond to improve and strengthen the Foster City levee system. The Levee Improvements Project began construction in 2020 and will continue through 2023.  All of Foster City is considered a high resource area; there are no concentrations of poverty or significant racially segregated housing areas.
 Foster City offers a variety of housing types with most medium or large multi-family (37.5%) and single family detached units (35.4%). Single family attached makes up 20% while 7% are small multifamily units.  Renters are more likely to be living in 1- and 2-bedroom units than owners. Owners are more likely to be occupying 3- to 5-bedroom units. To the extent that larger renter households desire to live in

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 299
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-12 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Foster City, the lack of rental housing stock to accommodate their needs could limit their access to housing in the city.
 There are disparities in housing cost burden in Foster City by race and ethnicity and by tenure (renters/owners). Black or African American (58%) and Hispanic households (42%) experience the highest rates of cost burden in the city. Asian (29%) and non-Hispanic White households (30%) are least likely to be cost burdened. Renters in Foster City are often more likely to be cost-burdened than owners—however, there are more concentrations of cost-burdened owners than renters in the city.

Despite Foster City’s comparably high housing costs, cost burden is on par with the County and Bay Area
 The vast majority of households (95%) in Foster City are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room. This slightly better than the percentage of households that are not overcrowded in San Mateo County (92%) and the Bay Area at large (93%). However, renter households are more likely to be overcrowded, with 5.9% of households with more than one occupant per room, compared to 1.4% of owner households. Low rates of overcrowding are associated with low displacement risk in Foster City.
 Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the City’s very high costs of housing and lack of affordable production. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households. Pursuant to the City’s inclusionary requirements, approximately 20% of the new housing units since 2015 are restricted for very low-, low- and moderate-income households, leaving approximately 80% at market rate, which is affordable to moderate or above moderate-income households. Just 9% of the City’s rental units rent for $2,000 and less. The County has four times the proportion of rentals priced under $2,000 than the City.
 Three of the City’s nine census tracts are vulnerable to displacement and most of these are also tracts where the proportion of renters are the highest. Housing vulnerability/instability and risks of displacement in Foster City could be driving lower-income households (<$50,000) to leave the area at higher rates.
 Mortgage denial rates are relatively modest—ranging from 12% to 20%--and similar across races and ethnicities.
 Nearly 17,000 jobs in Foster City can be accessed via public transportation and 89% of the city’s stations and vehicles are considered ADA-accessible—similar to the county overall (89%).

Importantly, however, substantially more jobs can be accessed by personal vehicles—in 2022, an estimated 107,000 jobs are accessible via car. This can present job access challenges for Foster City’s residents as commute times are long (33 minutes on average)—especially compared to the county (27 minutes) and surrounding jurisdictions (e.g., Redwood City has an average commute time of 26 minutes). Yearly household transportation costs could also restrict access to jobs and increase unemployment—in 2021, average transportation costs for Foster City’s residents was $14,595 per year. Combined with high housing costs, lower-income households are more likely to experience disparities in job access.
 Racial and ethnic minority students served by the San Mateo Union High School District, of which Foster City is part, experience lower educational outcomes compared to other students. Many high schoolers in the County met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. However, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the San

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 300
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-13
Mateo Union High School district were less likely to meet the admission standards. Although San Mateo Union High School District has relatively low dropout rates—4% of students—compared to other districts in the County, dropout rates among Hispanic (7%), Black (6%), and Pacific Islander students are higher (see the access to education supplement).  Resident-reported housing challenges and discrimination, especially regarding use of Housing Choice vouchers. Nearly 150 residents of Foster City completed a survey about their housing challenges conducted by Root Policy Research for jurisdictions in San Mateo County (see section on AFFH Community Engagement Input). The vast majority of respondents did not report housing concerns, and most were owners. Respondents proportionally represented Black or African American and Hispanic residents in the City; however, more respondents were White and fewer were Asian than in the City overall.

The top needs identified by those with challenges include:
o 80% of vouchers holders said finding a unit that takes vouchers is “somewhat” or “very” difficult. These respondents cited a variety of factors for those difficulties including vouchers not covering rents (38%), not enough time to find units that accept vouchers (38%), landlords not renting to voucher holders (23%), and difficulty finding information about units that accept vouchers (23%);
o 20% of respondents said that public transit does not go to needed locations or operate during times needed, and 14% said they cannot get to transit easily or safely; o 20% said their house or apartment is not large enough for their family; o 15% of respondents said they would like to move from their current housing but cannot afford to; and
o 11% said the HOA in their neighborhood would not let them make desired changes to their house or property.

Some residents reported experiencing housing discrimination:
o Respondents with disabilities said they had been told their rent would cost more because of their service or emotional support animal and/or told they could not have a service or emotional support animal.
o 20% of residents who thought they had been discriminated against in sales transactions said a real estate agent required prequalification before they would show properties; 17% were refused a mortgage loan; 10% said a real estate agent would not make a disability accommodation. o The top reasons for being denied housing were:
− Landlord not accepting the applicants’ source of income such as social security or disability benefits (28% of those denied);
− Lack of a stable housing record (28%);
− Lack of a regular or consistent job or job history (28%); − Income too low (17%);
− Health care or service needs (17%);

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 301
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-14 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
− Foreclosure, children in the household, real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, COVID, and/or language spoken (each 11%).
 Though fair housing complaints and inquiries are rather low in Foster City, four of seven inquiries in the past eight years (2013-2021) were cited as “disability” bias—higher than all other jurisdictions excluding Redwood City (five) and the City of San Mateo (four).  The City is aware of two legal cases in Foster City involving fair housing issues. The first case related to the Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Foster City Community Development Agency (Agency) in November 1981 and the Housing Element adopted by the City in May 1981. The Settlement Agreement imposes minimums on the Agency for spending on low- and moderateincome housing and for the quantity of affordable housing by income level. The second case was in 2004 between BRE Properties (former owner of Foster’s Landing), a Foster’s Landing tenant, and Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) resulting in the agreement by BRE Properties to provide training on the duties, responsibilities, obligations, and rights of an owner and/or managing agent.
 The proposed housing sites in the Sites Inventory are well distributed throughout the City. The additional housing site locations in the Sites Inventory will expand deed restricted affordable housing to the southern edge of the City with inclusion of the Lantern Cove and Schooner Bay sites, and farther west to the Harbor Cove site. There are not existing patterns of socio-economic concentrations that could be exacerbated by the inclusion or exclusion of housing sites. Sites are discussed in depth in Chapter 5, Housing Resources and Sites. The AFFH analysis of the Sites Inventory is discussed in detail in Appendix B, Section 6. There are a few tracts with some larger deviations from citywide averages that may be suitable for geographic targeting of programs. Observations on the factors that have more variation from citywide averages include:
o Disability. Census tracts 6083 (Neighborhood 3) and 6080.25 (central Foster City) have the highest percentage of persons with a disability at 9.2% and 9.6%, respectively, compared to the citywide average of 7.1%. Tract 6080.25 includes the City’s two affordable senior apartments and Atria assisted living facility. Geographic targeting of Program H-F-1-j Public Investment in Accessibility could be utilized in these two tracts.
o Renter Cost Burden. Census tract 6080.13 and 6080.23 (Neighborhoods 7 and 8) include the highest renter cost burden at 49.5% compared to the citywide average of 32.6%. The Lantern Cove and Schooner Bay sites in this area will increase the significantly housing options and affordable housing in this neighborhood.
o Owner Cost Burden. Census tracts 6083 (Neighborhood 3) and 6082 (Neighborhood 2) include higher owner cost burden at 41.1% and 38.9%, respectively, compared to the citywide average of 32.9%. Geographic targeting of Program H-B-2-a Lower-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans and H-B-2-b: Facilitate Non-Profit Rehabilitation/Maintenance Assistance could help address this.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 302
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-15

1.5 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN
The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, socioeconomic factors that limit employment and income growth, broad barriers to open housing choice, and, until recently, very limited resources to respond to needs.

Foster City has historically accommodated a diversity of housing needs by offering a variety of housing types—more so than many jurisdictions in the County. Yet home values and rents are much higher in Foster City than in the County and the Bay Area overall. Foster City’s fair housing actions that are part of the overall Housing Element are intended to address barriers to housing choice by adding affordable housing options and preserving existing housing opportunities.

Fair Housing Issue: Foster City’s high housing costs limit housing choice and have a disproportionate impact on Black or African American and Hispanic households.

Contributing Factors
 Black or African American and Hispanic residents typically work lower wage jobs, stemming from historical employment discrimination and lack of access to quality educational environments. These jobs often do not support the city’s housing costs. As a result, Black or African American and Hispanic residents face very high levels of cost burden (Highest priority).  The lack of housing in Foster City to accommodate larger renter households can disproportionately impact households of color, which tend to be larger (Highest priority).

Fair Housing Issue: Foster City’s low production of affordable housing limits housing choices of Black or African American and Hispanic households who have lower incomes.

Contributing Factors
 Foster City has had limited production of affordable housing. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households. Pursuant to the City’s inclusionary requirements, approximately 20% of the new housing units since 2015 are restricted for very low-, low- and moderate-income households, leaving approximately 80% at market rate, which is affordable to moderate or above moderate-income households. Just 9% of the City’s rental units rent for $2,000 and less. San Mateo County has four times the proportion of rentals priced under $2,000 than the City (High priority).

Fair Housing Issue: Foster City’s multi-family housing is aging and vulnerable to redevelopment and displacement of low- and moderate-income households.

Contributing Factors
 The high watertable in Foster City creates maintenance needs, particularly for multi-family buildings (Medium Priority).
 Aging, low-density apartment developments may have economic incentives to redevelop (High priority).

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 303
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-16 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Fair Housing Issue: Residents report experiencing fair housing discrimination in Foster City mostly based on disability and/or being a voucher holder/source of income. Few of those experiencing discrimination file complaints or take action.

Contributing Factors
 Property owners’ lack of knowledge about fair housing laws (High priority).  Property owners violating fair housing laws (High priority).  Tenants fear of retaliation, few options to relocate (High priority).

Fair Housing Issue: Black or African American, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander students are less likely than other students to meet college admission standards and have higher high school dropout rates.

Contributing Factors
 The underlying factors for these differences are unknown and need to be examined as part of AFFH actions (Low priority).

The Fair Housing Action Plan is contained in Table 16, Summary Matrix of Fair Housing Issues and Actions, at the end of this Appendix.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 304
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-17
2 FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH CAPACITY
This section discusses fair housing complaints and inquiries, legal actions, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity. It begins with a discussion of fair housing complaints and inquiries in San Mateo County to present an overview of the region’s fair housing landscape. It then provides an in-depth analysis of legal actions in Foster City such as lawsuits and settlements and the City’s compliance with state and federal fair housing laws. Organized in this way, this section offers insight on comparative trends and factors impacting fair housing in both Foster City and the region.

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

The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”.11
DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD. DFEH’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.12 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

Additionally, San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto.

These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County.

From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); none were from Foster City. In preparing this AFFH, the San Mateo County jurisdictions participating in 21 Elements, including Foster City, participated in a discussion with the local fair housing organizations Legal Aid of San Mateo County and Project Sentinel to learn about fair housing trends and concerns, as well as to discuss best practices in AFFH(Figure 5). Following this discussion, the consultant team contacted local fair housing organizations to obtain local data on fair housing complaints and lawsuits beyond what was available in HCD and HUD 11 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/. 12 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 305
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-18 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
datasets. Consultants also obtained and analyzed data from HUD. These datasets were compared for duplicate cases and analyzed and appear in the graphics and tables in this section.

Most of the County complaints cited disability status as the bias (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial status (14%). No cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints. During roughly the same time period, 2015-2020, Project Sentinel investigated nearly 300 fair housing discrimination cases in San Mateo County, 55% of which were related to disability, followed by familial status (20%), national origin (13%), race (5%), gender (2%), source of income (2%), and other (3%). This would indicate that the HUD figures underestimate the number of Fair Housing complaints made in San Mateo County.

Fair housing inquiries in 2020 were primarily submitted to HCD from the City of San Mateo, Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park. Seven inquiries were from Foster City residents.

Figure 5: Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, San Mateo County Source: Organization websites
In the resident survey conducted for this study, 17.5% of Foster City respondents—a total of 20— reported being discriminated against when they looked for housing in San Mateo County. Fortyseven percent had that experience more than 5 years ago; 37%, between 2 and 5 years ago; and 16% in the past year. In response to the discrimination, 50% did nothing (10% said that was because of fear of being evicted or harassed); 2% moved; 25% contacted a local government office or agency. Twenty percent contacted the state enforcement agency, 10% contacted a fair housing organization, and 10% contacted a housing authority.

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

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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 306
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-19
Figure 6: Fair Housing Complaints and Enquiries
Source: HUD and California Department of Housing and Community Development Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%). Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county.

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
 First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 307
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-20 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
 Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment—1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.
 Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies—reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.13 Though fair housing complaints and inquiries are rather low in Foster City, four of seven inquiries in the past eight years (2013-2021) were cited as “disability” bias—compared to Redwood City (five) and the City of San Mateo (four). The disparities in access to opportunity for people living with a disability is further analyzed in Section 4.6.

2.2 FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING LEGAL CASES
The City is aware of two legal cases in Foster City involving fair housing issues. The first agreement related to the Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Foster City Community Development Agency (Agency) in November 1981 and the Housing Element adopted by the City in May 1981. The agreement included the Housing Coalition of San Mateo, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, the Community Development Agency of the City of Foster City, and the City of Foster City. The Plaintiffs had filed an action against the Redevelopment Plan. The agreement stipulates that the Agency would spend not less than twenty percent (20%) of taxes received for the purposes of increasing the community’s supply of low- and moderate-income housing. The agreement also stipulated the percentages of affordable housing by income level to be developed within the Project Area, including fifteen percent (15%) if developed by entities other than the Agency, and of the fifteen percent (15%), not less than forty percent (40%) for very low-income households in accordance with the proportion of unmet affordable housing needs identified in the Housing Element for each household type (elderly, families and large families) within this income group.

The second agreement was in 2004 between BRE Properties (former owner of Foster’s Landing), a Foster’s Landing tenant, and DFEH. The Settlement Agreement between the parties does not represent any admission of liability or any admission that the allegations have any validity. BRE Properties agreed to provide training regarding the duties, responsibilities, obligations and rights of an owner and/or managing agent under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. BRE Properties also paid a settlement to the Complainant.

2.3 OUTREACH AND PROGRAM CAPACITY
Foster City maintains a website with information about local fair housing ordinances with live links to Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center.14 The site also lists resources for persons with disabilities seeking services.

As part of its efforts to address Fair Housing Issues, Foster City has improved the site by fixing broken links to the Department of Consumer Affairs and the County’s Assessment of Fair Housing. The website will also be reviewed and modified to be more transparent in describing relevant information on filing 13 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/. 14 https://www.fostercity.org/commdev/page/fair-housing.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 308
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-21
complaint for residents who have faced housing discrimination (e.g., link to HUD’s and State of California fair housing pages). Foster City will look to local fair housing service providers’ best practices in making those changes.

Programs and practices established by Foster City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element have proved successful in recent years. For the 2015-2023 planning period, the city was required to plan for a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 430 units in four income categories. The city satisfied between 31.5% to

61.5% of below market rate (BMR) RHNA and issued permits for 885 dwelling units—166 of which were BMR units. In the same period, the city facilitated mixed-use developments—Pilgrim Triton and Foster Square—which designated 20% of units as affordable housing and 22-units for workforce housing. City Council adopted preference categories for these developments to house first responders and disaster service workers to retain and improve its emergency response capacity.

Foster City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element noted an increase in the number of government-assisted rental units at risk of conversion—four of six developments that house seniors, families, and low-income households are “at risk” of transitioning from affordable to market rate. Since its adoption in February 2015, however, the City has implemented numerous programs to minimize the impacts of expiring affordable covenants. In the case of Foster Landing, for instance, the city worked with Essex Properties to assist BMR tenants at risk of displacement from expiring affordable covenants. In 2021, Foster City approved an Early Relocation Assistance program to provide financial assistance to offset relocation costs and obtained a Permanent Local Housing Assistance (PLHA) grant from San Mateo County to provide rental subsidies. The Housing Industry Foundation (HIF) was also established and hired to administer these programs to at risk tenants. The city’s Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period is adding numerous housing goals and strategies to exceed city achievements in the previous period. Examples include:
 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)—encourage the use and production of ADUs through an ADU Financial Incentive Program, preapproved ADU design and expedited review, and improved public information on ADUs;
 Lower-income Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans—provide or partner with a regional program to provide rehabilitation loans including weatherization, solar, and disaster assistance;  Anti-displacement strategies—expand benefits beyond state law requirements for lease terms, required notifications, and expansion of relocation and anti-displacement provisions;  Zoning amendments to facilitate housing on housing opportunity sites; and  Allow residential uses on public and private institution-owned sites including schools, religious, and non-profit sites.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 309
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-22 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

2.4 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW
Foster City is compliant with the following state laws that promote fair and affordable housing. The City has not been alleged or found in violation of the following:
 Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocations;
 No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to accommodate unmet RHNA allocations;
 Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.1);
 Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.2);  Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5);  Supportive Housing Streamlined Approval (AB 2162), requiring supportive housing by-right in certain zoning districts;
 California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency Act (Senate Bill 9), requiring city development standards to allow for two units on existing lots and accelerated processes for multi-family zoning and residential density.

In March, City Council released a report outlining adjustments to the city’s inclusionary housing policy and Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) program based on changes to the state’s density bonus law. 15 According to the document, the city altered their inclusionary housing policy through an ordinance that establishes objective requirements—rather than negotiations—for specific parameters for developments (e.g., income levels and length of restrictions). The city’s AHO and its related policies—AHO Combining District, application of AHO to specific sites, design guidelines—was also adjusted based on state law changes for density bonuses. Foster City simplified their proposed AHO program by requiring more BMR units at extremely low-, very low- and low-income levels, reducing the inclusionary percentage from 20% to 15%, and required developers to provide more BMR units at lower income levels in exchange for reduced total inclusionary requirements. Seven sites were designated for application of the AHO Combining District, allowing the City to obtain more units for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.

Foster City is compliant with the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and commits itself to protecting against discrimination in housing on the basis of all protected characteristics—race, sex, ethnicity, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, and religion. 15 https://www.fostercity.org/commdev/page/below-market-rate-housing-inclusionary-requirements-and-affordable-housingoverlay-zone.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 310
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-23

2.5 LOCAL HOUSING POLICIES
Foster City identified the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the city.

Local policies in place to encourage housing
development.
 Density bonus ordinance—conforms to State
Density Bonus Law
 Condominium conversion regulations
 Linkage fee on commercial development
 Inclusionary zoning
 Streamlined processing of ADUs
 Housing Overlay
Local barriers to affordable housing
development.
 Lack of land zoned for multi-family housing
Local policies in place to mitigate or prevent
displacement of low-income households.
 Condominium conversion regulations
 Housing Element Policy H-E-2-a to phase
redevelopment to minimize displacement
 Chapter 5.72 prohibiting discrimination against
use of Section 8 or any other rent subsidy
Local policies that are NOT in place but have
potential Council interest for further exploration.
 Living wage employment ordinance
Foster City adopted numerous measures in 2022 to further affordable housing development. In March, the city adopted Ordinance 606 to update an affordable housing commercial linkage fee created in 2016 under chapter 17.88. The ordinance established a mechanism for commercial development to pay fees to offset the development impacts of affordable housing development—the first revenue of $360,580 occurred in FY 2021-2022.

In 1986, Ordinance 327 was adopted to add Chapter 17.37 (Senior Housing Overlay District) to the Municipal Code. The chapter was passed to ensure that housing developments include units that meet the needs of specific populations and accommodate persons with disabilities. Target populations are residents 62 years and older and meeting the state definition of very low-, low-, or moderate-income levels. Currently, Foster City has no legal protections for LGBTQIA+ for housing discrimination.

As shown in Figure 8, half of the city’s census tracts have low (less than 5%) Housing Choice Voucher usage. Surrounding jurisdictions also have low voucher utilization rates.

Foster City owns six housing units scattered throughout the city that are rented to very low- and lowincome households as part of the Existing Unit Purchase Program. In addition, Foster City acquired a 22- unit apartment building in the Pilgrim Triton neighborhood in August 2022 that includes affordable and workforce housing.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 311
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-24 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 7: Foster City Census Tracts: 2020
Note: For data using 2010 Census Tracts, 6080.24 and 6080.25 were previously combined in 6080.04.

Source: US Census Bureau, 2022

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 312
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-25
Figure 8: Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 313
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-26 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Findings from the 21 Elements Resident Survey support data on low voucher utilization and landlord participation rates in voucher programs in Foster City. In fact, 40% of respondents from Foster City reported being denied housing because the landlord did not accept their income and nearly half (47%) of respondents indicated that it was “somewhat difficult” to find a landlord that accepts housing vouchers.

These trends are prominent throughout the county as well—overall, eight in ten voucher holders find it “difficult” or “very difficult” to find landlords accepting vouchers. Redwood City had the largest proportion of respondents being denied housing for holding a voucher at 18%.

Low voucher utilization rates in Foster City and surrounding jurisdictions indicate a lack of available rental units and potentially exclusionary behavior from landlords. Foster City has taken steps to remedy this challenge: In 2013, City Council passed Ordinance no. 581 to add a “Tenant Anti-discrimination” chapter to the city’s Municipal Code.16 The Ordinance committed Foster City to protecting fair housing and addressing the low number of landlords participating in rental assistance programs by prohibiting discrimination on the source of income and the use of rental subsidies—including Section 8 and housing assistance programs for very low- and low-income residents. According to Section 5.72.050, however, Foster City is not responsible or liable to enforce the ordinance or seek redress for any discrimination claim. It is therefore imperative that Foster City coordinate with local fair housing providers to enforce the ordinance.

Recent data on voucher rates in the city and lack of enforcement suggests that Ordinance no. 581 is only one part of the solution in addressing challenges to voucher holders finding units in the city. Production of new rental units, particularly those with public subsidies that require units to be rented below market, is critical for raising voucher utilization rates.
16 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/FosterCity/?FosterCity17/FosterCity1776.html.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 314
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-27
3 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence. This section draws from several reports provided by Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) as well as Segregation Reports prepared by a collaboration between the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and UC Merced. Some of these reports use parenthetical citations. A source list is provided at the end of this appendix.

3.1 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.

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

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

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.

Segregation Forms
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.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 315
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-28 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
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).

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 acrossjurisdictions 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 residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.”17 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.

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).18 ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.
17 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 18 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 316
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-29
Racial Segregation in Foster City
Foster City differs from the County and Bay area overall for its relatively high proportion of residents identifying as Asian (48% in Foster City compared to 30% in San Mateo County) and small Hispanic population (8% in Foster City and 24% in the county). Foster City’s proportion of Black/African American, non-Hispanic White, and Other and mixed-race residents is similar to the county.19 Foster City’s residents have grown more racially diverse since 2000 largely due to the growth of Asian residents (Figure 9). The two largest subgroups of the Asian population in Foster City include Asian Indian (15% of the total population in 2019) and Chinese (24% of the total population in 2019). The Asian Indian population had the largest growth from 11% in 2010 to 15% in 2019, compared to the growth in the Chinese population over the same time period from 21% to 24%.

Older residents are less racially diverse than other age groups, with 58% of the population older than 65 years identifying as White compared to 42% of those aged 18 to 24 and 36% of children less than 18 years old. Fourteen percent of the City’s children are other or mixed-race compared to just 2% of older adults—a sign that the City could continue to grow more diverse in the future if families with children remain in the City.

Figure 9: Population by Race and Ethnicity, Foster City, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Poverty rates vary modestly across races and ethnicities—except for residents identifying as “other” races or mixed-race. More than one-fourth (26.4%) of residents identifying as “other race or multiple races” live below the poverty line (Figure 10), and a relatively high proportion of the City’s other and mixed-race residents are children. Hispanic/Latinx residents also have lower income distribution and higher poverty rates (8.3%). In Foster City, 3.5% of the 2020 population lives below the poverty line, compared to 6.7% in San Mateo County.
19 The share of the population that identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native is less than 1%.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 317
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-30 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 10: Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Foster City, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

3.2 NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL RACIAL SEGREGATION (WITHIN CITY OF FOSTER CITY) 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 0.65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.

Within Foster City the most isolated racial group is Asian residents (although there is significant diversity within the Asian population). Foster City’s isolation index of 0.538 for Asian residents means that the average Asian resident lives in a neighborhood that is 53.8% Asian. 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 Foster City for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 1 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the White population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 318
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-31
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation
within Foster City
Race
Foster City Bay Area
Average
2020 2000 2010 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.335 0.456 0.538 0.245
Black/African American 0.022 0.019 0.015 0.053
Latinx 0.055 0.067 0.073 0.251
White 0.562 0.423 0.320 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.

The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020. 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 1 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.20
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).  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, the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index can provide a more accurate understanding of their jurisdiction’s neighborhoodlevel segregation patterns (intra-city segregation). In Foster City, the Black/African American group is 1.4 percent of the population - so dissimilarity index values involving this group are not reliable. 20 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).

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 319
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-32 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 2 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Foster City 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).

Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Foster City
Race
Foster City Bay Area
Average
2020 2000 2010 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.083 0.058 0.053 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.103* 0.090* 0.124* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.089 0.073 0.096 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.062 0.053 0.055 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.

In Foster City the highest segregation is between Black and White residents (see Table 2). Foster City’s Black /white dissimilarity index of 0.124 means that 12.4% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and White residents. However, this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size.

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.

For example, Table 2 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.

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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 320
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-33
 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 Foster City for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 3. 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 Foster City 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 Foster City was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Foster City is less than in the average Bay Area city.

Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation
within Foster City
Index
Foster City Bay Area
Average
2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.042
Universe: Population.

3.3 REGIONAL RACIAL SEGREGATION (BETWEEN FOSTER CITY AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS) At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between neighborhoods. Racial dot maps can be used to explore the racial demographic differences between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure 11 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in Foster City as well as in nearby Bay Area cities. This map demonstrates that Asian households are more concentrated in Foster City and the bordering neighborhoods, whereas White and Latinx households are concentrated in surrounding cities.

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 Foster City for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 4 below. The table also provides the racial composition of the nine-county Bay Area. As of 2020, Foster City has a lower share of White residents at 31.8% than the Bay Area as a whole at 35.8%, a lower share of Latinx residents at 7.2% than the Bay Area as a whole at 24.4%, a lower share of Black residents at

1.4% than the Bay Area as a whole at 5.6%, and a higher share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents at 53.8% compared to the Bay Area as a whole at 28.2%.

Geospatially, the majority of census tracts in the city are segregated with Asian residents (Figure 12).

Overall, the City has low to moderate diversity (Figure 13) and is less diverse than the City of San Mateo and Redwood City, but somewhat more diverse than other nearby higher income communities.21 21 Redlining maps, otherwise known as Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps, are not available for San Mateo County.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 321
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-34 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 11: Racial Dot Map of Foster City and Surrounding Areas (2020) Universe: Population.

Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of Foster City and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002
Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Foster City
and the Region
Race
Foster City Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 32.4% 45.4% 53.8% 28.2%
Black/African American 2.1% 1.8% 1.4% 5.6%
Latinx 5.3% 6.5% 7.2% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 4.3% 4.3% 5.9% 5.9%
White 55.9% 42.0% 31.8% 35.8%
Universe: Population.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 322
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-35
Figure 12: Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 323
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-36 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 13: Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 324
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-37

3.4 LOCAL AND COUNTY-WIDE DIVERSITY
As shown in Table 5, Foster City has become increasingly diverse with notable growth in the population of residents identifying as Black/African American (from 282 people in 2010 to 717 people in 2020) and Hispanic/Latino (an increase of 717 people between 2010 and 2020), although these populations have remained small overall (1.4% Black/African American and 7.2% Latinx in 2020) in comparison to White (31.8% in 2020) and Asian (58.8% in 2020) residents. Growth is most prominent in census tracts 6080.02 (744% increase in Black/African American population) and 6081 (454% increase in Hispanic/Latino population). Asian residents grew across all census tracts in Foster City—excluding 6080.01 (13% decrease). Despite comprising the largest portion of the city’s population, since 2010, non-Hispanic White residents have declined throughout the city with an overall decrease of 14%.

Table 5: Population Change by Race/Ethnicity by Census Tract, 2010 to 2020
Race/Ethnicity
CT
6080.01
CT
6080.02
CT
6080.13
CT
6080.23
CT
6081
CT
6082
CT
6083
Foster
City
San
Mateo
County
Non-Hispanic White 28% -9% -32% -26% -42% 22% -39% -14% -4% Black or African American -45% 744% 29% — 454% -71% 87% 53% -14% American Indian or Alaska Native —* -100% — — — — — -56% -26% Asian -13% 7% 2% 18% 52% 5% 37% 31% 31%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander -52% — — — 0% -100% — -84% -9%
Hispanic or Latino -41% 36% 174% 467% -57% 57% -3% 38% 7% Note: Census tracts 6080.04 (2010) and 6080.25 (2019) are omitted from Table 10. 6080.04 was not a tract in 2020 and 6080.25 in 2010.
* Cells for census tracts with zero racial/ethnic residents are left empty.

Source: 2010 and 2020 ACS 5-year estimates
Changes in the city’s racial and ethnic composition between 2010 and 2020 do not match that of San Mateo County. The population of Black residents in Foster City, for instance, doubled between 2010 and 2020 while the county’s overall portion decreased. The population of Hispanic or Latino increased in Foster City by 38% while the County had a more modest increase of 7%. The percentage of non-Hispanic White population in Foster City declined by 14% and the county had a more modest decline of 4% in nonHispanic White residents.

These trends are supported by education data in San Mateo County—discussed in Section 4.1—which shows that schools throughout the county have become increasingly diverse since the 2010-2011 school year. Asian students grew the fastest, comprising 17% of the student population in 2020-2021—this represents a five percentage point increase since the 2010-2011 school year. White students throughout the county decreased by three percentage points since 2010-2011, reaching 26% in 2020-2021.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 325
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-38 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 14 below compares the racial demographics in Foster City to those of all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions.22 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 Foster City represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among all 109 jurisdictions.

Figure 14: Racial Demographics of Foster City 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.
22 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 326
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-39
The map in Figure 15 below also illustrates regional racial segregation between Foster City and other jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in Foster City 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.

Figure 15: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Foster City and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)
Universe: Population.

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.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 327
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-40 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

3.5 INCOME SEGREGATION IN CITY OF FOSTER CITY
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 JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and VallejoFairfield Metro Area (Solano County).

Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Foster City) Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot maps, similar to racial dot maps, are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of Foster City in Figure 16 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 as they do in Foster City, income segregation measures tend to be lower, and conversely, when clusters are apparent, the segregation measures may be higher as well.

The isolation index values for all income groups in Foster City for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 6 below.23 Above Moderate-income residents are the most isolated income group in Foster City.

Foster City’s isolation index of 0.531 for these residents means that the average Above Moderate-income resident in Foster City lives in a neighborhood that is 53.1% Above Moderate-income. Among all income groups, the Above Moderate-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less 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 5 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. For example, Table 6 indicates the average isolation index value for very lowincome residents across Bay Area 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. 23 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 328
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-41
Figure 16: Income Dot Map of Foster City (2015)
Universe: Population.

Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of Foster City and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data
Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for
Segregation within Foster City
Income Group
Foster City
Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.147 0.149 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.146 0.146 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.187 0.218 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.576 0.531 0.507
Universe: Population.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 329
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-42 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 7 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Foster City between residents who are lower-income (earning less than 80% of AMI) and those who are not lowerincome (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.24 Segregation in Foster City between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income decreased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table 7 shows dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation 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.

Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values
for Segregation within Foster City
Income Group
Foster City
Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.132 0.102 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.174 0.111 0.253
Universe: Population.

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 6 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 Foster City between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions (see Table 7).

This means that the lower-income residents are less segregated from other residents within Foster City compared to other Jurisdictions in the region.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in Foster City for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 8 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 Foster City was about the same amount as it had been in 2010. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in Foster City was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is less neighborhood level income segregation in Foster City than in the average Bay Area city.
24 For more information, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 330
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-43
Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income
Segregation within Foster City
Index
Foster City
Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi-income 0.024 0.017 0.043
Universe: Population.

Regional Income Segregation (between Foster City 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 17 below presents an income dot map showing the spatial distribution of income groups in Foster City as well as in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions.

When looking at income segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area, one can examine how Foster City differs from the region. The income demographics in Foster City for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 8 below. The table also provides the income composition of the nine-county Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, Foster City had a lower share of very low-income residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low-income residents, a higher share of moderate-income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents.

Table 9: Population by Income Group, Foster City
and the Region
Income Group
Foster City Bay Area
2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 12.64% 13.99% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 13.63% 12.54% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 17.03% 20.91% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 56.7% 52.55% 39.4%
Universe: Population.

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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 331
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-44 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 17: Income Dot Map of Foster City and Surrounding Areas (2015) Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Lowand Moderate-Income Summary Data Figure 18 below compares the income demographics in Foster City to other Bay Area jurisdictions.25 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 Foster City population represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among other jurisdictions.
25 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 332
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-45
Figure 18: Income Demographics of Foster City 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 10, Table 11 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index 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 10, 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 10 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 333
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-46 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 10: 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.

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 Foster City’s households are higher income than the County and Bay area overall: 64% of Foster City households earn more than 100% of the AMI, compared to 49% for the County and 52% for the Bay area (Table 9, and Figure 21). Foster City also has fewer low-income households (earning 80% AMI and less) but the same proportion of moderate-income households (81-100% AMI). Every block group in Foster City has a median household income of $125,000 and more (Figure 19). The City has no concentrations of low-income households (Figure 19) and no areas of concentrated poverty (Figure 20).

Table 11: Population Change by Household Income by Census Tract, 2010 to 2020
Income group
CT
6080.01
CT
6080.02
CT
6080.13
CT
6080.23
CT
6081
CT
6082
CT
6083
Foster
City
San Mateo
County
Less than $50,000 5% 13% -47% -58% -20% 24% -70% -22% -30% $50,000 up to $100,000 -49% -31% -30% -1% -50% -62% -39% -44% -27% $100,000 or more 17% 5% 8% 3% 46% 43% 66% 36% 45%
Note: Census tracts 6080.04 (2010) and 6080.25 (2019) are omitted from Table 10. 6080.04 was not a tract in 2020 and 6080.25 in 2010.

Source: 2010 and 2020 ACS 5-year data
Between 2010 and 2020, the number of lower-income households (<$50,000) in Foster City declined by 22%, either because they left the city or moved to a higher income bracket (Table 11). This was offset by an increase in higher-income households ($100,000 or more) (increase of 36%). Middle-income households ($50,000 up to $100,000) also declined in the city and county, though Foster City’s population declined the greatest at 44% compared to the decline in the county at 27%. High-income households increased throughout the city and county, with the greatest increase in census tract 6083 (an increase of 66%).

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 334
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-47
Figure 19: Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 335
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-48 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 20: Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 336
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-49
Figure 21: Segregation and Integration
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Population changes among low-income residents is surprising. Data shows Foster City has more jobs than households—higher than the county and region—and all of the city’s areas have moderately high to high economic opportunity. In fact, HUD job proximity shows the city offers strong proximity to jobs with the majority of block groups scoring over 80 (on a scale of 1-100). Excluding census tract 6081, census tracts that witnessed declines in their population of lower-income residents between 2010 and 2020 were given positive economic opportunity scores of 0.75 or above. Census tract 6080.01 received a score of

0.50-0.75, despite having experienced an increase in population size (5%). Shifts in areas with high economic opportunity scores suggest that <$50,000 households do not have equal access to jobs.

Unequal employment opportunities could be driven by factors including race/ethnicity, poverty rates, and proximity of transportation options. These factors—along with trends displayed in Table 11—are analyzed in Section 4.2. Declines in population, however, could also be due to higher rates of housing vulnerability/instability and risks of displacement as Foster City’s affordable housing sites and BMR units begin to expire (e.g., Foster’s Landing). This is elaborated on in Section 5.6, Displacement.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 337
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-50 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

3.6 DISABILITY STATUS
The share of the population living with at least one disability is 7% in Foster City compared to 8% in San Mateo County and 10% in the Bay Area. Foster City has no Census tracts where the population of persons with disabilities exceeds 10% (Figure 23).

Table 12: Change in Population of Persons with Disabilities by Age by Census Tract, 2012 to 2020
Age Group
CT
6080.01
CT
6080.02
CT
6080.13
CT
6080.23
CT
6081
CT
6082
CT
6083
Foster
City
San Mateo
County
Under 65 years -68% -53% -57% -95% -94% -86% -81% -84% -4% 65 years and older 60% 88% -97% -95% -93% -94% -92% -94% 28% Source: 2012 and 2020 ACS 5-year data
Note: American Community Survey (ACS) data by census tract for persons with disabilities in Foster City are not available prior to 2012. Foster City’s population of residents with a disability significantly declined between 2012 and 2020 with 84% of residents under 65 and 94% over 65 leaving the city. This is substantially higher than the county overall where younger populations have minimally decreased (-4%) and older populations increased (28%). All census tracts in Foster City witnessed a decline its share of younger residents with a disability. This is similar for older residents, though census tracts 6080.01 and 6080.02 increased its population by 60% and 88% respectively.

Prominent changes in populations with a disability could be related to the number of FHEO cases with disability biases (Figure 22). In 2020, over 85% of FHEO chases were cited with a disability bias—similar to San Mateo County overall and the Bay Area region. Because the region and county have not experienced such steep declines, it is possible that other factors are prompting individuals with a disability to leave the area. Census tract 6081—located near Metro Senior Housing which is designated for older residents with lower-incomes—saw a sharp decline in older residents with a disability at 93%.

Areas without such housing saw even greater dips in their population with tract 6080.13 experiencing the steepest decline at 97%.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 338
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-51
Figure 22: FHEO Cases by Disability Bias, 2020
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 339
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-52 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 23: Percent of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 340
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-53

3.7 FAMILIAL STATUS
Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of nonfamily or single person households indicates a higher share of seniors living alone, young adults living alone or with roommates, and unmarried partners. Higher shares of nonfamily households indicate an increased need for 1- and 2-bedroom units.

Foster City’s households are mostly made up of 3- to 4-person households (38%) and 2-person households (36%). Compared to the County and Bay area overall, Foster City has slightly fewer 1-person households at 20% compared to 22% in the county (Figure 24) and 5-person households (6% v. 11%).

Sixty-two percent of households in Foster City are married couple households, compared to 55% in the county, 51% in the Bay Area, and 36% of all households have children under the age of 18, compared to 33% in the county and 32% in the Bay Area (Figure 25).

Figure 24: Household Type, 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 341
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-54 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 25: Households by Presence of Children, 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11005

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 342
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-55
The City has fewer adults living alone than in the County and Bay area overall and no concentrations of adults living alone, suggesting that access to in-home services and care for single, older adults is less critical for Foster City than some surrounding communities. However, the City’s age distribution has shifted upwards since 2000 (Figure 26) and these accommodations may grow in demand if older adults in Foster City age in place.

Figure 26: Age Distribution, Foster City, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Many of Foster City’s married couples rent housing: of the nearly 8,000 married couple families in the city, 40% rent their homes (Figure 27). Renters are more likely to be living in 1- and 2-bedroom units than owners (Figure 28), and owners are more likely to be occupying 3- to 4- and 5-bedroom units. To the extent that larger renter households desire to live in Foster City, the lack of rental housing stock to accommodate their needs could limit their access to housing in the city.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 343
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-56 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 27: Household Type by Tenure, Foster City, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure 28: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Foster City, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 344
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-57

3.8 RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS
Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.26 It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

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

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

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

In 2010 there were three census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.4% poverty rate) in the County and 11 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (13% poverty rate). In 2019 there were two census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the County and 14 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate).

None of the R/ECAPs were located in Foster City in 2010 or 2019. 26 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.

Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 345
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-58 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

3.9 RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE
HCD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA) is:
 A census tract that has a percentage of total White population that is 1.25 times higher than the average percentage of total White population in the given COG region, and a median income that was 2 times higher than the COG AMI.

As shown in Figure 29, Foster City is not a RCAA. Importantly, Foster City’s neighboring jurisdictions— such as Redwood City and San Mateo City—also are not RCAAs. Western and Southwestern jurisdictions (e.g., San Carlos, Half Moon Bay, Woodside, and Porto la Valley), however, are significantly more likely to be RCAAs.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 346
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-59
Figure 29: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence by Census Tract, 2015-2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 347
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-60 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
4 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.

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

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

The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.

Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

4.1 EDUCATION
TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, every census tract in Foster City scores higher than 0.75—indicating the highest positive educational outcomes (Figure 36).

Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

Foster City is served by the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) and the San Mateo-Foster Elementary School District (SMFCSD). The SMFCSD operates 20 schools serving San Mateo and Foster City, including 14 elementary schools, three middle schools, and three elementary-middle schools. The SMFCSD operates four elementary schools and one middle school in Foster City. The SMUHSD operates six high schools and one continuation high school serving the communities of Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Mateo, and San Bruno. There is no high school located in Foster City. The SMUHSD operates three high schools that serve households in Foster City: Aragon High School, Hillsdale High School, and San Mateo High School. SMUHSD increased enrollment by 16% from 2010 to 2020 and

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 348
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-61
the SMFCSD enrollment increased by 1% over the same time. However, both districts lost students during the COVID pandemic.

SMUHSD enrollment by race and ethnicity is similar to the Countywide distribution. However, there is a higher proportion of Asian students in San Mateo Union (23% compared to 17% countywide), a smaller proportion of Filipino students (5% compared to 8% countywide) and Hispanic students (32% compared to 38% countywide).

The SMFCSD has the second highest share of homeless students, with 2% of students experiencing homelessness. The district also has a high share of English learners compared to the countywide proportion (26% compared to 20% countywide). Overall, the elementary district is more diverse than the countywide average.

Many high schoolers in the County met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Of the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 69% followed by San Mateo Union High with 68%. Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the SMUHSD were less likely to meet the admission standards, with rates of 29%, 46%, and 46% respectively. Homeless students in the SMUHSD are less likely to meet UC or CSU admission standards compared to other school districts in the county—only 21% of students experiencing homelessness met admission rates in 2020-2021, on par with Jefferson Union (21%) but significantly lower than Sequoia Union (36%).

San Mateo County’s school districts have high college-going rates at 70% or higher— SMUHSD had the highest college-going rate at 77% and La Honda-Pescadero the lowest at only 32% in 2020-2021).

College-going rates are highest for the county’s Asian student body. This is also true for Foster City— 86% of Asian students attended college after graduation in the 2017-2018 school year, a slightly higher rate than White students (84%). Rates among Black/African American students are highest in the SMUHSD at 82%. Data on college-going rates by school district and race/ethnicity are presented in Figures 30 and 31.

As shown in Figures 31 and 32, gaps in access to postsecondary education are prominent between White and Hispanic students and students with disabilities and those learning English. In every school district, White students had a higher college-going rate than Hispanic students with the largest gap in South San Francisco Unified (91% v. 68%). This suggests that while Hispanic students have access to the city’s high schools, there are disparities in postsecondary education access. Students with disabilities and those learning English in San Mateo County’s school districts are also more likely to face barriers in receiving a college education. SMUHSD, however, had the highest college-going rate for English learners (63%) and second highest for students with disabilities in 2017-2018 (69%). Jefferson Union led the county in college-going rates for students with disabilities during this time with 71% attending college (Figure 32).

Postsecondary education access has implications for long-term financial success and equal access is implicated in financial gaps—this is especially true for San Mateo County where incomes must match high housing costs. As displayed in Figure 33, county residents with a bachelor’s degree earn 115% more than those with a high school diploma. This gap is wider than both California and the nation with gaps in earnings at 100% and 76%, respectively.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 349
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-62 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 30: College-Going Rates, 2014-2015 to 2017-2018
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research Barriers to positive education outcomes and access to high performing schools in the city involve various factors—absenteeism, extenuating circumstances, and drop out and discipline (e.g., suspension) rates.

In Foster City, Pacific Islander students experience chronic absenteeism at a disproportionately higher rate than other students—32% of students identifying as Pacific Islander were considered chronically absent in the 2020-2021 school year. This represents a 26 percentage point gap between rates for the overall student body (6%). Chronic absenteeism for the county overall are similar—Pacific Islander (26%), Black/African American (18%), and Hispanic (15%) students had the highest rates compared to the county’s student body (10%). Students with disabilities are also more likely to be chronically absent— Bayshore Elementary was the only school district to have lower rates of chronic absenteeism for students with disabilities than all students in the district. Absenteeism among San Mateo County’s students are presented in Figures 34 and 35.

Although SMUHSD has relatively low dropout rates—4% of students—compared to other districts in the county, dropout rates among Hispanic (7%), Black (6%), and Pacific Islander students are higher.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 350
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-63
Figure 31: College-Going Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2017-2018 Note: Cabrillo Unified and La Honda-Pescadero Unified are not included here because they do not report the data, likely due to small sample sizes.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 351
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-64 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 32: College-Going Rates for Students with Disabilities and English Learners, 2017-2018
Note: Cabrillo Unified and La Honda- Pescadero Unified are not included here because they do not report the data, likely due to small sample sizes.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research Figure 33: Median Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment, 2019 Source: 2019 ACS 5-year data

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 352
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-65
Figure 34: Chronic Absenteeism by Race and Ethnicity, 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 353
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-66 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 35: Chronic Absenteeism by Race/Ethnicity and District, 2018-2019 Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 354
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-67
Figure 36: TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2022 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 355
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-68 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

4.2 EMPLOYMENT
The Professional & Managerial Services industry dominates jobs in Foster City. Jobs in this industry have grown substantially since 2002 (Figure 37). In 2002, fewer than 4,000 jobs were in the Professional & Managerial Services industry; this was about the same number as Manufacturing and Finance. Jobs in the Professional & Managerial Services industry reached 9,000 in 2018—twice as many as the next highest industry of Finance. No other employment industry posted this volume of job growth.

Figure 37: Jobs by Industry, Foster City, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Foster City has more jobs than households, meaning that workers must commute into the City for work— particularly for essential positions that cannot be performed remotely. Most job holders in Foster City work in professional and managerial jobs and health care and education (Figure 38)—with the latter being moderate wage positions. Foster City has a higher jobs-to-household ratio at 1.76 in 2018 than the County at 1.59 and Bay area overall at 1.47 (Figure 39) and a lower unemployment rate of 4.1% as of January 2021 compared to the County at 6.6% and the Bay Area as a whole at 5.9%. 27 All census tracts in
Foster City had unemployment rates less than 8.08% as of January 2018 (Figure 40).

TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value and is shown in Figure 41. All areas of Foster City have moderately high to high economic opportunity.
27 California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 356
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-69
Figure 38: Job Holders by Industry, Foster City, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure 39: Jobs to Household Ratio, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 357
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-70 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 40: Unemployment Rates in Foster City, 2018
Source: HUD Community Planning and Development Maps

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 358
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-71
Figure 41: TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 359
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-72 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
HUD’s job proximity index shows that Foster City offers strong proximity to jobs. On a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs the majority of block groups in the city score above 80.

Job proximity by census block group and the proportion of each tract’s low- to moderate-income population is presented in Figures 42 and 43, respectively. Excluding census tracts 6083 and 6080.02 (in part), tracts with higher populations of low- and moderate-income residents (25-50%) have higher job proximity scores of 80 or above. These areas, however, have lower economic opportunity scores between

0.50 and 0.75—census tracts 6080.01 and 6081 have similar opportunity scores with lower-income populations comprising less than 25% of the area’s overall population. Importantly, however, tract 6081 has the lowest household median income compared to other areas throughout Foster City at only $110,000 and according to HUD data, added relatively few jobs between 2010 and 2014—in four years, only 84 jobs were added compared to 1,185 jobs in census tract 6080.25. While economic status may be an indicator of economic opportunity and equal access to jobs, 2018 racial demographics by block group (Figure 44) do not indicate unequal job opportunities by race/ethnicity, though many non-White populations live in areas with lower job proximity indexes.

According to Census data provided in Census on the Map as shown in Table 13, Foster City has a higher proportion of higher paying jobs than the county or the City of San Mateo. When compared to the earnings of employed residents in Foster City, the percentages of jobs in each income category vary only up to 1.5%. This close alignment provides access to jobs for all economic segments, although there are 234 fewer jobs in Foster City in the lowest income category, requiring some of these workers to work outside Foster City. As noted below in Section 4.3, Transportation, transportation costs can restrict access to jobs for lower-income households.

Table 13: Earnings of Foster City Employed Residents Compared to for Jobs Located in Foster City, San Mateo, and San
Mateo County
Earnings
Earnings by Residence Earnings by Job Location
Foster City Foster City City of San Mateo San Mateo County Count % Count % Count % Count %
$1250/month or less 2290 12.4% 2056 11.1% 6123 12.4% 63,328 15.8% $1251 to $3333/month 2144 11.6% 2125 11.5% 7324 14.9% 65,821 16.4% More than $3333/month 13,997 75.9% 14,354 77.4% 35,796 72.7% 272,670 67.9% Source: U.S.Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) TCAC/HCD categorized census tracts into five categories, from highest resource to low resource areas based on a composite score of economic, educational, and environmental factors that can perpetuate poverty and segregation, such as school proficiency, median income, and median housing prices.

According to the TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Scores (Figure 41), all of Foster City falls in the two highest resource categories. Foster City compares favorably to nearby cities, which include tracts with lower economic opportunity scores. Thus, Foster City provides the residents of all economic segments access to highest resource areas including access to jobs.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 360
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-73
Figure 42: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 361
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-74 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 43: Low- to Moderate-Income Population by Census Tract, 2020 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 362
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-75
Figure 44: Racial Demographics by Block Group, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 363
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-76 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

4.3 TRANSPORTATION
This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access in the city, beginning with resident input on transit access.

In the survey conducted to support this AFFH, residents were asked about their satisfaction with transit access. Key findings include:
 Foster City residents use a variety of means to access work, services, and recreation including driving a personal vehicle (87%), walking (41%), biking/riding a scooter (17%), carpooling (16%), and taking public transit (13%).28
 Overall, most residents are satisfied with their transportation options with 20% “somewhat” unsatisfied and 9% “not at all satisfied.”
 20% of respondents said that public transit does not go to needed locations or operate during times needed, and 14% said they cannot get to transit easily or safely.

In 2022, the AARP Public Policy Institute (PPI) released transportation data and metrics for its overall Livability Index—transportation received a score 56 out of 100 which is higher than San Mateo County’s transportation score of 52. Foster City’s comparatively high score could be attributed to the number of jobs accessible by transit and the city’s ADA-accessible stations and vehicles. According to 2022 data from Data USA, nearly 17,000 jobs in the city can be accessed via public transportation and 89% of the city’s stations and vehicles are considered ADA-accessible—similar to the county overall (89%).

Yearly household transportation costs could also restrict access to jobs and increase unemployment—in 2021, average transportation costs for Foster’s residents was $14,595 per year.29 Combined with high housing costs, lower-income households are more likely to experience disparities in job access.

Foster City has made efforts in reducing transportation costs through free shuttles (Figure 45). Free shuttle service was achieved by the city between 2003 and 2012 when the C/CAG funding and grants were provided to shuttle services. Such funding made in-town shuttles cost-free and provided additional transit options for residents and workers to access local businesses throughout the city.

The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the County including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service. Figures 45 and 46 present the transit options available to Foster City residents. (Note that the AC Transit Line M has been temporarily suspended in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.)
28 Residents could pick more than one type. 29 https://datausa.io/profile/geo/foster-city-ca/.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 364
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-77
Figure 45: Foster City Transit Lines, 2022
Source: Foster City website

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 365
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-78 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 46: Foster City Transit Lines, 2022
Source: Foster City website

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 366
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-79
Transit lines, bus stops, and shuttle service areas all impact residents’ ability to access jobs and can contribute to poverty (Figure 17) and unemployment concentrations (Figure 40). Foster City’s shuttle services—North Foster City, Lincoln Centre, and Mariners Island—service relatively similar routes in the city with all shuttles servicing Chess Drive and Lakeside. These same areas received the highest job proximity index by block group in 2018 with a score of 80 (scale of 1-100) (Figure 42). Foster City’s transit lines—AC transit and Samtrans transit—are more widespread with stops in various areas of employment such as shopping areas. Census tracts that do not have shuttle service options received a lower job proximity index of 60-80 and between 2000 and 2014 reduced poverty levels at a lower rate than areas with shuttle access. As shown in Figure 48, during this time period, areas located near and in census tracts 6080.23 and 6080.13 reduced by poverty rates by 10-50% while areas with access to shuttles reduced rates by over 75%.

Figure 47: Unemployment Percent Point Change, 2010 to 2014 Source: HUD Community Planning and Development Maps
There are no prominent pockets of unemployment in Foster City—all census tracts have an unemployment rate of 0% to 8%. As discussed in Section 4.2 and illustrated in Figure 41, the city’s unemployment rate is relatively low and is lower than both the Bay area region and county overall.

Changes in unemployment rates, however, are most notable in areas without access to the city’s shuttle services. Between 2010 and 2014, for instance, HUD reported unemployment growth in census tracts 6080.23 and 6080.02—areas with lower shuttle access—at a rate of 6-10%. Tracts with higher access grew by 3-6% with census tract 6081 increasing the lowest at 0-3%.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 367
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-80 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
It is also important to note that many jobs available to Foster City residents are not remote and most jobholders work in industries requiring in-person work (e.g., health care and education). Given shuttle lines and the locations of Foster City’s elementary schools—which received a job proximity index score of 60-80—educators are least likely to use city transportation options.

In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. Maps from the plan are presented in Figures 48 and 49. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in San Mateo and the County overall. Primary gaps within the County include:
“San Mateo’s [Paratransit Coordinating Council] PCC and County Health System, as well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked cars blocking sidewalk right-of-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate motorized scooters and wheelchairs. Transportation information, emerging mobility providers, and transit fares were other common themes.

While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”30 A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco Bay, served by MTC.”31 As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.” 30 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf. 31 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 368
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-81
Figure 48: Percent Change for Population Living in Poverty by Census Tract, 2000 to 2014
Source: Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan, February 2018

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 369
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-82 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 49: Change in Seniors Aged 65 and Over by Census Tract, 2000 and 2014 Source: Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan, February 2018

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 370
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-83
The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.32 Foster City is noted in the plan for being a site of a Volunteer Driver Program, located at the Peninsula Jewish Community Center. The Volunteer Driver Program is a network of volunteers who provide one-way, round-trip, and multi-stop rides free of charge to residents who need transportation assistance.

MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18-month pilot project—in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.33

4.4 ENVIRONMENT
TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites. Foster City scores well on positive environmental outcomes, with no census tracts in the City scoring poorly (Figure 50). The City also scores high on California Healthy Places Index (HPI)—based on 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and health care34— developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Figure 51). Though Foster City scores high based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators and HPI characteristics, data provided by the AARP Public Policy Institute (PPI) shows that both air and drinking water quality in the city declined between 2015 and 2022. In 2015, Foster City residents experienced one unhealthy air quality day per year—by 2022, however, this rate increased to 7.3 days per year. During the same time period, exposures to drinking water violations increased from 0% per year (2015) to 0.04% (2022).35 32 https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_ with_Disabilities.html. 33 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm. 34 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/. 35 https://livabilityindex.aarp.org/FosterCity,California,UnitedStates.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 371
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-84 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 50: TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 372
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-85
Figure 51: Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 373
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-86 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
The city’s location, on the coast and away from uses that emit pollution, is also a major factor. With less congestion and traffic, coastal cities often experience reduced air pollution, improving livability indexes and both environmental and health outcomes. The AARP PPI—which provides Livability Indexes for cities and counties across the United States—adds factors such as hazard mitigation plans and local planning for climate change. Foster City’s positive environmental scores—across varying metrics—is likely attributed to effective long-term planning and robust policies and programs. Foster City, for instance, developed and adopted a local multi-hazard mitigation plan—approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—to reduce the effects of potential disasters.

Both Foster City and San Mateo County have also prioritized planning and policy identification for anticipated climate impacts in the Bay Area. In 2009, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) published a report on climate risks for Bay area residents—it found that by 2050 $36 billion of property and nearly 270,000 Bay residents would at an increased flood risk. San Mateo County is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and flood-related infrastructure damage—a 2012 report conducted by researchers at the California Environmental Commission (CEC) and Pacific Institute found that 110,000 residents in San Mateo County are vulnerable to a flood event of a maximum 4.5 feet. This would have devastating effects on Foster City’s infrastructure including roadways, water treatment plants, and hazardous material sites. The City has taken various steps to address climate threats and implemented strong programs to prepare itself, most notably the Levee Improvements Project.

In order to maintain FEMA accreditation and keep Foster City properties out of the flood zone, Foster City voters approved Measure P in 2018 with nearly 81% support, authorizing the City to issue a $90 million general obligation (GO) bond to improve and strengthen the Foster City levee system. The Levee Improvements Project began construction in 2020 and will continue through 2023.

Other actions to address climate threats include adoption of the Sustainable Foster City Plan—a sustainable economic development strategy plan that incorporates environmental sustainability as a core component of sustainable economic growth—and a Climate Actions Plan in 2015. An update of the Climate Action Plan is underway in 2022-2023. Between 2003 and 2012, the city dedicated funding and grants from C/CAG for the Connections Shuttle—a free in-town shuttle connecting workers and residents to local businesses—to promote the use of public transportation and implemented a conservation-based tiered water rate structure with advanced rebate and education programs to improve water conservation. This effort led to a 17% reduction in Foster City’s overall water consumption between 2009 and 2013.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 374
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-87

4.5 DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Because Foster City offers high opportunity neighborhoods throughout, all residents live in highly resourced areas, regardless of race or ethnicity (Figure 52). Burlingame and Hillsborough are the two other cities in close proximity that are entirely high opportunity cities.

Figure 52: Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, Foster City, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC)—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Foster City scores well on the SVI; no neighborhoods are ill equipped to respond to disasters (see Figure 53). The census tract shown in Figure 53 with higher vulnerability than the rest of the City includes two senior apartment developments of extremely low- and very low-income households which contributes to the scoring. Although this census tract includes the area north of Highway 92, there are no housing units in that area.

Foster City does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”36
36 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 375
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-88 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 53: Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 376
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-89

4.6 DISPARITIES SPECIFIC TO THE POPULATION LIVING WITH A DISABILITY Seven percent of the population in Foster City is living with at least one disability, compared to 8% in the county. The most common disabilities in the City are ambulatory (3.3%), independent living (2.6%), and cognitive (2.1%). For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases to 14.9%.

Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.

Unemployment is higher for residents living with a disability – 6%, compared with 3% for residents without a disability. Countywide, the unemployment rate for residents with a disability is 4%, compared to 3% for residents without a disability. High unemployment rates among this population points to a need for increased services and resources to connect this population with employment opportunities.

There are compounding effects when persons with disabilities are also subject to discrimination based on race or other characteristics. Figure 54 below shows the disparities in rent burden for people with and without disabilities by race/ethnicity.

Figure 54: All Races/Ethnicities: Disparities in Rent-Burden among San Mateo County Residents with and without Disabilities
Source: Housing Choices, 2022

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 377
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-90 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Most respondents to the resident survey who have a disability (30% of respondents) reported that their homes meet the needs of their disability; 16% said their homes do not. Modifications that are needed include: wider doorways and supportive services.

No areas of Foster City have concentrations of persons with disabilities as shown in Figure 55.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 378
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-91
Figure 55: Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 379
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-92 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
5 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.

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

5.1 HOUSING NEEDS
Population growth in Foster City has generally kept up with the pace of growth Countywide. Foster City lost population in the early 2000s, and growth has been positive since then until 2020, likely due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households, with 657 units permitted for above moderate-income households compared to 86 for very low income households, 49 for moderate income households, and 14 for low income households (Figure 56). The vast majority of the City’s homes were built between 1965 and 1979. After this period, housing production slowed significantly, particularly between 2000 and 2009, when only 48 units were built.

Foster City offers a variety of housing types with most medium or large multi-family (37.5%) and single family detached units (35.4%). One-fifth are single family attached and 7% are small multi-family units.37 Ownership in Foster City is challenging for households who cannot afford homes priced at $1 million and more: 71% of homes are valued at $1 million and more. This compares to 56% for the County and 35% for the Bay area overall (Figure 57).
37 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 380
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-93
Figure 56: Housing Permits Issued by Income Group, Foster City, 2015-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure 57: Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
According to the Zillow Home Value Index, Foster City is more expensive than the County and much pricier than the Bay area overall (Figure 58).

Rents are very high in Foster City, with 54% of units renting for $3,000 per month and more. This is considerably higher than in the County (22%) and Bay area overall (13%). Just 9% of the city’s rental units rent for $2,000 and less. The County has four times the proportion of rentals priced under $2,000 than the city.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 381
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-94 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 58: Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

5.2 COST BURDEN AND SEVERE COST BURDEN
Despite Foster City’s comparably high housing costs, cost burden—which occurs when households spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—occurs at slightly lower rates of cost burden (33%) than the County (37%)and Bay Area (37%) (Figure 59). Households are considered extremely cost burdened when they spend more than 50% of their income on housing. In Foster City, 14% of households are extremely cost burdened, compared to 17% in San Mateo County and 17% in the Bay Area as shown in Figure 59.

Figure 59: Overpayment (Cost Burden), 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 382
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-95
Cost burden varies by income level with lower income households having higher rates of cost burden. As shown in Figure 60, 81% (714 households) of the households earning 0-30% of the AMI are extremely cost burdened. Similarly, 44% (440 households) earning 31-50% of AMI and 26% (360 households) earning 51%-80% of AMI are extremely cost burdened. Put together, 1,514 households (46%) of the total 3,292 lower income households are extremely cost burdened. An additional 809 households (25%) are cost burdened.

Figure 60: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Income Level, 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Cost burden varies by tenure (renter or owner) and by census tract. Renters are often more likely to be 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 Foster City, 17.7% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 19.6% of those that own (see Figure 61). Additionally, 14.9% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 13.3% of owners are severely cost-burdened (Figure 61).
9%
34% 39%
47%
88%
10%
22%
36%
43%
12%
81%
44%
26%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 383
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-96 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

Figure 61: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) As shown in Figures 62 and 63, there are more concentrations of cost burdened owners than renters. Cost burden for owners is highest in census tracts 6080.13 (similar to renters), 6083, and 6080.04—all of which indicate 40-60% of owners are cost burdened. Looking more closely at the data, the reported rates of owner cost burden are 40.6% in tract 6080.04, 44.1% in tract 6083, and 46.5% in tract 6080.13, just over the threshold to be reported in the 40-60% category. The other census tracts report owner cost burden rates of 22% to 37.7%.

There is a notable concentration of cost burdened renters in tract 6080.13 where 41.9% of renters experience cost burden. Figures 62 and 63 also show a prominent gap between cost burdened renters in tracts 6080.13 and 6080.23—in tract 6080.13, 41.9% of renters are cost burdened—the city’s largest concentration—while 10.2% are cost burdened in tract 6080.23, the city’s smallest concentration.

Affordable housing sites are largely concentrated in the census tract 6080.25 where owners are more likely to be cost burdened than renters. No existing affordable housing sites are located in census tract 6080.13 where 41.9% of renters are cost burdened, though Schooner Bay Apartments and Lantern Cove Apartments are located in this area and will include affordable housing when they are redeveloped. See Section 6, Site Inventory Analysis, for further discussion of the geographic distribution of sites in the Sites Inventory.

There are disparities in housing cost burden in Foster City by race and ethnicity. Black or African American (58%) and Hispanic households (42%) experience the highest rates of cost burden in the city.

Asian (29%) and non-Hispanic White households (30%) are least likely to be cost burdened.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 384
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-97
Figure 62: Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 385
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-98 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 63: Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 386
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-99

5.3 Overcrowding
The vast majority of households (95%) in Foster City are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room. This is slightly better than the percentage of households that are not overcrowded in San Mateo County (92%) and the Bay Area at large (93%). However, renter households are more likely to be overcrowded, with 5.9% of households with more than one occupant per room, compared to 1.4% of owner households (Figures 64 and 65).

Figure 64: Overcrowding Severity, 2017
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Figure 65: Occupants per Room by Tenure, Foster City, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
95% 92% 93%
3% 5% 4% 3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Foster City San Mateo County Bay Area
Percent of Households

1.00 occupants per room or less 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room

1.50 occupants per room or more

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 387
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-100 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
The geographic extent of overcrowding of renter-occupied households in Foster City is closely aligned with the location of renter households (see Figure 66). As indicated in Figure 66, the largest number of overcrowded renter-occupied units is in Tract 6080.25, which also has the larger number (2063) and percentage (85.64%) of renter occupied units. The second highest number of overcrowded renteroccupied units is in Tract 6080.01, which is the second highest percentage of renter-occupied units (58.12%).

Figure 66: Overcrowding by Renter-Occupied Units and Census Tract, 2020 Source: 2016-2020 ACS data

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 388
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-101
Figure 67: Overcrowding by Owner-Occupied Units, 2020
Source: 2016-2020 5-year ACS data

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 389
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-102 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
The geographic extent of overcrowding of owner-occupied units appears to be somewhat aligned with the census tracts with larger proportions of Asian population, such as in Tracts 6081 (50.4%), 6083 (61.5%), and 6080.24 (60.1%). This is consistent with the data provided in Figure 68 showing the highest percentage of overcrowding by race and ethnicity is for Asian households.

Figure 68: Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Foster City, 2019 Note: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
The types of households most likely to experience overcrowding include Asian households (8.2% are overcrowded) and other or multiple race households (6.7%) (Figure 68). The City’s moderate-income households (80% to 100% AMI) are just as likely to be overcrowded as the lowest income households (<30% AMI) (Figure 69).

Figure 69: Occupants per Room by AMI, Foster City, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 390
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-103
Although there are some census tracts with slightly higher concentrations of overcrowded renter or owner-occupied households, there are no significant geographic concentrations of overcrowded households in Foster City as shown in Figure 70.

Figure 70: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 391
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-104 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

5.4 SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Data on housing condition is very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as selfreported in Census surveys. No owner households in Foster City report living in substandard housing.

About 1% of renter households are lacking complete kitchens and .2% lack complete plumbing. Some of these renters are likely people renting rooms in a shared unit and therefore do not have their own kitchen.

The Census data corroborates the local knowledge ascertained from the City’s building inspectors that there are very few, if any, substandard units. The geographic extent of units reporting a lack of a complete kitchen or complete plumbing is included in Table 14. The largest number of the renters reporting lack of a kitchen are in tract 6080.25, with 38 of the 2,409 occupied renter households, or 1.6%.

Additional discussion of housing conditions is contained in Appendix A, Section 5.3.

Table 14: Units with Reported Lack of Complete Plumbing or Complete Kitchen
Tract
Lacking Complete
Plumbing (%)
Lacking Complete
Kitchen (%)
6081 0.00 0.00
6082 0.00 0.00
6083 0.00 0.62
6080.01 0.00 1.29
6080.02 0.00 0.00
6080.13 0..00 0.00
6080.23 0.38 0.38
6080.24 0.00 0.00
6080.25 1.58 1.04
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

5.5 HOMELESSNESS
In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the County during the One-Day Count, with 40% of people in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children.

People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native (6% of the homeless population compared to less than 1% of the total population), Black (13%, 2%), White (67%, 51%), and Hispanic (38%, 28%) are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population.

People struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental illness (305), and domestic violence (127) represented a substantial share of the homeless population in 2019.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 392
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-105

5.6 DISPLACEMENT
Three of the City’s nine census tracts are vulnerable to displacement according to the University of California at Berkeley Urban Displacement Project (Figure 71) with most of these tracts also where the proportion of renters are the highest (Figure 72). Note that tract 6080.25 covers a large geographic area including the area north of Highway 92, but there are no housing units in this area. The census tracts indicated as vulnerable to displacement represent 36.8 percent of the city’s households. The largest tract, 6080.25, is also where more than 70 percent of the City’s deed-restricted affordable housing is located, including two senior apartment properties with a large proportion of extremely low-income units.

Tenants in the deed-restricted affordable housing units, although low-income, are more protected from rent increases and many of the other typical reasons for displacement. Foster City appears to have a lower proportion of census tracts vulnerable to displacement than several nearby cities, such as San Mateo, Millbrae, and South San Francisco.

Affordable housing units with expiring affordability restrictions are one cause of displacement. Of the 418 rental units with affordability restrictions in the City as of 1/1/2023, 10 restricted rental units at Foster’s Landing are scheduled to expire on 12/31/2023. The City has worked with the property owner of Foster’s Landing and obtained grant funding from San Mateo County to assist the remaining tenants to relocate. The remaining 408 restricted rental units are either restricted in perpetuity or scheduled to expire in 2050 or later.

Between 2010 and 2020, the number of lower-income households (<$50,000) in Foster City declined by 22%, either because they left the city or moved to a higher income bracket. Housing vulnerability/instability and risks of displacement in Foster City could be driving lower-income households (<$50,000) to leave the area at higher rates. Population changes in low- to high-income households is displayed in Table 12.

In the resident survey that supported this AFFH, 10% of respondents said they had moved against their will in the past 5 years. The primary reasons for that displacement included:
 Health or medical reasons (38%),
 Landlord wanted to move back into the unit (23%),
 Landlord was selling the home/apartment (23%),
 Forced out for no reason (25%),
 Rent increased more than the tenant could pay (15%),
 Housing was unsafe (due to assault, harassment, domestic abuse, 15%), and  Poor condition of property (15%).

Two-thirds of households displaced had children who changed schools as a result of the move. The results of the school change were mixed, with about half reporting better school environments and about half reporting worse.

Two other potential causes of future displacement are discussed below: redevelopment of residential properties and disasters.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 393
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-106 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

Figure 71: Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement
California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 394
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-107
Figure 72: Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 395
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-108 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Due to the lack of vacant land in Foster City, the production of additional housing units must rely on redevelopment of properties. Most of the projected additional housing growth will involve redevelopment of existing apartment properties. (Three large commercial properties have previously been converted to housing: Port O’Call Shopping Center (now Miramar Apartments), Marlin Cove Shopping Center (half of which is now Marlin Cove Apartments), and Pilgrim Triton.) Some, but not all, of this development will involve removal of existing units and replacing them with higher density buildings. Renovation of apartment complexes could also cause displacement.

Lower income tenants are especially vulnerable to displacement from repairs or redevelopment but to the scarcity of affordable housing options. Several measures have been put into place or are planned to minimize potential displacement of existing residents related to both repairs and redevelopment, including:
 Chapter 17.56 Replacement Units of the Foster City Municipal Code that requires:
o Replacement of lower-income units at the same income levels as the existing households or if the income levels are not known, at the proportions of lower income renter households citywide. o A tenant’s rent may not be increased following approval of a development project application. o Replacement units shall be deed-restricted in perpetuity. o For very low-, low- or moderate-income residents displaces, the developer shall provide relocation assistance including, but not limited to, giving tenants the first right of refusal to purchase or rent affordable replacement units, reimbursement of moving costs, and/or providing rental assistance.
o Each tenant shall have the right to remain no fewer than sixty days from the date of City approval of a development project application.
 Housing Program H-C-3-a Anti-Displacement Plan for Redevelopment of Existing Multifamily Developments (continues from previous Housing Element with proposed rewording to strengthen it to apply to any application to displace one or more households instead of 25 or more units).  Housing Program H-C-3-b Anti-Displacement Strategy including assessment of a variety of tenant protection measures to determine if they are appropriate for Foster City, including but not limited to: a) expansion of relocation benefits beyond those required by California law for landlords to pay to lower-income tenants but also apply to moderate-income tenants; b) expansion of the amount of relocation benefits beyond those required by California law for lower-inco9me tenants; c) minimum lease terms; d) required notification to tenants and landlords of legal requirements; and 3) expansion of other relocation/anti-displacement provisions.

Regarding potential displacement due to natural disasters, the most recent Multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) adopted in 2021 ranked the following hazards as a “high” level of risk: sea level rise/climate change, flood, dam failure, and earthquake. Severe weather/extreme weather was ranked as “medium.” Drought, tsunami, landslide/mass movements, and wildfire were ranked as “low.” The City’s Levee Improvements Project, currently under construction and scheduled to be completed in 2023, is the primary mitigation for sea level rise, flood, dam failure, and tsunami. The LHMP includes other mitigation actions to address the identified risks. The risks of displacement due to natural disasters are therefore anticipated to be minimal or nonexistent.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 396
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-109
Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
 They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
o Share of very low-income residents is above 20%, 2017, and o The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
− Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
− They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures.

Displacement pressure is defined as:
• Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012-2017 OR
 Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Source: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/

5.7 ACCESS TO MORTGAGE LOANS
In many communities, disparities by race and ethnicity are prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. This is less true in Foster City (Figure 73). Mortgage denial rates are relatively modest—ranging from 12% to 20%—and similar across races and ethnicities. This is consistent with the resident survey, where 17% of respondents said they had been denied a mortgage loan.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 397
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-110 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 73: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, 2018-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 398
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-111
6 SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS
The location of housing is a key factor in addressing disparities in access to all types of housing and to facilitating inclusive communities. Providing additional housing opportunities in high resource areas can provide improved housing choices and access to public services, recreation amenities, educational and employment opportunities, and other essential services such as grocery stores and medical services.

AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing. For the purpose of analyzing the Sites Inventory through the lens of AFFH, additional analysis is provided below including by census tract. The census tracts (see Figure 7) are largely consistent with the residential neighborhoods that were the foundation of the original plan for Foster City, as shown in Figure 74. Neighborhoods 5 and 6 are combined into census tract 6080.02 and Neighborhoods 7 and 8 are divided differently by census tracts 6080.13 and 6080.23, so they are merged for the purposes of analysis of the Sites Inventory. As indicated in the AFFH analysis, all of Foster City is considered a high resource area. In addition, there are not significant concentrations of poverty or significant racially segregated housing areas. The analysis in this section is intended to evaluate whether the Sites Inventory might exacerbate any adverse socio-economic conditions and whether geographic targeting of some programs might address any geographic-related issues. Foster City’s primary issue is the high cost of housing and the need for more affordable housing.

Summary of Foster City Neighborhoods/Census Tracts
In order to evaluate whether the Sites Inventory might exacerbate any adverse socio-economic conditions a summary of socio-economic factors is summarized below by census tract combined with the Sites Inventory in Table 15. This is followed by a description of the location of existing affordable housing; distribution of sites in the Site Inventory; analysis of potential impacts on patterns of segregation, access to opportunity and disproportionate housing needs. Table 16 provides further detail regarding the assignment of sites to census tracts.

Table 15 shows little deviation from the citywide average for most socio-economic factors. There are a few tracts with some larger deviations that may be suitable for geographic targeting of programs.

Observations on the factors that have more variation from citywide averages include:
 Disability: Census tracts 6083 (Neighborhood 3) and 6080.25 (central Foster City) has the highest percentage with a disability at 9.2 and 9.6, respectively compared to the citywide average of 7.1%.

Tract 6080.25 includes the City’s two affordable senior apartments and Atria assisted living facility.

Geographic targeting of Program H-F-1-j Public Investment in Accessibility could be utilized in these two tracts.
 Renter Cost Burden: Census tract 6080.13 and 6080.23 (Neighborhoods 7 and 8) include the highest renter cost burden at 49.5% compared to the citywide average of 32.6%. The Lantern Cove and Schooner Bay sites in this area will increase the significantly housing options and affordable housing in this neighborhood.
 Owner Cost Burden: Census tracts 6083 (Neighborhood 3) and 6082 (Neighborhood 2) include higher owner cost burden at 41.1% and 38.9%, respectively, compared to the citywide average of

32.9%. Geographic targeting of Program H-B-2-a Lower-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans and H-B-2-b: Facilitate Non-Profit Rehabilitation/Maintenance Assistance could help address this.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 399
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-112 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Figure 74: Foster City Neighborhoods
Source: Foster City General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element, Map 3.1

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 400
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-113
Table 15: RHNA Distribution by Census Tract with Socio-Economic Factors Tract
Neighborhooda
Total
Existing
Unitsb
Existing
Restricted
BMR
Unitsc
Site
Inventory
Total New
Capacity
Very
Low Low
Moderate
AboveModerateTCAC
Opp.

Categoryd
R/ECAP
or
R/CAAg
% NonWhite5%
Renter
% LMI
Pop.f
% Overcrowdedh% With
Disabilityi
Renter
Cost
Burdenj
Owner
Cost
Burdenk
6081 1 1,328 4 83 22 14 14 33 Highest No 61.9 31.3 24.57 3.92 7.3 24.2 30.4 6082 2 1,420 49 16 3 13 Highest No 57.5 34.2 33.14 0 8.5 30.1 38.9 6083 3 1,361 0 235 65 41 41 88 Highest No 71.7 39.7 36.61 5.05 9.2 39.9 41.1 6080.01 4 1,491 84 239 65 38 38 98 Highest No 58.7 54.0 24.54 5.44 5.7 35.0 23.4 6080.02 5 & 6 1,341 0 0 0 Highest No 57.1 17.8 25.04 0.53 6.5 34.6 27.9 6080.13 &
6080.23 7 & 8 2,256 1 1,002 80 70 852 Highest No 62.1 34.2 16.80 0.60 6.9 49.5 33.4 6080.24k 9 1,317 7 0 0 Highest No 67.8 64.5 29.24 1.14 7.7 21.7 35.5 6080.25k TC, PT, VP,
C, L 2,695 280 1,351 351 218 211 571 Highest No 67.8 64.5 29.24 5.11 9.6 38.1 23.7 ADUs Not
Assigned 28 9 8 8 3
Total or
Average 2,954 Highest 63.1 42.9 29.82 5.1 7.1 32.6 32.9 a Foster City General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element, Map GP-1. b AFFH Data Viewer, Age of Structures, ACS 2017-2021. c Foster City Community Development Department. d AFFH Data Viewer, COG Geography TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map-Composite Score (HCD-2023). e AFFH Data Viewer, Neighborhood Segregation Typology, ACS 2019 (UCB Urban Displacement Project, 2022). f AFFH Data Viewer, Low to Moderate Income Population. g R/ECAP=Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty; R/CAA-Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Affluence, AFFH Data Viewer (ACS, 2015-2019). h AFFH Data Viewer (ACS, 2017-2021). i AFFH Data Viewer (ACS, 2017-2021). j AFFH Data Viewer (ACS, 2017-2021). k For some data, tracts 6080.24 and 6080.25 were combined as 6080.04.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 401
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-114 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 16: Sites Inventory by Census Tract
Tract Development
Very
Low Low Moderate
AboveModerate TotalTract
Total
6081 Franciscan 2221 14 14 3332 8381 8381
6082 1601 Beach Park Boulevard 3 13 16 16
6083
Eaves 2716 1610 1610 4123 10059
Eaves ADUs 7 7 7 1 22 235166
Shadow Cove 3123 1814 1814 4634 11385
6080.01 Beach Cove 6546 3829 3829 9869 239173 239173
6080.02 (None) 0
6080.13
Lantern Cove 28 25 303 356
1,002
Schooner Bay 52 45 549 646
6080.23 (None) 0
6080.24 (None) 0
6080.25
Foster's Landing 221236 131154 131154 336363 819907
1,3511,41
9 Sand Cove 3829 2219 2219 5745 139112
Lagoons 3233 2022 2022 4951 121128
Harbor Cove 25 15 15 36 91
1010 Metro Center Boulevard 30 18 18 45 111
Laguna Vista 48 48
Workforce 5 12 5 22
City-wide
ADUs 7 7 7 3 24
28 ADUs (Pipeline) 2 1 1 4
Total 2,9542,8
85 2,9542,8
85 Source: Foster City Community Development Department Location of Existing Affordable Housing
The geographic distribution of existing deed restricted below market rate housing is shown in Figure 75.

These units are located primarily in the central core of the City along East Hillsdale Boulevard from Metro Senior Apartments on Village Lane and Town Green Lane on the west to Miramar Apartments at Gull Avenue on the east, with Marlin Cove Apartments on Foster City Boulevard being the most southerly location. ADUs and the Existing Unit Purchase Program provide scattered additional affordable housing units throughout the single-family neighborhoods.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 402
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-115
Figure 75: Sites Inventory Map
Source: Foster City Community Development Department

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 403
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-116 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Several multi-family developments have been built in Foster City in recent years, representing the completion of the Pilgrim Triton and Foster Square master planned areas—both of which were subject to negotiated Development Agreements that established the maximum number of units including BMR units. Each development included affordable housing—Foster Square includes the 66-unit Alma Unit 100% affordable senior apartments and Pilgrim Triton developments include 20% affordable units mixed with market rate units. These development trends indicate that the City can reasonably expect to meet its RHNA sites inventory requirements (described below) for the upcoming planning period.

Distribution of Sites in the Sites Inventory
The proposed housing sites in the Sites Inventory are well distributed throughout the City. The additional housing site locations in the Sites Inventory will expand deed restricted affordable housing to the southern edge of the City with inclusion of the Lantern Cove and Schooner Bay sites, farther west to the Harbor Cove site, and farther east to the 1601 Beach Park Boulevard site.

Redeveloping older, larger, and existing apartment developments—such as Lantern Cove and Schooner Bay Apartments and sites from the previous Housing Element—are economically viable for Foster City.

Relatively large sites provide options to place higher density portions of development away from edges that border existing lower density uses. The application for Lantern Cove and preliminary application for Schooner Bay are examples of how an existing apartment property can be partially redeveloped to achieve the maximum allowed density for the entire site. Examples of other redevelopment of existing apartment sites in the area include:
 Village Lake in Mountain View, 777 West Middlefield Road: construct 716 new apartment units (including 144 affordable units), replacing 208 existing apartment units, increasing the density from

21.1 units per acre to 72.8 units per acre;
 Laguna Clara in Santa Clara: removal of 42 units, retaining 222 units, addition of 225 units over a parking garage for a total of 447 units on the site, increasing the density from 21.1 units per acre to

38.37 units per acre;
 Reserve at Mountain View, 870 East El Camino Real: removal of 42 units, addition of 233 units for a total of 371 units on the site, increasing the density from 19.7 units per acre to 40.6 units per acre; and  555 Middlefield Road, Mountain View: Retain 402 existing units, addition of 323 units, for a total of 725 units on the site, increasing the density from 27.7 units per acre to 50 units per acre.

ADUs distributed throughout single-family neighborhoods will also increase housing options throughout the city. Since 2018, when state legislation was enacted to facilitate the construction of ADUs, the City has issued an average of 2.66 building permits per year for ADUs, with the biggest growth in the last two years. The significant growth in ADUs—including four permits issued in 2022—suggests that Foster City can increase ADU production at the 2021 rate of three per year through the planning period duration. At this rate, a total of 24 ADUs would be constructed during this cycle’s eight-year planning period. This is a conservative estimate as ADU production will be further encouraged through new programs included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element such as an ADU Financial Incentive Program, a preapproved ADU designs and expedited review, and improved public information on ADUs.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 404
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-117
Geographic targeting is included in many housing programs designed to increase housing choices and mobility by including more affordable options in or near existing single-family areas. This includes programs related to funding, ADUs, rental housing assistance, home sharing program, Existing Unit Purchase Program, and new housing options at school sites, religious sites, and commercial sites.

Table 15 shows the existing distribution of restricted affordable housing by census tract and also includes the potential new units in the Sites Inventory. Most of the units in the Sites Inventory are in census tract 6080.25 which is the central core of Foster City with the best access to transit, services, and jobs.

However, the tract with the second highest number of units in the Sites Inventory is tract 6080.13/ 6080.23 at the southern edge of the City, with only one existing affordable unit and the lowest percentage of low- and moderate-income households. The Sites Inventory provides a balance between expanding the geographic area that includes restricted units to provide additional housing choices and locating new units where there is easy access to transit, services, and jobs. There are not existing patterns of socio-economic concentrations that could be exacerbated by the inclusion or exclusion of housing sites. As indicated in Table 15, the percentage of low- and moderate-income households ranges from 16.80 (tracts 6080.13/6080.23) to 36.61 percent (tract 6083) with a citywide average of 29.82 percent.

Potential Effect on Patterns of Segregation
From a broader regional perspective, providing increased lower-income housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Foster City will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of segregation, disparate impacts for impacted racial and ethnic groups, and foster more inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. Though Foster City doesn’t face significant racial or ethnic segregation issues, the City does confront challenges with income segregation from a county-wide or regional perspective especially considering the city’s high housing costs. More housing options for very low- and low-income households would help address patterns of income segregation and allow more residents to access varying parts of the city. Housing Policy H-E-10 Housing Mobility and Housing Choices as well as Housing Program H-E-10-a Improve Housing Mobility and Increase Missing Middle Housing Choices and H-D-4-i Provide New Housing Choices and Affordability in High Opportunity Areas through Additional ADUs in R-1 Zones Areas will also address this issue.

Potential Effect on Access to Opportunity
The wide distribution of housing sites will provide additional housing options for lower income households to choose housing near amenities and services that are important to them, such as parks, schools, transit, or other features. The sites in the Sites Inventory were selected based on accessibility to a variety of services and amenities, such as parks, schools, shopping, transit, and transportation. From a broader regional perspective, providing increased lower income housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Foster City will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of disparate impacts for impacted racial and ethnic groups by providing more affordable housing choices near desirable resources such as employment and high-quality education. This will foster more inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.

Additionally, with the development of the City’s 100% affordable senior apartments—including accessible units for persons with disabilities—residents of Foster City will have access to high resource

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 405
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-118 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
areas, be provided with more affordable housing options, and have the option to age-in-place or live independently. Housing Policy H-E-10 Housing Mobility and Housing Choices as well as Housing Program H-E-10-a Improve Housing Mobility and Increase Missing Middle Housing Choices and H-D-4-i Provide New Housing Choices and Affordability in High Opportunity Areas through Additional ADUs in R-1 Zones Areas will also address this issue.

Potential Effect on Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”38 Overpayment is a significant housing challenge for lower-income residents. There is not a geographic concentration of cost burdened renters, but there are slight concentrations of cost burdened owners (the percentage of cost burdened owners in each census tract varies between 23.7% to 41.1%). There are disparities in housing cost burden in Foster City by race and ethnicity. Black or African American (58%) and Hispanic households (42%) experience the highest rates of cost burden in the City. Asian (29%) and non-Hispanic White households (30%) are least likely to be cost burdened. The increased quantity and distribution of affordable housing as proposed in the Sites Inventory will address disproportionate housing needs by providing more affordable housing in a wider variety of locations in the City. From a broader regional perspective, providing increased lower income housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Foster City will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of disproportional housing needs. Housing Policy H-E-10 Housing Mobility and Housing Choices as well as Housing Program H-E-10-a Improve Housing Mobility and Increase Missing Middle Housing Choices and H-D-4-i Provide New Housing Choices and Affordability in High Opportunity Areas through Additional ADUs in R-1 Zones Areas will also address this issue.
38 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 406
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-119
7 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND FAIR HOUSING ACTION
PLAN
The City of Foster City is a diverse community with racial groups and income levels spread relatively evenly throughout the city (see Table 15 for comparison by census tract). Foster City has a higher population of Asians than the surrounding communities, but this group is also diverse, with East Asians having the largest growth rate, followed by Chinese. Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the City’s very high costs of housing and lack of affordable production.

Foster City has historically accommodated a diversity of housing needs by offering a variety of housing types—more so than many jurisdictions in the County. Yet home values and rents are much higher in Foster City than in the County and the Bay Area overall. Foster City’s fair housing actions that are part of the overall Housing Element are intended to address barriers to housing choice primarily by adding affordable housing options and preserving existing housing opportunities. Table 17 below summarizes the fair housing issues, contributing factors, and implementation programs included in the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing in Foster City.

Contributing factors have been prioritized giving highest priority to those factors that:
 limit or deny fair housing choice;
 limit access to opportunity; or
 negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance.

The City also considered the limitations of the City’s authority/ability to influence change in a contributing factor. Lower prioritization also reflects the limitations of the City’s powers to change some factors.

The priorities for the Fair Housing Action Plan are:

1. Address disproportionate impacts by increasing the supply of affordable housing and providing more housing choices throughout the City. (Highest)

2. Protect tenants from displacement through an anti-displacement strategy. (High)

3. Address housing discrimination through fair housing information and training. (High)

4. Address housing discrimination by providing additional support and opportunities for housing to meet special needs. (High)
Following Table 17 below, Table 18, AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix, provides additional details, includes additional detail regarding programs addressing:
 Fair Housing Outreach and Education
 Housing Mobility – Provide Improved Housing Options
 New Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas
 Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement
 Place-Based Strategies

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 407
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-120 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 17: Summary Matrix of Fair Housing Issues and Actions Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines Foster City’s high housing costs limit housing
choice and have a disproportionate impact on
Black or African American and Hispanic
households.

Black or African American and Hispanic
residents typically work lower wage jobs,
stemming from historical employment
discrimination and lack of access to quality
educational environments. These jobs
often do not support the city’s housing
costs. As a result, Black or African
American and Hispanic residents face very
high levels of cost burden. Low Priority
The lack of housing in Foster City to
accommodate larger renter households
can disproportionately impact households
of color, which tend to be larger.

Moderate Priority
Increase the supply of affordable
housing through a variety of
programs:
 H-C-4-a: Rental Housing Assistance
Information
 December 2023 and then annually
 Increase number of housing vouchers
used in Foster City by 2 per year
 H-D-1-b: General Plan and Zoning
Amendments to Facilitate Housing
on Housing Opportunity Sites in the
Sites Inventory
 Prior to or upon adoption
 H-D-4-a: ADUs  24 ADUs by 2031
 H-D-4-b: ADU/JADU Financial
Incentive Program
 Implement program by December
2024
 Provide 5 8 income-restricted ADU
units by 2031
 H-D-4-c: Preapproved ADU/JADU
Designs and Expedited Review
 December 2024
 H-D-4-d: Improved Public
Information on ADUs
 Improve website and counter
information by December 2023
 H-D-4-e: Amnesty Program for
Existing Unapproved ADUs
 Implement program by December
2025
 H-D-4-f: Objective Design Standards
for ADUs
 Adopt standards by December 2024
 H-D-4-g: Multi-Family ADUs  40 70 multi-family ADUs by 2031  H-D-4-i: Provide New Housing
Choices and Affordability in High
Opportunity Areas through
Additional ADUs in R-1 Zones Areas
 Amend Chapter 17.78 by December
2023
 H-D-4-j ADUs and JADUs in Religious
and Institutional Uses and School
Sites
 12 units in religious and institutional
sites by 2031
 12 units in school sites by 2031

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 408
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-121
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines  H-E-2-a: Inclusionary 20%
Requirement
 Ensure inclusionary units are
provided consistent with ordinance
requirements
 H-E-2-b: Affordable Housing Overlay
Inclusionary 15% Requirements
Including Extremely Low-Income
 Ensure inclusionary units are
provided consistent with ordinance
requirements
 H-E-6-a: Home Sharing Program  Ongoing: at least 5 new matches per year
 H-E-10-a: Improve Housing Mobility
and Increase Missing Middle Housing
Choices
 Annually review progress; if at midcycle review in 2027 the City is not on track, then initiate necessary zoning
text or map amendments or other
changes.

Foster City’s low production of affordable
housing limits housing choices of Black or
African American and Hispanic households
who have lower incomes.

Foster City has had limited production of
affordable housing. Since 2015, the
housing that has received permits to
accommodate growth has largely been
priced for above moderate-income
households. Pursuant to the City’s
inclusionary requirements, approximately
20% of the new housing units since 2015
are restricted for very low-, low- and
moderate-income households, leaving
approximately 80% at market rate, which
is affordable to moderate or above
moderate-income households. Just 9% of
the City’s rental units rent for $2,000 and
less. San Mateo County has four times the
proportion of rentals priced under $2,000
than the city. High Priority
Increase the supply of affordable
housing through a variety of programs
(described above).

Foster City’s multi-family housing is aging
and vulnerable to redevelopment and
displacement of low- and moderate-income
households.

The high water table in Foster City creates
maintenance needs, particularly for multifamily buildings. Moderate Priority Aging, low-density apartment
developments may have economic
incentives to redevelop. High Priority
Protect tenants from displacement
through an anti-displacement strategy:
 H-C-2-c: Replacement Unit
Requirements
 Amend requirements by December
2023
 H-C-3-a: Anti-Displacement Plan for
Redevelopment of Existing
Multifamily Developments
 Establish submittal requirements by
December 2023

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 409
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-122 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines  Review and approve of an AntiDisplacement Plan that minimizes displacement for any repair or
redevelopment that would displace
one or more tenants
 H-C-3-b: Anti-Displacement Strategy  Implement program by December 2024
Residents report experiencing fair housing
discrimination in Foster City mostly based on
disability and/or being a voucher
holder/source of income. Few of those
experiencing discrimination file complaints or
take action.

Tenants’ and property owners’ lack of
knowledge about fair housing laws. High
Priority
Property owners violating fair housing
laws. High Priority
Tenants fear of retaliation, few options to
relocate. High Priority
Address housing discrimination
through fair housing outreach and
education:
 H-C-3-c: Facilitate Resolution of
Rental Disputes
 Ongoing
 H-C-3-d: Facilitate Tenant Protection
Act of 2019 (AB 1482)
 Update website by December 2023
 Provide at least one information
session per year
 H-G-1-a: Non-Discrimination  Update website by December 2023  Hold at least one (1) informational
sessions for landlords and tenants
annually beginning in 2024
 H-G-2-a: Anti-Discrimination
Regulations
 Implement program by December
2023
 Provide updated information
annually
 H-G-2-b: Fair Housing Training for
Landlords and Tenants
 Conduct at least one fair housing
training for tenants and landlords
annually, beginning in 2024
 H-G-2-c: Information Specific to Fair
Housing
 Implement program by December
2023
 Number of physical locations the
resources are made available without
requiring internet access
 H-G-2-d: Multilingual Tenant
Resources
 Implement program by December
2024
 Collaboration for provision of
multilingual fair housing services
 H-G-2-e: Rental Registry  Research options and report to City Council by December 2024

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 410
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-123
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines Provide additional support and
opportunities for housing to meet
special needs:
 H-E-1-a: Existing Unit Purchase
Program-Opportunities for
Supportive Housing
 One (1) unit converted to supportive
housing by 2031
 H-E-9-a: Family Friendly Housing  Facilitate ten (10) rental units of 3 or more bedrooms by 2031.
 H-E-9-b: Small Housing units  Facilitate ten (10) rental units less than 500 SF by 2031
 H-F-1-a: Facilities and Services for
Special Needs
 Establish expedited permit review
process and begin annual proactive
outreach by December 2023
 Facilitate at least one (1) new facility
serving special needs population
during the planning period
 H-F-1-c: Adaptable/Accessible Units
for the Disabled
 Ensure accessible and adaptable units
are provided consistent with the
California Building Code and that
affirmative marketing is included
consistent with Chapter 17.90 and the
City’s BMR Administrative Guidelines
 H-F-1-d: Reasonable
Accommodation
 Amend Chapter 17.84 by December
2023
 Update City’s website by December
2023
 H-F-1-e: Home Sharing for Special
Needs Population
 At least 50% of home share matches
assist someone with special needs
 H-F-1-f: Support Services for Special
Needs Population
 Roundtable at least annually
 H-F-1-g: Extremely Low-Income
Units for Special Needs
 Ensure affirmative marketing plan is
provided and implemented for ELI
units

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 411
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-124 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines  H-F-1-h: Age Friendly Initiative  Adopt Age-Friendly Action Plan by December 2024
 H-F-1-i: Community Care Facilities  Amend regulations by December 2024
 H-F-1-j: Public Investment in
Accessibility
 Target areas with higher disabled
populations – Census Tracts 6083 and
6080.25
 Number of capital improvement
projects identified in the CIP budget
each year that include accessibility
improvements
 H-F-3-a: Transitional and Supportive
Housing Zoning
 Ensure regulations are applied so that
transitional and supportive housing is
subject only to the same restrictions
as other residential uses in the same
zone
 H-F-3-b: Supportive Housing  Amend regulations by December 2023
Black or African American, Hispanic, and
Pacific Islander students are less likely than
other students to meet college admission
standards and have higher high school
dropout rates.

The underlying factors for these
differences are unknown and need to be
examined as part of AFFH actions. Low
Priority
 Increase the supply of affordable
housing through a variety of
programs (described above).

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 412
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-125
Table 18: AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix
HE Program Specific Commitment Timeline
Geographic
Targeting 2023-2031 Metrics
Fair Housing Outreach & Education
H-C-3-c: Facilitate Resolution of
Rental Disputes
Continue working with the Peninsula Conflict
Resolution Center and the Tri-County Apartment
Association as vehicles to moderate rent increases
and minimize displacements in the City and to
resolve rental disputes between renters and property
owners.

Update website by
December 2023
Citywide
H-C-3-d: Facilitate Tenant Protection
Act of 2019 (AB 1482)
In coordination with programs promoting fair
housing under H-G, provide information on laws
regarding maximum annual rent increases, just cause
evictions, and financial compensation requirements.

Update website by
December 2023;
Provide at least one
information session per
year
Citywide Update website by December
2023
Provide at least one information
session per year
H-G-1-a: Non-Discrimination To ensure that the sale, rental, or financing of housing is not denied to any individual on the basis
of race, sex, national origin, religion, age, marital
status, disability, or other factors, Foster City will
ensure that state and federal laws are adhered to
regarding fair housing. The City, through its
Community Development Department, will refer
discrimination complaints to the appropriate legal
service, county, or state agency. The City will provide public information and education services in a variety
of locations, including but not limited to the City’s
website, City Hall, public library, Recreation Center
and Senior Center.

Update website by
December 2023; hold
information sessions
for tenants and
landlords annually
beginning in 2024
Citywide At least one informational
session annually beginning in
2024
H-G-2-a: Anti-Discrimination
Regulations
Provide information to tenants and landlords on the
City’s website, City Hall and the public library
advising them of the State and City regulations that
prohibit landlords from refusing to rent to someone,
or otherwise discriminate against them, because
they have a housing subsidy, such as a Section 8
Housing Choice Voucher, that helps them to afford
their rent.

Implement program by
December 2023
Citywide Provide updated information
annually to tenants and
landlords

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 413
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-126 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
HE Program Specific Commitment Timeline
Geographic
Targeting 2023-2031 Metrics
H-G-2-b: Fair Housing Training for
Landlords and Tenants
Partner with an organization to perform fair housing
training for landlords and tenants.

At least one fair
housing training per
year beginning in 2024
Citywide Conduct at least one fair housing
training for tenants and
landlords annually, beginning in
2024
H-G-2-c: Information Specific to Fair
Housing
Provide information on the City’s housing webpage
and in ways that reach tenants without internet
access to include resources for residents who believe
they have been discriminated against, including how
to file a fair housing complaint.

Implement program by
December 2023
Citywide Number of physical locations the
resources are made available
without requiring internet access
H-G-2-d: Multilingual Tenant
Resources
Collaborate and cooperate with local and regional
agencies who provide multilingual fair housing
education services.

Implement program by
the end of 2024
Citywide Collaboration for provision of
multilingual fair housing services
H-G-2-e: Rental Registry Unless a requirement for a State rental registry is adopted, explore a rental registry that tracks
information such as rents, utilities, accessibility for disabled persons, tenant occupancy dates, and
landlord contact information in order to improve the
information available to landlords, tenants, and
decision makers.

Report to City Council
by the end of 2024
Citywide
Housing Mobility – Provide Improved Housing Options
H-C-4-a Rental Housing Assistance
Information
Encourage the use of federal, State and local rental
housing programs by providing information on the
City’s website. Continue to publicize and promote
programs offered by the San Mateo County Housing
Authority through proactive public outreach
including, but not limited to the Section 8 Rental
Assistance Program, landlord incentive programs
(such as Landlord Continuity Bonus, New Landlord
Bonus, and Landlord “No Loss” Bonus) programs for
landlords to rent to holders of Housing Choice or
HUD-VASH (Veteran) Vouchers.
2023 to update website;
then ongoing
CitywidePromote
in single-family
areas
Increase the number of voucher
holders by 2 per year
H-D-1-b General Plan and Zoning
Amendments to Facilitate Housing on
Housing Opportunity Sites in the Sites
Inventory
Concurrent with or prior to adoption of the Housing
Element, adopt the following General Plan and
zoning amendments: (amendments to facilitate
development of Sites Inventory)
Prior to or upon
Housing Element
Adoption
Citywide – Sites
Inventory sites
General Plan and Zoning in place
prior to or upon adoption of
Housing Element

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 414
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-127
HE Program Specific Commitment Timeline
Geographic
Targeting 2023-2031 Metrics
H-D-4-g: Multi-family ADUs The City will develop incentives to encourage multifamily ADUs in accordance with Chapter 17.78 of the Municipal Code and applicable State laws including
but not limited to such measures as financial
assistance, reduced fees, and/or expedited
processing.

Develop incentive
program by December
2024
Citywide 40 70 multi-family ADUs by 2031
H-D-4-j:ADUs and JADUs in Religious
and Institutional Uses and School
Sites
Amend zoning regulations allowing religious and
institutional uses and school sites to construct up to
4 ADUs and JADUs on-site when an affordable
housing development may not be feasible and
conduct an outreach and education campaign to
subject property owners.

Amend zoning
regulations by
December 2024
Citywide 12 units in religious and
institutional sites by 2031
12 units in school sites by 2031
H-E-1-a: Existing Unit Purchase
Program-Opportunities for
Supportive Housing
Implement the tenant preferences adopted in
January 2023 for the Existing Unit Purchase Program
(City-owned units) so that when vacancies occur,
housing providers have an opportunity to propose
renting the unit to provide supportive housing for
people with disabilities and if no acceptable
proposals are received, then continue to maintain
the existing units owned by the City as rentals for
large very low- and low-income families.
2023 to adjust
preferences; then
ongoing upon any
vacancy
Citywide One (1) unit converted to
supportive housing by 2031
H-E-2-a: Inclusionary 20%
Requirement
Implement the City’s 20% inclusionary requirement
as contained in Chapter 17.90.

Continue to implement
program
Citywide Ensure inclusionary units are
provided consistent with
ordinance requirements
H-E-2-b: Affordable Housing Overlay
Inclusionary 15% Requirements
Including Extremely Low Income
Implement the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay
15% inclusionary requirement which includes a
requirement for extremely low-income rental units,
as contained in Chapter 17.92.

Continue to implement
program
Citywide Ensure inclusionary units are
provided consistent with
ordinance requirements
H-E-9-a: Family Friendly Housing Promote housing designs and unit mix to attract multigenerational households by encouraging
developers to include housing features and more
bedrooms (including three-bedroom units), as well
as other on-site amenities, such as usable outdoor
open space for multigenerational use, and
multipurpose rooms that can be used for after-school
homework clubs, computers, arts, or other resident
activities. To address potential displacement of
Report to City Council
by the end of 2024
Citywide Facilitate ten(10) rental units of 3
or more bedrooms by 2031

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 415
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-128 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
HE Program Specific Commitment Timeline
Geographic
Targeting 2023-2031 Metrics
households with three or more persons, the City will
research options to expand regulatory incentives to
encourage the development of larger units.

H-E-9-b: Small Housing Units Amend the Zoning regulations to specifically allow housing targeted for extremely low-income
households, including single room occupancy (SROs)
and group homes for these income groups in the
CM/PD, C-2, and PF zoning districts.

Amend zoning
regulations by
December 2024
Citywide Facilitate ten (10) rental units
less than 500 SF by 2031
H-E-10-a: Improve Housing Mobility
and Increase Missing Middle Housing
Choices
Implement a suite of programs targeted to include
more housing choices with goal of expanding
housing opportunities affordable to extremely low,
very low, low and moderate income households as
well as missing middle housing (duplexes, triplexes,
and fourplexes):

H-D-4 Accessory Dwelling Units (109 programs)
H-E-6-a Home Sharing Program
H-D-5-a and H-D-5-b Institution-Owned Sites
H-E-1-a Supporting Housing
H-B-2-a Lower Income Homeowner Rehabilitation
H-C-4-a Rental Housing Assistance Information
H-D-6-e Amend Zoning Regulations to Facilitate
Missing Middle Housing
Amend zoning
regulations to allow 3
ADUs per single family
lot by December 2023.

Amend zoning
regulations allowing
religious and
institutional uses and
school sites to
construct up to 4 ADUs
and JADUs on site
when an affordable
housing development
may not be feasible by
2024; conduct an
outreach and education
campaign to subject
property owners to at
least 2 properties per
year. Annual review
with mid-cycle review
in 2027.
97191 units total spread among
different programs with different
income levels, totals: 5179 very
low, 3664 low, 7 35 moderate,
and 133 above moderate income.

H-F-1-a: Facilities and Services for
Special Needs
Support housing that incorporates facilities and
services to meet the health care, transit or social
service needs of households with special needs,
including seniors, extremely low-income households
and persons, farmworkers, people with
developmental disabilities, and persons with
disabilities through an expedited permit review
Establish expedited
permit review process
and begin annual
proactive outreach by
December 2023
Citywide Facilitate development of at
least one (1) new facility serving
special needs population during
the planning period

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 416
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-129
HE Program Specific Commitment Timeline
Geographic
Targeting 2023-2031 Metrics
process.. Proactively contact non-profit service
providers and developers for persons with disabilities
and other special needs groups on annual basis to
inquire about their needs and notify them about
funding opportunities, as they become available.

H-F-1-c: Adaptable/Accessible Units
for the Disabled
The City will ensure that new multi-family housing
includes units are accessible and adaptable for use by
disabled persons in conformance with the California
Building Code and that developers are required to
implement an affirmative marketing plan as required
by Chapter 17.90 for physically accessible affordable
units that provides disability-serving organizations
adequate prior notice of the availability of the
accessible and adaptable units and a process for
supporting people with qualifying disabilities to
apply.

Implement
requirements for
affirmative marketing
by 2024
Citywide Ensure accessible and adaptable
units are provided consistent
with the California Building Code
and that affirmative marketing is
included consistent with Chapter

17.90 and the City’s BMR
Administrative Guidelines
H-F-1-d: Reasonable Accommodation Utilize the adopted Chapter 17.84, containing a review process to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies,
practices, and procedures that may be necessary to
ensure equal access to housing. The purpose of these
procedures and an ordinance is to provide a process
for individuals with disabilities to make requests for
reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from
the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules,
policies, practices and/or procedures of the City.

Review Chapter 17.84 for conformance with State
Law and amend if necessary by December 2023.

Update the City’s website to make information on
how to submit a request more accessible by
December 2023.

Amend Chapter 17.84
by December 2023.

Update City’s website
by December 2023,
implement as requests
are made
Citywide Amend Chapter 17.84 by
December 2023. Update City’s
website by December 2023
H-F-1-e: Home Sharing for Special
Needs Population
Support the HIP Housing Home Sharing Program as
part of a collection of policies programs and
practices for addressing special housing needs,
including seniors, those living with disabilities, those at risk of homelessness and female householders.

Include in Annual
Budget.

Citywide At least 50% of home share
matches assist someone with
special needs

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 417
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-130 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
HE Program Specific Commitment Timeline
Geographic
Targeting 2023-2031 Metrics
H-F-1-f: Support Services for Special
Needs Population
Continue to work with service providers such as
Foster City Village, Second Harvest Food Bank, and
others to facilitate the provision of support services
to enable people to receive services in their homes,
including persons at risk of homelessness, seniors,
persons with mental or physical disabilities,
substance abuse problems, HIV/AIDS, physical and
developmental disabilities, multiple diagnoses,
veterans and victims of domestic violence.

Host a roundtable
meeting with service
providers annually
starting prior to
December 2024
Citywide
H-F-1-g: Extremely Low-Income Units
for Special Needs
The City will ensure that for the new extremely lowincome units, including those required by Chapter

17.92, developers are required to implement an
affirmative marketing plan for special needs groups
prior notice of the availability of the units and a
process for supporting qualified households to apply.

Include requirements in
the City’s BMR
Administrative
Guidelines for
developers to submit
an Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing
marketing plan for their
affordable units by
December 2024
Citywide Ensure affirmative marketing
plan is provided and
implemented for ELI units
H-F-1-g: Age Friendly Initiative Continue the work begun in 2020 with the Center for Age Friendly Excellence (CAFÉ) and the Foster City
Age-Friendly Community (AFC) Task Force to
develop and implement an action plan including
programs to address needs of seniors.

Begin program
implementation by
December 2024
Citywide Adopt Age-Friendly Action Plan
by December 2024
H-F-1-i: Community Care Facilities Amend the City’s zoning regulations to expand the zoning districts that allow community care facilities
in accordance with State law to simplify and clarify
definitions, permitted uses, and processing
procedures for residential care facilities and group
homes in all residential districts and any other
amendments necessary for conformance with State
law, including but not limited to eliminating spacing
requirements for persons with disabilities, allowing
group homes objectively to facilitate approval
certainty similar to other residential uses, and allow
group homes in all residential zones.

Amend Municipal Code
by December 2024
Citywide Amend regulations by December
2024

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 418
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-131
HE Program Specific Commitment Timeline
Geographic
Targeting 2023-2031 Metrics
H-F-3-a: Transitional and Supportive
Housing Zoning
Enforce the existing zoning regulations as amended
in January 2023 by Ordinance 657 that allow
transitional and supportive Housing, as required by
State law, so they are treated as a residential use
that will be subject only to the same restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in
the same zone.

Ongoing Citywide
H-F-3-b: Supportive Housing Review and revise the Zoning regulations as amended in January 2023 for consistency with AB
2162, effective January 1, 2019, requiring supportive
housing by-right in certain zoning districts.

Amend regulations by
December 2023
Citywide Amend regulations by December
2023
New Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas
H-D-4-a: ADUs Continue implementation of Chapter 17.78, Accessory Dwelling Units. Update the City’s ADU
ordinance to comply with State laws by December
2023 and subsequently update the City’s regulations
to comply with new state laws within six months of
being effective.

Update Chapter 17.78
to comply with 2023
State laws by
December 2023 and
update the City’s
regulations to comply
with subsequent new
State laws within 6
months of being
effective.

CitywideTarget
expanding
choices in single
family areas
24 ADUs by 2031
5 8 income-restricted ADU units
by 2031 (included in 24 in
H-D-4-a)
H-D-4-b ADU/JADU Financial
Incentive Program
Provide or partner with another organization to
provide a financial incentive program for singlefamily homeowners to construct an ADU/JADU that is restricted for lower-income households for 10-15
years, with an additional incentive amount for units
subject to a preference for identified categories of
special needs people who would benefit from
coordinated onsite services, including but not limited
to people with developmental disabilities.

Implement program by
December 2024
Citywide
H-D-4-c: Preapproved ADU/JADU
Designs and Expedited Review
Adopt preapproved ADU/JADU designs/plans to
streamline the review process, facilitate reduced
applicant cost and expedited review for
ADUs/JADUs. Work with homeowners’ associations
to incorporate their input on preapproved designs
that are appropriate for their development and
Implement program by
the end of 2024
Citywide

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 419
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-132 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
HE Program Specific Commitment Timeline
Geographic
Targeting 2023-2031 Metrics
encourage them to adopt prototypical designs for
ADUs/JADUs. Ensure preapproved designs/plans
provide choices and diversity in size to
accommodate a variety of household sizes and
types.

H-D-4-d: Improved Public Information
on ADUs
Promote information and tools available to facilitate
ADU construction and encourage desirable features
such as energy conservation and universal design for
accessibility. Provide easily accessible information on the City’s website and at the public counter.

Improve website and
counter information by
December 2023
Citywide
H-D-4-e: Amnesty Program for
Existing Unapproved ADUs
Develop a program to provide property owners with
the opportunity to formally legalize existing
unpermitted ADUs of any size.

Implement program by
the end of 2025
Citywide
H-D-4-f: Objective Design Standards
for ADUs
Develop and adopt objective design standards for
ADUs.

Adopt standards by
December 2024
Citywide
H-D-4-g: Multi-family ADUs The City will develop incentives to encourage multifamily ADUs in accordance with Chapter 17.78 of the Municipal Code and applicable State laws including
but not limited to such measures as financial
assistance, reduced fees, and/or expedited
processing.

Develop incentive
program by December
2024
Citywide 70 multi-family ADUs by 2031
H-D-4-i: Provide New Housing
Choices and Affordability in High
Opportunity Areas through Additional
ADUs in R-1 Zones Areas
Amend Chapter 17.78 to allow up to three ADUs per
single-family lot.

Amend Chapter 17.78
by December 2023.

Promote
programs to
expand housing
choices in singlefamily areas.

H-D-4-j:ADUs and JADUs in Religious
and Institutional Uses and School
Sites
Amend zoning regulations allowing religious and
institutional uses and school sites to construct up to
4 ADUs and JADUs on site when an affordable
housing development may not be feasible and
conduct an outreach and education campaign to
subject property owners.

Amend zoning
regulations by
December 2024
Citywide 12 units in religious and
institutional sites by 2031
12 units in school sites by 2031
H-E-6-a: Home Sharing Program Continue to fund the HIP Housing Home Sharing Program. Work with similar non-profits to expand
the existing outreach for the Homeshare Program
for both rental and ownership housing, including
Ongoing Promote
programs to
expand housing
choices in singleAt least 5 new matches annually

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 420
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-133
HE Program Specific Commitment Timeline
Geographic
Targeting 2023-2031 Metrics
outreach to extremely low- and very low-income
persons.
family
areas.Citywide
H-E-10-a: Improve Housing Mobility
and Increase Missing Middle Housing
Choices.

The City will utilize a group of actions to improve
housing mobility and promote housing choices and
affordability.

Annually review and if,
at the mid-cycle review
in 2027 the City is not
on track, make
necessary zoning text
or map amendments or
other amend land use
documents.

Citywide 191 units total spread among
different programs with different
income levels, totals: 79 very
low, 64 low, 35 moderate, and 13
above moderate income 97 units
by 2031 at various income levels.

Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement
H-C-2-c: Replacement Unit
Requirements
The City shall not approve a housing development
project that will include the demolition of existing
housing units unless provisions are included to
demonstrate compliance with California Government
Code Sections 65915(c)(3) and 66300(d), requiring
replacement units to be restricted to lower-income
households to match the percentage of lowerincome tenants, as provided in Chapter 17.55, Replacement Units, adopted in January 2023. The
City shall include the necessary information in the
planning application submittal requirements.

Amend submittal
requirements by
December 2023
Citywide Consistent with state law,
confirm that no housing
development project will
demolish residential dwelling
units regardless of whether the
parcel was listed in the Sites
Inventory unless a) the project
will create at least as many
residential dwelling units as will
be demolished, and b) certain
affordability criteria are met
H-C-3-a: Anti-Displacement Plan for
Redevelopment of Existing
Multifamily Developments
If an existing multifamily apartment development is
repaired or redeveloped including the displacement
of one or more tenants, the application submitted
for repairs or redevelopment including displacement
of any tenants shall include a plan that demonstrates
how impacts to existing tenants that are being
displaced are minimized through such means as
phasing, financial assistance, and relocation services.

Such plan shall also include a robust outreach plan to
affected tenants.

Amend submittal
requirements by
December 2023
Citywide Establish submittal requirements
by December 2023 and then
review and approve of an AntiDisplacement Plan that
minimizes displacement for any
repair or redevelopment that
would displace one or more
tenants.

H-C-3-b: Anti-Displacement Strategy Develop an Anti-Displacement Strategy, including assessment of a variety of tenant protection
measures to determine if appropriate for Foster City,
including but not limited to: a) expansion of
relocation benefits beyond those required by
Implement program by
December 2024
Citywide Implement program by
December 2024

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 421
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-134 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
HE Program Specific Commitment Timeline
Geographic
Targeting 2023-2031 Metrics
California law for landlords to pay to lower-income
tenants to also apply to moderate-income tenants;
b) expansion of the amount of relocation benefits
beyond those required by California law for lowerincome tenants; c) minimum lease terms; d) required notifications to tenants and landlords of legal
requirements; and e) expansion of any other
relocation/anti-displacement provisions.

Place-Based Strategies
H-B-2-a: Lower-Income Homeowner
Rehabilitation Loans
The City will provide or partner with a regional
program to provide rehabilitation loans, energy
improvement such as weatherization or solar,
disaster assistance programs, and proactive
outreach to lower-income homeowners.

Implement program by
December 2024
Target areas with
highest
percentage of
cost-burdened
owners
18 new loans by 2031 or 3 per
year, half of which being very low
income and half of which being
low income
H-B-2-b: Facilitate Non-Profit
Rehabilitation/Maintenance
Assistance
The City will initiate a rebate program to provide up
to $5,000 in funding to very low-income
homeowners who cannot otherwise afford the
repairs. Eligible repairs include weatherization of
doors and windows, broken windows and doors,
installation of smoke detectors, water-heater
replacement, electrical/mechanical work, plumbing
repairs, solar photovoltaic, and accessibility
improvements. The City will identify possible nonprofit organizations (such as Rebuilding Together Peninsula, churches, service clubs, or Girl or Boy
Scouts) that can provide assistance/proactive
outreach and will provide information on the City’s
website and handouts at City Hall.

Implement program by
December 2024
Target areas with
highest
percentage of
cost-burdened
owners
6 units improved with assistance
by 2031 or one very low-income
owner unit improved with
assistance per year
H-F-1-j: Public Investment in
Accessibility
Include accessibility improvements to City streets,
parks, and other facilities through implementation of
the ADA Transition Plan.

The ADA Transition
Plan is planned for
completion in early
2024, to be
implemented
beginning in 2024
Target areas with
higher disabled
populations –
Census Tracts
6083 and 6080.25
Number of capital improvement
projects identified in the CIP
budget each year that include
accessibility improvements

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 422
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-135
8 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 423
APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-136 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 424
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 1
AFFH Appendix.

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

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

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

Explanation of terms. Throughout this section, several terms are used that require explanation.
¾ “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). ¾ “Disability” indicates that the respondent or a member of the respondent’s household has a disability of some type—physical, mental, intellectual, developmental. ¾ “Single parent” are respondents living with their children only or with their children and other adults but not a spouse/partner.
¾ “Tenure” in the housing industry means rentership or ownership. ¾ “Large households” are considered those with five or more persons residing in a respective household.
¾ “Seriously Looked for Housing” includes touring or searching for homes or apartments, putting in applications or pursuing mortgage financing.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 425
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, 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 selfselected nature of the survey prevents the collection of a true random sample. Important insights and themes can still be gained from the survey results, however, with an understanding of the differences among resident groups and between jurisdictions and the county overall. Overall, the data provide a rich source of information about the county’s households and their experience with housing choice and access to opportunity in the communities where they live.

Jurisdiction-level data are reported for cities with 50 responses or more. Response by jurisdiction and demographics are shown in the figure below. Overall, the survey received a very strong response from typically underrepresented residents including: people of color, renters, precariously housed residents, very low income households, households with children, large households, single parents, and residents with disabilities.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 426
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 3
Figure 1.

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

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

Total Responses 2,382 82 173 130 53 148 63 59 55 84 163 99 175 832 Race/Ethnicity
African American 134 7 4 9 8 10 6 4 4 5 14 4 17 15
Hispanic 397 9 14 26 27 13 8 1 8 12 59 13 31 149
Asian 500 9 26 43 6 32 6 8 13 14 11 19 23 249
Other Race 149 10 6 8 3 14 3 3 3 3 9 7 13 47
Non-Hispanic White 757 35 89 27 4 44 27 27 15 35 54 36 58 195 Tenure
Homeowner 1,088 51 96 39 9 89 26 46 18 42 37 48 58 409
Renter 1,029 30 65 67 36 43 28 7 33 38 105 41 88 324
Precariously Housed 309 8 12 26 12 17 14 5 7 13 23 16 29 87 Income
Less than $25,000 282 11 12 21 15 12 11 5 6 7 40 11 29 61 $25,000-$49,999 265 9 10 22 9 8 6 3 6 7 28 5 20 97
$50,000-$99,999 517 14 38 43 10 26 11 3 10 17 37 22 40 206 Above $100,000 721 24 69 16 8 64 12 30 14 32 31 40 40 251 Household Characteristics
Children under 18 840 24 53 50 26 44 17 18 20 29 61 37 64 287 Large households 284 7 11 20 18 8 3 5 7 8 20 13 15 133
Single Parent 240 8 15 19 11 12 9 3 7 7 30 9 21 49
Disability 711 25 41 38 22 40 22 13 17 29 62 34 65 210
Older Adults (age 65+) 736 27 66 37 11 54 25 25 18 33 44 32 37 248 San
Mateo
South
San
Francisco
Half
Moon
Bay Hillsborough Milbrae Pacifica
Redwood
City
San
County Brisbane Burlingame Bruno
Daly
City
East
Palo
Alto
Foster
City

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 427
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 4
Primary Findings
The survey data present a unique picture of the housing choices, challenges, needs, and access to economic opportunity of San Mateo County residents.

Top level findings from residents’ perspectives and experiences:
¾ The limited supply of housing that accommodates voucher holders presents several challenges. Specifically,
Ø Eight out of 10 voucher holders represented by the survey find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher to be “difficult” or “very difficult.” Ø 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.
¾ 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.
¾ 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.
¾ 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. ¾ 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.
¾ 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 428
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 5
¾ 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.
¾ 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:
¾ 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.
¾ 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. ¾ 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. ¾ 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.
¾ 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. ¾ 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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 429
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 6
respondents reported they are precariously housed (Figure 3). Four in ten respondents reported having household income greater than $100,000. Nearly 30% of respondents reported a household income between $50,000-99,999, followed by 15% of respondents who made between $25,000-49,999 and 16% of respondents making less than $25,000 (Figure 4).

The survey analysis also included selected demographic characteristics of respondents, including those with children under the age of 18 residing in their household, adults over the age of 65, respondents whose household includes a member experiencing a disability, those who live in large households, and single parents. Thirty five percent of respondents indicated they had children in their household, while 31% indicated they were older adults.

Thirty percent of respondents indicated they or a member of their household experienced a disability, 12% of respondents reported having large households, and 10% were single parents.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 430
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 7
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.

Figure 4.

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

Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.
39%
26%
20%
7%
8%
Non-Hispanic White (n=757)
Asian (n=500)
Hispanic (n=397)
African American (n=134)
Other Minority (n=149)
45%
42%
13%
Homeowner (n=1,088)
Renter (n=1,029)
Precariously Housed (n=309)
16%
15%
29%
40%
Less than $25,000 (n=282)
$25,000-$49,999 (n=265)
$50,000-$99,999 (n=517)
Above $100,000 (n=721)

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 431
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 8
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.

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:
¾ Residents in Daly City, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City are less likely to move due to the lack of available affordable housing options.
¾ East Palo Alto, Redwood City, and San Mateo residents report living in housing that is too small for their families.
¾ 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. ¾ Nearly 1 in 5 Pacifica survey respondents report that their home or apartment is in bad condition.
35%
31%
30%
12%
10%
Children under 18 (n=840)
Older Adults (age 65+) (n=736)
Disability (n=711)
Large households (n=284)
Single Parent (n=240)

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 432
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 9
¾ Brisbane residents are more likely to experience a landlord refusing to make repairs to their unit.
¾ Residents in Daly City and Millbrae are more likely to report that they don’t feel safe in their neighborhood or building
¾ 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:
¾ 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. ¾ 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 433
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 10
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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 434
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 11
The following three figures segment the answers by:
¾ Housing affordability challenges only; and
¾ 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:
¾ 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. ¾ San Mateo, East Palo Alto, and Daly City residents are most likely to experience difficulty paying utility bills.
¾ Residents in East Palo Alto and Redwood City are most likely to be late on their rent payments.
¾ Millbrae residents experience the greatest difficultly paying their property taxes among jurisdictions in San Mateo County.
¾ Respondents from Brisbane, Half Moon Bay, and Pacifica are more likely to have trouble keeping up with property taxes.
¾ 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. .

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 435
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 12
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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 436
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 13
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. ¾ For instance, East Palo Alto residents experience neighborhood infrastructure issues (e.g., bad sidewalks, no lighting) more acutely than county residents overall. ¾ Brisbane residents experience transportation challenges in their neighborhoods. ¾ East Palo Alto, Redwood City, and San Bruno experience challenges with school quality in their neighborhoods.
¾ Residents in Brisbane, Hillsborough, Pacific, and Half Moon Bay report the highest rates of difficulty accessing public transit.
¾ 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 437
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 14
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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 438
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 15
Differences in needs by race and ethnicity and housing tenure. As shown in Figure 7a, and compared to the county overall:
¾ African American, Hispanic, and Other race respondents, and ¾ Renters and those who are precariously housed experience several housing challenges at a higher rate than the county overall.
¾ Conversely, non-Hispanic White residents and homeowners are less likely to experience housing challenges.

Specifically,
¾ 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.
¾ African American, Asian, Hispanic, Renters, and Precariously Housed groups are more likely to experience bed bugs or rodent infestation in their homes. ¾ African American, Hispanic, Renters, and Precariously Housed groups are also more likely to live further away from family, friends, and their community. ¾ 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.
¾ 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 439
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 16
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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 440
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 17
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.
¾ African American residents experience all five affordability challenges at a greater rate than the county overall.
¾ 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.
¾ 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. ¾ These groups, with the exception of those precariously housed, are also more likely to be late on their rent payments.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 441
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 18
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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 442
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 19
As shown in Figure 7c, African American and precariously housed residents experience neighborhood challenges at a higher rate than the county. These two groups experience neighborhood issues related to transportation more acutely than county residents overall. In addition to Other race respondents, they are also more likely to identify the lack of job opportunities in their respective neighborhoods.

Additionally, Hispanic residents are more likely to live in neighborhoods with poor performing schools than the average county respondent. Homeowners are also more likely to report that they cannot access public transit easily or safely.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 443
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 20
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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 444
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 21
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:
¾ My house or apartment isn’t big enough for my family; ¾ My house or apartment is in bad condition;
¾ My landlord refuses to make repairs despite my request; ¾ I live too far from family/friends/my community;
¾ I don’t feel safe in my building/neighborhood;
¾ I need help taking care of myself/my home and can’t find or afford to hire someone; and ¾ 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 445
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 22
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+)

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 446
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 23
As shown in Figure 8b, households making less than $50,000, as well as large households, single parents, households with children under 18, and households with a member experience a disability, experience the most acute affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. Households making more than $50,000 and adults over the age of 65 are less likely to experience affordability challenges.

Households making less than $25,000, single parents, and households with children under 18 experience all five affordability challenges at a greater rate than the average county respondent.

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

Of households experiencing major affordability issues, 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 447
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 24
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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 448
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 25
As shown in Figure 8c, households with children under 18, as well as single parents, households with a member experiencing a disability, and households making less than $25,000 are more likely to experience neighborhood challenges. These households are most likely to report that the bus/rail does not go where I need to go or does not operate during the times I need. In addition to households that make between $25,000-$100,000, these groups are more likely to identify the lack of job opportunities in their respective neighborhoods.

Households with children under 18 are more likely to live in neighborhoods with poor quality schools. Large households are more likely to report issues with neighborhood infrastructure (e.g., bad sidewalks, poor lighting) and households with a member experiencing a disability are more likely to report they cannot access public transit easily or safely.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 449
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 26
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+)

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 450
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 27
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:
¾ Landlord not returning the respondent’s call (26%),
¾ Landlord told me the unit was available over the phone but when I showed up in person, it was no longer available (22%), and
¾ Landlord told me it would cost more because of my service or emotional support animal (14%).

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

Eighty percent of African American respondents reported that they had seriously looked for housing in the past five years while the lowest percentage of respondents who reported seriously looking for housing were non-Hispanic White (46%). The main reasons for denial experienced by African American respondents included landlord told me the unit was available over the phone but when I showed up in person, it was no longer available (39%), landlord told me it would cost more because of my service or emotional support animal (34%), and landlord told me I couldn’t have a service or emotional support animal (28%).

Among respondents by tenure, renters (75%) and precariously housed (74%) tenants reported the highest rates of seriously looking for housing. Among respondents by income, households making less than $25,000 (71%) had the highest rate. However, the main reasons for denial reported by these households were landlord told me I couldn’t have a service or emotional support animal (36%) and landlord told me it would cost more because of my service or emotional support animal (30%).

Single parents (79%) and households with children under 18 (66%) also reported the highest percentage of those who seriously looked for housing in the past five years among the selected

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 451
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 28
household characteristics respondent groups. In addition to sharing the top two reasons for denial with the county, 25% of single parent household respondents also reported they were denied housing because the landlord told me I can’t have a service or emotional support animal.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 452
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 29
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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 453
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 30
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:
¾ Real estate agent told me I would need to show I was prequalified with a bank (29%) and ¾ 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 454
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 31
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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 455
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 32
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:
¾ 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. ¾ 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.
¾ 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.
¾ 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 456
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 33
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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 457
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 34
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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 458
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 35
Figure 12.

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

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.
53%
49%
46%
36%
6%
Voucher is not enough to cover the
rent for places I want to live
Not enough time to find a place to live
before the voucher expires
Landlords have policies of not renting
to voucher holders
Can't find information about landlords
that accept Section 8
Other
Voucher is not enough to cover the
rent for places I want to live
Not enough time to find a place to
live before the voucher expires
Landlords have policies of not
renting to voucher holders
Can't find information about
landlords that accept Section 8

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 459
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 36
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.

Jurisdiction
County 12% 18% 55% 27% 250 53% 49% 46% 36% 6% 203
Brisbane 22% 20% 73% 7% 15 50% 50% 42% 33% 0% 12
Burlingame 8% 0% 75% 25% 12 50% 50% 25% 8% 0% 12
Daly City 12% 14% 50% 36% 14 83% 25% 42% 17% 25% 12
East Palo Alto 14% 29% 57% 14% 7 20% 20% 40% 60% 0% 5
Foster City 12% 18% 47% 35% 17 47% 40% 27% 33% 7% 15
Half Moon Bay 19% 22% 56% 22% 9 71% 29% 29% 43% 14% 7
Hillsborough 8% 25% 75% 0% 4 67% 67% 33% 0% 0% 3
Milbrae 22% 50% 20% 30% 10 60% 40% 20% 40% 0% 5
Pacifica 11% 13% 50% 38% 8 86% 43% 43% 43% 0% 7
Redwood City 16% 13% 61% 26% 23 40% 50% 70% 45% 5% 20
San Bruno 12% 9% 64% 27% 11 40% 60% 50% 10% 10% 10
San Mateo 24% 24% 50% 26% 38 43% 54% 43% 39% 7% 28
South San Francisco 4% 11% 33% 56% 27 63% 50% 71% 63% 8% 24 Race/Ethnicity
African American 60% 24% 60% 16% 82 55% 52% 40% 31% 6% 62 Asian 14% 23% 63% 14% 71 73% 44% 31% 31% 0% 55
Hispanic 13% 15% 40% 45% 53 58% 42% 51% 49% 11% 45
Other Race 19% 29% 50% 21% 28 55% 45% 65% 35% 5% 20
Non-Hispanic White 8% 14% 61% 25% 64 43% 61% 57% 38% 4% 56 Tenure
Homeowner 8% 23% 59% 18% 78 58% 49% 42% 31% 0% 59
Renter 18% 19% 52% 30% 165 55% 52% 48% 43% 6% 134
Precariously Housed 30% 14% 66% 20% 86 57% 54% 35% 26% 7% 74 Income
Less than $25,000 29% 17% 58% 25% 84 47% 41% 47% 37% 10% 70 $25,000-$49,999 18% 17% 52% 31% 48 63% 55% 63% 40% 5% 40 $50,000-$99,999 12% 23% 52% 26% 62 55% 55% 51% 37% 2% 49 Above $100,000 5% 20% 57% 23% 35 43% 61% 29% 32% 4% 28
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 21% 20% 60% 20% 179 59% 51% 44% 35% 1% 143 Large Households 7% 20% 45% 35% 20 63% 56% 63% 56% 6% 16 Single Parent 43% 17% 58% 24% 103 62% 52% 38% 33% 2% 85 Disability 22% 18% 58% 24% 158 57% 52% 42% 29% 5% 129
Older Adults (age 65+) 17% 18% 63% 19% 123 56% 53% 44% 34% 3% 102 Not enough time to
find a place to live
before the voucher
expires
Landlords have
policies of not
renting to
voucher holders
Can't find
information about
landlords that
accept Section 8 Other n
Percent
with a
Housing
Voucher
Not
difficult
Somewhat
difficult
Very
difficult n
Voucher is not
enough to cover the
rent for places I
want to live

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 460
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 37
Displacement. Figure 14 presents the proportion of residents who experienced displacement in the past five years, as well as the reason for displacement. ¾ 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%).
¾ 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.
¾ 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. ¾ 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). ¾ 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:
¾ Moved within South San Francisco (28 respondents)
¾ Moved from outside San Mateo County to San Mateo (10 respondents) ¾ Moved from San Bruno to South San Francisco (9 respondents) ¾ Moved from Daly City to South San Francisco (9 respondents) ¾ Moved within Burlingame (8 respondents)

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 461
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 38
Figure 14. Displacement Experience and Reasons for Displacement Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 21% 2066 29% 19% 18% 417
Brisbane 24% 67 25% 31% 25% 16
Burlingame 22% 152 24% 30% 18% 33
Daly City 25% 115 35% 27% 31% 26
East Palo Alto 32% 50 20% 20% 20% 15
Foster City 11% 130 21% 21% 21% 43% 14
Half Moon Bay 31% 51 31% 25% 16
Hillsborough 12% 52 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 6
Milbrae 27% 44 42% 33% 25% 25% 12
Pacifica 21% 75 31% 31% 31% 16
Redwood City 29% 146 31% 21% 42
San Bruno 25% 89 33% 29% 24% 21
San Mateo 37% 153 35% 31% 20% 54
South San Francisco 12% 712 42% 15% 16% 81
Race/Ethnicity
African American 59% 134 29% 30% 28% 79
Asian 22% 500 31% 22% 22% 109
Hispanic 29% 397 33% 22% 18% 115
Other Race 28% 149 54% 20% 24% 41
Non-Hispanic White 14% 757 27% 20% 31% 102
Tenure
Homeowner 8% 975 27% 25% 31% 75
Renter 34% 905 32% 18% 22% 292
Precariously Housed 48% 280 23% 24% 23% 132
Income
Less than $25,000 45% 282 28% 20% 20% 20% 127
$25,000-$49,999 30% 265 31% 19% 18% 78
$50,000-$99,999 22% 517 32% 22% 18% 115
Above $100,000 8% 721 27% 20% 23% 60
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 30% 840 27% 20% 19% 249
Large Households 20% 284 32% 19% 18% 57
Single Parent 55% 240 24% 24% 20% 131
Disability 34% 711 26% 20% 20% 20% 241
Older Adults (age 65+) 22% 736 23% 22% 22% 162
Reason for Displacement
Percent
Displaced Total n
Rent
increased
more
than I
could pay
Personal/
relationship
reasons
Landlord
was selling
the home/
apartment
Landlord
wanted to
move back
in/move in
family
Landlord
wanted
to rent to
someone
else
Housing
was unsafe
(e.g.,
domestic
assault,
Forced
out for
no
reason
Health/
medical
reasons
I was
behind
on rent
Poor
condition
of
property
Utilities
were too
expensive/
shut off
Natural
disaster/
flooding/
fire n

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 462
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 39
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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 463
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 40
Figure 15. Children Changing Schools and Outcomes, Displaced Households Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 60% 306 28% 24% 25% 183
Brisbane 81% 16 38% 31% 31% 13
Burlingame 55% 22 33% 33% 33% 12
Daly City 41% 17 43% 29% 29% 29% 7
East Palo Alto 54% 13 43% 57% 29% 7
Foster City 62% 13 50% 8
Half Moon Bay 58% 12 43% 29% 29% 43% 7
Hillsborough 60% 5 67% 3
Milbrae 82% 11 33% 44% 44% 33% 9
Pacifica 91% 11 50% 10
Redwood City 52% 23 25% 33% 25% 12
San Bruno 67% 18 33% 33% 33% 12
San Mateo 66% 35 32% 32% 22
South San Francisco 36% 56 26% 26% 26% 19
Race/Ethnicity
African American 87% 69 30% 30% 32% 32% 60
Asian 73% 91 27% 32% 32% 27% 66
Hispanic 49% 91 23% 30% 23% 25% 44
Other Race 65% 31 40% 30% 25% 25% 20
Non-Hispanic White 60% 60 28% 31% 44% 28% 36
Tenure
Homeowner 74% 66 39% 29% 31% 49
Renter 58% 213 25% 30% 25% 122
Precariously Housed 78% 104 35% 34% 30% 80
Income
Less than $25,000 65% 92 22% 32% 35% 60
$25,000-$49,999 66% 56 25% 28% 28% 25% 36
$50,000-$99,999 55% 85 30% 28% 23% 47
Above $100,000 59% 44 35% 31% 38% 26
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 67% 237 32% 23% 25% 158
Large Households 45% 44 32% 26% 32% 19
Single Parent 74% 124 32% 28% 29% 92
Disability 70% 188 26% 28% 30% 132
Older Adults (age 65+) 77% 117 35% 29% 29% 89
n
Percent of
Children
that
Changed
Schools
School change outcomes
Total n
School is less
challenging/
they are
bored
School is
more
challenging
School provides more/less
support for students with
disabilities, IEP, and/or 50
They are
in a
better
school
They are
in a
worse
school
They feel
less safe at
the new
school
They
feel
safer at
the new
school
They
have
fewer
activities
They
have
more
activities
Things
are about
the same

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 464
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 41
Experience with housing discrimination. Overall, 19% of survey respondents felt they were discriminated against when they looked for housing in the area.1 As shown in Figure 16, African American respondents (62%), single parent households (44%) and precariously housed respondents (39%) are most likely to say they experienced housing discrimination. Residents with income above $100,000 and homeowners are least likely (11%).

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

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

Among top responses for actions taken in response to experienced discrimination, every group reported Nothing/I wasn’t sure what to do with the exception of African American households and Brisbane residents (both groups top response was Moved/found another place to live). Similarly, survey respondents from Foster City and Redwood City were the only groups not to include Moved/found another place to live among their top responses. African American and Asian households, as well as single parent households, were more likely than other groups to contact either a housing authority, local fair housing organization, or the California Department of Housing or Civil Rights to report their discrimination incident.

Reasons for discrimination. Respondents who believed they experienced discrimination when looking for housing in the county provided the reasons why they thought they were discriminated against. Note that the basis offered by residents is not necessarily protected by federal, state, or local fair housing law, as respondents could provide open-ended and multiple reasons why they thought they experienced discrimination.

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

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 465
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 42
Appearance/Characteristics
¾ “Because of my race and ethnicity”
¾ “[We] were given a subprime loan for home purchase for being Latinx, low-income and primarily Spanish-speaking; refinance last year was lower than expected.” ¾ “It was clear my disability is the reason”
¾ “I have a child and a couple places told me they wouldn’t rent to me due to my son.” ¾ “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.”
¾ “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
¾ “Income was through SSDI”
¾ “The landlord wanted an excellent credit score…”
¾ “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…” ¾ “They wanted someone with income from employment not due to disability.” ¾ “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.”
¾ “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
¾ 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).

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 466
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 43
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. n
Jurisdiction
County 19% 28% 45% 20% 7% 357 42% 30% 20% 359
Brisbane 22% 29% 36% 29% 7% 14 64% 21% 21% 14
Burlingame 14% 25% 50% 20% 5% 20 35% 25% 20% 20% 20
Daly City 15% 20% 40% 33% 7% 15 56% 25% 25% 16
East Palo Alto 29% 23% 54% 15% 8% 13 38% 38% 23% 23% 13 Foster City 18% 15% 40% 45% 0% 20 38% 24% 24% 21
Half Moon Bay 26% 27% 55% 9% 9% 11 27% 36% 36% 11
Hillsborough 15% 14% 71% 0% 14% 7 29% 57% 7
Milbrae 29% 36% 50% 7% 7% 14 31% 23% 38% 23% 13
Pacifica 21% 29% 36% 36% 0% 14 50% 21% 29% 21% 21% 14
Redwood City 24% 34% 34% 19% 13% 32 47% 26% 21% 21% 34
San Bruno 12% 30% 60% 0% 10% 10 50% 30% 30% 30% 10
San Mateo 30% 35% 45% 15% 5% 40 53% 26% 26% 38
South San Francisco 13% 30% 40% 23% 6% 82 59% 27% 83
Race/Ethnicity
African American 62% 16% 59% 25% 0% 83 36% 29% 27% 26% 27% 24% 84 Asian 16% 24% 50% 20% 6% 82 28% 25% 29% 29% 24% 24% 83
Hispanic 27% 25% 42% 24% 8% 107 52% 27% 107
Other Race 30% 28% 47% 14% 12% 43 47% 30% 26% 43
Non-Hispanic White 12% 38% 41% 14% 7% 91 44% 27% 18% 91 Tenure
Homeowner 11% 26% 46% 20% 7% 95 32% 29% 22% 96
Renter 28% 26% 47% 20% 6% 232 42% 32% 23% 232
Precariously Housed 39% 21% 54% 20% 4% 98 24% 28% 35% 26% 100 Income
Less than $25,000 36% 29% 51% 11% 9% 100 39% 30% 25% 102 $25,000-$49,999 24% 31% 41% 22% 6% 64 42% 36% 25% 22% 64 $50,000-$99,999 19% 27% 45% 25% 3% 97 44% 29% 18% 97
Above $100,000 11% 28% 45% 21% 7% 76 45% 22% 16% 16% 76 Household Characteristics
Children under 18 26% 21% 57% 15% 6% 216 36% 31% 26% 218 Large Households 19% 26% 52% 9% 13% 54 65% 24% 15% 55
Single Parent 44% 13% 65% 17% 5% 106 33% 32% 27% 26% 26% 107 Disability 33% 27% 48% 21% 4% 215 33% 30% 22% 219
Older Adults (age 65+) 20% 20% 51% 20% 8% 144 24% 34% 24% 24% 146 Moved/
found
another
place to
live
Nothing/ I
was afraid
of being
evicted/
harassed
Called/
emailed
housing
authority
Called/
emailed local
fair housing
organization
Don't
remember
Called/
emailed
California
Department
of Housing/
Civil Rights
Called/
emailed City
office, County
office, or
human rights
department/
agency
Filed a
complaint Other
Percent who
felt they
were
discriminated
against
In the
past
year
2 to 5
years
ago
More
than 5
years
ago n
Nothing/
I wasn't
sure
what to
do

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 467
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 44
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%).

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 468
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 45
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. n
Jurisdiction
County 35% 74% 711 34% 33% 26% 171
Brisbane 37% 72% 25 29% 29% 29% 29% 7
Burlingame 27% 80% 41 63% 50% 50% 8
Daly City 34% 68% 38 36% 36% 45% 36% 11
East Palo Alto 44% 64% 22 63% 8
Foster City 31% 83% 40 29% 29% 7
Half Moon Bay 45% 68% 22 29% 29% 7
Hillsborough 26% 100% 13 n/a
Milbrae 40% 82% 17 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 4
Pacifica 39% 93% 29 100% 2
Redwood City 42% 68% 62 33% 28% 28% 33% 18
San Bruno 40% 82% 34 50% 33% 33% 6
San Mateo 43% 72% 65 41% 47% 41% 17
South San Francisco 30% 68% 210 35% 28% 32% 57
Race/Ethnicity
African American 71% 87% 95 40% 40% 33% 15
Asian 31% 77% 157 29% 34% 26% 26% 35
Hispanic 41% 70% 162 37% 54% 35% 46
Other Race 38% 71% 56 63% 50% 44% 16
Non-Hispanic White 32% 77% 241 33% 27% 21% 52
Tenure
Homeowner 29% 82% 280 35% 37% 37% 43
Renter 39% 73% 347 41% 40% 27% 88
Precariously Housed 56% 71% 154 37% 26% 33% 43
Income
Less than $25,000 59% 71% 167 42% 27% 23% 48
$25,000-$49,999 40% 67% 107 45% 45% 45% 31
$50,000-$99,999 35% 77% 180 43% 26% 24% 42
Above $100,000 23% 82% 167 52% 34% 41% 29
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 35% 78% 293 40% 29% 32% 63
Large Households 35% 70% 99 41% 45% 34% 29
Single Parent 58% 81% 139 48% 28% 41% 29
Older Adults (age 65+) 46% 76% 337 44% 29% 30% 79
Alarm to
notify if a
nonverbal
child
leaves
the home
Fire
alarm/doorbel
l made
accessible for
person with
hearing
disability/deaf
Better
navigation
for person
who is
blind
Wider
doorways
Reserved
accessible
parking
spot by
entrance
More
private
space in
the
facility
in which
I live
Service or
emotional
support
animal
allowed
Would like
to live
alone (not
with a
roommate)
Fewer
restrictions/
more
freedom
Percent of
respondents
with a
disability
Current
housing
situation
meeting
needs
Total
n
Grab bars
in
bathroom
or bench
in shower
Supportive
services to
help
maintain
housing Ramps

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 469
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 46
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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 470
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 47
Figure 18.

Are you satisfied
with your current
transportation
options?
Source:

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

Jurisdiction
County 29% 45% 20% 6% 1,903
Brisbane 17% 33% 38% 13% 64
Burlingame 32% 45% 21% 1% 139
Daly City 19% 52% 20% 8% 109
East Palo Alto 31% 36% 24% 9% 45
Foster City 29% 43% 20% 9% 115
Half Moon Bay 30% 35% 26% 9% 46
Hillsborough 50% 34% 14% 2% 44
Milbrae 30% 45% 13% 13% 40
Pacifica 28% 42% 15% 15% 65
Redwood City 30% 36% 27% 8% 142
San Bruno 23% 54% 19% 4% 81
San Mateo 29% 52% 14% 4% 134
South San Francisco 34% 48% 15% 3% 666
Race/Ethnicity
African American 22% 21% 48% 10% 134
Asian 23% 49% 24% 4% 500
Hispanic 29% 43% 22% 7% 397
Other Race 29% 41% 21% 9% 149
Non-Hispanic White 32% 45% 17% 5% 757
Tenure
Homeowner 31% 45% 18% 6% 905
Renter 27% 44% 23% 6% 834
Precariously Housed 20% 36% 35% 9% 254
Income
Less than $25,000 22% 39% 29% 10% 282
$25,000-$49,999 25% 42% 26% 8% 265
$50,000-$99,999 28% 52% 16% 4% 517
Above $100,000 34% 44% 18% 4% 721
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 25% 43% 25% 6% 840
Large Households 29% 50% 18% 4% 284
Single Parent 20% 36% 38% 7% 240
Disability 25% 40% 27% 8% 658
Older Adults (age 65+) 30% 43% 21% 6% 736
Entirely
satisfied
Mostly
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Not at all
satisfied n

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 471
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 48
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:
¾ Hillsborough, 71%
¾ Owners, 65%
¾ Income greater than $100,000, 54%
¾ Residents of Foster City, 53%
¾ White, 51%
¾ Residents of Burlingame, 50%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Help me with a downpayment or purchase includes:
¾ Renters, 44%
¾ Large households, 42%
¾ Residents of Daly City, 41%
¾ Hispanic, 39%
¾ Precariously housed, 39%
¾ 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
¾ Precariously housed, 39%
¾ Income less than $25,000, 34%
¾ Income between $25,000-$50,000, 29%

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 472
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 49
¾ Half Moon Bay residents, 27%
Help me pay rent each month
¾ Income less than $25,000, 35%
¾ Single parent, 31%
Find a landlord who accepts Section 8
¾ 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:
¾ East Palo Alto residents, 45%
¾ Millbrae residents, 45%
¾ Other race, 42%
¾ Daly City residents, 41%
¾ Hispanic residents, 40%
¾ Income between $25,000-$50,000, 40%
¾ Income between $50,000-$100,000, 40%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Improve street crossings includes:
¾ San Mateo residents, 34%
¾ Single parent, 31%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes:
¾ Foster City residents, 37%
¾ Hillsborough residents, 36%
¾ Burlingame residents, 28%

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 473
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 50
Additionally, 42% of Millbrae respondents chose Reduce crime, 40% of Brisbane respondents chose More stores to meet my needs, and 33% of Half Moon Bay respondents chose Build more sidewalks.

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

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Make it easier to exercise includes:
¾ Redwood City residents, 48%
¾ Hispanic, 42%
¾ South San Francisco residents, 41%
¾ City of San Mateo residents, 41%
¾ Asian, 41%
¾ Renters, 40%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected More healthy food includes:
¾ East Palo Alto, residents 48%
¾ Precariously Housed, 47%
¾ Single parent, 41%
¾ Daly City residents, 40%
¾ Income less than $25,000, 38%
¾ Black or African American, 37%
¾ Large Households, 37%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes residents from:
¾ Hillsborough, 48%
¾ Burlingame, 47%
¾ Foster City, 42%
¾ White, 41%
¾ Owners, 39%

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 474
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 51
Additionally, African American (34%) and San Bruno (29%) respondents identified Better access to mental health care as a solution to help improve their health situations.

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

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Increase wages includes:
¾ Renters, 52%
¾ Single parents, 50%
¾ Hispanic, 49%
¾ Households with children, 49%
¾ Daly City residents, 49%
¾ Income between $50,000-$100,000, 49%
¾ Large households, 48%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes:
¾ Hillsborough residents, 76%
¾ Owners, 58%
¾ White, 57%
¾ Over 65+, 53%
¾ Income greater than $100,000, 53%
¾ 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:
¾ Burlingame residents, 55%

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 475
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 52
¾ White, 52%
¾ Over 65+, 51%
¾ Hillsborough residents, 49%
¾ Foster City residents, 46%
¾ Brisbane residents, 45%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Have more activities includes:
¾ Single parent, 45%
¾ Households with children, 41%
¾ Large households, 41%
¾ Other race, 37%
¾ Daly City residents, 34%
¾ Hispanic, 34%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school includes:
¾ East Palo Alto residents, 38%
¾ Precariously housed, 31%
¾ Other race, 30%
¾ Redwood City residents, 29%
¾ Hispanic, 29%
¾ 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.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 476
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-i
APPENDIX C | CONSTRAINTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 2 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Land Use Controls ................................................................................................................. 1

2.2 Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program.............................................................. 11

2.3 Density Bonus Ordinance .................................................................................................... 14

2.4 Building Codes..................................................................................................................... 15

2.5 Infrastructure Requirements................................................................................................ 15

2.6 On- and Off-Site Improvements .......................................................................................... 18

2.7 Fees ..................................................................................................................................... 19

2.8 Local Processing and Permit Procedures ............................................................................. 25

2.9 Provisions for a Variety of Housing Needs ........................................................................... 32 3 NON-GOVERNMENTAL C ONSTRAINTS....................................................................................... 37

3.1 Development Costs ............................................................................................................. 37

3.2 Availability of Financing ...................................................................................................... 38

3.3 Availability of Construction Labor ....................................................................................... 39

3.4 Neighborhood Opposition................................................................................................... 39

3.5 Non-Governmental Constraints Specific to Foster City........................................................ 39

3.6 Successful Actions to Remove Constraints. .........................................................................40

3.7 Housing Constraints Action Plan ......................................................................................... 41

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 477
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-ii CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts Including Residential Use ..............2 Table 2: Residential Uses Permitted by Zoning District ........................................................................ 3 Table 3: Development Standards for Residential Zoning Districts ........................................................4 Table 4: Recent Developments with As-Built Development Standards.................................................6 Table 5: Minimum Parking Standards for Residential Use.....................................................................9 Table 6: Yield on Cost for Rental Inclusionary Scenarios ..................................................................... 13 Table 7: Percentage of Profit Margin – For-Sale/Ownership Inclusionary Scenarios ........................... 14 Table 8: Residential Development Fees Per Dwelling Unit for Prototypical Projects........................... 21 Table 9: Total Fees per Unit Comparison: San Mateo County Jurisdictions (Includes Entitlement, Building Permits, and Impact Fees) ....................................................................................... 22 Table 10: Total Fees per Unit – Distribution of Fees Charged by San Mateo County Jurisdictions.........22 Table 11: Total Fees as a Percentage of Total Development Costs ....................................................... 23 Table 12: Summary of Foster City Fees Compared to Median............................................................... 23 Table 13: Foster City Residential Development Impact Fees ................................................................24 Table 14: Planning Fees ....................................................................................................................... 25 Table 15: Permit Processing Times by Permit Types in Foster City .......................................................29 Table 16: Permit Processing Times for San Mateo County Jurisdictions (in Months)............................. 31 Table 17: Acreage and Number of Parcels in C-1, C-2, and PF Zoning Districts ..................................... 35 Table 18: Housing Constraints Action Plan ........................................................................................... 42

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 478
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-1
1 INTRODUCTION
Many factors can constrain the provision of the quantity and affordability of housing. These include governmental factors such as land use controls, development standards, and fees as well as nongovernmental factors, such as the price of land, cost of construction, and environmental constraints.

State law, specifically Government Code Section 65583(a)(5-6) requires that the Housing Element include a discussion of the factors that present constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels and for persons with disabilities, including both government actions and market forces (non-governmental constraints).

The identification and analysis of these constraints have informed the City of Foster City’s development of appropriate programs to mitigate these constraints, as provided in Chapter 8, Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs.
2 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
City policies and regulations designed to address the City’s goals for the overall quality of housing, preservation of neighborhood character, or safety or environmental goals can also result in constraints to housing. This section describes the City’s policies and regulations that could potentially constrain housing and discusses measures to reduce such constraints.

2.1 LAND USE CONTROLS
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element
The City’s Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan includes designations for various types of land uses on the Land Use Plan and also includes policies to guide development. The Land Use categories and corresponding zoning districts that allow residential development are listed in Table 1.

Zoning Code
The City regulates the types of uses, location, density, and scale of residential development as well as specifics such as parking, open space, landscaping, and other design-related requirements through standards contained in Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code. The permitted residential uses by zoning district are included in Table 2. The basic development standards required in each zoning district are included in Table 2.

The City has two combining districts that are used to provide flexibility to the standard zoning requirements for housing. Most larger development sites have been processed under the City’s PD (Planned Development District) zoning which provides an extensive amount of flexibility in responding to City requirements for density, unit size, parking, and landscaping requirements. PD zoning (Section

17.36 of the Foster City Municipal Code) allows the Planning Commission the flexibility to modify or waive development standards for: (1) density; (2) minimum building site, lot size, floor area and yards;

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 479
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-2 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 1: General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts Including Residential Use
Designation Allowed Density Zoning Districts
Residential Categories:

Single-Family Residential Up to 8 du/acre R-1, Single-Family Two-Family Residential Up to 10 13 du/acre (amended 5/22/23) R-2, Two-Family Townhouse Residential Up to 15 du/acre R-T, Townhouse
Condominium Residential 15-35 du/acre R-3, Medium Density R-4, High Density
Apartment Residential 20-35 du/acre R-3, Medium Density R-4, High Density
Mixed Use Categories:

Town Center Commercial
As approved by General Development Plan.

This designation is applied to the Metro Center
Master Plan area. 15-60 du/acre.

C-2, General Business
Neighborhood Commercial
Housing or mixed use allowed at specifically
designated “housing opportunity sites”. Floor
Area Ratios range between 0.20 to 0.30 FAR
CM, Commercial Mix
Service Commercial with Housing
As approved by General Development Plan.

This designation is applied to the Pilgrim
Triton Master Plan area. 20-60 du/acre
(amended 5/22/23).

CM, Commercial Mix
Apartment/Neighborhood
Commercial
As approved by General Development Plan,
this designation is applied to Marlin Cove. 20-
35 units per acre (amended 5/22/23).

Civic Center Mixed Use
As approved by General Development Plan.

This designation is applied to the 15-acres that
comprise the Foster Square development. This
designation allows a range of 20-35 60 du/acre
in a multi-family setting, combined with a
commercial component up to 0.5 FAR.

Building heights will range from four to seven
stories. (amended 5/22/23).

CM, Commercial Mix
Source: Foster City General Plan; Foster City Municipal Code (3) maximum building site coverage and maximum building height; (4) setbacks; and (5) any other minimum or maximum standards (see additional discussion under Local Processing and Permit Procedures below).

The City’s Senior Housing Overlay combining district has been used to provide additional flexibility and incentives for the Metro Senior Apartments and Foster Square developments. The district regulations include the following as potential incentives: 1) reduction in parking requirements, 2) dwelling unit density bonus, 3) reduced dwelling unit sizes, 4) fee waivers/reductions, and 5) priority fast track processing.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 480
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-3
Table 2: Residential Uses Permitted by Zoning District
Residential Use R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 RT PF C-1 C-2 CM
Single-Family P P - - P Cd - - C
Two-Family (Duplex) - P - - - Cd - - C
One-Family Attached - - - - P Cd - - C
Multi-Family - - P P - Cd - C2
ADU/JADU P P P P P - - Pa Pa
Manufactured Homec
Transitional and
Supportive Housing P P P P P - - - -
Residential Care, Small P P P P P - - - -
Residential Care, Large - - - C - - - - C
Emergency Shelter - - - - - P P P -
Rooming or Boarding House C C - - - - - - -
a Multi-family ADUs are permitted by Government Code Section 65852.2 in mixed use zones in existing multi-family buildings within the portions of existing multi-family dwelling structures that are not used as livable space. Program H-D-4-a is included to amend Chapter 17.78 to clarify the allowed zoning districts. b Multi-family is not currently listed as a conditional use in the C-2 district but has been allowed as part of the Metro Center development in the C-2/PD District. Program H-D-1-c is included to amend the zoning regulations to clarify that residential or mixed use residential is allowed in the C-2 district. c Manufactured homes are not mentioned in the City’s zoning code, but the City is required to allow the installation of manufactured housing on permanent foundations in accordance with state law requirements (Section 65852.3 and 65583[c][1] of the California Government Code) for factory-built housing and manufactured homes. Program H-D-6-b is included to amend the zoning regulations to clarify that factory-built housing and manufactured homes are allowed. d Limited to convent, monastery, parsonage, or nunnery.

Source: Foster City General Plan; Foster City Municipal Code Development Standards
There are many locally imposed development standards that can affect the type, appearance, and cost of housing built in Foster City. Development standards related to the various zoning districts that allow residential development are summarized in Table 3 below.

Since the early 1970s, Foster City has had minimum floor areas for various types of units, contained Chapter 17.56 of the Municipal Code. In January 2023, the City rescinded Chapter 17.56 to remove this constraint to the provision of a wider variety of housing types and sizes.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 481
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-4 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 3: Development Standards for Residential Zoning Districts District
Minimum Lot
Area/Unit
Min. Area
(sq. ft.)
Min.

Width
(ft)
Maximum
Height
Maximum
Coverage
Minimum Open
Green
Front
Yard
(ft.)
Side
Yard
(ft.)
Rear
Yard
(ft.)
R-1, Single-Family 5000 sq.ft.
(8.7 units/acre) 5,000 40 2 stories/25 ft. avg. 50% NA 20 5 20 R-2, Two-family 3500 3350 sq.ft.**
(12.413 units/acre) 5,000 40 2 stories/25 ft. avg. 50% NA 20 5 20 R-T, Townhouse
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
R-3, Medium
Density Multiple
Family
1244 sq.ft.***
(35.0 units/acre) 20,000 200 3 stories/38 ft. avg. 50% NA47% 20 5 20 R-4, High Density
Multiple Family
1244 sq.ft.***
(35.0 units/acre) 20,000 200 5 stories/45 ft. avg. 40% 47% 20 5 20 CM, Commercial
Mix
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
PF, Public Facilities Per most restrictive
adjacent district
Per most restrictive
adjacent district
Per most
restrictive adjacent
district
15%
PD, Planned
Development
Combining District
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
Per Planned
Development
approval for each
project
*The Planned Development (PD) Combining District is required to be used with the RT and CM Districts and is optional for the other zoning districts, although used for almost all new development. The PD District allows flexibility of design which is “in accordance with the objectives, and spirit of the General Plan.” The PD District has been utilized for all new housing development in Foster City since approximately 1980. **As amended June 2023.
***As amended January 2023.

Source: Foster City Community Development Department

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 482
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-5
Minimum Lot Area per Unit. The minimum lot area per unit specifies the maximum density allowed. The standards for minimum lot areas per unit for the R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts were amended in 2023 to align with the allowed densities in the General Plan Land Use designations.

Lot Size. The lot area minimum size of 5,000 square feet for R-1 is consistent with the minimum sizes used when Foster City was created. The 5,000 square feet minimum lot size for R-1 is consistent with the General Plan density for Single-Family Residential of eight units per acre. For a single-family family dwelling, this is the smallest of the minimum lot sizes used in surrounding cities. The minimum lot size of 20,000 for R-3 and R-4 provides a sufficient land area to achieve the densities allowed by the General Plan. The smallest lot in the City developed under R-3 (1431 Beach Park Boulevard) is 1.0 acres.

Lot Width. The minimum lot width of 40 feet for R-1 and R-2 is the smallest of the minimum lot widths used in surrounding cities and does not provide a constraint to achieving the General Plan density of eight units per acre. The minimum lot width of 200 feet for R-3 and R-4 could represent a constraint to development or redevelopment by limiting the parcels that could be eligible for rezoning to R-3 or R-4 and is inconsistent with at least one existing R-3 parcel (1431 Beach Park Boulevard). A revision of lot size and other requirements such as lot width is included in Program H-D-6-e Multi-Family Objective Design Standards which includes amending the zoning regulations to ensure the densities allowed by the General Plan can be achieved.

Building Coverage and Open Green Area. Maximum lot coverage standards vary from 50% in R-1, R-2, and R-3, to 40% in R-4. The maximum lot coverage of 50% has not been an impediment to achieving General Plan densities in the R-1 and R-2 districts, especially since the coverage limit may not preclude an ADU of at least 800 square feet per Section 17.78.060.F. A review of “as-built” development standards as shown in Table 4, including development under the PD process shows that building coverage of between 40 and 50 percent is common for multi-family developments. A revision of building coverage standards is included in Program H-D-6-e Multi-Family Objective Design Standards which includes amending the zoning regulations to ensure the densities allowed by the General Plan can be achieved.

Open green area is the area of the lot that is not occupied by building coverage, parking lot or driveway (Section 17.04.400). There are requirements for open green area only in the R-3 and R-4 districts. The requirement for 47% open green area in these districts is significantly more than the 15-30 percent open green area actually provided in recent developments, as shown in Table 4. A revision of open green area standards is included in Program H-D-6-e Multi-Family Objective Design Standards which includes amending the zoning regulations to ensure the densities allowed by the General Plan can be achieved.

Height. Foster City’s zoning regulations define “height of building” as “the vertical distance from the average level of the highest and lowest points of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of a flat roof or the average height of a sloped roof.” The allowed maximum height ranges from 25 feet in R-1 and R-2 to 38 feet/3 stories in R-3 and 45 feet/5 stories in R-4. A revision of building heights is included in Program H-D-6-e Multi-Family Objective Design Standards which includes amending the zoning regulations to ensure the densities allowed by the General Plan can be achieved.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 483
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-6 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 4: Recent Developments with As-Built Development Standards

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 484
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-7
Setbacks. In the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts front and rear setbacks are 20 feet and side setbacks are 5 feet. The setbacks in R-1 and R-2 have not constrained achieving General Plan densities. As indicated in Table 4, these setbacks have not been always utilized in recent multi-family developments utilizing the PD process and could pose a constraint to development at General Plan densities in the R-3 and R-4 districts. A revision of setbacks is included in Program H-D-6-e Multi-Family Objective Design Standards which includes amending the zoning regulations to ensure the densities allowed by the General Plan can be achieved.

Evaluation of Cumulative Impacts of Development Standards Since the early 1970s, Foster City has had minimum floor areas for various types of units, contained Chapter 17.56 of the Municipal Code. In January 2023, the City rescinded Chapter 17.56 to remove this constraint to the provision of a wider variety of housing types and sizes.

Several examples of existing housing developments demonstrate that the allowable densities can be achieved under the City’s zoning regulations and development standards. The Beachwalk Apartments are developed at 30 units per acre in the R-3 zoning district. More recent developments (see Appendix D, Table 2) are evidence that the City’s standards are not an impediment to development, including the Miramar Apartments at 38.31 units per acre in the R-4/PD zoning district, the Workforce Apartments at 31 units per acre, and the Lennar Condominiums at 34.1 units per acre in the CM/PD zoning district. (All new residential units since 2002 have been multi-family developments with the exception of ADUs, and one single-family house on one new single-family parcel in 2022. Additional apartment developments have been built in the CM/PD zone at densities over 35 units per acre including Plaza (50 units per acre), Triton (57.7 units per acre), 100 Grand (47 units per acre), Alma Point (79.5 units per acre), Atria (94.9 units per acre), and Marlin Cove (36.8 units per acre). Table 4 includes development parameters of the recently built developments for comparison to the development standards in the zoning regulations.

Foster City makes extensive use of the PD, Planned Development, and Combining District to allow the City's development standards to be tailored to each development. All of the existing developments containing affordable housing were developed by utilizing the flexibility provided by the PD District. The District was "established to allow flexibility of design which is in accordance with the objectives and spirit of the General Plan." (Section 17.36.010, Foster City Municipal Code) The process requires that a General Development Plan be adopted to serve as part of the zoning map for the site. This is followed by a Specific Development Plan (Use Permit) for the site. The PD regulations allow the Planning Commission to grant waivers to the following standards without being processed under a variance procedure:
 Minimum building site.
 Minimum lot dimension.
 Maximum building site coverage.
 Minimum yards.
 Maximum building or structure height, bulk, or massing.  Maximum height of fences and walls.
 Signs.
 Street or road widths dimensions.
 Minimum floor area standards.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 485
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-8 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Any other minimum or maximum standards as usually required or applied with the exception of off-street parking requirements (10% parking waivers are allowed under a separate section).

A frequently waived standard is the minimum floor areas contained in Chapter 17.56. Program H-D-6-b is included to eliminate these minimum floor area requirements, in order to provide more flexibility to provide a wider variety of housing types. Chapter 17.56 was rescinded by Ordinance 660, adopted on January 17, 2023.

In response to State requirements for more objective design and development standards, the City has beenbegan developing objective design standards for multi-family housing in 2021-22. These standards are anticipated to be adopted in 2023, as referenced in Program H-D-6-e. This program includes a review of the other zoning requirements, including but not limited to R-3 and R-4 to ensure that the densities allowed by the General Plan can be achieved and to create objective approval findings. The coverage, setback, and other requirements will be adjusted using the information from comparable developments to ensure that the densities allowed by the General Plan designations can be achieved. This will include, but not be limited to the minimum open green area, which as can be seen in the tables above, have been provided at a much lower percentage than the R-3 and R-4 development standards. Objective Design Standards are also proposed for SB9 developments in Program H-D-6-f and for single-family homes in H-B-4-a.

Parking Requirements
Parking requirements can add significantly to the cost of housing. Parking requirements are intended to provide adequate on-site parking so that parking doesn’t impact adjacent areas.

The City’s parking requirements vary by the type of residential use and the size of the dwelling unit as indicated in Table 45. Single family homes require two covered parking stalls. Multi-family homes require between one and two covered stalls, depending on the number of bedrooms. Guest parking is required in addition at ratios of 0.5 to 0.75 stalls per unit. ADUs and senior housing have reduced parking requirements. ADUs require no additional parking if they are: 1) within 0.5 miles walking distance of public transit, 2) are a conversion ADU, 3) where there is a car share vehicle within one block, or 4) are a Junior ADU. The City’s parking regulations contained in Section 17.62 of the Foster City Municipal Code allow alternative means to address parking needs, including: (1) shared parking; (2) off-site parking; (3) Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs; (4) “in-lieu” parking fees; and (5) credit for bicycle and motorcycle stalls. Parking standards are based on unit type and number of bedrooms. The Planned Development Combining District has been utilized to allow reductions of in the number of parking stalls required as well as to allow other exceptions, such as tandem parking.

For projects meeting the requirements for density bonus, reduced parking requirements may be used, including one stall for zero to one-bedroom unit, 1.5 stalls for two and three bedroom units, and 2.5 stalls for four or more bedroom units. Further reductions are possible for developments with certain percentages of low- or very low-income units and developments within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 486
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-9
Table 45: Minimum Parking Standards for Residential Use Residential Use Parking Required
per Unit Covered/Uncovered
Single-Family
Single-Family dwelling 2 2 covered
ADU/JADU 0 to 1a Uncovered/may be in
driveway
Multi-Family
Studio unit 1 1 covered
One-bedroom unit 1.5 1 covered
Two-bedroom unit 2 1 covered
Three or more-bedroom unit 2 2 covered
Multi-Family Guest Parking
Developments of 25 or more units 0.5 stalls per unit uncovered Developments of less than 25 units 0.7 stalls per unit uncovered Senior Rental Housing
Per bedroom 0.5 stalls
Senior guest parking 0.5 stalls per unit
a Parking is not required for ADUs that are: 1) within 0.5-mile walking distance of public transit, 2) the ADU is a conversion ADU, 3) there is an approved car share vehicle within one block, 4) a JADU, or 5) ADI includes a studio with no bedroom.

Source: Chapter 17.62, Foster City Municipal Code
In 2022 the State legislature passed AB 2097 which states that a public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit, as defined. Public transit is defined to mean a “major transit stop” which is a rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal, or a bus stop with service intervals of no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. None of the public transit serving Foster City has service intervals that would qualify as a major transit stop, even when two or more routes are combined.

Some jurisdictions have used parking standards to encourage less automobile use and support transitoriented development by adding parking maximums, reducing parking minimum requirements, or in some cases eliminating parking minimum standards altogether. These approaches are most effective in jurisdictions where alternative modes of transportation, such as high-quality transit, are available.

Foster City’s current parking standards for number of stalls per unit were adopted in 1984. In a survey prepared in 2014 by 21 Elements, Foster City had the most parking stalls per unit required for a twobedroom apartment and was one of three jurisdictions with the most stalls required for a three-bedroom apartment. The guest parking requirements for 0.5 or 0.7 stalls per unit are high compared to other jurisdictions.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 487
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-10 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Program H-D-6-c is included in the Housing Element to amend parking requirements for multi-family housing as necessary, including but not limited to reducing the guest parking requirements by 50%, to allow General Plan densities to be achieved, to reduce housing costs, and to provide appropriate parking requirements for elderly, developmentally disabled, or other special needs populations.

Impacts of Development Standards on Housing Costs and Ability to Achieve Maximum Densities Based on the analysis above, the City’s standards for parking and open green area stand out as potential constraints to achieving the densities allowed by the General Plan and contributing to the cost of housing if not waived. These standards have been waived, including the use of density bonus to achieve parking reductions in the Triton Apartments and 100 Grand Apartments developments. The recent developments have provided open green area of 15 to 30 percent using the PD Planned Development Permit Process process, compared to the development standard in the R-3 and R-4 districts of 47 percent.

As the City moves forward to adopt more objective development standards, these and other standards are being evaluated as part of the creation of objective design standards, as reflected in Program H-D-6-e:

H-D-6-e Multi-Family Objective Design Standards. Amend the Zoning regulations, including but not limited to R-3 and R-4, to include objective design standards and objective approval findings for new and redeveloped multi-family or mixed-use developments to address building design as well as provision of open space and recreational amenities, including amendments to reduce lot size, increase building coverage, revise setbacks, decrease open green area and other requirements to ensure the densities allowed by the General Plan can be achieved in compliance with the Housing Accountability Act.

Code Enforcement
The City enforces code compliance to promote property maintenance in accordance with the City Zoning and Building ordinances and State and County Health Codes. The City's code enforcement program is primarily implemented as a combination of neighborhood drive-through and on a complaint driven basis.

Complaints can be submitted by mail, phone, e-mail, our online complaint app, or in person at City Hall.

City’s Code Enforcement policy is to inform the property owners of a code violation and work with them, if contact can be made, to correct the code violation. If no response is made after a series of three letters then the case is referred to the City Attorney’s Office for legal action. If legal action is taken the property owner is responsible for any legal fees incurred.

Outline of Code Enforcement Process:
 Observation: Code Enforcement Officer witnesses a code violation and documents proof of code violation
 Noticing: A series of three letters are mailed to inform the property owner of the code violation and what needs to be done to correct the code violation.
 Letter 1: Courtesy notice - informing the property owner(s) of the current code violation and how to correct the matter. This letter gives the property owner seven days to respond to the letter or correct the code violation.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 488
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-11
 Letter 2: Demand letter – this letter states that the property owner has not contact city staff or corrected the code violation and allows an additional 14 days to correct the code violation or contact city staff to set a reasonable deadline to complete the work.  Letter 3: Final notice – this letter states that the code violation has not been corrected and no contact has been made. The letter allows for an additional seven days to complete the work or contact city staff to set up a reasonable deadline to complete the work. If no contact is made and/or the work is not completed within seven days the case is referred to the City Attorney’s Office.  If no contact is made within seven days after the third letter is mailed out there are a series of calls to ensure a thorough attempt is made to contact the property owner. First, to the San Mateo Assessor’s Officer to confirm the property owner’s name and mailing address. The second is to call any contact from previous permits, business licenses, and/or utility records for the address involved.  Closed Case Letter: Thank you letter – this letter is for all cases that have been resolved and closed out. A thank you letter is mailed to the property owner informing them that the code violation has been corrected and the case is closed.
 Inspections: Before each letter is drafted a code enforcement inspection is conducted to verify if the code violation still exists, there has been progress, or if the code violation has been corrected. There can be several inspections depending on the contact with the property owner.  Correspondence: At any point during the notification process if a property owner, tenant, business owner, or owner’s representative contacts the Code Enforcement Division the Code Enforcement Officer has the ability to work out a reasonable timeline for the code violation to be addressed. If the code violation is not addressed with the agreed amount of time the next corresponding noticing letter would be mailed out to the property owner. The letter would be adjusted stating that the code violation was not corrected within the agreed timeline.  City Attorney’s Office Referral: When the code violation is not completed within the time allotted by the final notice letter the case is referred to the City Attorney’s Office for legal action. They will send a demand letter to the property owner to correct the code violation. If the violation is not corrected within the given time by the City Attorney’s Office they will ask the Code Enforcement Officer to observe if the violation has been corrected. If the violation has not been corrected the City Attorney’s Office will file a complaint against the property owner. The City Attorney’s Office does not start to charge for legal fees until a complaint is filled. During this legal action the City Attorney’s Office will ask Code Enforcement to inspect the property until the code violation is corrected.

These measures are necessary to ensure continued minimum health and safety standards are maintained and are not considered a constraint to housing supply or affordability.

2.2 BELOW MARKET RATE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM
The City has a long history of inclusionary housing, beginning in 1981 as part of the Community Development Agency under California Redevelopment Law, and continuing as a Housing Element policy requiring 20% inclusionary housing beginning in 2001.The specific details for income levels, bedroom mix, and other parameters were negotiated on a case-by-case basis. This approach, aided by tax increment funds from the Community Development Agency, produced more than 500 below market rate units between 1987 and 2022. The inclusionary units are dispersed in mixed-income developments

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 489
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-12 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
except for two affordable senior apartment developments at Metro Senior Apartments and Alma Point Senior Apartments, both of which are 100% affordable.

In March 2022, the City adopted Chapter 17.90, Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program, establishing objective standards for the inclusionary housing requirements. Chapter 17.90 provides clear, objective standards to ensure that the City’s requirements are applied consistently and are available to developers as they prepare their proposals.

The specific income level requirements in Chapter 17.90 were based on an analysis of the financial feasibility of inclusionary housing requirements utilizing market data and cost information, as well as a comparison with neighboring jurisdictions to ensure that the requirements do not unduly constrain the production of housing.1 To ensure feasibility and effectiveness, the City considered a balance between the percentage of affordable units required and the level of affordability. Greater affordability results in a higher cost to the project developer, potentially reducing the total number of units (market-rate and below-market-rate) that may be feasible. The financial feasibility study also compared the City’s proposal to neighboring jurisdictions and also included input from the development community.

The required rental percentages are: 10% very low-income, 5% low-income, and 5% moderate-income and the required percentage for ownership units is 20% moderate-income. Projects of fewer than five units are exempt. Chapter 17.90 also includes objective standards for exemptions, terms of affordability, and alternative means of compliance. The option to pay in-lieu fees is provided for housing developments of five to nine units and for fractional unit requirements. See below for more detail on how the rental and ownership inclusionary requirements were determined.

While inclusionary zoning is intended to have a positive impact on housing affordability by increasing the supply of affordable units, it has the potential to add to the cost of market rate housing. Statewide data on the cost impacts of inclusionary policies is inconclusive (per Inclusionary Zoning: The California Experience. National Housing Conference, Washington, DC 2004.) The City’s inclusionary Ordinance contained in Chapter 17.90 also provides for flexibility under certain conditions to provide an alternative or pay Below Market Rate Housing In-Lieu Fee rather than providing the affordable units on-site. An advantage of the in-lieu fee to the City is that it provides revenue to the Affordable Housing Fund, which finances the development of new affordable housing or the rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, to provide affordable housing programs in the City, to leverage flexible local funds for larger State and Federal grants, and to administer the City’s Affordable Housing Program. Other alternatives allowed under certain circumstances include construction of offsite affordable units, conversion of off-side units to affordable units, on-site clustering of affordable units, or other alternatives to on-site construction, such as donation of land.

The inclusionary housing requirements work together with incentives provided through the density bonus (Program H-E-3-a), as well as fee waivers (Program H-D-6-d), assistance in securing financing and subsidy programs (Program H-E-3-b), and priority processing for affordable housing developments (Program H-D-6-a). Chapter 17.90 provides for the City’s requirements to work in harmony with density bonus law, specifically that affordable units that satisfy the requirements of Chapter 17.90 may also be 1 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., 2022. Housing Fee Implementation Considerations, January 24.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 490
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-13
counted toward density bonus (Section 17.90.040.B) and thatthe inclusionary requirement is not applied to units awarded above the otherwise-allowed maximum density as part of a density bonus (Section

17.90.040.A).

Historically, Foster City has managed to include 15-30% inclusionary units in its residential developments as well as providing two 100% affordable senior apartment developments. However, since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderateincome households.

Rental Inclusionary Requirements
For rental units, the metric used to assess feasibility is “yield on cost”2 of about 4.2% or above to represent a feasible rental project. This is based on capitalization rates3 for existing recently built properties of around 3.3-3.4% and the expectation that a “premium” of at least 0.75% for developers/investors to take on the risk of a new construction project. Any scenario that results in at least a 4.2% yield on cost may be considered within reach of feasibility, particularly if developers are able to achieve lower costs or higher market rate pricing than assumed through such measures as building additional market-rate units through the State’s density bonus law, or even just activating the concessions and waivers that density bonus law provides. Table 5 6 below illustrates the different rental inclusionary scenarios that were considered.

Table 56: Yield on Cost for Rental Inclusionary Scenarios Scenarios
(EL-VL-L-M)
Extremely
Low
Income
30% AMI
Very Low
Income
50% AMI
Low
Income
80% AMI
Moderate
Income
110% AMI
Total
Inclusionary
Yield
on Cost
1: 0-0-0-0 4.5%
2: 0-10-10-0 10% 10% 20% 4.2%
3: 10-10-0-0 10% 10% 20% 3.8%-3.9%
4: 0-10-5-5 10% 5% 5% 20% 4.2%
5: 0-7-7-6 7% 7% 6% 20% 4.2%-4.3%
6: 5-5-5-5 5% 5% 5% 5% 20% 4.1%-4.2%
Notes: AMI = Area Median Income
Green = City’s adopted Inclusionary Requirements
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., Memorandum on Housing Fee Implementation Considerations, dated January 24, 2022.
2 Yield on cost is the net operating income (or sometimes cash flow from operations) at stabilization divided by total project cost, whereas the capitalization rate is the stabilized net operating income divided by the market value of the property. https://www.adventuresincre.com/glossary/yield-on-cost/ 3 Capitalization rate indicates the rate of return by dividing net operating income by property asset value, expressed as a percentage.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 491
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-14 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Ownership Inclusionary Requirements
For ownership units, the metric used to assess financial feasibility is a profit margin of about 14% for townhouses and 16% for condominiums. All of the 20% inclusionary scenarios modeled fall short of these thresholds, but a developer may be able to incur these inclusionary requirements and still have a feasible project if they can find savings elsewhere or achieve higher prices than assumed. Table 6 7 below indicates the estimated profit margin for several scenarios.

Table 67: Percentage of Profit Margin – For-Sale/Ownership Inclusionary Scenarios
Scenarios
(EL-VL-L-M)
Extremely
Low
Income
30% AMI
Very Low
Income
50% AMI
Low
Income
80% AMI
Moderate
Income
110% AMI
Total
Inclusionary Profit Margin
1: 0-0-0-0 0% 17%-20%
2: 0-0-0-20 20% 20% 12%-14%
3: 0-0-0-15 15% 15% 14%-15%
Notes: AMI = Area Median Income
Green = City’s adopted Inclusionary Requirements
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., Memorandum on Housing Fee Implementation Considerations, dated January 24, 2022
Affordable Housing Overlay Combining District
Concurrent with the adoption of Chapter 17.90, the City adopted Chapter 17.92, Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Combining District. This chapter requires an alternative set of inclusionary percentages compared to Chapter 17.90 for properties in the AHO Combining District. The AHO percentages are: 4% extremely low-income; 4% very low-income; and 7% low-income. The AHO reduced the overall percentage from 20% to 15% and in return, requires the provision of some extremely low-income units.

The financial feasibility was also assessed for these requirements to ensure that the requirements do not unduly constrain the production of housing. Sites zoned to include the AHO Combining District include:

Beach Cove Apartments, Franciscan Apartments, Sand Cove Apartments, Shadow Cove Apartments, The Lagoons Apartments, Lantern Cove Apartments, and Schooner Bay Apartments.

2.3 DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE
California Government Code Section 65915-65918 requires cities and counties to approve density bonuses for housing developments that contain specified percentages of below market rate housing or other specific types of housing, such as housing for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, lowincome college students, and senior housing. Projects that qualify for a density bonus are also eligible for one or more incentives/concessions, such as a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements; approval of mixed-use zoning; or other regulatory incentives or concessions which result in identifiable and actual cost reductions. A jurisdiction is required to grant the

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 492
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-15
incentive/concession unless it makes specific findings. In addition, projects that qualify for a density bonus also are eligible for a waiver of development standards, such as height, setbacks, or minimum floor areas, so that development at the increased density would be physically possible. There is no limit to the number of waivers.

Foster City’s density bonus regulations are contained in Chapter 17.86, Density Bonuses. The Chapter provides application requirements but otherwise refers to State Law for the specifics on the amounts of bonuses, incentives/concessions, or waivers. Changes to State Density Bonus Law were adopted in 2022.

Program H-E-3-a includes a review of the Chapter 17.86 to determine if amendments to the City’s regulations are necessary.

Projects that have utilized density bonuses include: The Triton Apartments (for parking reduction) and One Hundred Grand Apartments (for parking reduction).

2.4 BUILDING CODES
Foster City follows the requirements of the California Building Standards as modified by the City of Foster City in adoption of Titles 20 and 24 of the State's regulations. In October 2022 the City adopted the 2022 California Building Code (and related 2022 Codes for Plumbing, Electrical, Fire, etc.), to be effective on January 1, 2023. While the state building and energy codes add to the cost of housing, their existence ensures that all new housing units will meet minimum levels of performance for habitability, structural safety, and energy use. Cities in California are required to utilize the California Building Code, which establishes minimum construction standards. The City also administers State and Federal mandated standards regarding energy conservation and accessibility for the disabled. The City and the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department have adopted several amendments to these California Building Standards, based upon local conditions, including the following more significant provisions:
 Section 15.04.150 – Concrete Slabs
 Section15.04.170 – Roofs shall be Class B Fire Retardant or Better  Section 15.24.120 – Fire Sprinklers Required for all New Buildings and Significant Expansions  Section 15.24.130 – Convenience Stairs for Buildings Four or More Stories in Height  Chapter 15.28 – Business and Residential Security
 Chapter 15.40 – Limitations on Wood Burning Appliances Although some of these regulations, especially the ones related to fire safety, have the effect of increasing the cost of housing, they have beneficial economic and safety effects over the long term by reducing losses due to fires and other factors.

2.5 INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
The City’s infrastructure was initially designed to accommodate the ultimate buildout projections of the City, which have not changed significantly.

Water is purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) pursuant to an agreement which expires in 2034. The individual supply guarantee for Foster City (Estero Municipal Improvement District [EMID]) is 5.9 million gallons per day (MGD). (The EMID service area includes all of Foster City and the Mariners Island/Bridgepointe area of San Mateo.) Although the water supply

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 493
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-16 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
agreement and accompanying water supply contract expire in 2034, the supply assurance survives their expiration and continues indefinitely. The individual supply guarantee can be reduced during times of drought or when the volume of water storage in SFPUC’s reservoirs falls below certain levels. The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) prepared by EMID address how water rationing and/or other measures will be used to address any temporary water shortage. The UWMP includes projections for increased population as well as implementation of conservation measures. The UWMP is required to be updated every five years. The current 2020 UWMP was adopted in July 2021.

A Water Capacity Study was conducted to assess total projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years during a 20-year projection compared to the projected water demand associated with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, in addition to existing and planned future uses in the EMID service area. The Water Capacity Study concludes that the water demand associated with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, in addition to the existing and future uses will be accommodated during non-drought years within a 20-year projection. However, during single and multiple dry years, EMID’s total annual water demand is expected to exceed EMID’s available water supplies from 2025 to 2045 with or without the additional demand from the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The estimated demand from the 2023-2031 Housing Element, in addition to the demand from the existing and planned future uses, will exacerbate EMID’s existing projected water supply shortfall during single and multiple dry years.

The Housing Element includes Policy H-A-4 and several programs to address the projected water supply issue as follows:

H-A-4 Adequate Water Supply and Sewer Capacity for New Housing Development. The City will work with the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors to ensure there is adequate water supply and sewer capacity to support the development of the RHNA.

H-A-4-a Adequate Water Supply. Work with EMID to develop water conservation requirements and/or increased water supply that will ensure sufficient water capacity to accommodate the RHNA, such as the potential use of water demand offset policies, require new and renovated developments to have “net neutral” water demand, or use of recycled water for irrigation.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, EMID Timeframe: Prior to or concurrent with adoption of Housing Element Funding Source: General Fund
H-A-4-b Housing Element Transmittal to EMID. Upon adoption of the Housing Element, Provide a copy to EMID in compliance with California Government Code Section 65589.7.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Within five (5) days of adoption
Funding Source: General Fund
H-A-4-c Update Urban Water Management Plan. Work with EMID on updates to the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and other policies and procedures to ensure implementation of the required priority for water and sewer service for developments with units affordable to lower-income households, as required

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 494
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-17
by California Government Code 65589.7.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Public Works Department
Timeframe: Assist with update of next UWMP by 2025
Funding Source: General Fund
H-A-4-d Water Conservation. Work with EMID to develop, promote, and implement water conservation methods and programs for new and existing developments, such as low flow fixtures, rebate programs, “lawn begone”, etc. Improve promotion by providing information on conservation programs to building permit applicants.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, and EMID Timeframe: Improve Building Division website and handout information on conservation programs by June 2024
Funding Source: General Fund
Wastewater treatment is provided by the San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which is jointly owned by the EMID and the City of San Mateo and serves over 130,000 people and businesses.

EMID owns approximately 25 percent of the treatment plant. The WWTP has a permitted capacity of 15.7 million gallons per day (MGD) for average dry weather flow (ADWF). The current ADWF is approximately 11 MGD.4
Based on current flow data, average daily dry weather flows are below the capacities anticipated in the Joint Powers Agreement
The WWTP is an aging wastewater collection system, with facilities and components that are up to 75 years old. To address these issues, the City of San Mateo’s Clean Water Program is upgrading and expanding the WWTP facilities in collaboration with Foster City/EMID. The WWTP upgrades will accommodate heavy storm events up to 78 MGD. Construction was initiated in August 2019 with an anticipated date of completion in 2024.355 In addition, the WWTP is currently undergoing an approximately $600 million expansion on the liquid processing side of the plant to better address wet weather events.6
In addition, there are number of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects scheduled through 2039 to improve the existing conditions of the sanitary sewer infrastructure. Projects include lift stations, sanitary sewer manholes, force mains, and gravity sewers that were identified as hotspots in EMID’s 2019 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. The City is currently carrying out Phase 5 of its CIP projects.

Phase 6 of the proposed CIP is set to start in FY 2023-2024 and phase 8 in 2027-2032.

Dry utilities are readily available to all sites in the Sites Inventory due to the fact that they are already developed. With the exception of regional electric transmission lines, all utility lines have been installed underground since the beginning of Foster City. There are multiple telecommunications providers in 4 City of Foster City, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Estero Municipal Improvement District. Available at:
https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/page/30281/ local_hazard_mitigation_plan_safety_element.pdf, accessed November 8, 2022 5 City of San Mateo, 2018. Clean Water Program: WWTP. Available at: http://cleanwaterprogramsanmateo.org/ wwtp/, accessed May 18, 2022
6 Galli, Laura, Engineering Manager. City of Foster City, 2022. Personal communication with Urban Planning Partners, June 20, 2022.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 495
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-18 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Foster City including AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Crown Castle, each with their respective consumer packages for video, data, and landline-based telephone services. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates California’s telecommunications industry and requires that local phone service providers anticipate and serve new growth. To meet this requirement, local providers continually upgrade their facilities, technology, and infrastructure to remain in conformance with California Public Utilities Commission tariffs and regulations and to serve customer demand in the City.

As noted above, with the exception of water supply, the utility infrastructure does not pose a significant constraint to the development of housing to accommodate the RHNA. Each development proposal is required to perform a site-specific study of pipe capacities to determine if any upsizing of utility lines is necessary, but these are typical and expected costs of development.

2.6 ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Street and infrastructure standards have a direct impact on housing construction costs, as well as on subdivision design. There have been no new public streets built in Foster City since the early 1980’s except for Balclutha Drive between Foster City Boulevard and Shell Boulevard as part of the Peninsula Jewish Community Center project. No new public streets are anticipated. In general, residential street widths have a 50-foot right-of-way and are 35 feet from curb-to-curb. However, all recent multi-family projects have been developed as Planned Developments. Through this process, the City has allowed lesser street widths, with recent examples being 20 to 24 feet from curb-to-curb. By using a planned development process for key housing sites, allowances can be made to conform street standards and improvements to the projects’ needs and impacts. The Land Use and Circulation Element includes a policy that allows private streets to be approved with narrower than standard street widths for public streets.

Street widths are noted in the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows:
 Publicly Owned Local Residential Streets: Standards for publicly owned residential streets require a 50- to 60-foot right-of-way, with parking on both sides.  Privately Owned Local Residential Streets: Private streets typically are cul-de-sac or loop streets, with a narrow right-of-way – 26 feet for streets without parking, 32 feet if parking on one side, and 40 feet if parking on both sides.

Improvements required to be installed by each subdivider pursuant to Chapter 16.40 include the following:
 Curbs, gutters, sidewalks and walkways.
 Water lines, gas and other utility services to serve each lot and stubbed to the property line prior to paving.
 Fire hydrants of a type and size approved by the public safety department. Fire flows shall be as approved.
 Sanitary sewers and laterals to serve each lot and stubbed to the property line prior to paving.  Storm sewers, drains and channel improvements when necessary for general use of development.  Silt basins or other forms of erosion control when necessary for general use of development.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 496
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-19
 Paved streets.
 Ornamental street lights. The planning commission shall require underground wiring unless topographical or soil conditions make such underground installation impractical in their opinion.  Street trees, not less than one tree per lot, average spacing fifty feet on center, of a type approved by the planning commission.
 Street signs at all block-number changes and at locations approved by the city planner.  Street-end barricades, walls or fencing where required.  Stop or yield signs where a street intersects with a major street or at other locations required by the planning commission.
 Utility distribution lines.

The recent residential developments including Foster Square and Pilgrim Triton are evidence that the City’s on- and off-site improvement requirements do not unduly constrain the production of housing.

2.7 FEES
To assist jurisdictions in meeting requirements for analysis of fees and permit processing, 21 Elements released a survey to all jurisdictions in San Mateo County. The survey asked about potential government constraints to housing, including impact fees, entitlement fees, building permit fees, and permit processing times. In conjunction with that survey, 21 Elements hired Century Urban, a San Francisco based real-estate consulting firm, to examine the cost of land and labor for new housing development in the County. Combined, those two data sets provide a basis for a preliminary examination of constraints for jurisdictions in San Mateo County.

Participation in the 21 Elements government restraints survey was excellent, with 18 of 21 jurisdictions participating. While not all the respondents answered all the questions, the high overall participation results in a meaningful look at the landscape of government-imposed fees in San Mateo County. 21 Elements distributed the survey in November 2021 and accepted results through February 2022.

The survey asked jurisdictions to calculate fees for three hypothetical housing developments: a singlefamily house, a 10-unit apartment building, and a 100-unit apartment building.

Single-Family Home – Participants were asked to estimate fees for one of two, hypothetical singlefamily home developments:
 2,600-square-foot house with 500-square-foot garage. The house is two stories tall with four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The house is constructed on an empty lot in an existing neighborhood and requires no significant grading or other complications.  5,000-square-foot house with 1,000-square-foot garage. House is two stories tall with four bedrooms and three bathrooms. The house is constructed on an empty lot in an existing neighborhood and requires no significant grading or other complications.

Three jurisdictions—Atherton, Woodside, and Unincorporated San Mateo—choose to estimate fees for the larger house. All other respondents estimated fees for the smaller house. For purposes of

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 497
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-20 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
comparison, all the data are presented in the same table, regardless of which size hypothetical house was chosen.

Small Multi-Family – Jurisdictions were asked to estimate the fees for the following hypothetical development:
 10-unit apartment building with 9,000 square feet of two-bedroom apartments and 12,000 square feet of three-bedroom apartments. No zoning changes required, and the project is permitted by right. The development requires medium complexity, moderate grading work. There is existing public street frontage and no public landscaping or traffic signal work is required. There is air conditioning. There are no sprinklers.

Large Multi-Family – Jurisdictions were asked to estimate fees for the following, hypothetical development:
 100-unit building on 2 acres with 80,000 total square feet construction type V over concrete podium. o Requires conditional use permit; high complexity.
o Significant grading work (5,000 cubic yards).
o Type 1 erosion/sediment control.
o Existing public street frontage needs $400,000 of frontage improvements (half-street reconstruction).
o No public landscaping.
o No traffic signal work.
o Sprinklers and air-conditioning (HVAC).
o Average Unit is 750 square feet; units range from studio to two-bedroom.

The Foster City fees estimated for these prototypical projects are shown in Table 7 8 and compared to neighboring jurisdictions in Table 89.

In order to get a sense of how dispersed the fee amounts charged by jurisdictions are, 21 Elements calculated the median, the range, and the interquartile range for all the fee types, as shown in Table 10.

A larger range and interquartile range indicate more dispersion of the fee amounts charged; a smaller range and interquartile range indicate more uniformity of the fee amounts charged. An interquartile range is the range of the middle 50% of the data—in this case fees charged. It is sometimes more useful than range in assessing dispersion because it excludes any outlier data. Total fees as a percentage of total development costs is shown in Table 11.

Foster City’s fees per unit, including the percentage of total development costs and a comparison to the median of fees are shown in Table 1112. Foster City’s fees are higher than the median but within the interquartile range for single-family and multi-family units in a small project but are significantly lower than the median and the quartile 1 for multi-family units in a large project.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 498
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-21
Table 78: Residential Development Fees Per Dwelling Unit for Prototypical Projects
Type of Fee Single-Family
Multi-Family,
Small Project
Multi-Family,
Large Project
Planning Review (Entitlement) 3,000 500 100
Building Permit Fees 9,187 16,000 1,600
C and D Application Fee 318 34 3
Electrical Permit Fees (incl. fire alarm) 75 445 45
Fire 524
General Plan, Building Ordinance, Zone
Ordinance Fee 880 2,619 262
Grading Permit Fees 80 203 20
Green/SB 1473 34 104 10
Mechanical Permit Fees 80 1,314 131
Microfilming Processing Fee 500 1 1
Miscellaneous Fees 105 731 73
Plan Check Fee 7,401 11,197 1,120
Sewer Service 7,652 5,073 5,073
System Wide Technology Fee 326 2,010 201
Water Service Connection Fee 37,724 6,403 2,531
SMC Fire Fees 545 118
Total 67,886 47,179 11,288
Source: Foster City Community Development Department
Development Impact Fees are one-time charges levied on new developments and serve as tools to mitigate the impacts of new development by funding a range of capital programs required to address needs related to that development, including transportation, parks, utilities (such as water, sewer, and storm drain), public safety, and capital facilities such as the Recreation Center.

There are different categories of development impact fees based on the services they fund such as transportation fees, library fees, park fees, affordable housing fees, capital improvement fees, utility impact fees, etc.

Prior to June 2022 Foster City had adopted impact fees for affordable housing (commercial linkage fee), park in-lieu fees, and sewer and water connection fees for new development. The park in-lieu fee was established in 1984 to ensure that new residential subdivisions contribute to the City’s park system with park land dedication, credit for on-site facilities, or in-lieu fee payments. The Commercial Linkage Fee was adopted in 2016 and is levied on commercial developments to support affordable housing.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 499
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-22 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 89: Total Fees per Unit Comparison: San Mateo County Jurisdictions (Includes Entitlement, Building Permits, and Impact Fees)
Jurisdiction Single-Family Small Multi-Unit Large Multi-Unit Atherton $15,941 No Data No Data
Brisbane $24,940 $11,678 No Data
Burlingame $69,425 $30,345 $23,229
Colma $6,760 $167,210 $16,795
Daly City $24,202 $32,558 $12,271
East Palo Alto $104,241 No Data $28,699
Foster City $67,886 $47,179 $11,288
Half Moon Bay $52,569 $16,974 No Data
Hillsborough $71,092 No Data No Data
Millbrae $97,756 $6,824 $55,186
Pacifica $33,725 $40,151 No Data
Portola Valley $52,923 No Data No Data
Redwood City $20,795 $18,537 $62,696
San Bruno $58,209 $72,148 $39,412
San Mateo $99,003 $133,658 $44,907
South San Francisco $81,366 $76,156 $32,471
Unincorporated San Mateo $36,429 $27,978 $10,012
Woodside $70,957 $82,764 No Data
Source: 21 Elements
Table 910: Total Fees per Unit – Distribution of Fees Charged by San Mateo County Jurisdictions
Single-Family Small Multi-Unit Large Multi-Unit
Quartile 1 $27,136 $20,897 $14,533
Median Fee Charged $55,566 $36,355 $28,699
Quartile 3 $71,058 $75,154 $42,160
Interquartile Range $71,057 $75,153 $42,159
Total Range $97,481 $160,387 $52,684
Source: 21 Elements

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 500
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-23
Table 1011: Total Fees as a Percentage of Total Development Costs Jurisdiction Single-Family Small Multi-Family Large Multi-Family Atherton 0% No Data No Data
Brisbane 1% 1% No Data
Burlingame 3% 4% 3%
Colma 0% 17% 2%
Daly City 1% 4% 2%
East Palo Alto 4% No Data 4%
Foster City 3% 6% 2%
Half Moon Bay 2% 2% No Data
Hillsborough 3% No Data No Data
Millbrae 2% 8% 7%
Pacifica 1% 5% No Data
Portola Valley 1% No Data No Data
Redwood City 1% 2% 8%
San Bruno 2% 8% 5%
San Mateo 4% 14% 6%
South San Francisco 3% 9% 4%
Unincorporated San Mateo 1% 3% 1%
Woodside 2% 9% No Data
Note: The above table is calculated using average soft costs (including an average of jurisdiction charged fees) and average land costs for the county. A more precise determination of fees as a percentage of total development costs can be calculated using jurisdiction specific land costs and fees.

Source: 21 Elements
Table 1112: Summary of Foster City Fees Compared to Median Project Type
Fees
per Unit
Percentage
of Total
Development Cost
Median
of Fees for
21 Jurisdictions
Single-Family $67,886 3% $55,566
Multi-Family in Small Project $47,179 6% $36,355
Multi-Family in Large Project $11,288 2% $28,699
Source: 21 Elements
In 2021, the City entered into an agreement for a comprehensive Impact Fee Study. In June 2022, the City Council adopted development impact fees of $18,644 for a single-family unit and $14,538 for a multifamily unit, as indicated in Table 12 13 below. With the proposed new impact fees added, compared to other San Mateo County jurisdictions Foster City total fees for single-family units at $86,530 are higher than the interquartile, total fees for multi-family units in small developments at $61,717 are above median

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 501
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-24 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
but within the interquartile, and total fees for multi-family units in large developments at $25,826 are slightly less than the median. This indicates that Foster City’s fees are close to what other cities charge and are therefore not likely to be a significant impediment to development.

Table 1213: Foster City Residential Development Impact Fees Land Use Parks Public Safety Transportation Total Maximum Fee Single Family $14,926 $1,594 $2,123 $18,644
Multi-Family $11,639 $1,243 $1,656 $14,538
Source: Resolution No. 2022-75. Information about residential development standards, zoning, and fees is provided on the City’s website in compliance with Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1) at: https://www.fostercity.org/commdev/page/residentialdevelopment-standards-and-fees.

A 75% reduction will be applied for very low- and low-income affordable units, provided that at least 20% of the units in the project are designated as affordable, and a 100% fee reduction will be applied for very low- and low-income units if at least 25% of the units in the project are designated as affordable. In addition to the impact fees listed in Table 13, there is a Park In Lieu of Land Dedication Fee based on the fair market value of land that would otherwise have been dedicated at a ratio of five acres per 1,000 project residents.

The City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District creates an annual fees and charges schedule that is approved by the City Council / District Board. The Master Fee Schedule for the past three fiscal years can be found here: https://www.fostercity.org/finance/page/master-fees-and-servicecharges-schedule. Entitlement processing fees are charged based on the actual staff and/or consultant time it takes to process the application. The various planning fees are listed in Table 1314.

Fees Summary
Housing construction imposes certain short- and long-term costs upon local government, such as the cost of providing planning services and inspections. As a result, the City relies upon various planning and development fees to recoup costs and ensure that essential services and infrastructure are available when needed. Most, if not all, developers consider any fee a significant constraint to the development of affordable housing. Although the various fees account for a significant portion of the development cost, the fees collected are necessary to pay for much needed infrastructure and to help mitigate new growth throughout the city. Foster City’s fees are higher than the median but within the interquartile range for single-family and multi-family units in a small project but are significantly lower than the median and the quartile 1 for multi-family units in a large project.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 502
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-25
Table 1314: Planning Fees
Fee Category Fee Amount
Preliminary Project Review-City Council/Planning
Commission Review Actual Cost with minimum $2,000 deposit Preliminary Project Review-Staff Review Actual Cost with minimum $1,000 deposit General Plan Amendment Actual Cost with minimum $5,000 deposit Variance Actual Cost with minimum $2,000 deposit
Zoning Text/Map Amendment Actual Cost with minimum $5,000 deposit Use Permit Modification-Administrative Minor Use Permit Actual Cost with minimum $500 deposit Use Permit Modification-Administrative Major Use Permit Actual Cost with minimum $3,000 deposit Use Permit Modification-Planning Commission/City Council Actual Cost with minimum $3,000 deposit Use Permit-Administrative Actual Cost with minimum $750 deposit Use Permit-Planning Commission/City Council Actual Cost with minimum $3,000 deposit Use Permit-Specific Development Plan Actual Cost with minimum $5,000 deposit Density Bonus Fees Actual Cost with minimum $500 deposit Architectural Review-Administrative Minor Actual Cost with minimum $750 deposit Architectural Review-Administrative Major Actual Cost with minimum $2,000 deposit Architectural Review-Planning Commission Actual Cost with minimum $3,000 deposit Environmental Assessment Actual Cost with minimum $1,000 deposit Environmental Impact Report Actual Cost with minimum $5,000 deposit Development Agreement Actual Cost with minimum $5,000 deposit Disposition and Development Agreement Actual Cost with minimum $5,000 deposit Owner Participation Agreement Actual Cost with minimum $5,000 deposit Tentative Subdivision Map Actual Cost with minimum $772.55 deposit Tentative Parcel Map Actual Cost with minimum $772.55 deposit Lot Line Adjustment Actual Cost with minimum $465.20 deposit Source: Foster City Master Fee Schedule. Information about residential development standards, zoning, and fees is provided on the City’s website in compliance with Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1) at: https://www.fostercity.org/commdev/ page/residential-development-standards-and-fees.

2.8 LOCAL PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
The City recognizes that the time required to process a development proposal can be a barrier to housing production if it is lengthy. The City has streamlined its development review process over the years to make it more efficient, while still providing adequate opportunity for public review and input.

Process Overview
A property’s designation on the General Plan Land Use map serves as a guide to land use potential.

Specific standards for development, such as height, setbacks, lot coverage and uses are established by the City’s Zoning Ordinance in the base district.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 503
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-26 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
The PD or planned development combining district is designed to accommodate various types of development such as housing, neighborhood or community centers or other uses or a combination of uses, such as housing combined with commercial and offices. The PD district is established to allow flexibility of design which is in accordance with the objectives and spirit of the General Plan. Flexibility is provided by enabling the developer to request to modify the development standards, land uses, land intensities, building heights, design guidelines, etc. in the base district to respond to area and site conditions, as well as market and development timing needs.

In general, the PD approval process involves three major steps: (1) combined review and approval of rezoning and general development plan; (2) Specific Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit; and (3) construction approvals. The General Development Plan, approved as part of step 1, establishes the parameters for future development, including allowable uses, number of units, land use configuration, circulation and building heights. This provides certainty for the future development of the site, which may subsequently occur as one development or in phases. The applicant may choose to process both the General Development Plan and the Specific Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit simultaneously to reduce processing time.

The City utilizes an Inter-Departmental Evaluation Committee (IDEC) made up of representatives from each City department to provide feedback on a project within 2 to 3 weeks of the project application. This process eliminates future surprises that can result in delays in project processing.

Following the IDEC review, major projects are typically reviewed by the Planning Commission at one or more Study Sessions. This provides the developer with an opportunity to hear and respond to concerns raised by staff, the Planning Commission, or the public prior to the public hearing on the project. The Study Session process can take place while the environmental assessment as required by the California Environmental Quality Act is being performed.

Following the Study Session(s), the project is scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission.

Depending on the type of application, a public hearing by the City Council may also be required. If the project does not require an environmental impact report and the developer meets the City's submittal requirements and is able to respond quickly to requests for redesign, the process can move quickly, with elapsed time from Use Permit application to approval ranging from three to six months.

Preliminary Review for General Plan or Zoning Amendments Foster City has a process for preliminary screening of development projects involving proposed general plan or zoning ordinance amendments. The process provides for:
 Meaningful public discussion of development projects, at the earliest feasible time, for the guidance of the public, project proponents and city decision makers.  An opportunity to proponents to obtain early, nonbinding preliminary comments from decision makers on development projects to encourage sound and efficient private decisions about how to proceed.

The preliminary review process is intended to be a time-saving process that benefits the project applicant. It helps reduce the time and money spent revising plans to meet City standards before the application go to public noticing or hearing.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 504
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-27
Interdepartmental Evaluation Committee (IDEC)
The Interdepartmental Evaluation Committee (IDEC) is comprised of representatives from the Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Public Works and Community Development Departments. This one stop review process provides applicants with preliminary comments and requirements to help prepare plans and documents for formal application. The IDEC process provides an opportunity for the applicant to meet with Department representatives to ask questions and hear feedback in addition to a written comment letter.

Conditional Use Permits
No Conditional Use Permit is required for single-family in R-1 and R-2 zones and multi-family dwellings in R-T, R-3, R-4, and R-5 and mixed-use zones, regardless of height. A conditional use permit for residential use is required in C-2 district as this zone is meant for general business.

Use Permits may be approved if the Planning Commission can make the finding that the establishment of the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and it will not be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city.

Consistent with the Housing Accountability Act, housing development projects cannot be denied, or the density reduced, if the project complies with the City’s objective standards, even if a Conditional Use Permit were required. Processing for CUP applications normally require three to six months. However, CUPs may be appealed, and in such instances, the processing time can be extended.

Planned Development (PD) Combining District
Foster City provides a process to allow certain zoning requirements to be different from those which otherwise would be required by a Zoning district. The Planned Development (PD) combining district allows flexibility of design which is in accordance with the objectives and spirit of the general plan. The applicant can choose to comply with the objective standards in the base zoning or may request flexibility in those standards. The following standards as usually prescribed by the zoning ordinance may, upon Planning Commission approval, be waived in a PD district without being processed under the variance procedure:

1. Minimum building site.

2. Minimum lot dimension.

3. Maximum building site coverage by buildings and structures.

4. Minimum yards.

5. Maximum building or structure height, bulk or massing.

6. Maximum height of fences and walls.

7. Signs.

8. Street or road widths dimensions.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 505
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-28 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

9. Any other minimum or maximum standards as usually required or applied with the exception of offstreet parking requirements.

The PD combining district provides a vehicle for encouraging flexibility in design standards and is not considered a constraint. The PD process has been used for most residential developments in Foster City to provide individual/unique development standards that would not otherwise be allowed. For example, the Foster Square development created a set of design guidelines for site layout, building treatment, and landscape that facilitated a coordinated approach and provided guidance to the various developers of the different sites within Foster Square. This provided the developers with more certainty regarding the City’s expectations and a quicker review of the specific proposals.

Findings
Findings are required for various types of approval, as listed below:
 General Development Plan Findings (PD District):
o The planned development is substantially in conformance with the adopted city general plan; o If applicable, a final subdivision map for the proposed planned development can be recorded within two years of the expected date of adoption of the general development plan for the planned development;
o That the total development in each individual development phase can exist as an independent unit, adequate assurance will be provided that such objective will be attained; that the uses proposed will not be detrimental to present and planned surrounding uses, as shown in the city’s adopted general plan, but will have a beneficial effect which could not be achieved without being located in a PD district;
o The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and proposed densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the development;
o Existing or proposed utility services and facilities and other public improvements are adequate for the population densities and land uses proposed;
o The proposed ratios for off-street parking are consistent with the parking regulations of the city, as provided in Chapter 17.62;
o The planned development will not have a detrimental and unmitigatable financial impact on the city or the Estero Municipal Improvement District.
 Use Permit Findings:
o That the establishment, maintenance or cooperation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use; and
o That the use will not be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city.
 Architectural Review Findings:
o That the proposal is consistent with the Foster City general plan and Title 17, Zoning, and Chapter

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 506
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-29

2.28, Planning, of the Foster City Municipal Code.
o That the design of the proposal is appropriate to the city, the neighborhood and the lot in which it is proposed.
o That the design of the proposal is compatible with its environment with respect to use, forms, materials, colors, setbacks, location, height, design, or similar qualities as specified in Section

17.58.010.

Program H-D-6-e includes amending the zoning regulations to provide objective approval findings at the same time the City adopts Multi-Family Objective Design Standards by December 2023.

Processing Times
Typical permit processing times for various permit types in Foster City are described in Table 1415.

Table 1415: Permit Processing Times by Permit Types in Foster City Permit
Process Type Level of Review
Typical
Processing
Time
(Months) Detailed Description
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Process
Ministerial
(by-right) Staff 1 to 2 Building permit
Ministerial
By-Right
Ministerial
(by-right) Staff 1 to 2
Building permits for projects that
comply with applicable building,
zoning, and development regulations;
parcel maps; and lot line adjustments
Discretionary
By-Right Discretionary Staff 1 to 2
Includes certain architectural review
approvals; use permit modifications;
lot line adjustments
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary Planning
Commission 3 to 6
Includes certain conditional use
permits, certain architectural review
permits, and planned development
permits. Includes tentative maps;
planned development permits are not
required for residential development
but are an option for residential
developments in PD districts to allow
greater flexibility than standard
zoning
Discretionary
(City Council) Discretionary
Planning
Commission
Recommendation
and City Council
approval
6 to 12
Includes easement vacations, public
right-of-way vacations, rezoning, and
land use plan amendments
Source: Foster City Community Development Department

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 507
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-30 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
All new residential construction requires one or more permits from the local jurisdiction. The time required for the permit process can be a constraint on housing when the processing times are unduly long, or when the processing times for certain types of housing—particularly higher density or multi-unit housing—are longer or more burdensome than for other housing types. Longer processing times—or permitting uncertainty—increases costs for developers and can dampen new housing construction within a jurisdiction. Reducing processing times and increasing by-right housing permits can result in more housing—and possibly less expensive housing—within a jurisdiction.

In Foster City, single-family home applications (a single unit on an existing lot) take approximately one to two months and depend upon a complete submittal; while a multi-family residential development consisting of 15 units or more can take approximately six to nine months. These timeframes are not unusual for residential developments in the region. The discrepancy in length of approval time between single family and multi-family developments is due to the level of complexity of larger multi-family projects. An Architectural Review permit is required for new buildings, structures, or additions to existing structures.

Estimated permit processing times for the jurisdictions in San Mateo County are included in Table 1516.

Foster City’s typical permit processing times are estimated to be shorter than most of the other jurisdictions in San Mateo County.

Process Summary
In conclusion, Foster City’s development and permitting process is not a constraint to housing development. The relatively small size of the City staff facilitates the various departments working closely to guide applicants through the development process. The City maintains public information on the City’s website to assist applicants, consistent with Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1)(B), including information on fees, zoning and development standards, application requirements, fee reports, and nexus studies. Review by IDEC and at Planning Commission Study Sessions provide the applicant with early, informal feedback before expending additional time and expense on detailed plans. The additional objective design standards proposed in Programs H-B-4-a Update Architectural and Solar Guidelines for Single-Family Homes, H-D-6-e Multi-Family Objective Design Standards, and H-D-6-f SB9 Objective Design Standards will provide additional predictability to the City’s requirements.

Requests to Develop at Densities Below Those Permitted
State law requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities less than those projected in the Sites Inventory. Review of recent multi-family housing approvals indicates that the number of units approved has been consistent with those projected in the 2015-2023 Housing Element, and even higher in the Pilgrim Triton development due to the rezoning of the Phase C site from office to housing. Densities of recently approved projects are included in Appendix D, Table 2.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 508
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-31
Table 1516: Permit Processing Times for San Mateo County Jurisdictions (in Months)
ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Hearing
Officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
Atherton 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 4 N/A 2 to 4 2 to 6
Brisbane 1 to 2 2 to 6 N/A N/A 4 to 12 6 to 14
Burlingame 1 to 2 2 to 3 2 to 3 N/A
3-4 standard
project; 12
major project
13 Colma 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 4 N/A 4 to 8
Daly City 1 to 2 2 to 4 N/A N/A 4 to 8 8 to 12
East Palo Alto 1 to 3 8 to 12 6 to 14 20 to 40 20 to 40 20 to 40 Foster City 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 2 N/A 3 to 6 6 to 12
Half Moon Bay 1 to 2 2 to 4 3 to 6 4 to 12 6 to 15
Hillsborough - - - - - -
Millbrae 0 to 2 3 to 6 1 to 3 3 to 8 3 to 8 4 to 9
Pacifica 1 to 2 2 to 3 4 to 5 5 to 6 5 to 6 7 to 8
Redwood City 2 to 3 3 to 4 N/A 8 to 10 12 to 18 18 to 24 San Bruno 2 3 to 6 N/A 3 to 6 9 to 24 9 to 24
San Mateo 4 to 8 1 to 2 4 to 7 N/A 9 to 12 9 to 13
South San Francisco 1 1 2 to 3 2 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 9
Unincorporated
San Mateo 1 to 3 3 to 6 4 to 9 6 to 12 6 to 18 9 to 24
Woodside 1 to 2 1 to 2 N/A N/A 2 to 6 3 to 8
Source: 21 Elements
Length of Time between Application Approval and Building Permit Issuance Many factors can impact the length of time between application approval and building permit issuance, including permits needed from other agencies, such as the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), ability to obtain financing, performing required technical and engineering studies, completion of construction drawings, obtaining construction bids, and retention of a building contractor and subcontractors. For a recent example, the Laguna Vista (Pilgrim Triton Phase C) development, the Use Permit application approval was granted in April 2019, grading permits were issued in May 2020, and the first building permit was issued in October 2020. For a project of this size, 90 units, thirteen months from entitlement approval to a grading permit indicates the City’s requirements did not unduly hinder the project from moving forward.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 509
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-32 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
SB 35 Streamlining Process
Foster City was one of a small number of jurisdictions that was not subject to SB 35 streamlining for the RHNA 5 cycle, based on the pro-rata portion of the RHNA produced at the mid-point of the RHNA cycle.

SB 35 requires a streamlined ministerial approval process for housing developments in jurisdictions that have not made sufficient progress toward producing housing. Eligible developments must include a specified level of affordability, be on an infill site, comply with existing residential and mixed-use general plan or zoning provisions, and comply with other requirements such as locational and demolition restrictions.

Foster City does not have a written process in place for SB 35 streamlining but will follow the provisions of Government Code Section 65913.4 if it becomes subject to SB 35.

2.9 PROVISIONS FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING NEEDS
Accessory Dwelling Units
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It must include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multi-family dwelling is or will be situated. A junior ADU (JADU) is a unit of no more than 500 square feet, which is located entirely within the walls of an existing or proposed single-family residence, maintains a separate exterior entrance from the singlefamily residence, maintains an interior connection to the main living area of the single-family residence, either includes separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing structure, and includes an efficiency kitchen. ADUs and JADUs are also commonly known as in-law units, granny units, or second units.

Because of their small size and because they do not require a separate parcel or additional infrastructure, ADUs can provide affordable housing options for family members, seniors, students, live-in care providers, and other small households. ADUs can also provide additional rental revenue to the homeowners, making it more financially feasible for lower-income homeowners to remain in their homes.

In September 2019, the State Legislature passed several new bills, Senate Bill (SB) 13, Assembly Bills (AB) AB 68, AB 587, AB 670, AB 671, and AB 881 pertaining to ADUs and JADUs with the intended purpose of easing local zoning controls, reducing associated development fees, and streamlining the permit process. New State legislation, which is codified in Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, was enacted effective on January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021, that limits the ability of a local agency to regulate certain aspects of ADUs related to size, quantity, setbacks, parking, and permit processing. AB 345, effective January 1, 2021, requires the City to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence to a qualified buyer if certain conditions are met, including that the property was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation and that the property is held pursuant to a recorded tenancy in common agreement.

Foster City amended Chapter 17.78, Accessory Dwelling Units, in October 2020 to conform to the 2019 state laws, including provision for ministerial approvals if all of the applicable standards are met.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 510
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-33
The State Legislature passed additional changes to laws pertaining to ADUs in 2020 and 2021. These changes included provisions for ADUs built or developed by a qualified nonprofit, applications to be deemed approved if the local agency has not acted within 60 days, ministerial approvals, ADUs or JADUs in common interest developments, ADU heights, and provisions for ADUs within one-half mile of a highquality transit corridor or major transit stop. Foster City adopted amendments to the City’s ADU regulations in January 2023 and also in October 2023 to conform to these changes in State law. The October 2023 amendments include allowing up to three ADUs/JADUs per single-family lot. Housing Program H-D-4-g is included to encourage multi-family ADUs. Housing Program H-D-4-j is included to amend zoning regulations allowing religious and institutional uses and school sites to construct up to four ADUs and JADUs on- site.

Housing Program H-D-4-a is included to continue implementation of Chapter 17.78 and periodically update the City’s requirements to comply with State laws. In addition, the City has a webpage dedicated to ADUs to provide information to assist applicants. The rate of ADU applications has been relatively modest at about 2 to 3 per year for the past four years (2019-2022) but has increased to three units in just the first three months of 2022. Additional incentives are included in Housing Programs H-D-4-a through h j to encourage ADUs and JADUs.

Housing for Persons Living with Disabilities
The City provides several ways to encourage housing for and accommodate housing needs of people living with disabilities. The City enforces the building code requirements for adaptable and accessible units. Adaptable units are built for easy conversion to disabled access. Two new accessible units are included in the City-owned Workforce Housing were completed in 2022 that have preferences established for people with a mobility-related disability.

The adopted Reasonable Accommodation procedures established in Chapter 17.84, Reasonable Accommodation, provide additional ways to provide flexibility to the City’s requirements. These regulations provide a process for someone to request an accommodation “when the application of a zoning law or other land use regulation, policy or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.” Requests are acted on by the Community Development Director if no other review is required and if related to another application, concurrently with review of the other application.

Since adoption of this Chapter in 2013, no requests have been submitted.

Pursuant to Chapter 17.84, the written decision to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation will be consistent with the Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and shall be based on consideration of the following factors:

1. Whether the housing which is the subject of the request will be used by an individual disabled under the Acts.

2. Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts.

3. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city.

4. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 511
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-34 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

5. Whether the request will have a significant adverse impact on surrounding uses.

6. Whether there are reasonable alternatives that would provide an equivalent level of benefit without requiring a modification or exception to the city’s applicable rules, standards and practices.

Although Chapter 17.84 provides a process for review of reasonable accommodation requests and the Municipal Code is available on the City’s website, additional information on the City’s website would be helpful. Program H-F-1-d includes updating the City’s website to make information about reasonable accommodation more accessible.

Community Care Facilities
State law requires that group homes caring for six or fewer residents be classified as a residential use under zoning. The City’s zoning regulations define a residential care facility as one that provides care to six or fewer occupants in addition to the caregiver’s family. The zoning regulations further provide that a residential care facility is a permitted use within a residential district. The City’s regulations include a requirements that the facility shall be located a minimum of three hundred feet from another residential care facility.

The City’s zoning regulations include the following definition for community care facility:
“Community care facility” means any place or building which is maintained and operated to provide twenty-four hour nonmedical residential care day treatment, adult day care and foster family agency services for children, adults, or children and adults, including but not limited to the physically handicapped, mentally impaired, incompetent persons and abused or neglected children.

Community care facilities are referred to as residential care facilities and day care centers.

Community care facilities with more than six residents (listed as convalescent homes, rest homes or nursing homes) are a conditional use in the R-4 District.

Program H-F-1-i is added to review the City’s zoning regulations for community care facilities and amend the zoning regulations to expand the districts in which these facilities are allowed and any other amendments necessary for conformance with State law, to simplify and clarify definitions, permitted uses, and processing procedures for residential care facilities and group homes in all residential districts for conformance with State law, including but not limited to spacing requirements for persons with disabilities, allowing group homes objectively to facilitate approval certainty similar to other residential uses, and allow group homes in all residential zones..

According to the Community Care Licensing Division of the California Department of Social Services, community care facilities in Foster City include the Atria with assisted living and memory care, four licensed adult residential facilities, and nine adult residential assisted living facilities.

Definition of Family
Foster City defines a family as “…one person living alone or two or more persons living together and maintaining a common household.” Consistent with State law, this definition does not result in discrimination against unrelated persons living together.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 512
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-35
Transitional and Supportive Housing
Transitional housing is a type of supportive housing used to facilitate the movement of people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing. A person experiencing homelessness may live in a transitional apartment for a predetermined period of time, however, not less than six months while receiving supportive services that enable independent living. Supportive housing is permanent rental housing linked to a range of support services designed to enable residents to maintain stable housing and lead fuller lives.

State law requires that transitional housing and supportive housing be treated as a residential use and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

Foster City’s zoning regulations were amended in January 2023 to allow transitional and supportive housing as permitted uses by-right in all of the residential and the C-2 mixed use zoning districts.

Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
Single-room occupancy units are typically small, between 200 to 350 square feet. SROs can provide a valuable source of affordable housing for extremely low-income individuals. Although SROs are not specifically addressed in the City’s zoning regulations, boardinghouses for not more than six people are a similar use that are allowed as a conditional use in R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts. Housing Implementation Program H-E-9-b is included to define and clearly permit SROs in appropriate zoning districts as well as establish or modify development standards and other regulations to facilitate SROs.

Emergency Shelters and Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use by right in the PF, C-1, and C-2 Districts. Low Barrier Navigation Centers were added as a permitted use in these same zoning districts in January 2023.

Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code establishes the standards for emergency shelters and low barrier navigation centers. There are approximately 135 acres with more than 400 parcels in these zoning districts (excluding public schools, public parks, and 300 parcels with dwelling units on 18 acres in Metro Center). Table 16 17 below summarizes the acreage and number of parcels in each of the relevant zoning districts.

Table 1617: Acreage and Number of Parcels in C-1, C-2,
and PF Zoning Districts
Zoning District Acreage
Number of
Parcels
Typical Parcel Sizes
(Acres)
C-1 2.3 2 1.1-1.2
C-1/PD* 8.9 1 8.9
C-2/PD** 85.0 380 0.6-10
P-F* 13.8 7 1.0-2.4
P-F/PD* 25.6 12 1.0-11
Total 135.6 402
*Excludes public schools and public parks.
**Excludes 300 parcels with dwelling units on 18 acres in Metro Center.

Source: Foster City Community Development Department

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 513
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-36 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
As described in Appendix A, Section 6.5, during the 2019 and 2022 Point in Time Counts, Foster City had four unsheltered homeless. As shown in Table 1617, there is adequate land area to accommodate a facility with at least four beds. Using a minimum standard of 200 square feet per person per Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(I), the facility would need to be at least 800 square feet, the size of a small dwelling unit. The sites in the C-1 and C-2 districts are nonvacant with existing buildings which may or may not be adaptable for an emergency shelter. The sites in the PF districts include some vacant portions of religious properties as well as existing buildings. All of the sites are served by public transit with the longest walk to a bus stop approximately 0.4 miles. All of the sites are a short walk of less than 0.5 mile to retail services.

In 2022, the State legislature passed AB 2339 that adds additional specificity regarding how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient capacity for low-income housing in their housing elements. AB 2339 requires written, objective standards limited to certain topics. Program H-F2-d provides for the City to amend Chapter 17.82 as necessary to comply with State law upon adoption of the Housing Element. The standards referenced below include these amendments (see Appendix H for the Oordinance 666 containing these amendments). Program H-F-2-d commits to making any additional amendments needed, such as eliminating the length of stay, by May 2024.

The objective standards for emergency shelters in Chapter 17.82 include the following:
 Maximum of 25 beds (to be amended to twenty-five beds upon Housing Element adoption)..  One parking space for each employee or volunteer on duty plus one parking space for every family and 0.35 spaces for each nonfamily bed provided that these standards do not require more parking than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. The Community Development Director shall reduce the parking requirements if the shelter can demonstrate a lower need. The shelter shall also provide bicycle parking of at least 0.5 spaces per bed.  Waiting and intake area requirements.
 Provisions for on-site management and security.
 No emergency shelter shall be located within three hundred feet of another emergency shelter.  Maximum length of stay is limited to not more than sixty days per calendar year or one hundred eighty days if no alternative housing is available.

These sites are located throughout the community and all are within ½-mile of public transit. These sites can easily accommodate the four unsheltered individuals counted in the 2019 Point-in-Time Homeless Count.7
In addition, AB 2339 requires that the designated zoning districts include adequate sites that meet at least one of the following:
 Vacant sites with mixed-use zoning;
 Vacant sites zoned for residential use;
7 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey, 2019: https://www.smcgov.org/media/33506/download?inline=.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 514
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-37
 Nonvacant sites that are suitable for use as a shelter or that can be redeveloped for a shelter in the current Housing Element period, including an analysis that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period; or
 Sites owned by the local government that will be made available during the planning period.

In Foster City, there is a vacant site with mixed-use zoning within the C-2/PD district, specifically the

1.36-acre vacant property at the northwest corner of Shell Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard. This site is located near amenities and services, including less than ¼-mile to shopping, transit, public library, public parks, and municipal services.

A Low-Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) is a "Housing First," low barrier, temporary, service-enriched shelter that helps homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing. Assembly Bill 101 (AB 101) established requirements for local jurisdictions to allow LBNCs as a by-right use in certain districts. The Housing Element includes Program H-F-2-e to amend the zoning regulations to allow LBNCs by right in specific zoning districts. These amendments to allow LBNCs were adopted in January 2023 to include the following objective standards:
 Connected services are offered.
 A coordinated entry system is used.
 Compliance with Chapter 6.5 (commending with Section 8255) of Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
 Homeless Management Information System is used.

The Housing Element includes several programs to collaborate with county-wide efforts to address homelessness in Programs H-F-2-a through H-F-2-h.

Manufactured Housing
State law (Government Code Sections 65852.3 through 65852.5) requires that modular/manufactured homes that meet the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act be considered a single-family dwelling and permitted in all single-family zoning districts. Although this is not specifically mentioned in the Municipal Code, Foster City did permit a manufactured ADU in 2021.

Housing Program H-D-6-b includes amending the zoning regulations to explicitly permit modular/ manufactured homes in the R-1 zoning district.
3 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Nongovernmental constraints are generally market factors over which individual local governments have little or no control and include land, labor and construction costs, and availability of financing.

3.1 DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Information on the development costs of certain residential prototypes in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counites has been provided by Century/Urban as part of the 21 Elements collaboration (see Attachment 1). In addition, Foster City had an analysis of development costs performed by Economic & Planning

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 515
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-38 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Systems, Inc. (EPS) as part of the analysis to establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee related to the adoption of Chapter 17.90, Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program. The EPS work included two studies: one for rental apartments and one for for-sale townhouses.8 This analysis will focus on multifamily development because there is no vacant land zoned for single-family development in Foster City.

Land cost is a significant component of the total housing development costs. Due in part to the desirability of the region and because land is in short supply, land costs in San Mateo County are high.

These costs vary both between and within jurisdictions based on factors like the desirability of the location and the permitted density with multi-family and mixed-use land costing more.

Land costs include acquisition and holding the land throughout the development process. For typical multi-family construction in San Mateo County, The Century/Urban report estimates land costs at approximately $100,000 per unit in San Mateo County but noted a range of land costs between $40,000 to $160,000 per unit. The EPS study estimates land costs for a mid-density multi-family apartment development at $223,923 per unit based on CoStar reported land sale transactions in Foster City. The EPS study estimates land costs using the same cost per acre for a low-density townhouse development at $461,019 per unit.

Construction costs include both hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, such as architectural and engineering services, development fees and insurance. Century/Urban notes that project costs will vary by geography, topography, site conditions, finish level, entitlement and permit status, construction type, and time among other factors. For San Mateo County, construction costs for multi-unit buildings vary based on the form of parking (structure vs. surface) in addition to other environmental factors such as topography, pre-existing structures etc. For a small multi-family development with surface parking, Century/Urban estimates hard costs at $521,500 per unit and soft costs at $165,000 per unit for a total cost including land of $786,500 per unit. The EPS study is a bit higher with a total cost of $847,788 per unit, including $385,000 in direct costs, $134,750 in indirect costs, and $104,114 in developer fee.

The construction costs estimated by EPS for a typical townhouse are higher, with a total cost per unit of $1,325,687, including $519,900 in direct costs, $181,965 in indirect costs, and $162,804 in developer fee.

Based on these studies, for multi-family homes in San Mateo County, land costs account for 13% to 26% of the total cost, hard costs account for between 45% to 66%, and the remaining 21% to 26% is soft costs.

3.2 AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING
The availability of financing can impact the cost and supply of housing. Two types of financing are needed: 1) capital financing for the developer to finance the initial site preparation and construction, and 2) financing for the purchase of units by an investor or homeowner.

Fluctuation in interest rates can have a significant impact on costs for construction or purchase, as well as impact whether a potential buyer can qualify for a loan. Following several years of historically low 8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Rental Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee, January 20, 2022, and Ownership Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee, January 11, 2022.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 516
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-39
interest rates, the expectation is that interest rates are likely to rise in 2022 and beyond Kiplinger forecasts that mortgage rates will increase from the current average of 5.0% for 30-year fixed-rate loans, to 5.5% by the end of 2022.
9 3.3 AVAILABILITY OF CONSTRUCTION LABOR
A factor contributing to the high construction costs on the Peninsula is the scarcity of construction labor.

Contractors have difficulty attracting and retaining workers because most cannot afford to live in the area on construction labor wages. Many construction workers have to commute long distances from their jobs to more affordable housing. Carpenters Union Local 217 of San Mateo County reports that twothirds of San Mateo County construction workers are housing burdened, while residential construction workers earn one-third less than their non-residential construction counterparts do.

3.4 NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION
Opposition from neighbors can be a significant obstacle to obtaining approvals for new housing developments. Most notably, developments that are high-density, multi-family developments, supportive housing, and low-income housing draw the most public opposition because they are perceived to increase traffic, increase crime, and diminish property values. However, studies show that well managed affordable housing developments have not caused such problems for their neighborhoods. City officials and developers can work to assuage these concerns by requiring design review, emphasizing management of new development, and engaging in public education to address myths about high density/low-income/supportive housing (HCD). The City’s history of mixed-income housing can also illustrate that the inclusion of affordable housing has not had the adverse impacts that some people feared. Undergoing a thorough public planning process to address and develop clear and explicit requirements can combat public opposition. Foster City has a large proportion of its housing stock within homeowners’ associations, which can also be a constraint to the production of additional housing units, such as the addition of ADUs/JADUs or the potential redevelopment of housing sites.

There are 43 homeowners’ associations in Foster City, encompassing 5,305 housing units on 525 acres.

This is approximately 38% of the City’s housing units.

3.5 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS SPECIFIC TO FOSTER CITY Geologic Conditions
Foster City is entirely a land-fill community located along and over the San Francisco Bay. At this point in its development, the City is almost entirely built out. On average, Citywide, the depth of soil above the Bay mud is only about 4 feet. The result is that the soils throughout the City are very brackish and when developed begin to corrode underground infrastructure. This is not a problem for sites developed in the last 25 years because they were constructed using appropriate materials, but for older sites—those most likely to be redeveloped for housing—all or most of the originally placed infrastructure must be removed and replaced adding additional costs to projects. Additionally, as part of the site preparation once a site 9 Kiplinger, Interest Rates: The Fed Gets Aggressive, April 14, 2022: https://www.kiplinger.com/economic-forecasts/interestrates.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 517
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-40 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
is cleared, it is not uncommon to have to address problems associated with (minor) land subsidence, requiring the re-compaction of site soils and associated additional site preparation costs.

Because the City is constructed on landfill, constructing residential projects at the densities required in order to amortize the costs of redeveloping a site, replacing all or most underground infrastructure, and other site preparation issues, most new multi-story buildings must be constructed on a pile supported foundation, which constitutes an expense that is not common to residential development in most cities.

Further, there is no vacant land left which is appropriately zoned for the development of new housing.

Increased housing production will require the redevelopment of existing underutilized residential sites or failing commercial properties.

High Water Table
As mentioned above, the depth of soil to bay mud is typically only about 4 feet. This makes construction of underground parking or basements not economically feasible.

Electric Transmission Lines
Electric transmission lines traverse large and various areas of Foster City including areas zoned for housing and commercial use. Because of the limitations imposed by PG&E regarding the distance that residential units must maintain from the “swing line” of the power lines and the very limited number and height of uses that can be placed within the power line easement area beneath the transmission lines, large portions of sites that may otherwise lend themselves to housing production cannot be developed and may only be used as at-grade parking, landscaping, and recreation facilities, resulting in a lower yield of units per gross acre than would otherwise be possible. The largest transmission lines through residential and mixed-use areas are along Foster City Boulevard south of State Route 92, encompassing over 300 acres of land.

3.6 SUCCESSFUL ACTIONS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS.
 Governmental Constraints. Several steps have been taken to reduce known barriers, including:
o Environmental Review Process. Environmental review can be a deterring factor for new developments by lengthening the timeline and raising costs. On May 22, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-48 certifying the program EIR for the Housing Element (see Appendix H) that can be used in subsequent project-specific environmental review, reducing the applicant’s time and expense. The applicant can now tier off of the City’s certified EIR. o On January 17, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance 657 to amend the R-3 and R-4 zoning regulations to align with the 35 units per acre density allowed by the General Plan (see Appendix H).
o Objective Design and Development Standards. Housing Program H-D-6-e Multi-Family Objective Design Standards will provide additional certainty to the development review process and include amendments to reduce lot size, increase building coverage, revise setbacks, decrease open green area and other requirements to ensure the densities allowed by the General Plan can be achieved.
o Objective Standards for Inclusionary Units. In 2022, the City adopted Ordinance 644, creating Chapters 17.90 Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program and 17.92 Affordable Housing

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 518
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-41
Overlay Combining District that establish objective standards for below market rate housing, clarifying the City’s requirements for affordable housing (see Appendix H). o Impact Fees. Impact fees also add to the cost of housing. The City has adopted a 75% reduction in development impact fees for very low- and low-income units, provided that at least 20% of the units in the project are designated as affordable per Resolution No. 2022-75 (see Appendix H).  Non-Governmental Constraints.
o Displacement of Existing Households. The Housing Element includes programs for tenant protections in H-C-3-a Anti-Displacement Plan for Redevelopment of Existing Multi-family Developments, H-C-3-b Anti-Displacement Strategy, and H-C-3-d Facilitate Tenant Protection Act of 2019. A new Chapter 17.55 Replacement Units was added to the Municipal Code by Ordinance 657 in January 2023 to implement these programs, clarifying the City’s requirements (see Appendix H).

3.63.7 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ACTION PLAN
As stated at the beginning of this Appendix, many factors can constrain the provision of the quantity and affordability of housing. The City’s policies and regulations are designed to address the City’s goals for the overall quality of housing, preservation of the City’s waterfront character, or safety or environmental goals, but can also result in constraints to housing. Table 17 18 below identifies the links between the constraints issues and the highlights of the actions proposed to address these constraints.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 519
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-42 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 1718: Housing Constraints Action Plan
Housing Constraints Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines Zoning densities Limited densities in areas with higher densities already adjacent and
services nearby unnecessarily restrict
additional housing.
 H-D-1-b: General Plan and
Zoning Amendments to
Facilitate Housing on Housing
Opportunity Sites in the Site
Inventory
 Prior to or upon Housing
Element adoption
Development standards Uncertainty of the City’s expectations can result in additional processing
time and cost.

Increase certainty of the City’s
standards:
 H-B-4-1a: Update Architectural
and Solar Guidelines for Single
Family Homes
 December 2025
 H-D-4-f: Objective Design
Standards for ADUs
 December 2024
 H-D-6-e: Multi-Family Objective
Design Standards

 December 2023
 H-D-6-f: SB 9 Objective Design
Standards
 December 2024
Zoning constraints such as minimum unit
sizes
Minimum unit sizes limit and/or
preclude some types of housing
 H-D-6-b: Minimize Zoning
Constraints
 Rescinded minimum floor areas
in January 2023
 Amend zoning regulations by
December 2024
 H-E-9-b: Small Housing Units  Amend zoning regulations by December 2024
 Conduct outreach at least
annually
 Facilitate ten (10) rental units less
than 500 SF by 2031
Parking requirements Parking requirements in excess of
needs add to the cost of housing.
 H-D-6-c: Amend Parking
Requirements
 December 2024
Fees Fees add to the cost of housing.  H-D-6-d: Development Impact Fee Waivers
 Ongoing as applications
submitted
Processing procedures  H-D-3-a: Update Planned
Development Process
 December 2026

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 520
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-43
Housing Constraints Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timelines Processing time can add to the cost of
development.
 H-D-6-a: Minimize Governmental
Constraints
 Engage with affordable housing
developers by December 2024;
Amend code by December 2025;
repeat in 2028
Infrastructure Water and sewer availability and
roadway capacity can limit the ability
to add housing.
 H-A-4-a: Adequate Water Supply  Prior to or concurrent with adoption of Housing Element
 H-A-4-b: Housing Element
Transmittal to EMID
 Within 5 days of adoption
 H-A-4-c: Update Urban Water
Management Plan
 December 2025
 H-A-4-d: Water Conservation  Improve website and handouts by 2023
 H-B-5-h: Water Supply
Assessment
 Ongoing

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 521
APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-44 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Attachment 1: Memo from Century Urban, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Cost & San Mateo County Unit Mix Research, dated April 7, 2022.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 522
PAGE 1
BAIRD + DRISKELL
TO: Baird + Driskell
FROM: Century Urban, LLC
SUBJECT: San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Cost & San Mateo County Unit Mix Research
DATE: April 7, 2022
Century | Urban has been engaged by Baird + Driskell to perform research on the development costs of certain residential prototypes in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties as well as the unit mixes of residential projects delivered since 2013 in San Mateo County. The research findings shown below in Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are based on Century | Urban’s recent work on other assignments as well as on third-party data sources, further detailed below, which Century | Urban considers credible but has not independently verified.

The estimated prototype project costs shown below reflect high-level averages and do not represent any specific project budget. Project costs vary by geography, topography, site conditions, finish level, entitlement and permit status, contractor type, and time among other factors. Key elements of the prototypes were provided by Baird + Driskell.

The San Mateo County unit mix results represent the data available to Century | Urban through its research and does not represent every project built in each market or market-level conclusions.

However, the data does present over 100 projects and over 13,000 units and as such is informative with respect to the types and sizes of units built during the period surveyed.

With respect to the unit mix data, please note that a lack of data for a given city does not necessarily mean that no projects or units were built in that city, but rather that no relevant data was available for that city.

Land prices range substantially across the surveyed transactions. To convey the range of land costs reviewed, Century | Urban provided the averages of the bottom third of the land sales, the middle third, and the highest third. Further detail on the single family home land sales that were available is reflected in Exhibit 3.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 523
PAGE 2
Research and Data Sources
The estimates shown below are based on data and sources including but not limited to: similar projects Century | Urban has underwritten and/or priced; specific project economics Century | Urban has reviewed; direct conversations with developers and cost estimators; database research including CoStar, MLS, Redfin, and title databases; online research sources including City and project websites; market reports compiled by real estate sales and research organizations; and, Century | Urban’s general experience assessing residential project feasibility in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Single Family Home Land Price Data
To generate the single-family land values utilized in the development cost estimates, Century | Urban collected sales data for land lots totaling one acre or less which transacted over the past three years across the surveyed jurisdictions in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Over 250 data points were collected. The data does not include properties with existing homes or infrastructure that were redeveloped as new single-family homes, and the data for some cities is limited.

As the data collected is not comprehensive, summaries and averages may be valuable for reaching overall conclusions about the range of land prices in the counties, but they may or may not be representative of a given City’s average or median land price or the land price for a given parcel. The table in Exhibit 3 should therefore be reviewed noting the limited number of data points for certain cities. Land prices vary substantially by location, topography, site conditions, shape of the parcel, neighboring uses, access, noise, and many other factors. In addition, completed sales are necessarily past transactions and may not represent the current state of the market and expected future land sale prices.

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 524
PAGE 3
Exhibit 1: Total Development Cost: Single-family
Baird and Driskell
Total Development Costs - San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Large numbers rounded to nearest $'000 or nearest $'0,000 Total $ / SF Total $ / SF
Prototype Elements
1) Gross Residential Square Feet 2,600 5,000
Hard Costs
1) Residential Hard Costs $1,040,000 $400 $2,500,000 $500 2) Site improvements and utilities
3) Grading and erosion control
4) Parking Hard Costs
5) Contingency 5% $52,000 $20 $125,000 $25
Total Hard Costs $1,092,000 $420 $2,625,000 $525
Soft Costs
1) Soft Costs 25.0% $270,000 $104 $660,000 $132
2) City Fees $75,000 $29 $75,000 $15
3) Soft Cost Contingency 5% $20,000 $8 $40,000 $8
Total Soft Costs $365,000 $133 $775,000 $147
% of hard costs 33% 30%
Land Costs Total Per SF Bldg Total Per SF Bldg
1) Land Costs - San Mateo $1,030,000 $396 $1,030,000 $206 2) Land Costs - Santa Clara $1,320,000 $508 $1,320,000 $264 Single Family Land Cost Range
SFH Land - Lower Price Tier $210,000 $81 $210,000 $42
SFH Land - Middle Price Tier $730,000 $281 $730,000 $146 SFH Land - Higher Price Tier $2,510,000 $965 $2,510,000 $502 Total Development Cost - San Mateo $2,487,000 $949 $4,430,000 $878 Total Development Cost - Santa Clara $2,777,000 $1,060 $4,720,000 $936 Total Development Cost by Range of Land Cost
Single Family - Lower Land Price Tier $1,667,000 $633 $3,610,000 $714 Single Family - Middle Land Price Tier $2,187,000 $833 $4,130,000 $818 Single Family - Higher Land Price Tier $3,967,000 $1,518 $5,910,000 $1,174 Single Family Small Single Family Large

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 525
PAGE 4
Exhibit 1: Total Development Cost: Multi-family
Baird and Driskell
Total Development Costs - San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Large numbers rounded to nearest $'000 or nearest $'0,000 Total $ / SF $ / Unit Total $ / SF $ / Unit
Prototype Elements
1) Gross Residential Square Feet 10,000 93,750
2) Parking Square Footage 3,750 40,000
3) Parking Type Surface Lot Standalone above grade
4) Units 10 100
5) Avg Net SF / Unit 850 750
6) Efficiency 85% 80%
Hard Costs
1) Residential Hard Costs $4,150,000 $415 $420,000 $39,840,000 $425 $400,000 2) Site improvements and utilities $605,000 $1,165,000
3) Grading and erosion control $110,000 $335,000
4) Parking Hard Costs $100,000 $28 $4,800,000 $120
5) Contingency 5% $250,000 $21 $21,000 $2,310,000 $21 $20,000 Total Hard Costs $5,215,000 $522 $521,500 $48,450,000 $517 $484,500 Soft Costs
1) Soft Costs 25.0% $1,303,750 $130 $130,000 $12,110,000 $129 $120,000 2) City Fees $350,000 $35 $35,000 $2,800,000 $30 $28,000 3) Soft Cost Contingency 5% $80,000 $8 $8,000 $750,000 $8 $7,500 Total Soft Costs $1,733,750 $165 $165,000 $15,660,000 $159 $148,000 % of hard costs 33% 32%
Land Costs Total Per Unit Per Unit
1) Land Costs - San Mateo $1,000,000 $100,000 $10,000,000 $100,000 2) Land Costs - Santa Clara $600,000 $60,000 $6,000,000 $60,000 Range of Land Costs
Apts/Condo- Lower Price Tier $400,000 $40,000 $4,000,000 $40,000 Apts/Condo- Middle Price Tier $800,000 $80,000 $8,000,000 $80,000 Apts/Condo- Higher Cost Tier $1,600,000 $160,000 $16,000,000 $160,000 Total Development Cost - San Mateo $7,948,750 $795 $786,500 $74,110,000 $791 $732,500 Total Development Cost - Santa Clara $7,548,750 $755 $746,500 $70,110,000 $748 $692,500 Total Development Cost by Range of Land Cost
Apts/Condo- Lower Land Price Tier $7,348,750 $726,500 $68,110,000 $672,500 Apts/Condo- Middle Land Price Tier $7,748,750 $766,500 $72,110,000 $712,500 Apts/Condo- Higher Land Price Tier $8,548,750 $846,500 $80,110,000 $792,500 Multi-Family Small Multi-Family Large

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 526
PAGE 5
Exhibit 2: Unit Mixes – Number of Units by Unit Type and Unit Mix Percentages San Mateo County Apartments
Number of Units
Projects Studios One Two Three Four Total Studios One Two Three Four Proposed 25 936 1,639 888 124 56 3,643 26% 45% 24% 3% 2% Existing 63 905 4,223 2,626 523 1 8,279 11% 51% 32% 6% 0% Final Planning 3 328 19 75 33 7 462 71% 4% 16% 7% 2%
Under Construction 16 268 619 523 79 0 1,489 18% 42% 35% 5% 0% Totals 107 2,437 6,500 4,112 759 64 13,872 18% 47% 30% 5% 0% Projects Studios One Two Three Four Total Studios One Two Three Four South San Francisco 8 90 853 604 55 0 1,602 6% 53% 38% 3% 0% San Mateo 19 228 734 715 154 1 1,832 12% 40% 39% 8% 0%
Redwood City 28 1,019 2,262 1,125 163 0 4,569 22% 50% 25% 4% 0% Menlo Park 12 600 995 411 80 47 2,133 28% 47% 19% 4% 2% Millbrae 3 147 151 133 23 0 454 32% 33% 29% 5% 0%
Foster City 5 12 367 302 83 0 764 2% 48% 40% 11% 0%
Burlingame 11 105 606 474 28 0 1,213 9% 50% 39% 2% 0%
Daly City 3 206 79 72 23 0 380 54% 21% 19% 6% 0%
San Carlos 7 0 101 84 88 9 282 0% 36% 30% 31% 3%
Half Moon Bay 2 0 149 21 2 0 172 0% 87% 12% 1% 0%
East Palo Alto 2 8 55 80 27 7 177 5% 31% 45% 15% 4%
San Bruno 4 4 119 62 14 0 199 2% 60% 31% 7% 0%
Belmont 1 18 25 21 17 0 81 22% 31% 26% 21% 0%
El Granada 1 0 3 6 0 0 9 0% 33% 67% 0% 0%
Pacifica 1 0 1 2 2 0 5 0% 20% 40% 40% 0%
Total 107 2,437 6,500 4,112 759 64 13,872 18% 47% 30% 5% 0% San Mateo County Condominiums
Number of Units
Projects Studios One Two Three Four Total Studios One Two Three Four Proposed 2 72 0 8 1 1 82 88% 0% 10% 1% 1%
Existing 12 0 46 293 194 0 533 0% 9% 55% 36% 0%
Final Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Construction 1 0 0 10 0 0 10 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Total with Unit Mix Data 15 72 46 311 195 1 625 12% 7% 50% 31% 0% Projects Studios One Two Three Four Total Studios One Two Three Four South San Francisco 1 0 40 57 0 0 97 0% 41% 59% 0% 0%
San Mateo 5 72 0 201 97 1 371 19% 0% 54% 26% 0%
Daly City 2 0 0 2 84 0 86 0% 0% 2% 98% 0%
San Carlos 1 0 3 8 9 0 20 0% 15% 40% 45% 0%
Menlo Park 1 0 0 15 0 0 15 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Burlingame 3 0 3 18 1 0 22 0% 14% 82% 5% 0%
Redwood City 1 0 0 10 0 0 10 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Half Moon Bay 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Brisbane No data available
Belmont No data available
Foster City No data available
Pacifica No data available
Total 15 72 46 311 195 1 625 12% 7% 50% 31% 0%
Unit Numbers Unit Mix
Unit Numbers Unit Mix

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 527
PAGE 6
Exhibit 2: Unit Mixes – Unit Sizes
San Mateo County Apartments
Average Unit Sizes
Studios One Two Three Four
Proposed 506 688 1,115 1,565 2,208
Existing 535 745 1,108 1,411 1,939
Final Planning
Under Construction 508 708 1,081 1,413
Total Data Available 524 733 1,105 1,422 2,186
Studios One Two Three Four
South San Francisco 511 705 1,116 1,321
San Mateo 590 769 1,109 1,436 1,939
Redwood City 546 756 1,125 1,421
Menlo Park 538 692 1,062 1,434 1,782
Millbrae 475 656 1,147 1,369
Foster City 579 716 1,088 1,402
Burlingame 518 785 1,128 1,368
Daly City 422 649 932 1,187
San Carlos 774 1,206 1,520 2,303
Half Moon Bay 659 957 1,330
East Palo Alto 530 795
San Bruno 476 716 1,006 1,386
Belmont
El Granada 616 1,047
Pacifica 1,750 900 1,100
San Mateo County Condominiums
Average Unit Sizes
Insufficent data

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 528
PAGE 7
Exhibit 3: Single Family Land Sale Data Summary
The data in the table above represents the available single family home lot sales data points collected for this high-level survey. As the data is limited for certain cities, the specific, median, and average amounts per city may not be representative of a city’s current median or average land costs or the city’s land costs relative to other cities listed.

Single Family Home Land Sites up to 1 acre, last 3 years Available
County City Data Points Min Max Median Average Min Max Median Average San Mateo County Moss Beach 19 $14 $117 $64 $64 $125,000 $582,500 $375,000 $335,053 San Mateo County Woodside 4 $10 $88 $24 $36 $150,000 $2,000,000 $377,250 $726,125 San Mateo County South San Francisco 4 $33 $89 $59 $60 $165,000 $3,800,000 $431,000 $1,206,750 San Mateo County Montara 12 $23 $269 $65 $79 $275,000 $1,750,000 $439,000 $533,917 San Mateo County Half Moon Bay 33 $1 $324 $75 $91 $5,000 $2,300,000 $447,000 $514,455 San Mateo County Pacifica 6 $14 $105 $70 $63 $300,000 $925,000 $447,500 $500,000 San Mateo County Belmont 12 $2 $721 $56 $118 $55,000 $4,470,000 $495,000 $960,583 San Mateo County East Palo Alto 5 $72 $135 $92 $100 $235,000 $3,550,000 $675,000 $1,379,600 San Mateo County Redwood City 18 $6 $345 $129 $145 $50,000 $5,350,000 $825,000 $1,170,250 San Mateo County Emerald Hills 2 $125 $132 $129 $129 $975,000 $980,000 $977,500 $977,500 San Mateo County San Bruno 2 $179 $207 $193 $193 $560,000 $1,500,250 $1,030,125 $1,030,125 San Mateo County San Carlos 11 $2 $405 $94 $126 $29,000 $2,980,000 $1,100,000 $1,214,455 San Mateo County San Mateo 1 $500 $500 $500 $500 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 San Mateo County Portola Valley 4 $47 $129 $58 $73 $1,325,000 $3,000,000 $1,578,000 $1,870,250 San Mateo County Burlingame 1 $125 $125 $125 $125 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 San Mateo County Menlo Park 3 $165 $591 $459 $405 $2,580,000 $6,500,000 $2,780,000 $3,953,333 San Mateo County Millbrae 1 $239 $239 $239 $239 $3,080,500 $3,080,500 $3,080,500 $3,080,500 San Mateo County Hillsborough 3 $85 $306 $116 $169 $3,050,000 $8,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,016,667 San Mateo County Atherton 2 $147 $208 $178 $178 $2,500,000 $6,400,000 $4,450,000 $4,450,000 San Mateo County Total 143 $1 $721 $84 $110 $5,000 $8,000,000 $510,000 $1,026,691 Santa Clara County Los Gatos 15 $1 $251 $6 $50 $9,500 $3,250,000 $250,000 $716,237 Santa Clara County Morgan Hill 11 $1 $495 $15 $79 $29,000 $1,365,000 $475,000 $490,533 Santa Clara County San Jose 54 $12 $677 $75 $150 $32,000 $5,300,000 $925,000 $949,380 Santa Clara County Campbell 8 $13 $897 $120 $194 $10,000 $1,500,000 $1,038,000 $975,000 Santa Clara County Mountain View 3 $76 $271 $141 $163 $1,050,000 $2,300,000 $1,150,000 $1,500,000 Santa Clara County Santa Clara 1 $169 $169 $169 $169 $1,275,000 $1,275,000 $1,275,000 $1,275,000 Santa Clara County Sunnyvale 3 $167 $602 $214 $328 $1,080,000 $5,750,000 $1,345,000 $2,725,000 Santa Clara County Cupertino 4 $47 $297 $197 $185 $872,000 $2,900,000 $2,175,000 $2,030,500 Santa Clara County Monte Sereno 2 $61 $1,006 $534 $534 $2,142,714 $2,427,500 $2,285,107 $2,285,107 Santa Clara County Saratoga 5 $61 $171 $74 $93 $1,380,000 $2,900,000 $2,640,000 $2,386,000 Santa Clara County Palo Alto 7 $79 $584 $333 $323 $2,050,000 $4,000,000 $3,100,000 $2,965,000 Santa Clara County Los Altos 5 $121 $352 $257 $235 $1,600,000 $7,250,000 $3,470,000 $3,723,600 Santa Clara County Los Altos Hills 1 $99 $99 $99 $99 $3,995,000 $3,995,000 $3,995,000 $3,995,000 Santa Clara County Total 119 $1 $1,006 $84 $157 $9,500 $7,250,000 $1,065,000 $1,320,556 Per Square Foot Per Single Family Home

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 529

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 530
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-i
APPENDIX D | HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 2 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) ...................................................................... 1

2.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination................................................................................ 1

2.2 RHNA Methodology .............................................................................................................. 1

2.3 Housing Element Updates .....................................................................................................2

2.4 Foster City’s Fair Share..........................................................................................................2

2.5 RHNA Buffer.......................................................................................................................... 3 3 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING............................................................................... 3

3.1 Location of Existing Affordable Housing................................................................................4

3.2 Distribution of Sites in the Sites Inventory.............................................................................4

3.3 Potential Effect on Patterns of Segregation ..........................................................................4

3.4 Potential Effect on Access to Opportunity.............................................................................5

3.5 Potential Effect on Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................ 5 4 SITES INVENTORY...........................................................................................................................6

4.1 Sites Inventory Methodology ................................................................................................6

4.2 Sites From the Previous (5th) Cycle Housing Element...........................................................22

4.3 Pipeline Projects.................................................................................................................. 34

4.4 Proposed Projects ............................................................................................................... 35

4.5 Accessory Dwelling Units ....................................................................................................44

4.6 Summary of Credits Toward the RHNA from Pipeline and Proposed Projects and ADUs..... 47

4.7 Non-Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites.................................................................................48

4.8 Commercial Site to be Rezoned........................................................................................... 53

4.9 Non-Residential Site to Rezone to Residential..................................................................... 54

4.10 Sites Inventory List..............................................................................................................56

4.11 Progress in Meeting the RHNA............................................................................................ 58

4.12 Additional Housing Potential...............................................................................................60 5 FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSING RESOURCES.........................................................62

5.1 Financial Resources ............................................................................................................. 63

5.2 Administrative Resources....................................................................................................65 6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION.........................................................................66

6.1 State Codes and Guidelines ................................................................................................. 66

6.2 Foster City Climate Action Plan ........................................................................................... 67

6.3 Local and Regional Programs .............................................................................................. 67

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 531
APPENDIX D:HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-ii CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Foster City ADU Permit Trends............................................................................................45 Figure 2: Sites Inventory Map............................................................................................................. 57

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Foster City Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2023-2031 ...................................................2 Table 2: Multi-Family Development Densities: 2002-2022..................................................................9 Table 3: Housing Site Selection Criteria ............................................................................................ 12 Table 4: Summary of Site Indicators for Redevelopment.................................................................. 19 Table 5: Example Apartment Redevelopment Projects.....................................................................20 Table 6: Sites Used in Previous RHNA 5 Housing Element (2015-2023) .............................................22 Table 7: Capacity of Sites Reused from Previous RHNA5 Housing Element ...................................... 33 Table 8: Pipeline Projects.................................................................................................................. 34 Table 9: Proposed Projects ............................................................................................................... 35 Table 10: Lantern Cove Summary....................................................................................................... 36 Table 11: Schooner Bay Summary ...................................................................................................... 39 Table 12: Estimated Affordability of Projected ADUs ......................................................................... 47 Table 13: Sites Inventory of Pipeline Projects, Proposed Projects, and ADUs .....................................48 Table 14: Potential Housing Sites – Apartment Developments...........................................................48 Table 15: Capacity of Other Non-Vacant Residential Sites.................................................................. 51 Table 16: Capacity of Other Non-Vacant Sites.................................................................................... 55 Table 17: Sites Inventory.....................................................................................................................56 Table 18: Progress in Meeting the RHNA – Status of Pipeline/Proposed/Preliminary Projects ............ 58

4.1 Attachment 4 - Exhibit A Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (redline) 532
APPENDIX D:HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-1
1 INTRODUCTION
Resources to provide additional housing include both physical sites as well as financial and administrative resources. State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3)) requires that cities demonstrate they have adequate sites to meet their housing obligations. The City must complete an analysis of land resources to demonstrate capacity to meet the projected housing needs during the planning period, taking into consideration zoning, development standards, and the availability of public services and facilities to accommodate a variety of housing types and incomes. The inventory includes sites that can be developed with housing within the planning period, including non-vacant (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for redevelopment. HCD guidance also states that the inventory can include sites that are in the process of being made available for residential development (i.e., through rezoning), provided that the Housing Element includes a program that “commits the local government to completing all necessary administrative and legislative actions early in the planning period.” The housing projection period for this Housing Element is January 2023 to January 2031.

Foster City City CouncilMarch 20, 2024

Foster City City Council
March 20, 2024